I really, really need to get off Facebook Marketplace. Buying cars is an addiction that, on Thursday, struck again in the form of a 1954 Willys CJ-3B — arguably the first “ugly Jeep” — that I simply could not resist even though I have way too many projects as-is. Here’s a look at my new flatfender Jeep, along with what it was like towing the thing in a 112 horsepower truck with a four-speed manual and insanely tall 2.73 gears.
OK, OK, so I didn’t really need the Willys I spotted whilst browsing Facebook Marketplace, but in my defense, I’ve wanted to own a CJ-3B for many years. It’s the first Jeep that the world pretty much unanimously decided was “ugly” (but charmingly so), with its hilariously tall grille meant to fill the space between the frame and the new-for-1953 high-hood needed to clear the new “F-Head” engine.
Honestly, the CJ-3B is a bit of an odd duck. We all are pretty familiar with the World War II Jeep; it and its CJ-2A and CJ-3A (all three shown below) successors have a lower hood than my 1954 CJ-3B because under their hoods were “L-Head” engines known famously as “Go-Devils.” The Go-Devil motor made only 60 horsepower, but thanks to a long stroke, it cranked out 105 lb-ft of torque.
Around 1950, the Go-Devil engine’s chief architect, Delmar “Barney” Roos, brought a new, more powerful motor into this world. Called the “Hurricane” or “F-Head,” the engine featured intake valves in the cylinder head, and exhaust valves in the engine block. The old Go-Devil had both sets of valves in the block. Here’s the L-head from the WW2 Jeep, as well as the CJ-2A and CJ-3A:
You can see that the cylinder head is really just a lid for the cylinders, as well as a place to thread in spark plugs:
And here you can see that the new Hurricane “F-Head” engine has only the exhaust valve in the block:
The intake valves (and still the spark plug holes) are in the head:
This basically allows air to enter and then exit the cylinders in a less tortuous path, meaning the engine “breathes” a bit better. I like to use the analogy of a syringe (but without a needle in it). If you pull the plunger back normally, the plunger (or piston) moves freely. But if you cover the nose of that syringe even part of the way, pulling that piston becomes difficult. Think of the new F-head as a less obstructed syringe-nose; it allows the piston to move with less obstruction, and the result is more power. 25 percent more, to be precise.
The actual figure only jumped from 60 to 75, but percentage-wise, that’s fantastic. If your V6 Toyota Camry were to get a 25 percent increase in power, the added horsepower would actually eclipse the total horsepower that the Willys F-head makes! (In other words, you’d gain more than 75 ponies). Torque also jumped from 105 to 114 lb-ft.
The new and revolutionary motor didn’t actually begin life in a civilian CJ; its first application in a convertible Jeep was in the new-for-1952 Willys M38A1, the very first “high-hood” “Universal Jeep”:
Some Jeep historian is going to have to explain this to me, because I don’t understand what happened next. Willys develops a brand new, more powerful engine and, to fit it, they design a beautiful vehicle with rounded fenders, a cool bulge in the center of the hood, and a less slab-sided profile. But instead of making this vehicle available to the public, they give the sexy Jeep to the military, and what do they build for civilians who want the new Hurricane motor? They take their CJ-3A and slap a tall hood on it, adapt a grille that reaches higher, raise the windshield, and make a few other adaptations that ultimately yield what many considered the ugliest Jeep of all time at that point:
I, actually, have always loved the wacky, lovable look of the The Last Flatfender, and I also love the vehicle’s historical significance. No, it wasn’t much of a wartime instrument like the World War II Jeep or even the M38A1 (the military version of the CJ-3B was the M606, but it wasn’t hugely popular), but in some ways the ‘3B brought Jeeps to more countries around the world than any Jeep up to that point. Obviously, the World War II Jeep created the brand and made its way all around the globe, but the CJ-3B was a true globetrotter that brought huge volumes of 4x4s to every corner of this planet.
