Any other Jeepers here?

[fjruple]

I currently own two Jeeps. My every day vehicle is a 2006 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited with a hard top. 4.0L engine and automatic transmission. I just turned 118,000 miles on the Jeep. I have found that these style Jeep vehicles are little more than a sport SUV and not a light truck. I have found a number of features that are poorly designed such as the oil pump for the 4.0L engine. It went at about 10,000 miles. Jeep replaced with another that went at 25,000 miles. I bought an after market oil pump and it as been going strong since. The automatic transmission really sucks. I was amazed at the number of plastic and aluminum parts are in the transmission. The transmission lasted for 35,000 miles. It was rebuilt in Colorado with steel parts and guaranteed for 250,000 miles. The one saving grace that the new jeeps have it does not have the body cancer like the older Jeeps. The other Jeep is a Sable Brown 1979 Jeep CJ7 Golden Eagle with the bronze tone hard top. I ordered and bought it brand new. The CJ7 was loaded, it came with a 4 speed California manual T-18A transmission 304 V-8. It was a great Jeep. I bought it back from my brother and am in the process of restoring the CJ7 Jeep. The good thing about Jeeps you can get all of the parts for them to include a new frame and body. I would rather restore the CJ7 than purchase one of the new Jeeps for $42,000. If you buy a Jeep get the older CJ5 or CJ7 series. In 1980 Jeep went to a longer wheel base and dropped the V8 engine. It is worth rebuilding if you are mechanically inclined. I am considering going to the Cummins 4BT Diesel engine as well on my 2006 when it finally goes.

--fjruple

[Petrol & Powder]

There's nothing magical about the Jeep 4WD system, it works like most other 4WD systems BUT the size of the vehicle is handy.
The short wheelbase and short front/rear overhangs give the little Jeep some real advantage off-road. They don't high-center as easily as a longer wheelbase vehicle and the approach/departure angles are about as good as they get on a Jeep. The overall small size lets them fit in places that larger vehicles just cannot go and the narrow track often lets you pick a line that just isn't available to a wider vehicle.

However, that short wheel base, narrow track that makes Jeeps great off road makes them less than ideal on road. Everything in life is a compromise!

The old 6 cylinder Toyota FJ-40 Land Cruiser was also a great off road vehicle but if you think the old Jeeps have a bad rust problem you've never seen an old FJ ! You can almost watch an old FJ-40 rust

[Idaho45guy]

We're pretty blessed out here that despite our harsh winters and lots of snow, we don't salt the roads. My Jeep has only light surface rust on the undercarriage.

[MaryB]

I keep watching for a CJ5 project jeep. Body rust I can deal with, frame not so much. Whatever I buy has to be winter ready and that rules out some of the fiberglass body tubs because the hard tops and doors don't fit well...

I currently own two Jeeps. My every day vehicle is a 2006 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited with a hard top. 4.0L engine and automatic transmission. I just turned 118,000 miles on the Jeep. I have found that these style Jeep vehicles are little more than a sport SUV and not a light truck. I have found a number of features that are poorly designed such as the oil pump for the 4.0L engine. It went at about 10,000 miles. Jeep replaced with another that went at 25,000 miles. I bought an after market oil pump and it as been going strong since. The automatic transmission really sucks. I was amazed at the number of plastic and aluminum parts are in the transmission. The transmission lasted for 35,000 miles. It was rebuilt in Colorado with steel parts and guaranteed for 250,000 miles. The one saving grace that the new jeeps have it does not have the body cancer like the older Jeeps. The other Jeep is a Sable Brown 1979 Jeep CJ7 Golden Eagle with the bronze tone hard top. I ordered and bought it brand new. The CJ7 was loaded, it came with a 4 speed California manual T-18A transmission 304 V-8. It was a great Jeep. I bought it back from my brother and am in the process of restoring the CJ7 Jeep. The good thing about Jeeps you can get all of the parts for them to include a new frame and body. I would rather restore the CJ7 than purchase one of the new Jeeps for $42,000. If you buy a Jeep get the older CJ5 or CJ7 series. In 1980 Jeep went to a longer wheel base and dropped the V8 engine. It is worth rebuilding if you are mechanically inclined. I am considering going to the Cummins 4BT Diesel engine as well on my 2006 when it finally goes.

