Moses Ludel

You will like the shackle reverse...So will your Jeep's frame and front axle! You can feel the handling difference, both on- and off-highway... Pleased that someone remembers the Argus OFF-ROAD days, I wrote the "Holy Moses!" column for 12 years (1985-97). The column's name was Editor Rick Sieman's brainstorm. If you recall the questions you sent me, I'll likely remember our exchange, Hobbs! Well, we may be longer in the tooth, but we're still in the game. The Honda XR650R motorcycle is my latest "exercise machine"...It even came with a cardio workout: kick starting a thumper at 10.5:1 compression ratio. This takes me back to 1971, a dozen years before my first article appeared in the February 1983 issue of OFF-ROAD. I bought a used '69 BSA 441 Victor Special, another thumper, and it, too, had a compression release lever for starting... Though this certainly shows my age, I'm pleased to share that I passed the XR650R stress test and am still here to share at the forums! As my brother-in-law would say, "I'm an 18-year-old brain in a 64-year-old body!" Moses

Let us know how the Ford to Jeep Dana 44 pieces fit up. If this works out, let us know the axle shaft, hub, rotor and caliper needs, which bearings and spindles you use, the location of the calipers and caliper mounts and so forth. It would be great to have a parts-correct blueprint for this retrofit—if it's practical. If not, let us know why this is not a good idea... Thanks! Moses

Off-topic, for sure, but interesting nonetheless!...I'm okay with the overall reliability of the Tacoma, what I'm talking about is when they eventually need major service, and they do, what it costs, comparatively, to repair, rebuild or restore a Toyota truck. (We can move this to the Toyota section and warm up the conversation a bit.) I like Toyota trucks very much; however, the cost of admission to the club is high and eventual maintenance costs can be exorbitant. Some of these trucks make the 300K Club (usually older models with less exotica), others break the bank along the way... Try this: Do a comparison of rebuild and repair costs for a comparable G.M. truck versus a Tacoma or Tundra; i.e., the engine, the transmission, the transfer case, an axle rebuild, brake work, steering gear, etc...I'm curious about the estimates for each make. Also price the desirable add-on accessories costs for a Tacoma versus Jeep, Ram, G.M. or Ford 4x4 trucks... Sounds like we'll be seeing you in a Tacoma soon, so you'll be able to compare firsthand...Let's trust you'll find that creampuff with very low mileage and a clean CarFax... Bear Valley and the lookout will be a blast, I'm sure, especially with your trail guiding! I'll be en route to the SEMA Show on the other end of the state, would much rather see the leaves in color at the Sierra high country...Be safe and have fun with that one! Would like to do this as a day run on our Honda XR650Rs before the snow flies...Thanks much for the invite, Mark, perhaps other forum members will be able to join the fun, Bear Valley is a fantastic setting, especially this time of year! Moses

Ah, you did hint about the "Down Under" emphasis on Toyota and the Tacoma...Nice vehicles, pricey but longevity bent, etc. Serviceability is difficult and parts costs run high, brace yourself, you're moving away from a "domestic"... Moses

Would you do this with your Chevrolet pickup? Moses

Hobbs, you do raise a question about leverage on the spacers...It's worth pursuing their intent and use. Considering the wheel patterns, it would seem they're designed for light truck applications as well as cars after "a look". A call to Roadkill might be warranted, although lastCJ7's approach to re-drilling your steel hubs may be more appealing—and possibly less costly? Moses

Single wall meaning less gauge than an OEM bed? What sheet gauge and weight are we talking about here? Is this a tough bed or is it more vulnerable to cargo dents and dings? You hint about "secure ur load"...Looks or utility? Moses

The 44 Rubicon front axle comes up short for axle tube size, as Rich notes. It also has the wrong wheel bolt pattern for your CJ-7. The Scout machining sounds similar to your needs, lastCJ7 would be able to qualify what route to go with the custom axle shaft(s), inner and outer pieces. I prefer an AMC 20 over the D44, the 20 actually has a bigger ring gear and is an overall more serviceable design with better bearing layout. (These units held up well in the J-trucks.) You already have the one-piece axles, a hurdle crossed. A Ford 9-inch, of course, has even better design with its outer bearing support on the pinion shaft. The 9-inch center-member is also easier to service than an integral axle. I did note the comment from Rich (lastCJ7) about the J-axle having bigger tubes than his Scout II axle. That's a plus. His idea of re-drilling the wheel hubs and confirming a 5-on-5.5" rotor match and proper fit would be worth considering. If your OEM rotors will fit the J-axle hubs, and if the calipers line up properly, this might work. Take some measurements and size things up. Moses

