From owner-xj-digest-at-digest.net Sun Aug 7 22:30:21 2005 From: xj-digest xj-digest Monday, August 8 2005 Volume 01 : Number 2147 Forum for Discussion of XJ cherokees and wagoneers Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: Re: xj: RE: Master cylinder replacement suggestions xj: ZJ turbo diesel Re: xj: heading to the airport... Re: xj: ZJ turbo diesel Re: xj: terrible time (the real one) plus another question Re: xj: terrible time (the real one) plus another question XJ Digest Home Page: http://www.digest.net/jeep/xj/ Send submissions to xj-digest-at-digest.net Send administrative requests to xj-digest-request-at-digest.net To unsubscribe, include the word unsubscribe by itself in the body of the message, unless you are sending the request from a different address than the one that appears on the list. Include the word help in a message to xj-digest-request to get a list of other majordomo commands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 21:30:16 -0700 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: Re: xj: RE: Master cylinder replacement suggestions A: I have sold several regular master/booster combos with the prop valve to people doing just that. From: "Carl Norman" Subject: xj: RE: Master cylinder replacement suggestions Well the bendix ABS system is finally failing on my 1990 XJ. It started yesterday when I suddenly lost all pressure right as I was coming into my parking space. It has gotten gradually worse I lost the brakes twice today and tonight they were extremely squishy coming home. by the time I got home I had to push them all the way in to get the system to lock the brakes up. So I am going to be replacing the bendix system with a dual diafram booster master cylinder and proportioning valve from a 96 xj without ABS. This is going to be my first time doing this so any advice would be greatly appreciated. From what I have read and heard it should be almost a straight swap, requiring me to replace the front driver's side brake line and carefully bending the others to fit them properly. I will also be getting the 96 brake pedal. Thanks in advance and wish me luck I have sunday and monday to do this then I have to be back at school and work. - - -Carl ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 14:50:49 -0500 From: "Allen Zylstra" Subject: xj: ZJ turbo diesel http://www.canev.com/Jeep.html This looks like a nice install. Too bad the Isuzu diesel is tough to get cheap. He also is converting a Dakota. Allen ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 15:12:35 -0500 From: Tom Moulder Subject: Re: xj: heading to the airport... 5 mp is probably a happy medium for image quality, price and the usage of most photographers that just want to email things, make post cards, or the occasional enlargement. But I've owned a Nikon F3, F4, F100 and may even consider the F6, as to me digital isn't quite there - though the Canon EOS-1DS Mark II or Kodak DCS Pro offerings are probably the closest so far. But I'm not in the $8000 camera market. I am a graphic artist/photographer looking for a camera that doesn't require carrying around a case full of lenses and accessories. A few memory cards, spare battery pack, and off I would go. I thought Sony's idea of the camera that recorded directly to CD's was a good idea, but must not have been too successful - probably to slow. To me, analog will always rule over digital as far as initial quality - the main advantage of digital is that it is consistent over time and each copy is exactly the same as the original. For the quality I need, I figured out that I would need something in the 25 mp range. Hasselblad has a 22 mp for $22k and Mamiya has a 22 mp 35mm, but it's not available yet and I'm sure the price is just as astronomical. But I think the Panasonic will do for a large variety of needs. Hard to beat a Leica lens - which is really the thing to consider in any camera - it's the lens more than the electronics. Of course I could wait for the Samsung Digimax Pro 815 (8mp w/15x zoom)... But that's just my opinion and I could be wrong ;-) john wrote: >On Sat, 6 Aug 2005, Tom Moulder wrote: > > > >>-->It's at the top of my list for a digital camera with fixed lens - I'd >>-->probably go with Canon if I really wanted to get back into all the >>-->lenses and attachments. How does your neighbor like theirs? Where did >>-->they get it? The only thing that scares me is that soon after I finally >>-->get it, there will be an 8mp version coming out... >> >> > >anything over 4 or 5 megapixels is overkill for the average user. >I can make nice 11x16's... with 6 you can make 16x24 > >I'll take a look at his Lumix system tomorrow... > >john > > > >>--> >>-->john wrote: >>--> >>-->>On Fri, 5 Aug 2005, Tom Moulder wrote: >>-->> >>-->> >>-->> >>-->>>-->Beautiful