Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 08:46:57 -0400 (EDT) From: GypsyLive-at-aol.com Subject: Re: 80+ lbs of oil pressure? In a message dated 97-05-15 08:32:26 EDT, you write: > Anyone know why a once healthy oil pressure gauge just goes beserk one day > and upon ignition goes from 0 to an 80+ reading in 1.2 seconds? Maybe if > someone can just point me to where the oil pressure wire is connected I can > start from there. > > Thanks! > The wire is probably touching the frame or engine somewhere , it connects to the sending unit ( brass colored cylinder above the oil filter, about the size of a short tomato paste can) ( sheesh bad reference...) You may be able to see it from the top of the engine compartment, but its easier to get to from under neath ( just like your changeing the oil filter) and Its righ above the oil filter... the wire is on the end, with a spade connector... there isnt usually much slack to work with... hope you get it worked out![Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:08:41 -0400 (EDT) From: GypsyLive-at-aol.com Subject: Re: U-Joint help In a message dated 97-05-15 03:04:41 EDT, you write: > Need some more help. I was going to put in new U-joints tonight, but > when I go to remove the old ones I find that the bolts holding them to > the yoke are weird. They look like a reverse torx bolt. Not a star > shaped hole, but a star shaped head. Nothing in my tool chest would fit. > A 6-point 1/4 socket is too big and a 7/32 is too small. Anybody know > what these things are called so I can buy a wrench/socket to fit? > > Jeff Herbst > 1982 Wagoneer LTD > Texas > I bought that tool at autozone, but You can probably get it any where...the strip off really easy by the way, I replaced most of mine with 5/16 cap screws ( the dealor has the only ones I found to fit those straps, and they arent really cheap.. but I found that once they get some grease on tehm , its really hard to keep from strippin ghtenm off, I figure after a few more years of service ill have all those stupid TORX things removed from my CHEROKEE[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:29:04 -0400 (EDT) From: GypsyLive-at-aol.com Subject: Re: Matt getting the shaft... MasterDan & Tom, question... In a message dated 97-05-15 08:59:19 EDT, you write: > Matt, (I hope that's your name... my memory went long before my hair > did...:-) > > Anyway, did you give Performance Jeep a call and ask, drat I forgot > his name... Tom, who was it you talked to? Mike or Dave???? > Anyway, 1-800-Pro-Jeep... > Yes I called them John, nice guys but, they want $100 more than the CHRYSLER DEALORSHIP for that part!! i think I found the axle in California somewhere, the computerized salvage hotlinefound it for me... It will be here in a few days, shipping included ( to my door) $125 I JUST HOPE ITS THE RIGHT PART! the guy knew it was an amc model, 20, and he knew it was a widetrack 9 model 17) so hopefully fingers cossed VERY TIGHTLTY!! Thanks for all your help John! Matt[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 08:46:08 -0500 From: Jeff Herbst <JeffHerbst-at-electrosys.com> Subject: RE: AMC 390 a ford? > >> The Ford FE is a heavy skirted, old engine design, that never used >>individual rocker arms. The FE is also the proud possessor of the >>strangest intake manifold design in history... the pushrod tubes go >>through the intake manifold, which overlaps the heads, under the valve >>covers. So as an example to do an intake swap on a Ford FE block you >have >>to pull the valve covers, the rocker arms, the front cover, etc, etc, etc... Doc, You are right on target! As I said I once was the owner of a Ford 390. (High School!) I started with a 2V, changed briefly to a 3x2V then to a 4V. It was a royal pain to change intake manifolds. I didn't know that the 429 and 460 were off the 'Cleveland' block and did I hear you right, AMC made a 390? Jeff Herbst 1982 Wagoneer LTD Texas > > > > > > >[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:50:27 -0400 From: Dean Morgan <dean-at-onyxgroup.com> Subject: 360 .030 over C.I.D. Does anyone know what the displacement is of a 360 bored .030 over and how much horsepower is added ? Dean Morgan '79 Wagoneer Washington D.C.[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:52:00 -0400 (EDT) From: Sheppard1-at-aol.com Subject: $$Ca. gas On the Monterey Peninsula here, we're paying $1.47 per gal.!!! I get to drive the car to work...after that lil Honda we had, we went into mild shock when we first got our gas bill, but now we just work it into the budget and don't go out quite as often..