88 xj 4x4 vacuum help
05-30-2015, 12:45 AM
#61
CF Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Nor-Cal Coast
Posts: 10,489
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
18 Posts
Year: 90,84
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0,2.5
We get it that the difference in the amount of stress on this train of components is debatable, but for most of us, cutting it in 1/2 is welcome. Heck, I live on 30 hilly acres and use my Jeep to yard logs, but still only use 4WD 1% of the time.
Except when that limb pushed my vacuum line off the disco, even though I had it zip-tied.
05-30-2015, 08:02 AM
#62
::CF Moderator::
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Prescott, Az
Posts: 43,971
Received 1,559 Likes
on
1,263 Posts
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee (XJ)
Engine: 4.0
The chain is turning to drive the rear wheels.
Engaging 4wd only engages the front output with the rear output. Go look at your transfer case.
Engaging 4wd only engages the front output with the rear output. Go look at your transfer case.
05-30-2015, 09:59 AM
#63
I never looked at this thread as an argument 
I was just sounding out my theories and ideas with those who might know more, and trying to better understand the engineering behind the CAD.
Lock-out hubs I understand. I have taken them apart and put them together on so many vehicles that I could almost do it blindfolded. When disengaged, the front wheels turn freely just like a 2wd.
My Jeep doesn't have a CAD, but my IFS Chevy 4wd does - or did. The 4wd didn't work when I bought it which was why I got it cheap. I did some research and was going to get a Posi-Lok cable for it, but then I put a plastic pipe shim on the end of the non-working electric actuator just to see if I could get the 4wd working before I spent too much money on it. That was a couple years ago. I intended it to be a temporary fix but now see no reason to change it.
I know this is a Jeep forum and not Chevy, but the CAD concept is essentially the same. It appears to be a worthless device that causes more trouble than it's worth. If some folks like it and want to keep it operational then that is fine by me.
I do have an argument with some of the folks on our local VFD in that I say that we should leave the hubs locked in on the couple of our trucks so equipped. Most of our responses are less than 20 miles away and when we need the 4wd/low range we don't need to take the time to get out and lock them in or worse yet forget to lock the hubs.
I was just sounding out my theories and ideas with those who might know more, and trying to better understand the engineering behind the CAD.
Lock-out hubs I understand. I have taken them apart and put them together on so many vehicles that I could almost do it blindfolded. When disengaged, the front wheels turn freely just like a 2wd.
My Jeep doesn't have a CAD, but my IFS Chevy 4wd does - or did. The 4wd didn't work when I bought it which was why I got it cheap. I did some research and was going to get a Posi-Lok cable for it, but then I put a plastic pipe shim on the end of the non-working electric actuator just to see if I could get the 4wd working before I spent too much money on it. That was a couple years ago. I intended it to be a temporary fix but now see no reason to change it.
I know this is a Jeep forum and not Chevy, but the CAD concept is essentially the same. It appears to be a worthless device that causes more trouble than it's worth. If some folks like it and want to keep it operational then that is fine by me.
I do have an argument with some of the folks on our local VFD in that I say that we should leave the hubs locked in on the couple of our trucks so equipped. Most of our responses are less than 20 miles away and when we need the 4wd/low range we don't need to take the time to get out and lock them in or worse yet forget to lock the hubs.
05-30-2015, 10:25 AM
#64
::CF Moderator::
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Prescott, Az
Posts: 43,971
Received 1,559 Likes
on
1,263 Posts
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee (XJ)
Engine: 4.0
I never looked at this thread as an argument
I was just sounding out my theories and ideas with those who might know more, and trying to better understand the engineering behind the CAD.
Lock-out hubs I understand. I have taken them apart and put them together on so many vehicles that I could almost do it blindfolded. When disengaged, the front wheels turn freely just like a 2wd.
My Jeep doesn't have a CAD, but my IFS Chevy 4wd does - or did. The 4wd didn't work when I bought it which was why I got it cheap. I did some research and was going to get a Posi-Lok cable for it, but then I put a plastic pipe shim on the end of the non-working electric actuator just to see if I could get the 4wd working before I spent too much money on it. That was a couple years ago. I intended it to be a temporary fix but now see no reason to change it.
