From owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net Tue Jul 16 11:24:59 2002 From: fsj-digest fsj-digest Tuesday, July 16 2002 Volume 01 : Number 1692 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: Re: fsj: front axles Re: [fsj: Re: Thanks/ride height] Re: [Re: fsj: front axles] fsj: uh oh... fsj: uh oh... the pictures... RE: [fsj: Re: Thanks/ride height] fsj: Re: quadratrac fsj: Fwd: front d44 for sale FSJ Digest Home Page: http://www.digest.net/jeeps/fsj/ Send submissions to fsj-digest-at-digest.net Send administrative requests to fsj-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 fsj-digest-request to get a list of other majordomo commands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 02:51:26 -0700 From: "Jim B" Subject: Re: fsj: front axles A: I don't know who measured, but the NT is narrowest, then the WT is wider in front than a NT, but narrower than a Jtruck. The Jtruck and WT front axles are same. From: john Subject: fsj: front axles very cool... thanx for the info. john At 03:35 PM 7/14/2002 -0400, Mark Anthony Sproviero wrote: Here's a list that was sent to CJ-8.com. The J-10 axle is wider than a NT and narrower than a WT. - - -Spro jefe Scrambler Rookie Registered: Apr 2002 Location: So.Cal. Posts: 7Jeep Axle Tread Widths compiled by Jefe, 12-26- 98 Factory tread with is not WMS to WMS. It's center of stock tire on stock wheel to the same on the other side. It depends on offset of wheels and several other factors. Tread width is usually narrower than WMS to WMS because of the off set the center of tire is farther inboard than WMS. Use this chart for comparison. I've seen both wide and narrow factory axled '81 CJ8's. '41 to 45 Jeep MB: 48.25" '46 up CJ-2A, CJ-3A : 48.25" '49-65 Jeep Utility Wagon: 57" '49 Willys Jeepster 2WD 57" '52 up CJ-3B: 48.44" '52 M-38A 49.19" (Military width) '54-71 CJ-5 48.44" (so called early- '55-75 CJ-6 48.44" narrow axle) '47-65 Pickup (the classic) frnt-56" rr-63.5" '63-69 J-200, J-2000 65.5" '63-69 J-300, J-3800 65.75" '70- 72, Gladiator J-2000 frnt-63.5" rr-63.81" '70- 72, Gladiator J-4000 frnt-63.8" rr-64.38" '73 J-2500 frnt-63.5" rr-63.8" '73 all other J trucks frnt-63.9" rr-64.4" '74-75 J-10 frnt-62.9" rr-63.8" '76-87 J-10 frnt-63.3" rr-63.8" '74-75 J-20 frnt-62.9" rr-64.4" with disc brakes: frnt-63.0" rr-64.4" '76-84 J-20 frnt-64.9" rr-65.9" '63-72 Wagoneer 57" '73 Wagoneer frnt-57.3" rr-57.5" '74-75 Wagoneer frnt-59" rr-57.5" '74-75 Cherokee (full size) frnt-58.8' rr-57.5" '76-91 Wagoneer, '80+ Cher frnt-59.4" rr-57.8" '76-79 Cherokee (full size) frnt-59.2" rr-57.8" '76-78 Cherokee S frnt-59.5" rr-58.5" '76-80 Cherokee Chief 2 dr. frnt-65.4" rr-62.3" '81-83 Cherokee Chief 2 dr. frnt-65.3" rr-62.3" '67-71 Jeepster C-101 50" '72-73 Commando C-104 frnt-51.5" rr-50" '72-83 CJ-5, frnt-51.5" rr-50" (so called- '76-81 CJ-7, CJ-8 ('81 only) frnt-51.5" rr-50" narrow axle) '82-86 CJ-7 frnt-55.8" rr-55" (so called- '82-85 Scrambler, CJ-8 frnt-55.8" rr-55" wide axle ) '84-87, 93 up Cherokee XJ 58" '88-92 Cherokee XJ 57" '86-92 Comanche, 57" '87 up Wrangler, YJ 58" '93 up Grand Cherokee, ZJ 58" Jtrucks are in the 64-65" treadwidth range. That's pretty wide for a CJ8, (like about 5" wider each side). but with 8" wide flares, you could cover the tires. Sure would be stable. regards, as always, jefe ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:01:39 -0600 From: Michael Shimniok Subject: Re: [fsj: Re: Thanks/ride height] john wrote: > 31's are a good size, about the largest you'd want to run for economy > and good off-road ability. You can also fit them without a lift. > With 4" of lift you shouldn't have a great deal of trouble with tires > up to about 33 or 34... if you don't go too wide. You may need to FWIW, we've found that under extreme articulation (or even road bumps) some if not all 4" lifts are inadequate for 4-door full size jeeps. The rear fender openings are quite narrow-- too narrow for 33's if the suspension compresses enough. Everyone here in CO who has run 33's with 4" lifts has trimmed 1-3" off the rear fender. I'm about to do the same, having just upgraded to the larger tires. Michael - --- Michael E. Shimniok - KC0EKI - Michael.Shimniok-at-usa.net "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H. L. Menken ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 11:14:02 -0600 From: Michael Shimniok Subject: Re: [Re: fsj: front axles] We need to get someone out in the junkyard with a tape measure and digital camera. :) I think you meant to say