In topic:  My new Stroker is overheating,  Comanche91 wrote:

amcinstaller wrote:
nice. we use SPAL for our power window kits. motors are awesome, kits can NOT be beat. just all around great stuff. so, you eat off it when its cooled, but cook on it when hot?*end hijack*

*Continue hijack* for a sec. I have not used the SPAL power window kits, but have used the ones from Electric Life in a few Jeeps. Quality regulators, bolt-in, long lasting, and much faster than the crappy OEM regulators.

http://www.electric-life.com/shopexd.asp?id=1175

And back on-topic: Unfortunately, the engine compartment doesn't get hot enough anymore to cook with.

Topic views:  152 | Topic replies:  12 | Post views RSS: 450

In topic:  My new Stroker is overheating,  Comanche91 wrote:

Cheromaniac wrote:
Do you eat dinner off your engine?

Only after it cools down.

amcinstaller wrote:
is that a fuse holder on the pass fender by the battery? and whats the SPAL box for?

Yes, it's an aux fuse box I use for the H4 headlamps, power accessories (windows, mirrors, seat, etc.), and electric fans. The Spal controller is used to regulate the electric fan that replaced the mechanical fan. The other electric fan is controlled normally.



Topic views:  152 | Topic replies:  12 | Post views RSS: 438

In topic:  INTERESTING..Factory Harmonic Balancer,  Comanche91 wrote:

I found this somewhere when I ran into the same problem:

Newer Mopar Harmonic Balancers Not the Same As Older Units

I have run across something you all will need to know sooner or later. When your 4.0L needs a replacement crank damper due to separation if you get a factory replacement (Mopar) one at the dealer you will find that it won't go on the crank all the way. The old part number (33002920) supercedes to the one (33002920AB) used on 2001 and newer 4.0L's. To use this new damper on 87-00 4.0L's you will have to remove the oil slinger (eliminated on 2001 4.0L's)
on the crank timing chain gear which requires removing the timing cover.

Now the only direct replacement ones are aftermarket at places like Pep Boys. Make a note of this if you plan on using a factory one. -Don

Topic views:  137 | Topic replies:  4 | Post views RSS: 446

In topic:  My new Stroker is overheating,  Comanche91 wrote:

Cheromaniac wrote:
The stock 2-row HD radiator will cool just fine. Many of the aftermarket 3-row radiators are less efficient because the rows are narrower so they're not the answer. What you need is:

1. Get rid of the clutch fan and replace it with a second electric fan. Another XJ auxiliary fan might fit if you shorten the studs on the clutch fan pulley.
2. New stock 2-row HD radiator.
3. High-flow water pump. It really does make a difference when you're going up steep hills.

The 2nd XJ aux fan fits in there just fine. Here's how I did mine:

http://i182.photobucket.com/albums/x297/comanche91/smallwAMSOILFilter1.jpg?1283102376

Also as Dino suggests, I installed a single row aluminum radiator and a Hesco hi-flow water pump. No problems since with overheating. The cowl hood helps too.



Topic views:  152 | Topic replies:  12 | Post views RSS: 311

In topic:  Dollars per HP,  Comanche91 wrote:

1bolt wrote:
Definitely planing another hood actually half way done just halted due to a million other things I need to do... Man I wish life would stop interfering with my toys

Yeah, unfortunately life gets in the way sometimes. So I guess you'll reuse your modded air box in the XJ? That's some excellent work and had to be very time consuming to make fit. Your cowl hood looks like it will not interfere with the right side wiper as the cowl does not extend back toward the windshield as the Reflexxion hood does. You would think they would have thought of this before releasing the final product. That's the first thing I'll need to fix by either lowering the wiper post or modding the wiper arm socket. Then relocate the intake. Thanks!

Topic views:  1389 | Topic replies:  61 | Post views RSS: 221

In topic:  Dollars per HP,  Comanche91 wrote:

Comanche91 wrote:
Gojeep had a nice setup for his intake filter on his site too as you mentioned, but can't seem to find it right now.......