--fjruple

[shoot-n-lead]

I love Jeeps...everybody should have at least one during their lifetime.

Back in the day, the CJ was king...but I would never swap a Wrangler for any CJ that I ever had. My favorite CJ was '79 CJ7...good vehicle...but years later, the YJ Wrangler came along and it was an improvement and then the TJ came along...best Jeep, IMHO. The articulation on the TJ suspension really makes it go over terrain like goat.

[rondog]

I have a 1956 Willys CJ5 that I'm restoring back to showroom new condition, that's the plan anyway. Kinda stalled at the moment, I need a better place to work on it and mo' money. It was my dad's elk hunting Jeep in the 70's and is really in quite good condition.

The frame is perfect, it's been sandblasted and powdercoated. Both axles all rebuilt and housings powdercoated, front is a D30 off a 1972 CJ5. Brakes are all new 11"x2". Body is in excellent shape - very, very little rust or damage. Drivetrain is all original F-134. Got boxes and boxes of new and original parts just waiting. Like I said, I really just need work space, most of the $$$ has already been laid out.

But I really want it back to stock, except for safety & performance mods like 12v electrics, electronic ignition, upgraded steering, top notch brakes, stronger front axle, things like that.

[Petrol & Powder]

I love Jeeps...everybody should have at least one during their lifetime.

Back in the day, the CJ was king...but I would never swap a Wrangler for any CJ that I ever had. My favorite CJ was '79 CJ7...good vehicle...but years later, the YJ Wrangler came along and it was an improvement and then the TJ came along...best Jeep, IMHO. The articulation on the TJ suspension really makes it go over terrain like goat.

IMO, the TJ's were the best compromises between on & off road performance as long as you didn't put huge tires on them. They still had solid axles but the coil springs seemed to give them a little better manners on road. I think the JK's got a little too far from their roots.

[Lloyd Smale]

ive got a 2000 tj (well it was mine and is sitting in the barn waiting one more year for the granddaughter to turn 16) and a 2015 jk willys addition. Ive had two other tjs on yj and two cj5s in the past. Bought a razor thinking it would replace the 2000 and after a month without a jeep bought the willys. Nothing better for getting out to where I hunt. Plus the jeep can serve as a second vehicle and the razor couldn't. Theres an old 50s willys pickup sitting out in a farm field on the road to my dads that I keep threatening the wife that I'm going to stop and make an offer on. Been sitting there for at least 5 years. Looks pretty solid from the road. Love to drop a v8 in that thing and make a 4x4 rat rod out of it. I picked up that 2000 for 6k with 60k on it. Still the only rust on it is surface rust on the frame and a hole in the passenger side from fender (they all do it there). I know what mary refers to though. You really have to watch it up here because the frames can be trouble. Especially the yjs. Tough to find ANY yj up here anymore with a solid frame. Tj prices can be all over the place. Some really think they have something and ask ridiculous prices but most of those sit unsold. I sure wouldn't by a 15000 dollar tj no matter how nice when for 5k more you can have a jk. Sorry to the purists but a jk is just in a different class then a tj. I hopped in my tj last month to run to the store (close by because I have not plates or insurance on it) to get the fluids moving. It was like hopping in fred flinstones rock car compared to the jk.

[Petrol & Powder]

With each succession of Jeep generations (CJ, YJ, TJ, JK) the owners of the previous generation claim theirs was the last real Jeep ! I always take those proclamations with a big grain of salt.