Shots - did you use a Lumix? I saw you took a couple of shots of >>-->>>-->them in the window - surprising there is virtually no price advantage. Looks >>-->>>-->very crowded, yet clean there. >>-->>> >>-->>> >>-->> >>-->>yes, very clean, no, no price advantage... my neigbhor bought one >>-->>already here for almost 100 bucks less... >>-->> >>-->>john >>-->> >>-->> >>--> >>-->-- >>-->tm/Houston >>-->Blessed is the man who knows he has nothing to say and abstains from giving us wordy evidence of the fact. >>-->88 Toyota Supra / 85 Jeep Cherokee >>--> >> >> > > ---- > >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ** http://JohnMeister.com **** http://wagoneers.com ** > Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold > ** http://freegift.net *** http://greatcom.org/laws/languages.html ** >------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > - -- tm/Houston Blessed is the man who knows he has nothing to say and abstains from giving us wordy evidence of the fact. 88 Toyota Supra / 85 Jeep Cherokee ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 13:36:35 -0700 (PDT) From: john Subject: Re: xj: ZJ turbo diesel cool. I'm dropping a 6.2L Diesel into my '83 J10 Stepside... john On Sun, 7 Aug 2005, Allen Zylstra wrote: >-->http://www.canev.com/Jeep.html This looks like a nice install. Too bad >-->the Isuzu diesel is tough to get cheap. He also is converting a Dakota. >-->Allen >--> ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** http://JohnMeister.com **** http://wagoneers.com ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold ** http://freegift.net *** http://greatcom.org/laws/languages.html ** - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:35:05 -0500 From: jayers-at-pctcnet.net Subject: Re: xj: terrible time (the real one) plus another question I haven't been following all this, but if you are putting a '99 engine in a '89 and you want to use the '99 wiring/fuel and such, you will need to change everything to the '99 setup. I think you are probably better off to use the '99 engine, but use the fuel management system/engine management system from the '89. The '99 has a totally different gas tank with a totally different fuel pump. They have to go together. It turns into a real mess with computer wiring and all that jazz. Just a couple cents worth of input. Jeff Jesse Barbieri wrote: >I am not sure if it had a dana. I took the pinion yoke with the driveshaft, >and it was way too big to fit in my dana44. It very well could have been a >2dr, but I am almost certain it was a 4dr. I can always check when I go >back there. I still need a couple items from the '99 xj that I took the >engine from to put in my '89 xj. By the way, the '99 4.0 only has one fuel >line to the fuel rail and my '89 4.0 had two lines...one sending and one >returning. I have read that the '99 has the fuel regulator in the fuel pump >assembly. So my question is should I take the fuel sending unit from the >'99 xj or should I take the entire tank? > >The '89 xj is coming along well. I will put a writeup (I mean atleast the >progress that I have made so far) on my site when I get a chance. I have a >little thing about my '94 acura integra if anybody is interested. It is >http://jessebarbieri.tripod.com but like any other site I have tried to >make it doesn't have any pretty backgrounds. > >Jesse. > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Jim Blair" >To: >Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:01 PM >Subject: Re: xj: terrible time (the real one) plust a question > > > > >>A: Different motor/tcase config or different rear axle. D35 shafts are a >> >> >bit > > >>longer than 8 1/4" and D44 shafts due to the shorter pinion. Cherokee 2 dr >>and 4 dr are slightly different as well. >> >> >>From: "Jesse Barbieri" >>Subject: Re: xj: terrible time (the real one) plust a question >> >>Good news! My terrible time turned into a real terrible time, and then >> >> >into > > >>a great time! It all started when my sister came over here, and we looked >>at the jeep for a while. We tried and eventually succeeded at removing >> >> >the > > >>four bolts out of the old rear yoke. Too bad the old yoke did not work >> >> >when > > >>I realized again that one of the u-joint cap ears has broken off. So, I >>took my new U-bolt style yoke and tapped it onto the pinion and then used >>the nut to push it down further. Awesome, it went on! >> >>The last time I really used the '87, the rear driveshaft fell out and >> >> >broke. > > >>So I went to the junk yard and got a new one. The new one is longer, but >>new I find that is a good thing. The old driveshaft had about 2.5" of >> >> >yoke > > >>sticking out of the transfer case. This new driveshaft is long enough to >>have almost .5" of yoke sticking out of the transfer case. I noticed >> >> >there > > >>are zero rear end vibrations now. I used to think that there weren't any >>before with my old driveshaft, but wow what a difference. >> >>Now my question is why is that driveshaft longer? It came out of an xj, >>pretty sure it was an '88. I even kept the slipyoke on the old drieshaft. