fsj-digest Monday, November 29 2004 Volume 01 : Number 2313 Forum for Discussion of Full Sized SJ Series Jeeps Brian Colucci Digest Coordinator Contents: fsj: SNORT4x4 forum - 1969 Jeepster Commando For Sale fsj: Re: [FSJ-XJList] Grand Wagoneer Article - Four Wheeler Jan '05 fsj: Re: Grand Wagoneer Article - Four Wheeler Jan '05 (fwd) fsj: Re: Re: [FSJ-XJList] Grand Wagoneer Article - Four Wheeler Jan '05 Re: fsj: Re: Re: [FSJ-XJList] Grand Wagoneer Article - Four Wheeler Jan '05 FSJ Digest Home Page: http://www.digest.net/jeeps/fsj/ Send submissions to fsj-digest-at-digest.net Send administrative requests to fsj-digest-request-at-digest.net To unsubscribe, include the word unsubscribe by itself in the body of the message, unless you are sending the request from a different address than the one that appears on the list. Include the word help in a message to fsj-digest-request to get a list of other majordomo commands. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:23:14 -0800 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: fsj: SNORT4x4 forum - 1969 Jeepster Commando For Sale http://www.snort4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15815 ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 17:40:08 -0800 From: "Jim Blair" Subject: fsj: Re: [FSJ-XJList] Grand Wagoneer Article - Four Wheeler Jan '05 A: I think the 4.0L HO will handle your trailer okay (maybe not as nicely as my stroked 6 will be able to handle loads!) After all, the Mighty Elmo only had an anemic carbed 4.6L (120 HP stock) and even with 30" tires I could still haul my 5 ton trailer (IH bus body on a mobile home frame with tandem axles and LOTS of car parts inside) with 2.72 gears, 999 and NP208. Yours has much more going for it with 4.10 gears, AW4 auto, and small tires with 220HP in front. Just finished reading the article "Grand Wagoneer Reborn" in the January 2005 issue of Four Wheeler. Nicely done Jim. (I'm about halfway through your article "Axles 101") Question though, you said, "The Grand Wagoneer is often heralded as the prototypical SUV. That's an accurate portrayal, though it certainly cannot be said it was the first SUV." You didn't mention what the first "SUV" was. What would that be? :) Looking back at 4x4 history the only other production 4x4 that I can recall was the Suburban, hardly a "SUV" at the time. Unless you're thinking the Willys Wagons were... The IH Scout, the Chevy Blazer, Ford Bronco and all the other 4x4s all seemed to come out after the November 1962 launch of the Jeep Wagoneers and Gladiators. The Super Wagoneers would qualify as luxury vehicles... I guess I have trouble with the term "SUV", as do many FSJ owners (full size jeep) dislike the term "SUV" because it invokes images of poorly designed and executed 4x4s that are basically cars tossed on chassis, or worse, pickups with the beds replaced with an enclose. A friend who has run several GM dealerships brought home a new Blazer 4 door and I was checking it out and he readily admitted that it wasn't a Jeep. Designed more for heading up skiing than doing anything in the way of serious offroading. Anyway, I like your comment about the Grand Wagoneer being like John Wayne in a tux with a six shooter in his belt. I like it. In fact, the next Wagoneer I have may just acquire the name "the Duke". :) I also like the ZJ comment. Never liked those things... although the WJ is a winner... I'm on my 2nd now... the WK just doesn't do it for me at all, even though it's picked up some of the Wagoneer's (SJ) features... spare tire under the back, fuel tank on the side... that's about where the similarity ends... it does NOT have the visibility, nor does it have the substance. The WK does ride nice, is quiet, but it just doesn't feel right. :) FWIW, my '83 J10 Stepside is still in many pieces, awaiting the 4.0L transplant. After reading your article I'm partially inspired to track down an '89 to '91 Grand Wagoneer and drop my 6.2L V8 Diesel into it so I can have the visibility and ride AND economy. :) Of course a 4.0L might be sufficient for the economy and keep it Jeep. :) Of course, the question will be, and still is, whether or not a 4.0L in an FSJ will pull my J10 trailer: http://www.wagoneers.com/FSJ/J10-trailer/ as it weighs close to 2,000 lbs in present form... :) ttyl, john meister ***fwiw, I used BCC for Jim Allen's email address... so if you reply it'll be going to the FSJ list only...*** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:30:38 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: fsj: Re: Grand Wagoneer Article - Four Wheeler Jan '05 (fwd) Jim, Good to hear from you. Interesting details. No need to nitpick, I guess this makes up for that one article that got to print where the editor pulled the Wagoneer from the history of 4x4s. :) Two years to get this one to print. Wow. The 4.0 will probably be fine in my J10, it only tipped the scales at 4,100lbs. A Wagoneer is at least another 500 lbs more. My '81 Limited was just over 5,200lbs, of course that included tools I carried too... ;) I'm also going to 4.10s to help get the J10 moving, and the AW4 has an overdrive... But it'll still be right at the limit as far as power. I tested out the idea by pulling a trailer with as much weight as I was adding to a 4.0L/4.10 geared xj. It did ok. It won't be able to haul much, but that's ok. It's a stepside and I'm hoping to get enough economy to drive it. An EFI system would add a lot to a 360, but I think a lighter engine would be even better. Nice hearing from you, let me know if you're back out this way, I'm working down in Seattle now. ttyl, john meister ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- - ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Jim Allen Hey John, I figured I'd hear from you! I wrote that article nearly two years ago and I'm glad it finally came to light. There were many SUV's that preceded the Wagoneer. Of course, that depends on how you define SUV? My definition, and it fits the general definition, is: A Sport Utility Vehicle is a 4x4 designed primarily for passenger conveyance in a modicum of comfort equivalent, or nearly equivalent, to a car. The "comfort" part is somewhat variable according to the time frame. Using that definition, I can name four-wheel drive vehicles going back to the 1824 (yes, 1824) Burstall and Hill steam coach, followed by the 1899 Twyford cars, the 1903 Cottamobile, the 1905 Van Winkle, the 1908-12 FWD Touring Cars, the '36-46 Marmon-Herrington Ford passenger car conversions, the '46-5??? Station Wagon Conversions of Power Wagons, the '48-65 Willys wagons, the '48-56 Marmon-Herrington Rangers, the '56-60 GM Suburbans, the '61 (intro November 1960) IH Scout, etc. And that doesn't include foreign stuff like the 1903 Stryker from Holland and the Land Rover Estate Wagons of 1949-53. All these rigs fit my definition and are only the ones off the top of my head. There are more. We could nitpick over these choices, but having seen most in the flesh, or at least detailed pics of most, I think I could win the nitpicking contest. In any case, we don't need to be ashamed of the Wagoneer's place in the history of SUVs. Refining and defining is worth many points as well, and when you look back, the Wagoneer was certainly the earliest representation of the more modern trends in SUV development. That can't be nitpicked... "no bragg, jes fact." Yeah, I've considered the idea of a 6.2 in a Wagoneer for many years now as well. I know the 6.2s very well and if you combined it with a 700R4, you could easily obtain the low-mid 20s mpg range my old Blazer did when stock. I scratched at 25mpg on one trip. 22mpg was pretty easy to get. I don't think a 4.0L would do well in a Wagoneer economy-wise. To much weight to haul around and you'd have to flog it to gain normal driving performance. I think you could do as well, or better, by installing Edelbrock's new multipoint EFI system for AMC engines onto the 360 and piggybacking some better electronics onto it. Then, adapt in an overdrive trans, optimize the gear ratios and I'll bet you could scratch at 20mpg and still have decent performance Anyway, good to hear from you. Be well! Jim Allen > From: john > Date: Sat, 27 Nov 2004 14:34:30 -0800 (PST) > To: full size jeep list > Subject: Grand Wagoneer Article - Four Wheeler Jan '05 > > Just finished reading the article "Grand Wagoneer Reborn" in > the January 2005 issue of Four Wheeler. Nicely done Jim. > (I'm about halfway through your article "Axles 101") > > Question though, you said, "The Grand Wagoneer is often heralded > as the prototypical SUV. That's an accurate portrayal, though it > certainly cannot be said it was the first SUV." > > You didn't mention what the first "SUV" was. What would that be? :) > > Looking back at 4x4 history the only other production 4x4 that > I can recall was the Suburban, hardly a "SUV" at the time. Unless you're > thinking the Willys Wagons were... The IH Scout, the Chevy Blazer, > Ford Bronco and all the other 4x4s all seemed to come out after > the November 1962 launch of the Jeep Wagoneers and Gladiators. > > The Super Wagoneers would qualify as luxury vehicles... > > I guess I have trouble with the term "SUV", as do many > FSJ owners (full size jeep) dislike the term "SUV" because it > invokes images of poorly designed and executed 4x4s that are > basically cars tossed on chassis, or worse, pickups with the > beds replaced with an enclose. A friend who has run several > GM dealerships brought home a new Blazer 4 door and I was checking > it out and he readily admitted that it wasn't a Jeep. Designed > more for heading up skiing than doing anything in the way of > serious offroading. > > Anyway, I like your comment about the Grand Wagoneer being like > John Wayne in a tux with a six shooter in his belt. I like it. > > In fact, the