Marcus just sent me the link. Sweet intake setup and fits right in with this topic.

http://www.go.jeep-xj.info/HowtoAirFilter.htm

1bolt wrote:
In all seriousness with your level of mods you might just get 15 -20 horses if you seal a high flow filter to the cowl opening like mine used to be.

Also, Simon, I just read your build of the cowl intake and box - ingenious. May I ask why it's now "used to be"?

Topic views:  1389 | Topic replies:  61 | Post views RSS: 199

In topic:  Dollars per HP,  Comanche91 wrote:

Yes Simon, I have the K&N FIPK w. a big dry Amsoil filter like below, and have been thinking about relocating it at the cowl inake as you mentioned. It's shielded pretty well w. the K&N heat shield, and the Amsoil filter is an inverted cone filter, so most of the air comes thru the grill openings (at speed) into the filter, but does nothing crawling around in traffic. But I know that's not as cold as the air would be coming in at the cowl. Gojeep had a nice setup for his intake filter on his site too as you mentioned, but can't seem to find it right now.......



Topic views:  1389 | Topic replies:  61 | Post views RSS: 144

In topic:  Dollars per HP,  Comanche91 wrote:

1bolt wrote:
well that certainly makes more sense... While I'm sceptical of HESCO's dyno claims in general I can definitely see a good dyno tuned aftemarket fuel/spark setup gaining the power you saw with your unichip. Using optimal (i.e. not factory) spark curve in EAP is worth a pretty similar bump.

Hey Simon, notice I finally got a new Reflexxion cowl hood on? That should be good for an additional 10-20 horses right? Maybe I should make a speed run down to Hesco and do another dyno run.............

Topic views:  1389 | Topic replies:  61 | Post views RSS: 150

In topic:  Dollars per HP,  Comanche91 wrote:

1bolt wrote:
Anyway as far as evidence goes; I've said it before, but basic stock 4.0 ain't putting down 182 horses at the wheels if I'm remembering wrong and thats a flywheel number you are quoting then I will admit I'm wrong, 182 is something I'd expect to see at the flywheel. It's a LOT more than 99% of the stock 4.0 chassis (wheel) dyno numbers I've seen.

I've never seen anyone post a dyno of a stock 4.0 making even 150 wheel hp, let alone 182.

The 182.4HP/228.7 @ 4250 RPM reading was the first dyno run for the fresh stroker engine before any mods, not a stock engine. That's about the average for your basic 4.6L stroker, right? Plus the AW4 doesn't help............

Topic views:  1389 | Topic replies:  61 | Post views RSS: 142

In topic:  Dollars per HP,  Comanche91 wrote:

Cheromaniac wrote:
I've done that already and the results are hardly mind-blowing, and not even close to Hesco's super-overinflated dyno numbers. Then again, that's exactly what i expected if you remember what i said in the EAP thread.

So you're saying the Hesco lies and deliberately calibrates their dyno to show "super-overinflated dyno numbers"? I think that's a really dumbass thing to say and it's your opinion only. Since day one w. my stroker I've had a dyno run everytime I did a major mod that affected performance. Like the exhaust install (Mike Leach headers w. 2.5 duals all the way back), bored throttle body and intake mods, 01 intake manifold install, then Unichip. It's been a nice steady progression of peak HP and torque from the day one Peak Torque / HP vs. RPM wheel readings of 182.4HP/228.7 @ 4250RPM to the last results I posted HERE. And ALL the runs were on the same freekin' dyno! They are required to have their dyno calibrated every six months. Stroked I6's are only a small portion of engines they built and tune; from 2-stroke Saabs all the way up to Ferrari's, NASCAR engines and Formula I cars. I have a lot of respect for what you have done for the stroker community Dino, but to make statements like that you must have your head up a UAE camel's butt. Come on over to 'Bama and take a tour of the Hesco facility; I think you'll be impressed.

Topic views:  1389 | Topic replies:  61 | Post views RSS: 136

In topic:  What other vehicles have you owned?,  Comanche91 wrote:

Some of the more interesting ones:

1936 Ford 5-window coupe w. 327/325 engine, D/D for ten years.
1963 Studebaker Avanti, the original, w. a Paxton R4 supercharged 289 Stude engine. 9 MPG if you're lucky.
A 1965 and 1966 Saab Monte Carlo. 850cc's of rompin' 2-stroke. Used to ice race these things on Lake Champlain back in the day.
1980 CJ all-stainless "owner jeepney" built in the Philippines. My D/D there for about 15 years. 350 chevy, Muncie 4-speed, A/C. Lots of fun to drive.

