From owner-fsj-digest-at-digest.net Wed Feb 16 17:47:03 2000 From: fsj-digest fsj-digest Wednesday, February 16 2000 Volume 01 : Number 732 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: fsj: Re: '84 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 360 2v HP/torque Re: fsj: Re: '84 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 360 2v HP/torque RE: fsj: Re: '84 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 360 2v HP/torque fsj: Re: '84 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 360 2v HP/torque RE: fsj: OME Springs fsj: RE: loving the FSJ commute... fsj: re: fsj-digest V1 #730 - Jeeps in the junkyard fsj: 0.9ohms between (+) and ground = Major Short? fsj: Re: 0.9ohms between (+) and ground = Major Short? Re: fsj: 0.9ohms between (+) and ground = Major Short? Re: fsj: 0.9ohms between (+) and ground = Major Short? fsj: OME Springs fsj: '84 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 360 2v HP/torque fsj: Fw: OME Springs 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: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 11:40:48 EST From: OrigamiTB-at-aol.com Subject: fsj: Re: '84 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 360 2v HP/torque In a message dated 2/15/00 12:29:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jamie.L.Phillips-at-us.ul.com wrote about valve-timing: > In 1971 the 360 (2bbl) had its intake valves opening at 18 1/2 degrees. > In 1972 the 360 (2bbl) had its intake valves opening at 14 3/4 degrees. That doesn't jibe with what I found in Chilton's "AMX and Javelin" and Petersen's "Complete Book of Engines": 1970 360 V-8 (both 2-bbl and 4-bbl): lift int/exh: 0.425/0.425 intake open/close/duration: 18.50 / 67.50 / 266 exhaust open/close/duration: 60.50 / 25.50 / 266 overlap: 44 (2-bbl) hp-at-rpm/torque-at-rpm: 245-at-4400 / 365-at-2400 (4-bbl) hp-at-rpm/torque-at-rpm: 290-at-4800 / 395-at-3200 1971 360 V-8 (both 2-bbl and 4-bbl): lift int/exh: 0.425/0.425 intake open/close/duration: 14.74 / 68.75 / 263.49 exhaust open/close/duration: 56.77 / 56.75 / 293.52 overlap: 71.49 (2-bbl) hp-at-rpm/torque-at-rpm: 245-at-4400 / 365-at-2600 (4-bbl) hp-at-rpm/torque-at-rpm: 285-at-4800 / 330-at-5000(?!) The '71 engine clearly had a "smog cam", with its long overlap and late-closing exhaust valve. The idea was to dilute the intake charge with exhaust gas, to lower the combustion temperature and pressure, reducing those nasty emissions. I don't believe that 5000-rpm torque peak, but it appears in both references, so maybe that's what the factory claimed (for reasons I can only try to imagine). Petersen's also shows slightly different (small fraction of a degree) valve-timings, but the data are identical otherwise. ++ Cornel Ormsby ++ not leaving Las Vegas ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 09:19:25 -0800 (PST) From: Carnuck-at-webtv.net (James Blair) Subject: Re: fsj: Re: '84 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 360 2v HP/torque A: What's the '76 Jeep 401 torque and HP? I have someone on the other list saying a Buick 455 makes more out of the box! In a message dated 2/15/00 12:29:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jamie.L.Phillips-at-us.ul.com wrote about valve-timing: In 1971 the 360 (2bbl) had its intake valves opening at 18 1/2 degrees. In 1972 the 360 (2bbl) had its intake valves opening at 14 3/4 degrees. That doesn't jibe with what I found in Chilton's "AMX and Javelin" and Petersen's "Complete Book of Engines": =A0=A01970 360 V-8 (both 2-bbl and 4-bbl): =A0lift int/exh: 0.425/0.425 =A0=A0intake open/close/duration: 18.50 / 67.50 / 266 exhaust open/close/duration: 60.50 / 25.50 / 266 overlap: 44 (2-bbl) hp-at-rpm/torque-at-rpm: 245-at-4400 / 365-at-2400 (4-bbl) hp-at-rpm/torque-at-rpm: 290-at-4800 / 395-at-3200 =A0=A01971 360 V-8 (both 2-bbl and 4-bbl): =A0lift int/exh: 0.425/0.425 =A0=A0intake open/close/duration: 14.74 / 68.75 / 263.49 exhaust open/close/duration: 56.77 / 56.75 / 293.52 overlap: 71.49 (2-bbl) hp-at-rpm/torque-at-rpm: 245-at-4400 / 365-at-2600 (4-bbl) hp-at-rpm/torque-at-rpm: 