(on Friday nights we just meet out in the garage):-) Karen Shepppard 89 Gw[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:01:14 -0500 From: Jeff Herbst <JeffHerbst-at-electrosys.com> Subject: RE: Been gone a while.. >Also.. I am looking at re-building the engine this summer. What kind a $$$ >am I looking at here. I will probably do most of the wrench turning myself >(me and my hack friends) I am looking at a budget of < $2000. That would >include: new cam, carb, and intake manifold (Edelbrock set, $500), headers >($100), and other basic rebuild components ($500 and up? or maybe less...) > Is this reasonable or overkill? Comments or questions? > John, I just finished most everything you mentioned. Here is a breakdown: Engine rebuild: $1600 - New pistons(0.40 over),rings, bearings,lifters. reground cam and crank. All work done by Eagle Engine. Edelbrock T.E.S. Headers $379. - These have all smog fittings, I did the install. Edelbrock 1400 600cfm 4V $249 Edelbrock Performer intake $229 Edelbrock fast idle A/C kit $49 Again I did the install Flowmaster 3" muffler $89 3" catalytic, tailpipe and installation $219 New air injector valves(2) $45 New vapor canister $80 New vac hoses $20 The engine runs FAR better than new, with still <2000 miles I don't have good data for MPG yet but it is going up weekly. Before rebuild around 8 in the city. After rebuild but before carb, intake and headers 9. Now around 12. Haven't had a highway trip yet but expect one in 2 weeks I'll post MPG results. Jeff Herbst 1982 Wagoneer >Texas[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:20:51 -0500 From: Jeff Herbst <JeffHerbst-at-electrosys.com> Subject: RE: 360 .030 over C.I.D. > >Does anyone know what the displacement is of a 360 bored .030 over and >how much horsepower is added ? > Look up the bore and stroke and the manual. Add 0.30 to the bore. Multiply the new bore x 3.14(pi) x stroke x 8. I calculated my 360 bored 0.40 over at 366.something. Have no idea if there is anyway to calculate horsepower gains by size. I don't think it works that way! Jeff Herbst >1982 Wagoneer LTD >Texas >[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 08:17:14 -0600 (MDT)
From: Brian Riggs <Brian.Riggs-at-genetics.utah.edu>
Subject: gas prices
On Wed, 14 May 1997, Sc0 wrote:
>
> > Need to move down south....gas just went to .94 cent a gallon for regular
> > unleaded....
> > Yippeeeeeeee I can drive my huggie diaper machine again....BTW 5-7 mpg... :(
> > named that due to baby blue paint....
> > Billy
> > 79,80
> > J10
>
> .94?
>
> Houston.........$1.11, (they like to make more money...)
>
Salt Lake City....$1.38
Brian
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
| briggs-at-genetics.utah.edu | Web Page Development UtahFWDA |
| justbr-at-aol.com | Storm Mountain 4X4 SLC Ut |
| Salt Lake City, Utah | Red Rock 4Wheelers Moab Ut |
|-------------------------------------------------------------|
|'79 Wide Trac Cherokee Chief S: AMC 360, T18, Dana20, Dana 44|
|front and rear with 4.56 gears & Lock-Rites, 35" BFG M/Ts, 4"|
|SkyJacker SoftRide Lift, Some rust, And lots of dents. =8) |
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
[Back to Top]Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:43:27 -0400
From: "Dennis M. \"Doc\" Fariello" <fariello-at-inspace.net>
Subject: turbo 400 probs?
>
>first it's already in first
>second around 35mph
>third around 50mph
> it used to be
> second 15mph
> third 35mph
> What can it be?
> (type F transmission fluid)
>
>And how does it shift? (when mine shifts, it jerks you...)
If you're using type F tranny fluid, that would indeed possibly be the
route of your problems. THE ONLY TRANSMISSIONS THAT USE TYPE F ARE PRE-82
FORDS, GENTLEMEN! I'm not exactly sure of the year, but ALL the AOD and
newer Ford trannies use Dexron. The last Ford trannies to use type F were
the C-6, C-4, Jatco, and the like. Matter of fact, the later C-6s also use
Dexron.
DO NOT USE TYPE F TRANNY FLUID, GUYS!
Now... to fix your existing problem. If you've only been refilling
(topping it off) with type F, no biggie. If you rebuilt it and used Type
F, that's a different story.
Get some Dexron in there, change the fluid and filter, adjust the bands.
You should be ok. Might also want to check your vacuum modulator, that has
a BIG effect on shift points and harshness. Sounds like yours is adjusted
a bit too late (most are adjustable). If you adjust it to shift earlier,
the shifts will also smooth out.
A note: hard shifting is NOT a sign of a problem, necessarily. Nor is it
hard on the tranny. Matter of fact, the opposite is true. The long,
smooth, dragged out shifts is what eats bands and clutches.
|
|
| |
| ============= |
0_| / \ |_o
|_|_____----+-----____|_|
|====|=====|=====|====|
||____|_____|_____|____||
\_____|___|DOC|___|_____/
|\/\/|--------\_/--|\/\/|
______|\/\/|_____________|\/\/|______
Home of the "Bottomless Transfer Case"
_____________________________________
email: fariello-at-inspace.net
http://www.inspace.net/~fariello/fsj
_____________________________________
[Back to Top]Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:48:54 -0400
From: "Dennis M. \"Doc\" Fariello" <fariello-at-inspace.net>
Subject: wierd bolts
Gee, I'm surprised we never talked about this before... If I remember
correctly, it takes a normal 5/16" 12-point socket to fit.