this but the post is confusing... I last heard there are two widths for front axles (D44, 74-91): NT and WT (J trucks and Cherokee WTs using the WT up front); three widths for rear axles: NT, WT, and J-truck. The NT axles are narrower than WT axles front and rear. I have heard repeatedly that J-truck rear axles are wider than WT rear axles. Michael "Jim B" wrote: > A: I don't know who measured, but the NT is narrowest, then the WT is wider in > front than a NT, but narrower than a Jtruck. The Jtruck and WT front axles are > same. > From: john > Subject: fsj: front axles > > very cool... thanx for the info. > john > > At 03:35 PM 7/14/2002 -0400, Mark Anthony Sproviero wrote: > Here's a list that was sent to CJ-8.com. The J-10 axle is wider than a NT > and narrower than a WT. > > - -Spro > > jefe > Scrambler Rookie > Registered: Apr 2002 > Location: So.Cal. > Posts: 7Jeep Axle > Tread Widths > compiled by Jefe, 12-26- 98 > Factory tread with is not WMS to WMS. It's center of stock tire on stock > wheel to the same on the other side. It depends on offset of wheels and > several other factors. Tread width is usually narrower than WMS to WMS > because of the off set the center of tire is farther inboard than WMS. Use > this chart for comparison. I've seen both wide and narrow factory axled '81 > CJ8's. > '41 to 45 Jeep MB: 48.25" > '46 up CJ-2A, CJ-3A : 48.25" > '49-65 Jeep Utility Wagon: 57" > '49 Willys Jeepster 2WD 57" > '52 up CJ-3B: 48.44" > '52 M-38A 49.19" (Military width) > '54-71 CJ-5 48.44" (so called early- > '55-75 CJ-6 48.44" narrow axle) > '47-65 Pickup (the classic) frnt-56" rr-63.5" > '63-69 J-200, J-2000 65.5" > '63-69 J-300, J-3800 65.75" > '70- 72, Gladiator J-2000 frnt-63.5" rr-63.81" > '70- 72, Gladiator J-4000 frnt-63.8" rr-64.38" > '73 J-2500 frnt-63.5" rr-63.8" > '73 all other J trucks frnt-63.9" rr-64.4" > '74-75 J-10 frnt-62.9" rr-63.8" > '76-87 J-10 frnt-63.3" rr-63.8" > '74-75 J-20 frnt-62.9" rr-64.4" > with disc brakes: frnt-63.0" rr-64.4" > '76-84 J-20 frnt-64.9" rr-65.9" > '63-72 Wagoneer 57" > '73 Wagoneer frnt-57.3" rr-57.5" > '74-75 Wagoneer frnt-59" rr-57.5" > '74-75 Cherokee (full size) frnt-58.8' rr-57.5" > '76-91 Wagoneer, '80+ Cher frnt-59.4" rr-57.8" > '76-79 Cherokee (full size) frnt-59.2" rr-57.8" > '76-78 Cherokee S frnt-59.5" rr-58.5" > '76-80 Cherokee Chief 2 dr. frnt-65.4" rr-62.3" > '81-83 Cherokee Chief 2 dr. frnt-65.3" rr-62.3" > '67-71 Jeepster C-101 50" > '72-73 Commando C-104 frnt-51.5" rr-50" > '72-83 CJ-5, frnt-51.5" rr-50" (so called- > '76-81 CJ-7, CJ-8 ('81 only) frnt-51.5" rr-50" narrow axle) > '82-86 CJ-7 frnt-55.8" rr-55" (so called- > '82-85 Scrambler, CJ-8 frnt-55.8" rr-55" wide axle ) > '84-87, 93 up Cherokee XJ 58" > '88-92 Cherokee XJ 57" > '86-92 Comanche, 57" > '87 up Wrangler, YJ 58" > '93 up Grand Cherokee, ZJ 58" > Jtrucks are in the 64-65" treadwidth range. > That's pretty wide for a CJ8, (like about 5" wider each side). but with 8" > wide flares, you could cover the tires. Sure would be stable. > regards, as always, jefe - --- Michael E. Shimniok - KC0EKI - Michael.Shimniok-at-usa.net "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H. L. Menken ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 20:06:53 -0700 From: john Subject: fsj: uh oh... I made an offer on an '83 Wagoneer Limited... and the guy accepted it... shoot, I figured I lowballed him enough that he'd turn his nose up... I offered him 37% of what he was asking... well... anyone need a 360, TF727 or NP229? the tranny or the xfr case is slipping, not sure which... will be ripping this apart as a long, long term project. Not sure if it'll get a WJ driveline or a Diesel. The ONLY reason I'm getting it is because 3/4 of the body is straight and it's rust free and it has the FACTORY SUNROOF and padded vinyl roof. the uh oh part comes in letting my wife know of my "good" fortune... ;) anybody got a place where I can park this thing for a while? ;) john - ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... jesus, don't leave life without him, please! - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:26:17 -0700 From: john Subject: fsj: uh oh... the pictures... putting the pictures of the '83 Wagoneer up on my site... the uh-oh part is I haven't broke the news to my wonderful wife yet... I made a low offer on a rig and the guy accepted it... wasn't really counting on it... oh well... it's got a SUNROOF!!! not sure what's wrong with it, he says the transmission is slipping, but he also thinks it's an '84 and Quadratrac... but it's an '83 with Selectrac, so my guess is the xfr case is slipping, will figure it out in time... after I figure out where the heck I'm going to put it... the only reason for buying it is as a long term project and for the FACTORY Sunroof... remember Old Blue? :) I love the sunroofs in these things... Shoot, I may make it a runner until SuperDawg is done, who knows... even a rough FSJ is better driving then a ranger diesel or a 280Z... ;) see it at: http://www.wagoneers.com/FSJ/rigs/johns-83-WagoneerLTD/ http://www.wagoneers.com/FSJ/rigs/johns-83-WagoneerLTD/ALL-wag-ltd.jpg http://wagoneers.com/johns-vehicles.html anybody interested in a '76 280Z? and a '54 Chevy bed/trailer? how about a '75 datsun longbed trailer? '67 Fairlane? '68 Montego??? '88 Buick regal with a froze motor? Man, I really need to clean up around here and quickly... or the uh oh won't be so funny... ;) john - ------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.WAGONEERS.com/ Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... jesus, don't leave life without him, please! - ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 22:03:03 -0700 From: "Joe Hughes" Subject: RE: [fsj: Re: Thanks/ride height] I have 33x14.5x15 on my wag. I installed the 3" springs (from Jim B.) all the way around and rub pretty bad in back with 3" of trimming. I'm going to be installing a 2-3" body lift, so I can clear the rear tires. - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fsj-at-digest.net [mailto:owner-fsj-at-digest.net] On Behalf Of Michael Shimniok Sent: Monday, July 15, 2002 10:02 AM To: john; Richard Thompson Cc: fsj-at-digest.net Subject: Re: [fsj: Re: Thanks/ride height] john wrote: > 31's are a good size, about the largest you'd want to run for economy > and good off-road ability. You can also fit them without a lift. With > 4" of lift you shouldn't have a great deal of trouble with tires up to > about 33 or 34... if you don't go too wide. You may need to FWIW, we've found that under extreme articulation (or even road bumps) some if not all 4" lifts are inadequate for 4-door full size jeeps. The rear fender openings are quite narrow-- too narrow for 33's if the suspension compresses enough. Everyone here in CO who has run 33's with 4" lifts has trimmed 1-3" off the rear fender. I'm about to do the same, having just upgraded to the larger tires. Michael - --- Michael E. Shimniok - KC0EKI - Michael.Shimniok-at-usa.net "For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." - H. L. Menken ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 05:34:35 +0000 From: Machinedoc-at-attbi.com Subject: fsj: Re: quadratrac Hey Michael, I hate to see you have to explain to your wife about unnecessary Jeep parts cluttering the garage. I also feel that in order to miss something you need to get rid of it first. In an effort to help you with these two huge problems, I suggest that you send your used and working 228 transfer case with John M. for the ride home from Ouray (Since it has become painfully clear that I will not be able to make the trip.) and he can see that it makes it to me. (I know that I will see him eventually, I have his truck ;) No need to thank me now. The priviledge of helping a fellow FSJ'r is thanks enough. Curtis > I pulled my 228 and installed a 208. I haven't had much chance to test it, > but I suspect it'll suck in the snow and that I'll miss the ol' 228. > Michael ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 08:49:48 -0600 From: "Daniel Beiers" Subject: fsj: Fwd: front d44 for sale this was posted on the colordao xj list, thought someone here might be interested. axle looks pretty good, patially cleaned up, ive seen it, drivers drop. >From: "Aaron Storms" >Reply-To: colorado-xj-at-yahoogroups.com >To: >Subject: [Colorado XJ] front d44 for sale >Date: Mon, 15 Jul 2002 21:53:27 -0600 > >Well, I bought a front d60 housing from a '99 F350 tonight, but of course >will have to slowly buy the shafts, hubs, brakes and gears as I can afford >them. > >That leaves my complete front 8-lug d44 from a FSJ J20 for sale if you know >of anyone interested. Thanks, Aaron >303.582.0133 >aaron.storms-at-mindspring.com > > > >------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> >Save on REALTOR Fees >http://us.click.yahoo.com/Xw80LD/h1ZEAA/Ey.GAA/Aav0lB/TM _________________________________________________________________ Join the world^Rs largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #1692 **************************