I know this is a Jeep forum and not Chevy, but the CAD concept is essentially the same. It appears to be a worthless device that causes more trouble than it's worth. If some folks like it and want to keep it operational then that is fine by me.
I do have an argument with some of the folks on our local VFD in that I say that we should leave the hubs locked in on the couple of our trucks so equipped. Most of our responses are less than 20 miles away and when we need the 4wd/low range we don't need to take the time to get out and lock them in or worse yet forget to lock the hubs.
I was just sounding out my theories and ideas with those who might know more, and trying to better understand the engineering behind the CAD.
Lock-out hubs I understand. I have taken them apart and put them together on so many vehicles that I could almost do it blindfolded. When disengaged, the front wheels turn freely just like a 2wd.
My Jeep doesn't have a CAD, but my IFS Chevy 4wd does - or did. The 4wd didn't work when I bought it which was why I got it cheap. I did some research and was going to get a Posi-Lok cable for it, but then I put a plastic pipe shim on the end of the non-working electric actuator just to see if I could get the 4wd working before I spent too much money on it. That was a couple years ago. I intended it to be a temporary fix but now see no reason to change it.
I know this is a Jeep forum and not Chevy, but the CAD concept is essentially the same. It appears to be a worthless device that causes more trouble than it's worth. If some folks like it and want to keep it operational then that is fine by me.
I do have an argument with some of the folks on our local VFD in that I say that we should leave the hubs locked in on the couple of our trucks so equipped. Most of our responses are less than 20 miles away and when we need the 4wd/low range we don't need to take the time to get out and lock them in or worse yet forget to lock the hubs.
05-30-2015, 12:25 PM
#65
Good people but strange ideas sometimes....
And then one guy who thinks he knows everything (the other one - not me!
) says we should always engage the front axle on the heavy trucks when putting into low range, to keep from damaging the rear drive train. I think the rear drive train (twin screw on two of them) will do just fine and engaging the front axle is likely to break something because most of the time we are on dry ground. Using low range is to protect the transmission or clutch when crawling around with that much weight, and to make sure you don't start up a hill that you can't climb in high range. Generally, 8K to 10K lbs of water on top of eight driving wheels is plenty of traction.
05-30-2015, 03:33 PM
#66
::CF Moderator::
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Prescott, Az
Posts: 43,971
Received 1,559 Likes
on
1,263 Posts
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee (XJ)
Engine: 4.0
Good people but strange ideas sometimes....
And then one guy who thinks he knows everything (the other one - not me! ) says we should always engage the front axle on the heavy trucks when putting into low range, to keep from damaging the rear drive train. I think the rear drive train (twin screw on two of them) will do just fine and engaging the front axle is likely to break something because most of the time we are on dry ground. Using low range is to protect the transmission or clutch when crawling around with that much weight, and to make sure you don't start up a hill that you can't climb in high range. Generally, 8K to 10K lbs of water on top of eight driving wheels is plenty of traction.
And then one guy who thinks he knows everything (the other one - not me!
) says we should always engage the front axle on the heavy trucks when putting into low range, to keep from damaging the rear drive train. I think the rear drive train (twin screw on two of them) will do just fine and engaging the front axle is likely to break something because most of the time we are on dry ground. Using low range is to protect the transmission or clutch when crawling around with that much weight, and to make sure you don't start up a hill that you can't climb in high range. Generally, 8K to 10K lbs of water on top of eight driving wheels is plenty of traction.
05-30-2015, 03:45 PM
#67
One is an M49 6x6 (fuel truck being used as water tender) and the other is an M939 5-ton 6x6 with a 1000 gallon tank/pump mounted in the cargo bed.
We also have a 1979 International 2-axle 4wd with a factory urban fire apparatus (~1200 gallon tank), and PTO pump mounted on the front. But it's a gas engine and a pig, and we only use it for structure protection. Actually, it's been broke down for most of our fires
05-30-2015, 03:57 PM
#68
::CF Moderator::
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Prescott, Az
Posts: 43,971
Received 1,559 Likes
on
1,263 Posts
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee (XJ)
Engine: 4.0
One is an M49 6x6 (fuel truck being used as water tender) and the other is an M939 5-ton 6x6 with a 1000 gallon tank/pump mounted in the cargo bed.