next Wagoneer I have may just acquire the name "the Duke". :) > > I also like the ZJ comment. Never liked those things... although > the WJ is a winner... I'm on my 2nd now... the WK just doesn't > do it for me at all, even though it's picked up some of the > Wagoneer's (SJ) features... spare tire under the back, fuel > tank on the side... that's about where the similarity ends... it > does NOT have the visibility, nor does it have the substance. The > WK does ride nice, is quiet, but it just doesn't feel right. :) > > FWIW, my '83 J10 Stepside is still in many pieces, awaiting the 4.0L > transplant. > > After reading your article I'm partially inspired to track down an > '89 to '91 Grand Wagoneer and drop my 6.2L V8 Diesel into it so I can > have the visibility and ride AND economy. :) Of course a 4.0L > might be sufficient for the economy and keep it Jeep. :) > > Of course, the question will be, and still is, whether or not a 4.0L > in an FSJ will pull my J10 trailer: > http://www.wagoneers.com/FSJ/J10-trailer/ as it weighs close to 2,000 lbs > in present form... :) > > ttyl, > john meister > > ***fwiw, I used BCC for Jim Allen's email address... so if > you reply it'll be going to the FSJ list only...*** > > ---- > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** > Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 19:48:55 -0500 From: "Neal Hoover" Subject: fsj: Re: Re: [FSJ-XJList] Grand Wagoneer Article - Four Wheeler Jan '05 FWIW, i'm towing 5000 lbs+ almost on a daily basis with my XJ (4.0L is not stroked). i'm also running 4.56 gears and 35" tires. it does quite well considering. Neal A. Hoover Project '76 J-10 Project '96 XJ http://community.webshots.com/user/proj96xj - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Blair" To: ; "full size jeep list" ; "xj" Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 8:40 PM Subject: fsj: Re: [FSJ-XJList] Grand Wagoneer Article - Four Wheeler Jan '05 > A: I think the 4.0L HO will handle your trailer okay (maybe not as nicely as > my stroked 6 will be able to handle loads!) After all, the Mighty Elmo only > had an anemic carbed 4.6L (120 HP stock) and even with 30" tires I could > still haul my 5 ton trailer (IH bus body on a mobile home frame with tandem > axles and LOTS of car parts inside) with 2.72 gears, 999 and NP208. Yours > has much more going for it with 4.10 gears, AW4 auto, and small tires with > 220HP in front. > > > > Just finished reading the article "Grand Wagoneer Reborn" in > the January 2005 issue of Four Wheeler. Nicely done Jim. > (I'm about halfway through your article "Axles 101") > > Question though, you said, "The Grand Wagoneer is often heralded > as the prototypical SUV. That's an accurate portrayal, though it > certainly cannot be said it was the first SUV." > > You didn't mention what the first "SUV" was. What would that be? :) > > Looking back at 4x4 history the only other production 4x4 that > I can recall was the Suburban, hardly a "SUV" at the time. Unless you're > thinking the Willys Wagons were... The IH Scout, the Chevy Blazer, > Ford Bronco and all the other 4x4s all seemed to come out after > the November 1962 launch of the Jeep Wagoneers and Gladiators. > > The Super Wagoneers would qualify as luxury vehicles... > > I guess I have trouble with the term "SUV", as do many > FSJ owners (full size jeep) dislike the term "SUV" because it > invokes images of poorly designed and executed 4x4s that are > basically cars tossed on chassis, or worse, pickups with the > beds replaced with an enclose. A friend who has run several > GM dealerships brought home a new Blazer 4 door and I was checking > it out and he readily admitted that it wasn't a Jeep. Designed > more for heading up skiing than doing anything in the way of > serious offroading. > > Anyway, I like your comment about the Grand Wagoneer being like > John Wayne in a tux with a six shooter in his belt. I like it. > > In fact, the next Wagoneer I have may just acquire the name "the Duke". :) > > I also like the ZJ comment. Never liked those things... although > the WJ is a winner... I'm on my 2nd now... the WK just doesn't > do it for me at all, even though it's picked up some of the > Wagoneer's (SJ) features... spare tire under the back, fuel > tank on the side... that's about where the similarity ends... it > does NOT have the visibility, nor does it have the substance. The > WK does ride nice, is quiet, but it just doesn't feel right. :) > > FWIW, my '83 J10 Stepside is still in many pieces, awaiting the 4.0L > transplant. > > After reading your article I'm partially inspired to track down an > '89 to '91 Grand Wagoneer and drop my 6.2L V8 Diesel into it so I can > have the visibility and ride AND economy. :) Of course a 4.0L > might be sufficient for the economy and keep it Jeep. :) > > Of course, the question will be, and still is, whether or not a 4.0L > in an FSJ will pull my J10 trailer: > http://www.wagoneers.com/FSJ/J10-trailer/ as it weighs close to 2,000 lbs > in present form... :) > > ttyl, > john meister > > ***fwiw, I used BCC for Jim Allen's email address... so if > you reply it'll be going to the FSJ list only...*** ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:14:27 -0800 (PST) From: john Subject: Re: fsj: Re: Re: [FSJ-XJList] Grand Wagoneer Article - Four Wheeler Jan '05 makes sense, the xj is rated at 5k pull... but using it in an FJS already saps 1.5 - 2k of that in extra weight... john On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Neal Hoover wrote: >-->FWIW, i'm towing 5000 lbs+ almost on a daily basis with my XJ (4.0L is not >-->stroked). i'm also running 4.56 gears and 35" tires. it does quite well >-->considering. >--> >-->Neal A. Hoover >-->Project '76 J-10 >-->Project '96 XJ >-->http://community.webshots.com/user/proj96xj >-->----- Original Message ----- >-->From: "Jim Blair" >-->To: ; "full size jeep list" ; >-->"xj" >-->Sent: Saturday, November 27, 2004 8:40 PM >-->Subject: fsj: Re: [FSJ-XJList] Grand Wagoneer Article - Four Wheeler Jan '05 >--> >--> >-->> A: I think the 4.0L HO will handle your trailer okay (maybe not as nicely >-->as >-->> my stroked 6 will be able to handle loads!) After all, the Mighty Elmo >-->only >-->> had an anemic carbed 4.6L (120 HP stock) and even with 30" tires I could >-->> still haul my 5 ton trailer (IH bus body on a mobile home frame with >-->tandem >-->> axles and LOTS of car parts inside) with 2.72 gears, 999 and NP208. Yours >-->> has much more going for it with 4.10 gears, AW4 auto, and small tires with >-->> 220HP in front. >-->> >-->> >-->> >-->> Just finished reading the article "Grand Wagoneer Reborn" in >-->> the January 2005 issue of Four Wheeler. Nicely done Jim. >-->> (I'm about halfway through your article "Axles 101") >-->> >-->> Question though, you said, "The Grand Wagoneer is often heralded >-->> as the prototypical SUV. That's an accurate portrayal, though it >-->> certainly cannot be said it was the first SUV." >-->> >-->> You didn't mention what the first "SUV" was. What would that be? :) >-->> >-->> Looking back at 4x4 history the only other production 4x4 that >-->> I can recall was the Suburban, hardly a "SUV" at the time. Unless you're >-->> thinking the Willys Wagons were... The IH Scout, the Chevy Blazer, >-->> Ford Bronco and all the other 4x4s all seemed to come out after >-->> the November 1962 launch of the Jeep Wagoneers and Gladiators. >-->> >-->> The Super Wagoneers would qualify as luxury vehicles... >-->> >-->> I guess I have trouble with the term "SUV", as do many >-->> FSJ owners (full size jeep) dislike the term "SUV" because it >-->> invokes images of poorly designed and executed 4x4s that are >-->> basically cars tossed on chassis, or worse, pickups with the >-->> beds replaced with an enclose. A friend who has run several >-->> GM dealerships brought home a new Blazer 4 door and I was checking >-->> it out and he readily admitted that it wasn't a Jeep. Designed >-->> more for heading up skiing than doing anything in the way of >-->> serious offroading. >-->> >-->> Anyway, I like your comment about the Grand Wagoneer being like >-->> John Wayne in a tux with a six shooter in his belt. I like it. >-->> >-->> In fact, the next Wagoneer I have may just acquire the name "the Duke". >-->:) >-->> >-->> I also like the ZJ comment. Never liked those things... although >-->> the WJ is a winner... I'm on my 2nd now... the WK just doesn't >-->> do it for me at all, even though it's picked up some of the >-->> Wagoneer's (SJ) features... spare tire under the back, fuel >-->> tank on the side... that's about where the similarity ends... it >-->> does NOT have the visibility, nor does it have the substance. The >-->> WK does ride nice, is quiet, but it just doesn't feel right. :) >-->> >-->> FWIW, my '83 J10 Stepside is still in many pieces, awaiting the 4.0L >-->> transplant. >-->> >-->> After reading your article I'm partially inspired to track down an >-->> '89 to '91 Grand Wagoneer and drop my 6.2L V8 Diesel into it so I can >-->> have the visibility and ride AND economy. :) Of course a 4.0L >-->> might be sufficient for the economy and keep it Jeep. :) >-->> >-->> Of course, the question will be, and still is, whether or not a 4.0L >-->> in an FSJ will pull my J10 trailer: >-->> http://www.wagoneers.com/FSJ/J10-trailer/ as it weighs close to 2,000 lbs >-->> in present form... :) >-->> >-->> ttyl, >-->> john meister >-->> >-->> ***fwiw, I used BCC for Jim Allen's email address... so if >-->> you reply it'll be going to the FSJ list only...*** >--> ---- - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** http://wagoneers.com ** ** http://freegift.net ** Snohomish, Washington USA - where Jeeps don't rust, they mold. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of fsj-digest V1 #2313 **************************