From owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net Tue Mar 29 20:38:48 2005 From: fsj-digest fsj-digest Wednesday, March 30 2005 Volume 01 : Number 2401 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: fsj: RE: 84 GW - Working on 4WD fsj: Re: RE: 84 GW - Working on 4WD Re: fsj: 84 GW - Working on 4WD fsj: Re: Re: bullbars and 4.0Ls Re: fsj: RE: 84 GW - Working on 4WD Re: fsj: 84 GW - Working on 4WD Re: fsj: RE: 84 GW - Working on 4WD Re: fsj: RE: 84 GW - Working on 4WD Re: fsj: 84 GW - Working on 4WD fsj: Re: xj a/c retrofit question fsj: Re: xj a/c retrofit question 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: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 14:46:05 -0600 From: "Brundage, Robert G" Subject: fsj: RE: 84 GW - Working on 4WD Jim and guys: I cannot get the vacuum connection on the Transfer Case to move. How do I tell if this is frozen? Robert Brundage GIS Coordinator Department Public Works Fort Campbell, KY PH: 270-798-9571 FAX: 270-798-2232 - -----Original Message----- From: Jim Blair [mailto:carnuck1-at-msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 11:05 AM To: Brundage, Robert G Subject: Re: 84 GW - Working on 4WD Leaving the screw in will make sure it doesn't disengage. I'm seen people go so far as to fill the vacuum pot with silicone glue to ensure it never moves! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:51:58 -0800 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: fsj: Re: RE: 84 GW - Working on 4WD Remove it and lube it, then apply vacuum. The rubber accordion boot can come off to lube the shaft. Third port (closest to the linkage) must be sealed for it to work too. Jim and guys: I cannot get the vacuum connection on the Transfer Case to move. How do I tell if this is frozen? Robert Brundage GIS Coordinator Department Public Works Fort Campbell, KY PH: 270-798-9571 FAX: 270-798-2232 - -----Original Message----- From: Jim Blair [mailto:carnuck1-at-msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 11:05 AM To: Brundage, Robert G Subject: Re: 84 GW - Working on 4WD Leaving the screw in will make sure it doesn't disengage. I'm seen people go so far as to fill the vacuum pot with silicone glue to ensure it never moves! ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 15:53:39 -0500 (EST) From: john Subject: Re: fsj: 84 GW - Working on 4WD On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Jim Blair wrote: >-->A: That is a slider that is on splines. The right hand axle shaft is 2 >-->pieces and the Vacuum motor moves the slider on the spline until the 2 >-->pieces are locked. Only 1 shaft is disconnected in these rigs. but the driveshaft doesn't spin when it's disengaged... right? john >--> >--> >-->On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Brundage, Robert G wrote: >-->>-->Hello: >-->>-->Jim Blair started me on a path to fix my 4WD on Friday. >--> >-->oh no... ;) >--> >--> >-->but to answer your question, it does sound like it is engaged, >-->it's on open diff so if you spin the front tire and the driveshaft >-->spins it's engaged... However, you have to understand that >-->when you activate that vacuum motor you're pushing a fork that >-->slides and engages the axle. I'll have to look to see if I >-->have a diagram or picture... So, it may have engaged one side, >-->but not the other... you need to lift both tires and spin >-->and see if that makes a difference, because the mechanism >-->only disengages one side if I recall correctly. >--> >-->There is a cable setup that can replace the vacuum setup. >--> >-->Jeep determined that there was only a 0.1 mpg losss to have >-->the front shaft spinning... but the extra >-->wear on the driveshaft u-joints makes it a maintenance issue. >--> >-->john >--> >-->>-->I worked over the weekend and have some questions. >-->>--> >-->>-->The task was working on the vacuum activation of the 4WD. To by-pass >-->>the >-->>-->Front Axle 4WD vacuum by locking the engagement vacuum motor diaphragm >-->>in >-->>-->the engaged position. >-->>--> >-->>-->To do this I drilled a hole in the top of the diaphragm case and >-->>inserted a >-->>-->screw to force the diaphragm in the down position. >-->>--> >-->>-->I have the passenger side front wheel off the ground to tell when the >-->>front >-->>-->axle is engaged. The front wheel is not supposed to turn freely if it >-->>is >-->>-->engaged. >-->>--> >-->>-->The Problem: The front wheel spins whether the screw is screwed down >-->>tight, >-->>-->or not in the diaphragm at all. When I say that the wheel spins freely, >-->>the >-->>-->wheel spins and the front drive shaft spins. If I put a screw driver >-->>-->through the front drive shaft universal to keep the drive shaft form >-->>-->spinning the wheel will not spin. >-->>--> >-->>--> >-->>--> >-->>-->Does this mean that my Front Wheels are already engaged all the time? >-->>--> >-->>--> >-->>--> >-->>--> >-->>--> >-->>--> >-->>--> >-->>--> >-->>--> >-->>-->Robert Brundage >-->>--> >-->>-->GIS Coordinator >-->>--> >-->>-->Department Public Works >-->>--> >-->>-->Fort Campbell, KY >-->>--> >-->>-->PH: 270-798-9571 >-->>--> >-->>-->FAX: 270-798-2232 >-->>--> >--> >--> ---- >--> >-->------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--> ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** >--> Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. >-->------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--> >--> >--> ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:00:14 -0500 (EST) From: john Subject: fsj: Re: Re: bullbars and 4.0Ls On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Jim Blair wrote: >--> The biggest trouble with the 4.0Ls was >-->sloppy assembly practices. The bores were so loosely assembled that the that's not what I've heard or read... wristpins... >-->pistons slapped and caused excessive wear on the skirts not to mention noise >-->that annoyed Joe Public. (the Renix ones weren't quite as bad because the >-->VE, aka volumetric efficiency, wasn't as high so there was less downward >-->thrust on the pistons) >--> The later models got graphite embedded skirts to cut the noise and the >-->tolerances were made tighter as well. that might be, but the compression ratio is the same... >--> As for the engine used, the XJ was originally slated to get the Rotary >-->engine that they and GM were working on together. GM sold the old 225 Buick >-->V6 design to AMC, and AMC engineers fixed the balance issues and sold it >-->back to GM. Part of the deal was AMC was to get some of the Rotary engines >-->for both the XJ and Pacer. (both were built for shorter engines) The XJ was >-->designed intentionally to NOT be able to fit in the AMC 6. The designer >-->thought that it was way too powerful for a vehicle that size and too >-->ungainly. Someplace I have the copy of AIM magazine on this bit of history >-->and there is more to it. GM just dumped the motor when they couldn't get it I would like to see that article. I had read about the Rotary engine idea, but I thought those ideas went out in the 70's... after the oil embargo of '73 Mazda almost went under, and Ford was able to buy 25% of them! As far as AMC buying the 225... I know they used that in the CJ's in the '70's, and can believe that the AMC folks figured out how to fix it. :) AMC/Kaiser both had a long relationship with GM.. Turbo 400's, Buick 350's, the 225, then later that crappy 2.8L v6. >-->right and AMC wound up with 2.5L Iron Dukes (till '83 when GM's small car I need to verify this... a GM expert told me something else... folks claim that this or that engine is the iron duke, but not all are... will look into this. >-->sales took off and AMC had to have a small 4 cyl of their own) and the 2.8L >-->V6. Late '86 XJs got the revised version of the 2.8L with better bearings >-->and anti-vibration design. GM came out with a targetmaster version, but I don't know of any revisions to the XJ line... AMC used externally balanced 2.8's. john >--> >--> >-->On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Terry Halmshaw from down under wrote: >-->> -->John could you explain to me just why we have such a problem with the >-->> 4.0?. >-->> -->You saw my guide on remedy right?. ( http://www.autoremedy.com ) >--> >-->yes, I did. the early '90's versions of the HO engines were flawed. They >-->had issues with the piston skirts as you noted, involved a bad wristpin if >-->I recall correctly. Most of my experiences have been with the '87 through >-->'89 >-->non-HO engines. From my xj list I've found that the '96 and up engines are >-->the best for power/reliability. Lots of folks have taken the 4.0L, combined >-->the crank and head from the 4.2 to the block of the 4.0 to make a 4.6 or 4.9 >-->stroker... there's at least one list specifically for the strokers... I >-->prefer to keep mine relatively stock... high flow cat, amsoil oil-soaked >-->air cleaner, flowmaster muffler, top-drawer spark plug wires and amsoil >-->synthetic oil... seems to be working... I've rolled 200,000 miles on more >-->than one XJ now... the stroker setup would resolve the piston skirt >-->problem and really boost the power. I wonder about reliability though, >-->I guess it's that I've heard of a few problems. But that might be a >-->solution for the problems you've seen, and an opportunity for you to >-->be the stroker solution down under. :) >--> >-->> -->Well that is very very common over here,collapsed skirts and or to much >-->> -->tolerance between wall and skirt,I have known them to slap at 15000 >-->> Km's. >-->> -->Over here they are called the petrol diesel. >--> >-->yes... watch what years are involved. I've worked on an '88 that >-->was run out of oil and water... made a bad noise even after replacing >-->the timing chain/oil pump and so on... suspect the piston was slapping, >-->but it worked... and I sold it that way... minus the cost of a replacement >-->engine for the future. The XJ was sold to me quite cheap and I fixed it >-->up a bunch, sold it for book value minus $1,500 for the engine and