>
>Need some more help. I was going to put in new U-joints tonight, but
>when I go to remove the old ones I find that the bolts holding them to
>the yoke are weird. They look like a reverse torx bolt. Not a star
>shaped hole, but a star shaped head. Nothing in my tool chest would fit.
>A 6-point 1/4 socket is too big and a 7/32 is too small. Anybody know
>what these things are called so I can buy a wrench/socket to fit?
|
|
| |
| ============= |
0_| / \ |_o
|_|_____----+-----____|_|
|====|=====|=====|====|
||____|_____|_____|____||
\_____|___|DOC|___|_____/
|\/\/|--------\_/--|\/\/|
______|\/\/|_____________|\/\/|______
Home of the "Bottomless Transfer Case"
_____________________________________
email: fariello-at-inspace.net
http://www.inspace.net/~fariello/fsj
_____________________________________
[Back to Top]Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:54:41 -0400
From: "Dennis M. \"Doc\" Fariello" <fariello-at-inspace.net>
Subject: re: I'm Kronking Mad
>Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 01:21:13 -0400
>From: Zack Heisey <moosh-at-redrose.net>
>Subject: I am Kronking Mad
>
>Telnet is kronking kronk. I just spent a kronking hour typing all this
>kronk into this kronking computer so I could finally have my own
>kronking web kronking page, and just as I was about to save it the last
>kronking time, kronk, the kronking modem kronking disconnects, and I
>loose the kronking telnet kronking link. I'm so mad I could kronk. I
>saved throughout, but there's a big section at the end that's kronking
>gone. Please, no smart kronking comments, just needed to vent. Thank
>you, that is all.
Are you kidding, Zack? With that excellent, creative, and most proper
usage of the word "Kronk", you should be rewarded! <grin>. Conan would be
proud.... <sniff>
|
|
| |
| ============= |
0_| / \ |_o
|_|_____----+-----____|_|
|====|=====|=====|====|
||____|_____|_____|____||
\_____|___|DOC|___|_____/
|\/\/|--------\_/--|\/\/|
______|\/\/|_____________|\/\/|______
Home of the "Bottomless Transfer Case"
_____________________________________
email: fariello-at-inspace.net
http://www.inspace.net/~fariello/fsj
_____________________________________
[Back to Top]Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:58:22 -0400
From: "Dennis M. \"Doc\" Fariello" <fariello-at-inspace.net>
Subject: midland?
where on earth did you come up with that, John? It's MODIFIED. The 351M
is a 400 block (335 series, "Cleveland"), with the 351 WINDSOR crank and
attendant smaller main bearing journals. It also has what must be the
longest rods ever used in a gasoline passenger car engine. It's an
over-smogged, under-efficient, hermaphrodite of an engine that's sole
intent and purpose for existance was to meet the demand for 351s that the
Windsor plant couldn't keep up with. The original 351C was a MUCH better
engine, but was so "dirty" emissions-wise, that they had to kill it.
Anybody figger out that anything about Ford engines I'm gonna contribute
to? <grin>.
|
|
| |
| ============= |
0_| / \ |_o
|_|_____----+-----____|_|
|====|=====|=====|====|
||____|_____|_____|____||
\_____|___|DOC|___|_____/
|\/\/|--------\_/--|\/\/|
______|\/\/|_____________|\/\/|______
Home of the "Bottomless Transfer Case"
_____________________________________
email: fariello-at-inspace.net
http://www.inspace.net/~fariello/fsj
_____________________________________
[Back to Top]Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:17:07 -0400
From: "Dennis M. \"Doc\" Fariello" <fariello-at-inspace.net>
Subject: More about Ford engines
Landon, thanks for the reply... I LIKE talking Ford... <grin>. If this
gets to be too much for you guys (hey, we let the Buick stuff go on for a
while, didn't we?), I'll be happy to take it off the list.
>Ah..No you don't have to pull the front t-cover to change the intake.
>Also, have you ever looked at the current Cadillac 4.1 & 4.5 V-8s? they
>use the
>same intake layout as the FE Ford!
You're absolutely right... the front cover doesn't even go anywhere near
the front of the intake manifold, it's WAY below it. I had forgotten that.
When you said that, it reminded me of when I plugged a vacuum leak (bad
front intake manifold end seal) on the ex-390 with a rag.
I didn't know the Northstar engines used that same funky arrangement...
yuck <grin>. Although it did indeed work, and work well... <shrug>
>> The Ford FE is still to this day in production, in Ford's medium
truck
>> line, presently it's 332 cubic inches. The casting number on the block
>> used to this day is for a 1967 352 inch motor.
>>
> The above statment I don't believe is true now. I think they are
>currently using versions of the 385 series engines, I'll have to do some
>more research on this one.
Not to my knowledge. Then again, last time I checked was in about '94.
At that time I didn't even know they had gone down to 332, before that it
had been a 370.
>> Displacements, if I can remember them all, were 332, 352, 360,
361, 390,
>> 391, 406, 410, 427, 428, 430, and 462 in various car and light truck lines.
