Manual Transmission and SelecTrac (Full-time 4X4)

[BlackBetty]

So I was able to figure out the cause of error #2, the P0159 code. Apparently, when my dad ran the wiring harness for the O2 sensors, he switched the 1/2 and 2/2 connectors. The information coming out of the upstream was not matching the downstream, and thus the computer threw the code.

I was able to figure this out by plugging in my scan tool and watching the live data graphs for O2 sensors. I decided to pull one of the connectors while the Jeep was running to see what would happen to the signal. I pulled what I thought was sensor 1/2, but the signal from sensor 2/2 dropped. I immediately realized what happened.

 

[BlackBetty]

I've been stupidly busy with work, so haven't had much chance to post any updates on the build.

I have been able to resolve most of my issues that I've mentioned previously. I ended up replacing the entire AC system pretty much and it's working, for the most part, now.

The current hurdle that I'm trying to tackle is the lift. I pulled out the RRO that I tried and went with Old Man EMU. I'm running the 90009 and 2927 in the front. I also added 3/8" top plates on both sides, and used 4 conduit nuts on driver's and 3 on passengers for the Clevis lift.

My issue is that I took measurements the other day and I'm sitting at
- FL - 21"
- FR - 21.5"
- RR - 21 1/4"
- RL - 21"

How is it that I'm only sitting at ~ 2.5" of lift with adding the conduit nuts and top plate? I'd like to upsize to 265/75R16, but I'm pretty sure I'll rub good at my current height. Right now, I'm not getting any rubbing with 265/70R16.

 

[JRB]

Awesome project, good read, glad to see you updated it as I missed this thread initially.

From what I understand the front geometry, whatever spacing you add will double. I don't know springs by # for these vehicles yet, but if I had to guess the OME lift is giving you ~1.5" and you're getting the rest of the lift out of the top plate and conduit nut spacers on the clevis.

 

[Glenn Dickson]

There is a reason the factory did not combine those two ( manual transmission and select trac )
Select trac is not build to handle the manual trans , not heavy enough
of course people have done it, heck people jump off bridges all the time but it's still not a good idea
Years ago we took 2 wheel drive XJs and installed 4 wheel drive in them since it was very easy
Too many electronics, different computers etc anymore to make it worth while

Mr. Bluphant's tutorials ????? never heard of them or if he knows anything

Sorry, I call B.S. The 242 is just as tough if nit tougher than the 231. JEEP even offered them with 4.7 L V-8 engines in the 1999 - 2004 Grand Cherokees. They were also offered in V-8 powered Dakotas and Durangos. The 4 in the series number actually means a stronger unit that ones with a 3. So go ahead, it will be fine as long as you di not plan on burning donuts all day long.

Hummers used them as well.

 

[Glenn Dickson]

Offered, .... but still not that strong for the abuse that some put a manual through
We had this discussion many times at my monthly M&Gs with both engineers and the guys who actually built the KJs
( Yes they'd come out to my place and hang out )
They all always agreed and said the same things, it was just not strong enough to hold up behind a manual
period

You were talking to the wrong guys.

 

[Glenn Dickson]

There is a reason the factory did not combine those two ( manual transmission and select trac )
Select trac is not build to handle the manual trans , not heavy enough
of course people have done it, heck people jump off bridges all the time but it's still not a good idea
Years ago we took 2 wheel drive XJs and installed 4 wheel drive in them since it was very easy
Too many electronics, different computers etc anymore to make it worth while

Mr. Bluphant's tutorials ????? never heard of them or if he knows anything

Here is a link to what I have always heard about 231 vs 242 T cases.

NP 231 and NP 242 TC Differences

Been researching a 4WD conversion and got the following info from the Yahoo Strokers group regarding T-cases. Posted by hsalf625. Good stuff: There are quite a few differences between the NP231 and the NP242 cases as they are completely different models. The first number is the number of ratios o...

comancheclub.com

 

[Glenn Dickson]

Sorry, I call B.S. The 242 is just as tough if nit tougher than the 231. JEEP even offered them with 4.7 L V-8 engines in the 1999 - 2004 Grand Cherokees. They were also offered in V-8 powered Dakotas and Durangos. The 4 in the series number actually means a stronger unit that ones with a 3. So go ahead, it will be fine as long as you di not plan on burning donuts all day long.

