Hi Jim,
I like your brake drum conversion, far superior braking power,
unless your in an over heating situation, like sports car road racing.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

Drink wrote:
>
> With all due respect to my esteemed colleague from the Great White North,
> I might submit that his Jeep isn't exactly a garden variety example with
> fiberglass, extensive engine modification and God knows what kind of clutch.
> (I think he might be holding out on us with a stroker engine or some cool,
> secret weapon that might put him next on the list after Usama & Saddam:)
> I'm not familiar with the T5 1st gear. So, I'll tell you my experiences.
> I've a 76 CJ-7 w/ stock 258, T-176 4sp, Dana300 to the AMC20 turning 3.53
> gears and braking with 11" drums all around. This is probably a better
> setup for "vanilla" comparison.
> I originally mounted 31" A/T tires and eventually mounted 33 x 12.5 BFG
> mud tires. I thought it was okay at first. I soon saw that the drum brakes
> were max'ed and probably overcome by the 33's under hard-braking conditions.
> I could lock one rear tire on the pavement about 50% of the time. Gearing
> was a different story.
> My new clutch was overcome in the first couple of years. Nowadays, I can
> spin the flywheel against the clutch in second gear and only spin a tire in
> 1st on slick pavement. So, I went from the stock 3.53 gearing to 4.10.
> What an improvement. On the drive home, I gave it the usual pedal pressure
> needed to get rolling around a corner and, BAM!, a tire started howling. I
> realized what I'd been missing over the years. The 4.10's bring gearing
> close to factory specs when running 33" tires. My mileage has held or
> improved.
> I'm going to go back to 31" or 32" tires when I swap. With the lifted
> suspension and it's high center of gravity, I'm not planning on burying the
> needle. I think that the braking will be vastly improved as well.
> Someone mentioned a test/evaluation where the results showed that a 31"
> tire was the best selection for off-road terrain. Can anybody shed more
> light on that?
> o_o_o_o
> Best Regards, /| ,[_____],
> Jim, WP3JQ |ŻŻŻL --O|||||||O-
> ()_)Ż()_) ŻŻŻŻŻ )_)
> EM60qk 30.447439N 086.628959W

 

LOL!

I guess my power to weight ratio is a lot higher than stock due to the
fiberglass body. 'Glass is pretty light.

But my engine is a bone stock 78 that I picked up with 40K original
miles on it set up manually as a 78 was. No computer controls.

The only modification I have is the stock 86 Carter BBD with the 2 bbl
manifold off my old 86 engine and an Accel SuperCoil for a hot spark
with a ported timing vacuum advance.

I do have a good 'ear' though when it comes to tuning old engines, used
to race and even set up Dodge 6 pack's for a couple friends with
Chargers and a Cuda or Barracuda, ran dual SU's on my Mini Cooper S with
a 'dial as you want today' timing advance (that was a fun machine,
topped at 132.4 mph on radar) and tuned lots of MGB and Volvo dual SU's,
VW duals, Bike multiples, etc.

Other CJ owners usually comment about how fast mine seems to pick up
when they drive in it with me. :-)

My clutch 'was' a centerforce that I broke the pressure plate on after a
year and a half. The tranny nose cone had a ding in the underside that
I didn't notice when I installed it that held the throw out bearing
against the pressure plate fingers and burned them off. Got a new nose
cone and put my old stock Borg Warner pressure plate back in with the
centerforce clutch disk.

After a year and a half, the label was still visible on both faces of
the clutch disk, blew a few friends away when they saw that because of
all the mud and ravines I run. They figured I should be eating
clutches. I was really surprised too, for the same reason.

The Borg Warner pressure plate is 'much' nicer than the centerforce
one. That damn CF one needed over 100 lb on the pedal to hold it in
neutral, my wife had to pull up on the steering wheel with both hands to
hold it. The Borg Warner one only needs about 30 lb on the foot or so.
Have to see how clutch wear compares I guess, but it sure still locks in
hard and fast.

But!!!

Man you must have something wrong with your clutch!

Mine hits solid in every gear and will spin second let alone smoke out
the 33's in 1st. I have to really watch my throttle pulling out onto
the 40 mph roads around here or I will get a howl with the 3.31 rear.
4.11's would be nice for mine, but I would really have to baby it from a
turning stop or I would eat tires up fast. It would be nice to get 5th
back, but at 19 US mpg on the highway running in 4th at 65-70 is nice
enough I haven't even thought of re-gearing. My Dana 300 1st low is
sweet too, I very seldom need it, I run in 3rd low almost always on dirt
or mud.

The Borg Warner T5 tranny is also behind a Mustang 5.0 and they don't
eat clutches too fast if you drive them right. A friend has the 5.0 in
his CJ with the T5 and it will light up in 3 gears and he didn't want to
try 4th, it was already going too fast he said. I lit it up in 1st
after designing and installing a clutch linkage for him to test it and
the thing wouldn't stop spinning until I let off the gas, then all over
again in 2nd.

Tire sizes....

I run bush trails that originally were old logging tracks. I ran
31x10.5's for several years and found them a bit short. Not bad,
but... The old and new logging trucks have tall tires so the roads are
made for them or a skidder with 6' tall tires. Same for the local
playground mud pits, folks were trenching them with 33's so 31's could
get hung up. I couldn't help but tag in a few places now and then on
the trails due to trees on the side with the 31's which ticked me off,
so I went 33's. It made a big difference and is the perfect size.
Kinda made the local mud pits no fun though... ;-( The 33x9.5 BFG
muds's just don't spin unless I get hung, and I now have the clearance
not to get hung...

I didn't want to go any taller so made my CJ7's suspension for 33's when
I did the frame up build. 3" lift and the 'glass body sits like a stock
one with an inch or so lift.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Drink wrote:
>
> With all due respect to my esteemed colleague from the Great White North,
> I might submit that his Jeep isn't exactly a garden variety example with
> fiberglass, extensive engine modification and God knows what kind of clutch.
> (I think he might be holding out on us with a stroker engine or some cool,
> secret weapon that might put him next on the list after Usama & Saddam:)
> I'm not familiar with the T5 1st gear. So, I'll tell you my experiences.
> I've a 76 CJ-7 w/ stock 258, T-176 4sp, Dana300 to the AMC20 turning 3.53
> gears and braking with 11" drums all around. This is probably a better
> setup for "vanilla" comparison.
> I originally mounted 31" A/T tires and eventually mounted 33 x 12.5 BFG
> mud tires. I thought it was okay at first. I soon saw that the drum brakes
> were max'ed and probably overcome by the 33's under hard-braking conditions.
> I could lock one rear tire on the pavement about 50% of the time. Gearing
> was a different story.
> My new clutch was overcome in the first couple of years. Nowadays, I can
> spin the flywheel against the clutch in second gear and only spin a tire in
> 1st on slick pavement. So, I went from the stock 3.53 gearing to 4.10.
> What an improvement. On the drive home, I gave it the usual pedal pressure
> needed to get rolling around a corner and, BAM!, a tire started howling. I
> realized what I'd been missing over the years. The 4.10's bring gearing
> close to factory specs when running 33" tires. My mileage has held or
> improved.
> I'm going to go back to 31" or 32" tires when I swap. With the lifted
> suspension and it's high center of gravity, I'm not planning on burying the
> needle. I think that the braking will be vastly improved as well.
> Someone mentioned a test/evaluation where the results showed that a 31"
> tire was the best selection for off-road terrain. Can anybody shed more
> light on that?
> o_o_o_o
> Best Regards, /| ,[_____],
> Jim, WP3JQ |ŻŻŻL --O|||||||O-
> ()_)Ż()_) ŻŻŻŻŻ )_)
> EM60qk 30.447439N 086.628959W

 

LOL!

