• Links to external websites may be affiliate links that generate revenue. Clicking the links do not add any cost to your transcations, if you choose to purchase.

1964 Jeep Wagoneer

moparnut

Administrator
1964 Jeep Wagoneer - $16,500 - Old Bethpage, NY - 1964 Jeep Wagoneer 4Dr 4X4
This is a beautiful example of one of the first true 4WD vehicles on the planet.
The Jeep Wagoneer was introduced in 1962 and was way ahead of its time. Powered by its original 230 cubic inch 6-cylinder engine, it was named the "Tornado" engine. The overhead camshaft design had spherical heads which could technically be described as a HEMI. The transmission was designed and built by Borg-Warner, the best of the best in its day. This Jeep came optioned with a 3 speed manual and a four-wheel drive system with manually locking hubs. When engaged, the 4WD layout provides a rigid, zero slippage connection between front and rear axles. The independent suspension was designed by DANA, a prominent name in Dodge & Plymouth muscle cars of the 60s.
This beautiful Wagoneer had undergone a full body-on restoration to original specs a decade ago and has been garage kept ever since. It looks as good today as it did 10 years ago. The factory colored Blue paint shines like glass and doesnt have a mark on it. Chrome and trim has all been refinished and is beautiful. The rear window crank was missed during the restoration and remains unfinished and shows some peeling. The undercarriage is super clean and rust free indicating that this Wagoneer has rarely seen any off-roading if at all!
The interior is as clean as the day it left the factory. All gauges AND features are clean and sharp and all work as they should. Seating is as good as new and all glass is clear. Front and rear seat belts have been added. All windows roll up & down easily including the rear window glass. A newer Motorola stereo sound system was installed several decades ago. It works and sounds great.
Driving is a pleasure! The 230ci 6cylinder gets adequate gas mileage for such a large classic 4WD vehicle. It starts instantly, gets up to speed quickly and cruises comfortably at highway speeds all day long. Stopping is immediate. Brakes and large tires are nearly new.
A rarely seen color coded Jeep dash compass does work but is a bit twitchy and inaccurate. Mileage is ridiculously low and it shows. Restoration photos are available and come with the sale of the Jeep. In a world filled with Chevelles, GTOs and Road Runners, here Is something different that can be driven, shown and appreciated at a very fair price. Come on in for a look and a test drive.
FOR MORE PHOTOS INCLUDING THE UNDERCARRIAGE, VISIT OUR DIRECT WEBSITE AT fioremotors.com or call us at 516-586-6536.


Link to ad on Hemmings.com
 
This thing is 20 lug nuts from glory. The rolling stock is just way out of place, but the rest of it? *swoon*

I'd haggle, but I wouldn't feel dirty paying asking on this one.
 
Overhead cam?!? In the least funded or profitable of the American companies? I had no idea.. This had to be the first modern, mass produced, American OHC motor.. I can't think of any others. What happened to it? Was it anemic? Misunderstood? Hard to work on? Unreliable? Why go from this beauty to the Dauntless, or Buick odd fire jobs? Why regress to a shitty 151, or the noisy, underpowered 4.2? Don't get me wrong, the later 4.0L is a real honey of a motor.. But that OHC valve cover looks downright alien in this application. If I saw one of these at a car show, I'd assume there'd been an engine swap.. I want answers, dammit. And Wikipedia is too many keystrokes away for my attention span right now..
 
id swear tho that something 20/30s BIG car had overhead tho....even if it was shortlived

i was right 21-27 model A doozy single then when DOHC 28-37 ...now mind you those were not entirely "mass production" but for back then they were and for that long of a run???? id sure count it....guess it depends on what you consider mass production...cause then there is this too
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marr_(automobile)



course if ya wanna get silly
http://theoldmotor.com/?p=32191
 
Last edited:
The Duesenberg is exactly what I had in mind when I said "modern" and "mass produced". I couldn't tell you what kind of motors they had except for straight eights off the top of my head, but whatever the valve configuration, they were supercars in their day.. also hand built.. DQ right there. The still unloved and unheard of OHC Tornado straight six wins the day for both obscurity, and supreme hipster points. Which means that it's still cool, until it actually becomes cool.
 