Topic views:  459 | Topic replies:  23 | Post views RSS: 140

In topic:  Some prefered vendors,  Comanche91 wrote:

Besides the ones already mentioned, here's few I've had great service and parts from over the years:

http://mopardiscountparts.com: Best source I've found for regulation OEM Jeep parts.

http://www.fuelsender.com/services.html: These guys can fix unfixable fuel sending units.

http://www.geocities.com/JeepI6Power/: Jon Kelly's site for quality battery cables, alternators, and knowledgable free electrical advice.

http://www.rigidsteel.com/y0p0tC1k0.html: Super prices for Jeep OEM and afermarket parts.

http://www.hesco.us/: And of course, Hesco for quality second to none.

Topic views:  298 | Topic replies:  13 | Post views RSS: 134

In topic:  Mopar Underground 4.7L Stroker Prototype?,  Comanche91 wrote:

Gotta be better than that Titan POS you bought.

Topic views:  1040 | Topic replies:  8 | Post views RSS: 160

In topic:  Mopar Underground 4.7L Stroker Prototype?,  Comanche91 wrote:

Any info on this article? About halfway down the page. If it's been posted before I didn't see it:

CLICK HERE

Topic views:  1040 | Topic replies:  8 | Post views RSS: 121

In topic:  RUNNING stroker specs and pinging survey DCR/SCR,  Comanche91 wrote:

Hey Dino - glad you got the manifold installed. Looking forward to see your assessment mate.

Topic views:  1211 | Topic replies:  14 | Post views RSS: 186

In topic:  Intake/exhaust heat wrapping?,  Comanche91 wrote:

SilverXJ wrote:
That shield is part of a recall. It doesn't keep any think cooler. What it is intended to do is keep debris from gathering in the area neat the header, and keep it from hitting the header and causing a fire. It also does nothing for the fuel injectors.

Pretty broad statement, but I doubt you can back it up your "doesn't keep any think cooler" claim. But you are correct right regarding the recall. More bum dope I received from the dealership. Did some digging; this is the recall:

http://www.allworldauto.com/recalls/NHTSA_02V104000_2002_jeep_wrangler_recall_48869.html,

part number is CBXCB060, about $3. I've had it on my intake for some time now, no adverse effects, and will keep it for now and do some injector/intake temp checks w. and w/o the shield.

Topic views:  236 | Topic replies:  11 | Post views RSS: 106

In topic:  Intake/exhaust heat wrapping?,  Comanche91 wrote:

Not wrapping, but a heat shield between the headers and the intake if you're running the 99+ intake. Works well and lowers the intake and injector temps. Factory part.



Topic views:  236 | Topic replies:  11 | Post views RSS: 84

In topic:  Will 99+ intake manifold and injectors work for a stroker?,  Comanche91 wrote:

gradon wrote:
I have a 96, so no return line w/ regulator that can be modded or swapped out. I haven't looked into adding a fpr, a higher psi fuel pump, nor have I monitored my existing fp(I know I should've already done it, with everything else I've monitored). What I do know is that I have light pinging in closed loop right before open loop(medium acelleration b/t 2.5K-3Krpm w/40-60%tp) and I can't add fuel because the pcm will pull it right back out(it probably needs to be 13.5-14.0:1 there, or else timing backed off 5*), so I don't think it's an issue with pressure, but with my high 8.57:1 dcr that has me a lil over the edge of pump fuel. If I WOT from stop, it's not there. I haven't been to the Sunoco that carries 104 or even seen an e85(maybe use 5 gallons with 10 gallons of 93) station around to see if it's still there. This last trip to PA averaging 70+mph up and down Mts for 202mi took 5/8 of a tank both ways. Normal city driving is 15-16mpg and highway 18-19(cause I don't stick to 55 or 65).