I'm still on board with the D44 front being more than enough...The added unsprung weight of a D60 plus the decrease in axle clearance at the differential housing would be the deal breaker for me...Like lastCJ7 notes, there are ways to make a 44 bulletproof, which is not a necessity in your case. You have plenty of front axle now, even when you occasionally use "front axle only" mode with your twin-stick D300 transfer case...Add any more weight to the Jeep Scrambler, and you'll be selling that fresh 4.6L stroker six and swapping in an LS V-8! Moses

The main gain of a front shackle reverse on a CJ-7, -5 or Scrambler (1976-up) is that the front axle "trails" from the frame, it does not anchor to the frame at the rear of the spring. You will notice a substantial gain when off-pavement and pushing against larger obstacles. Instead of the axle and springs driving all the force into the OEM frame anchors at the rear of the springs, the springs will be able to swing or pivot upward from your reverse anchor at the front (the "shackle reverse kit"). This allows the springs and axle to pivot easily instead of needing to compress the springs lengthwise before the springs and axle finally have no place to go but upward! This is a very wise upgrade if installed properly, and it works better on the highway, too. The front axle trailing from spring anchors at the front allows it to track freely. The stock configuration had the frame pushing the front axle along from the rear/anchor ends of the springs. A glaring example of trouble caused by the OEM spring configuration is the 1972-75 Jeep CJ. They did not have the frame integrity your later 1985 CJ has, and hard trail use would cause the frame to crack or break just rearward of the stock front spring anchors. This was caused by the severe force applied to the frame at that point when the vehicle pushed against obstacles. In part, it was also due to the poorly designed frame: The frame was boxed from the front bumper to just behind the spring anchors, then opened to a C-section. The failure was at the junction between the boxed section (anchors) and the open channel rail. Note: Many CJs of this vintage have repaired/welded frames, we can discuss the best repair technique if anyone has this issue. I'd be pleased to handle this in the welding forum. As a point of interest, the M38A1 military equivalent to the original CJ-5/6 has the front spring anchors at the front of the springs. My earlier Jeep CJ Rebuilder's Manual: 1946-71 features a 1955 CJ-5 that I restored and built up for the book. That earliest edition CJ-5 came with the M38A1 type spring configuration—a factory "shackle reverse" if you will! Can't explain why Jeep reverted to the MB/flat fender frame approach. Big tires, littler lift is a trend now, and it does help with the center-of-gravity and roll center, for sure. The frame height for approach, departure and break over angles does not work as well as a chassis/suspension lift. If you have enough approach, departure and break over frame clearance for your purposes, the "body opening" can be a smart way to go! You will have the axle clearance "lift" of the big tires, especially 37" diameter. Consider long-term planning around axle width for track increase. Like RareCJ8's Scrambler, a radical lift is offset by a wider track width, in his case it's the use of stock, full-size 3/4-ton truck axles. This wider track helps restore center-of-gravity from the dramatic chassis height increase. Wider track also helps with any degree of body lifting that can affect roll center and C.G. If you plan to stuff 37" tires under that CJ, a wider track width may be a necessity for tire clearance and also can help restore vehicle stability. This goes back to your comments about the J-axle—would it be wise to maintain that full track width? Could you configure spring perches for each side to center up that axle under your CJ-7? A D44 J-axle at the rear could be a match. Is the other end of that Wagoneer available? That 6-bolt wheel pattern is a common G.M. 1/2-ton 4x4 truck and full-size Jeep configuration, aftermarket wheels are still readily available...make sure the hub center fits! On that subject, I unearthed a simpler fix for your 6-bolt to 5-bolt issue. Biggman100 brought Roadkill to our attention, and they have adapters for 6- to 5-bolt in your 5 on 5.5" configuration. Here's a link: http://store.roadkillcustoms.com/6-lug-to-5-lug-wheel-adapter-6-x-5-50-to-5-x-5-50-wheel-bolt-pattern/ Adapters would also increase track width somewhat, without the need to use wider axle assemblies. Moses

Looks functional and rugged. Would be a much heftier and substantial bed than the OEM sheet metal! Could see this catching on, there's the dump option that Biggman100 talks about, too! This would be for 3/4-ton and 1-ton trucks, apparently, and there's the added weight factor. How much does the bare bed weigh? If you look at this bed on a pickup long enough, it grows on ya!