I guess my power to weight ratio is a lot higher than stock due to the
fiberglass body. 'Glass is pretty light.

But my engine is a bone stock 78 that I picked up with 40K original
miles on it set up manually as a 78 was. No computer controls.

The only modification I have is the stock 86 Carter BBD with the 2 bbl
manifold off my old 86 engine and an Accel SuperCoil for a hot spark
with a ported timing vacuum advance.

I do have a good 'ear' though when it comes to tuning old engines, used
to race and even set up Dodge 6 pack's for a couple friends with
Chargers and a Cuda or Barracuda, ran dual SU's on my Mini Cooper S with
a 'dial as you want today' timing advance (that was a fun machine,
topped at 132.4 mph on radar) and tuned lots of MGB and Volvo dual SU's,
VW duals, Bike multiples, etc.

Other CJ owners usually comment about how fast mine seems to pick up
when they drive in it with me. :-)

My clutch 'was' a centerforce that I broke the pressure plate on after a
year and a half. The tranny nose cone had a ding in the underside that
I didn't notice when I installed it that held the throw out bearing
against the pressure plate fingers and burned them off. Got a new nose
cone and put my old stock Borg Warner pressure plate back in with the
centerforce clutch disk.

After a year and a half, the label was still visible on both faces of
the clutch disk, blew a few friends away when they saw that because of
all the mud and ravines I run. They figured I should be eating
clutches. I was really surprised too, for the same reason.

The Borg Warner pressure plate is 'much' nicer than the centerforce
one. That damn CF one needed over 100 lb on the pedal to hold it in
neutral, my wife had to pull up on the steering wheel with both hands to
hold it. The Borg Warner one only needs about 30 lb on the foot or so.
Have to see how clutch wear compares I guess, but it sure still locks in
hard and fast.

But!!!

Man you must have something wrong with your clutch!

Mine hits solid in every gear and will spin second let alone smoke out
the 33's in 1st. I have to really watch my throttle pulling out onto
the 40 mph roads around here or I will get a howl with the 3.31 rear.
4.11's would be nice for mine, but I would really have to baby it from a
turning stop or I would eat tires up fast. It would be nice to get 5th
back, but at 19 US mpg on the highway running in 4th at 65-70 is nice
enough I haven't even thought of re-gearing. My Dana 300 1st low is
sweet too, I very seldom need it, I run in 3rd low almost always on dirt
or mud.

The Borg Warner T5 tranny is also behind a Mustang 5.0 and they don't
eat clutches too fast if you drive them right. A friend has the 5.0 in
his CJ with the T5 and it will light up in 3 gears and he didn't want to
try 4th, it was already going too fast he said. I lit it up in 1st
after designing and installing a clutch linkage for him to test it and
the thing wouldn't stop spinning until I let off the gas, then all over
again in 2nd.

Tire sizes....

I run bush trails that originally were old logging tracks. I ran
31x10.5's for several years and found them a bit short. Not bad,
but... The old and new logging trucks have tall tires so the roads are
made for them or a skidder with 6' tall tires. Same for the local
playground mud pits, folks were trenching them with 33's so 31's could
get hung up. I couldn't help but tag in a few places now and then on
the trails due to trees on the side with the 31's which ticked me off,
so I went 33's. It made a big difference and is the perfect size.
Kinda made the local mud pits no fun though... ;-( The 33x9.5 BFG
muds's just don't spin unless I get hung, and I now have the clearance
not to get hung...

I didn't want to go any taller so made my CJ7's suspension for 33's when
I did the frame up build. 3" lift and the 'glass body sits like a stock
one with an inch or so lift.

Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Drink wrote:
>
> With all due respect to my esteemed colleague from the Great White North,
> I might submit that his Jeep isn't exactly a garden variety example with
> fiberglass, extensive engine modification and God knows what kind of clutch.
> (I think he might be holding out on us with a stroker engine or some cool,
> secret weapon that might put him next on the list after Usama & Saddam:)
> I'm not familiar with the T5 1st gear. So, I'll tell you my experiences.
> I've a 76 CJ-7 w/ stock 258, T-176 4sp, Dana300 to the AMC20 turning 3.53
> gears and braking with 11" drums all around. This is probably a better
> setup for "vanilla" comparison.
> I originally mounted 31" A/T tires and eventually mounted 33 x 12.5 BFG
> mud tires. I thought it was okay at first. I soon saw that the drum brakes
> were max'ed and probably overcome by the 33's under hard-braking conditions.
> I could lock one rear tire on the pavement about 50% of the time. Gearing
> was a different story.
> My new clutch was overcome in the first couple of years. Nowadays, I can
> spin the flywheel against the clutch in second gear and only spin a tire in
> 1st on slick pavement. So, I went from the stock 3.53 gearing to 4.10.
> What an improvement. On the drive home, I gave it the usual pedal pressure
> needed to get rolling around a corner and, BAM!, a tire started howling. I
> realized what I'd been missing over the years. The 4.10's bring gearing
> close to factory specs when running 33" tires. My mileage has held or
> improved.
> I'm going to go back to 31" or 32" tires when I swap. With the lifted
> suspension and it's high center of gravity, I'm not planning on burying the
> needle. I think that the braking will be vastly improved as well.
> Someone mentioned a test/evaluation where the results showed that a 31"
> tire was the best selection for off-road terrain. Can anybody shed more
> light on that?
> o_o_o_o
> Best Regards, /| ,[_____],
> Jim, WP3JQ |ŻŻŻL --O|||||||O-
> ()_)Ż()_) ŻŻŻŻŻ )_)
> EM60qk 30.447439N 086.628959W

 

What the hell did you do to an old 55 hp Mini Cooper to get it to do 132 ? I
reckon you'd need a good 130hp to do that. If I remember correctly the
problem with minis was that the head had such small valves that you couldn't
get it to breathe properly. You could install 1 1/2 SUs (didn't we cut the
bulkhead for this ?), but the max you could bore the engine to was 1430cc
giving about 100 hp.

Tell me more !