Look at old Mahindras or Mitsubishi Jeeps, and you’ll see that those vehicles were able to build their names thanks to license-built CJ-3Bs. Motor Trend discusses this in its article about the first “ugly-Jeep”:
Licensed CJ-3Bs were built by Mitsubishi of Japan until 1998, and Mahindra of India was still building them in the ’00s, making the CJ-3B style the longest-running Jeep model of all time. The CJ-3B was a popular export-market Jeep, and militarized versions were exported as the M-606. You may think it’s ugly as sin, but the CJ-3B was a pivotal part of Jeep history.
Anyway, this one here was for sale near Pasadena for $7,000. I managed to get the price down to $5,900. It doesn’t run, it’s missing a rear bench, and the body appears to be a bit of a bastard-child of other Jeeps (the spare, for example, should be mounted of the rear quarter panel; that tailgate is likely from an M38 Willys — also, I’m fairly sure that’s a nazi jerry can on the back). But otherwise, the Jeep is in amazing shape. The body is rock-solid, the front seats and shifter and steering wheel all looks nice, and a number of the underbody components appear to have been refreshed recently based on their new paint.
You may notice in the photos above that there are four shifters. One is for the T90 three-speed manual transmission, one is for 2wd/4wd, one is for low range/high range, and the rear one pointing straight up and down? That’s a PTO drive.
The PTO can be used to power a number of implements mounted to either the front or the rear, but in my case, it’s just used to power a Sears winch mounted between the front bumper and grille.
To pick up the Jeep, I had to use my Jeep J10, since I have no other vehicle with towing capability. I snagged a U-Haul trailer from Van Nuys, then drove about 25 miles east on the “134” highway (which is incidentally the displacement on the Willys’ “F-Head” motor in cubic inches) until I reached the Jeep. Loading the Willys was easy, since it’s the seller’s driveway was a bit elevated above the street, meaning all I had to do was park the trailer on the street and extend the ramps onto the driveway, and then the path onto the U-Haul was largely flat. A bit of a shove with the seller’s help, and the relatively lightweight Willys was perched on the trailer, ready to head back west.
The drive from Pasadena to Van Nuys involves some long, steep grades. They’re not Rocky Mountain-esque, but they’re significant, and that’s a problem because the Jeep J10 can barely propel itself down the road, much less itself plus a 2,200 pound trailer and a 2,300 pound Jeep. Add a 300 pound axle in the bed and probably 200 pounds full of tires, and my Jeep was having to move 4,200 pounds worth of its own weight plus 4,500 pounds worth of stuff.
To give you an idea of why this is a problem: My Jeep J10 makes 112 horsepower. Yes, it also makes 210 lb-ft of torque, but it’s horsepower that gets you up a grade (though low-end torque lets you do it at reasonable RPMs). 112 horsepower moving 8,700 pounds is absurd; a tiny Hyundai Accent has more horsepower than that!
To go up a certain grade with a certain trailer at a certain speed in certain conditions requires a certain amount of horsepower. That horsepower figure is calculated via a process known in the industry as “gradeability.” It basically takes into account the steepness of the grade, the weight of the vehicle and trailer, and any friction working against the power of the engine — friction like aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance.
The friction factors are represented by what are called “coast down coefficients” or “ABC coefficients,” and to establish them for an unladen vehicle, you just drive the vehicle at a certain speed, and then you put the car in neutral and watch the velocity versus time curve. This will give you a good idea of how much friction acts against the car.
Anyway, the exact nature of the grade, the ABC coefficients of both the vehicle and trailer, environmental conditions, and more all go into establishing how much horsepower is required to ascend a grade with a certain load at a certain speed, and I can tell you straight up: Going up those Pasadena grades in my J10 at 70 mph with 4,500 pounds worth of junk requires more than 112 horsepower.
I know this because, in fourth gear, the Jeep wouldn’t accelerate at all, and if I did get the machine to 70 mph in fourth on a downgrade, the vehicle would decelerate once I hit an up-grade. The insanely tall 2.73 gearing meant that the engine was spinning really slowly when the vehicle was driving quickly, and at those low RPMs, the machine just wasn’t making nearly enough power to get the vehicle up the grade.