Great exchange! Terrific CJ Jeep, very clean work, you did a textbook swap of the V-8, CA legal, yea! The immediate concern for me on the spring over is the caster over the arc of travel. If you can keep the caster angle within norms over the full range of axle/wheel travel, spring-over can work. Driveline U-joint angles, always a concern, get offset if you use a CV at the transfer case end and try to minimize the pinion angle change. Yes, you do want 4-5 (as much as 7) degrees positive caster at static height. Work all of this out, plus the steering linkage angles to prevent bump steer, and you're on your way with a spring over. Years ago, I balked at the idea, but with 35"-37" tires becoming the "norm", what's the alternative for that degree of lift? For 33", even some 34"-35" applications, the OEM spring-under approach can work once caster is correct. If you use caster/leaf spring correction wedges, make sure they are steel and not aluminum. Target bump steering, arc of caster angle over the range of wheel travel, use the correct shocks, the usual...Keep us posted! Moses

Gotcha...I sent notes to lastCJ7 and RareCJ8 to add more content here. The Scout II front axle camber is actually something you can control with the location of the spring perches to fit your CJ springs. As long as you do not create an excessive front driveline U-joint issue at the pinion, you can set camber where you want: 4-7 degrees positive would be plenty to control wander and shake. 4-degrees positive is often a good place for both U-joint angle and steer back to center, this is stock Jeep CJ setting. I'll let others comment about your J-axle, and if information lags, I'll research and provide details on the best way to implement this switch to 5x5.5 wheel pattern...We'll get you going, Hobbs! What's the plan for the rear axle? The AMC Model 20 is a great unit, most install one-piece axle shafts to eliminate the challenge of OEM tapered axle shafts with separate flange hubs. If you do plan to keep the OEM hub arrangement with stock axle shafts, follow the factory workshop manual method for tightening the hub nuts. (I also outline this procedure in detail within my Jeep CJ Rebuilder's Manual: 1972-86, available through Bentley and several aftermarket parts sources.) The torque necessary to meet the factory hub-to-shaft depth setting is often extreme and necessary. Moses

Welcome to the forums, Hobbs, great to have you onboard and opening with this topic! The Grand Wagoneer axle has been a popular change, and you've detailed the roster of issues, including the wheel bolt pattern. Aside from the shortening of the left tube and clocking the C-support for the knuckle, both somewhat involved and requiring quality welding and measurements, the wheel pattern issue remains. There are several solutions, including re-drilling the hub flanges for 5-on-5.5" and installing appropriate rotors, calipers, etc. This seems involved to me, and I'm note thrilled about a hub flange with extra holes! You mention Ford, there's also Dodge and I-H, etc. On that note, I like the I-H Scout II D44 front axle (Dana/Spicer 20 and 300 era as well), which many do as a simpler install and to quickly gain track width without major modifications. Our fellow member, lastCJ7, has the Scout II front axle. I'll ask him jump into this discussion and air his approach and "why". The Scout II provides the wider track width, always helpful with lifting and big tires, it helps restore the center-of-gravity! You would then have D44 options (OEM to save cost) for the rear. There are many OEM D44 rear axles from which to choose! We'll open this up to others. I'm here, too. RareCJ8 also has been down this road, although his ultimate solution was 3/4-ton Chevy truck D44 front and a Ford E-van rear axle, each with 8-lug wheels...See his Scrambler at these forums! Welcome, Hobbs, trust you'll enjoy the community! Looking forward to photos of your Jeep, its modifications and your 4x4 fun! Moses

