Moses Ludel
-
Posts
4,447 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Store
Articles
Gallery
Posts posted by Moses Ludel
-
-
Curious how J-B Weld works here. I've been using a bona fide "plastic epoxy" material of late. It's made by Permatex/Loctite. It's also a two-part and seems to work well, the first DIY market plastic epoxy bonder I've found. None of these products have high tensile strength, but the blower ring is not under a lot of pressure, just centrifugal force. Curious what you think of the bond with J-B Weld.
On the pedal rod, there is such thing as Grade 5 and even Grade 8 rod stock. I used to get both types from NAPA, not sure whether Fastenal carries these grades. Do not use "general hardware grade" rod stock from places like Lowe's, Home Depot or similar "construction" suppliers. Generic rod stock is typically Grade 2 or 3 at best. Make sure that's not what Fastenal offers.
When you set up the rods and mate the master cylinder to the booster, make sure there is normal clearance between the pedal linkage and booster and the booster to master cylinder. You need clearance at each point to keep the booster from applying prematurely and to allow the master cylinder piston to retract completely and not trap fluid at the compensating ports, which can create brake drag or lockup.
There should be specs on this, we've touched on the subject at our aftermarket master cylinder and booster discussion: http://forums.4wdmechanix.com/topic/482-1981-jeep-cj-7-frame-off-build-needs-brake-upgrade-solutions/. I discussed the pedal linkage, booster and master cylinder clearance issue at 60Bubba's brake upgrade exchange: http://forums.4wdmechanix.com/topic/437-dual-diaphragm-brake-booster-upgrade-for-a-cj-7-jeep/. Scroll through each of these discussions.
Moses
-
60Bubba...Correct about U.S. grade markings: 3 marks is Grade 5; 4 is Grade 6; 5 is Grade 7; and Grade 8 is 6 marks or dots...
I like your wiring harness, the firewall connector and Weatherpack at vulnerable tail lamp connectors is a big plus, too. That firewall junction makes a huge difference in reliability. EFI systems require accurate voltage readings without voltage "drops". Keep in mind that D.C. means the grounds are just as important as the hot side. You got a hint of this already.
Once you have your wires aligned, invest in quality convolution tubing at several sizes. I find this at MSC Direct (similar to McMaster-Carr) in 50' or longer length rolls, much less costly than horsing around with 10 foot packaging at the local auto supply. (Likely the wiring kit did not include convolution tubing.) You can use quality electrical tape at the ends. I wrap tape around the tubing alongside wires that exit from the split tubing before ends. It's also smart and attractive to tape the "Y" junctions where tubing sections come together.
Moses
-
Mike, this is an attractive and well conceived tow bar from Tow Trust! I'm pleased to hear your comments about the Tow Trust plant facility, I had that impression from the company's description of tooling and the latest Carlos Test equipment. Tow Trust obviously reinvests in engineering, equipment and new product development. The Tow Trust bar has now met EU and UK standards and certification, satisfies N46 recall and UK VOSA requirements and has entered the market in less than six weeks from Paul's initial contact with Tow Trust. This is a substantial commitment by that company.
The Tow Trust tow bar fits properly and has esthetic appeal. For those who want to continue towing with a Jeep KJ Cherokee at the UK, and throughout the EU, Tow Trust has provided a solution. I applaud Tom and others on the Tow Trust staff involved with the proactive and prompt development of this Jeep KJ tow bar to meet the UK VOSA and EU requirements. Tow Trust has provided a clear and substantial way out for Jeep KJ Cherokee owners wanting to tow with their vehicles.
I look forward to Paul and MikeK reporting their impressions of the Tow Trust bar in "real world" towing. From the bar's appearance and the illustration I saw of the shape and attachment method, the package should provide the necessary safety margin. It would be valuable to see your photos of the entire fit-up and mounting method. Your product impressions and comments would be helpful to others considering this UK VOSA N46 solution.
Paul and Tom at Tow Trust deserve thanks here! So does Janet Brown for her initiative to join this forum and bring to light your common issues. Prior to Janet's posts, North Americans were oblivious to this dilemma faced by UK owners of Jeep KJ Cherokee models. At the U.S., the NHTSA/Jeep KJ Liberty's N46 recall had prompted fellow member "Belvedere" to launch this topic in the first place. He shared his delight at receiving a free Mopar tow bar assembly and installation.
The utility of a Jeep KJ Cherokee intended for towing is no longer in question at the UK. The resale value of a KJ Cherokee should no longer be in free fall, either. You have a UK/EU certified tow bar solution that meets the requirements for the UK VOSA/Jeep N46 recall, and you also have a committed UK partner at Tow Trust.
Moses
-
zidodcigalah...You've made a good accounting of the troubles. Have you adjusted the bands yet on this transmission yet? This may not solve all of your troubles, but it is routine service and will help eliminate guesswork.
I will walk you through the remaining symptoms and help troubleshoot after the bands adjustment. Meanwhile, see my article on RH/RE transmission valve body and accumulator issues: http://www.4wdmechanix.com/Survival-Upgrades-for-Jeep-and-Dodge-Ram-Automatic-Transmissions.html. See if any of these issues sound like they apply.
Expect a detailed reply after you adjust the bands and report the results. Consider the valve body and other issues described in the article. Some may be relevant. Others may not apply directly to the current symptoms.
As for adjusting the bands, I can share the procedure if you are not familiar with the process or do not have access to the service steps. Since you just changed the fluid and now need to drop the transmission pan again for one of the two band adjusts, I can also share details on how to properly drain, strain and reuse the fresh fluid. ATF is costly, especially synthetic types...
Moses
-
Belvedere...The primer piece across the engine is new? Just overspray there? That piece will cover a lot.
If the shop has a four-wheel frame and alignment rack, they should be able sort all of this out. Most of the damage looks like "outer shell" areas, so the vehicle's tracking can be readily restored. This is what these guys do day in and out, looks a lot worse to us than them!
Glad the Liberty is getting attention...Did the knuckle turn out to be the only suspension piece they'll replace, or do the control arms get renewed?
Moses
-
60Bubba...The color is terrific, great choice...Didn't realize you're rewiring the Jeep, too. That's a major, though you've made real progress here.
The scratch is on par for the course, and I have a touch up cure when you're ready, you'll never find the spot once fixed. Here's my story: I built my '81 Jeep CJ-5 project for OFF-ROAD Magazine and had garage space like yours (i.e., none to spare). The Jeep was together and ready for the SCORE Show at Anaheim, we lived at Oakridge, Oregon, and I was leaving for SoCal in two days. The paint was new but cured, fortunately, and had never been down a road.
My youngest son, 11 at the time, rode his bicycle into the single car garage alongside the Jeep, scraping a hand brake lever for six inches against the right rear quarter...A 3/16" swath of color went to primer gray immediately. You get the visual.