Downshifting into third brought the vehicle closer to its 112 HP @3200 peak at 70 mph, but even then there was just no way to sustain 70 mph.
I had to climb the grades at about 40 mph in third gear (which has a 1.46:1 gear ratio vs fourth gear’s 1:1). This required less horsepower than climbing the hill at 70mph, and luckily it brought the engine RPM close enough to the power peak; I did have to downshift into second (2.29:1) a few times when speed dropped below 30, and that wasn’t great. That AMC inline-six under the hood does not like to rev, and when it does, it sounds like an animal is dying. It screams!
I am a man with a lot of mechanical sympathy, so to hear that motor cry out for dear life was tough, especially since I’m fairly sure doing so exposed some kind of engine or transmission mount problem. Under heavy load, the Jeep made a weird grinding sound, almost as if the engine’s fan was rubbing against the shroud or something.
I held that shifter with a sweaty palm, feeling the vibrations through it, listening to that grinding noise append a screaming motor, and watching California traffic blast past me on the left as I slowly ascended the grade. I watched my temperature gauge like a hawk, but it held steady. I’d replaced my entire cooling system myself back in 2020, and I’d rebuilt the transmission and filled it with good, heavy-duty fluid. The engine oil I had changed a year prior, but I’d only driven about 1,000 miles. I knew the Jeep could take the abuse, but my god was it slow and violent. In some ways, that was a good thing, because the brakes are terrible and could really use a rebuild.
If you could only keep six of these, which would you keep?
-1985 Jeep J10
-1966 Ford Mustang
-1954 Willys CJ-3B
-1991 Jeep Wrangler YJ
-1994 Jeep ZJ 5spd
-1958 Nash Metropolitan
-2011 Nissan Leaf
-1942 WW2 Jeep (w/dead motor)
-2021 BMW i3S Galvanic Gold
-2014 BMW i3— David Tracy (@davidntracy) June 12, 2024
In the end, it was hot and stressful, but the ol’ machine dragged its grandpa from Pasadena to Van Nuys, where it now sits. Once I get it running, I’ll park it behind my BMW i3S in my Santa Monica garage. None of my other vehicles fit, so this CJ will give me a chance to have a fun weekend cruiser along with my excellent commuter.
We pulled a 2000lb TR6 filled with tools and parts on a 2000lb trailer across America with a 4 cylinder Mazda b2300 5-speed. As long as you have trailer brakes and aren’t going over mountains, tow ratings are somewhat meaningless.
https://imgur.com/gallery/mazda-b2300-tows-triumph-tr6-CQlJDm9
My dad and I towed a 1960 Chevy El Camino from Lubbock, TX to Oklahoma City using a 1980 Ford Pinto with a 2.3 4 cylinder and a 4-speed.
Congratulations on the latest hit, addict. Embrace your need to hoard, it is your destiny David.
At least it looks like it is worth having.
You need to make a trip to the wrecking yard to count pinion tuns to wheel turns and find something in the threes at least for that truck. Heck or even spring for aftermarket gears and spacers/shims. There’s an article right there.
Congratulations on the latest hit, addict. Embrace your need to hoard, it is your destiny David.
At least it looks like it is worth having.
You need to make a trip to the wrecking yard to count pinion tuns to wheel turns and find something in the threes at least for that truck. Heck or even spring for aftermarket gears and spacers/shims. There’s an article right there.
To be fair, like most older pickups, the J10 was never designed to maintain 70MPH up a steep grade with a heavy load. Gearing down and winding up at 35-40 MPH (or less…) was expected. You would have tucked in along with the other, larger, trucks doing exactly the same thing.
But that was a different time. Prior to the national 55MPH limit, drivers just expected trucks on grades to be slower. Then during the double-nickel years, there wasn’t much interest in designing trucks, especially pickups, with a whole lot more speed capability until the age was over. The best you could get in pickups was something with a rear end geared for loads, and then you had a truck that could climb most hills at 50-55MPH, but on the flat or unloaded at best could do 65 MPH without feeling like you were flogging it. If you wanted faster truck on the highway, then the gearing choice meant slower climbs while loaded.
