I'll bite out of a sense of devilment :-)

ok, lets take the waggy. Good axles, good chassis, fair transfer case ( 229
at any rate), great gearbox.
nice and roomy inside.
But.
big overhangs, especially at the back, stupid carb and engine controls,
wiring that tries to imitate det-cord, leaks from everywhere you can think
of, *really* stupid rear window, poor quality dash and instruments. Gas tank
lacks protection also.
That was AMCs responsibility - on the whole a good design, but somewhat
lacking nevertheless.

I think you are being entirely fair to the GC - it wasn't built to be as
offroad capable as the Wrangler, and nor was the Waggy.
(although I accept that IFS is going entirely too far).

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message news:i%9hd.14408
> attnews wrote:
> > the '05 GC is not really a Jeep at all. It is a "something" loosely
based
> > on what used to be a great vehicle, those last designed by AMC. "Jeep"
is
> > now a foreign "car." Did you look underneath? Did you laugh? Did you
> > wonder what you were looking at? Did the rear-end styling remind you of
an
> > Aztec? Did you wonder why there were sled runners aft of the rear axle?
> > Did you wonder why the gas tank is hanging down under the driver's seat?
> > Did you marvel at the 2 cast iron tuna cans attached to the rear
> > differential? Did you lament the passing of the front solid axle? Did
ask
> > what happened to the 2 missing guages in the instrument cluster?
> > "erinn" <ephines@***.net> wrote in message
> > news:uB2hd.195573$a85.143838@fed1read04...
> >
> >>Just saw the new 2005 GC at the California Intl. Auto Show. I was not
> >>impressed by the 5 part hardly soft all plastic dash. Nor by the fit
and
> >>finish of the door material. I think it they want to stay in the class
> >>they set from 1999-2004 they need to up the quality now.
>
>
> --
> __________________________________________________ _________
> tw
>
> 03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
> 01 XJ Sport
>
> There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> -- Dave Barry
>
> Pronunciation: 'jEp
> Function: noun
> Date: 1940
>
> Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
> 1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
> World War II.
>
> (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> __________________________________________________ _________
>

 

I'll bite out of a sense of devilment :-)

ok, lets take the waggy. Good axles, good chassis, fair transfer case ( 229
at any rate), great gearbox.
nice and roomy inside.
But.
big overhangs, especially at the back, stupid carb and engine controls,
wiring that tries to imitate det-cord, leaks from everywhere you can think
of, *really* stupid rear window, poor quality dash and instruments. Gas tank
lacks protection also.
That was AMCs responsibility - on the whole a good design, but somewhat
lacking nevertheless.

I think you are being entirely fair to the GC - it wasn't built to be as
offroad capable as the Wrangler, and nor was the Waggy.
(although I accept that IFS is going entirely too far).

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message news:i%9hd.14408
> attnews wrote:
> > the '05 GC is not really a Jeep at all. It is a "something" loosely
based
> > on what used to be a great vehicle, those last designed by AMC. "Jeep"
is
> > now a foreign "car." Did you look underneath? Did you laugh? Did you
> > wonder what you were looking at? Did the rear-end styling remind you of
an
> > Aztec? Did you wonder why there were sled runners aft of the rear axle?
> > Did you wonder why the gas tank is hanging down under the driver's seat?
> > Did you marvel at the 2 cast iron tuna cans attached to the rear
> > differential? Did you lament the passing of the front solid axle? Did
ask
> > what happened to the 2 missing guages in the instrument cluster?
> > "erinn" <ephines@***.net> wrote in message
> > news:uB2hd.195573$a85.143838@fed1read04...
> >
> >>Just saw the new 2005 GC at the California Intl. Auto Show. I was not
> >>impressed by the 5 part hardly soft all plastic dash. Nor by the fit
and
> >>finish of the door material. I think it they want to stay in the class
> >>they set from 1999-2004 they need to up the quality now.
>
>
> --
> __________________________________________________ _________
> tw
>
> 03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
> 01 XJ Sport
>
> There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> -- Dave Barry
>
> Pronunciation: 'jEp
> Function: noun
> Date: 1940
>
> Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
> 1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
> World War II.
>
> (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> __________________________________________________ _________
>

 

I'll bite out of a sense of devilment :-)

ok, lets take the waggy. Good axles, good chassis, fair transfer case ( 229
at any rate), great gearbox.
nice and roomy inside.
But.
big overhangs, especially at the back, stupid carb and engine controls,
wiring that tries to imitate det-cord, leaks from everywhere you can think
of, *really* stupid rear window, poor quality dash and instruments. Gas tank
lacks protection also.
That was AMCs responsibility - on the whole a good design, but somewhat
lacking nevertheless.