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F7A02FB.3073C925@sympatico.ca...
: LOL!
:
: I guess my power to weight ratio is a lot higher than stock due to the
: fiberglass body. 'Glass is pretty light.
:
: But my engine is a bone stock 78 that I picked up with 40K original
: miles on it set up manually as a 78 was. No computer controls.
:
: The only modification I have is the stock 86 Carter BBD with the 2 bbl
: manifold off my old 86 engine and an Accel SuperCoil for a hot spark
: with a ported timing vacuum advance.
:
: I do have a good 'ear' though when it comes to tuning old engines, used
: to race and even set up Dodge 6 pack's for a couple friends with
: Chargers and a Cuda or Barracuda, ran dual SU's on my Mini Cooper S with
: a 'dial as you want today' timing advance (that was a fun machine,
: topped at 132.4 mph on radar) and tuned lots of MGB and Volvo dual SU's,
: VW duals, Bike multiples, etc.
:
: Other CJ owners usually comment about how fast mine seems to pick up
: when they drive in it with me. :-)
:
: My clutch 'was' a centerforce that I broke the pressure plate on after a
: year and a half. The tranny nose cone had a ding in the underside that
: I didn't notice when I installed it that held the throw out bearing
: against the pressure plate fingers and burned them off. Got a new nose
: cone and put my old stock Borg Warner pressure plate back in with the
: centerforce clutch disk.
:
: After a year and a half, the label was still visible on both faces of
: the clutch disk, blew a few friends away when they saw that because of
: all the mud and ravines I run. They figured I should be eating
: clutches. I was really surprised too, for the same reason.
:
: The Borg Warner pressure plate is 'much' nicer than the centerforce
: one. That damn CF one needed over 100 lb on the pedal to hold it in
: neutral, my wife had to pull up on the steering wheel with both hands to
: hold it. The Borg Warner one only needs about 30 lb on the foot or so.
: Have to see how clutch wear compares I guess, but it sure still locks in
: hard and fast.
:
: But!!!
:
: Man you must have something wrong with your clutch!
:
: Mine hits solid in every gear and will spin second let alone smoke out
: the 33's in 1st. I have to really watch my throttle pulling out onto
: the 40 mph roads around here or I will get a howl with the 3.31 rear.
: 4.11's would be nice for mine, but I would really have to baby it from a
: turning stop or I would eat tires up fast. It would be nice to get 5th
: back, but at 19 US mpg on the highway running in 4th at 65-70 is nice
: enough I haven't even thought of re-gearing. My Dana 300 1st low is
: sweet too, I very seldom need it, I run in 3rd low almost always on dirt
: or mud.
:
: The Borg Warner T5 tranny is also behind a Mustang 5.0 and they don't
: eat clutches too fast if you drive them right. A friend has the 5.0 in
: his CJ with the T5 and it will light up in 3 gears and he didn't want to
: try 4th, it was already going too fast he said. I lit it up in 1st
: after designing and installing a clutch linkage for him to test it and
: the thing wouldn't stop spinning until I let off the gas, then all over
: again in 2nd.
:
: Tire sizes....
:
: I run bush trails that originally were old logging tracks. I ran
: 31x10.5's for several years and found them a bit short. Not bad,
: but... The old and new logging trucks have tall tires so the roads are
: made for them or a skidder with 6' tall tires. Same for the local
: playground mud pits, folks were trenching them with 33's so 31's could
: get hung up. I couldn't help but tag in a few places now and then on
: the trails due to trees on the side with the 31's which ticked me off,
: so I went 33's. It made a big difference and is the perfect size.
: Kinda made the local mud pits no fun though... ;-( The 33x9.5 BFG
: muds's just don't spin unless I get hung, and I now have the clearance
: not to get hung...
:
: I didn't want to go any taller so made my CJ7's suspension for 33's when
: I did the frame up build. 3" lift and the 'glass body sits like a stock
: one with an inch or so lift.
:
: Mike
: 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
: 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
:
: Drink wrote:
: >
: > With all due respect to my esteemed colleague from the Great White
North,
: > I might submit that his Jeep isn't exactly a garden variety example with
: > fiberglass, extensive engine modification and God knows what kind of
clutch.
: > (I think he might be holding out on us with a stroker engine or some
cool,
: > secret weapon that might put him next on the list after Usama & Saddam:)
: > I'm not familiar with the T5 1st gear. So, I'll tell you my
experiences.
: > I've a 76 CJ-7 w/ stock 258, T-176 4sp, Dana300 to the AMC20 turning
3.53
: > gears and braking with 11" drums all around. This is probably a better
: > setup for "vanilla" comparison.
: > I originally mounted 31" A/T tires and eventually mounted 33 x 12.5
BFG
: > mud tires. I thought it was okay at first. I soon saw that the drum
brakes
: > were max'ed and probably overcome by the 33's under hard-braking
conditions.
: > I could lock one rear tire on the pavement about 50% of the time.
Gearing
: > was a different story.
: > My new clutch was overcome in the first couple of years. Nowadays, I
can
: > spin the flywheel against the clutch in second gear and only spin a tire
in
: > 1st on slick pavement. So, I went from the stock 3.53 gearing to 4.10.
: > What an improvement. On the drive home, I gave it the usual pedal
pressure
: > needed to get rolling around a corner and, BAM!, a tire started howling.
I
: > realized what I'd been missing over the years. The 4.10's bring gearing
: > close to factory specs when running 33" tires. My mileage has held or
: > improved.
: > I'm going to go back to 31" or 32" tires when I swap. With the lifted
: > suspension and it's high center of gravity, I'm not planning on burying
the
: > needle. I think that the braking will be vastly improved as well.
: > Someone mentioned a test/evaluation where the results showed that a
31"
: > tire was the best selection for off-road terrain. Can anybody shed more
: > light on that?
: > o_o_o_o
: > Best Regards, /| ,[_____],
: > Jim, WP3JQ |ŻŻŻL --O|||||||O-
: > ()_)Ż()_) ŻŻŻŻŻ )_)
: > EM60qk 30.447439N 086.628959W

 

What the hell did you do to an old 55 hp Mini Cooper to get it to do 132 ? I
reckon you'd need a good 130hp to do that. If I remember correctly the
problem with minis was that the head had such small valves that you couldn't
get it to breathe properly. You could install 1 1/2 SUs (didn't we cut the
bulkhead for this ?), but the max you could bore the engine to was 1430cc
giving about 100 hp.

Tell me more !