You used to just gear down, put your left foot in it, and sit back with one hand on the wheel and the other on the windowsill, occasionally waving some fool in a hurry to just pass already, and otherwise just lazily ride your way uphill — although with one eye on the temperature gauge. You’d get over the top when you got there, eventually. No big deal.
It wasn’t until the 90s really, with more and more highways raising speed limits and safety advocates more aware of speed differences in traffic being an issue, that there was a real need for higher-horsepower trucks. Until then, torque and relative fuel economy had been the only major design goals.
We’re spoiled in the 21st century. And we have modern drivers with modern vehicles who just expect everything on the road to keep up, which makes driving an older truck a bit more of a nail-biting experience than it would have been originally.
Man, this is such a great comment.
My 78 F-150 with a 400 had no problem towing a 6000 lb load right up the steepest part of I-40 east of the Rocky Mountains (climbing the Blue Ridge near Asheville) and was in fact passing cars while doing so. It also had a granny low 4 speed, 3.5 gears, but 35″ tires; which compared to stock tires would give an effective ratio of 3.0.
Cleveland/Modified heads are a bit of a cheat code– and one that I’m jealous of– but I would’ve loved to have seen and heard that. A proper 400 torquer before the 351M unfairly took their shared reputation into the dirt.
This. Dad had a stake body F350 with a 4-speed and (probably) a 390 he dropped a pickup camper on top of that we used to cruise America in the summer of 1981. My sister and I laid on the big bed over the cab and watched the miles go by, and I do remember spending time in the right lane on the West Coast grades grinding it out.
I do wonder though, was it the raising of speed limits that forced the need for higher-horsepower trucks, or was it the trucks being designed as passenger cars and thus more power that forced the raise of speed limits?
I think it is “trucks as daily drivers” that was the change. There was no appetite for compromise. And then of course came the bros who want to drive their pickup like a Ferrari.
Of course today, you have Toyota Camrys that can run with a C4 Corvette. Horsepower is everywhere more so than any era, even the “muscle” days of the late 60’s.
This is why I rarely drive my 1972 Super Beetle on the highway. When my car was new (21 years before I was born) Bugs were everywhere, and like David’s Jeep, they don’t really like to climb long grades at speed. Like you said, you’d just downshift and move over and go with the other people who had to do the same thing. Same with acceleration, the Beetle does 0-60 in ~18 seconds. Acceleration that slow, on American highways today, does not feel safe in such a small, light car. That was probably pretty slow in 1972 as well, but there were lots of other vehicles that were nearly as slow, and I suspect average highway cruising speeds aren’t what they are today. The Beetle has enough power to keep up with traffic around town with no issues, but the highway is not a fun place to be.
If you put your left foot in it, all you’re going to do for certain is put wear on the throwout bearing. Trying to climb a grade, reverse progress is a possibility.
To be fair, like most older pickups, the J10 was never designed to maintain 70MPH up a steep grade with a heavy load. Gearing down and winding up at 35-40 MPH (or less…) was expected. You would have tucked in along with the other, larger, trucks doing exactly the same thing.
But that was a different time. Prior to the national 55MPH limit, drivers just expected trucks on grades to be slower. Then during the double-nickel years, there wasn’t much interest in designing trucks, especially pickups, with a whole lot more speed capability until the age was over. The best you could get in pickups was something with a rear end geared for loads, and then you had a truck that could climb most hills at 50-55MPH, but on the flat or unloaded at best could do 65 MPH without feeling like you were flogging it. If you wanted faster truck on the highway, then the gearing choice meant slower climbs while loaded.
You used to just gear down, put your left foot in it, and sit back with one hand on the wheel and the other on the windowsill, occasionally waving some fool in a hurry to just pass already, and otherwise just lazily ride your way uphill — although with one eye on the temperature gauge. You’d get over the top when you got there, eventually. No big deal.