the guy >-->was quite happy, the bank was happy and I was happy. >--> >--> >-->> -->Yet when we had the same engine in the early 70's they were perfect >-->> engines >-->> -->that lasted a million miles,I'm confused. >-->> -->Perhaps we use inferior pistons??. >--> >-->The 4.0L is a derivitave of the venerable 4.2L - 258 cubic inch I-6. The >-->way >-->it goes is this... AMC developed the XJ in the early '80s and needed an >-->engine. >-->So they developed a superb 4 cylinder 2.5L, (the engine in my '86 Cherokee >-->Chief is that 2.5L fitted with a TBI!) they claim from the ground up, but >-->it's clear to me that they used the 4.2L block/head as a starting point. >-->Once >-->they developed it and put it into production they found it didn't have >-->enough >-->power for leadfoot americans... so they opted to purchase the worst engine >-->ever put into any Jeep ever... the chevrolet 2.8L V6... that was a >-->disaster... >-->they failed left and right, and for many, unfortunately shortly after the >-->warranty... >-->I suspect that they had been developing the 4.0L and just used the v6 as a >-->holdover... so by 1987 they had the 4.0L in place... but using a French >-->computer, >-->Renix. This was based on their alliance with Renault. The 4.0L was a >-->superb >-->success. Power, economy and reliablity. My personal experience with the >-->4.0L (non-HO, '80's vintage) has been absolutely superb. Other than a few >-->sensor issues, blowby and rear main seal leaks, they are awesome motors. >--> >-->I have heard of the woes of the early '90's HO... those problems appear to >-->occur in the 1st or 2nd piston and are associated with the wrist pins... >-->they >-->allow the piston to move too much and allow the skirts to hit. I haven't >-->not authoritatively confirmed this, but have heard this a couple of times >-->and makes sense. Supposedly the mid-90's 4.0L's are supposed to be the >-->best. I'll find out once SuperDawg is put back together, he's getting >-->a '96 4.0L HO. >--> >-->I was going to put an OM617 Mercedes 3.0L Turbo Diesel into an XJ... I've >-->been shopping for an XJ with a bad engine for cheap... I've found a number >-->of decent XJs with "engine problems", but am certain that almost all of >-->them have a bad sensor... throttle position sensor primarily. The crank >-->position sensor is another pain, but easier to figure out. So, that's >-->how I ended up with this 2.5L TBI XJ. It looks like I'll be getting my >-->'87 XJ 4.0L back from my son when he comes to retrieve this '79 300SD >-->I'm fixing now. It was rear ended. The '87 XJ has almost 260,000 miles on >-->it... it's tired... so I may look for a mid to late 80's Diesel Benz >-->as a donor in the future... hard to say... no time to do this stuff, >-->but it sure is fun to dream about. :) >--> >-->john >--> >-->btw, would love to get another Aussie Bullbar like the one on >-->my '88 XJ (see the wallpaper): >-->> -->> > -->> > -->> > -->> http://wagoneers.com/XJ/ >--> >-->> -->> > -->> > -->> > -->At 04:59 PM 29/03/2005, you wrote: >-->> -->> > -->> > -->> > -->> hey, Terry, >-->> -->> > -->> > -->> > -->> how much do the bullbars for the XJs cost? >-->> -->> > -->> > -->> > -->> I'm thinking I'd like to buy two for XJs and a >-->> couple >-->> -->> > -->> > -->> > -->> that way shipping might be affordable... >-->> -->> > -->> > -->> > -->> thoughts? >-->> -->> > -->> > -->> > -->> this thing NEEDS an Aussie bull bar: >-->> -->> > -->> > -->> > -->> http://wagoneers.com/XJ/rigs/86-Cherokee-Chief/ >-->> -->> http://wagoneers.com/XJ/rigs/86-Cherokee-Chief/P3260003.jpg >--> ---- >--> >-->------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--> ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** >--> Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. >-->------------------------------------------------------------------------- >--> >--> >--> ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:01:48 -0500 (EST) From: john Subject: Re: fsj: RE: 84 GW - Working on 4WD On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Brundage, Robert G wrote: >-->Jim and guys: >-->I cannot get the vacuum connection on the Transfer Case to move. >--> >-->How do I tell if this is frozen? on the transfer case itself??? which xfr case? the 229? are you talking about the vacuum switch on the side of the case? I don't think that moves... john >--> >--> >--> >-->Robert Brundage >-->GIS Coordinator >-->Department Public Works >-->Fort Campbell, KY >-->PH: 270-798-9571 >-->FAX: 270-798-2232 >--> >--> >-->-----Original Message----- >-->From: Jim Blair [mailto:carnuck1-at-msn.com] >-->Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 11:05 AM >-->To: Brundage, Robert G >-->Subject: Re: 84 GW - Working on 4WD >--> >-->Leaving the screw in will make sure it doesn't disengage. I'm seen people go >--> >-->so far as to fill the vacuum pot with silicone glue to ensure it never >-->moves! >--> ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:07:10 -0800 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: Re: fsj: 84 GW - Working on 4WD A: The shaft can spin freely when it's disengaged. The driver's side axle is permanently engaged anyways. The spider gears spin around with the short piece of right axle when the vacuum motor is disengaged. That's why this design doesn't do much to save gas over locking hubs. Everything, including the front driveshaft, can still spin (albeit just from the friction) when in 2wd. The weight and inertia of the shaft and angle of the Ujoints are all that keeps them from spinning. Both axle shafts and the carrier are still spinning in the front. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Jim Blair wrote: >-->A: That is a slider that is on splines. The right hand axle shaft is 2 >-->pieces and the Vacuum motor moves the slider on the spline until the 2 >-->pieces are locked. Only 1 shaft is disconnected in these rigs. but the driveshaft doesn't spin when it's disengaged... right? john ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:20:18 -0800 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: Re: fsj: RE: 84 GW - Working on 4WD A: He means the vacuum motor on the 229 Tcase. I explained to him about the third port needing plugged (one closest to the linkage) on that conversion for shift on the fly and that the vac motor (which is really just a fancy vacuum advance-like mechanism that pushes and pulls) probably needs taken out, cleaned and lubed then vacuum tested for movement. One big C (or E depending on your terminology) clip and the flip over clip on the linkage are all that keep it in there. With the floor plate off, it's usually a 15 minute job to take out. Bit longer from below and in inclement weather! I designed a cable to take the place of the vacuum motor, but can't market it because the design is too much like the front axle cable Posi-Lok sells for XJs. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Brundage, Robert G wrote: >-->Jim and guys: >-->I cannot get the vacuum connection on the Transfer Case to move. >--> >-->How do I tell if this is frozen? on the transfer case itself??? which xfr case? the 229? are you talking about the vacuum switch on the side of the case? I don't think that moves... john ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 13:31:10 -0800 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: Re: fsj: RE: 84 GW - Working on 4WD Yup! You can see the bolts from underneath the trans hump. (leftover from back when these rigs could have a factory 4 speed) If you have nice carpet, you may not want to, but I ripped mine out long ago. Robert wrote: There's a floor plate that comes off? Robert Brundage GIS Coordinator Department Public Works Fort Campbell, KY PH: 270-798-9571 FAX: 270-798-2232 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 16:31:18 -0600 From: Mike Dillon Subject: Re: fsj: 84 GW - Working on 4WD Ah, are you guys sure it is the right side ?, on my 83 Cherokee I am 99.98% the disconnected axle stub was the left or driver side. (I remember having to machine a new spindle bushing for that side after I had the bright idea that the little metal inner seal hold thingy was what was left of a spindle bearing and I was going to replace it, :( live and learn) Mike D. ate: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 12:28:56 -0800 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: Re: fsj: 84 GW - Working on 4WD A: That is a slider that is on splines. The right hand axle shaft is 2 pieces and the Vacuum motor moves the slider on the spline until the 2 pieces are locked. Only 1 shaft is disconnected in these rigs. On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Brundage, Robert G wrote: >>-->Hello: >>-->Jim Blair started me on a path to fix my 4WD on Friday. > > oh no... but to answer your question, it does sound like it is engaged, it's on open diff so if you spin the front tire and the driveshaft spins it's engaged... However, you have to understand that when you activate that vacuum motor you're pushing a fork that slides and engages the axle. I'll have to look to see if I have a diagram or picture... So, it may have engaged one side, but not the other... you need to lift both tires and spin and see if that makes a difference, because the mechanism only disengages one side if I recall correctly. There is a cable setup that can replace the vacuum setup. Jeep determined that there was only a 0.1 mpg losss to have the front shaft spinning... but the extra wear on the driveshaft u-joints makes it a maintenance issue. john >>-->I worked over the weekend and have some questions. >>--> >>-->The task was working on the vacuum activation of the 4WD. To by-pass >>the >>-->Front Axle 4WD vacuum by locking the engagement vacuum motor diaphragm >>in >>-->the engaged position. >>--> >>-->To do this I drilled a hole in the top of the diaphragm case and >>inserted a >>-->screw to force the diaphragm in the down position. >>--> >>-->I have the passenger side front wheel off the ground to tell when the >>front >>-->axle is