285-at-4800 / 330-at-5000(?!) The '71 engine clearly had a "smog cam", with its long overlap and late-closing exhaust valve. The idea was to dilute the intake charge with exhaust gas, to lower the combustion temperature and pressure, reducing those nasty emissions. I don't believe that 5000-rpm torque peak, but it appears in both references, so maybe that's what the factory claimed (for reasons I can only try to imagine). Petersen's also shows slightly different (small fraction of a degree) valve-timings, but the data are identical otherwise. ++ Cornel Ormsby ++ not leaving Las Vegas ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JimBlair, Seattle,WA 1983 4.2L Chero 4dr http://homepages.go.com/~carnuck/carnuck.html Pics: http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=3D13998&Auth=3Dfalse =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:55:22 -0700 From: "JC Jones" Subject: RE: fsj: Re: '84 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 360 2v HP/torque The Buick 455 BHP was rated between 315 and 360 depending on the year and model. The only specs I can find on the Jeep 401 is 215 BHP. So, in reality the Buick has between 47% and 67% more BHP than the AMC 401. Sor= ry to be the bearer of dissapointing news. JC Jones :) - -----Original Message----- From: owner-fsj-at-digest.net [mailto:owner-fsj-at-digest.net]On Behalf Of James Blair Sent: Wednesday, February 16, 2000 10:19 AM To: OrigamiTB-at-aol.com; fsj-at-digest.net Subject: Re: fsj: Re: '84 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 360 2v HP/torque A: What's the '76 Jeep 401 torque and HP? I have someone on the other list saying a Buick 455 makes more out of the box! In a message dated 2/15/00 12:29:16 PM Pacific Standard Time, Jamie.L.Phillips-at-us.ul.com wrote about valve-timing: In 1971 the 360 (2bbl) had its intake valves opening at 18 1/2 degrees. In 1972 the 360 (2bbl) had its intake valves opening at 14 3/4 degrees. That doesn't jibe with what I found in Chilton's "AMX and Javelin" and Petersen's "Complete Book of Engines": =A0=A01970 360 V-8 (both 2-bbl and 4-bbl): =A0lift int/exh: 0.425/0.425 =A0=A0intake open/close/duration: 18.50 / 67.50 / 266 exhaust open/close/duration: 60.50 / 25.50 / 266 overlap: 44 (2-bbl) hp-at-rpm/torque-at-rpm: 245-at-4400 / 365-at-2400 (4-bbl) hp-at-rpm/torque-at-rpm: 290-at-4800 / 395-at-3200 =A0=A01971 360 V-8 (both 2-bbl and 4-bbl): =A0lift int/exh: 0.425/0.425 =A0=A0intake open/close/duration: 14.74 / 68.75 / 263.49 exhaust open/close/duration: 56.77 / 56.75 / 293.52 overlap: 71.49 (2-bbl) hp-at-rpm/torque-at-rpm: 245-at-4400 / 365-at-2600 (4-bbl) hp-at-rpm/torque-at-rpm: 285-at-4800 / 330-at-5000(?!) The '71 engine clearly had a "smog cam", with its long overlap and late-closing exhaust valve. The idea was to dilute the intake charge with exhaust gas, to lower the combustion temperature and pressure, reducing those nasty emissions. I don't believe that 5000-rpm torque peak, but it appears in both references, so maybe that's what the factory claimed (for reasons I can only try to imagine). Petersen's also shows slightly different (small fraction of a degree) valve-timings, but the data are identical otherwise. ++ Cornel Ormsby ++ not leaving Las Vegas ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JimBlair, Seattle,WA 1983 4.2L Chero 4dr http://homepages.go.com/~carnuck/carnuck.html Pics: http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=3D13998&Auth=3Dfalse =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 13:03:55 EST From: OrigamiTB-at-aol.com Subject: fsj: Re: '84 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 360 2v HP/torque In a message dated 2/16/00 9:19:42 AM Pacific Standard Time, James Blair asked: > What's the '76 Jeep 401 torque and HP? Check it out at: http://www.froadin.com/eng_360_401.html ++ Cornel Ormsby ++ not leaving Las Vegas ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:15:44 -0800 From: john Subject: RE: fsj: OME Springs At 04:18 AM 2/16/00 -0700, Berry, Bradley A wrote: >Actually, while I was talking to Buddy, he was talking to somebody there who >has a FSJ, and I think his name was Mark. NO, his name is MARC. :) Marc Bowers, he was one of my writers when I was editor of Cherokee America on orc... ;) He had an XJ, then saw the light and now has a 67 J3000. Very nice guy, very knowledgeable, actually is a real mechanic even. john - ----------------------------------------------------- john-at-wagoneers.com http://www.wagoneers.com ...don't leave life without Jesus, please! Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... - ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:17:44 -0800 From: john Subject: fsj: RE: loving the FSJ commute... At 08:05 AM 2/16/00 -0700, JC Jones wrote: >Wow, I wish I could get even close to 13mpg.. > >JC Jones :) I'll try to do the math later, brought in my notes... john - ----------------------------------------------------- john-at-wagoneers.com http://www.wagoneers.com ...don't leave life without Jesus, please! Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... - ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 10:57:38 -0800 From: Clark Novak Subject: fsj: re: fsj-digest V1 #730 - Jeeps in the junkyard Man, I wish I was where you guys are. Out here in San Diego, FSJs in the yards are as hard to find as Henry J's. DJ-5s, on the other hand, are plentiful :) Here's an open request: if any of you comes across a the chrome rub rails (you know, the ones that screw over the carpet on the inside) for the tailgate of an 84-91 Grand Wag in your travels through the boneyard, please grab 'em for me. I'll pay the freight and purchase price. I also really want the rollout cargo cover for a tan interior, if you ever see one. Just let me know and if you find one and we'll work it out. Clark Novak 87 Grand Wag ("The Judge") - ----- Original Message ----- > Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2000 16:47:35 -0500 > From: Michael Baxter > Subject: fsj: A sad and amazing bone yard find > I just ran into an '80 WT here at Pick-N-Pull in similar condition. It > had some dents here and there but, it was rust free as well. I think there > were 8-9 FSJs at the local Pick-N-Pull when Mac and I pulled that Buick 350 > for him last week. And Pick-N-Pull turns them over fast. Longest I've seen > a FSJ there is about 5-6 weeks. Of course, every time we find FSJs in junk > yards, there is one less on the road :-(. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 15:11:03 -0500 From: Robert Barry Subject: fsj: 0.9ohms between (+) and ground = Major Short? Got a few second today to do some troubleshooting on why my Cherokee drained the battery overnight. First test was for continuity between the (+) battery terminal and ground ((-) cable disconnected from the battery). Ignition key out, no accessories or lights or door open. Should be no continuity whatsoever, right? I got a reading of 0.9 ohms. I imagine, then, that I'm looking at a major short. First I'll pull the (+) connector for the tailgate, since that's a no-tool job, and see if that cuts out the short. Then I'll isolate the alternator, and see if it's shorting internally. Then I figured I'd remove the firewall bulkhead connectors for the wiring harness, to isolate it to something in the engine compartment or something running through the dash. If it's under the dash, then I pull fuses one by one. If nothing there, then it's a matter of disconnecting the connectors that run 12V (+) unfused. If it's still showing continuity with all fuses out and all unfused 12V switches disconnected, then I'm looking at one of the dash wires (which I just completely redid) as a culprit. Am I missing anything in there? Electrical stuff is not my thing, so I may be way off on some of the assumptions behind the above course of action. If so, please alert me and save me unnecessary grief. I have enough necessary grief just trying to keep a 22-year old FSJ on the road! ;) ________________________________________________ Bob Barry MailTo:RBarry-at-Providence.Edu http://studentweb.providence.edu/~rbarry/wheels/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 12:35:19 -0800 (PST) From: Carnuck-at-webtv.net (James Blair) Subject: fsj: Re: 0.9ohms between (+) and ground = Major Short? A: You are checking from the + battery post to the negative cable (battery disconnected) with the ignition off, door closed (interior light don't forget), no clock or anything hooked up to the live side with all fuses pulled and getting .9? That's a short unless something is on like glovebox light or something. I'd unplug the tailgate harnes underneath. From: Robert Barry Got a few second today to do some troubleshooting on why my Cherokee drained the battery overnight. First test was for continuity between the (+) battery terminal and ground ((-) cable disconnected from the battery). Ignition key out, no accessories or lights or door open. Should be no continuity whatsoever, right? I got a reading of 0.9 ohms. I imagine, then, that I'm looking at a major short. First I'll pull the (+) connector for the tailgate, since that's a no-tool job, and see if that cuts out the short. Then I'll isolate the alternator, and see if it's shorting internally. Then I figured I'd remove the firewall bulkhead connectors for the wiring harness, to isolate it to something in the engine compartment or something running through the dash. If it's under the dash, then I pull fuses one by one. If nothing there, then it's a matter of disconnecting the connectors that run 12V (+) unfused. If it's still showing continuity with all fuses out and all unfused 12V switches disconnected, then I'm looking at one of the dash wires (which I just completely redid) as a culprit. Am I missing anything in there? Electrical stuff is not my thing, so I may be way off on some of the assumptions behind the above course of action. If so, please alert me and save me unnecessary grief. I have enough necessary grief just trying to keep a 22-year old FSJ on the road! ;) ______________________________________________ Bob Barry =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 MailTo:RBarry-at-Providence.Edu http://studentweb.providence.edu/~rbarry/wheels/ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ JimBlair, Seattle,WA 1983 4.2L Chero 4dr http://homepages.go.com/~carnuck/carnuck.html Pics: http://albums.photopoint.com/j/AlbumList?u=3D13998&Auth=3Dfalse =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D= =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 17:31:58 -0500 From: Robert Barry Subject: Re: fsj: 0.9ohms between (+) and ground = Major Short? At 02:06 PM 2/16/2000 -0800, john wrote: >make sure everything is turned off... >as James pointed out, pull the fuse to the clock, and the > memory to the radio... The wire feeding the clock is pulled from the fusebox, and there is no radio. And, of course, the door was closed, so the domelights did not have a completed circuit. >everything else should be off... pulling the fuses out might >be a good idea. Then plug 'em in one by one and check. That's part of what I'll be doing. >Look for wires that are rubbing too. > >what might be a better test is to get an amp meter and put it >in line with the cables, with everything turned off and see if >there is any leakage current, if so, how much? My multimeter only goes up to 10A; it pegged that meter when I had it in-line. Actually, a bad short will be easier to trace than a minor short; the damage should be pretty evident. I'm betting on either the alternator or the tailgate components; we'll find out this weekend! ________________________________________________ Bob Barry MailTo:RBarry-at-Providence.Edu http://studentweb.providence.edu/~rbarry/wheels/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 14:51:26 -0800 From: john Subject: Re: fsj: 0.9ohms between (+) and ground = Major Short? you mentioned the alternator... duh... disconnect the lead going to the alternater and test again... if you have a bad regulator or a shorted diode it'll do the same thing... remove the red lead going to the stud on the back, and disconnect the plug... test again and see... If you pegged the needle at 10A with everything off it points to the alternator... john At 05:31 PM 2/16/00 -0500, Robert Barry wrote: >At 02:06 PM 2/16/2000 -0800, john wrote: >>make sure everything is turned off... >>as James pointed out, pull the fuse to the clock, and the >> memory to the radio... > >The wire feeding the clock is pulled from the fusebox, and there is no >radio. And, of course, the door was closed, so the domelights did not have >a completed circuit. > >>everything else should be off... pulling the fuses out might >>be a good idea. Then plug 'em in one by one and check. > >That's part of what I'll be doing. > >>Look for wires that are rubbing too. >> >>what might be a better test is to get an amp meter and put it >>in line with the cables, with everything turned off and see if >>there is any leakage current, if so, how much? > >My multimeter only goes up to 10A; it pegged that meter when I had it in-line. > >Actually, a bad short will be easier to trace than a minor short; the >damage should be pretty evident. I'm betting on either the alternator or >the tailgate components; we'll find out this weekend! >________________________________________________ >Bob Barry MailTo:RBarry-at-Providence.Edu >http://studentweb.providence.edu/~rbarry/wheels/ > - ----------------------------------------------------- john-at-wagoneers.com http://www.wagoneers.com ...don't leave life without Jesus, please! Snohomish, WA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold... - ----------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:42:50 -0500 From: Michael Baxter Subject: fsj: OME Springs "Berry, Bradley A" writes: >> eye-bolt to eye-bolt length, along the camber of the spring. # of leaves Vehicle Weight arch of the spring (distance from plane of the eyebolts, to the inside face of the spring.) I guess we'd have to give him the final distance above with the weight on= & off the wheels, as he didn't specify it. Any other info such as stock spring rates & shackle size would get us a little farther along. If anybody happens to know this, or has the time to check it before I get to= it, please let me know. << I could probably provide all that data if they want to consider my '79s typical. I know how much the Chero. weighs at each wheel with a full= tank of fuel exactly. The only problem is the Chero. is in my storage uni= t and I plan to leave it there until I finish revitalizing the Benz's engin= e. After last weekend, I can actually walk from one side of my garage to the= other. I packed-up the 401/390 in boxes for the trip to the machinist. I only need to find the Magnum roller lifter & yoke I'm using to see if the= Magnum rollers will work and I can take the whole thing to the shop. Then= finish the Benz and finally get the Chero. back in the garage. At that point, I could measure all that stuff and provide the data. Hey, if anyone on the list with a disc brake J-20 is planning to have the front up on jack stands with the wheels off in the near future, I'd like to ask a favor. I need to know the wheel flange to wheel flange measurement. Michael Baxter, MBaxter-at-Compuserve.com-OR-N7OVD-at-arrl.net http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MBaxter From Reno, NV USA on 16-Feb-2000 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 20:42:49 -0500 From: Michael Baxter Subject: fsj: '84 Jeep Grand Wagoneer 360 2v HP/torque Jamie.L.Phillips-at-us.ul.com writes: >> To keep things simple, I will just go over information on the 360 engi= ne you mentioned (2bbl) from '71 to '72. In 1971 the 360 (2bbl) had its intake valves opening at 18 1/2 degrees. In 1972 the 360 (2bbl) had its intake valves opening at 14 3/4 degrees. This indicates that they were indeed adjusting valve timing during this period. In 1971 the 360 (2bbl) had an "advertised" compression ratio of 8.5:1. In 1972 the 360 (2bbl) had an "advertised" compression ratio of 8.5:1. No change, no effect. In 1971 the 360 (2bbl) had an "advertised" horse power of 245-at-4400. In 1972 the 360 (2bbl) had an "advertised" horse power of 175-at-4000. A significant drop in horse power. << In 1971-'72 the SAE standardized the way engine power was measured. AMC adopted the