Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
To celebrate the 4th of July, starting today (07/01/2025) all User Upgrades will be reduced by 10% (thru 07/08/2025) To use this special coupon use the code 2025-4th-10percent at check out. If you are already a supporter your existing package will be extended. Thank you for your support!
Hello Guest, we are proud to now have our Wiki online that is completely compiled and written by our members. Feel free to browse our Jeep-CJ Wiki or click on any orange keyword when looking at posts in the forum.
What are your thoughts on Chrysler owning the jeep brand? Would you rather see someone else building the new jeeps? I would ,as I feel they are not as good as before.
meh, if they still made CJs it would sure make the couple dozen of us happy... but then they would go bankrupt. I think Crysler is doing a good job with the brand, growing it and succeeding in a very cometative market; the 4dr JK is a huge success. Sure it's another step towards minivan-izing the Jeep but sadly that's what the masses want. I dont think any new mass production vehicle will give us old school guys a warm and fuzzy feeling again.
And lets also give Crysler credit for the rubicon. That was a pretty big step for the North American companies (althought other brands have offered lockers F & R for years)
But, if the north american market was more comfortable with diesel and didn't expect thier 4x4 to handle as well a sports car much better things could happen offroad and durability wise with the Jeep.
My 2cents... now maybe I should change my signature
83 CJ7 350 tbi, TH350, D300 twin sticked & clocked, narrowed Chief D44 Eaton Elocker & Moser shafts, Explorer 8.8 Detroit locker, 410's, RE 4.5" spring lift 1" body lift, 35" Claws, cage tied to frame, Corbeau baja seats, HD tie rod and draglink, u-bolts flipped, custom skid plate and sliders, Warn 9.5ti winch with Amsteel synthetic line
It might have been a good thing. If GM or Ford would have bought them
we either wouldn't have anything, or it would have IFS.
Look at what happened to the blazer and bronco.
People have been conditioned not to appreciate practicality and longevity like they use to, (it wasn't good for the profit margins) today its about instant credit, instant gratification and a 2 yr lease.
In a dream world it would be nice to see a small company that just does Jeeps in house at a reasonable price.
Chrysler gets a bad wrap for ending the Cj series and giving us the square headlighted Yuppie Jeep. I hate to say it but all the angst against the early Yj shouldve been pointed toward AMC , it was their design. If you do some researchand look at it objectively you'll see that Chrysler actually cleaned up alot of the flaws Amc put in the Yj.
Examples? How about the Puegot BA-10 Transmission ? Chrysler got rid of it and brought in the AX-15. Chryslers auto Transmission the AW-4 is another bright spot.
Now Im not calling the AMC 258 i6 / 4.2l I6 a design flaw at all but Chrysler also ended that low end torque , bullet proof engine as well. Most of us have battled a bit with a finicky Carter carb and wished for a little more horsepower as well. Its hard to bash Chryslers replacement , the 4.0 liter. Fuel injection , more horsepower and the ability to go 250,000 miles plus? Thats a win.
That said Id take an older Cj any day.
As for new Jeeps , well they arent my style but then again Im not who they market for. I dont buy new vehicles. Atleast not yet. And when the kids are out and I have more money to spend on something I'll probably lean toward an LJ before the newer JK. Thats just me.
Examples? How about the Puegot BA-10 Transmission ? Chrysler got rid of it and brought in the AX-15. Chryslers auto Transmission the AW-4 is another bright spot.
AMC didn't use the BA-10....that was Chrysler in the first series of YJ's. Unless what you say is true and the YJ was an AMC design....than Chrysler is still guilty for using it. lol
Chrysler also went cheap with the D35 c-clip and a really shoddy 4wd actuator on the front Dana 30 .
No...the only thing Chrysler contributed in those early days was the addition of fuel injection (a plus) and a pile of really weak parts.
The Rubicon kept Chrysler from eliminating the swb Jeep altogether for lack of interest. I will give them props for keeping a solid front axle, but they wanted to get rid of that also.....public opinion swayed that decision.
Ha you beat me to a couple of things I hated about Chrysler but thats ok. . AMC had contracted the Puegot before Chrysler was involved. It doesnt really suprise you that they would go to other auto makers for parts does it? And you do have to give Chrysler a little credit. They ditched it after a year and 1/2 I believe.
The Dana 35 c clip? And people complain about the AMC20 ? You can throw hundreds at a Dana 35 and still have (to put it nicely) a big fat old . As most know AMC ran out of the AMC20 toward the end of the 86 model production. AMC used dana 44s to complete the run. The YJ started with the Dana 35. What a screw up for sure. From a Dana 44 to the craptastic dana 35? That was all Chrysler there.
The Yj actuator used a cheap shift fork and of course vaccum as well for it to work. Both are pretty easily upgraded with a stronger fork and cable actuation. I think this is commonly accepted as an off roaders upgrade. Think 1 piece axles for the AMC20 .
