Matt Macchiarolo

Yes, you 'd probably get a little lighter in the front but I don't think
you'll be doing any wheelies. Most of the weight of Cherokee is in the
front anyway since the engine/transmission is in the forward half of the
wheelbase. It would still be my choice.

A Wrangler has a shorter wheelbase, and it would be a bear to get the bike
up in the back seat area. You might also look into a Comanche pickup
(basically a Cherokee with a pickup bed) or a Ford Ranger or something of
that ilk, if you don't need the extra passenger room.

"BuntRVer" <BuntRVer.2dobqf@news.autobanter.com> wrote in message
news:BuntRVer.2dobqf@news.autobanter.com...
>
> How would I mount a motorcycle on a Cherokee? It seems to me that a
> hitch-mount would make the rigs' front tires a little too light on the
> road and cause some wobble or walking when being towed. The Bultaco
> weighs in at 200 pounds plus the hitch rack, call it 300 total
> torque/couple/leverage/moment(thats the word) 12 inchs out passed the
> receiver face. Multiplied by the short wheelbase would cause a lifting
> of the front end. Right?
>
> Does this make the Wrangler a better choice with the bike mounted UP on
> the back seat or where ever?
>
>
>
> Matt Macchiarolo Wrote:
>> Jeep Liberty (Libby) is a relatively new model and the prices probably
>> haven't come down to where you are looking. And there is a huge problem
>> with
>> the front ball joints as well.
>>
>> You won't see a CJ-5 in your price range that won't need a lot of
>> repairs &
>> restoration. You can get a fully restored one for something in the
>> neightborhood of $10K +, a drivevale but rusty one for $5K-10K and a
>> barely
>> running (if at all) project vehicle for 2K-5K. None of this will
>> include
>> your chiropractor's bill for your lower back. The transfer cases on
>> some
>> also aren't ideal for flat-towing.
>>
>> The Cherolee's depending on the years will set you back say 3-4K for a
>>
>> mid-90's and up, newer models of course would go for more. Most of them
>> had
>> the 6-cyl but the fours are out there. It would be a good choice for an
>>
>> all-around utility vehcle. Look for one with a Command Trac part-time
>> transfer case, it will keep purchase cost down and it's simpler than
>> the
>> full-time cases, so lesss to go wrong. Also, some full time 'cases may
>> be
>> without a Neutral position, (but that might apply only to the Grand
>> Cherokee) and you would want to avoid those, it will make it difficult
>> to
>> tow. To tow you would put the tranny in gear or Park, the T case in
>> Neutral,
>> ignition key unlocked. Look for rust under the front floorboards.
>>
>> For a more fun vehicle you might look at a 90's and up Wrangler, in 97
>> there
>> was a major redesign that provides a better ride and off-road
>> capability.
>> Also they would be slightly easier to set up for flat towing since the
>> front
>> bumper is flat and easily accommodates towbar tabs, where the
>> Cherokee's
>> unibody will requires some additional effort to install towbar tabs.
>> That
>> and you can put the top down on a beautiful day! A Wrangler in stock
>> for is
>> actually a little heavier than the Cherokee, since it is a
>> body-on-frame,
>> but most RV's won't know the difference.
>>
>> "BuntRVer" BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com wrote in message
>> news:BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com...-
>>
>> So, after much consternation, what is the consensus? Cherokee , CJ5
>> or
>> Libby (whatever that is).
>> I vote for Cherokee. The six banger is the preferred engine, yes?
>> What would be an appropriate price to pay if all systems are working
>> and the tires are useable?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> BuntRVer -
>
>
>
>
> --
> BuntRVer

Matt Macchiarolo

Yes, you 'd probably get a little lighter in the front but I don't think
you'll be doing any wheelies. Most of the weight of Cherokee is in the
front anyway since the engine/transmission is in the forward half of the
wheelbase. It would still be my choice.

A Wrangler has a shorter wheelbase, and it would be a bear to get the bike
up in the back seat area. You might also look into a Comanche pickup
(basically a Cherokee with a pickup bed) or a Ford Ranger or something of
that ilk, if you don't need the extra passenger room.