Ah, forgot you had a 96. I have no pinging whatsoever using regular pump gas, at least that I can hear. It required some tweeking with the adj. FP regulator at the Hesco dyno. I'd definitely throw a gauge on your rail first thing though to be sure the pump is within specs. Your milege is about the same as mine too.

Topic views:  284 | Topic replies:  8 | Post views RSS: 120

In topic:  Will 99+ intake manifold and injectors work for a stroker?,  Comanche91 wrote:

gradon wrote:
After my West coast trip in May, I'll be visiting the Unichip custom tune shop that's 11mi away, so thanks again Comanche for posting the results. I already maxed out the 25.5# LT1s via PSC1 trying to get 12.8:1afr with a load in 5th b/t 2k-3Krpm(it dropped slowly from 13.3-12.8), so maybe my ported head breathes too much air and needs the bigger injectors(I'm even curious about the 27#ers, just to experience the option).

You're welcome Gradon. Will be very interested in your findings. Just curious - what kind of mileage are you getting w. the 25.5 LT1s? And at what FP are you set at?

Topic views:  284 | Topic replies:  8 | Post views RSS: 82

In topic:  Will 99+ intake manifold and injectors work for a stroker?,  Comanche91 wrote:

gradon wrote:
Manifold yes, injectors no--they're 22.5#s on a 49psi rail, won't fit on the earlier harnesses and will flow less if you have a 39psi rail(<96). The highest flowing stock injectors were the gray tops, at 23.2#, used from 96-98. The gray tops didn't cut it on my 96 stroker. . .

The 99+ manifold and gray top injectors @ 49# make it just fine for moi. But I think the UniChip has a lot to do with that.

Topic views:  284 | Topic replies:  8 | Post views RSS: 127

In topic:  About to install my MAP adjuster but...,  Comanche91 wrote:

Some recommended settings at the bottom of the page:

http://go.jeep-xj.info/HowtoMAPsensor.htm

Topic views:  146 | Topic replies:  2 | Post views RSS: 94

In topic:  Late model intake swap????,  Comanche91 wrote:

Rob92XJ wrote:
Sorry to clarify my Jeep is a 92 XJ and the parts dept at my job is closed as well as the parts store we deal with so I need a number or application to goto Advance or AutoZone with since the people in the stores here do not seem to know how to look anything up any other way.

Did you also swap in the 96+ power steering pump, bracket, and idler pulley, then remove your original idler pulley? That's what I did on my 91. If so, you'll need a 99+ XJ serpentine belt.

Topic views:  173 | Topic replies:  7 | Post views RSS: 47

In topic:  UNICHIP Newbie Tech Question (Not first stroker),  Comanche91 wrote:

I'm running the Unichip on my Hesco stroker and am very happy with it. Check HERE

Topic views:  114 | Topic replies:  1 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Preferred Stroker Plugs,  Comanche91 wrote:

IIRC, the factory recommended plugs for the OBD2 XJs were NGKs.

Topic views:  1061 | Topic replies:  36 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Preferred Stroker Plugs,  Comanche91 wrote:

I've tried NGKs, Bosche, Champion "Truck" plugs, etc. ad nauseaum. Nothing works better for me than the old school RC9 or RC10 copper cores. They are recommended both by Mopar and Hesco for the OBDI NA and strokers; I'm stickin' with them.

Topic views:  1061 | Topic replies:  36 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  parts for '99-newer intake upgrade,  Comanche91 wrote:

1bolt wrote:
And once again Comanche91 that is the cleanest engine bay I've ever seen in an MJ...

Thanks 1bolt. All I need now is steel a cowl hood. You must be tired of yours by now, no?

Topic views:  509 | Topic replies:  21 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  parts for '99-newer intake upgrade,  Comanche91 wrote:

You're gonna love it Dino. Didn't the donor have the newer pump and bracket assembly? Also, does your rig have headers? I know there are clearance problems with the new intake on some, most noticibly Borlas. Luckily I had no problems with my Mike Leach header.