When you're ready for my paint "fix", also outlined in the Jeep Owner's Bible, I'll provide some coaching. Presume you have matching touch-up from the body shop.
Moses
-
David (spdljohn)...This ultra high output fuel pump can handle E85, and that's a plus. However, is there is a downside to running that high flow? The link you provided is to a Walbro pump that flows 450 LPH (liters per hour) at peak and handles up to 750 horsepower. You could fuel a race buggy with that kind of flow.
Your 325 horsepower LS 6.0L V-8 requires way less flow than this. The theory behind flow is that you don't want the engine to starve. So the pump must be capable of over-fueling to a point. We're back to a regulator that redirects excess fuel back to the tank. The high volume and pressure of this pump should be okay as long as the overage can flow back to the tank when the regulator releases pressure at the preset point...
If this turns out to be the recommended pump, and everyone is on board with the idea of using it, I have one suggestion: Make sure that the return line to the tank is ample fuel hose size (same or close to the supply side tubing and hose) and a size recommended by Walbro. The fuel inlet to the tank must also be this size. You do not want back pressure that would boost the fuel pump pressure if the pump is capable of this kind of flow volume and pressure. No return flow restrictions—ever.
Also, there is controversy about what kind of fuel line to use on the supply side. The return to tank does not have a restrictor, but the supply side does: the fuel pressure regulator. Follow the recommended fuel line type (hard tubing, high pressure rated hose, a combination of each, whatever is officially recommended here) and use proper routing. This is important to prevent fuel line vibration, pulsation and potential safety issues. Tubing and hose connections, any clamps or junctions, all must meet safety standards for this kind of high pressure system. The high pressure and flow depend on the regulator functioning properly, and the fuel must flow readily back to the tank from the regulator.
I suggest researching or calling Walbro for their recommendation on a pump for your engine's horsepower. They may want to see a buffer, say a pump rated for 400-450 horsepower or so. Explain the engine type, rated horsepower and regulator setting or rail pressure. (Have you determined that yet?) Ask for the hose or tubing sizes recommended for the selected pump...When you determine the pump and fuel line setup, please share that useful information. Others will benefit.
Moses
-
60Bubba, if you look at the Fastenal PDF link I provided above, your top lock flange nuts fit the image of the two nuts at upper right. If the nuts do not have serrations on the flange face, this should be the type you bought. In any case, the tensile is either Grade 5 or Grade 8 according to this catalog listing. We would need to see a straight-on photo to confirm dots, I can't see the series, only one, maybe two, those this does make me believe these nuts are Grade 5.
Grade 5 in this application would likely be okay because the shocks actually rest on the stud. The nut holds the shock from moving laterally, which is not compression or rebound force as much as just maintaining the shock's alignment.
While Grade 8 is often used as a mantra for "strong", there are instances where the higher tensile strength of Grade 8 is a detriment in that the hardware is also less ductile. Less ductility means that on steady pull, shear or shock loads, the bolt could very well snap rather than elongate enough to yield and recover.
Vehicle OEMs and even winch manufacturers will often increase the stud size and decrease hardware tensile slightly. This creates a stronger size bolt/nut for better load capacity and a lower tensile grade for more ductility. Warn taught me this lesson decades ago when I asked why the set of winch mounting bolts were only Grade 5. Their extreme field testing indicated that with the loads of winching, slightly more ductility would allow the bolt to yield some rather than snap under high shock loads. I've since been very aware of hardware that can "give" slightly and still be strong—like a lower tensile strength Grade 5 bolt or nut. Of course, there's the extreme of even lower tensile strength (Grades 4, 3 or 2) hardware that will snap, strip threads or fail from simply being too weak for the application.
On your CJ-7, there may be a clear example of Grade 5 bolts in an unexpected location: My '81 CJ-5 came with Grade 5 (three marks on each bolt head) hardware at the rear leaf spring anchor ends. The aim was apparently to prevent the bolts from snapping or shearing under severe service, which might have been the case with higher tensile Grade 8 bolts. If you have the OEM bolts at the rear springs, let us know the tensile strength and Grade markings. You will notice that these bolts have a large stud size for the application, and this is where AMC/Jeep made up the load capacity.
I always recommend using factory/OEM tensile strength replacement hardware and Grade. Higher tensile than factory recommendations is not always better! There is definitely a place for upgrading hardware, like going from Grade 5 to Grade 8; however, upgrade hardware beyond OEM standards is not always desirable.
Moses
-
Hi, JTrucker, welcome to the forums! Your Jeep and 4x4 truck interests will be of real interest to other members and guests...
I understand your excitement about finding a first year J-truck with a stake bed! This model conjures a string of memories, I was fourteen years old when the model was introduced on the coattails of the all-new 1962 Jeep Wagoneer. COD Garage, the local Buick/Chevrolet/Jeep dealership at Minden, Nevada did a brisk business around work and ranch trucks, and these innovative, forward leaning four-wheel drive vehicles suited a rural lifestyle. I clearly recall that year's eclectic Jeep 4x4 lineup—from traditional Willys/Kaiser-era models to these Jeep Corporation J-chassis!
When the transport trucks unloaded these Jeep Corporation J-chassis models at the dealership, kids and adults watched in awe! I would have never guessed that my growing fascination with Jeep vehicles and 4x4s would eventually lead to a writing career in the Jeep and light truck 4WD community—and authorship of the Jeep Owner's Bible and six additional books (Bentley Publishers).
In considering this '63 J-truck stake body, there are four factors: 1) the "romantic" or nostalgic motivation, 2) the actual vehicle involved, 3) the practical considerations for a restoration of these vehicles and 4) the real value of this vehicle in restored condition. I'll be frank about each point.
1) Inspiration: There's always the rationale for why you would restore a particular vehicle. There must be an incentive, and in our case, a Jeep 4x4 with a legacy would be enough to do the trick. In your words, this J-truck satisfies your penchant for both Jeep FSJ (Full-Size Jeep) or J-models and also an interest in stake bed trucks! If these interests run deeply enough, they will sustain your drive through the arduous and often unpredictable vehicle restoration process.
2) Target of Your Affection: The 1963 Jeep J-truck or Gladiator is a first-year launch as you share. This could bode well with regard to cache and value, although there is also the practical side surrounding the truck's technology. The J-truck in its first iteration had many merits and several liabilities. For a parade truck, the liabilities could be overlooked. However, when it comes to gathering firewood, some downsides would be daunting. While sheet metal is sheet metal from a restoration standpoint, I'll tackle this as a mechanical restoration professional. Here's the real scoop on the design, components and mechanical restoration challenges that apply to a 1963 Jeep J-truck:
J-Truck Chassis—A major breakthrough and improvement over a Willys Pickup or Station Wagon that dated to the Postwar Era. The Wagoneer, in particular, showcased the advanced J-chassis that took us into the modern full-size SUV world. The Wagoneer/Grand Wagoneer legacy survived to 1991 and now has a cult following.