Certainly, the Alfa 2300 had an overhead cam.. Two, in fact. But it was Italian, and a super lame reason for me to justify posting porn here.. And Porn you shall have!

dsc_0220.jpg


Yes, that's a supercharger.
 
oof..yeah knew bout them..but theres cooler still.but god..all that fin work!..in the teens most of the euro BIG were doing it....and they all too are porn
 
id swear tho that something 20/30s BIG car had overhead tho....even if it was shortlived

There were several during that time period. and most of them were innovative, efficient and powerful for their time. They were primarily "orphan" upstarts with great engineering ideas that just couldn't survive the depression. :(
 
yup..and its sad..cause imagine what those great inovating companys would be making today

wernt there some wicked FWDs with superchargers...cord?..i forget what exactly

i could be mixing them up..i just remember something with a supercharger mounted just behind the bumper GLARING at you in all of its polished glory
 
That was the Auburn, Cords and Deusenbergs that shared the supercharged FWD;

cord.jpg

The power transmitted forward thru the diff to the trans and then back to the diff. Drivetrain components were located ahead of the engine, which made for a much better balance than todays FWD's.

engine.jpg
 
yeah its kinda like saab meets classic rear engine RWD

so they were the one with the big ole SC mounted up front down low?..one sticks in my head as having a massive aluminum finned SC right behind the bumper where the cord "hump" is...and for the life of me i cant find a pic of it and im fairly certain it was FWD
 
Overhead cams date back to the nineteen-aughts. The first SOHC engine produced by a major manufacturer was in the early 1910s. I'm pretty sure it was Renault, but I know Mercedes had built them prior to WWI. Most V-configuration aircraft engines used by both sides during The Big One were OHC designs. DOHC engines weren't all that uncommon in the '20s and '30s, commonly having the block and cylinder head as a single casting.
 
All of this is true. My lament is that American car companies by the 60's and 70's were so far behind the times, not only in engine architecture, but technology in general.. Jaguar not only invented disc brakes, but had four wheel discs on race cars in '53.. on production cars by the early '60's.. four wheel discs weren't standard here until the nineties across the board.. Volvo invented the three point seat belt harness in the early sixties, and gave the patent rights up in the interest of standardizing safety.. Shoulder belts weren't mandated here until '69. Even then, it was only up front, and an awkward two piece deal.. In the eighties, all Ma Mopar, and the big three had to do to beat emissions and reduce MPGs was call up Bosch and pay them to adapt our motors to fuel injection technologies that had already been around for over ten years.. Instead, my '84 Jeep and '86 Dodge left the factory with computer controlled carburetors, and ignition systems that had no direct control over the actual distributor in the vehicle.. I recently cleaned twenty pounds of bullshit out of the front end of my XJ just to make it stop loading the cat with unburnt fuel.. It's called the Nutter Bypass, and it involves cutting out about three individual engine control wiring harnesses, and splicing in two solitary wires to give the Ford ignition module direct control over spark advance in the distributor.. The XJ in '84 had not one, but two solenoids in the PCV hose alone.. Three more on the carb.. The list goes on. Fed mandated sealed beam headlights, when Euro patterns were far superior.. Single red fog light in the back, at brake light intensity so that cars behind you know where you are in the soupy stuff. It's no wonder the Japanese companies wiped the floor with us in the seventies and eighties.. Forget for a minute that after WWII, we crippled their aerospace industry, and sent a bunch of jobless engineers into their motorcycle, and burgeoning automobile industry.. No, when their cheap, reliable, and efficient products started making their way over here, it was like showing up to a medieval castle siege with drones and smart bombs, and that includes fit, finish, and quality control.. I love my straight sixes, and V8s, and the rest of the world is in awe of them every time they get to drive or review one.. Endless, lazy, effortless torque is awesome.. But it was no match for matching horsepower figures and twice the fuel efficiency out of an engine half of the size.. My '81 2.1 Volvo 245 was rated at about 130 HP or so at I don't remember what RPM.. My '86 Ram with a 5.2 was rated at 180.. My Volvo pulls down about 26 MPGs, My Ram? 11.. Certainly, they're two completely different vehicles with different weights, but the HP numbers are the difference between a 318 and a 360.. If at the end of the horsepower wars, with the oil embargo in full swing, AMC had the brains and wherewithall to call up Bosch in '74 or '75, and ask for the rights to have their motors run on K-Jet, not only would they have saved money in the long run (maybe not at the initial outlay of capital) but they might still be here today, instead of slapping band aids on an outdated fuel delivery system with the hopes of making it another ten years with no endgame..