It wasn’t until the 90s really, with more and more highways raising speed limits and safety advocates more aware of speed differences in traffic being an issue, that there was a real need for higher-horsepower trucks. Until then, torque and relative fuel economy had been the only major design goals.
We’re spoiled in the 21st century. And we have modern drivers with modern vehicles who just expect everything on the road to keep up, which makes driving an older truck a bit more of a nail-biting experience than it would have been originally.
Man, this is such a great comment.
My 78 F-150 with a 400 had no problem towing a 6000 lb load right up the steepest part of I-40 east of the Rocky Mountains (climbing the Blue Ridge near Asheville) and was in fact passing cars while doing so. It also had a granny low 4 speed, 3.5 gears, but 35″ tires; which compared to stock tires would give an effective ratio of 3.0.
Cleveland/Modified heads are a bit of a cheat code– and one that I’m jealous of– but I would’ve loved to have seen and heard that. A proper 400 torquer before the 351M unfairly took their shared reputation into the dirt.
This. Dad had a stake body F350 with a 4-speed and (probably) a 390 he dropped a pickup camper on top of that we used to cruise America in the summer of 1981. My sister and I laid on the big bed over the cab and watched the miles go by, and I do remember spending time in the right lane on the West Coast grades grinding it out.
I do wonder though, was it the raising of speed limits that forced the need for higher-horsepower trucks, or was it the trucks being designed as passenger cars and thus more power that forced the raise of speed limits?
I think it is “trucks as daily drivers” that was the change. There was no appetite for compromise. And then of course came the bros who want to drive their pickup like a Ferrari.
Of course today, you have Toyota Camrys that can run with a C4 Corvette. Horsepower is everywhere more so than any era, even the “muscle” days of the late 60’s.
This is why I rarely drive my 1972 Super Beetle on the highway. When my car was new (21 years before I was born) Bugs were everywhere, and like David’s Jeep, they don’t really like to climb long grades at speed. Like you said, you’d just downshift and move over and go with the other people who had to do the same thing. Same with acceleration, the Beetle does 0-60 in ~18 seconds. Acceleration that slow, on American highways today, does not feel safe in such a small, light car. That was probably pretty slow in 1972 as well, but there were lots of other vehicles that were nearly as slow, and I suspect average highway cruising speeds aren’t what they are today. The Beetle has enough power to keep up with traffic around town with no issues, but the highway is not a fun place to be.
If you put your left foot in it, all you’re going to do for certain is put wear on the throwout bearing. Trying to climb a grade, reverse progress is a possibility.
U-Haul lets you pull a trailer with that thing, but won’t let me hook one up to my tow-rated Tacoma just because it’s a mid-size pickup.
U-haul initially didn’t want to let me tow with my 78 F-150. I pulled up and the lady at the counter asked the mechanic to inspect my truck. He raised his head, saw my truck and was like, ‘That’s fine!’ She persisted and said what about the hitch, it looks too high. I knew the suspension would sag to the right level once the car was loaded onto the trailer, but she insisted on it. So he came out and measured it, it was about an inch too high, so they made me go find a huge drop hitch. Sure enough, once the car was on the trailer the hitch started hitting on driveways with any kind of hump.
As someone who owns a 2011 Ranger with a 5,500 lb. towing package, I understand your frustration.
Really? U-Haul will usually let you tow with anything, even crossovers and sedans. With car haulers specifically, they have silly rules about the weight of the towing vehicle compared to the towed vehicle, but that is easily solved by telling the U-Haul guy you are towing a 1994 Tercel.
U-Haul lets you pull a trailer with that thing, but won’t let me hook one up to my tow-rated Tacoma just because it’s a mid-size pickup.
U-haul initially didn’t want to let me tow with my 78 F-150. I pulled up and the lady at the counter asked the mechanic to inspect my truck. He raised his head, saw my truck and was like, ‘That’s fine!’ She persisted and said what about the hitch, it looks too high. I knew the suspension would sag to the right level once the car was loaded onto the trailer, but she insisted on it. So he came out and measured it, it was about an inch too high, so they made me go find a huge drop hitch. Sure enough, once the car was on the trailer the hitch started hitting on driveways with any kind of hump.