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F7A02FB.3073C925@sympatico.ca...
: LOL!
:
: I guess my power to weight ratio is a lot higher than stock due to the
: fiberglass body. 'Glass is pretty light.
:
: But my engine is a bone stock 78 that I picked up with 40K original
: miles on it set up manually as a 78 was. No computer controls.
:
: The only modification I have is the stock 86 Carter BBD with the 2 bbl
: manifold off my old 86 engine and an Accel SuperCoil for a hot spark
: with a ported timing vacuum advance.
:
: I do have a good 'ear' though when it comes to tuning old engines, used
: to race and even set up Dodge 6 pack's for a couple friends with
: Chargers and a Cuda or Barracuda, ran dual SU's on my Mini Cooper S with
: a 'dial as you want today' timing advance (that was a fun machine,
: topped at 132.4 mph on radar) and tuned lots of MGB and Volvo dual SU's,
: VW duals, Bike multiples, etc.
:
: Other CJ owners usually comment about how fast mine seems to pick up
: when they drive in it with me. :-)
:
: My clutch 'was' a centerforce that I broke the pressure plate on after a
: year and a half. The tranny nose cone had a ding in the underside that
: I didn't notice when I installed it that held the throw out bearing
: against the pressure plate fingers and burned them off. Got a new nose
: cone and put my old stock Borg Warner pressure plate back in with the
: centerforce clutch disk.
:
: After a year and a half, the label was still visible on both faces of
: the clutch disk, blew a few friends away when they saw that because of
: all the mud and ravines I run. They figured I should be eating
: clutches. I was really surprised too, for the same reason.
:
: The Borg Warner pressure plate is 'much' nicer than the centerforce
: one. That damn CF one needed over 100 lb on the pedal to hold it in
: neutral, my wife had to pull up on the steering wheel with both hands to
: hold it. The Borg Warner one only needs about 30 lb on the foot or so.
: Have to see how clutch wear compares I guess, but it sure still locks in
: hard and fast.
:
: But!!!
:
: Man you must have something wrong with your clutch!
:
: Mine hits solid in every gear and will spin second let alone smoke out
: the 33's in 1st. I have to really watch my throttle pulling out onto
: the 40 mph roads around here or I will get a howl with the 3.31 rear.
: 4.11's would be nice for mine, but I would really have to baby it from a
: turning stop or I would eat tires up fast. It would be nice to get 5th
: back, but at 19 US mpg on the highway running in 4th at 65-70 is nice
: enough I haven't even thought of re-gearing. My Dana 300 1st low is
: sweet too, I very seldom need it, I run in 3rd low almost always on dirt
: or mud.
:
: The Borg Warner T5 tranny is also behind a Mustang 5.0 and they don't
: eat clutches too fast if you drive them right. A friend has the 5.0 in
: his CJ with the T5 and it will light up in 3 gears and he didn't want to
: try 4th, it was already going too fast he said. I lit it up in 1st
: after designing and installing a clutch linkage for him to test it and
: the thing wouldn't stop spinning until I let off the gas, then all over
: again in 2nd.
:
: Tire sizes....
:
: I run bush trails that originally were old logging tracks. I ran
: 31x10.5's for several years and found them a bit short. Not bad,
: but... The old and new logging trucks have tall tires so the roads are
: made for them or a skidder with 6' tall tires. Same for the local
: playground mud pits, folks were trenching them with 33's so 31's could
: get hung up. I couldn't help but tag in a few places now and then on
: the trails due to trees on the side with the 31's which ticked me off,
: so I went 33's. It made a big difference and is the perfect size.
: Kinda made the local mud pits no fun though... ;-( The 33x9.5 BFG
: muds's just don't spin unless I get hung, and I now have the clearance
: not to get hung...
:
: I didn't want to go any taller so made my CJ7's suspension for 33's when
: I did the frame up build. 3" lift and the 'glass body sits like a stock
: one with an inch or so lift.
:
: Mike
: 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
: 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
:
: Drink wrote:
: >
: > With all due respect to my esteemed colleague from the Great White
North,
: > I might submit that his Jeep isn't exactly a garden variety example with
: > fiberglass, extensive engine modification and God knows what kind of
clutch.
: > (I think he might be holding out on us with a stroker engine or some
cool,
: > secret weapon that might put him next on the list after Usama & Saddam:)
: > I'm not familiar with the T5 1st gear. So, I'll tell you my
experiences.
: > I've a 76 CJ-7 w/ stock 258, T-176 4sp, Dana300 to the AMC20 turning
3.53
: > gears and braking with 11" drums all around. This is probably a better
: > setup for "vanilla" comparison.
: > I originally mounted 31" A/T tires and eventually mounted 33 x 12.5
BFG
: > mud tires. I thought it was okay at first. I soon saw that the drum
brakes
: > were max'ed and probably overcome by the 33's under hard-braking
conditions.
: > I could lock one rear tire on the pavement about 50% of the time.
Gearing
: > was a different story.
: > My new clutch was overcome in the first couple of years. Nowadays, I
can
: > spin the flywheel against the clutch in second gear and only spin a tire
in
: > 1st on slick pavement. So, I went from the stock 3.53 gearing to 4.10.
: > What an improvement. On the drive home, I gave it the usual pedal
pressure
: > needed to get rolling around a corner and, BAM!, a tire started howling.
I
: > realized what I'd been missing over the years. The 4.10's bring gearing
: > close to factory specs when running 33" tires. My mileage has held or
: > improved.
: > I'm going to go back to 31" or 32" tires when I swap. With the lifted
: > suspension and it's high center of gravity, I'm not planning on burying
the
: > needle. I think that the braking will be vastly improved as well.
: > Someone mentioned a test/evaluation where the results showed that a
31"
: > tire was the best selection for off-road terrain. Can anybody shed more
: > light on that?
: > o_o_o_o
: > Best Regards, /| ,[_____],
: > Jim, WP3JQ |ŻŻŻL --O|||||||O-
: > ()_)Ż()_) ŻŻŻŻŻ )_)
: > EM60qk 30.447439N 086.628959W

 

What the hell did you do to an old 55 hp Mini Cooper to get it to do 132 ? I
reckon you'd need a good 130hp to do that. If I remember correctly the
problem with minis was that the head had such small valves that you couldn't
get it to breathe properly. You could install 1 1/2 SUs (didn't we cut the
bulkhead for this ?), but the max you could bore the engine to was 1430cc
giving about 100 hp.

Tell me more !