Topic views:  509 | Topic replies:  21 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  parts for '99-newer intake upgrade,  Comanche91 wrote:

Cheromaniac wrote:
DJJordache's 4.0 was down on power with the old injectors and probably most of the HP gain was from swapping in newer injectors as well as the manifold. Comanche91's 12rwhp/12rwtq gain does look genuine though but I don't think that'll be representative of a stockish 4.0. I know Mr. Shoeboy (Aaron) dyno'd his 4.6 stroker before and after installing the newer manifold with no other changes. The difference was only 3rwhp/5rwtq.
That said, you've got to wonder why the '00-'01 4.0 XJ with the newer manifold was only rated 3hp/6lbft higher than it's predecessor, especially when DC claimed 2hp of that gain was from the new water pump. The only other change apart from the ignition system (no HP gain there) was the 0331 head. If the 12hp gain really was representative of what the newer manifold achieves, then the 0331 head must produce an 11hp loss. Somehow I seriously doubt that and that's the reason for my skepticism.

I didn't know you were Cheromaniac Dino. Your handle fits. I have the 0630 head and did some slight polishing around the manifold intake ports (just to take out the casting bumps), so maybe that helped. Plus the old dyno readings were with the mechanical fan, I now have two electrics (as you know), so maybe that helped a bit too. Don

Topic views:  509 | Topic replies:  21 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Stroked 1992 XJ Questions,  Comanche91 wrote:

Boilermaker wrote:
 Quote…

Unichip does not produce a piggyback for pre-93

Apparently they do, i have no experience with it tho. More info here:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=387

I have one on my 91. It's not exactly PNP; has to be hardwired into the ECU harness and will work on all OBD1s. Easy to do.

Topic views:  164 | Topic replies:  5 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  parts for '99-newer intake upgrade,  Comanche91 wrote:

Cheromaniac wrote:
I don't know where this 15hp claim keeps coming from but it's BS. The actual gain is more like 3hp/5lbft at the wheels. Still, it's nice to have the newer PS pump set up which makes changing the drivebelt and adjusting its tension much easier.

No BS Cheromaniac. Check the dyno sheets, page 2:

http://www.jeepstrokers.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=387&start=15

When in doubt, DYNO. Agree on the easier belt changing and adjusting; much better.

Topic views:  509 | Topic replies:  21 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Sexy stroker turned into Bucking Bronco...,  Comanche91 wrote:

Just a FYI: I show a code 13 on a OBDI 91 as: No change in Manifold Absolute Pressure (MAP) between engine off and on. Check circuit and MAP sensor.

Did you check the 5V supply input voltage on the VIO wire? How about the output? Sounds like the MAP might be inop?

Topic views:  818 | Topic replies:  76 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Fuel Injector Questions,  Comanche91 wrote:

I found this place on-line and asked for a quote for the Mopar 53030778 injectors I use; they were $26.50 each, and are new factory parts. That's less than 1/2 of anywhere else I could find. They have many listed, it might be worth a shot to ask for a quote for the quantity and type you want.

http://www.surplustraders.net/a/0803.shtml

Topic views:  480 | Topic replies:  32 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Fuel Injector Questions,  Comanche91 wrote:

I asked Lee the same question. The A/F ratio @ WOT after he finished tuning the Unichip was 12.8.

Topic views:  480 | Topic replies:  32 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Fuel Injector Questions,  Comanche91 wrote:

gradon wrote:
A couple ?s comanche: Did you have the 23.2s in there before the unichip? If so, how did it run? I know on my 96, the 23.2s didn't cut it--way too lean(esp in the 2700-3300 range). The 25.5# I have on there now still need the pcm to add 10+% to the STFT to make the 14.7:1. Has anyone questioned how you're getting 300+ hp out of 23.2# injectors(I still don't understand how those injector calculators basically recommend 30# injectors for 300hp on a six cyl)?