Sorry for the run on sentences. And ranting.. but you guys should be used to both by now.
 
im with you on most of it..the fact that the tech was there and we didnt use it is astounding..or worse only used it in race/war aplications and then went back to the basic bs...course i HATE EFI for its over complication

these days it feels as if all forward movement in the auto industry has died...and i look squarly at the lack of racing inovations due to rules in place to stifle everyone

oh intresting tidbit on the 3point belt...i knew about volvo being first and giving it away..was good on them....a 67 fish has no provisions in the roof a 68 does in the coupe but not the fastback(or atleast not all of them) but every 69 fastback ive seen has not only the front but REAR shoulderbelt provisions..the nuts are actualy welded into the sandwiching of the roof frame
 
You do realize that the Bosch fuel-injection systems' architectures are based around the Bendix system used by Chrysler and AMC in the '50s, right? American technology years ahead of its time. The electric fuel pump was in the tank. The port-mounted injectors were fired was sequentially, from top-mounted fuel rails that held them in place. The electrical components needed to make it work literally didn't exist at the time (the capacitors used were wax paper!). Bosch's huge contribution was to sit on the existing design until they did.

The simple fact is that OHC engines aren't any better than pushrod ones. OHC engines are better at high RPM, yes, but America has always loved seat-of-the-pants torque, and cheap torque is good torque. Sorry to ruffle your feathers, but European cars sold in America with OHC engines were unreliable, flaky pieces of shit regardless of make. When someone got the engine right, it was in a tinny shitbox or electrician's hell. Working on them now and saying "they're really not that bad" is one thing after 50 years of people figuring out fixes, not to mention leaps and bounds in quality and technological advances in areas like gasketing and electrical components right down to the wire itself.

There was nothing spectacular about the Jeep OHC engine (or the Pontiac, for that matter, which was a far-better design) that warranted its continuation. Its sole trademark was fuel efficiency, about which no one really cared back then. It wasn't some undiscovered technological marvel; in fact it remained in production in Argentina with continual upgrades including a seven-main-bearing block and crank until 1982, when it was abandoned as an expensive outdated design. It's an interesting historical side note that, unlike the Buick/Rover 215 or Buick/Jeep/GM 90° pushrod V6, didn't have a place in the world for decades to come when introduced. The Pontiac six is a much-larger tragedy, yet still not one worth lamenting. Instead, lament Henry's cheap, crappy flathead that convinced America that a V8 was the only engine worth having.

Personally, if Chrysler had ever built a decent inline six I'd be all about building 'em. Yes, the Slant is a great workhorse engine, but there's no good cylinder head for it. If there were, you'd still be limited somewhat by the four-main block.
 