I think you are being entirely fair to the GC - it wasn't built to be as
offroad capable as the Wrangler, and nor was the Waggy.
(although I accept that IFS is going entirely too far).

Dave Milne, Scotland
'91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

"twaldron" <thomas@OBVIOUSrubicons.com> wrote in message news:i%9hd.14408
> attnews wrote:
> > the '05 GC is not really a Jeep at all. It is a "something" loosely
based
> > on what used to be a great vehicle, those last designed by AMC. "Jeep"
is
> > now a foreign "car." Did you look underneath? Did you laugh? Did you
> > wonder what you were looking at? Did the rear-end styling remind you of
an
> > Aztec? Did you wonder why there were sled runners aft of the rear axle?
> > Did you wonder why the gas tank is hanging down under the driver's seat?
> > Did you marvel at the 2 cast iron tuna cans attached to the rear
> > differential? Did you lament the passing of the front solid axle? Did
ask
> > what happened to the 2 missing guages in the instrument cluster?
> > "erinn" <ephines@***.net> wrote in message
> > news:uB2hd.195573$a85.143838@fed1read04...
> >
> >>Just saw the new 2005 GC at the California Intl. Auto Show. I was not
> >>impressed by the 5 part hardly soft all plastic dash. Nor by the fit
and
> >>finish of the door material. I think it they want to stay in the class
> >>they set from 1999-2004 they need to up the quality now.
>
>
> --
> __________________________________________________ _________
> tw
>
> 03 TJ Rubicon - Rubicon Express 4.5"
> 01 XJ Sport
>
> There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness."
> -- Dave Barry
>
> Pronunciation: 'jEp
> Function: noun
> Date: 1940
>
> Etymology: from g. p. (G= 'Government' P= '80 inch wheelbase')
> A small general-purpose motor vehicle with 80-inch wheelbase,
> 1/4-ton capacity, and four-wheel drive used by the U.S. army in
> World War II.
>
> (Please remove the OBVIOUS to reply by email)
> __________________________________________________ _________
>

 

Dave Milne did pass the time by typing:

> I think you are being entirely fair to the GC - it wasn't built to be as
> offroad capable as the Wrangler, and nor was the Waggy.
> (although I accept that IFS is going entirely too far).

Actually IFS does cure the dreaded death-wobble common to solid front
axles. First time the ZJ had death-wobble I seriously considered trading
it in that evening.

--
DougW

 

Dave Milne did pass the time by typing:

> I think you are being entirely fair to the GC - it wasn't built to be as
> offroad capable as the Wrangler, and nor was the Waggy.
> (although I accept that IFS is going entirely too far).

Actually IFS does cure the dreaded death-wobble common to solid front
axles. First time the ZJ had death-wobble I seriously considered trading
it in that evening.

--
DougW

 

Dave Milne did pass the time by typing:

> I think you are being entirely fair to the GC - it wasn't built to be as
> offroad capable as the Wrangler, and nor was the Waggy.
> (although I accept that IFS is going entirely too far).

Actually IFS does cure the dreaded death-wobble common to solid front
axles. First time the ZJ had death-wobble I seriously considered trading
it in that evening.

--
DougW

 

attnews <john.n.allen@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> the '05 GC is not really a Jeep at all. It is a "something" loosely based
> on what used to be a great vehicle, those last designed by AMC.

It's just not possible to use greatness and AMC in the same sentence.

I remember the Gremlin. Rented one once because they had run out of all
other vehicles. Small and uncomfortable, but heavy and slow. The
crappiest looking seats I ever saw in a car; they were hard with thin
padding, too. Pushing down the pedal to shift into passing gear caused
the engine to roar loudly, but no actual acceleration occurred.