--
Dave Milne, Scotland
'99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

"Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3F7A02FB.3073C925@sympatico.ca...
: LOL!
:
: I guess my power to weight ratio is a lot higher than stock due to the
: fiberglass body. 'Glass is pretty light.
:
: But my engine is a bone stock 78 that I picked up with 40K original
: miles on it set up manually as a 78 was. No computer controls.
:
: The only modification I have is the stock 86 Carter BBD with the 2 bbl
: manifold off my old 86 engine and an Accel SuperCoil for a hot spark
: with a ported timing vacuum advance.
:
: I do have a good 'ear' though when it comes to tuning old engines, used
: to race and even set up Dodge 6 pack's for a couple friends with
: Chargers and a Cuda or Barracuda, ran dual SU's on my Mini Cooper S with
: a 'dial as you want today' timing advance (that was a fun machine,
: topped at 132.4 mph on radar) and tuned lots of MGB and Volvo dual SU's,
: VW duals, Bike multiples, etc.
:
: Other CJ owners usually comment about how fast mine seems to pick up
: when they drive in it with me. :-)
:
: My clutch 'was' a centerforce that I broke the pressure plate on after a
: year and a half. The tranny nose cone had a ding in the underside that
: I didn't notice when I installed it that held the throw out bearing
: against the pressure plate fingers and burned them off. Got a new nose
: cone and put my old stock Borg Warner pressure plate back in with the
: centerforce clutch disk.
:
: After a year and a half, the label was still visible on both faces of
: the clutch disk, blew a few friends away when they saw that because of
: all the mud and ravines I run. They figured I should be eating
: clutches. I was really surprised too, for the same reason.
:
: The Borg Warner pressure plate is 'much' nicer than the centerforce
: one. That damn CF one needed over 100 lb on the pedal to hold it in
: neutral, my wife had to pull up on the steering wheel with both hands to
: hold it. The Borg Warner one only needs about 30 lb on the foot or so.
: Have to see how clutch wear compares I guess, but it sure still locks in
: hard and fast.
:
: But!!!
:
: Man you must have something wrong with your clutch!
:
: Mine hits solid in every gear and will spin second let alone smoke out
: the 33's in 1st. I have to really watch my throttle pulling out onto
: the 40 mph roads around here or I will get a howl with the 3.31 rear.
: 4.11's would be nice for mine, but I would really have to baby it from a
: turning stop or I would eat tires up fast. It would be nice to get 5th
: back, but at 19 US mpg on the highway running in 4th at 65-70 is nice
: enough I haven't even thought of re-gearing. My Dana 300 1st low is
: sweet too, I very seldom need it, I run in 3rd low almost always on dirt
: or mud.
:
: The Borg Warner T5 tranny is also behind a Mustang 5.0 and they don't
: eat clutches too fast if you drive them right. A friend has the 5.0 in
: his CJ with the T5 and it will light up in 3 gears and he didn't want to
: try 4th, it was already going too fast he said. I lit it up in 1st
: after designing and installing a clutch linkage for him to test it and
: the thing wouldn't stop spinning until I let off the gas, then all over
: again in 2nd.
:
: Tire sizes....
:
: I run bush trails that originally were old logging tracks. I ran
: 31x10.5's for several years and found them a bit short. Not bad,
: but... The old and new logging trucks have tall tires so the roads are
: made for them or a skidder with 6' tall tires. Same for the local
: playground mud pits, folks were trenching them with 33's so 31's could
: get hung up. I couldn't help but tag in a few places now and then on
: the trails due to trees on the side with the 31's which ticked me off,
: so I went 33's. It made a big difference and is the perfect size.
: Kinda made the local mud pits no fun though... ;-( The 33x9.5 BFG
: muds's just don't spin unless I get hung, and I now have the clearance
: not to get hung...
:
: I didn't want to go any taller so made my CJ7's suspension for 33's when
: I did the frame up build. 3" lift and the 'glass body sits like a stock
: one with an inch or so lift.
:
: Mike
: 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
: 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
:
: Drink wrote:
: >
: > With all due respect to my esteemed colleague from the Great White
North,
: > I might submit that his Jeep isn't exactly a garden variety example with
: > fiberglass, extensive engine modification and God knows what kind of
clutch.
: > (I think he might be holding out on us with a stroker engine or some
cool,
: > secret weapon that might put him next on the list after Usama & Saddam:)
: > I'm not familiar with the T5 1st gear. So, I'll tell you my
experiences.
: > I've a 76 CJ-7 w/ stock 258, T-176 4sp, Dana300 to the AMC20 turning
3.53
: > gears and braking with 11" drums all around. This is probably a better
: > setup for "vanilla" comparison.
: > I originally mounted 31" A/T tires and eventually mounted 33 x 12.5
BFG
: > mud tires. I thought it was okay at first. I soon saw that the drum
brakes
: > were max'ed and probably overcome by the 33's under hard-braking
conditions.
: > I could lock one rear tire on the pavement about 50% of the time.
Gearing
: > was a different story.
: > My new clutch was overcome in the first couple of years. Nowadays, I
can
: > spin the flywheel against the clutch in second gear and only spin a tire
in
: > 1st on slick pavement. So, I went from the stock 3.53 gearing to 4.10.
: > What an improvement. On the drive home, I gave it the usual pedal
pressure
: > needed to get rolling around a corner and, BAM!, a tire started howling.
I
: > realized what I'd been missing over the years. The 4.10's bring gearing
: > close to factory specs when running 33" tires. My mileage has held or
: > improved.
: > I'm going to go back to 31" or 32" tires when I swap. With the lifted
: > suspension and it's high center of gravity, I'm not planning on burying
the
: > needle. I think that the braking will be vastly improved as well.
: > Someone mentioned a test/evaluation where the results showed that a
31"
: > tire was the best selection for off-road terrain. Can anybody shed more
: > light on that?
: > o_o_o_o
: > Best Regards, /| ,[_____],
: > Jim, WP3JQ |ŻŻŻL --O|||||||O-
: > ()_)Ż()_) ŻŻŻŻŻ )_)
: > EM60qk 30.447439N 086.628959W

 

A retired British Mini mechanic built the engine for me back in the mid
70's.

It was a 1275 block with an 1100 CC head on it. The valves were the
same size on the 1100 head with dual springs, but the top of the piston
area dome was way smaller. It used the 1275 head gasket. The
compression was through he roof, the starter would barely crank it
over. I used to cook head gaskets until I finally just glued one in.
British Leyland offered me a free compression check to see why I was
blowing head gaskets and to see 'just what old Douggie had built
there'. It broke the first compression gauge, snapped the pin, they had
to use a high pressure one. Came in at something like 265 psi. LOL!
My buddy and I had a head gasket change down to a half hour or so.

It was a dual manifold setup from an MG midget I think he used. The
firewall didn't need too much hammer work, but some. Had a Mallory coil
in it too for a hot spark and the distributor had a fine tuning dial on
it for the advance.

The tranny was a 4 speed slap stick semi automatic with a Drive/full
automatic setting with 9 hydraulic clutch plates and 10 pressure plates
I think it was. I had the manual for it and it said 'for maximum
acceleration, do not release gas pedal between shifts'. It would send
smoke off the front wheels at 100 mph when I hit 4th. The first one
didn't last long... Real fun to change too

I used to also back off the belt when I raced, gave me a few extra
ponies to let the alternator slip.

I was hell on CV joints too, but man it was a fun little beast. I used
to go 'looking' for the hopped up muscle cars. I would draft them up to
100, then pull out and pass when I hit 4th. Most of them were 1/4 mile
cars and would top out. The looks on their faces in their rear view
watching me tag their butt all the way up in speed was priceless.

Used to ice race it too and take on snowmobiles on the logging roads.
They would hit the soft snow to cut the corner, while I calmly four
wheel drifted on past them out on the packed stuff.

They used to sell these nice cheap winter tires that got sticky when
spun on ice. They grabbed sweet, but only lasted about 20- 25,000
miles.