As someone who owns a 2011 Ranger with a 5,500 lb. towing package, I understand your frustration.
Really? U-Haul will usually let you tow with anything, even crossovers and sedans. With car haulers specifically, they have silly rules about the weight of the towing vehicle compared to the towed vehicle, but that is easily solved by telling the U-Haul guy you are towing a 1994 Tercel.
Technically, all jerrycans are German as they were invented for the German army in the mid 30s. Hence the name: Jerry is slang for German.
The Allies began to use them during WW II after capturing them from German forces and discovering how superior they were to anything available to their own forces.
Coincidentally, just before the war outbreak, an American and German friend were assembling a car that could survive a transcontinental journey from Europe to India. They didn’t have an easy or reliable means of carrying extra fuel. The German knew of, and had access to, jerrycans (not called that by the Jerries) stored at Templehof airfield near Berlin. He procured three of the fuel cans, plus a copy of the manufacturing plans to his American friend.
Subsequently, the American brought the plans back to the US where he sought to sell the idea to the US military. At, first he received no interest, but after the war started, he worked with both American and British governments to set up production.
The US modified design used X-shaped indents on the sides of the can to impart strength and rolled seams versus the welded seams and cross-shaped indents of the German original. These weren’t as strong, but were cheaper and quicker to produce and generally strong enough. There were also differences with the capping mechanism, but basically the cans were the same as the German.The British versions copied the German design.
Jerrycans were one of the most critical war supplies and produced in huge numbers. Fuel shortages for truck and tank convoys were more frequently caused by a shortage of jerrycans than the fuel itself. The Allies lost 3.5 million jerrycans in one month in 1944, which gives a good idea of how many of these things were made.
So, if yours has an X indent it’s probably American, whereas a cross indent could indicate British or German. That’s assuming it’s not a commercial postwar version, in which case, all bets are off.
This is an incredible bit of history! Thank you for taking the time to put that here on this fine website of ours!
(Mine is a Nazi jerrycan; have a look at the photo I added!).
This video, from Calum on YouTube, about the history & evolution of gas cans is highly informative & quite interesting: https://youtu.be/XwUkbGHFAhs?si=ziP5g53vhNkVrlwP
Among many interesting videos Calum made this fascinating video about the surprisingly numerous stock (Scandinavian-spec) VW Beetles being successfully used by scientists in Antarctica in the early to mid 1960s https://youtu.be/hqr7t7nBIVA?si=jOa-B8j9RGXuXFR_ which includes a lot of resources including interviews with some of those scientists and some of the people who have replicas and some of the actual Antarctic Beetles.
Here’s a pretty charming photograph of one of these Beetles with some penguins:
https://www.clubvw.org.au/assets/images/austhistory/Antarctica11.jpg
Commenters like you are what make this site interesting. Imagine having so much knowledge of a gas can! Thank you for sharing it with us.
Technically, all jerrycans are German as they were invented for the German army in the mid 30s. Hence the name: Jerry is slang for German.
The Allies began to use them during WW II after capturing them from German forces and discovering how superior they were to anything available to their own forces.
Coincidentally, just before the war outbreak, an American and German friend were assembling a car that could survive a transcontinental journey from Europe to India. They didn’t have an easy or reliable means of carrying extra fuel. The German knew of, and had access to, jerrycans (not called that by the Jerries) stored at Templehof airfield near Berlin. He procured three of the fuel cans, plus a copy of the manufacturing plans to his American friend.
Subsequently, the American brought the plans back to the US where he sought to sell the idea to the US military. At, first he received no interest, but after the war started, he worked with both American and British governments to set up production.
The US modified design used X-shaped indents on the sides of the can to impart strength and rolled seams versus the welded seams and cross-shaped indents of the German original. These weren’t as strong, but were cheaper and quicker to produce and generally strong enough. There were also differences with the capping mechanism, but basically the cans were the same as the German.The British versions copied the German design.