The Jeeps have certainly become more refined over the years. I've driven all of them in their unmodified forms and there are real differences, particularly in regard to their on-road manners. The newer generations are a bit more tolerant of driving mistakes on the highway. Things that would get you killed on the highway in CJ you might be able to get away with in a JK. I think Jeep (Chrysler) is aware that a large number of their customers seldom take their Jeeps off-road, at least not the original purchasers. There's some incentive to make them more civilized and perhaps more highway friendly. That doesn't mean they're incapable of off-road performance, it just means that a leaf spring equipped, rag top, metal floored, 3 speed CJ might not be as pleasant to drive at 60 mph for 3 hours as a new JK.

I like the on-road/off-road compromise of the TJ and I really liked the 4.0L in-line six that was offered in those models.

[Lloyd Smale]

actually more capable off road two. 285hp vs 100-200 in the old ones. better and stronger steering gear, suspensions (a hard suspension contrary to what some think isn't better off road. A suspension that keeps the wheels on the ground is better) and better transmissions. compare my old 2000 that was wide open doing 65 on the highway, had a dana 30 dana 35 both open to the new one that has 5 times the power, actually enough to pull a good sized tire, a posi dana 44 in the rear and a much more compliant ride off road. that and its quieter (you cant hardly talk to a passenger if you have a soft top in an older jeep), smoother on the road, gets better gas mileage 20 vs 16 for that anemic 4 cyl (which is about the same mileage the 4.0s got) My old yj just flat felt like a lumber wagon. I think the only thing that ever road worse was a cj or a old 70s 3/4 ton chev truck! Now if jeep wanted to make my ultimate jeep it would be a 2 door (real jeeps have only two doors) Rubicon with a hemi v8, and the 9 or 10speed autos they have in the new trucks. That new diesel jk is interesting too. lots of torque and 30mpg. a 2.5 inch lift and 35 inch tires. I like old classic stuff too but bottom line is the new jks are a much more capable vehicle. Theres nothing my cj, yj or tj did that this jk doesn't do better other then the cool factor of ancient technology.

[Petrol & Powder]

Lloyd, I've noticed that you always defend new technology, which is fine. Not everything old was great.
Yes, keeping the wheels in contact with the ground is preferable. Yes, the Dana 44 is far stronger than the old Dana 30 & 35. Locking differentials are key and you can break a Dana 30/35 with a locker in second. Yes the 4 cylinders were weak, they were a poor option.

But, the 4.0L inline six was a great motor as was the older 258 ci Six (4.2L). A diesel would be cool. 5 gears is plenty in a manual and 3 gears with a sub-low worked for years. Tall skinny tires will get you through a lot (sometimes more) than giant tires. With the correct final drive ratio 31"-32" tires will get you through most off-road situations and be decent on the road. You will not break a Dana 35 with a limited slip carrier if you drive like you have a little sense. (you can break one with a locking carrier in a hurry - it was a weak point). Knowing how to pick your line is often more important than what size tire you have and seems to be a rapidly disappearing skill.

However, I don't NEED 300 hp in a Jeep (nor would I want it). I don't want 9 or 10 gears. If I want to ride in a quiet vehicle, I'll buy a nice car.

So - YES a new JK is a far more capable vehicle but it comes at a price. That "ancient technology" is now affordable technology and it wasn't horrible

[shoot-n-lead]

Lloyd, I've noticed that you always defend new technology, which is fine. Not everything old was great.
Yes, keeping the wheels in contact with the ground is preferable. Yes, the Dana 44 is far stronger than the old Dana 30 & 35. Locking differentials are key and you can break a Dana 30/35 with a locker in second. Yes the 4 cylinders were weak, they were a poor option.

