This is the best example of a Jeep Grand Wagoneer I have seen to date
It began as a 32,000 original miles, rust and damage free Wagoneer. It then underwent a two year frame off restoration. If it isn't new it was refurbished. Upgrades or mods include fuel injection, heated seats, upgraded stereo system, On Star, remote start and locks, and many more I believe this Wagoneer belongs in the Hampton's or Aspen were it will be we'll cared for for many years to come. It has less than 13 miles since the restoration so still clean inside, outside, and underneath. |
Jeep Wagoneer for Sale
- Jeep 4x4 wagoneer cherokee 401 v-8 th 400 edelbrock four barrel carb superwinch
- 1989 jeep grand wagoneer 4x4 no reserve!! must see
- 1987 jeep grand wagoneer reuns and drives great
- Wood panel delete 25k original miles one owner
- 1979 jeep wagoneer base sport utility 4-door 5.9l
- 1991 jeep grand wagoneer base sport utility 4-door 5.9l(US $23,500.00)
Auto blog
FCA to appeal reduced judgment in Georgia Jeep case
Thu, Aug 13 2015FCA is appealing the $40 million verdict against it in a case in Georgia where a four-year-old boy died in a fire in a Jeep Grand Cherokee, according to The Detroit News. The jury originally awarded the child's family $150 million, but the judge decided to significantly to reduce the amount based on other precedents. The automaker has been considering further legal options since the decision was announced in July. The boy's death happened in 2012 when he was riding in a Grand Cherokee. The vehicle was rear-ended, and the fuel tank burst, causing a fire. This is the same issue that led to a recall of millions of the SUVs and a recent agreement with the US government from FCA to pay to get them fixed. In the original ruling, the jury said that the automaker was 99 percent responsible for the fatality and didn't adequately warn owners. It asked the company to pay $120 million for wrongful death and $30 million for his pain and suffering. FCA countered that the Jeeps met the safety standards of the time they were made. FCA requested that the jury's award be reduced in May calling the amount "grossly excessive." If the family didn't agree to a lower amount, the company also threatened to seek a new trial. Among the arguments was that $30 million was too much for the child's one minute of suffering. The parents did accept the judge's adjusted figure, though.
Jeep Wrangler's shift to aluminum could see production leave Toledo
Mon, 06 Oct 2014The Jeep Wrangler may be a timeless design, but sooner or later, time will run out and Chrysler will have to replace it with a newer model more friendly towards the earth it's designed to traverse. That will, it seems, mean a shift to aluminum construction (whether just for the body or for the entire structure) - but what will that mean for the Wrangler's long-time home of Toledo, OH?
According to the latest pronouncements from Fiat Chrysler chief Sergio Marchionne, the shift to an aluminum Wrangler would likely mean moving production out of Toledo. "If the solution is aluminum," Marchionne told Automotive News, "then I think unfortunately Toledo is the wrong place, the wrong setup to try and build a Wrangler, because it requires a complete reconfiguring of the assets that would be cost-prohibitive."
Marchionne also indicated that, were Wrangler production to move elsewhere, it would find another line to take its place in Ohio. "One of the thing that we are dealing with now is what else we do with Toledo that fulfills our commitment to the city and to Ohio. I don't have a doubt that there will be zero impact on head count and employment levels and anything else." Jeep has built the Wrangler in Toledo since World War II, with the exception of six years starting in 1986 when it was built in Brampton, Ontario. The complex dates back to 1910 and currently produces the Wrangler and Cherokee. Past products have included the Wagoneer and Commanche as well as the Dodge Dakota and Nitro.
Ram and Jeep diesel emissions allegations spur class action lawsuits
Tue, Jan 17 2017This shouldn't come as a surprise. Last week, the EPA issued a notice of violation to FCA after it determined that Jeep and Ram installed eight undisclosed auxiliary emissions control devices on diesel vehicles. Since then US law firm Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC and Canadian firm Sotos LLP have launched class action suits on behalf of owners. These latest lawsuits are unrelated to a previous class action suit brought against FCA and Cummins over NOx emissions in 2007 to 2012 Ram models. The violation notice – and the subsequent lawsuits – covers 2014 to 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 models equipped with the 3.0-liter turbodiesel V6, a total of about 104,000 vehicles in the US. The EPA says that while the emissions control devices aren't necessarily illegal, installing them without disclosing them to the EPA is, as they produce more emissions in real world use than in testing. Skirting certification in this way might be a violation of the Clean Air Act. FCA could see fines of up to $45,000 per vehicle, depending on the outcome of the EPA investigation. FCA denies that these are cheat devices, and has proposed software updates to bring the vehicles into compliance. As for the lawsuits, Heninger Garrison Davis says that "Fiat Chrysler marketed those vehicles as environmentally friendly with enhanced fuel efficiency, better performance, and lower emissions. Although the diesel vehicles were successfully marketed as 'clean,' their environmentally-friendly representations were deceptive to consumers." The suit seeks an undisclosed amount of compensation for owners of these vehicles. In Canada, Sotos LLP is seeking $250 million in damages on behalf of owners. This suit, filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, also claims deception on the part of FCA, "resulting in losses and damage" to owners. These are similar claims to group actions against Volkswagen with regard to its diesel emissions cheating scandal. While VW is fixing or buying back many of the affected vehicles, the company is defending itself against some suits on behalf of owners, saying it expects " no decline in the residual values of the affected vehicles as a result of this issue." Don't be surprised if FCA mounts a similar defense.