Rear Axle Shock Mounting Plate Question

[HOrnbrod]

Thanks to Gjeep and his 88 and 92 MJs I think we have this figured out, but I would like anyone who has a 90-92 MJ to look up at these plates on your rig to verify because I think the 91-93 factory parts manual is wrong. The part numbers for these plates changed in 1990. The pic below is from the ground looking up at a leaf spring shock mounting plate on my 91. What I want to verify is that all the 90-92 plates had the pressed bulge in the plate across the center pin. The 89 and below plates did not have this bulge; that were flat. This is what I think causes the difference in the part numbers between the 86-89 and 90-92 MJ plates. And I also think because of the bulge redesign in 1990 the plates were strengthened somewhat and did not require the reinforcement plates as used on the 89 and below models. If you guys could fine the time to take a peek under there I'd appreciate it.  :cheers:

 

Image Not Found

[lamart72]

The plates on my 91 have the bulge.

[Incommando]

The stockers I took off of my '91 had the bulge

[HOrnbrod]

Thanks. Did you guys also have reinforcement plates inside the shock plates, like in the pic below? I hoping you didn't......

 

Image Not Found

[dunnc1991]

My 91 had the bulge, and no reinforcement plate either

[HOrnbrod]

Thanks guys - I can now be 100% positive the parts manual is in error, and that I didn't forget the reinforcement plates when I swapped axles years ago. Not senile - yet.   :banana: 

[Strokermjcomanche]

Yeah those plates look nothing like mine . Good to hear you don't need them .

[Pete M]

my memory is telling me that the plates I got off a 91 were noticeably thicker than the ones on my 88.  probably a design change that meant they didn't need the extra support plates underneath.

[HOrnbrod]

Exactly. Unfortunately the 91-92 MJ rear suspension diagrams in the 91-93 parts manual are just reprints of the earlier design. They even show and list the extra reinforcement plates that are not present on the newer MJs. Thanks to everyone for helping me to solve this dilemma. It's always good when you learn something new.

 

[87Warrior]

This had me a bit puzzled as I was swapping axles and springs around a few months back. I found exactly what you have. Two 91's and a 92 had the bulge and no reinforcement plate while the 86 was flat with reinforcement plate. 

[HOrnbrod]

Had me puzzled for a long time. It makes me curious whether the one-piece redesigned shock plate w/o the reinforcement plate was simply a cost saving measure or actually an engineering strength improvement. I've never heard of any failures with either design except for busted u-bolts.

[Alexia]

The difference in axle tube width between a Jeep D35 and D44 is so small that the D35 reinforcement plate works anyway.

[Incommando]

Yeah the MJ/XJ D44 tubes were about the smallest tubes I have found in D44's. Another scratch against thinking they are gold.

[HOrnbrod]

The difference in axle tube width between a Jeep D35 and D44 is so small that the D35 reinforcement plate works anyway.

 

True, since the shock mounting plates are the same for both the 35 and 44 axles. But there are two reinforcement plates listed for the 89s and below; one for each axle. Also, there's no way the reinforcement plates can be used with the newer shock plates because of the bulge. Of course the parts manual could be wrong yet again for the reinforcement plates. Aggravating...........

[ScottJeep]

After doing my lift and having issues with both the stud on that lower mount and the reinforcement plate I've decided to purchase these:

 

http://www.currieenterprises.com/cestore/product.aspx?id=982

[optimus2]

my 1990 with a 44 has no bulge.  so maybe the change was in 91? or later 90? 

[HOrnbrod]

Who knows? The point is the factory parts manual makes no mention of the design change; it shows the reinforcement plates used through the 92 model year. It definitely had me buffaloed for awhile..........