I read the link, and I believe you're on it, Mark! The chassis was in a strain and linkage could have been binding with the side pull. The transmission stayed in Park, because the pawl was engaged; however, the shift valve may have been moving slightly toward Reverse position with the chassis twist. Out of sync (Park versus Reverse), according to the explanation, the NSBU switch would throw the transmission into Neutral override as a protective measure. Question: Do you have cable or mechanical shift linkage to the transmission? Mechanical would be more susceptible to the side twisting of the chassis while the powertrain torqued in the opposite direction... As a footnote, this degree of force on the Parking pawl can snap the pawl cog. Fortunately, in your situation, it sounds like you were side pulling, not straight ahead, which would be much worse. Better to plant your foot on the brakes in Neutral, the effect is the same, actually. The pawl engagement locks the output shaft of the transmission to the transmission case. Take a look at the pawl as an individual part: It's amazing that you can park a hefty vehicle on a slope with this arrangement. Always wise to set the parking brake in conjunction with using the Park mode. Sounds like the truck's powertrain system corrected itself on level ground once recycled through the Key-Off/Key-On modes. At $125 for a new NSBU switch plus labor, try operating the truck for a while before doing any parts replacing. By the way, did you get any fault codes? The article talks about that likelihood if the NSBU switch comes into play... Moses

Joe Mac, I read the Torklift specs and engineering intent, and this does seem like a possible solution for sway and body roll or lean control. The device appears well endorsed by users, that's a consideration, including folks who carry a cabover camper. Apparently, the system offers a transition to the overload leafs plus support during the load and leaning phases that lead up to full overload spring action. OEM main spring stacks are actually "progressively" rated as they approach the overload mode, applying more resistance as the springs flatten. Apparently, Stableload takes this a step further by increasing the main stack spring rate even further when you carry a load and connect the Stableload links. The device applies the overload spring's force to the main stack—earlier in the cycle. By design, your Chevy or my Dodge Ram 1-ton trucks keep the overload spring some distance from the spring stack. The Torklift helps to take the "gap" out of the overload spring application. This also means that your spring rate would be stiffer than the non-overload leaf stack when the Stableload is linked. Essentially, you'd have a stiffer resistance to the load at all times. This could be useful if you have two tons in the bed and cab! Two tons in the bed and cab is a lot. If OEMs set up the rear spring main stack rates to handle this kind of load, the ride when empty would be impossibly harsh. Instead, they use an auxiliary overload spring set apart from the rest of the spring stack. This provides reasonable ride quality when empty or loaded—running on the main stack...If you were to leave the Torklift Stableload Quick Disconnect hooked up when unloaded, you would have a harsh and rigid ride. Note: Maybe an OEM could incorporate an electrically actuated or automatic Stableload type device that would operate like quick disconnect sway bar links on a JK Wrangler Rubicon! If used correctly, the Stableload Quick Disconnect does sound like it offsets the OEM rear spring set's "on" or "off" use of the overload leaf. When hooked up, you're adding the additional tension of the overload much earlier in the spring rate cycle. The more gradual transition could improve both the spring rate and handling. The stiffer rate would reduce sway and body roll, and the smoothness of the more progressive transition/rate could make vehicle handling more predictable. Carrying two-tons in the bed and cab is really a hefty load. You must be running at gross vehicle load rating all of the time when the camper is onboard. The Stableload may help handling and spring rate transitions; however, the actual load on rear wheel bearings and tires remains constant—and very high. Something to consider. Footnote: I recall seeing this Torklift package at the SEMA Show last year. There was discussion around drilling the spring leafs to install one version of the device. The kit includes a special drill bit and guide. This is spring steel if you're considering a home installation. Drilling could take a while... Moses