Mike

Dave Milne wrote:
>
> What the hell did you do to an old 55 hp Mini Cooper to get it to do 132 ? I
> reckon you'd need a good 130hp to do that. If I remember correctly the
> problem with minis was that the head had such small valves that you couldn't
> get it to breathe properly. You could install 1 1/2 SUs (didn't we cut the
> bulkhead for this ?), but the max you could bore the engine to was 1430cc
> giving about 100 hp.
>
> Tell me more !
>
> --
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3F7A02FB.3073C925@sympatico.ca...
> : LOL!
> :
> : I guess my power to weight ratio is a lot higher than stock due to the
> : fiberglass body. 'Glass is pretty light.
> :
> : But my engine is a bone stock 78 that I picked up with 40K original
> : miles on it set up manually as a 78 was. No computer controls.
> :
> : The only modification I have is the stock 86 Carter BBD with the 2 bbl
> : manifold off my old 86 engine and an Accel SuperCoil for a hot spark
> : with a ported timing vacuum advance.
> :
> : I do have a good 'ear' though when it comes to tuning old engines, used
> : to race and even set up Dodge 6 pack's for a couple friends with
> : Chargers and a Cuda or Barracuda, ran dual SU's on my Mini Cooper S with
> : a 'dial as you want today' timing advance (that was a fun machine,
> : topped at 132.4 mph on radar) and tuned lots of MGB and Volvo dual SU's,
> : VW duals, Bike multiples, etc.
> :
> : Other CJ owners usually comment about how fast mine seems to pick up
> : when they drive in it with me. :-)
> :
> : My clutch 'was' a centerforce that I broke the pressure plate on after a
> : year and a half. The tranny nose cone had a ding in the underside that
> : I didn't notice when I installed it that held the throw out bearing
> : against the pressure plate fingers and burned them off. Got a new nose
> : cone and put my old stock Borg Warner pressure plate back in with the
> : centerforce clutch disk.
> :
> : After a year and a half, the label was still visible on both faces of
> : the clutch disk, blew a few friends away when they saw that because of
> : all the mud and ravines I run. They figured I should be eating
> : clutches. I was really surprised too, for the same reason.
> :
> : The Borg Warner pressure plate is 'much' nicer than the centerforce
> : one. That damn CF one needed over 100 lb on the pedal to hold it in
> : neutral, my wife had to pull up on the steering wheel with both hands to
> : hold it. The Borg Warner one only needs about 30 lb on the foot or so.
> : Have to see how clutch wear compares I guess, but it sure still locks in
> : hard and fast.
> :
> : But!!!
> :
> : Man you must have something wrong with your clutch!
> :
> : Mine hits solid in every gear and will spin second let alone smoke out
> : the 33's in 1st. I have to really watch my throttle pulling out onto
> : the 40 mph roads around here or I will get a howl with the 3.31 rear.
> : 4.11's would be nice for mine, but I would really have to baby it from a
> : turning stop or I would eat tires up fast. It would be nice to get 5th
> : back, but at 19 US mpg on the highway running in 4th at 65-70 is nice
> : enough I haven't even thought of re-gearing. My Dana 300 1st low is
> : sweet too, I very seldom need it, I run in 3rd low almost always on dirt
> : or mud.
> :
> : The Borg Warner T5 tranny is also behind a Mustang 5.0 and they don't
> : eat clutches too fast if you drive them right. A friend has the 5.0 in
> : his CJ with the T5 and it will light up in 3 gears and he didn't want to
> : try 4th, it was already going too fast he said. I lit it up in 1st
> : after designing and installing a clutch linkage for him to test it and
> : the thing wouldn't stop spinning until I let off the gas, then all over
> : again in 2nd.
> :
> : Tire sizes....
> :
> : I run bush trails that originally were old logging tracks. I ran
> : 31x10.5's for several years and found them a bit short. Not bad,
> : but... The old and new logging trucks have tall tires so the roads are
> : made for them or a skidder with 6' tall tires. Same for the local
> : playground mud pits, folks were trenching them with 33's so 31's could
> : get hung up. I couldn't help but tag in a few places now and then on
> : the trails due to trees on the side with the 31's which ticked me off,
> : so I went 33's. It made a big difference and is the perfect size.
> : Kinda made the local mud pits no fun though... ;-( The 33x9.5 BFG
> : muds's just don't spin unless I get hung, and I now have the clearance
> : not to get hung...
> :
> : I didn't want to go any taller so made my CJ7's suspension for 33's when
> : I did the frame up build. 3" lift and the 'glass body sits like a stock
> : one with an inch or so lift.
> :
> : Mike
> : 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> : 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> :
> : Drink wrote:
> : >
> : > With all due respect to my esteemed colleague from the Great White
> North,
> : > I might submit that his Jeep isn't exactly a garden variety example with
> : > fiberglass, extensive engine modification and God knows what kind of
> clutch.
> : > (I think he might be holding out on us with a stroker engine or some
> cool,
> : > secret weapon that might put him next on the list after Usama & Saddam:)
> : > I'm not familiar with the T5 1st gear. So, I'll tell you my
> experiences.
> : > I've a 76 CJ-7 w/ stock 258, T-176 4sp, Dana300 to the AMC20 turning
> 3.53
> : > gears and braking with 11" drums all around. This is probably a better
> : > setup for "vanilla" comparison.
> : > I originally mounted 31" A/T tires and eventually mounted 33 x 12.5
> BFG
> : > mud tires. I thought it was okay at first. I soon saw that the drum
> brakes
> : > were max'ed and probably overcome by the 33's under hard-braking
> conditions.
> : > I could lock one rear tire on the pavement about 50% of the time.
> Gearing
> : > was a different story.
> : > My new clutch was overcome in the first couple of years. Nowadays, I
> can
> : > spin the flywheel against the clutch in second gear and only spin a tire
> in
> : > 1st on slick pavement. So, I went from the stock 3.53 gearing to 4.10.
> : > What an improvement. On the drive home, I gave it the usual pedal
> pressure
> : > needed to get rolling around a corner and, BAM!, a tire started howling.
> I
> : > realized what I'd been missing over the years. The 4.10's bring gearing
> : > close to factory specs when running 33" tires. My mileage has held or
> : > improved.
> : > I'm going to go back to 31" or 32" tires when I swap. With the lifted
> : > suspension and it's high center of gravity, I'm not planning on burying
> the
> : > needle. I think that the braking will be vastly improved as well.
> : > Someone mentioned a test/evaluation where the results showed that a
> 31"
> : > tire was the best selection for off-road terrain. Can anybody shed more
> : > light on that?
> : > o_o_o_o
> : > Best Regards, /| ,[_____],
> : > Jim, WP3JQ |ŻŻŻL --O|||||||O-
> : > ()_)Ż()_) ŻŻŻŻŻ )_)
> : > EM60qk 30.447439N 086.628959W

 

A retired British Mini mechanic built the engine for me back in the mid
70's.

It was a 1275 block with an 1100 CC head on it. The valves were the
same size on the 1100 head with dual springs, but the top of the piston
area dome was way smaller. It used the 1275 head gasket. The
compression was through he roof, the starter would barely crank it
over. I used to cook head gaskets until I finally just glued one in.
British Leyland offered me a free compression check to see why I was
blowing head gaskets and to see 'just what old Douggie had built
there'. It broke the first compression gauge, snapped the pin, they had
to use a high pressure one. Came in at something like 265 psi. LOL!
My buddy and I had a head gasket change down to a half hour or so.

It was a dual manifold setup from an MG midget I think he used. The
firewall didn't need too much hammer work, but some. Had a Mallory coil
in it too for a hot spark and the distributor had a fine tuning dial on
it for the advance.

The tranny was a 4 speed slap stick semi automatic with a Drive/full
automatic setting with 9 hydraulic clutch plates and 10 pressure plates
I think it was. I had the manual for it and it said 'for maximum
acceleration, do not release gas pedal between shifts'. It would send
smoke off the front wheels at 100 mph when I hit 4th. The first one
didn't last long... Real fun to change too

I used to also back off the belt when I raced, gave me a few extra
ponies to let the alternator slip.

I was hell on CV joints too, but man it was a fun little beast. I used
to go 'looking' for the hopped up muscle cars. I would draft them up to
100, then pull out and pass when I hit 4th. Most of them were 1/4 mile
cars and would top out. The looks on their faces in their rear view
watching me tag their butt all the way up in speed was priceless.

Used to ice race it too and take on snowmobiles on the logging roads.
They would hit the soft snow to cut the corner, while I calmly four
wheel drifted on past them out on the packed stuff.

They used to sell these nice cheap winter tires that got sticky when
spun on ice. They grabbed sweet, but only lasted about 20- 25,000
miles.

