Full Size Jeep Network

So today, like usual i had 2-3 people pull me from what i was doing to talk about my Grand Wagoneer, same talk usually.. Love it, looks great... oh its a 90 wow i thought it was older thats a usual i hear alot.

Anyway this guy at the gas station today said nice Jeep.. Back when they were real Jeeps and so forth.. Then he says the Jeeps today suck and arent real Jeeps and i agreed with him saying i dont like the newer ones either.. But then he started blabbering about owning a 2000 cherokee and how BEEPY it was and how it rusted so easily being up in michigan. I kinda chuckled but then i mentioned i had two other Jeeps both 98 grand cherokee's. The guy kept going on and on about how chrylser screwed up Jeeps and chrysler this and that... And I mentioned.. well my Grand wagoneer was technicly built by chrysler.. the 727 is a chrysler transmission.. And his "BEEPY" cherokee was an AMC designed Jeep, and so was the first gen grand cherokee that i own.

I also mentioned how poorly wagoneers were built, as far as lack of body sealer in important areas.. poor welds on the sectional pillars.. and so forth and he kinda turned face and walked away... LOL, Now i agree i dont like any of the newer Jeeps from 99 and up TBH.. But its funny how alot of people think the FSJ are "tanks" and built so perfectly and last forever when in reality these things have some of the crappiest quality control i have ever seen lol..

And i guess i just thought it was funny he blammed chrysler.. when his XJ and my ZJ are technicly AMC, with a chrysler logo and chrysler engine (the v8s) and transmission

Yeah, I don't think anybody that has done any research is going to buy an FSJ because of its outstanding build quality. If I compare any of my FSJ's to my fathers '77 F150, the build quality differences are gigantic. The Ford may as well have been hand build by the best coach builders in comparison. Especially since the entire body was galvanized on the Ford. My FSJ's have all been missing paint in areas and were just raw steel.

But, love em anyway.

Well, as an original owner or a 78 Chief, obviously I have an addiction, an affection, a sickness for my FSJ, and an always emptying wallet. But I also have a 2005 Grand Cherokee with almost 200K miles and besides normal maintenance, the only thing I've put into it is a water pump and radiator.

So whatever 'that guy's' opinion is on non-FSJ, mine has been extremely reliable and is cost effective transportation (knock on wood my tranny doesn't go out after posting this).

But when I drive the 2005, I certainly don't have a smile on my face and lust in my heart like when I'm driving the 78.

I wheel with a Jeep club here and the Wrangler platform including the current JK is very nice. Certainly better out of the box for off road than ours.

But like you guys said, no one buys a FSJ for build quailty. And to Candyman's point, the quality actually improved a bit after Chrylser took over.

Yea im confused on missing paint when you guys say that. Because on my 90 everything is painted.. inside the quarter panels. The little cubby holding the headliner up.. inside the rockers.. i havent found anything yet... that isnt factory painted. I think chrysler really improved the gw when they took over not made ot fall in decline like this guy was trying to say.

And i havent had any major issues on my zjs. I mean one is at 250k the other closing on 200k and i havent any real mechanical issues besides doing the usual on age items like timing chain. And harmonic balencers and seals and stuff.

I also think the Chrysler 360 Magnum v8 is a better engine then the AMC 360.



On the new JK you mentioned. I dont like those v6 pentastar engines.. ive personally seen two with horrible horrible lifter and engine knocking. And they were both under 100k.


But i guess what really got me chuckling was ill informed he was.. the grand cherokee and cherikee are AMC Jeeps built by chrysler.. and as said chrysler improved them..

Im just not a fan of the newer Jeeps out. Like the newer grand cherokees. Then renegade. The compass patriot and so forth. I doubt ill ever own one.


And yea i didnt buy this fsj thinking it was a tank.. sure i was completetly oblivious on jow bad the build quality was on fsjs.. but i got it because i love Jeeps and i wanted something to feel good in driving and to restore.. Sometimes though it gets iritating when ppl want to buy it from me.. Every other day i have ppl tossing money at me to buy it. Not litterally lol.. but giving me numbers.. and to the uninfirmed on grand wagoneers.. they think its weird when i say its a 90.. everyone thinks its from the 70s.

Mine was actually built in 8 89.. not sure why it was sold as a 90.


You guys wanna hear something weird ? When i bought it. The trunk area had two items in it... a letter 5 carved in wood and a P

My last name is Peterson.. and my birthday is on the 5th.. and the build date on doors is august 89.. my birthday is august 5th... So its like this Jeep was ment to be mine..

When the Grand Wagoneers hit the showroom Chrysler was completely in charge of Jeep manfuacturing. Their engineers and plant operators made improvements wherever possible without changing the shape of the sheetmetal. If you could place a bare 89 body next to a 74 you would notice many changes.
Seeing as the wagoneer design began in 1960 it has stood the test of time quite well.