The other craptastic part you forgot was the Np207 Transfer Case . How the do you go from the Dana 300 to that pile???
AMC didn't use the BA-10....that was Chrysler in the first series of YJ's. Unless what you say is true and the YJ was an AMC design....than Chrysler is still guilty for using it. lol
Chrysler also went cheap with the D35 c-clip and a really shoddy 4wd actuator on the front Dana 30 .
No...the only thing Chrysler contributed in those early days was the addition of fuel injection (a plus) and a pile of really weak parts.
The Rubicon kept Chrysler from eliminating the swb Jeep altogether for lack of interest. I will give them props for keeping a solid front axle, but they wanted to get rid of that also.....public opinion swayed that decision.
Ha you beat me to a couple of things I hated about Chrysler but thats ok. . AMC had contracted the Puegot before Chrysler was involved. It doesnt really suprise you that they would go to other auto makers for parts does it? And you do have to give Chrysler a little credit. They ditched it after a year and 1/2 I believe.
The Dana 35 c clip? And people complain about the AMC20 ? You can throw hundreds at a Dana 35 and still have (to put it nicely) a big fat old . As most know AMC ran out of the AMC20 toward the end of the 86 model production. AMC used dana 44s to complete the run. The YJ started with the Dana 35. What a screw up for sure. From a Dana 44 to the craptastic dana 35? That was all Chrysler there.
The Yj actuator used a cheap shift fork and of course vaccum as well for it to work. Both are pretty easily upgraded with a stronger fork and cable actuation. I think this is commonly accepted as an off roaders upgrade. Think 1 piece axles for the AMC20 .
The other craptastic part you forgot was the Np207 Transfer Case . How the do you go from the Dana 300 to that pile???
I was trying to keep my migraine to a minimum by not mentioning the NP207 and the wonderful slipyoke design that came with it, Pete lol
Other plus's (though few) were galvanized tubs and a better frame. But lowering (a jeep? really?) with flatter springs for onroad comfort just goes backwards to what Jeep really is.
They did better with the TJ design...amidst the outcrys from purists of the addition of coils and link suspension...at least they at some point began using stronger axles and a friendlier offroad platform.
Still....all in all, the CJ line is dead and the relics we drive around will never be seen again in production. I wouldn't trade my workhorse relic for a new one. Just wouldn't.
What are your thoughts on Chrysler owning the jeep brand? Would you rather see someone else building the new jeeps? I would ,as I feel they are not as good as before.
With today's emissions and MPG requirements, I don't know that new Jeeps could be manufactured better and street legal by any manufacturer.
Computers, sensors, emission requirements, safety requirements... all these aspects make newly manufactured vehicles very different from a 1981 CJ7 ; more complex, harder to work on, harder to modify, harder to t-shoot.
What would make a 2013 Jeep better - "as good as" or better than before - in your opinion?
With today's emissions and MPG requirements, I don't know that new Jeeps could be manufactured better and street legal by any manufacturer.
Computers, sensors, emission requirements, safety requirements... all these aspects make newly manufactured vehicles very different from a 1981 CJ7 ; more complex, harder to work on, harder to modify, harder to t-shoot.
What would make a 2013 Jeep better - "as good as" or better than before - in your opinion?
I think this is a good point you can't blame Chrysler it's all the Goverment requirements that has changed what you can buy today the Goverment would never allow something like a CJ to be sold to the public today. I think they have done a good job bringing a very capable jeep to the public meeting all the Goverment requirements. So I say don't blame the manufacturer but the Goverment.
If ford or GM owned Jeep I probabily would not own a CJ as to not affiliate myself with them. Im proud Chrysler owns them and they have done better than anyone could have, GM did a real great job with hummer..., Ford might do better but those two were always about the latest and greatest technology, Chrysler always kept there stuff simple for as long as they could and I see that reflected into todays jeeps, they could not legally get any simpler than they are which is what still makes them so great today they are not a over priced rangerover. I know my CJ is proud of its grand children
The bottom line is that today's vehicles are too complicated to "be good" in my opinion.
Modern dealership scan tools have 'simulation modes' for a handful of Chrysler body types. Simulation mode is used for training technicians on the electronics that come with modern cars.
Unfortunately, the simulation choices don't have today's Wrangler. There is a simulator for body style WK, which is a 2005-2010 Grand Cherokee.
This is a screen shot of the scan tool menu depicting all the computers in a 2005-2010 Jeep Grand Cherokee.
I doubt the 2013 Wrangler is much different.... it might be a little less encumbered with whizbang computers, but bet there are at least a dozen computers in the CJ's great-grandkids.
"They don't make 'em like they used to," is an understatement.
Here's an example of a major headache for a DIYer: If you monkey with the seat belts or air bags, you can set a diagnostic trouble code that can't be cleared by the local Autozone's scan tool.