"BuntRVer" <BuntRVer.2dobqf@news.autobanter.com> wrote in message
news:BuntRVer.2dobqf@news.autobanter.com...
>
> How would I mount a motorcycle on a Cherokee? It seems to me that a
> hitch-mount would make the rigs' front tires a little too light on the
> road and cause some wobble or walking when being towed. The Bultaco
> weighs in at 200 pounds plus the hitch rack, call it 300 total
> torque/couple/leverage/moment(thats the word) 12 inchs out passed the
> receiver face. Multiplied by the short wheelbase would cause a lifting
> of the front end. Right?
>
> Does this make the Wrangler a better choice with the bike mounted UP on
> the back seat or where ever?
>
>
>
> Matt Macchiarolo Wrote:
>> Jeep Liberty (Libby) is a relatively new model and the prices probably
>> haven't come down to where you are looking. And there is a huge problem
>> with
>> the front ball joints as well.
>>
>> You won't see a CJ-5 in your price range that won't need a lot of
>> repairs &
>> restoration. You can get a fully restored one for something in the
>> neightborhood of $10K +, a drivevale but rusty one for $5K-10K and a
>> barely
>> running (if at all) project vehicle for 2K-5K. None of this will
>> include
>> your chiropractor's bill for your lower back. The transfer cases on
>> some
>> also aren't ideal for flat-towing.
>>
>> The Cherolee's depending on the years will set you back say 3-4K for a
>>
>> mid-90's and up, newer models of course would go for more. Most of them
>> had
>> the 6-cyl but the fours are out there. It would be a good choice for an
>>
>> all-around utility vehcle. Look for one with a Command Trac part-time
>> transfer case, it will keep purchase cost down and it's simpler than
>> the
>> full-time cases, so lesss to go wrong. Also, some full time 'cases may
>> be
>> without a Neutral position, (but that might apply only to the Grand
>> Cherokee) and you would want to avoid those, it will make it difficult
>> to
>> tow. To tow you would put the tranny in gear or Park, the T case in
>> Neutral,
>> ignition key unlocked. Look for rust under the front floorboards.
>>
>> For a more fun vehicle you might look at a 90's and up Wrangler, in 97
>> there
>> was a major redesign that provides a better ride and off-road
>> capability.
>> Also they would be slightly easier to set up for flat towing since the
>> front
>> bumper is flat and easily accommodates towbar tabs, where the
>> Cherokee's
>> unibody will requires some additional effort to install towbar tabs.
>> That
>> and you can put the top down on a beautiful day! A Wrangler in stock
>> for is
>> actually a little heavier than the Cherokee, since it is a
>> body-on-frame,
>> but most RV's won't know the difference.
>>
>> "BuntRVer" BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com wrote in message
>> news:BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com...-
>>
>> So, after much consternation, what is the consensus? Cherokee , CJ5
>> or
>> Libby (whatever that is).
>> I vote for Cherokee. The six banger is the preferred engine, yes?
>> What would be an appropriate price to pay if all systems are working
>> and the tires are useable?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> BuntRVer -
>
>
>
>
> --
> BuntRVer

Matt Macchiarolo

Yes, you 'd probably get a little lighter in the front but I don't think
you'll be doing any wheelies. Most of the weight of Cherokee is in the
front anyway since the engine/transmission is in the forward half of the
wheelbase. It would still be my choice.

A Wrangler has a shorter wheelbase, and it would be a bear to get the bike
up in the back seat area. You might also look into a Comanche pickup
(basically a Cherokee with a pickup bed) or a Ford Ranger or something of
that ilk, if you don't need the extra passenger room.