But, the 4.0L inline six was a great motor as was the older 258 ci Six (4.2L). A diesel would be cool. 5 gears is plenty in a manual and 3 gears with a sub-low worked for years. Tall skinny tires will get you through a lot (sometimes more) than giant tires. With the correct final drive ratio 31"-32" tires will get you through most off-road situations and be decent on the road. You will not break a Dana 35 with a limited slip carrier if you drive like you have a little sense. (you can break one with a locking carrier in a hurry - it was a weak point). Knowing how to pick your line is often more important than what size tire you have and seems to be a rapidly disappearing skill.

However, I don't NEED 300 hp in a Jeep (nor would I want it). I don't want 9 or 10 gears. If I want to ride in a quiet vehicle, I'll buy a nice car.

So - YES a new JK is a far more capable vehicle but it comes at a price. That "ancient technology" is now affordable technology and it wasn't horrible

X 2

Well said...

Ain't nobody dissing the JK...but the TJ will certainly get the job done and at a fraction of the cost...based on my local prices.

I will stand by my thought that, dollar for dollar, the TJ is about the best road/off-road capability that you can get for the money.

[Nueces]

I drove Scouts and Cruisers for years, but my Y2K TJ is my last 4WD. I've kept the mods mild. It'll do 85 mph smoothly and crawl the Hill Country trails and low water crossings hereabouts.

The Jeep aftermarket is extensive. Because of all the cool storage stuff available, mine carries more gear than I carried in my Scout, but leaves the entire rear cargo deck clear. I removed the back seat, making it a roadster.

After 180,000 miles, we get along well.

[Petrol & Powder]

........

I will stand by my thought that, dollar for dollar, the TJ is about the best road/off-road capability that you can get for the money.

/\ I can't disagree with that.

As much as I admire new technology, I think it's a good thing to have some old technology around to keep the new car salesman in check. If left unbridled, I fear the extortion would be extreme.

[Petrol & Powder]

I drove Scouts and Cruisers for years, but my Y2K TJ is my last 4WD. I've kept the mods mild. It'll do 85 mph smoothly and crawl the Hill Country trails and low water crossings hereabouts.

The Jeep aftermarket is extensive. Because of all the cool storage stuff available, mine carries more gear than I carried in my Scout, but leaves the entire rear cargo deck clear. I removed the back seat, making it a roadster.

After 180,000 miles, we get along well.

I took the back seat out of my TJ the day I purchased it and put it back in the day I sold it

If I had the money I would have put a half cab on it and "Rhino lined" the back and would still be driving it. It was worth more to someone else than it was to me; so now it belongs to someone else !!!!!

[Jeff Michel]

1962 CJ-5. Currently in the middle of a complete restore. Frame, electrical, brakes are finished. Ordered a new tub and need to put in a new synchronizer in the transmission (Dana) and maybe a motor rebuild, it definitely needs valve guides. Had a number of current production, prefer AMC and before.

[Lloyd Smale]

I agree with most of what you said. Only disagreements are that the 35 is kind of week but the 30s hold up pretty well even with a posi. Ive yet to see where more power is bad unless it breaks parts. As to prices look at what the 4.0 tjs are going for. Ive seen 15k prices on tjs with a 150,000 miles on them. Ive seen rubicon tjs go for even more then that. If I'm going to spend that much ill step up to a jk. Now yjs are affordable but up here good luck finding one that still has a good frame. Even the tjs are to the point that most up here have rotten frames due to the fact they used such thin metal on them. The 4.0 was a good motor. I wont argue that. But its no better then the 3.6 (it is better in my opinion then the 3.8 though) As to the 9 speed thing. Its advantageous to keep your motor in its sweet spot. Where it produces the best power and torque. A 9 speed just does that better then 4 or 5 speed. Enough better to justify it? probably not but like I said that's a dream set up for me. I'm perfectly happy with the 5 speed auto in the willys. As to a stick. Ive owned a lot of jeeps and trucks with sticks. Autos just do better in about any situation be it in a tj or jk or truck or performance car for that matter. Its why its rare to see a stick in anything anymore. I also will ask you why you would want to hear wind noise and road noise when your driving. Me I prefer music.