Thanks for the loaded question, Joe Mac! I saw the Cherokee Trailhawk new model launch up close at Moab earlier this year. (See my 14:51 minute HD video coverage at the magazine, not a test driving, rather the unveiling and a walk-around by Chrysler/Jeep staff.) Jeep pledges that this vehicle bears a "Trail Rated" pedigree, though I'm not aware of the actual trail rating. Topside and bottom, the Cherokee Trailhawk looks like the furthest departure from a Jeep utility vehicle to date: no beam axles plus a complement of advanced, electronically controlled powertrain, stability control and safety features. The original XJ Cherokee was a uni-body atop a very basic, utilitarian Jeep design (similar to a beam axle YJ Wrangler with a TJ front suspension system). Absent on the Trailhawk is either a front or rear beam axle drive system. The new Cherokee is more a crossover AWD car with a low range system, though friend and astute Jeep® designer Mark Allen does make this accurate assertion about the new Cherokee Trailhawk, "To pay homage to Jeep’s heritage and ­visually convey that this is an all-new Jeep, while still communicating legendary best-in-class capability...We couldn’t make it look like a box.” I'm not skeptical as long as we define what Jeep means by "class". After all, the fully independent suspension M151 did replace the beam axle/leaf sprung M38A1 military Jeep/Willys design, though it took years of upgrades to stabilize the M151 4x4 and counter its epidemic rollover issue. (To have a more severe rollover issue than a narrow-track M38A1 says a lot. Imagine an M38A1 handling better on an off-camber slope than an M151!) With the Cherokee Trailhawk, we're talking about a much lower center of gravity and roll center; adequate ground clearance is more of an issue than the center of gravity and risk of rollover. Like you say, it's early. In fairness to Jeep, I'm sure the Cherokee Trailhawk has the tractability to muster slick rock at Moab or steep ascents and descents...Limited substantially by its ground clearance plus expensive and vulnerable undercarriage components, the trail use of this vehicle remains to be seen...On that note, I'm more than willing to test a Cherokee Trailhawk and get a firsthand feel for its abilities. Car and Driver did its testing and evaluation, and here's a link: http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-jeep-cherokee-trailhawk-v-6-4x4-first-drive-review. Moses

Joe Mac, your consideration of taking a camper and load of 4,000 pounds off-pavement (primarily in the pickup bed) is of concern. Is the camper a "cabover" design? If so, the center-of-gravity and roll center of your truck is altered by the load height. Also, if I recall, your truck is not a "dually". With a single drive rear axle, the raised weight bias is more of an issue than with a dually (a wider track width plus two tires per side at the rear). I would refer this question to Torklift, as I'm unclear how this product affects a shift in C.G. or the roll center. Is it intended as an enhancement for load only, or does it also compensate for roll center and body roll? What kind of roads are we talking about? Would they include slanted, off-camber backcountry two-tracks as part of the "camping adventure"? If so, this could wind up more than a "camping" adventure...Or are you considering milder, graded gravel roads? Moses

I can understand the impulse, as ATF is highly detergent and has lubricity. On the other hand, the modern diesel injection systems, including your Duramax, are common rail or electronically pulsed, i.e., electronic fuel injectors. These injectors are designed to flow fuel not "oil". With the absence of sulfur and other fuel "upgrades", there are already issues with O-ring life and such. I would stick with an injector cleaner or fuel additive from Lucas and others, formulated for injectors, seals and other critical parts. If "cleaning it up" meant internal engine or combustion chamber concerns, I'd consider a mild methanol or water injection system. Considering the modern electronically controlled fuel flow, there should be no reason, however, for excessive soot or carbon buildup in your engine's cylinders. Our Ram 3500 with the 5.9L Cummins H.O. engine has never suffered from a pump or injector issue in 123K miles. I do change the fuel filter regularly, and in recent years switched to GDiesel fuel when affordable, which helps tremendously (even for cleaning the injectors and the engine). Unfortunately, that formulation is limited to Nevada and Utah availability at present. If you're curious about GDiesel, check out my coverage at the magazine: http://www.4wdmechanix.com/Performance-Diesel-Fuel-GDiesel.html. This includes a product overview and HD video tour of the plant east of Reno/Sparks, Nevada. Many of the home remedies for diesel injector clogging and such date to and reflect the mechanical injector era. With a mechanical fuel injection system, close-tolerance parts issues and fuel clogging would be much more prevalent. Also, the coking and soot buildup in a diesel would be more likely with an emissions exempt, off-highway diesel, though their cylinder and exhaust temperatures under load, in most cases, make carbon buildup unlikely... I'd stick with commercially available fuel additives and injector cleaner formulated for your Duramax...Besides, who wants to stain their driveway or damage a paint finish by spilling ATF with red dye down a fender? Moses

