My 2000 xj.
Thread Starter
CF Veteran
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,968
Likes: 0
From: Salt Lake City, UT
Year: 2000
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0L
Will teraflex sell you just the planetary gears and let you rebuild it for less? 231's are pretty simple to rebuild. I actually almost did the same thing as you a few months ago. A guy I wheel with a lot had his teralow 4:1 case burn up the planetaries while we were on a run. He decided to get an atlas 4 speed installed, so I was going to buy his old case off him. I was having a lot of trouble with my transfercase around that time and I was almost sold on the getting a atlas 2 speed to not have to worry about mine ever again. After he told me he had already burnt up the planetery gears on his teralow kit 2 other times when it was under warranty and teralow fixed it, I decided I didn't want to deal with one of those. I figured I would just get a 241OR off a tj rubicon eventually due to the reliability/strength. Good luck though. I would at least fix the teralow box, maybe keep the 2 low part for yourself and resell it once you fix it. They go for 900+ used.
I was also just reading a writeup today on how to clock a transfercase here: http://www.bsfab.net/?p=23 Maybe it will be helpful for you. Sounds like a good idea how thick of metal would you use for the belly skid?
I was also just reading a writeup today on how to clock a transfercase here: http://www.bsfab.net/?p=23 Maybe it will be helpful for you. Sounds like a good idea how thick of metal would you use for the belly skid?
But then i could just put the 400 into a D300 and be better off. But for now with it as my DD I don't really want to mess with custom shifters, duel cases, or anything that makes it more of a headache to drive.
That write up is exactly what I am doing.
as for the skid, I was thinking I would make it drop off the frame as far as my long arm cross member does (about 3/4"?) and run it back, 3/16ths should be plenty thick as ill also run a tube around the edges to help brace it all together. 1/4" to heavy, I am not sure if 1/8th" should be good enough...
CF Veteran
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,649
Likes: 1
From: Springville, UT
Year: 1993
Model: Grand Cherokee
Engine: 5.2 V8, Dual cold air, dual batts, E-fan, Sanden OBA
I don't know man, for a belly skid I wouldn't go under 1/4",just my 0.02.
If your t case is hitting your skid right now them get some new engine and tranny mounts that will be solved. I was gonna clock the case but I decided to build a xmember and raise it up as far as I could, I got the lowest part of the t case dead even with the bottom of the frame rail. Doubler would be cool, why not just do a 231/300? Tires look good!! You'll love em
If your t case is hitting your skid right now them get some new engine and tranny mounts that will be solved. I was gonna clock the case but I decided to build a xmember and raise it up as far as I could, I got the lowest part of the t case dead even with the bottom of the frame rail. Doubler would be cool, why not just do a 231/300? Tires look good!! You'll love em
Thread Starter
CF Veteran
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,968
Likes: 0
From: Salt Lake City, UT
Year: 2000
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0L
I don't know man, for a belly skid I wouldn't go under 1/4",just my 0.02.
If your t case is hitting your skid right now them get some new engine and tranny mounts that will be solved. I was gonna clock the case but I decided to build a xmember and raise it up as far as I could, I got the lowest part of the t case dead even with the bottom of the frame rail. Doubler would be cool, why not just do a 231/300? Tires look good!! You'll love em
If your t case is hitting your skid right now them get some new engine and tranny mounts that will be solved. I was gonna clock the case but I decided to build a xmember and raise it up as far as I could, I got the lowest part of the t case dead even with the bottom of the frame rail. Doubler would be cool, why not just do a 231/300? Tires look good!! You'll love em
CF Veteran
Joined: May 2009
Posts: 6,328
Likes: 1
From: SLC, UT
Year: 1989 2 door
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
I agree 1/4" plate for a belly skid, plus bracing! That things gonna take a beating over time, & you don't want it to push up like your current setup...
CF Veteran
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,649
Likes: 1
From: Springville, UT
Year: 1993
Model: Grand Cherokee
Engine: 5.2 V8, Dual cold air, dual batts, E-fan, Sanden OBA
Oh okay ha,why not just build a new x-member and raise it up a bit? Alot less work then clocking the t-case.
Ya that belly skid will have the full weight of the jeep on it with leverage if the rock hits dead center. You plan on going hydro assist or are you fine with the durango box? If its as good as you say it is then I will buy one and tap it for my hydro instead of using my cherokee box.