For the J-truck, the ladder frame, stout driving axles and wider track width made these trucks competitive. There were wrinkles like the optional pivoting beam front axle, a pioneering stab at "IFS 4WD" if you will. (Visualize a closed knuckle IFS axle design launched years ahead of Ford's F150/F250 4x4 "Twin Traction Beam" front end.) The experimental "Independent Suspension" at the front driving axle raises concerns regarding vehicle performance and parts availability. Be sure to get photos of the front axle, I can furnish archival drawings of the "IFS" front end.
The front and rear axles are traditional Spicer (later Dana), outsourced and of decent quality, hampered a bit by the "closed knuckle" steering design. Closed knuckles mean more wear points, parts availability issues and steering angle limitations. Make sure axle housing ball ends are not scratched badly, rusted or damaged, otherwise expect to be chasing a scarce axle housing. Then there are the primitive Gemmer worm and roller and Ross cam-and-lever manual steering gears that leave much to be desired and are always worn out—with rare or obsolete replacement parts. Be aware that the "Cab and Chassis" J-200 or J-300 has a variety of GVW ratings from 4000# GVW to 7600# GVW in the SRW models. Dual rear wheel models did exist and drove the GVW to 8600 pounds*.
*Note: If you furnish the serial number prefix for this vehicle, I can identify its GVW. The prefix is four numbers and a letter followed by a hyphen. I can even furnish shipping weights for the cab-and-chassis, which does not include the dealer-installed stake bed. I even have the add-on weight for various options available.
Powertrain—This is the kicker. The original engine is the OHC 230 Tornado inline overhead camshaft six. This engine was strange for the era. The overhead camshaft cylinder head, though a breakthrough, stood atop an obsolete inline six short block design with only four main bearings, similar to its predecessor, the 226 Super Hurricane L-head six.
In 1962, GM introduced its 7-main-bearing 194 pushrod engine, followed in 1963 by the 230, then a 250 and 292, each 7-main bearing designs. AMC took this pushrod OHV and 7-main bearing route in 1964 with its 199 and 232 inline sixes, the two engines that became the backbone for every inline six Jeep engine from that era forward—yes, right up to the 2006 TJ Wrangler 4.0L legacy six. 7-main bearings, even with a basic OHV pushrod approach, was so sensible that by 1965 Jeep Corporation abandoned the civilian use of the OHC 230 and its failure-prone valvetrain and outsourced the AMC 232 inline six for the Jeep J-model base engine. The AMC 327 V-8 was also added as an option.
While the U.S. military put up with a Gladiator looking M715 and M725 J-series truck and 230 OHC engine for several more years, the civilian trucks bid the Tornado 230 OHC inline six goodbye after 1964. So, you have an engine with limited use and questionable reliability although its military use does increase availability of backup engine cores and some surplus parts. Many of these trucks underwent engine transplants, mostly small-block V-8 swaps, which would be an option but also detracts strongly from the originality and "collectible" value...
The transmissions were reliable during these early years of the J-truck, outsourced Borg-Warner manual types and Borg-Warner automatics until the mid-'sixties introduction of the GM THM400 automatic behind the AMC 327 V-8 and later the Buick 350 V-8. I've rebuilt many B-W automatics, my first time was 1969, the unit from a 1960 I-H Metro Van. Since then, there have been many Ford, Studebaker and early-'sixties Jeep applications. In the stake bed, you'd likely find a T98 four-speed manual with compound low gear, though there were many early J-trucks with the much lighter duty column shift 3-speed. Be aware here, these vintage 3-speeds do not have synchromesh on first gear and are often brutalized by previous drivers! We can get into more detail if you move this vehicle choice forward.
Body, Wiring, Steering Column and Dash—This vehicle was "modern" in most ways. The J-trucks and Wagoneer took Jeep out of the WWII and postwar design era and delivered more complex and less accessible components. The steering column and under dash were each difficult to work on though certainly easier than today's Jeep vehicles! The cab was well constructed and durable, as long as the vehicle you're considering is not rust riddled. If rusted, repairs of sheet metal and the labor cost will reflect the contours, dips and channels found in these more modern light trucks. I would not call any J-model "easy to work on" when compared to a Willys Pickup, Wagon, CJ or military 1/4-ton.
3) "Rabbit Holes" During Restoration—The closed knuckle axles at high mileage can require a good deal of work, parts are not always readily available and the IFS front driving axle would really need to be in good condition at the time of purchase. The 230 OHC, your engine of no choice for an authentic restoration, would be buildable as long as the cylinder head core and block assembly have not been severely damaged. Parts can be found, though not always readily. NOS or surplus would be possible though getting scarcer all the time.
Even manual transmission parts have become more challenging to find. When I did mechanical restoration work commercially (2005 through 2008) on vintage postwar and muscle era powertrains, geartrains, steering gears and axles, I watched NOS parts inventories reach critically low levels for many vehicles. Parts often go to scrap, and later restorers discover that parts are "obsolete", a trend that has escalated on vehicles from the WWII through muscle car eras—including iron like your J-truck prospect. The early Gladiator is not a CJ flatfender or Willys/Kaiser CJ-5 or -6 that has traditionally seen support from a healthy aftermarket. With no collectible interest and relatively low production numbers, the pre-AMC J-trucks likely receive their best support from military surplus parts.
4) So What's It Worth Restored?—This is the loaded question. I worked on mechanical assemblies from postwar Packards, Buicks, a muscle era Shelby 500KR Mustang, mid-'50s Chrysler hemi and poly-head V-8 cars, Baby 'Birds, you name it, blueprint building engines, manual and automatic transmissions, manual and power steering gear assemblies, drive axles and engine-driven accessories. For these vehicles, nothing was a simple "overhaul". To maintain authenticity, critical parts restoration could require metal normalizing, TIG welding, machining and restorative heat treating.
I did transmission and steering gear projects where there were no replacement parts available, only equally worn out used pieces...That noted, the value of a vehicle is not about its restoration costs, which can include this level of exotic repair. The value of a vehicle is its perceived worth in the marketplace. This is predicated on a variety of complex factors: the make and model, the vehicle design and public perception, the number of vehicles produced and remaining, the unique features of a particular vehicle and its options, and the climate of the market.
A metaphor I like to use is that given the intensive, detailed labor and fixed parts costs involved, I could not discount the rebuilding costs for a vintage Buick Dynaflow or Packard Ultramatic transmission restoration. I did many vintage automatic transmissions like these. The client with a 1953 Buick Skylark V-8 convertible (a car valued at $250K-$400K in top restoration form at the peak of the "Bubble Era") did not hesitate to pay for this level of blueprint work on his vehicle's most complex mechanical assembly. Reciprocally, a customer who inherited a 1953 Buick Special four-door sedan from a family member, the last straight-eight engine model, simply could not afford this level of work. The same applied to a Packard Carribbean convertible versus a four-door Patrician sedan, or a '57 Ford F-Bird transmission versus virtually the same Ford-O-Matic transmission out of a '57 Ford station wagon. You get the point—when it comes to mechanical components restored properly, the cost is the same—although the return on investment varies widely.