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 01:19:22 -0400 From: "Jesse Barbieri" Subject: Re: xj: terrible time (the real one) plus another question Jeff, All the terrible work has already been done. I completely stripped the '89 under the hood, added the engine, and changed the '99 wire harness so the '99 engine still retains all its controls except for the tranny, cruise, and torque converter lockup. I kept the '89 A/C because it is still R-12 and it has great pressure. I must have spent a week doing the wiring. So the only way for me to complete this project is to use the tank from the '99 XJ or try and fit the fuel sending unit/regulator into my original tank. I imagine that the tanks share the same dimensions. On day 1 it looked like my jeep vomited all its wires out. Jesse. - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2005 10:35 PM Subject: Re: xj: terrible time (the real one) plus another question > I haven't been following all this, but if you are putting a '99 engine > in a '89 and you want to use the '99 wiring/fuel and such, you will need > to change everything to the '99 setup. I think you are probably better > off to use the '99 engine, but use the fuel management system/engine > management system from the '89. The '99 has a totally different gas > tank with a totally different fuel pump. They have to go together. It > turns into a real mess with computer wiring and all that jazz. Just a > couple cents worth of input. Jeff > > Jesse Barbieri wrote: > > >I am not sure if it had a dana. I took the pinion yoke with the driveshaft, > >and it was way too big to fit in my dana44. It very well could have been a > >2dr, but I am almost certain it was a 4dr. I can always check when I go > >back there. I still need a couple items from the '99 xj that I took the > >engine from to put in my '89 xj. By the way, the '99 4.0 only has one fuel > >line to the fuel rail and my '89 4.0 had two lines...one sending and one > >returning. I have read that the '99 has the fuel regulator in the fuel pump > >assembly. So my question is should I take the fuel sending unit from the > >'99 xj or should I take the entire tank? > > > >The '89 xj is coming along well. I will put a writeup (I mean atleast the > >progress that I have made so far) on my site when I get a chance. I have a > >little thing about my '94 acura integra if anybody is interested. It is > >http://jessebarbieri.tripod.com but like any other site I have tried to > >make it doesn't have any pretty backgrounds. > > > >Jesse. > > > >----- Original Message ----- > >From: "Jim Blair" > >To: > >Sent: Tuesday, August 02, 2005 6:01 PM > >Subject: Re: xj: terrible time (the real one) plust a question > > > > > > > > > >>A: Different motor/tcase config or different rear axle. D35 shafts are a > >> > >> > >bit > > > > > >>longer than 8 1/4" and D44 shafts due to the shorter pinion. Cherokee 2 dr > >>and 4 dr are slightly different as well. > >> > >> > >>From: "Jesse Barbieri" > >>Subject: Re: xj: terrible time (the real one) plust a question > >> > >>Good news! My terrible time turned into a real terrible time, and then > >> > >> > >into > > > > > >>a great time! It all started when my sister came over here, and we looked > >>at the jeep for a while. We tried and eventually succeeded at removing > >> > >> > >the > > > > > >>four bolts out of the old rear yoke. Too bad the old yoke did not work > >> > >> > >when > > > > > >>I realized again that one of the u-joint cap ears has broken off. So, I > >>took my new U-bolt style yoke and tapped it onto the pinion and then used > >>the nut to push it down further. Awesome, it went on! > >> > >>The last time I really used the '87, the rear driveshaft fell out and > >> > >> > >broke. > > > > > >>So I went to the junk yard and got a new one. The new one is longer, but > >>new I find that is a good thing. The old driveshaft had about 2.5" of > >> > >> > >yoke > > > > > >>sticking out of the transfer case. This new driveshaft is long enough to > >>have almost .5" of yoke sticking out of the transfer case. I noticed > >> > >> > >there > > > > > >>are zero rear end vibrations now. I used to think that there weren't any > >>before with my old driveshaft, but wow what a difference. > >> > >>Now my question is why is that driveshaft longer? It came out of an xj, > >>pretty sure it was an '88. I even kept the slipyoke on the old drieshaft. ------------------------------ End of xj-digest V1 #2147 *************************