Ya that belly skid will have the full weight of the jeep on it with leverage if the rock hits dead center. You plan on going hydro assist or are you fine with the durango box? If its as good as you say it is then I will buy one and tap it for my hydro instead of using my cherokee box.
Thread Starter
CF Veteran
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,968
Likes: 0
From: Salt Lake City, UT
Year: 2000
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0L
I like it a lot, not saying its the worlds best thing, could partly be that my old box had 160K on it and was worn out and binding too. But it made a big difference for me, I want to go hydrolic assist but I am putting it on the back burner untill after the holidays. just threw the box in to fix mine going out. It might be tolerable as is for a while, haven't used it offroad yet though...
CF Veteran
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,649
Likes: 1
From: Springville, UT
Year: 1993
Model: Grand Cherokee
Engine: 5.2 V8, Dual cold air, dual batts, E-fan, Sanden OBA
I hear they have a different turn ratio, like it takes 1.5 turns to turn the same as 1 turn on a cherokee box. Ill have to look into it.
Thread Starter
CF Veteran
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,968
Likes: 0
From: Salt Lake City, UT
Year: 2000
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0L
I don't want to build a new cross member because mine works and would have to redo my arms.
Thread Starter
CF Veteran
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 4,968
Likes: 0
From: Salt Lake City, UT
Year: 2000
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0L
"The Durango gear with the 3 3/8 "stop to stop" is faster than the one with 2 15/16 turns because it is a higher ratio" This is a very common misconception as a lot of guys think of this number as a "Ratio" IT IS NOT A RATIO, it is an actual measurement of number of turns from stop to stop and refers to how many full turns of the steering wheel it takes to go from one steering stop (full left for example) to the other (full right). The lesser the turns of the wheel the "faster" the steering is said to be. Therefore if you have a gear that takes 4 turns from stop to stop it would take 4 full revolutions of the wheel to go from full turn in one direction to the other. The stock TJs gear is 3 3/8 turns lock to lock. The Non-Snow package gear on the Durango is 2 15/16" which is a bit faster but isn't really that big a difference as to be noticeable in everyday driving.
http://www.nwjeepn.com/SteeringGear.html
http://www.nwjeepn.com/SteeringGear.html
CF Veteran
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,366
Likes: 0
From: Spanish Fork, Utah
Year: 1989
Model: Cherokee
Engine: Renix 4.0L
Originally Posted by Gorillaxj
"The Durango gear with the 3 3/8 "stop to stop" is faster than the one with 2 15/16 turns because it is a higher ratio" This is a very common misconception as a lot of guys think of this number as a "Ratio" IT IS NOT A RATIO, it is an actual measurement of number of turns from stop to stop and refers to how many full turns of the steering wheel it takes to go from one steering stop (full left for example) to the other (full right). The lesser the turns of the wheel the "faster" the steering is said to be. Therefore if you have a gear that takes 4 turns from stop to stop it would take 4 full revolutions of the wheel to go from full turn in one direction to the other. The stock TJs gear is 3 3/8 turns lock to lock. The Non-Snow package gear on the Durango is 2 15/16" which is a bit faster but isn't really that big a difference as to be noticeable in everyday driving.
http://www.nwjeepn.com/SteeringGear.html
http://www.nwjeepn.com/SteeringGear.html
CF Veteran
Joined: Sep 2010
Posts: 1,649
Likes: 1
From: Springville, UT
Year: 1993
Model: Grand Cherokee
Engine: 5.2 V8, Dual cold air, dual batts, E-fan, Sanden OBA
My bad, just did some research. Apparantly the durango box is supposed to be more HD and not leak, also it turns "more" meaning a tighter turning radius. But its near useless because you still bottom out on the stock steering stops unless you adjust/modify them. Then you run into problems like tires rubbing, U-joints binding and or breaking easier as well. Dont remember where i heard the turning ratio thing from
But hey the durango box is more "heavy duty" that should help it last longer with your front aussie.
But hey the durango box is more "heavy duty" that should help it last longer with your front aussie.
Senior Member
Joined: Jul 2010
Posts: 913
Likes: 6
From: Japan
Year: 2001
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0 L I6
From what I have seen the general consensus with going to hydro assist on a Cherokee is that it is fine to drive with it on the road with the stock box but that going hydro with a Durango box is kind of too squirmy for a dd. I don't know anyone personally who runs a tapped durango box though so maybe you will be fine. Do you dd yours still?
Last edited by gvns8; Dec 1, 2011 at 09:40 PM.