>>
> The 430 & 462 are MEL engines NOT FE.
MEL engines using FORD casting and parts. Still FEs. The 410 is also a
MEL. The MEL denotes those engines never used in Fords per se. But
they're STILL FEs.
> A .030 over 427 FE with a 428 FE crank will give you 454.46ci
When was the last time you saw "advertised" size match actual
displacement? Examples: 351C is 347CID. So nice try <grin>. But you
may be right, it's been well over 10 years since I memorized all this neat
Ford trivia, and even longer since I built that truck engine. I seem to
recall it was actually something like 458. I dunno.
> The 462 was use from 1966 to 1968 when the 460 came out in '68 1/2.
Ok, thanks. I couldn't remember when the 460 came out, I thought it was
more around '71.
> The MEL engines came in 383, 410, 430, and 462 ci.
Hmm, ok... don't remember the 383.
Landon, you may indeed be right about the MEL engines not being FEs, I'll
have to investigate that further (I hate it when I change my opinion in the
middle of a message... <grin>). I used to know ALL the different
combinations, what engine used what crank, what bore, etc... I KNOW I've
got it written down in the back of some book somewhere...
AHA, found some info:
The 429 came out in 68 1/2, the 460 didn't appear till '72!
The full list of displacements for the FE series, including MEL engines
that used the FE block.
330 (industrial/medium truck)
332
352
360
361 (industrial/medium truck)
370 (industrial/medium truck)
390
391 (industrial/medium truck)
406 (MEL)
410 (MEL)
427
428
430 (MEL)
462 (MEL)
I can't find any reference to a 383 displacement ever offered by any Ford
division, but then again, my knowledge of the other lines is kind of limited.
|
|
| |
| ============= |
0_| / \ |_o
|_|_____----+-----____|_|
|====|=====|=====|====|
||____|_____|_____|____||
\_____|___|DOC|___|_____/
|\/\/|--------\_/--|\/\/|
______|\/\/|_____________|\/\/|______
Home of the "Bottomless Transfer Case"
_____________________________________
email: fariello-at-inspace.net
http://www.inspace.net/~fariello/fsj
_____________________________________
[Back to Top]Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:36:41 -0400 (EDT) From: GypsyLive-at-aol.com Subject: Re: AMEN In a message dated 97-05-15 10:15:29 EDT, you write: > > Or all the differences in the Ford 351's!!! Windsor, Cleveland or > Midland??? :-) > Why is it that somefolks call these motors ( 351 Midland ( 351 M)) 351 Modified? ive had that little argument also...[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 07:57:09 -0700 From: Tom Anhalt <tanhalt-at-earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Matt getting the shaft... MasterDan & Tom, question... john meister wrote: > > > Matt, (I hope that's your name... my memory went long before my hair > did...:-) > > Anyway, did you give Performance Jeep a call and ask, drat I forgot > his name... Tom, who was it you talked to? Mike or Dave???? > Anyway, 1-800-Pro-Jeep... I had talked to Mike, I believe. > > BTW, Tom, did your stuff arrive ok??? Actually, that motor mount hasn't arrived yet. I've been to busy to notice, though. I think I'll give them a call today a find out the scoop. Tom Anhalt '81 Cherokee Laredo[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 11:13:11 -0400 From: Zack Heisey <moosh-at-redrose.net> Subject: Re: Henry w/ 62-72 FSJ Herny, Yeah, about that. The book is about 4 inches thick, so copying cost are pretty high because of the sheer volumn, and then there's shipping. I'll add you to the list. Thanks, Zack 68 Wagoneer wrote: > > Cool. I'm interested. Is that an estimate of $50 each copy? > > ======================================= > Henry Padilla > '68 Jeep Wagoneer > Buick 350 thoughtfully installed by Kaiser > jeepwagoneer-at-gyral.com > > ---------- > > From: Zack Heisey <moosh-at-redrose.net> > > To: Multiple recipients of <fsj-list-at-listserver.tehabi.com> > > Subject: Henry w/ 62-72 FSJ > > Date: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 9:01 PM > > > > Henry, > > Yes, all J-series models that were produced 62-72. > > Z. > > > > 68 Wagoneer wrote: > > > > > > Yeah, will that cover a Wag as well as a J-truck? > > > > > > ======================================= > > > Henry Padilla > > > '68 Jeep Wagoneer > > > Buick 350 thoughtfully installed by Kaiser > > > jeepwagoneer-at-gyral.com > > > > > > ---------- > > > > From: ck1-at-pacbell.net > > > > To: Multiple recipients of <fsj-list-at-listserver.tehabi.com> > > > > Subject: Re: Anyone w/ 62-72 FSJ > > > > Date: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 7:04 AM > > > > > > > > Hello Zack... I have a 1970 Wagoneer 1414C. If this model is > > > > included in what you have - I'm interested... > > > > > > > > On 1997-05-14 moosh-at-redrose.net said: > > > > > > > > >As some of you already know, I have stumbled across an original > copy > > > > >of a 62-72 J-series Jeep Parts Manual. Like the other parts > manual, > > > > >I am going to get it reprinted for the list if there is > sufficient > > > > >interest. I already have three people interested, and I would > like > > > > >to find out if there are any more. A ballpark price for this > will > > > > >probably be around $50 give or take. This book isn't quite as > > > > >thick as the 74-80 'cuz it dosen't have any CJ crap. If you are > > > > >interested, you don't have to commit to anything, I would just > like > > > > >to know a general number. If we can get around 10 people, the > > > > >price would be cheaper. Let me know. Later, > > > > > > > > All the Best, > > > > Bruce * kb6lwn * ck1-at-pacbell.net * 707-987-4737 > > > > > > > > .. 