"BuntRVer" <BuntRVer.2dobqf@news.autobanter.com> wrote in message
news:BuntRVer.2dobqf@news.autobanter.com...
>
> How would I mount a motorcycle on a Cherokee? It seems to me that a
> hitch-mount would make the rigs' front tires a little too light on the
> road and cause some wobble or walking when being towed. The Bultaco
> weighs in at 200 pounds plus the hitch rack, call it 300 total
> torque/couple/leverage/moment(thats the word) 12 inchs out passed the
> receiver face. Multiplied by the short wheelbase would cause a lifting
> of the front end. Right?
>
> Does this make the Wrangler a better choice with the bike mounted UP on
> the back seat or where ever?
>
>
>
> Matt Macchiarolo Wrote:
>> Jeep Liberty (Libby) is a relatively new model and the prices probably
>> haven't come down to where you are looking. And there is a huge problem
>> with
>> the front ball joints as well.
>>
>> You won't see a CJ-5 in your price range that won't need a lot of
>> repairs &
>> restoration. You can get a fully restored one for something in the
>> neightborhood of $10K +, a drivevale but rusty one for $5K-10K and a
>> barely
>> running (if at all) project vehicle for 2K-5K. None of this will
>> include
>> your chiropractor's bill for your lower back. The transfer cases on
>> some
>> also aren't ideal for flat-towing.
>>
>> The Cherolee's depending on the years will set you back say 3-4K for a
>>
>> mid-90's and up, newer models of course would go for more. Most of them
>> had
>> the 6-cyl but the fours are out there. It would be a good choice for an
>>
>> all-around utility vehcle. Look for one with a Command Trac part-time
>> transfer case, it will keep purchase cost down and it's simpler than
>> the
>> full-time cases, so lesss to go wrong. Also, some full time 'cases may
>> be
>> without a Neutral position, (but that might apply only to the Grand
>> Cherokee) and you would want to avoid those, it will make it difficult
>> to
>> tow. To tow you would put the tranny in gear or Park, the T case in
>> Neutral,
>> ignition key unlocked. Look for rust under the front floorboards.
>>
>> For a more fun vehicle you might look at a 90's and up Wrangler, in 97
>> there
>> was a major redesign that provides a better ride and off-road
>> capability.
>> Also they would be slightly easier to set up for flat towing since the
>> front
>> bumper is flat and easily accommodates towbar tabs, where the
>> Cherokee's
>> unibody will requires some additional effort to install towbar tabs.
>> That
>> and you can put the top down on a beautiful day! A Wrangler in stock
>> for is
>> actually a little heavier than the Cherokee, since it is a
>> body-on-frame,
>> but most RV's won't know the difference.
>>
>> "BuntRVer" BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com wrote in message
>> news:BuntRVer.2dm0ee@news.autobanter.com...-
>>
>> So, after much consternation, what is the consensus? Cherokee , CJ5
>> or
>> Libby (whatever that is).
>> I vote for Cherokee. The six banger is the preferred engine, yes?
>> What would be an appropriate price to pay if all systems are working
>> and the tires are useable?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> BuntRVer -
>
>
>
>
> --
> BuntRVer

Simon Juncal

L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> Last time I added two and two, a couple hundred doesn't equal
> millions.
> Sponsored racers use K&N filters too. Do I have to tell you
> why?????? I bet the fact that an event is sponsor by Skyjacker wouldn't
> give you a clue:

Funny I don't recall any Skyjacker stickers on Parnelli Jones' Bronco.

You are just hopelessly grasping at straws LOL All of those
manufacturers make LEAF SPRING KITS as well as Coil.

To sugest nearly all competative racers (most of whom custom fab their
rigs) use a LESS EFFECTIVE suspension because SOME rigs are sponsered by
lift kit manufacturers (no where near all of them) is pure
flying-in-the-face-of-common-sense, desperation on your part Bill.

Come on you should know -------- when you read it, so re-read what you
wrote and tell me you really believe that --------? You think Big Oly
had Coil springs because of a lift kit manufacturer?

--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Simon Juncal

L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> Last time I added two and two, a couple hundred doesn't equal
> millions.
> Sponsored racers use K&N filters too. Do I have to tell you
> why?????? I bet the fact that an event is sponsor by Skyjacker wouldn't
> give you a clue:

Funny I don't recall any Skyjacker stickers on Parnelli Jones' Bronco.

You are just hopelessly grasping at straws LOL All of those
manufacturers make LEAF SPRING KITS as well as Coil.

To sugest nearly all competative racers (most of whom custom fab their
rigs) use a LESS EFFECTIVE suspension because SOME rigs are sponsered by
lift kit manufacturers (no where near all of them) is pure
flying-in-the-face-of-common-sense, desperation on your part Bill.

Come on you should know -------- when you read it, so re-read what you
wrote and tell me you really believe that --------? You think Big Oly
had Coil springs because of a lift kit manufacturer?