There is a slight upsurge in interest around vintage J-trucks and Wagoneers, as these light trucks in a pre-restored state are generally more affordable than cars. Quite coincidentally, the latest issue of American Car Collector magazine, published by my friend and colleague Keith Martin, has an article about the J-truck's growing collectability of sorts. Considering quality trucks as those that are frame-off, fully detailed restorations, the author shares that you should expect to pay $7,000-$22,000 for a "good example". That said, a good example, restored from perhaps the level depicted in your 1963 Gladiator stake bed photo to Barrett-Jackson auction status or "Condition 1" would easily cost $40,000-$60,000 to produce—perhaps even more.
I know that many restored trucks look and allegedly perform "as new", the latter point dubious in my view. I know of only a few shops that "blueprint" build everything like I did. Most restoration shops concentrate on cosmetics and pedantic body issues like whether the door and hood seams have uniform gaps, which the factory seldom accomplished. (This largely satisfies an audience, judges and auctioneers who have limited mechanical skills and take comfort in words like a vehicle's "provenance".) These vehicles, regardless, usually sell for 1/3 of their acquisition and restoration costs.
Note: I'm not talking here about "hobby cars and trucks" that get painted with the dinged and tarnished chrome in place or get powertrain "overhauls" that consist of a valve grind and steam cleaning the engine. I'm talking about true restoration to presumed professional standards, a willingness to restore the vehicle to OEM standards or higher during the restoration process.
It also comes down to "what is your labor worth?" Some individuals will do as much of the restoration as possible, that's the more serious DIY customer for Eastwood Company products and T-P Tools equipment. These owners may sublet only the machining and more complex tasks to pro shops.
Building up four tall bookcases packed with OEM workshop manuals that cover every project undertaken, I was willing to do the research and "textbook level" factory steps for any project that came my way. I restored or rebuilt anything mechanical that came through the shop door, from reconstructing a 1931 Reo Speed Wagon's single cog Ross steering gear (fabricated, heat treated and replaced the cog tooth in the process) to repairing teeth on an obsolete cluster gear during the rebuild of a late 'sixties T89N Ford truck overdrive transmission. I did not have the tooling for certain specialty machining processes, nor a heat treating facility or equipment for high end body and paint work. Those niche processes were sublet.
Note: The Borg-Warner T89N transmission, found in rare 1966-71 Ford F-series trucks equipped with 3-speed overdrive transmissions, has a one-of-a-kind counter/cluster gear. This transmission has no synchromesh on first gear during an era when "straight 3-speed" transmissions had evolved to full synchromesh. Owners and unaware valet drivers tore up the 1st gear cluster teeth by downshifting to first without stopping the vehicle completely...The aftermarket NOS sources for new replacement gears had nothing to offer, FoMoCo had stopped supplying this gear decades ago, and I had to repair the original, damaged gear teeth. Below you can see the "before" and "after" results of a painstaking job that required a series of processes: http://www.4wdmechanix.com/Metallurgy-&-Heat-Treating.html. Often, a cast iron gear case casting is obsolete and flawed or damaged. For examples of cast iron casting repairs on two 'fifties vehicle restoration projects, see this article at the magazine: http://www.4wdmechanix.com/TIG-Welding-Technique.html. There were many projects that required detailed metallurgical processes and TIG welding with custom filler metals that I sourced from Weld Mold Company.
.jpg "Gear repaired by Moses Ludel using heat treating, TIG welding and machining processes")
When subletting becomes the majority of a project, the cost soars. If you can do the heavy lifting yourself, be realistic about what your time is worth. Factor that into the total cost of the restoration. "Labor of love" projects that compete with other time commitments, family demands and even relationships often lose appeal or create a crisis at some point. I've seen the strain on relationships when the checkbook came out to pay for a major rebuilding project that, let's just say, the husband thought was more important than life itself, and the wife cannot understand the project at all. Consider the collateral damage that can occur alongside major automotive or truck restoration projects.
Weigh whether this vehicle is truly a collectable "investment" or not. Search the current market for a properly restored model similar to this FSJ stake body truck. Frankly, the more likely ROI would be the restoration of a rarer J-truck panel body model from that era. In my after school gas station job, I drove a J-panel around briefly, it was hefty and grossly underpowered with the AMC 232 six and a three-speed column shift transmission. Manual steering was extremely slow by modern standards, the only way to manhandle this weighty vehicle. In the mid-'sixties, I didn't know any better and thought it was a great truck!
Try to estimate the return after investing the necessary time and parts in this restoration. Consider the sublet costs and talk to body/paint and machine shops that would do your sublet work. Ask about hourly rates and approximate time and materials for specific sublet work. Overall, be informed before buying any vehicle or beginning the project.
If you have further questions or need more details on this truck or other prospects, I'm here!
Moses
-
Evercloud...If you find an exhaust header source for the TBI 2.5L engine, let us know. I did some research on cylinder head and exhaust manifolds for the 2.5L EFI engines. The 1987-1990 TBI cylinder head is part number 83502487. The 1991-up MPI head is a #33007115. (I can provide casting numbers, too.) The exhaust manifolds also changed with the head redesign. This may explain why I could not find '87-'90 header offerings for 2.5L TBI engines. There may not be enough demand for an earlier style header.
Note: This may also point to a problem converting TBI to MPI. If the MPI injector system requires the later cylinder head, it would be necessary to update the cylinder head as well. The cylinder head gaskets are different by part number, and while this could indicate possible cylinder block differences, the factory replacement short block assembly (fitted block without the head) is the same part number for both 1987-90 and 1991-up 2.5L fours: 04637399. We still need to confirm whether the later head is a "bolt-on" to the earlier block. (As a point of interest, carbureted 2.5L engines use a different cylinder head and exhaust manifold than either of the EFI engines.) Curious where CasualMechanic got with this issue and his findings.
The cold air intake and conical air filter is a gain of sorts with one caution: An open face air cleaner is vulnerable to water exposure. For a Jeep that fords streams, a snorkel system would be advisable with the filter near the vehicle's roof height, typically alongside the windshield. 4x4 engines have been known to "hydro-lock" when a large dose of water gets drawn through the air cleaner. Water entering a running engine can cause piston and connecting rod breakage. The moving rod and piston cannot compress the water!