My great-uncle owned a 60s Rambler. Once when he was visiting us, he
was trying to get the carburetor adjusted right. I saw when he was
working on it that the carb body was PLASTIC. I don't think that was
the wave of the future in carburetor technology, because I never saw one
since.

Another person I knew owned a top-of-the line Rambler, mid-60s vintage.
It was a two door car, and when you folded the seat forward to get into
the back seat, it left a big metal trim piece (a chrome thing that
covered the hinge) sticking out into the opening that was perfect for
barking your shins on.

Those are the design and engineering achievements I think of when I
hear AMC.

 

attnews <john.n.allen@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> the '05 GC is not really a Jeep at all. It is a "something" loosely based
> on what used to be a great vehicle, those last designed by AMC.

It's just not possible to use greatness and AMC in the same sentence.

I remember the Gremlin. Rented one once because they had run out of all
other vehicles. Small and uncomfortable, but heavy and slow. The
crappiest looking seats I ever saw in a car; they were hard with thin
padding, too. Pushing down the pedal to shift into passing gear caused
the engine to roar loudly, but no actual acceleration occurred.

My great-uncle owned a 60s Rambler. Once when he was visiting us, he
was trying to get the carburetor adjusted right. I saw when he was
working on it that the carb body was PLASTIC. I don't think that was
the wave of the future in carburetor technology, because I never saw one
since.

Another person I knew owned a top-of-the line Rambler, mid-60s vintage.
It was a two door car, and when you folded the seat forward to get into
the back seat, it left a big metal trim piece (a chrome thing that
covered the hinge) sticking out into the opening that was perfect for
barking your shins on.

Those are the design and engineering achievements I think of when I
hear AMC.

 

attnews <john.n.allen@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> the '05 GC is not really a Jeep at all. It is a "something" loosely based
> on what used to be a great vehicle, those last designed by AMC.

It's just not possible to use greatness and AMC in the same sentence.

I remember the Gremlin. Rented one once because they had run out of all
other vehicles. Small and uncomfortable, but heavy and slow. The
crappiest looking seats I ever saw in a car; they were hard with thin
padding, too. Pushing down the pedal to shift into passing gear caused
the engine to roar loudly, but no actual acceleration occurred.

My great-uncle owned a 60s Rambler. Once when he was visiting us, he
was trying to get the carburetor adjusted right. I saw when he was
working on it that the carb body was PLASTIC. I don't think that was
the wave of the future in carburetor technology, because I never saw one
since.

Another person I knew owned a top-of-the line Rambler, mid-60s vintage.
It was a two door car, and when you folded the seat forward to get into
the back seat, it left a big metal trim piece (a chrome thing that
covered the hinge) sticking out into the opening that was perfect for
barking your shins on.

Those are the design and engineering achievements I think of when I
hear AMC.

 

Look at the market it was aiming for, the Ford Pinto, and the Chevy
Vega. Tell me you wouldn't want a ride in a four hundred horse power
Javelin.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

RJ wrote:
>
> It's just not possible to use greatness and AMC in the same sentence.
>
> I remember the Gremlin. Rented one once because they had run out of all
> other vehicles. Small and uncomfortable, but heavy and slow. The
> crappiest looking seats I ever saw in a car; they were hard with thin
> padding, too. Pushing down the pedal to shift into passing gear caused
> the engine to roar loudly, but no actual acceleration occurred.
>
> My great-uncle owned a 60s Rambler. Once when he was visiting us, he
> was trying to get the carburetor adjusted right. I saw when he was
> working on it that the carb body was PLASTIC. I don't think that was
> the wave of the future in carburetor technology, because I never saw one
> since.
>
> Another person I knew owned a top-of-the line Rambler, mid-60s vintage.
> It was a two door car, and when you folded the seat forward to get into
> the back seat, it left a big metal trim piece (a chrome thing that
> covered the hinge) sticking out into the opening that was perfect for
> barking your shins on.
>
> Those are the design and engineering achievements I think of when I
> hear AMC.