The 23.2s came originally with my Hesco crate engine four years ago. It's a 96 block and head, and still OBDI. If anything, it ran rich at first according to plug color (didn't have an A/F meter at the time), and I switched from the Champion RC9s to a bit hotter RC10 plug. Then I did my dual exhaust upgrade and a few other mods and went back to Hesco for another dyno run. The engine had about 12K on it then. It was still running a bit rich over 3K RPM according to the dyno, and Lee set the FP down from 46 to 40 PSI and the over 3K numbers improved. Ran like this for another two years and fitted an A/F meter on in the meantime and all was well. Then recently installed the Unichip along with the 99 intake detailed in another thread. This dyno run is detailed in another thread and showed good improvements on the numbers. Best readings were attained with the FP set at 44 PSI. I had to return to Hesco once for some Unichip tweeks due to slight stumbling under hard acceleration, and drive about 150 miles or so until the ECU "learned" the new settings. My A/F ratio has been averaging 14.5/14.6:1,a little on the rich side still, so we're in the ballpark. It's running great.

I personally don't give a damn about tables and guidelines. These are just generalized recommendations, and do not apply to every engine or everyones driving style. The only real way to really know what's happening is to get it dyno tuned, which includes optimizing the A/F ratio. "Has anyone questioned how you're getting 300+ hp out of 23.2# injectors?" I don't know what you mean by that, but check out the dyno results on the other thread.

Topic views:  480 | Topic replies:  32 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Fuel Injector Questions,  Comanche91 wrote:

SilverXJ wrote:
I have to disagree with fiveo. I think they forget that you have a 49 PSI fuel rail. I tried those injectors in my 4.6L and it ran to rich. I have exchanged them for a set of injectors that run at 23.6 PSI IIRC from them. I can't remember the number off hand. However I can't tell you how well they work for the engine since I have not installed them yet. What are your AFRs like with the stock injectors? I hope you aren't pushing it into WOT too much as it will most likely run leak with the stock fuel map and stock injectors.

Agree. I'm using the 96-98 Mopar #53030778, 23.2lb/hr @ 49psi. Work great.

Topic views:  480 | Topic replies:  32 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  5.0 Stroker,  Comanche91 wrote:

Peter, where are Lee's comments located? Thanks

EDIT: Nevermind, found them.

Topic views:  1283 | Topic replies:  52 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Permanent Fuel Rail Pressure Gauge,  Comanche91 wrote:

oletshot wrote:
How does that differ from Peter's? I'm pretty sure it was his that I saw in a pic. about a year ago. Seems about the same as what I remember his to be.
Since you showed your helper, I thought I'd show mine. I screw up enough I need 3.


This brings this thread dangerously close to being in the wrong sub forum and getting moved.

Different fittings, different gauge, but Peter's idea. Hey - I gave the Peter-man credit!

Beautiful Labs oletshot. They look so close. Did you just cut and paste two from the first and color their collars differently?

Topic views:  211 | Topic replies:  8 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Permanent Fuel Rail Pressure Gauge,  Comanche91 wrote:

My neighbor has a Cairn terrier John. She and my Gus are real good buddies.

Topic views:  211 | Topic replies:  8 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Permanent Fuel Rail Pressure Gauge,  Comanche91 wrote:

Here's a simple little mod I modified from TallPeter's post on the Yahoo Stroker group pages. This saves you time by enabling you to check your fuel pressure any time you want. The parts:
1.) A 0-60 PSI liquid-filled 1-1/2" fuel pressure gauge from Jegs, p/n 555-41012
2.) A brass 1/4" flare x 1/8" female NPT straight adapter fitting

Use teflon tape on the gauge pipe threads then snug it on the adapter:


After the engine has been sitting overnight and is cold, let any fuel rail pressure off first by depressing the needle. Have a rag handy in case the fuel squirts out. Then remove the core needle from the fuel rail Schrader valve w. an extractor tool, same tool used for bicycle tires.


My ever-present red-eyed helper:


Screw the assembled gauge and adapter on the Schrader valve. Since it's a flare, do not use teflon tape, and do not over-tighten:


Start 'er up and check for leaks. Hmmm, I'm about two PSI low:


Topic views:  211 | Topic replies:  8 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Preferred oil filter?,  Comanche91 wrote:

IH 392 wrote:
The Purolator PL14670 is about 3 1/5" tall and it's physically touching the wire loom as it sits, and it's right in line with the center of the filter, where are you going to put a taller filter in there???

Different configuration on my 91.



Topic views:  237 | Topic replies:  19 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  oil filter rare earth magnets,  Comanche91 wrote:

I use the magnetic drain plugs in the oil pan, tranny, and diff.