There were several OEM air filtration systems with grille opening intakes that could suffer from hydro-lock. When the vehicle plunges into a stream and sucks water through the intake air stream and into the cylinders, the result is catastrophic. In the 1980s, Toyota 4x4s and the Ford Bronco II and Ranger pickups were known for this problem.
Jeep developed more isolated air boxes for the Wranglers and XJ Cherokee, upward in the engine compartment with intake ducts pointed away from the water source. The stock YJ and TJ air boxes are good examples of an OEM concern for keeping water from entering the induction system.
Moses
-
David...Regarding the fuel hoses, GenRight must pattern the fuel tank inlet tubes after the 20-gallon Jeep CJ tank. The 20 gallon Jeep CJ-7 fuel tank uses different hoses than the 15 gallon tank that you're replacing. The 20-gallon filler hoses have a stepped sizing to accommodate the differences between the filler neck and tank inlet tube sizes. Looks like you need to get 20-gallon tank stepped-size fuel hoses. Confirm the end sizing on the 20-gallon tank hoses.
Here are the OEM tanks and related components. Note the differences between the 15 and 20 gallon Jeep CJ tank systems:1981 Jeep CJ Fuel Tank and Fillers.pdf
Scroll through the 15 and 20 gallon tank parts listings that cover all 1981-1986 CJ Models.
I'm guessing your new pump and gauge module for a YJ Wrangler is a 1991-95 variety and not for a TBI system (1987-90 2.5L engine). If a stock replacement pump for 1991-95, the pump should produce a peak of at least 75 psi on a two- to three-second (maximum) hose pinch test. These MPI systems rely on a pump that exceeds the regulated pressure.
Note: As for the unregulated fuel flow volume with this pump, the test specification is at least 1 liter of fuel flow per minute. On a Jeep YJ Wrangler chassis with a PCM, fuel flow volume gets tested by disconnecting the fuel supply line near the pressure regulator and safely collecting fuel in a gasoline container while activating the fuel pump with a DRB-III scan tool or an equivalent means. This test requires steady operation of the fuel pump.
The regulator normalizes the pressure to a lower figure (31-39 operating psi in the case of a Jeep YJ Wrangler MPI system) and returns the overage flow (excess pressure and volume) to the fuel tank. Think of this as the pressure and pickup tube/hose size at the supply side dictating the fuel volume or available fuel flow rate. The concern is the needed fuel flow rate (i.e., pressure/volume) for the LS V-8.
So, what's the required operating or regulated pressure of the GM fuel injection? If it's well below 75 psi, you may be okay. If it's close to or in excess of 75 psi, there's an issue. The rail regulator has a preset(s), and this may be either one setting or two. A vacuum diaphragm on the YJ Wrangler MPI regulator actuates a raised pressure setting (39 psi) during cranking. Once the engine starts, the regulated pressure drops to 31 psi at an idle on the YJ Wrangler with MPI.
Note: The signal for the YJ Wrangler MPI pressure regulator is simply manifold vacuum. Manifold vacuum drops under heavy engine loads or at wider throttle settings. This drops the available vacuum apply at the regulator. If the vacuum drop is great enough, the regulator will raise fuel pressure, and this meets the greater fuel flow demanded by a loaded engine. Maximum available psi would be the same as cranking psi: preset to 39 psi and not to exceed 45 psi. A reading beyond 45 psi indicates that the regulator is defective on a Jeep YJ Wrangler MPI system.
Caution: There may also be a recommended "spread" of psi between the regulated pressure and the pump's maximum output. It is likely undesirable for a pump to constantly put out pressure close to its peak. Note that for the stock MPI system on a YJ Wrangler, the 75 psi pump is only expected to deliver 39 psi (actually not in excess of 45 psi regulated pressure). That push back pressure is well below 75 psi.
These fuel pumps are numbered. A typical supplier in the U.S. aftermarket pumps would be Walbro. Bosch and others are in this field, too. Identify the pump manufacturer and the pump part number on the pump. We can research this part number and quickly determine the actual pump rating.
As for the pickup depth in the tank, you want the sock at the correct relationship to the tank floor. Confirm from GenRight where they want the sock to be located. It may be an inch off the floor. You also want the gauge to read accurately for the gallon capacity of the tank. GenRight should be able to confirm whether the module you ordered for a YJ Wrangler will read accurately in the tank size and application they supplied. Share with them the measured depth of the tank and the YJ Wrangler module/sock position in the tank.
I'm curious what ECU, ECM or PCM runs this engine? Does GenRight provide an engine control module (fuel-and-spark management computer) and wiring harness with a schematic to tie into your Jeep CJ-7 chassis electrics? Is this stock GM programming? GenRight modified?
Moses -
Biggman100...Think I've found the issue here. There are two torsion bar ratings available: 1450 and 2000 pound. All V-8s, whether heavy duty suspension or standard suspension, use the 2000# rated torsion bars. The V-6 models with standard suspension rate 1450# torsion bars. There is a heavy duty V-6 suspension option torsion bar, and that bar's rating is 2000 pounds like the V-8 type.
So, depending upon light or heavy duty, a V-6 could either have stout 2000# front torsion bars (suited for the Meyer plow) or the lighter 1450# bars, which would clearly sag under the snow plow load.
Sounds like even though you have a V-8 in the 1995 model, your frame and torsion bars, if they came together, were light duty suspension V-6. At least the torsion bars are light duty V-6 type...
You should be able to install either V-8 or heavy duty V-6 torsion bars and solve the extreme sag. (You'll only have "normal" sag with the Meyer plow installed.) This would meet Meyer's expectation that you need to have "V-8" suspension. Meyer may or may not know that there was a 3.9L V-6 heavy duty suspension option that also uses 2000# rated torsion bars.
Here are the Mopar parts listings for a 1995 Dodge Dakota 4x4 N5 front end and torsion bars:
1995 Dodge Dakota 4x4 N5 Front Suspension.pdf
Here is the listing for a 1991 Dakota 4x4 N5 front end and torsion bars. This is an additional reference and comparison:
1991 Dodge Dakota 4x4 N5 Front Suspension and Torsion Bars.pdf
This should demystify your front end sag with the Meyer plow installed. You need the 2000# rated torsion bars.
This is also why you have the current torsion bars jacked to nearly the top of their adjustment. Likely the 1450# bars are having a hard enough time just supporting the 5.9L engine (likely the same weight as a 5.2L V-8). Changing bars should make a world of difference, and the telling sign will be the need to lower the current adjustment to establish a normal ride height.