I know, because I own one of these outrageously expensive dealership scan tools.
I cleared the Occupant Restraint Controller (ORC) code for a friend after he tried to clear it with a Scangauge II (by LinearLogic), a tool he borrowed from an Autozone parts dude and a SnapOn something-or-other.
Today's crash requirements, safety specs, emission specs require some of these computers and "the market" demands luxury features which require even more electronic gizmos that are terribly persnickety and usually close to impossible to bypass when they go wonky.
Anyone manufacturing today's Wrangler is going to have to incorporate a lot of complex electronics, sensors feeding control modules that adjust the running of the vehicle from right underneath you and w/o your permission.
Defeating all this stuff so you can actually own the Jeep - instead of sharing ownership with properly equipped shop - is an economically - not to mention intellectually - horrific ambition.
Two blocks from where I work there's a repair shop. On a book shelf I saw a book that contains the procedure to use a SnapOn scan tool to introduce a new starter battery to the engine control module on some vehicle I didn't care to notice. I do remember it was applicable to model years 2002-forward.
It would really tick me off to need a computer to change my starter battery.
For me, "better" is simpler and "simpler" started dying with the Nutter bypass.
Caution - may contain some blasphemy.
I have happily owned an '81 CJ7 and a '95 YJ. I recently upgraded to a '13 JK Sport. In spite of some of the naysayers out there, it is a Jeep. Simple? No. Mandated safety features, emission controls, and performance enhancemants rule out simplicity as we once knew it. Will it still be running in 30+ years? Probably not, but then neither will I.
The first vehicle I drove as simple to the extreme - a '20s era Model A Ford that was so simple it didn't even have a starter, just a hand crank. I remember my Uncle's Model T that was so simple he had to back up steep hills because there was no fuel pump, just gravity feed. Then a '47 Chevy with 'vacuum assist shift'. This was simple, because it was easy to pop the hood and free up the bound shift linkage. Then things started to get more complicated. Turn signal levers on the steering column (though you still had to roll down the window and execute the proper hand signals to pass the drivers license exam). Then there were the new automatic transmissions, power steering and brakes, cruise contol, air conditioning, seat belts, air bags, and on and on.
Long story shorter, the MB's, CJ's, YJ's and the other earlier Jeeps had their place and time as the new kid on the block. Each evolved from their predecessor in small or large steps to maintain the Jeep's legacy as the most capaple vehicle in its class.
I applaud those of you who make the effort to preserve these pieces of hisory.
Caution - may contain some blasphemy.
I have happily owned an '81 CJ7 and a '95 YJ. I recently upgraded to a '13 JK Sport. In spite of some of the naysayers out there, it is a Jeep. Simple? No. Mandated safety features, emission controls, and performance enhancemants rule out simplicity as we once knew it. Will it still be running in 30+ years? Probably not, but then neither will I.
<snip>
That's a really good point, KenB. I think a lot of what we think as "good" is what we grew up with, what we're "used" to. I'm sure that my idea of good will be very different from the opinion of the kids born next week. It's good to know your 2013 JK Sport is "a Jeep."
Keeping a machine running for decades isn't a priority for a lot of people. Being able to execute a simple repair, or a remove/replace/rebuild/refurbish exercise is clearly not important to people today. Many Americans gladly let a dealership maintain their a car while they make monthly payments under a lease or loan agreement until trade-in. That's not me, but that's a lot of people.
I agree that 's cool some people keep old cars on the road - or on the trail - if for whatever personal reasons. I'm glad Omix-Ada and other suppliers are on our side too.
Chrysler, actually majority owned by FIAT, should have been allowed to go out of business along with Chevy/GMC. This whole notion of being too big to fail is just part of nationalization of corporations and shouldn't be allowed. Someone else would have moved in to fill the shoes as has been the case in the past. Little trivia, Chrysler came into being from the Maxwell Motor Company...Chrysler as we know also bought out AMC so in the end, without government interference, we would all be better off. I have always hated Mopar and used to be a Chevy man, but now I wouldn't own either...
If you do some researchand look at it objectively you'll see that Chrysler actually cleaned up alot of the flaws Amc put in the Yj.
And you do have to give Chrysler a little credit. They ditched it after a year and 1/2 I believe.
. As most know AMC ran out of the AMC20 toward the end of the 86 model production. AMC used dana 44s to complete the run. The YJ started with the Dana 35. What a screw up for sure. From a Dana 44 to the craptastic dana 35? That was all Chrysler there. 
do you go from the Dana 300 to that pile???
, Ford might do better but those two were always about the latest and greatest technology, Chrysler always kept there stuff simple for as long as they could and I see that reflected into todays jeeps, they could not legally get any simpler than they are which is what still makes them so great today they are not a over priced rangerover. I know my CJ is proud of its grand children 