--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Simon Juncal

L.W.(Bill) ------ III wrote:
> Last time I added two and two, a couple hundred doesn't equal
> millions.
> Sponsored racers use K&N filters too. Do I have to tell you
> why?????? I bet the fact that an event is sponsor by Skyjacker wouldn't
> give you a clue:

Funny I don't recall any Skyjacker stickers on Parnelli Jones' Bronco.

You are just hopelessly grasping at straws LOL All of those
manufacturers make LEAF SPRING KITS as well as Coil.

To sugest nearly all competative racers (most of whom custom fab their
rigs) use a LESS EFFECTIVE suspension because SOME rigs are sponsered by
lift kit manufacturers (no where near all of them) is pure
flying-in-the-face-of-common-sense, desperation on your part Bill.

Come on you should know -------- when you read it, so re-read what you
wrote and tell me you really believe that --------? You think Big Oly
had Coil springs because of a lift kit manufacturer?

--
Simon
"I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein

Jeffrey DeWitt

I'm NOT trying to get into the middle of something but am curious.

I know just enough to be dangerous about the differences between leaf
and coil springs, and my Jeep has coils in front while the Studebaker
truck has leafs.

Why would leafs be considered better on a 4wd vehicle? Obviously it can
make for a simpler suspension (they don't get much simpler than my
truck!), and simple is NOT a bad thing, but they do take more room.

So what are the pros and cons of each?

A question somewhat related to the argument between Bill and Simon, just
why DO semi tractors have drum brakes? Seems like disks are cheaper,
simpler, easier to maintain and are less likely to fail, but about all I
know about those trucks I've learned on the "Trucks" TV show and the
fact I don't like to be behind them.

Jeff DeWitt

Simon Juncal wrote:
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>> Yes but mu point that you missed was any CJ-5 in his price range is
>> going to need a lot more REPAIR, not UPGRADE, than something newer.
>
>
> Bill didn't miss the point, he selects arbitrary (and usually
> irrelivant) points to suit the link he's posting or to get away from the
> fact that he has just been schooled but can't accept it.
>
> Case in point he mentioned Semi trucks have drum brakes... which is so
> utterly irrelivant that he might as well have said his 1935 soap box
> racer he made in his youth, had rubber sneaker drag brakes.
>
> If you mention that a boxed frame Jeep has more strength and rigidity he
> will ALWAYS say that Semi tractors have open C channel frames, he has no
> clue WHY! If he had a clue he wouldn't mention that they have C-channel,
> frames because he would realize he was defeating his own argument.
>
> (PS. Semi's have open channel frames because they NEED TO FLEX! to
> handle up to 80,000 pound loads, they are DESIGNED to be flexible in a
> predictable and consistent manner).
>
> If you mention Coil springs he will mention Semi's and heavy tow and
> vehicles have leafs... apearently believeing that towing capacity
> equates to off road prowess.
>
> Basically Bill stopped believing in reality about 30 years ago but he
> hasn't let that stop him from being an opinionated old kook. Who thinks
> that anything new is inferior (including fuel injection... because 1500
> Horse power top fuel dragsters use carburetors!!!)
>

Jeffrey DeWitt

I'm NOT trying to get into the middle of something but am curious.

I know just enough to be dangerous about the differences between leaf
and coil springs, and my Jeep has coils in front while the Studebaker
truck has leafs.

Why would leafs be considered better on a 4wd vehicle? Obviously it can
make for a simpler suspension (they don't get much simpler than my
truck!), and simple is NOT a bad thing, but they do take more room.

So what are the pros and cons of each?

A question somewhat related to the argument between Bill and Simon, just
why DO semi tractors have drum brakes? Seems like disks are cheaper,
simpler, easier to maintain and are less likely to fail, but about all I
know about those trucks I've learned on the "Trucks" TV show and the
fact I don't like to be behind them.