1970 Jeep Wagoneer (1414C) V8-350 4WD "Pinecone" > > > > > > > > Net-Tamer V 1.08X - Test Drive > > --------------------------------------------------- > To Unsubscribe send email to macjordomo-at-listserver.tehabi.com with the command > "unsubscribe FSJ-List" in the body of the message. > >[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 11:18:33 -0400 (EDT) From: GypsyLive-at-aol.com Subject: Re: Been gone a while.. In a message dated 97-05-15 10:38:53 EDT, you write: > >Also.. I am looking at re-building the engine this summer. What kind a $$$ > >am I looking at here. I will probably do most of the wrench turning myself > >(me and my hack friends) I am looking at a budget of < $2000. That would > >include: new cam, carb, and intake manifold (Edelbrock set, $500), headers > >($100), and other basic rebuild components ($500 and up? or maybe less...) > > Is this reasonable or overkill? Comments or questions? > > I had my 360 rebuilt almost 2 years ago, total cost was $1700 ( this was installed I dont have a garage!) But to be honest If I had it to do over again, Id goto local Napa or Autozone, or any parts store, and check the price on their rebuilt engines ( mine would have been less than 900) then you must rebuild heads, and do a little more work yourslef, but the warrenties are usually better, and you come out a few hundred dollars ahead, more money for fuel injection, or aftermarket manifold and carb... My engine had 146K miles, and Rammed a valve into a piston, either breaking the piston, or debris wore the wall out, so they had to sleeve that one cylinder ( which I dont really like), but the over all bore was only increased 0.0020, and the crank was barely turned also, ( I think like 0.0010) so If your motor is not MEGA miles, It might need a little less R&R than you think.. Cya Matt (waiting for an axle in fayetteville)[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 11:31:19 -0400 From: Zack Heisey <moosh-at-redrose.net> Subject: Re: I'm Kronking Mad No, doc, if you look at the time I wrote the message, and then look at my half done web page, you'll see I was really kronking mad. Z. Dennis M. "Doc" Fariello wrote: > > >Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 01:21:13 -0400 > >From: Zack Heisey <moosh-at-redrose.net> > >Subject: I am Kronking Mad > > > >Telnet is kronking kronk. I just spent a kronking hour typing all this > >kronk into this kronking computer so I could finally have my own > >kronking web kronking page, and just as I was about to save it the last > >kronking time, kronk, the kronking modem kronking disconnects, and I > >loose the kronking telnet kronking link. I'm so mad I could kronk. I > >saved throughout, but there's a big section at the end that's kronking > >gone. Please, no smart kronking comments, just needed to vent. Thank > >you, that is all. > > Are you kidding, Zack? With that excellent, creative, and most proper > usage of the word "Kronk", you should be rewarded! <grin>. Conan would be > proud.... <sniff> > > | > | > | | > | ============= | > 0_| / \ |_o > |_|_____----+-----____|_| > |====|=====|=====|====| > ||____|_____|_____|____|| > \_____|___|DOC|___|_____/ > |\/\/|--------\_/--|\/\/| > ______|\/\/|_____________|\/\/|______ > > Home of the "Bottomless Transfer Case" > _____________________________________ > > email: fariello-at-inspace.net > http://www.inspace.net/~fariello/fsj > _____________________________________ > > --------------------------------------------------- > To Unsubscribe send email to macjordomo-at-listserver.tehabi.com with the command > "unsubscribe FSJ-List" in the body of the message. > >[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 08:27:08 -0700 From: Tom Anhalt <tanhalt-at-earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Lead additives. Mark J. Smith wrote: > > Tom, > > I use my 78 J20 as a daily driver 166 miles a day round trip to work. > I easily put on up to 3,000 miles a month. Would this classify as heavy > use. And would lead substitutes be warranted or am I just throwing my > money way. The stuff sells for $1.80 - $2.10 a bottle depending on > brand and if it contains octane boosters like STP's > > Thanks, > > Mark > Actually, I didn't realize you were adding lead to a '78. Is the engine a '78 also? If so, you are definitely wasting money. When the catalytic converters were started in '74, from what I understand, the auto manufacturers had already changed the engines over to hardened valve seats and induction hardened valve guides. Since they didn't know if the heads for your engine were going onto a vehicle that was meant to run unleaded or not, they did them all the same. Basically, lead substitutes on a post '74 engine are a waste of money. If you're having detonation problems and the substitute helps take care of that, I would just buy higher octane gas and you'd be way ahead moneywise! Tom Anhalt '81 Cherokee Laredo[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 11:31:23 EDT From: versicom-at-juno.com (BRIAN D COLUCCI) Subject: Good Job On That Gate! How about a plug? Greetings Sir! As luck would have it the USS Grand Wagoneer is an 89. The rear sprayer is cheap at $22 compared to that rear wiper motor at $375 list. Tell you what; hand over your wiper motor quietly and I will tell you how to plum that washer. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Oh heck I'm a softy; and besides a working washer with no motor isn't much fun. I know from experience. Sometimes I just squirt the washer for affect. I know that if i connect that pancake motor's electric the relay will just start buzzing. Sorry got off track with my own blues. 1) My nozzle is just siliconed in place. That little tip at the end is an adjustable spray pivot. Cleaned mine out with a sewing needle. Also used the needle to loosen up the pivot point. 2)The hose starts at the tank under the hood and runs back to the rear bumper area and crosses under the body amongst the wire jungle. Then it comes up into the jack storage area. You will then encounter a one way valve that prevents the washer water from draining back. Then a section of line runs up the rear pillar to the nozzle. My turn; ?????? time. Does anybody know if there is a rubber plug to put in the tailgate hole that is left when you remove that rear motor? I have seen XJ's that do not have rear wipers; but do have a rubber plug that a dealer could remove to add the wiper if the customer desired. Until the next dimension Admiral "Coluch." End Transmission Starfleet Headquarters Ohio Post..........................................................................[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 08:31:24 -0700 From: Tom Anhalt <tanhalt-at-earthlink.net> Subject: Re: AXLE questions Michael Baxter wrote: > > > Group 9 page 11 (GR9 - T11) at the top of the page for the guys with Parts > Books. > "Reverend" Baxter will now lead us in a reading from the Holy Book of Super Jeep Parts. Following the reading, let us all join in singing "Take me back to Toledo" Amen Brother Tom Anhalt[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 97 10:35:23 CDT
From: hanstr-at-cimsys01.aud.alcatel.com (Tony Hanson)
Subject: Re: Anyone w/ 62-72 FSJ (hey Zack!)
Zack, please sign me up for a copy of the
62-72 parts manual....
Gracias....
Tony R. Hanson (hanstr-at-cimsys01.aud.alcatel.com)
IFSJA TX/OK Chapter RC
1964 Wagoneer Copeville, Texas
[Back to Top]Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:02:50 -0700 From: "Carlo J. Calica" <calica-at-adj.com> Subject: Re: I'm back I haven't driven down Lombard but I have been a passenger. It was ~2am and the driver was going between 40-60 mph. I thought I was going to die. I will be reunited with my Jeep in August (same time as the wife) when we drive to CA with a trailer in tow. I figured the GW would do a better job towing all my worldly belongings better than the Altima (wife's car) At 02:54 PM 5/14/97 -0700, Mike_Ahlmann-at-infinity.com wrote: > > As a former Wisconsonian, let me welcome you to the "left" coast. In >the City, you'll still get to wear lots of jackets and sweaters, but you >won't see any winters like we got back there! Out here, snow is something >you go to visit when you feel the need. > On the intimidation scale from 0 (Jugo) to 10 (Mack truck), the FSJ >rates about an 8 on most SF streets. Have you driven down Lombard Street >yet? How about Gough? > When will your Jeep get here? > > -Mike A., '87 GW > > > > >calica -at- adj.com >05/14/97 02:19 PM > > >Please respond to fsj-list-at-listserver.tehabi.com > >To: fsj-list -at- listserver.tehabi.com >cc: >Subject: I'm back > > > > >Hi everyone. > >I'm back on the list and am now located in San Francisco, CA. >Unfortunately, my Grand Wag is still back in Wisconsin and I'm already >feeling withdrawl. Also my handy dandy list archive should be back online >soon. > - Carlo J. Calica > Technical Director http://www.adj.com > ADJACENCY: Brand New Media TM tel (415) 487-4510 > PGP Fingerprint: E7 60 BE 76 F1 0B 6F B4 D8 81 40 2F 5F 47 E1 FA > > > >--------------------------------------------------- >To Unsubscribe send email to macjordomo-at-listserver.tehabi.com with the >command >"unsubscribe FSJ-List" in the body of the message. > > > > > > > > >--------------------------------------------------- >To Unsubscribe send email to macjordomo-at-listserver.tehabi.com with the command >"unsubscribe FSJ-List" in the body of the message. > > > - Carlo J. Calica Technical Director http://www.adj.com ADJACENCY: Brand New Media TM tel (415) 487-4510 PGP Fingerprint: E7 60 BE 76 F1 0B 6F B4 D8 81 40 2F 5F 47 E1 FA[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:12:51 -0700 From: "Renshaw, Ken" <krenshaw-at-resumix.com> Subject: RE: gears >---------- >From: SuperKen >Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 3:22 PM >To: Multiple recipients of >Subject: Re: gears > >henry..what ratio are they?? > >as long as there re from a d44, they ll fit ALL d44's!! ......as long as you have the corresponding carrier, of course. 