Moses
-
Hi, evercloud! Here is a Wikipedia account of the horsepower and torque ratings on the 2.5L TBI versus MPI engine. The carbureted version was used in 1983-86 Jeep CJ models:
AMC 150/2.5 Compression Horsepower Torque:
One-barrel carburetor 9.2:1 105 hp (78 kW; 106 PS) at 5,000 132 lb·ft (179 N·m) at 2,800
Throttle body injection (TBI) 9.2:1 117 hp (87 kW; 119 PS) at 5,000 135 lb·ft (183 N·m) at 3,500
Multi-point fuel injection (MPFI) 9.1:1 120 hp (89 kW; 122 PS) at 5,250 139 lb·ft (188 N·m) at 3,250
There is no account of a 76 kW variant. Perhaps you found a reference to the late 'seventies to 1983 carbureted G.M. 2.5L four (Iron Duke) used in Jeep CJ models. Here is some information on that engine:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_Duke_engine#Hurricane
What I find very interesting is the relatively insignificant horsepower gains one could expect from an MPI conversion on the 2.5L AMC four. In fact, other changes beyond just the MPI improvement could account for the difference between 1984-90 (TBI) and 1991-up (MPI). Worth noting, the MPI 2.5L develops maximum torque at a lower rpm, and the TBI develops maximum horsepower at a lower rpm. Not dramatically different speeds in either case, though.
Both engines need to spin quite fast to develop peak horsepower and torque. I recall this from testing the new TJ Wrangler in 1997, comparing the 4.0L six's performance to the 2.5L four. I wondered why Jeep did not strive for more low-end power in the 2.5L pushrod engine. These higher speed power peaks were the trend for import engines, and Jeep was in step with the competition at least. I found that holding the 2.5L MPI four in lower gears on long grades, just to keep up with traffic, did little for fuel efficiency.
There are a number of upgrade possibilities for the 2.5L TBI engine that would even the horsepower and torque without doing an MPI conversion. Air intake and exhaust improvements, in particular, could make up the horsepower and torque.
So, rather than plunge into an involved MPI conversion or a 2.5L MPI engine swap, I would consider some moderate engine upgrades to the 2.5L TBI setup. One example would be a cold air intake. My son-in-law made the system depicted here from a Honda AEM kit:
.jpg "2.5L four-cylinder engine is an AMC design that shares architecture with the 4.0L inline six and 4.2L.")
For exhaust, I could not turn up an aftermarket header for the 1987-90 2.5L TBI engine. Perhaps another member knows a source. For the '91-up MPI 2.5L, there are several header sources.
For the TBI engine, I would concentrate on a performance catalytic converter and open up the exhaust system with a custom head pipe and smoother flowing pipe to the cat and muffler. Use a performance muffler and a less restrictive, smoother tailpipe.
Here is a Random Technologies lower restriction cat installation on the magazine's 4.0L exhaust system. This provides some ideas:
These basic modifications could be easily "reversed" if necessary. The gains would be measurable and certainly equal to or exceed the stock output of a 2.5L MPI engine.
If the engine is in top condition, turbocharging might be a consideration. There is also some potential gain from a custom grind camshaft; however, a higher rpm torque or horsepower gain would be of less value than the bottom end and mid-range power boost of turbocharging.
Turbocharger boost would have to be very mild at the current 9.2:1 compression. A lower compression ratio would be desirable for turbocharging, and this could be accomplished with either a thicker head gasket height or piston changes.
Moses
-
Paul...You and Tow Trust have gone the distance on this one. It is extraordinary for a company to design, fabricate a prototype, test, enter production and release a certified tow bar product in this short timeframe.
Being on this side of the ocean, I was unfamiliar with Tow Trust and did a quick search. The company recently invested in state-of-the-art "Carlos Test" equipment, indicating a commitment to safety and towing compliance. Here is some information on Tow Trust that came up in my internet search:
Tow Trust Carlos Test Machine.pdf Tow Trust for KJ Cherokee Twitter.pdf
Tow Trust should be applauded for this quick response on behalf of KJ Cherokee owners. I look forward to your update on the Tow Trust tow bar installation on your KJ Cherokee this week. It sounds like the Tow Trust tank-to-tow bar space should satisfy UK VOSA and N46 requirements. If Tow Trust has interpreted the N46 recall as intended, this could also be a sensible business decision for that company.
Most importantly, I would like to know that Jeep JK Cherokee owners at the UK will be able to tow caravans, trailers and horse boxes safely. Once it has been confirmed that the Tow Trust tow bar meets all requirements, please update on your impressions of the tow bar in service and towing your customary loads.
Judging by the candid comments at this topic, the N46 recall at the UK has been a daunting experience. You have been caught in the inertia of both corporate and governmental bureaucracy. While there are still other issues to sort out, the Tow Trust tow bar offers a promising tow solution.
Your goal has been the continued ability to tow with the KJ Cherokee. As several members have stated, many of your vehicles still have plenty of remaining service life. If the Tow Trust solution works, the utility and value of your Jeep KJ Cherokee models will be sustained.
Moses
-
Lions2014...Haven't forgotten this...Tony has been out of reach, still trying to connect...Took the initiative to contact CompCams directly, waiting for a response to that query. Please know that I'm on it...Will update.
Moses
-
60Bubba...If these flanged top lock nuts are sufficient grade, you did fine here. They are available to Grade 8, although some are much lower tensile strength. Take a pic of a nut(s), I'll confirm the Grade. Here is a Fastenal catalog page with a variety of nut type offerings and trade names from lower grades to Grade 5 (F) or Grade G (Grade 8): http://www.fastenal.com/catalog_pages/2009/3-115.pdf.
Top locking steel alloy nuts and flange nuts can be very effective locking fasteners. One caveat is that they should be replaced if tension subsides after the first use. Some replace these nuts with new whenever removed. Also, tensile of the bolt threads should be a near match for the Toplock or equivalent nut. Otherwise, if the bolt is lower tensile strength, the locking portion of the nut can damage the bolt's threads.
The "pinched top" feature is popular for critical applications like axle pinion and transfer case yoke flange nuts. In these applications, the nut gets renewed at each disassembly...On a pinion flange or other critical points under direct load, I also apply Loctite as insurance. For CJ Jeep shock absorber mounts, new top locking fasteners should stay put indefinitely if torqued to specification.
Moses
-
David, I would follow the Novak instructions, they must have tested this approach thoroughly and know the engine's output. The top bead above the frame rail is essential, or the bracket will flex under engine torque.
Not sure what bolts Novak provided here. If bolting the engine mount bracket to the frame, I would prefer a high tensile serrated shoulder ("wheel" type) bolt to help prevent bolt shoulder movement and frame/bracket hole elongation with wobble over time.
Here is a serrated shoulder example in a 3/8-inch stud size for a Polaris ATV: http://www.superatv.com/Polaris-Extended-Wheel-Studs-186-P219.aspx?gclid=CjwKEAiA2dSkBRCX8KmK5YrFviwSJACeYweCBGfrvzww1SxzP6HerEmNqTCdfXCn3a9-i5eXJh0ytxoC7u_w_wcB. These bolt studs may be too long, perhaps the OEM studs would be the right length. If you consider doing this, also check shoulder serration height, must be no taller than the thickness of the frame and bracket, possibly adding the washer thickness if necessary. You get the idea...The serrations would drive into the frame and bracket hole, fitting snugly to prevent movement.