The old ones have a cool factor and it might even be fun once in a while to drive one to remember that old raw feeling but for day to day use and even for off road capabilitys the best wrangler ever is built today. No doubt not everyone can afford one or wants to. But don't try to convince me the old ones were somehow better. Same goes for muscle cars. I love the old gm and mopar muscle cars and have owned many. but I'm sure not dumb enough to make the statement that there better in any way other then cool factor compared to the newer ones. Take ANY gm muscle car build back in the day and line it up agains a zl1 Camaro and watch it get its lunch handed to it in ANY performance category and get twice the gas milage doing it. I can fill in the blanks using a challenger hellcat or a boss mustang too. So yes I'm a proponent of modern technology. Not that I dislike the cool of old school but I don't live in a fantasy world either. The newer vehicles are just flat out better in any category you want to compare them in. more power, better ride, better handling, safer, much better brakes, better quality control, longer lasting and better fuel economy. Whats not to like other then a lien with the bank. Bottom line is when I replaced the 2000 I wouldn't have had to money to buy something like a low mileage tj rubicon without a loan anyway.

Lloyd, I've noticed that you always defend new technology, which is fine. Not everything old was great.
Yes, keeping the wheels in contact with the ground is preferable. Yes, the Dana 44 is far stronger than the old Dana 30 & 35. Locking differentials are key and you can break a Dana 30/35 with a locker in second. Yes the 4 cylinders were weak, they were a poor option.

But, the 4.0L inline six was a great motor as was the older 258 ci Six (4.2L). A diesel would be cool. 5 gears is plenty in a manual and 3 gears with a sub-low worked for years. Tall skinny tires will get you through a lot (sometimes more) than giant tires. With the correct final drive ratio 31"-32" tires will get you through most off-road situations and be decent on the road. You will not break a Dana 35 with a limited slip carrier if you drive like you have a little sense. (you can break one with a locking carrier in a hurry - it was a weak point). Knowing how to pick your line is often more important than what size tire you have and seems to be a rapidly disappearing skill.

However, I don't NEED 300 hp in a Jeep (nor would I want it). I don't want 9 or 10 gears. If I want to ride in a quiet vehicle, I'll buy a nice car.

So - YES a new JK is a far more capable vehicle but it comes at a price. That "ancient technology" is now affordable technology and it wasn't horrible

[6bg6ga]

Lloyd,

You know that I love horsepower and nothing exceeds like excess. Having owned two CJ's in the past one CJ5 anniversary model with a 304 and three speed manual and the other being a CJ7 304 automatic. I hated the CJ7 and will never own another one. I found the CJ5 had almost enough power but would benefit from having a high torque engine of twice or three times the power. So, I think that a 502 chevy big block crate engine would almost be enough.

[Lloyd Smale]

lets be practical the 502 is a great motor but a bit on the heavy side. Lets change that to a 505 hp all aluminum ls7 out of a zo6!!! Or even if you want lame a 405 hp c5 zo6 motor!!! One thing cool about hp is it doesn't bite. You only use what your right foot demands. Like you ive owned many high hp cars and some anemic ones. I recall many times thinking to myself I need more power but not once in my life have I though less would be better. Ive pined for old muscle cars because they were fun and cool. I never pined for a 1970 gremlin or vega and sure don't pine for another 4 cyl wrangler and I'm sure not going to have my jk retuned to lower the hp to 4.0 tj levels either.

Lloyd,

You know that I love horsepower and nothing exceeds like excess. Having owned two CJ's in the past one CJ5 anniversary model with a 304 and three speed manual and the other being a CJ7 304 automatic. I hated the CJ7 and will never own another one. I found the CJ5 had almost enough power but would benefit from having a high torque engine of twice or three times the power. So, I think that a 502 chevy big block crate engine would almost be enough.

[6bg6ga]

Yup a better choice of engines. MAybe a power adder? Naw, just kidding ....or am I?