Added: 4 years ago
From: draupp
Views: 30,542
Sort by time | Sort by thread (beta)

Link to this comment:

Share to:

All Comments (37)

Sign In or Sign Up now to post a comment!
  • What a degrading jeep this was

  • HA Fucken Liars! 34 EST HWY at :09 not even close. SUV's now a days don't even get that. Especially not the American Vehicles.

  • @counkev yA,but for some buttfucked reason, milage in vehicles has gone up since then

  • 12 Yards long, 2 lanes wide, 65 tons of American Pride!

  • AMC's gotta love 'em.

  • Anyone got the difference from the Wagoneer that had two headlights on each side, and the one, that had only one but bigger ? Usually only the Cherokee had one, but the Wagoneer had two slightl smaller ones. Please help me out on this one. Thanks.

  • 34 mpg?

  • it looks likes an old cheerokee

  • I got about 21mpg with my old 92 XJ which had an I6 "High Output". That is... until I started the mods, then it hauled butt and got 8mpg.

  • You guys complaining about the MPG. I agree they probably didn't get up into the 30's but there's so much tied into this. The fuel mixture has changed through the years, the engine displacement and design has changed as well. Let's not forget, the EPA created a test in the 60's or 70's to determine MPG. It wasn't updated until last year as noted on their site, which explains why all cars suddenly lost 5-15mpg on their stickers.

  • The early Cherokee/Wagoneer was available with a turbodiesel and a 5 speed manual, I've only ever seen one and I'm pretty much a Cherokee whore, but they do exist and they did get damn good gas mileage, well up into the 30's on the highway. It's a shame that US automakers aren't putting more small diesels in cars, they're so much more efficient than gasoline engines.

  • What I find disgusting is Ford will sell Rangers in Japan with Turbo Diesels, but they don't meet "Emission" standards here in the US.. 2 words... Bull... and Shit.

  • @Magnuspire you obviously have no clue then that the US emissons standers espcialy on diesels are thougher then just about every other place in the world including Europe.

  • @americancarguy That's funny, I have no idea about US emissions but you just repeated what I said. Our EPA felt the need to put a DPF and a EGR on a 6.7L cummins diesel for emissions reasons but it's ok to not have it on the 5.9L?

    It's all about whatever puts more money in their pockets, not what "saves" the environment. I just think it's retarded that Japan can have a diesel ranger, yet they are considered to have higher Emissions standards, unless you count cali... what a joke.

  • yes you are right...these were available with a turbo diesel and a 5 speed...i want one so badly....i loved the first generation cherokee/wagonner...i would love to have a 1984-1986 model of cherokee/wagoneer ..i would love to find a 1984-1985 turbo diesel 5 speed....i have seen a few around...there definitely rare!! they didn't sell nearly as well as the standard versions did....thats to bad since if they did then there would be allot more around today. thats cool that you like jeeps so do i

  • @ryleyf You should be glad you didn't get the Cherokee diesels. They thoroughly suck. And I have first hand experience, I rebuilt a 2.1 TD cherokee engine

  • @Amund7 Did they ever make those deisels in the U.S.? Some say yes and others say no. I have never seen one.

  • @DieselFreak94 I am pretty sure all of them were built US or Canada, even tho the engines were first Renault (2.1, France) and later VM Mottorii (2.5, Italy) - seems they shipped the engines to America first and then shipped the cars back overseas later? Sounds very stupid, but that's what all the info I can find say, including the plant location in the VIN numbers.

  • @DieselFreak94 PS. I think they were sold a lot in Canada with diesels.

  • @Amund7 Thanks man. I appreaciate that. I have never seen one in my time and I've been a Jeep guy for a while, but I heard of Renault engines. I do think you are correct though. Again, thanks alot, I appreciate it.

  • why is it that SUVs of the 08's got way better MPG than today's suvs?!

  • They had ~1/2 the power, and they weighed maybe 3/4 as much.

  • It suprises me that todays technology cannot match that of the '80s...even with more weight and power. Even so, the numbers in the vid seem fudged :/

  • Yeah, they sure don't sound right. I don't think the EPA test procedure changed from 84 to 85 (the earliest year on the web site)...did the Wagoneer lose 9 mpg from 84 to 85? I don't think so. Jeep lied.

    But yeah, it is kind of pathetic that fuel economy has remained stagnant (or in the case of small cars, declined). It's rising NOW, but I'm pretty sure that's because power output has stopped rising for most cars in the last few years.

  • Well a 1960 Chevy belair gets the same gas mileage as a new volvo V70, mostly because of unnesessary weight on the volvo.

  • those mileage numbers are b.s. this truck gets 15 city 20 highway tops

  • That's not a wagoneer.... it's a cherokee with fake wood stuck to it!!!!

  • umm wagoneers have fake wood stuck to it also, and that is a wagoneer its one of the later models.

  • This was sold next to a real wagoneer... it's a cherokee with wood. The wagoneer was much much more than just fake wood.

  • oh its a wagoneer they ran them til '90 then replaced it with the wannabe wagoneer the cherokee briarwood....i love my wagoneer

  • i have one of these xj wagoneers and i love it

  • I'm surprised there was no mention of Renault in this advert.

  • verrgaaaaa ta pavo el video

  • awsome

Loading...
Alert icon
0 / 00Unsaved Playlist Return to active list
    1. Your queue is empty. Add videos to your queue using this button:
      or sign in to load a different list.
    Loading...Loading...Saving...
    • Clear all videos from this list
    • Learn more