3.92 is the cutoff for the twp versions of the Dana 44 diff carrier. -Ken > >[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 09:17:27 -0700 From: "Renshaw, Ken" <krenshaw-at-resumix.com> Subject: RE: TH-400 Shift? Sc0- >---------- >From: Sc0 >Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 1997 6:46 PM >To: Multiple recipients of >Subject: TH-400 Shift? > >Who has a 400 Hydramatic under their Jeep? Both me and SuperKen have 400's under our Wagoneers! > >At what speeds does it shift at? > >first it's already in first >second around 35mph >third around 50mph Those are roughly my WOT shift points.... > it used to be > second 15mph > third 35mph .....and those are roughly my partial throttle shift points. Could be the vacuuam modulator isn't getting engine vacuum or it's not actuating the valve body. -Ken > What can it be? > (type F transmission fluid) > >And how does it shift? (when mine shifts, it jerks you...) Mine's pretty smooth..... > >"Who are we?" >Sc0 > >-Ken ( soon-to-be RubiconKen :-) >[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 12:07:03 -0400 From: John Esposito <espos-at-compuserve.com> Subject: 80+ lbs of oil pressure? Roti, Mine did the same thing. I replaced the sender (screws into fitting in th= e block right next to the oil pump/filter assembly) and problem solved. The= y are under $20 and would be the first place I'd start. Buy it first then match it up to the thing that looks similar next to the filter. Good Luck= =2E Alfred J. Esposito espos-at-compuserve.com '89 Grand Wagoneer[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:00:30 -0700 From: Joe Schaefer <joes-at-olympus.net> Subject: Re: More smog stuff At 22:42 14-05-97 -0800, you wrote: > >My big problem is all of the diaghrams and books I have seen show a >charcoal/evap cannister for 78 CA and 79-up 49 state vehicles. I don't >have a cannister, nor is there anyplace where one has been disconnected. Dale, FWIW, the 78 manual says for 1978 "The charcoal canisters where only used on CJ's." If you still have and 'assuming' (yeah, I know :) it's stock, the CA 360's should have the 'external, non integral back pressure sensor' for the EGR valve. The difference in routing is that the 49 state models run a hose from the EGR straight to the EGR CTO. The CA models run a hose from the EGR to a back pressure sensor before going to the EGR CTO. If you have that set up, I'd say yours is CA. I can't see anyone adding that. If it doesn't have it, we're still at square one :( Regarding that cat, if you have one my guess is it's supposed to be there. Can't imagine adding one by choice either, but....you are in CA :) Regards, -jj[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:01:18 -0700 From: Tom Anhalt <tanhalt-at-earthlink.net> Subject: Re: Sticking my neck out for JCW Jeff Herbst wrote: > > >>.......... > >>So: That's three tomorrows that never came, 18 weeks duration, one return > >>postage, five phone calls that I paid for (no 800#), one phone call that my > >>credit card company paid for, my time on six phone calls, my credit card > >>company's time on one phone call + their time dealing with JC Whitney. > > WOW! > If that had happened to me I would feel considerably different. I > guess I have been lucky. Everything I have ordered came in on time, no > problems. One note that the postman at the office hates me now because > they ship through normal U.S. mail unless you pay for UPS. So far the > mailman has had to deliver a 3" catalytic converter, rear sway bar and a > Monza resonator to my office. He hates me! > Since I started this thread by reporting about ordering my new electronic ignition from J.C Whitney, I think I'll relate a little info about the rest of this order. Although I found the Petronix ignition at a couple of sources for about the same price, the reason I ordered from Whitney was because I also wanted to order an electric choke replacement for the Buick. Whitney was the only place I found that had this part. Here's the strange part. When I called to place the order, they asked what engine and carb the choke was for. I told them it was for a Buick 300 with a Rochester 2bbl. They said the only listing they had for the 300 was a Rochester 4bbl. I said o.k., what do you have listed for the V6? That had a Rochester 2bbl. listing. I said send me that one and I'll see if it is O.K (I figured Rochester wouldn't have used a different choke on this engine). Well...when the part got here, I looked at it and it appeared to be the right part and then I looked at the instructions. Listed at the bottom of the instructions was the applications this particular part number was for. The only application listed was the Buick 300 with a Rochester 