engaged. The front wheel is not supposed to turn freely if it >>is >>-->engaged. >>--> >>-->The Problem: The front wheel spins whether the screw is screwed down >>tight, >>-->or not in the diaphragm at all. When I say that the wheel spins freely, >>the >>-->wheel spins and the front drive shaft spins. If I put a screw driver >>-->through the front drive shaft universal to keep the drive shaft form >>-->spinning the wheel will not spin. >>--> >>--> >>--> >>-->Does this mean that my Front Wheels are already engaged all the time? >>--> >>--> >>--> ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:27:24 -0500 From: "Neal Hoover" Subject: fsj: Re: xj a/c retrofit question i may just have that, too. i dunno what your duct system is like. if the ducting is the same, then i'd guess that just the control panel, condensor, collector, pump, and lines would be all you need, right? maybe the fan assy, too, depending on if that differs or not. lemme know how serious you are about it, and i'll see what i can scrounge up. Neal A. Hoover Project '76 J-10 Project '96 XJ http://community.webshots.com/user/proj96xj - ----- Original Message ----- From: "john" To: "Neal Hoover" Cc: "xj-list" ; "full size jeep list" Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:57 AM Subject: fsj: xj a/c retrofit question > On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Neal Hoover wrote: > > >-->i'd think that you could pick up an A/C system from a bone yard for cheap, > >-->as XJs are a dime a dozen these days. i think i even have a couple of > >-->Sanden pumps lying around the hangar... > >--> > how about the dash components... the compressor part is easy. > john > > > >-->Neal A. Hoover > >-->Project '76 J-10 > >-->Project '96 XJ > >-->http://community.webshots.com/user/proj96xj > >-->> Does any one know what it might cost to add A/C to a '92 Cherokee? > >-->> I found a really, really clean one without it... I think all > >-->> it needs is a TPS and it'll be 100%. But without a/c it's just > >-->> not desired by anyone here... strange as that may seem. :) > >-->> john > > ---- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** > Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 3/4/05 > > - -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 3/4/05 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 20:35:50 -0500 (EST) From: john Subject: fsj: Re: xj a/c retrofit question well, it means the difference between buying or not buying that '92 xj... what's the estimated bottom line on costs... and how much labor to make it so... guesttimates are fine. john On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Neal Hoover wrote: >-->i may just have that, too. >-->i dunno what your duct system is like. if the ducting is the same, then i'd >-->guess that just the control panel, condensor, collector, pump, and lines >-->would be all you need, right? >-->maybe the fan assy, too, depending on if that differs or not. >--> >-->lemme know how serious you are about it, and i'll see what i can scrounge >-->up. >--> >-->Neal A. Hoover >-->Project '76 J-10 >-->Project '96 XJ >-->http://community.webshots.com/user/proj96xj >-->----- Original Message ----- >-->From: "john" >-->To: "Neal Hoover" >-->Cc: "xj-list" ; "full size jeep list" >-->Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:57 AM >-->Subject: fsj: xj a/c retrofit question >--> >--> >-->> On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Neal Hoover wrote: >-->> >-->> >-->i'd think that you could pick up an A/C system from a bone yard for >-->cheap, >-->> >-->as XJs are a dime a dozen these days. i think i even have a couple of >-->> >-->Sanden pumps lying around the hangar... >-->> >--> >-->> how about the dash components... the compressor part is easy. >-->> john >-->> >-->> >-->> >-->Neal A. Hoover >-->> >-->Project '76 J-10 >-->> >-->Project '96 XJ >-->> >-->http://community.webshots.com/user/proj96xj >-->> >-->> Does any one know what it might cost to add A/C to a '92 Cherokee? >-->> >-->> I found a really, really clean one without it... I think all >-->> >-->> it needs is a TPS and it'll be 100%. But without a/c it's just >-->> >-->> not desired by anyone here... strange as that may seem. :) >-->> >-->> john >-->> >-->> ---- >-->> >-->> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-->> ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** >-->> Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. >-->> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- >-->> >-->> >-->> -- >-->> Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >-->> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >-->> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 3/4/05 >-->> >-->> >--> >--> >--> >--> >-->-- >-->Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. >-->Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. >-->Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.6.2 - Release Date: 3/4/05 >--> >--> ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #2401 **************************