Hummers used them as well.

The Novak Guide to the New Process / New Venture Gear 242 Transfer Case

The Novak Guide to the New Process / New Venture Gear 242 Transfer Case

www.novak-adapt.com

 

[tommudd]

Sorry, I call B.S. The 242 is just as tough if nit tougher than the 231. JEEP even offered them with 4.7 L V-8 engines in the 1999 - 2004 Grand Cherokees. They were also offered in V-8 powered Dakotas and Durangos. The 4 in the series number actually means a stronger unit that ones with a 3. So go ahead, it will be fine as long as you di not plan on burning donuts all day long.

Hummers used them as well.

Oh well I tried but some have to learn the hard way
just have to walk away and laugh ! LOL

 

[BlackBetty]

Awesome project, good read, glad to see you updated it as I missed this thread initially.

From what I understand the front geometry, whatever spacing you add will double. I don't know springs by # for these vehicles yet, but if I had to guess the OME lift is giving you ~1.5" and you're getting the rest of the lift out of the top plate and conduit nut spacers on the clevis.

Ok, that makes more sense. I think I've read conflicting information about the OME spring/shock combo providing either 1.5" or 2.5" of lift.

That being the case, how are people getting 3"+ of lift out of this setup?

 

[tommudd]

Ok, that makes more sense. I think I've read conflicting information about the OME spring/shock combo providing either 1.5" or 2.5" of lift.

That being the case, how are people getting 3"+ of lift out of this setup?

927 /948 combo gives 2.5 inches of lift over new stock height
Add 1/4 inch clevis lift in front for 3 inches , another upper iso in rear and of course the right bumpstops, Teraflex in front and eithjer 2-3 hockey pucks perside bolted down to lower spring perch in rear depending on wheel backspacing, tire size etc
anything much over 3 and you will have spring/UCA contact when going over bumps even with JBA UCAs
done over 65 and all have given 2.5 inches before / without adding anything else

OME 926s add 1.5 inches

PLUS they are advertised at 1.5 due to insurance regulations in the land down under where they are made

 

[tommudd]

Awesome project, good read, glad to see you updated it as I missed this thread initially.

From what I understand the front geometry, whatever spacing you add will double. I don't know springs by # for these vehicles yet, but if I had to guess the OME lift is giving you ~1.5" and you're getting the rest of the lift out of the top plate and conduit nut spacers on the clevis.

WRONG
IF you use 2927 front springs they give you 2.5 inches , period
Not adding top plates etc
although you are partly right in anything else you add , like a clevis lift, add 1/4 inch get 1/2 in extra lift
giving out wrong info confuses new folks on this board

 

[JRB]

I guess I was too vague with my writing, but out of context it should of all been clear. That's where I wrote the "spacing" (top spacer / clevis spacer) will double, then I talked about the springs after, didn't mean to confuse anyone. Coilover shock will give their plain value of a lift, and the spacing parts will double theirs, agreed?

xyzvq, awesome project I'm glad to hear you're on the home stretch getting the minor stuff worked out. Maybe you somehow got sent 926 instead of 927 springs, and that is why you're not getting the full 2.5" out of just the springs, and getting it with the addition to the clevis and top plate spacing?

 

[tommudd]

I guess I was too vague with my writing, but out of context it should of all been clear. That's where I wrote the "spacing" (top spacer / clevis spacer) will double, then I talked about the springs after, didn't mean to confuse anyone. Coilover shock will give their plain value of a lift, and the spacing parts will double theirs, agreed?

xyzvq, awesome project I'm glad to hear you're on the home stretch getting the minor stuff worked out. Maybe you somehow got sent 926 instead of 927 springs, and that is why you're not getting the full 2.5" out of just the springs, and getting it with the addition to the clevis and top plate spacing?

True partially right which is what I posted about spacers etc being doubled