Thanks for opening up the Toyota truck "thing". One insight I might share from my days of building FJ40s for magazine and book projects: Toyota replacement and upgrade parts can get quite expensive. At Australia, that cost differential may not be as glaring, but if your experience has been with Jeep, domestic pickups and SUVs, you're in for a big surprise on the cost of building a Tacoma, Tundra, Titan, Xterra or 4Runner. That said, the Toyota and Nissan brands have a loyal, justified following that stems from their incredible durability and initial quality control. The domestics have caught up, however, and a later Ram, Chevy or GMC truck would be worth a look. Yes, there's Ford, too. (My personal experience with used Ford trucks has not been as rewarding as the GMC/Chevy or Dodge/Ram models. Ford trucks seem to reach the end of their components' "duty cycle", from bumper to bumper, way before Chevy/GMC or even Dodge/Ram trucks.) Since you're talking "pre-owned", replacement parts costs and accessories are a prime concern. Here, the domestic trucks and SUVs have it over Toyota and Nissan. As a footnote, Toyota and Nissan truck "serviceability" falls short. Repairs and major work can be a chore, especially on later models. The simplicity of an FJ40 is long gone. Just my opinion...Our youngest son really wanted a Tacoma pickup and wound up with a spanking new Ram 1500 4WD Crew Cab—for thousands less than a late model used Tacoma with mileage! Really? Is a Tacoma that worthwhile? The 5.7L Hemi is a great engine and certainly as efficient as the Tundra V-8. The late Chrysler automatic transmissions are quite impressive, too. Moses

If you’re asking for reasons not to do it, RareCJ8, try these: D60 is way more unsprung weight. D60 has a lower diff housing/casting and less ground clearance at the diff. D60 sounds like it will cost a small fortune to set up. Added weight to the Jeep. You only use the front axle with the rear pushing, so it receives 50% of the torque; that’s why a D30 will often hold up well with an inline six and 33" tires. More work for your power steering, though you talk about ram assist, i.e., more $$$. You'll need more shock damping. You have a D44; they were fine for a Suburban 2500 4x4 with a V-8 and trailer pulling. Other ¾-ton trucks worked well with the D44 front. How does that sound for openers? There's always the question: At what point do your axles grossly exceed the frame design of the CJ-8? Unsprung weight matters. Moses

My recent comments on dual-sport motorcycles became the prelude to our latest acquisition: a Honda XR650R motorcycle for the 4WD Mechanix Magazine vehicle fleet! There's a long history behind my relationship to off-road motorcycling, which began when I acquired my first purpose built desert motorcycle in 1971, a 1969 BSA B44 Victor. In the mid-'eighties, my editor at Argus' OFF-ROAD Magazine was Rick Sieman, better known in motorcycle circles as Super Hunky. His legendary roles as both the Senior Editor at Dirt Bike and AMA Veteran Class Plate #1 were Rick's other credentials. When Rick encouraged me to ride the Mojave Desert with him at speed on Husqvarna and KTM motorcycles, I was sold! Over the last two decades, I have owned and ridden a variety of motorcycles, both highway and dirt types, finding the emerging dual-sport models increasingly more practical for off-road travel and journalism. My interest in motorcycle adventure travel with dual-sport cycles has also grown steadily. Our vintage '84 Honda XR350R has served well since the 'nineties. More recently, it has provided video access, I used it to cover events like the King of the Hammers and hard trails footage. I'm a Honda guy, and the XR650R has been on my radar screen since the cycle earned icon status in "Dust to Glory". (I confess to at least a dozen reruns of the motorcycle segments in that film, along with numerous reruns of the "Long Way Round" and "Long Way Down" travel documentaries.) When a 2000 XR650R became available with ultra low miles (just over 700 original miles!) and an extraordinary history, I took the leap—right into ownership of a BRP ("Big Red Pig")! In its earlier life, the bike had been "plated" in Texas as a dual-sport conversion and boasted a Baja Designs kit. The owner, a former F15 pilot and motorcycle enthusiast, had no time in his career to ride the motorcycle. After years of garaging the bike, he elected to sell it—and the magazine now has a new thumper dirt motorcycle in its stable! My 19-month-old grandson calls the XR650R the "Big Honda", and the XR350R has become the "Little Honda". A liquid cooled Honda XR650R was chosen over the KTM, Yamaha or even a Honda CRF450 for its desert enduro record and long distance stamina. The aim is a street legal dual-sport, light enough to do the desert and trails right while having the power to carry gear and video equipment as a filming platform. This is the start, and you can track the dual-sport Big Red Pig, the magazine's latest off-road vehicle project, at the forums photo gallery...Count on much more to come as the BRP gets readied for its chores and the single tracks! Moses