Mike

Dave Milne wrote:
>
> What the hell did you do to an old 55 hp Mini Cooper to get it to do 132 ? I
> reckon you'd need a good 130hp to do that. If I remember correctly the
> problem with minis was that the head had such small valves that you couldn't
> get it to breathe properly. You could install 1 1/2 SUs (didn't we cut the
> bulkhead for this ?), but the max you could bore the engine to was 1430cc
> giving about 100 hp.
>
> Tell me more !
>
> --
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3F7A02FB.3073C925@sympatico.ca...
> : LOL!
> :
> : I guess my power to weight ratio is a lot higher than stock due to the
> : fiberglass body. 'Glass is pretty light.
> :
> : But my engine is a bone stock 78 that I picked up with 40K original
> : miles on it set up manually as a 78 was. No computer controls.
> :
> : The only modification I have is the stock 86 Carter BBD with the 2 bbl
> : manifold off my old 86 engine and an Accel SuperCoil for a hot spark
> : with a ported timing vacuum advance.
> :
> : I do have a good 'ear' though when it comes to tuning old engines, used
> : to race and even set up Dodge 6 pack's for a couple friends with
> : Chargers and a Cuda or Barracuda, ran dual SU's on my Mini Cooper S with
> : a 'dial as you want today' timing advance (that was a fun machine,
> : topped at 132.4 mph on radar) and tuned lots of MGB and Volvo dual SU's,
> : VW duals, Bike multiples, etc.
> :
> : Other CJ owners usually comment about how fast mine seems to pick up
> : when they drive in it with me. :-)
> :
> : My clutch 'was' a centerforce that I broke the pressure plate on after a
> : year and a half. The tranny nose cone had a ding in the underside that
> : I didn't notice when I installed it that held the throw out bearing
> : against the pressure plate fingers and burned them off. Got a new nose
> : cone and put my old stock Borg Warner pressure plate back in with the
> : centerforce clutch disk.
> :
> : After a year and a half, the label was still visible on both faces of
> : the clutch disk, blew a few friends away when they saw that because of
> : all the mud and ravines I run. They figured I should be eating
> : clutches. I was really surprised too, for the same reason.
> :
> : The Borg Warner pressure plate is 'much' nicer than the centerforce
> : one. That damn CF one needed over 100 lb on the pedal to hold it in
> : neutral, my wife had to pull up on the steering wheel with both hands to
> : hold it. The Borg Warner one only needs about 30 lb on the foot or so.
> : Have to see how clutch wear compares I guess, but it sure still locks in
> : hard and fast.
> :
> : But!!!
> :
> : Man you must have something wrong with your clutch!
> :
> : Mine hits solid in every gear and will spin second let alone smoke out
> : the 33's in 1st. I have to really watch my throttle pulling out onto
> : the 40 mph roads around here or I will get a howl with the 3.31 rear.
> : 4.11's would be nice for mine, but I would really have to baby it from a
> : turning stop or I would eat tires up fast. It would be nice to get 5th
> : back, but at 19 US mpg on the highway running in 4th at 65-70 is nice
> : enough I haven't even thought of re-gearing. My Dana 300 1st low is
> : sweet too, I very seldom need it, I run in 3rd low almost always on dirt
> : or mud.
> :
> : The Borg Warner T5 tranny is also behind a Mustang 5.0 and they don't
> : eat clutches too fast if you drive them right. A friend has the 5.0 in
> : his CJ with the T5 and it will light up in 3 gears and he didn't want to
> : try 4th, it was already going too fast he said. I lit it up in 1st
> : after designing and installing a clutch linkage for him to test it and
> : the thing wouldn't stop spinning until I let off the gas, then all over
> : again in 2nd.
> :
> : Tire sizes....
> :
> : I run bush trails that originally were old logging tracks. I ran
> : 31x10.5's for several years and found them a bit short. Not bad,
> : but... The old and new logging trucks have tall tires so the roads are
> : made for them or a skidder with 6' tall tires. Same for the local
> : playground mud pits, folks were trenching them with 33's so 31's could
> : get hung up. I couldn't help but tag in a few places now and then on
> : the trails due to trees on the side with the 31's which ticked me off,
> : so I went 33's. It made a big difference and is the perfect size.
> : Kinda made the local mud pits no fun though... ;-( The 33x9.5 BFG
> : muds's just don't spin unless I get hung, and I now have the clearance
> : not to get hung...
> :
> : I didn't want to go any taller so made my CJ7's suspension for 33's when
> : I did the frame up build. 3" lift and the 'glass body sits like a stock
> : one with an inch or so lift.
> :
> : Mike
> : 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> : 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> :
> : Drink wrote:
> : >
> : > With all due respect to my esteemed colleague from the Great White
> North,
> : > I might submit that his Jeep isn't exactly a garden variety example with
> : > fiberglass, extensive engine modification and God knows what kind of
> clutch.
> : > (I think he might be holding out on us with a stroker engine or some
> cool,
> : > secret weapon that might put him next on the list after Usama & Saddam:)
> : > I'm not familiar with the T5 1st gear. So, I'll tell you my
> experiences.
> : > I've a 76 CJ-7 w/ stock 258, T-176 4sp, Dana300 to the AMC20 turning
> 3.53
> : > gears and braking with 11" drums all around. This is probably a better
> : > setup for "vanilla" comparison.
> : > I originally mounted 31" A/T tires and eventually mounted 33 x 12.5
> BFG
> : > mud tires. I thought it was okay at first. I soon saw that the drum
> brakes
> : > were max'ed and probably overcome by the 33's under hard-braking
> conditions.
> : > I could lock one rear tire on the pavement about 50% of the time.
> Gearing
> : > was a different story.
> : > My new clutch was overcome in the first couple of years. Nowadays, I
> can
> : > spin the flywheel against the clutch in second gear and only spin a tire
> in
> : > 1st on slick pavement. So, I went from the stock 3.53 gearing to 4.10.
> : > What an improvement. On the drive home, I gave it the usual pedal
> pressure
> : > needed to get rolling around a corner and, BAM!, a tire started howling.
> I
> : > realized what I'd been missing over the years. The 4.10's bring gearing
> : > close to factory specs when running 33" tires. My mileage has held or
> : > improved.
> : > I'm going to go back to 31" or 32" tires when I swap. With the lifted
> : > suspension and it's high center of gravity, I'm not planning on burying
> the
> : > needle. I think that the braking will be vastly improved as well.
> : > Someone mentioned a test/evaluation where the results showed that a
> 31"
> : > tire was the best selection for off-road terrain. Can anybody shed more
> : > light on that?
> : > o_o_o_o
> : > Best Regards, /| ,[_____],
> : > Jim, WP3JQ |ŻŻŻL --O|||||||O-
> : > ()_)Ż()_) ŻŻŻŻŻ )_)
> : > EM60qk 30.447439N 086.628959W

 

A retired British Mini mechanic built the engine for me back in the mid
70's.

It was a 1275 block with an 1100 CC head on it. The valves were the
same size on the 1100 head with dual springs, but the top of the piston
area dome was way smaller. It used the 1275 head gasket. The
compression was through he roof, the starter would barely crank it
over. I used to cook head gaskets until I finally just glued one in.
British Leyland offered me a free compression check to see why I was
blowing head gaskets and to see 'just what old Douggie had built
there'. It broke the first compression gauge, snapped the pin, they had
to use a high pressure one. Came in at something like 265 psi. LOL!
My buddy and I had a head gasket change down to a half hour or so.

It was a dual manifold setup from an MG midget I think he used. The
firewall didn't need too much hammer work, but some. Had a Mallory coil
in it too for a hot spark and the distributor had a fine tuning dial on
it for the advance.

The tranny was a 4 speed slap stick semi automatic with a Drive/full
automatic setting with 9 hydraulic clutch plates and 10 pressure plates
I think it was. I had the manual for it and it said 'for maximum
acceleration, do not release gas pedal between shifts'. It would send
smoke off the front wheels at 100 mph when I hit 4th. The first one
didn't last long... Real fun to change too

I used to also back off the belt when I raced, gave me a few extra
ponies to let the alternator slip.