Note: A serrated shoulder bolt is as close to a rivet as you can get with a bolt. For frame and engine brackets, rivets were popular in the day. Weld-in frame/engine mounts are now common. See my article on welded mounts for an inline six swap into a Jeep YJ Wrangler 2.5L YJ chassis: http://www.4wdmechanix.com/MIG-Welding.html. This emulates the factory mounting method in the post-CJ era.
On the AMC/Jeep models, including the CJ-7, Jeep did use bolt-on engine brackets with simpler high tensile bolts and nuts. (You have this OEM hardware from the CJ-7 teardown.) The AMC/CJ Jeep frame has holes to accommodate brackets for inline fours (2.5L Iron Duke and AMC 2.5L), inline sixes (232 and 258/4.2L) and the 304 V-8. So, there is a factory precedent for bolt-on engine mount brackets even though the later Jeep Wranglers each have weld-in mounts that are integral frame members.
I would not use split ring lock washers here. My choice would be Grade 8 flat washers and "Toplock" Grade 8 nuts, all-steel type. (This is not "aircraft nuts" with nylon inserts.) Here's a descriptive, you know these nuts from your John Deere and modern ag equipment repairs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distorted_thread_locknut. These nuts will not vibrate or loosen. They provide a tight, interference fit with the flat washers. For added effect, high tensile Belleville washers could be used as an alternative to the flat washers: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belleville_washer.
Moses
-
Valvetrain noise and rocker arm interference after cylinder head work can be issues on the AMC design engines. Causes can include sluggish oil flow through the hydraulic lifters, the lifters bleeding down, or possibly excess valve/lifter clearance from valvetrain wear. At 200K miles, that's a very real possibility. Another possibility, since you're certain it's not a lower end bearing noise, is a carbon buildup knock (not likely with an MPI engine) or a piston-to-wall clearance issue. Piston skirt wear is likely, too.
It works like this: Pistons naturally expand from heat. There is the normal piston-to-wall clearance to accommodate expansion when new. Over time, the cylinder bore wear creates cylinder "taper" toward the top of the cylinder. The piston skirts also wear. Over time, the cylinders and pistons wear.
Cold, the engine was noisy, the pistons expanded, and for a while, anyway, the engine quieted down when warm. Now, the lifters are clacking, the cylinders are worn, the pistons have worn, and you get the sound effects!
Another noise can be piston pin wear, which causes a double-knock rap...You would notice this clearly as a dominant sound when the engine is unloaded and you tip the throttle in and out. Use of an automotive stethoscope, a copper tube or a piece of PVC tubing can help isolate engine noise. Be aware that these noises will be transmitted widely and very exaggerated while using these sounding probes!
At 200K miles, these engines have done a heroic job tugging a Jeep around. 2.5L models with 4.10:1 axle gears, which make the piston travel extreme over this many miles, wear an engine out sooner. An engine with this kind of mileage needs a suitable burial or rebuild it completely, restoring the short block and cylinder head to OEM specifications with pushrod lengths checked (changed if necessary) for proper valve clearance/lifter preload.
Some want to swap an inline 4.0L six in place of the AMC 2.5L four, and that's not easy. I'd consider a smaller V-8 swap (GM LS 5.3L makes sense) as a practical alternative. The Jeep YJ and TJ Wrangler frames are, for unfathomable reasons, designed specifically for either an inline four or a six-cylinder inline engine. (You can see photos of the motor mounts I fabricated during a 4.0L swap into a 2.5L YJ Wrangler, and frankly, it would have been just as easy to install a hybrid V-8.) Granted, the 4.0L radiator, shroud and transmission locations were straightforward, although a four-cylinder YJ/TJ model uses an AX5 transmission, which would be replaced by a 4.0L's AX15 transmission. Aside from fabricating motor mounts, there would be wiring, cooling, exhaust, the AX15 transmission, 4.0L PCM setup and other changes.
Moses
-
David, this is a really thorough, top drawer restoration and build! The Jeep CJ-7 needed considerable work, and you've not left anything out. Terrific attention to detail and long term preservation measures...
Curious about the Novak engine mounting brackets. I see that you bolted through the OEM bracket holes in the CJ frame. Did Novak recommend the welds as backup? Looks like that would make sense, as these mounts stand above the rails and can use that added support to prevent rocking. The powertrain is awesome and well conceived for this swap.
Thanks much for sharing the detailed photos, please continue, this is an opportunity for others to see what a painstaking restoration and state-of-the-art upgrades can entail. The classic look of a Jeep CJ-7 4x4 is enduring, you are building a legacy 4x4 that your wife and children will value!
Great job, David!
Moses
-
The 1991 axle's ring-and-pinion gear sets are likely the same as later axles. (Compare the part numbers in the parts listings.) The right side axle shafts within the front axle housing would be distinctly different between the 1991 axle with disconnect and any later models without axle disconnect.
Moses
-
Maybe an update available from CasualMechanic here? It would be great to get an overview of how this conversion turned out...
An MPI swap, if practical and manageable from a parts and labor standpoint, would provide some performance gains. In the late 'eighties, when GM stayed with TBI on truck engines, I attended a press launch of the '89 models. I recall a journalist colleague asking a GM engineer why TBI was in place instead of port injection like the GM performance cars. Ford at the time had MPI on its truck engines. The response was interesting, as this engineer was a motorhead and not just a corporate spokesman. His belief was that the use of an intake plenum with a central TBI unit actually produced more torque at a usable "truck" engine speed.
I would argue that the uneven flow of air/fuel in any intake manifold with a central carburetor or TBI is obviously inefficient. When we played with the original "Mopar" EFI conversion* for the 4.2L Jeep inline six, the Electromotive fuel-and-spark system used a Holley TBI unit from an OEM Dodge V-6 application. That system was a big improvement over the BBD carburetor, though the best was clearly yet to come. By the mid-'nineties, Mopar latched onto factory off-the-shelf MPI from the 4.0L inline six and adapted that as the second generation Mopar Performance EFI Conversion for 1981-90 4.2L/258 retrofitting. It was a 50-State legal system and added nearly 60 horsepower to the 4.2L engine with no other changes. This was way beyond the gains of TBI.
*The Electromotive system came into existence in the early 'nineties and is now virtually unknown by most Jeep inline six buffs. It was a bold attempt to improve the 4.2L engine without changing the intake manifold. The TBI had an adapter to the OE BBD two-barrel carburetor intake manifold. Unfortunately, the inline Jeep 4.2L six's stock intake manifold is very inefficient. Flow to the end cylinders is impaired, cylinders were inherently out of balance, and this engine begged for MPI.
