rear end tag decode (1989)

Stock FSJ Tech Area
Post Reply

Topic author
Xplitive
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:50 am
Location: York County, VA

rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by Xplitive »

Trying to determine what gears are in my '89 waggy. 31" tires seems to like 60 mph cruise which is probably closer to 65 mph actual.

Tag on rear end reads
top: 53004028
bottom: looks like a "7" 2 605329-2 so 72 605329-2
Erik
1989 GW, 31s on rancho front and general spring rear

Cheapthrills
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:09 am
Location: Sedalia colorado

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by Cheapthrills »

3.31 was standard from 86 _ 91

Also going to 31s you increased by 6.45% so 60mph your actually going 64 mph

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
User avatar

tedlovesjeeps71
Posts: 2905
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by tedlovesjeeps71 »

Cheapthrills wrote:3.31 was standard from 86 _ 91

Also going to 31s you increased by 6.45% so 60mph your actually going 64 mph

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
So 272 was an option on our 91?? What kind of idiot would willingly check that option!?! Image


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheapthrills
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:09 am
Location: Sedalia colorado

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by Cheapthrills »

Hmmm never heard of it... everyone I've seen and everything I've read says 3.31s , I thought everything on the net was true..... lol
Thanks for the insight.... didn't know that

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
User avatar

tedlovesjeeps71
Posts: 2905
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by tedlovesjeeps71 »

Cheapthrills wrote:Hmmm never heard of it... everyone I've seen and everything I've read says 3.31s , I thought everything on the net was true..... lol
Thanks for the insight.... didn't know that

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Don't look at me... I only know the little I deal with first hand. Though I would have thought 272 would be their standard towards the end as they were looking to eek out whatever mpg and emissions help they could. Seems like the lower gears would go with a tow package? Maybe more can chime in to offer some clarification??


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Cheapthrills
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:09 am
Location: Sedalia colorado

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by Cheapthrills »

I thought they made 3.31 standard and the only diff was receiver hitch or not with 7 pin plug... and the fuel savings came in with the severe differences in tune depending on where vehicle was being shipped to dealer... I VERY WELL COULD BE WRONG

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
User avatar

tedlovesjeeps71
Posts: 2905
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 4:39 pm

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by tedlovesjeeps71 »

Cheapthrills wrote:I VERY WELL COULD BE WRONG
I'm usually wrong... Ask my wife. Haha. You're probably correct. Image

Cheapthrills
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:09 am
Location: Sedalia colorado

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by Cheapthrills »

Im probably not... the last half of that is an ASSumption

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Last edited by Cheapthrills on Tue Apr 25, 2017 10:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Cheapthrills
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:09 am
Location: Sedalia colorado

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by Cheapthrills »

Lol thread hijacked.... sorry Xplitive

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
User avatar

SparkyB
Posts: 133
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:42 pm
Location: SW Colorado

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by SparkyB »

I thought it was 2.72 standard and 3.31 with high altitude or towing packages? My 88 has 2.72


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Cheapthrills
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:09 am
Location: Sedalia colorado

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by Cheapthrills »

SparkyB wrote:I thought it was 2.72 standard and 3.31 with high altitude or towing packages? My 88 has 2.72


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Well there is proof im WRONG, and I suck again... lol

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Topic author
Xplitive
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:50 am
Location: York County, VA

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by Xplitive »

ok so the best factual data in there was that with 31" tires I'm probably going 64 when 60mph indicated. lol

Looked on ol jeep site and didn't see anything related to this late of a vehicle for decoding the tag.
Erik
1989 GW, 31s on rancho front and general spring rear

Cheapthrills
Posts: 632
Joined: Wed Nov 02, 2016 7:09 am
Location: Sedalia colorado

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by Cheapthrills »

The tag should have it pretty clearly marked on cover I'll take a pic of mine in a little while and point it out

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
User avatar

derf
Posts: 1403
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2012 9:10 am
Location: Littleton, CO
Contact:

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by derf »

Xplitive wrote:Trying to determine what gears are in my '89 waggy. 31" tires seems to like 60 mph cruise which is probably closer to 65 mph actual.

Tag on rear end reads
top: 53004028
bottom: looks like a "7" 2 605329-2 so 72 605329-2
There's a good chance the "72" on the bottom row has a "2" in front of it. My 1988 axles had a "3 31" on the second row and 3.31 gears.

Easiest way to confirm the gear set in the axle is to raise both rear tires off the ground and spin the driveshaft. Make sure both tires are spinning. Count how many times the driveshaft spins for one full tire rotation. If it's 2-3/4 then you have 2.72 gears. If it's about 3-1/4 then you have 3.31.
W0JPR

Check out my gear ratio calculator

If you can't fix it with a hammer or duct tape you have an electrical problem.

Charles Kline
Posts: 717
Joined: Thu Aug 06, 2015 8:00 am
Location: Golden, Co

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by Charles Kline »

I thought in 88 they changed the numerical tag to a letter code? or was that later on?

My 87 GranWag, the 86 and 84 parts car all have 3.31 (for what its worth)

Nikkormat
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:45 pm
Location: Salt Lake City

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by Nikkormat »

SparkyB wrote:I thought it was 2.72 standard and 3.31 with high altitude or towing packages? My 88 has 2.72


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
This guy takes the cake.

OP you probably have 2.72's. Tell us whether it was sold in high altitude or low altitude and whether or not you have the stock transmission cooler and we can know for sure.
Gabe, "reformed" Jeep hoarder.

Topic author
Xplitive
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:50 am
Location: York County, VA

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by Xplitive »

Don't have a clue to where it was sold originally. It does have, and they appear added on, trans cooler, a era correct curt class iv hitch and correct trailer wiring set up (finned aluminum heat sink). Looks like I'm jacking this thing up and rotating the wheels.
Erik
1989 GW, 31s on rancho front and general spring rear

Nikkormat
Posts: 3623
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2014 11:45 pm
Location: Salt Lake City

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by Nikkormat »

Xplitive wrote:Don't have a clue to where it was sold originally. It does have, and they appear added on, trans cooler, a era correct curt class iv hitch and correct trailer wiring set up (finned aluminum heat sink). Looks like I'm jacking this thing up and rotating the wheels.
The emmisions tag under the hood should say something along the lines of "sold below 4,000 feet" or "sold above 4,000 feet". But that all says 2.72 to me!
Gabe, "reformed" Jeep hoarder.

Topic author
Xplitive
Posts: 183
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 3:50 am
Location: York County, VA

Re: rear end tag decode (1989)

Post by Xplitive »

well there it is - below 4000 ft.

found the matching tag on the front axle under some grim, numbers are the same but the front ends in -1 and the rear ends in -2 so either consecutive units or signifies front (1) and rear (2). definitely no 2 in front of the 72, i.e. doesn't appear to be anything on an '89 that clearly states 2.72 or 3.31 (although I should feel around for another tag under the grim).

Think this rig does really have only 96K on it from the paperwork.
Erik
1989 GW, 31s on rancho front and general spring rear
Post Reply