standard for the '72 model year. The rule of thumb to convert from Gross HP to SAE NET HP is to take 30% off of the Gross numbers. Your reference is right about the 8.5 to 1 for '71 and '72. At least that's what AMC reported. It may be the 304 which had 8.4 to 1 that I was remembering. AMC increased the size of the combustion chambers in the= big valve dog-leg heads from 51cc to 58cc (I measured 57 cc on a '76 big valve head) during the '71 model year. That's when I believe the compression ratio dropped but, AMC seems to have continued to report 8.5 = to 1 until '73. Maybe the engineers changed the pistons and maybe the marketing dept. took advantage of a lack of communication? I don't know a= nd I've never researched the Parts Book for piston part number changes. AMC engineers were working on the 360s performance just after its introduction in '70. My educated guess as to why AMC increased the combustion chamber volume in '71 was to unshroud the valves somewhat and improve flow. I've never had a '71 small chamber head to play with on the= flow bench, but I'll bet it doesn't flow as well as a '72-up head. I believe the extra flow offset the small compression ratio loss. Raising t= he compression ratio from 8.0 to 9.0 would only net a 2% increase in power anyway. = AMC also bumped the exhaust valve from 1.625" to 1.68" in '71 and they dumped the log type exhaust manifolds for the much better flowing ones we= have today. And it looks like I missed the cam change by 1 year. I have the following= for '72, '76, '79 and '91. But please post the full '71 cam specs. becaus= e I'd love to see what they were doing back then. I'm rounding the event timing to the nearest degree BTW. AMC was a little anal with their valve event timing specs. IMO. You can only get so accurate with a cam driven b= y a timing chain and 1/4 degree increments is asking a lot from an inexact drive. IVO 15 BTDC IVC 69 ABDC EVO 57 BBDC EVC 27 ATDC Overlap 41.5 Duration 263.5 intake, 263.5 exhaust (seat to seat, AMC doesn't specify) Lobe Separation Angle 111 degrees. (calculated by me) Intake & Exhaust lobe lift is .266" It's a really good grind IMO. I'd like to see a little more lift and it could be considered too radical for moving 4,500 lb. plus vehicles. But f= or an OEM grind, they don't come much better. Robert Barry writes: >> What were the closing events? This could be a retarded timing gear, if= not an actual change in the camshaft (a book with part #'s would be good = to solve this). << Of course, If AMC just changed the keyway as James pointed out the possibility and left the grind the same, it would still affect performanc= e. Valve event timing is in crankshaft degrees and if you advance or retard = it relative the to the crankshaft, the performance will change. However 4 degrees retarded is only moderate and we could easily achieve '71 cam specs. with an aftermarket gear with 4 degree either way and straight-up keyholes if this turns-out to be what the AMC engineers did. I've theoriz= ed on the list before (with John mainly) that what someone really ought to d= o was advance the stock cam at least 8 degrees. I believe that'll pick-up t= he bottom-end, flatten the torque curve and increase mileage. At the expense= of the top-end though. Michael Baxter, MBaxter-at-Compuserve.com-OR-N7OVD-at-arrl.net http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MBaxter From Reno, NV USA on 16-Feb-2000 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 19:45:45 -0600 From: "TLynn" Subject: fsj: Fw: OME Springs I've got a 75' J-10 in the air...would the distance on the frant be the same as the j_20? Hey, if anyone on the list with a disc brake J-20 is planning to have the front up on jack stands with the wheels off in the near future, I'd like to ask a favor. I need to know the wheel flange to wheel flange measurement. Michael Baxter, MBaxter-at-Compuserve.com-OR-N7OVD-at-arrl.net http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/MBaxter From Reno, NV USA on 16-Feb-2000 ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #732 *************************