Topic views:  79 | Topic replies:  3 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  New intake upgrade.,  Comanche91 wrote:

SilverXJ wrote:
Why would you do that?

I think he's addressing me. I mentioned as part of the 99 intake install on mine that "the O2 sensor harness needs to be re-routed and heat shielded". This was because I have a Mike Leach header that requires a longer wiring harness because the bung hole is placed farther back than with other headers. With the old intake manifold the harness was long enough to make it to the connector, but with the new intake I had to run it closer to the exhaust manifold and thru one of the intake runners, so I heat shielded it as a precaution. Probably don't need to do this w. other headers........

And I run a WJ O2 sensor (longer harness) that uses thermocouple wire, so extending the harness was not an option.

Topic views:  180 | Topic replies:  11 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Preferred oil filter?,  Comanche91 wrote:

I'm saying there's not enough room on my 91 to push the 6.93" long filters back far enough to get the thread pipe into the filter hole w/o hitting the starter wire. The 5.178" long filters do just fit though.

Topic views:  237 | Topic replies:  19 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Preferred oil filter?,  Comanche91 wrote:

Here's a list of filters for both the 5.2" long and 6.9" long models. They all fit our thread, 3/4x16. Fram is omitted for obvious reasons. The longer filters will not fit on my 91 because of interference with the starter loom. However they should work on the vertical config. oil filter engines.

5.178" HIGH, 3.660" DIA, 3/4-16
AC-Delco PF2
Motorcraft FL-1A
Purolator PL30001
Napa 1515
Wix 51515
Mobil 1 M1-301

6.93" HIGH, 3.660" DIA, 3/4-16
AC-Delco PF42
Motorcraft FL299
Purolator L40017
Napa 1773
Wix 51773

Topic views:  237 | Topic replies:  19 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  New intake upgrade.,  Comanche91 wrote:

crustodd wrote:
So,
Do I understand correctly that you just need the bracket and the pull wheels and such. You can use the pump itself from a '94 like mine?

No, you will need the 1996 and above pump too, along with the bracket and idler pulley. Both the 95 and below and 96 and above are Saginaw TC pumps, but the inlet/outlet ports are configured diffrently, as well as the reservoir.

Topic views:  180 | Topic replies:  11 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Stroker Specs,  Comanche91 wrote:

Okay, just did not remember where I got it. Kudos to the guy who did the research and fact-finding.

Topic views:  156 | Topic replies:  6 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  New intake upgrade.,  Comanche91 wrote:

Here's an excellent link: http://www.mallcrawlin.com/forum/showthread.php?s=759dd7e38e260d49ed8b88b515cea3dd&t=6355&highlight=intake+swap.

I modded my original 91 power steering bracket at first by grinding off the ear of the bracker to clear the manifold and drilling/tapping new mounting holes into it, but later swapped it all out for the newer cleaner 1996+ pump, bracket, and idler pulley. Makes adj. the serp belt much easier. You need to remove and reuse your old idler pulley near the A/C pump, same part, or keep it for a spare. Also need a new serp belt for the 1999+ XJs.

As for hoses, etc., the #1 and #2 injector lines had to be discoed and re-routed for better clearance, the O2 sensor harness needs to be re-routed and heat shielded, and I put a slightly longer return hose on the new pump.

Topic views:  180 | Topic replies:  11 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Preferred oil filter?,  Comanche91 wrote:

Purolator PL30001 PureONE (from Advance) or Wix 51515. Both the same size for the Fords, but the Purolator's rated a bit higher in filtration capability. Both bolt-ons. That reminds me - I'm due!

Topic views:  237 | Topic replies:  19 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Grooving combustion chamber?,  Comanche91 wrote:

When I see either one of those two fools hawking something I tune 'em out immediately. But the bastids must get results or they wouldn't show up so much.........

Topic views:  221 | Topic replies:  13 | Post views RSS: 13

In topic:  Stroker Specs,  Comanche91 wrote:

Found this stroker specs spreadsheet buried on my hard drive; no idea where it came from. Might be useful, click upper left corner to zoom in:



Topic views:  156 | Topic replies:  6 | Post views RSS: 13