I didn't want to hijack Juffer's thread with this discussion. I'd like to bring up for debate the practical purpose and original intention of the stay cable. I keep seeing the popular opinion going back to mitigating clutch chatter. This never made sense to me, and still can't wrap my head around the concept. I don't understand how a longitudinally placed cable that is supposed to be loosely adjusted is going to help calm a torsional movement. According to what Juffer found on the CJ3 page, it's explained in a manual to keep the drivetrain in place under hard braking or collision: "On page 34 of the Maintenance Manual for Willys Model MC-38 (a military sibling of the CJ-3A) it is explained. Here is what the manual has to say... "The engine is prevented from moving forward on the rubber mounting, when a sudden stop is made, by the engine stay cable which is attached to the left side of the flywheel bellhousing in the front and to the frame cross member at the rear. The length of the cable is adjustable to provide correct tension through a threaded end mounting. Do not overtighten the cable. It should be adjusted to provide 1/2" up and down movement by thumb pressure."" Taking into consideration its proximity to the rubber mounts, if adjusted to those above specs (with added warning not to overtighten), the engine would almost have to spin out of the bay before it acquired enough tension to tighten under torsion. The most publicly accepted theory I've seen on this site is this one: Mystery cable on bell housing I find flaw in this theory in two ways. One, the chatter starts before the vehicle will begin to move, so vehicle inertia is a moot point. Without fore/aft inertia, the engine only has torsional inertia, bringing us back to my first point. And two, some of the records of people complaining of clutch chatter are ones with late-model V6s that have a clutch cable rather than linkage. I'd think this would isolate the movements from the pedal from the engine a little more than the mechanical linkage, taking it out of the equation. Thoughts?