2bbl!!!!! Obviously, their computer listing leaves a little to be desired. Fortunately, I got the right part by ordering a different application...Sheesh. I agree with John about JCW, as long as you know what you're ordering, you should be O.K. By the way, the new electric choke works awesome. Slam dunk replacement for the old choke that was activated by exhaust gasses and was all burnt out. Tom Anhalt '81 Cherokee Laredo[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:05:22 -0700 From: Tom Anhalt <tanhalt-at-earthlink.net> Subject: Re: More about Ford engines Dennis M. "Doc" Fariello wrote: > > Landon, thanks for the reply... I LIKE talking Ford... <grin>. If this > gets to be too much for you guys (hey, we let the Buick stuff go on for a > while, didn't we?), I'll be happy to take it off the list. > Hey, I RESEMBLE that comment!! At least Kaiser was smart enough to put Buick engines in an FSJ (Mandatory FSJ content). Tom Anhalt[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:10:44 -0700 From: "Renshaw, Ken" <krenshaw-at-resumix.com> Subject: Rubicon!!!! In the process of pumping myself up for this weekend's Rubicon trip, I found this lovely trip report located at http://www.4x4now.com/sf1196.htm There are no FSJ's on the trip, but it's a prefect account of what happens up there....and on our trip the trail still has snow on it!!!!! ;-) Anyway, check it out if you want, delete it if you don't.....but please DO read mine and SuperKen;s reports next week... :-) :-) C Ya! -RubiKen ;-)[Back to Top]
Date: Thu, 15 May 1997 10:17:13 -0700 From: Joe Schaefer <joes-at-olympus.net> Subject: Re: 80+ lbs of oil pressure? At 22:54 14-05-97 -0700, you wrote: >Just when I think I have everything working (I can live with the >schizoprenic gas gauge)my oil pressure gauge gets delusions of grandure... > >Anyone know why a once healthy oil pressure gauge just goes beserk one day >and upon ignition goes from 0 to an 80+ reading in 1.2 seconds? Maybe if >someone can just point me to where the oil pressure wire is connected I can >start from there. > >Thanks! > >Roti Roti, Check the wire at the sending unit on the engine. It may be off or poorly connected or chaffed and grounding out. If everything looks ok check the ground on the battery is clean and tight too. If it's still screwy drop me an email and I'll give you the test procedure for an 82 to determine if it's the gauge or sender. I'm a lousy typist and I'm lazy too... but if you need it, I'll get it to ya. :) Regards, -jj[Back to Top]
Date: 15 May 97 13:25:04 EDT From: Michael Baxter <74172.1164-at-CompuServe.COM> Subject: TH-400 Shift? "Sc0" <jjd-at-flex.net> writes: >> At what speeds does it shift at? first it's already in first second around 35mph third around 50mph << The Chero. shifts out of 1st at 40 and out of second at ~65. The Wag. has lower axle gears that are offset somewhat by smaller dia. tires and it does 45 and ~70. >> And how does it shift? (when mine shifts, it jerks you...) << Sounds like a shift kit to me...mine don't have shift kits and the shifts are smooth. Jeff H. - The TH-400 does not have the kick-down linkage like the 727. It relies on vacuum signal and a WOT (wide-open throttle) switch located under the accel. peddle linkage. -- Michael Baxter, 74172.1164-at-Compuserve.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MBaxter From Reno, NV USA on 15-May-1997 at 09:32:59 PDT !^NavFont01F0012MG[HGdMG6FHGF3HHFD39BD[Back to Top]
Date: 15 May 97 13:25:13 EDT From: Michael Baxter <74172.1164-at-CompuServe.COM> Subject: Re: Admiral's Warning & 360 question chrissy saltsgaver <chrissys-at-midwest.net> writes: >> This'll bring a hail storm of come backs:) << Okay >> Actually I think the AMC V8 in it's current form came out in '65 didn't it? Or am I thinking of the inline 6 (one or both were new in '65) << Close...very close. The predecessor to the 360 came out in 1966 1/2. It used modern thin-wall casting technology and originally displaced 290 cu. in. The 343 came along in 1967 and the 390 followed in 1968. In 1970 the 290 became the 304 and the 343 became the 360. A year later the 390 became the 401. Dog-leg heads were introduced in 1970. Up until early 1971 all 4bbl AMC V-8s were high compression engines with 9.5-10.2 to 1 compression. Dog-leg heads and high compression make the 1970 & early '71 engines the most desirable as long as you can find 98 octane fuel. Some early 290-343 engines had Armasteel (trademark of GM) cast into the cranks and this fanned a rumor that these engines were made by GM. The thick-wall AMC V-8s started life at Nash in 1956 as a 250 cu. in. V-8s. In 1957 AMC introduced the 327 which was a decedent from the Nash 250. The 327 displacement's was reduced in circa 1963 to produce the 287. The 283/327 also had the high nickel content blocks like the later 290-401s. -- Michael Baxter, 74172.1164-at-Compuserve.com http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MBaxter From Reno, NV USA on 15-May-1997 at 10:21:53 PDT !^NavFont01F0012MGoHGxMG54HG5CHJFDE0DB[Back to Top]
Back to the list of this Month's Archives