Inboard lower control arms for lowered MJ?

I was sitting here thinking of what to do with my MJ Eliminator

it's currently a 4.0L/5-speed (peugeot) 2wd.

I've thought about lowering it a little, but the thing is, I really don't like the idea of the control arms hangin down so much. now, let's say I would inboard the frame ends of the mounts for the lowers and mount the axle end behind the axle to keep the control arm up a little higher and out of the way of hitting stuff.

My ultimate goal is stroker power, 3.55 or 3.73 gears a 228, 242 or 249 t-case for some kind of all wheel drive. swap in CV front axleshafts from a ZJ or early selectrac XJ and spend the rest of my time doing some visually appealing stuff. (97+ front clip, other body modifications, etc)

now, as far as front suspension geometry goes, how would removing ~2" of vertical separation in the links screw with the handling?

What stuff do you see your self hitting? Even if you lower the MJ by 3 inches, you will still be higher than the hondas cruzing the mall. I am not sure about the handling aspect but I wouldnt think it would effect it too much so long as you kept caster/pinion angle where it should be.

I have to ask why bother swaping in CV shafts from a ZJ? They are much weaker than a standard U-joint. Thats why the ZJ guys swap their CV shafts for U-joint shafts. Install a set 760x joints in a Dana 30 and be done with it.

I would spring for the NP 242 for the 2wd option for smokey burnouts and dounts and have full time 4x4 for when you need traction. The other transfercases dont have a 2wd option.

AARON

this thing is gonna be built for the street(little tires). it doesn't need strength in the front end, I'd rather have smooth power delivery. I'm not gonna wheel it, but I don't want anything hanging below the framerail and I basically want to eliminate the negative angles on the control arms and possibly install a flat piece of sheet along the entire underside of the MJ to help out a little with aerodynamics as well.

I don't want to be doin burnouts either... I want fawkin traction all the time, and although it can be problematic, the torque biasing of the 249 would suit my application better than the 242.

I wouldnt do the sheet underneath due to weight. I dont see the added weight overcoming the reduced wind drag but if if tickles your pickle

You wanted traction, then the 249 would be better than the 242 as you stated. I would still recomend u-joints in the front end especially with the torque of the stroker. Hard 4x4 launches will kill the drivetrain and the axle joints will he the first to go unlis theres something weak in the tranny if you go with a manual tranny. What would be the benifet of the CV shafts over standard u-joints?

AARON

MrShoeBoy said:

I wouldnt do the sheet underneath due to weight. I dont see the added weight overcoming the reduced wind drag but if if tickles your pickle

You wanted traction, then the 249 would be better than the 242 as you stated. I would still recomend u-joints in the front end especially with the torque of the stroker. Hard 4x4 launches will kill the drivetrain and the axle joints will he the first to go unlis theres something weak in the tranny if you go with a manual tranny. What would be the benifet of the CV shafts over standard u-joints?

AARON

Click to expand...

smooth power transfer at a "constant velocity"

a 5.9 ZJ and push power through those joints without too many problem. the problems with the CVs arise with larger tires and the stress of wheelin'

same things that break u-joints break CVs, it's stress and binding, and I'll never be doin any full-crank 4-low full throttle wheelin with this truck. they are fine for the application.

my 86 XJ which at one point had a hopped up 3.4L in it (pushed damn near 300hp, was a race engine of my buddy's that I borrowed while finding another Jeep after my final 2.8L quit) and it had CV shafts and the 228 transfer case. in 4wd, on the road, that thing was EXTREMELY fun to drive. the CV shafts had 177K miles on them and no clicking or anything. and I even used to wheel that thing.

I'm not talkin about a skidplate for under the MJ, I'm talkin about thin sheetmetal with a support frame. honestly, the MJ could stand to have a little extra weight in the rear.

my current DD MJ has a 242 in it, and it has a tendency to oversteer. granted this isn't a bad thing (more controllable than understeer) but it's WAY TOO MUCH than I'd like, and a little more weight in the rear would definitely help balance it out. hell, a full tank of gas makes a noticable difference in cornering feel.

I understand now. Sounds like its going to be a fun little truck, let us know how it turns out!

AARON