Jerrycans were one of the most critical war supplies and produced in huge numbers. Fuel shortages for truck and tank convoys were more frequently caused by a shortage of jerrycans than the fuel itself. The Allies lost 3.5 million jerrycans in one month in 1944, which gives a good idea of how many of these things were made.
So, if yours has an X indent it’s probably American, whereas a cross indent could indicate British or German. That’s assuming it’s not a commercial postwar version, in which case, all bets are off.
This is an incredible bit of history! Thank you for taking the time to put that here on this fine website of ours!
(Mine is a Nazi jerrycan; have a look at the photo I added!).
This video, from Calum on YouTube, about the history & evolution of gas cans is highly informative & quite interesting: https://youtu.be/XwUkbGHFAhs?si=ziP5g53vhNkVrlwP
Among many interesting videos Calum made this fascinating video about the surprisingly numerous stock (Scandinavian-spec) VW Beetles being successfully used by scientists in Antarctica in the early to mid 1960s https://youtu.be/hqr7t7nBIVA?si=jOa-B8j9RGXuXFR_ which includes a lot of resources including interviews with some of those scientists and some of the people who have replicas and some of the actual Antarctic Beetles.
Here’s a pretty charming photograph of one of these Beetles with some penguins:
https://www.clubvw.org.au/assets/images/austhistory/Antarctica11.jpg
Commenters like you are what make this site interesting. Imagine having so much knowledge of a gas can! Thank you for sharing it with us.
Slow and violet?
Well, if it was fast, he might go plaid.
Slow and violet?
Well, if it was fast, he might go plaid.
THIS, THIS is a David Tracy article!
THIS, THIS is a David Tracy article!
Wait, you mean you’re not a Jeep historian?
Wait, you mean you’re not a Jeep historian?
Great to see you are back to a fleet. Seems you need a bigger towing truck.
Great to see you are back to a fleet. Seems you need a bigger towing truck.
Great article DT, but man I think I would have texted Beau and asked to borrow an F150 for the day…
Great article DT, but man I think I would have texted Beau and asked to borrow an F150 for the day…
Get rid of the leaf at least. You had a good content to purchase price ratio out of it. Plus you can get one more article out of selling it.
Or, maybe there is a Jeaf build in the future?
Get rid of the leaf at least. You had a good content to purchase price ratio out of it. Plus you can get one more article out of selling it.
Or, maybe there is a Jeaf build in the future?
The days of sub (or barely) 3-figure horsepower were filled with heightened anxiety & blood pressure levels.
Not being a Jeep guy, I didn’t know the reason for the later rounded hoods. Cool tidbit
The days of sub (or barely) 3-figure horsepower were filled with heightened anxiety & blood pressure levels.
Not being a Jeep guy, I didn’t know the reason for the later rounded hoods. Cool tidbit
Now you’re learning how nice non-rust bucket older vehicles are.
Why Jeep put that tall of a rear end in the truck seems a mystery.
They did it so that it can actually cruise 70mph with a very low rpm engine and a non-overdrive transmission.
I know this because I am the proud owner of a Jeep J10 almost identical to David’s, but with shorter gearing. Much shorter, I would guess 3.73s. 55mph is running out of gearing in that pickup, it would rather be cruising 45mph. It can do 70mph, but it is SCREAMING, getting hot, and it is an extremely unsustainable speed.
I don’t think they cared about 70 mph, I do think they did it for fuel economy.
Now you’re learning how nice non-rust bucket older vehicles are.
Why Jeep put that tall of a rear end in the truck seems a mystery.
They did it so that it can actually cruise 70mph with a very low rpm engine and a non-overdrive transmission.
I know this because I am the proud owner of a Jeep J10 almost identical to David’s, but with shorter gearing. Much shorter, I would guess 3.73s. 55mph is running out of gearing in that pickup, it would rather be cruising 45mph. It can do 70mph, but it is SCREAMING, getting hot, and it is an extremely unsustainable speed.
I don’t think they cared about 70 mph, I do think they did it for fuel economy.