On a 2.5L TBI change to MPI, the gains would be proportionate, yet MPI with injection at each port and minimal intake runner length issues is clearly a major gain. As a retrofit, however, MPI from a 1991-up engine, swapped onto a 1987-90 model TBI engine, would have to offer a major incentive, something as serious as TBI parts no longer being available. This conversion is not for the faint of heart. It can take considerable time and thought to sort out each of the distinct differences between these two systems.
CasualMechanic is enthused and objective. I'd really like his input here, as this task, in my view, is anything but simple. The wiring alone would keep one busy for some time.
Moses
-
The switch for controlling the front axle disconnect is at the transfer case. It's signaling the 2WD to 4WD mode change within the transfer case. The transfer case shift triggers the vacuum shift at the front axle. The idea is not bad, although many of the parts involved will wear out or fail over time, especially all of the hoses, which will deteriorate at the underside of a 4x4.
Given the number of Dakotas running around with this vacuum system (through the 1992 Dakota 4x4 models according to the parts listings), it would make sense to encourage Posi-Lok to build a manual shift kit for this application. I'd suggest contacting Posi-Lok. Share this forum topic thread and also note the other forums where owners are clambering for a solution.
As a stop gap and immediate solution for your 1991 Dakota, see if Posi-Lok will determine which parts can be reused from the OEM Dakota actuator assembly and blend with Posi-Lok controls. Like Biggman100 shares, there may be a way to mate off-the-shelf Posi-Lok pieces with your existing parts to make this work.
If the vacuum diaphragm is the issue, another alternative is to identify the vacuum diaphragm maker (look closely at the canister). See if this Dakota diaphragm has any other application in the industry. The canister may be available as a replacement part if that's all you need. There are even ways to rebuild or retrofit a canister...For other hard parts, the Jeep versus Dakota schematics and parts listings that I provided might help. If the shift fork is unique to the Dakota, that's another story.
Another approach, if all other parts are the same in a later Dakota front end, including half shafts, flanges and so forth, is to get a later Dakota front axle center housing assembly with the same axle ratio as your current truck. (Ring-and-pinion gears could be swapped if necessary.) The later non-disconnect axle center housing and axle shafts assembly would eliminate the disconnect problem without the need for a Posi-Lok. Make sure all other parts are compatible and that these later front ends are identical to the 1991 with the exception of the vacuum disconnect feature. Biggman100 may have insight here. Some scrutiny of Dakotas at recycling yards could turn up answers, too.
For comparisons, here is the front axle and axle shaft arrangement on a 1994 (essentially 1993-up) Dodge Dakota 4x4 without an axle shaft disconnect:
1994 Dodge Dakota Front Axle.pdf
Note: What you need to confirm is that the later Dakota 4x4s without the front axle disconnect are entirely the same in other ways. Make sure that the only change in the later Dakota is a front axle housing without a disconnect feature that uses a one-piece right side axle shaft. If this all works, you can strip out the vacuum maze and cap off the transfer case vacuum fittings and switches with vacuum caps. Confirm that you still have a signal for the dash gauge 2WD/4WD mode change lamp.
Explore the feasibility of this simpler solution: Like the 1991 front axle, the later Dakota front axle uses an outer housing end seal for the axle shaft. If the later right side axle shaft and later axle shaft bearing and seal will fit your 1991 axle housing, consider using a later non-disconnect right side axle shaft in place of the OEM two-piece disconnect right side axle shaft. Make sure the later (1993-up) axle shaft's splines, the later axle housing outer seal and the later axle shaft outer bearing will work with your 1991 front axle housing. The overall axle shaft lengths and half-shaft drive flanges must match, too.
If the later right side axle shaft will fit and seal properly, you have "converted" to a non-disconnect front axle. The Actuator assembly could be eliminated completely, you can make a cover plate for the actuator hole in the housing, install a new gasket or use RTV sealant, and mount your new homemade cover plate. A piece of 0.120" steel sheet metal would work well for the cover plate, easy to cut, form and drill the mounting holes. If all this works, strip away the vacuum maze and make sure you still have a dash signal lamp for 2WD/4WD mode. Please share your findings here, and if this will work, document the installation with photos. Many reading this forum topic would benefit from the photos, fit-up steps and part numbers involved!
Biggman100, I'm curious what the parts view in the right photo represents. The vacuum canister and shaft look new, the housing and fork, too. Are these Posi-Lok parts for a full-size Ram or a Jeep?
Moses
-
Please clarify which Jeep model you have...There are a variety of OE and aftermarket options here...Welcome to these forums, WrangleDangle! Provide more details, you'll get a useful response.
Moses
-
Hendogg...I'm pleased to see you join and participate at these forums...Welcome! Thanks for sharing these valuable insights for Dakota truck owners interested in a hemi V-8 swap!
Moses
Trail Welding and Emergency 4x4 Repairs
in Welding and Metal Fabrication Forum
Posted
One of the popular HD videos at the magazine website and the magazine's YouTube offerings is a field repair welding job at Moab, Utah during the 2012 Jeep Safari. We were at the "Rose Garden" trail on a typically fun Warn Industries media run. I happened to be riding passenger side in a Jeep TJ Wrangler whose owner was the trail boss and a fellow Warn friend. My role was filming, and the lead vehicle was a good place to ride.
About 2/3rds of the way up this rock ledged step trail, I was outside the vehicle filming when the steering tie-rod on the TJ Wrangler snapped. The next angle for the camcorder was to film several guys repairing the tie-rod. Front and center was Larry Nickell of Crawl Magazine fame. Other friends from Mopar contributed a pair of Dollar Store quality open end wrenches to the cause.
Larry and the Crawl crew whipped the Ready Welder from their rig, removed the battery from the vehicle and went about welding the two open end wrenches to the tie-rod tube. The repair was essentially a "splint" rather than just butt welding the broken tube ends together. A butt surface weld without beveling would surely fail, a dangerous prospect for a steering linkage safety part like a tie-rod. Here is the video:
Caution: Welding steering linkage is not advised under any condition other than to get a vehicle safely off the trail to a point where a proper parts replacement can be made. Welding can deform or remove hardening from parts, leaving softer, lower tensile metal in its wake. This repair shown was clearly an emergency. The vehicle was otherwise blocking the trail and would have needed a new tie-rod. Moab was a long, 20-mile trip away. The rough terrain hike to the main road was at least four miles in blustery weather.
See how this trail fix saved that day. Did it hold? I rode back to town as a passenger after this 4x4 had negotiated the rest of the Rose Garden with the repaired tie-rod. It did work! At town, a replacement tie-rod was installed the next day.
Share your trail welding experiences! I have another one from the Rubicon Trail and a Wheelers for the Wounded outing—our group's Ready Welder became the tool used to fixed a stranger's Jeep that had lost its steering—the mounting bracket had broken, shearing the steering gear from the frame...
Moses