We also have a 1979 International 2-axle 4wd with a factory urban fire apparatus (~1200 gallon tank), and PTO pump mounted on the front. But it's a gas engine and a pig, and we only use it for structure protection. Actually, it's been broke down for most of our fires
We also have a 1979 International 2-axle 4wd with a factory urban fire apparatus (~1200 gallon tank), and PTO pump mounted on the front. But it's a gas engine and a pig, and we only use it for structure protection. Actually, it's been broke down for most of our fires
My M543A1 had an automatic front axle locking system, which was also troublesome.
05-30-2015, 04:59 PM
#69
No, I don't think either of them has hubs. They both have an air control for the front axle, IIRC. I'm not sure that I've ever engaged the front axle on either of them - never needed to. No, wait - there was one fire that we climbed a crazy steep hill with the 5-ton to get back to where we could re-supply the brush trucks, and pushing down good sized trees to get through so I must have used the front axle that time. It was one of those "hood and blue sky" hills for a moment. Our chief was on foot guiding us so we knew we would land in a decent place when we broke over the top. Ten wheeling - whoopee!
We've got three "type 6" trucks. One is a Dodge with the stupid radio dial 4wd control, and I suppose that one has a CAD because it has no hubs. The other two are Fords and have lock-out hubs. These latter two are the ones that I keep saying we should leave locked in as the default.
05-30-2015, 06:05 PM
#70
CF Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Nor-Cal Coast
Posts: 10,489
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
18 Posts
Year: 90,84
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0,2.5
56 ****** wood gettn' Jeep with gravity gas from A Hodaka (motorcycle) tank.
On some hills I needed to stop, and move the tank to the front bumper till I got up, then put it back on the wooden bed rail.
(surprisingly, I didn't start any fires!)
On some hills I needed to stop, and move the tank to the front bumper till I got up, then put it back on the wooden bed rail.
(surprisingly, I didn't start any fires!)
05-30-2015, 06:17 PM
#71
Pictures ???
We don't need no steenkin fuel pump
05-30-2015, 06:55 PM
#72
CF Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Nor-Cal Coast
Posts: 10,489
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
18 Posts
Year: 90,84
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0,2.5
Well..it's only 150 feet to the "retirement home", so here's one 10 minutes old. I did park it there under it's own power, a while back! (I had a piece of plywood up behind the cab, notched out to fit the Hodaka tank.
Last edited by DFlintstone; 05-30-2015 at 06:59 PM.
05-30-2015, 08:25 PM
#73
Too bad old Willie is just rusting away like that
I was just looking at a bunch of those old ****** trucks/wagons on google images. I remember wanting one back before I started driving, but of course I never did get one. They weren't all that old back then - actually newer than my Cherokee is now
I was just looking at a bunch of those old ****** trucks/wagons on google images. I remember wanting one back before I started driving, but of course I never did get one. They weren't all that old back then - actually newer than my Cherokee is now
05-30-2015, 09:24 PM
#74
CF Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Nor-Cal Coast
Posts: 10,489
Likes: 0
Received 18 Likes
on
18 Posts
Year: 90,84
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0,2.5
Well.. I have a second one someone started to go through. They striped it. painted the frame, has diamond-tuck interior. Put it partly back together. Has all sorts of rare goodies in the bed. (bumper brackets, heater stuff misc everything, more fenders) Live your dream! $2K takes them both! There seems to be an extra Grille. Just those 3 might be worth $600.
Last edited by DFlintstone; 05-30-2015 at 09:29 PM.
05-30-2015, 09:41 PM
#75
I wish ....
I have five vehicles for two drivers. Combined ages well over a hundred years. Just keeping them all in roadworthy shape is an ongoing project. None have big problems, just little things here and there. Any of them you can fire up and take off and go.
Would be easy to get sucked into an old truck rescue hobby.
I have five vehicles for two drivers. Combined ages well over a hundred years. Just keeping them all in roadworthy shape is an ongoing project. None have big problems, just little things here and there. Any of them you can fire up and take off and go.
Would be easy to get sucked into an old truck rescue hobby.