I was hell on CV joints too, but man it was a fun little beast. I used
to go 'looking' for the hopped up muscle cars. I would draft them up to
100, then pull out and pass when I hit 4th. Most of them were 1/4 mile
cars and would top out. The looks on their faces in their rear view
watching me tag their butt all the way up in speed was priceless.

Used to ice race it too and take on snowmobiles on the logging roads.
They would hit the soft snow to cut the corner, while I calmly four
wheel drifted on past them out on the packed stuff.

They used to sell these nice cheap winter tires that got sticky when
spun on ice. They grabbed sweet, but only lasted about 20- 25,000
miles.

Mike

Dave Milne wrote:
>
> What the hell did you do to an old 55 hp Mini Cooper to get it to do 132 ? I
> reckon you'd need a good 130hp to do that. If I remember correctly the
> problem with minis was that the head had such small valves that you couldn't
> get it to breathe properly. You could install 1 1/2 SUs (didn't we cut the
> bulkhead for this ?), but the max you could bore the engine to was 1430cc
> giving about 100 hp.
>
> Tell me more !
>
> --
> Dave Milne, Scotland
> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:3F7A02FB.3073C925@sympatico.ca...
> : LOL!
> :
> : I guess my power to weight ratio is a lot higher than stock due to the
> : fiberglass body. 'Glass is pretty light.
> :
> : But my engine is a bone stock 78 that I picked up with 40K original
> : miles on it set up manually as a 78 was. No computer controls.
> :
> : The only modification I have is the stock 86 Carter BBD with the 2 bbl
> : manifold off my old 86 engine and an Accel SuperCoil for a hot spark
> : with a ported timing vacuum advance.
> :
> : I do have a good 'ear' though when it comes to tuning old engines, used
> : to race and even set up Dodge 6 pack's for a couple friends with
> : Chargers and a Cuda or Barracuda, ran dual SU's on my Mini Cooper S with
> : a 'dial as you want today' timing advance (that was a fun machine,
> : topped at 132.4 mph on radar) and tuned lots of MGB and Volvo dual SU's,
> : VW duals, Bike multiples, etc.
> :
> : Other CJ owners usually comment about how fast mine seems to pick up
> : when they drive in it with me. :-)
> :
> : My clutch 'was' a centerforce that I broke the pressure plate on after a
> : year and a half. The tranny nose cone had a ding in the underside that
> : I didn't notice when I installed it that held the throw out bearing
> : against the pressure plate fingers and burned them off. Got a new nose
> : cone and put my old stock Borg Warner pressure plate back in with the
> : centerforce clutch disk.
> :
> : After a year and a half, the label was still visible on both faces of
> : the clutch disk, blew a few friends away when they saw that because of
> : all the mud and ravines I run. They figured I should be eating
> : clutches. I was really surprised too, for the same reason.
> :
> : The Borg Warner pressure plate is 'much' nicer than the centerforce
> : one. That damn CF one needed over 100 lb on the pedal to hold it in
> : neutral, my wife had to pull up on the steering wheel with both hands to
> : hold it. The Borg Warner one only needs about 30 lb on the foot or so.
> : Have to see how clutch wear compares I guess, but it sure still locks in
> : hard and fast.
> :
> : But!!!
> :
> : Man you must have something wrong with your clutch!
> :
> : Mine hits solid in every gear and will spin second let alone smoke out
> : the 33's in 1st. I have to really watch my throttle pulling out onto
> : the 40 mph roads around here or I will get a howl with the 3.31 rear.
> : 4.11's would be nice for mine, but I would really have to baby it from a
> : turning stop or I would eat tires up fast. It would be nice to get 5th
> : back, but at 19 US mpg on the highway running in 4th at 65-70 is nice
> : enough I haven't even thought of re-gearing. My Dana 300 1st low is
> : sweet too, I very seldom need it, I run in 3rd low almost always on dirt
> : or mud.
> :
> : The Borg Warner T5 tranny is also behind a Mustang 5.0 and they don't
> : eat clutches too fast if you drive them right. A friend has the 5.0 in
> : his CJ with the T5 and it will light up in 3 gears and he didn't want to
> : try 4th, it was already going too fast he said. I lit it up in 1st
> : after designing and installing a clutch linkage for him to test it and
> : the thing wouldn't stop spinning until I let off the gas, then all over
> : again in 2nd.
> :
> : Tire sizes....
> :
> : I run bush trails that originally were old logging tracks. I ran
> : 31x10.5's for several years and found them a bit short. Not bad,
> : but... The old and new logging trucks have tall tires so the roads are
> : made for them or a skidder with 6' tall tires. Same for the local
> : playground mud pits, folks were trenching them with 33's so 31's could
> : get hung up. I couldn't help but tag in a few places now and then on
> : the trails due to trees on the side with the 31's which ticked me off,
> : so I went 33's. It made a big difference and is the perfect size.
> : Kinda made the local mud pits no fun though... ;-( The 33x9.5 BFG
> : muds's just don't spin unless I get hung, and I now have the clearance
> : not to get hung...
> :
> : I didn't want to go any taller so made my CJ7's suspension for 33's when
> : I did the frame up build. 3" lift and the 'glass body sits like a stock
> : one with an inch or so lift.
> :
> : Mike
> : 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> : 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> :
> : Drink wrote:
> : >
> : > With all due respect to my esteemed colleague from the Great White
> North,
> : > I might submit that his Jeep isn't exactly a garden variety example with
> : > fiberglass, extensive engine modification and God knows what kind of
> clutch.
> : > (I think he might be holding out on us with a stroker engine or some
> cool,
> : > secret weapon that might put him next on the list after Usama & Saddam:)
> : > I'm not familiar with the T5 1st gear. So, I'll tell you my
> experiences.
> : > I've a 76 CJ-7 w/ stock 258, T-176 4sp, Dana300 to the AMC20 turning
> 3.53
> : > gears and braking with 11" drums all around. This is probably a better
> : > setup for "vanilla" comparison.
> : > I originally mounted 31" A/T tires and eventually mounted 33 x 12.5
> BFG
> : > mud tires. I thought it was okay at first. I soon saw that the drum
> brakes
> : > were max'ed and probably overcome by the 33's under hard-braking
> conditions.
> : > I could lock one rear tire on the pavement about 50% of the time.
> Gearing
> : > was a different story.
> : > My new clutch was overcome in the first couple of years. Nowadays, I
> can
> : > spin the flywheel against the clutch in second gear and only spin a tire
> in
> : > 1st on slick pavement. So, I went from the stock 3.53 gearing to 4.10.
> : > What an improvement. On the drive home, I gave it the usual pedal
> pressure
> : > needed to get rolling around a corner and, BAM!, a tire started howling.
> I
> : > realized what I'd been missing over the years. The 4.10's bring gearing
> : > close to factory specs when running 33" tires. My mileage has held or
> : > improved.
> : > I'm going to go back to 31" or 32" tires when I swap. With the lifted
> : > suspension and it's high center of gravity, I'm not planning on burying
> the
> : > needle. I think that the braking will be vastly improved as well.
> : > Someone mentioned a test/evaluation where the results showed that a
> 31"
> : > tire was the best selection for off-road terrain. Can anybody shed more
> : > light on that?
> : > o_o_o_o
> : > Best Regards, /| ,[_____],
> : > Jim, WP3JQ |ŻŻŻL --O|||||||O-
> : > ()_)Ż()_) ŻŻŻŻŻ )_)
> : > EM60qk 30.447439N 086.628959W