Find or Sell Used Cars, Trucks, and SUVs in USA

1993 Jeep Wrangler 2dr on 2040-cars

US $13,900.00
Year:1993 Mileage:164374 Color: White /
 Tan
Location:

Advertising:
For Sale By:Dealer
Vehicle Title:Clean
Transmission:Manual
Fuel Type:Gasoline
Year: 1993
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 1J4FY29S2PP243047
Mileage: 164374
Make: Jeep
Model: Wrangler
Trim: 2dr
Warranty: Vehicle does NOT have an existing warranty
Exterior Color: White
Interior Color: Tan
Number of Cylinders: 6
Doors: 2
Drivetrain: 4-Wheel Drive
Engine Description: 4.0L STRAIGHT 6 CYLINDER
Condition: Used: A vehicle is considered used if it has been registered and issued a title. Used vehicles have had at least one previous owner. The condition of the exterior, interior and engine can vary depending on the vehicle's history. See the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections. See all condition definitions

Auto blog

Watch this 9-year-old drive Jeep Wrangler off-road [w/poll]

Wed, 28 May 2014

This nine-year-old girl might be better at rock crawling than some people twice her age. But is it worth putting her in danger to do it? According to her father on the Jeep Experience Facebook page, her name is Faith, and she has been offroading with her family since she was two. At nine years old, she's now driving her dad's Jeep over the rocks by herself.
As you can see she's belted in and under her father's direct supervision and guidance. She shows immense confidence for someone her age and follows her dad's instructions on exactly what to do. Although, this could still be a very dangerous situation if something went wrong.
Previously, we saw a similar video with a six-year-old on a motorcycle driving on public roads through the desert. Voters decided by only a six-point margin that the adult should be in trouble for letting the kid ride the bike. Here, we have a slightly older child driving a vehicle off road. Where do you fall in this case? Is it still wrong to hand over control to a child? Let us know in the poll below and scroll down to watch the video.

Poor headlights cause 40 cars to miss IIHS Top Safety Pick rating

Mon, Aug 6 2018

Over the past few months, we've noticed a number of cars and SUVs that have come incredibly close to earning one of the IIHS's highest accolades, the Top Safety Pick rating. They have great crash test scores and solid automatic emergency braking and forward collision warning systems. What trips them up is headlights. That got us wondering, how many vehicles are there that are coming up short because they don't have headlights that meet the organization's criteria for an "Acceptable" or "Good" rating. This is a revision made after 2017, a year in which headlights weren't factored in for this specific award. This is also why why some vehicles, such as the Ford F-150, might have had the award last year, but have lost it for this year. We reached out to someone at IIHS to find out. He responded with the following car models. Depending on how you count, a whopping 40 models crash well enough to receive the rating, but don't get it because their headlights are either "Poor" or "Marginal." We say depending on how you count because the IIHS actual counts truck body styles differently, and the Infiniti Q70 is a special case. Apparently the version of the Q70 that has good headlights doesn't have adequate forward collision prevention technology. And the one that has good forward collision tech doesn't have good enough headlights. We've provided the entire list of vehicles below in alphabetical order. Interestingly, it seems the Volkswagen Group is having the most difficulty providing good headlights with its otherwise safe cars. It had the most models on the list at 9 split between Audi and Volkswagen. GM is next in line with 7 models. It is worth noting again that though these vehicles have subpar headlights and don't quite earn Top Safety Pick awards, that doesn't mean they're unsafe. They all score well enough in crash testing and forward collision prevention that they would get the coveted award if the lights were better.

NHTSA investigates FCA for SUVs that roll out of Park

Tue, Aug 25 2015

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is opening a preliminary evaluation into the 2014 Dodge Durango and 2014-205 Jeep Grand Cherokee after 14 complaints of the SUVs rolling out of Park. An estimated 408,000 of them could be affected, if a recall is necessary. All of the current complaints submitted to NHTSA about the issue concern the Grand Cherokee, and the claims allege that the SUV can roll out of Park whether or not the engine is running. Some folks report that they check the indicator each time because the gear sometimes fails to engage. Among the 14 cases, there are five accounts of crashes and three injuries, including a situation with someone allegedly being rolled over. NHTSA's preliminary evaluations are meant to investigate "the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence" of a reported problem. They don't necessarily lead to a recall. Related Video: INVESTIGATION Subject : Unattended vehicle rollaway Date Investigation Opened: AUG 20, 2015 Date Investigation Closed: Open NHTSA Action Number: PE15030 Component(s): POWER TRAIN All Products Associated with this Investigation Vehicle Make Model Model Year(s) DODGE DURANGO 2014 JEEP GRAND CHEROKEE 2014-2015 Details Manufacturer: Chrysler (FCA US LLC) SUMMARY: The Office of Defects Investigation (ODI) has received 14 complaints (VOQs) alleging that after being placed in Park the subject vehicles have then rolled away from their parked position. The unintended motion has occurred with both the engine off and the engine running. ODI has also identified EWR field report data related to the alleged defect. The model year 2014 and 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee vehicles are equipped with an electronic gear selector (shift-by-wire system). The gear selection is made by pressing the shifter-paddle forward or backwards; the shifter does not move along a gate path as with conventional gear selectors. A Preliminary Evaluation has been opened to asses the scope, frequency, and safety-related consequence of the alleged defect. The VOQs associated with the opening of this investigation are: 10733158, 10730952, 10683556, 10679497, 10583366, 10725429, 10715401, 10711893, 10676998, 10668651, 10662619, 10662308, 10605865, and 10567538.