Yeah, I know that Chrysler made 35 fuelie cars with Bendix.. 16 300's, 12 D500's, 2 Furys, and 5 Desotos. Bendix also offered the tech to Buick and Rambler, but Chrysler was the only company to bite. That technology was largely cribbed from airplanes, if I remember correctly.. I also knew about the wax paper capacitors, because airplanes would use the system essentially at idle or WOT, Bendix had to create electronics to adapt the system to different rev ranges. In order to keep all that crap cool, they mounted the electronics in front of the radiator.. which might be fine if they only sold cars in the desert. Rain didn't help the already flawed system, and all 35 cars were recalled. All but one (which may still be in the ether) were replaced with dual quad carbs. Those cars also ran dual distributors. The experiment (brilliant on paper, just not on wax paper) was sold to Bosch. Bosch later released it in (my memory gets fuzzy here) '67 or so on VW squarebacks. It then seeped into Mercedes and Volvos.. The first iteration of the Bosch Injection (that I know of) was D-Jet. "D" standing for "Drück" or "pressure" in Doucheland. This was because while the system used temp sensors, IAC's, TPS's and the like, the system was largely dependent on fuel pressure. D-Jet, despite what some 914 diehards will tell you, was still largely a steaming pile of shit. Most D-Jet cars today get carbs swapped onto them just like they did in the Chrysler days, largely due to the process in troubleshooting, and skyrocketing parts prices and new stock unavailability. However in my previous post, I'd suggested that AMC should have called up Bosch and bought the license to K-Jet, or CIS.. which was an electromechanical system that constantly fired all of the injectors as long as the engine was running, unless the system pressure dropped below 65 PSI or so (bad relay, or fuel pump). By 1984, D-Jet had been put out to pasture, but K-Jet, and later CIS injection had been around and been refined since '74, or thereabouts. It had been used reliably for about ten years on 911's and Volvos, as well as some Benzes. The only real failure points on K-jet cars are vacuum leaks, weak fuel pumps, or in the case of 911s, detonated air boxes.. I have two K-Jet Volvos, and despite one being barely a parts car, both will fire up every time, no matter how long they sit.. I've never had an injection related failure in either car.. my '81 has over 400,000 on it, and my '74 has well over 200,000 on it. I don't maintain either system. They ran with catalytic converters in the eighties, and passed emissions tests here until about '89 or '90. In '84 the only other real option was L-Jet, which was still new and problematic on Alfas and Fiats.. Later and superior Motronic had just been developed for F1 cars, and wouldn't see commercial use until '88 or so. So, yes.. Bosch bought EFI as we know it, and it still took them forty years to make it not suck rocks. I'll end this thought with this.. Even D-Jet would have been far superior to the "computer" controlled carb shit found on eighties AMC and Chrysler garbage. We wanted fuel injection controls to precisely meter a barely metered fuel leak known as a carburetor, and it even continued in the guise of just as crappy TBI.. Drill holes, go multiport, be done.

As for OHC engines, I wasn't supporting the cars they were in, which while many of them give me wood, were largely shit. Just like (let's be realistic) all cars back then were. Short of something handbuilt, or exclusive, like an Imperial, or a Caddy limo, or a Rolls, or a Mercedes Grösser Pullman.. All cars back then were built to be disposed of in three to five years. It was all part of keeping up with the Jones's.. That's why Chrysler didn't waste one drop of paint under a vinyl roof.. However, many of those OHC designs were good enough to last for close to half a century or more in the case of the Mercedes, Jag, Lampredi Fiat/Lancia motor, and the Alfa.. Things controlling the motor and in the car may have been prone to breaking, but all of those architectures were known to be long lived designs both in core reliability and number of years produced. Those companies also needed smaller OHC platforms to make more power out of a smaller motor to fit in a smaller car, to maneuver cramped Euro cities better, I get that.. I was more complaining about our continent (you guys up there in Canuckistan too) were so behind the times in all departments. Brakes and seat belts still come to mind. We had our own advances, sure.. Alternators, Cruise control, self dipping hi beams, record players, etc.. but we were and still are reticent to adopt other people's technology, even when it's been proven for decades. Hell, what happened to our aluminum Buick v8? we abandoned it after three years, the Brits bought the rights, and cranked them out for close to fifty years, all they way up to 4.9 litres. They powered everything from Morgans, to Rovers, to Discos, to Triumphs, and more.. The Hemi was slated to be overhead cam (I've heard), but the concept was cut, and a complicated pushrod design was created instead to keep from confusing service station attendants. The American car industry as a whole, continued to be a worldwide joke, cranked out substandard crap (Cavaliers, Escorts, Sebrings, 200's, etc) largely until the mid aughts. Our materials, workmanship, quality control, power outputs per liter, and so on in our everyday cars were far inferior to the Japanese until just recently.. (I'm done arguing for European cars after the nineties.. I've worked on them.. They can keep them) Go drive a Dodge Caliber, and a Toyota Corolla back to back.. Tell me you'll still buy the Dodge. I'll laugh in your face.. Most people will, and the sales figures are there to prove it. America makes pickups, fleet and rental cars very well.

At any rate, you didn't ruffle my feathers.. Our own industry has. We just keep making junk, and if we shared this continent with a real world market, the big three would go belly up again.. Fiat relies on Chrysler (read, Ram, and Jeep) to keep them floating, Chevy and Ford rely on their world markets and platforms and their pickup trucks to keep afloat. Our everyday, moderate price point cars brewed in house are largely crap. Kudos to ford for the Fiesta. (Which is a world market car, by the way)
 
Last edited:

SiteLock

SiteLock
Back
Top