Why is mine a 90 when it was built mid 1989 ? Just wondering

candymancan wrote:Why is mine a 90 when it was built mid 1989 ? Just wondering

Yeah, thats completely chrysler. They were definitely built a bit better than older ones.

candymancan wrote:Why is mine a 90 when it was built mid 1989 ? Just wondering

Chrysler usually had a mid-June and sometimes July cutoff date for end of production for the next model year.

My 70 Charger SE had a build date of July 1969 making it one of the last to roll off the assembly line.
When ChryCo bought AMC they carried their production methods with them.

So, around mid June-July production ceased and retooling began so the next model year could begin production around September.

Next years models normally hit the dealer in September/October so an early 90 model year would have to be build in 89...

Comparing my 74 Cherokee to my 91 Wagoneer, I think the build quality was better in 74. But the materials used on the 91 were far better. The roof is galvanized and primered on the inside. The quarter panels are galvanized inside and out. But the panel fitment is less precise. That may just be worn out tooling however.

Comparing these things to a XJ or ZJ in terms of build quality is just silly. Compare them to the competition from 1963.

I must say, when a friend asks me what they should buy I usually tell them to find a rust free XJ. Unless there in love with the SJ body style (which surprisingly some are) there is no reason to buy one for a daily driver car.

My 88 GW was built in July 87, same month Chrysler took over AMC. Krista's 77 Wag was built in Aug 76, just turned 40. It was built again in 2012.

We both have had people tell us their grand father or uncle or father or something had one exactly like Phoebe. We giggle when we hear that.

My '73 J4000 was built in July '73. Sometimes........

Ha! I'd get interactions like that all the time with my bel air and cadillac. First you have the guys who come up and say "[some year]?" and you reply with the correct year, then they disagree with you and get mad because you, the owner, MUST be wrong. It made me want to get those license plate frames with the correct year on it just so people would stop asking and arguing.

But the best ones are the people who say: "And those old cars are just so safe!" Uh... no, not really. Big chunks of metal don't exactly absorb impact very well... cars have crumple zones for a reason now whereas back then, the whole car was just crumpled. But you can't disagree with them because they get PISSED. Pretty sure in a high speed impact, my wagoneer crumpling would be the least of my worries - because probably I will have flown through the windshield.

Old cars aren't great because they're built well or safe. They're great because they're not. But then again, I grew up building Alfas and Triumphs so maybe that's just Stockholm Syndrome talking.

I have an old International along with the J truck and I hear the grandpa story every time I take either of them out. The J truck always draws a crowd as well. Everyone always remarks about how hard parts must be to find, how hard it is to find one to buy, why not have a SBC 350 in there etc...

The part that always gets me is everybody wants to buy either of the trucks...not for sale...name your price...what, are you crazy!? I won't go a dime over scrap value, that's a 40 year old truck!

Funny, the very first time I had my Wagoneer running and took it for gas, I could see a guy who kept looking out of the corner of his eye at it. He finally said, "Boy, I haven't seen one of those around here in a long time!"

I get asked about my Hillman almost every time I'm at a gas station, red light, parking lot, my driveway, etc., it's always "What the hell is THAT?" It gets old.

A left-hand drive Hillman no less!

I'd like to say that most (all?) of the North American Hillmans were left-hand drive, but I don't really know all that much about them! I know there are some around, especially on the coasts. But there's not many around here! I'm told that mine was originally used by a Lincoln, NE flower shop as a delivery vehicle.

loganobrien121 wrote:Ha! I'd get interactions like that all the time with my bel air and cadillac. First you have the guys who come up and say "[some year]?" and you reply with the correct year, then they disagree with you and get mad because you, the owner, MUST be wrong. It made me want to get those license plate frames with the correct year on it just so people would stop asking and arguing.

But the best ones are the people who say: "And those old cars are just so safe!" Uh... no, not really. Big chunks of metal don't exactly absorb impact very well... cars have crumple zones for a reason now whereas back then, the whole car was just crumpled. But you can't disagree with them because they get PISSED. Pretty sure in a high speed impact, my wagoneer crumpling would be the least of my worries - because probably I will have flown through the windshield.

Old cars aren't great because they're built well or safe. They're great because they're not. But then again, I grew up building Alfas and Triumphs so maybe that's just Stockholm Syndrome talking.

Old cars are good at low speed impacts though. 5-20mph still crushes newer cars. My 98 Jeep Grand Cherokee hit a ford focus at 15mph almost head on on the front corner of my Jeep and corner of his car. He had 8-9k$ in damage and had to be towed. His hood, fender headlights, grill radiator were all crushed so was his bumper cover. My ZJ only suffered a broken turn signal light and slightly broken bumper cover. Of course my vehicle height and weight played a role but still. Id rather hit a brand new ultra safe 2017 SUV at 5-20mph in my wagoneer then another ultra safe vehicle that would crush and be totaled under small impacts.


I noticed wranglers even today arent really "crushable" they are solid. I have seen multiple accidents involving wranglers where the wrangler didnt even have any noticable dmg and the other car was completetly smashed

The crumple zone on the JK's is 90% in that plastic bumper, hollow plastic bumper. I've got a big dent in my bumper LOL.