Joe Friday mentions an interesting test for stud fatigue: You can no longer achieve the right torque. So, to apply all of this to Megatron's question about stud/bolt replacement, wheel bolts/studs last because they are rolled threads, have relatively high tensile strength (though 1020 steel in the OEM Jeep case is not extraordinary metal and likely selected for its ductility), and wheel bolts/studs do not go through the heat cycling stresses like a cylinder head bolt, which needs "elasticity". Also important and stated in the discussion, the wheel rims act like spring washers (steel rims, anyway), and some wheels use cone washers and nuts on the studs. So what about alloy wheels? We apply torque evenly to nuts securing alloy wheels. Sometimes alloy rims have capped nuts with longer threads, most OEM wheel nuts are not capped. It appears that the only resistance to these nuts loosening (on alloy wheels) is the clamping force of the alloy rim hub against the wheel hub or hub/drum. This raises a question: When we install alloy wheels, what is the equivalent of the "spring effect" you get with steel rims and conical seat nuts? With alloy wheels, are we strictly dependent upon the clamping force of the rim against the wheel hub face when the nuts get tightened? Alloy rims have very little "yield" and certainly do not act "springy" like steel rims with raised, conical nut seats...Other than uniform nut torque and clamping force, what, if anything, keeps the conical nuts from coming loose on alloy wheels? Moses

ScramblingMan, the 8384 will do, that's very common. The dashpot may be available from NAPA/Echlin. My Jeep CJ Rebuilder's Manual: 1972-86 Edition would be a valuable read and has been available (usually discounted) from 4WD Hardware and Quadratec. Advance Adapters also carries my books and, of course, my publisher Bentley Publishers...I'm additionally recommending that you secure a copy of the official Jeep/AMC factory workshop manual, which can often be found in good used condition on eBay or through used automotive book stores. I have attached a PDF of the actual Mopar Parts catalog pages listing the 8383 and 8384 series carburetors. PDF is very cool: You can zoom into these pages for extraordinary detail! This will provide not only the schematic of parts (orientation, fit, etc.), it also provides the official Mopar part numbers for many of the parts if still available. If not available from Mopar, you can cross over to Echlin, maybe even Federal-Mogul/Carter and other brand parts: 1981-86 CJ BBD Carburetor Mopar Parts.pdf This is the official Mopar Parts listing and diagrams for the 8383 and 8384 Carter BBD two-barrel carburetor used on Jeep CJ models in the 1981-86 era (also similar to the '87-'90 Jeep YJ Wrangler 4.2L BBD carburetor). Members have ready access to this PDF download—if you're not a member, please join us and get involved in the discussion! Let me know if you need any other information. I have adjustment data and everything else related to the BBD carburetor and its interface with emission controls and whatever. We'll keep you going here! This is a learning curve on a fairly involved carburetor. Your success will be a confidence builder and help you better understand your Jeep. We'll get through it! Moses

Hi, BA...Glad you found an inexpensive Carter BBD body. Answers to your questions: 1) If the choke cover was warm (electric), you likely had the key on long enough to open the choke. Whether the choke is set right or not, you do need to adjust it when completely cold. Don't turn the key on, you'll heat up the choke coil and open it. 2) The dashpot is a device to slow the throttle return on deceleration. It can be vacuum actuated or simply a bracket with a diaphragm and spring that "cushions" the throttle return when you release the pedal. This prevents the throttle from slapping shut, which can cause venturi effect fuel enrichment or backfiring. My policy: If devices were in place, there was a reason. 3) The Jeep factory workshop manual covering your year model actually does describe the functions and pieces of the carburetor. For each of my books, I depended on factory workshop manuals for first generation data. This is the most reliable approach, as second generation information can lose something in the translation. 4) The accelerator pump circuit also uses a check ball, accounting for the two in the Chilton manual. Your carburetor needs both check balls, the small one at the venturi cluster. There should be a "tag" on your carburetor that has a list number on it. (Number should be an 8383 or 8384. Check it.) Please share the numbers, and I will put together a factory parts schematic for your carburetor, showing individual pieces. It will help you identify the parts and even details like the number of check balls that need to go into place. You won't have to second guess with these details! If you get you vehicle production date and the tag details to me promptly, I'll gather up the info before I leave for the Off-Road Expo early Friday morning. Otherwise, I will not be able to reply until Sunday night... Moses