Jeff DeWitt

Simon Juncal wrote:
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>> Yes but mu point that you missed was any CJ-5 in his price range is
>> going to need a lot more REPAIR, not UPGRADE, than something newer.
>
>
> Bill didn't miss the point, he selects arbitrary (and usually
> irrelivant) points to suit the link he's posting or to get away from the
> fact that he has just been schooled but can't accept it.
>
> Case in point he mentioned Semi trucks have drum brakes... which is so
> utterly irrelivant that he might as well have said his 1935 soap box
> racer he made in his youth, had rubber sneaker drag brakes.
>
> If you mention that a boxed frame Jeep has more strength and rigidity he
> will ALWAYS say that Semi tractors have open C channel frames, he has no
> clue WHY! If he had a clue he wouldn't mention that they have C-channel,
> frames because he would realize he was defeating his own argument.
>
> (PS. Semi's have open channel frames because they NEED TO FLEX! to
> handle up to 80,000 pound loads, they are DESIGNED to be flexible in a
> predictable and consistent manner).
>
> If you mention Coil springs he will mention Semi's and heavy tow and
> vehicles have leafs... apearently believeing that towing capacity
> equates to off road prowess.
>
> Basically Bill stopped believing in reality about 30 years ago but he
> hasn't let that stop him from being an opinionated old kook. Who thinks
> that anything new is inferior (including fuel injection... because 1500
> Horse power top fuel dragsters use carburetors!!!)
>

Jeffrey DeWitt

I'm NOT trying to get into the middle of something but am curious.

I know just enough to be dangerous about the differences between leaf
and coil springs, and my Jeep has coils in front while the Studebaker
truck has leafs.

Why would leafs be considered better on a 4wd vehicle? Obviously it can
make for a simpler suspension (they don't get much simpler than my
truck!), and simple is NOT a bad thing, but they do take more room.

So what are the pros and cons of each?

A question somewhat related to the argument between Bill and Simon, just
why DO semi tractors have drum brakes? Seems like disks are cheaper,
simpler, easier to maintain and are less likely to fail, but about all I
know about those trucks I've learned on the "Trucks" TV show and the
fact I don't like to be behind them.

Jeff DeWitt

Simon Juncal wrote:
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>> Yes but mu point that you missed was any CJ-5 in his price range is
>> going to need a lot more REPAIR, not UPGRADE, than something newer.
>
>
> Bill didn't miss the point, he selects arbitrary (and usually
> irrelivant) points to suit the link he's posting or to get away from the
> fact that he has just been schooled but can't accept it.
>
> Case in point he mentioned Semi trucks have drum brakes... which is so
> utterly irrelivant that he might as well have said his 1935 soap box
> racer he made in his youth, had rubber sneaker drag brakes.
>
> If you mention that a boxed frame Jeep has more strength and rigidity he
> will ALWAYS say that Semi tractors have open C channel frames, he has no
> clue WHY! If he had a clue he wouldn't mention that they have C-channel,
> frames because he would realize he was defeating his own argument.
>
> (PS. Semi's have open channel frames because they NEED TO FLEX! to
> handle up to 80,000 pound loads, they are DESIGNED to be flexible in a
> predictable and consistent manner).
>
> If you mention Coil springs he will mention Semi's and heavy tow and
> vehicles have leafs... apearently believeing that towing capacity
> equates to off road prowess.
>
> Basically Bill stopped believing in reality about 30 years ago but he
> hasn't let that stop him from being an opinionated old kook. Who thinks
> that anything new is inferior (including fuel injection... because 1500
> Horse power top fuel dragsters use carburetors!!!)
>

L.W.(Bill) Hughes III

That's because skyjacker and most off road after market
manufacturers weren't around in the sixties. And of course that's reason
Bronco never won the BaJa 1000, they came new with coil springs:
http://www.----------.com/bouncingFord.jpg
Racers may modify there frames, but most are bought, like I did
back in 1962 for my rails, these are by Drag Master:
http://www.----------.com/dragster.jpg and:
http://www.----------.com/temp/dragster.mpg
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:--------------------
Simon Juncal wrote:
>
> Funny I don't recall any Skyjacker stickers on Parnelli Jones' Bronco.
>
> You are just hopelessly grasping at straws LOL All of those
> manufacturers make LEAF SPRING KITS as well as Coil.
>
> To sugest nearly all competative racers (most of whom custom fab their
> rigs) use a LESS EFFECTIVE suspension because SOME rigs are sponsered by
> lift kit manufacturers (no where near all of them) is pure
> flying-in-the-face-of-common-sense, desperation on your part Bill.
>
> Come on you should know -------- when you read it, so re-read what you
> wrote and tell me you really believe that --------? You think Big Oly
> had Coil springs because of a lift kit manufacturer?
>
> --
> Simon
> "I may be wrong, but I'm not uncertain." -- Robert A. Heinlein