1982 Jeep Wrangler Cj7 Full Custom Frame Off Restoration 5.7 Ls1 Corvette Engine on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Jeep mixed a CJ, a TJ, and a JK to make this sweet retro CJ66

What do you get when you mash-up a CJ and two Wranglers? Jeep calls it the CJ66, its concept for the 2016 SEMA show. It's a Frankensteined machine done right, another in a long line of fantasies from the back rooms at Jeep. A lot of donor vehicles were sacrificed for this one. The body came from a 1966 Jeep CJ – hence the name – and then was modified to fit on a Jeep Wrangler TJ chassis. The finishing touches, such as the bumpers and lights, come from the current Wrangler JK, and the hood was modeled after a JK's, too. The CJ66 has plenty of other neat details throughout as well, such as the vintage-style V8 badges on the fenders, the chains on the dropdown tailgate, and the custom hood latches. Also, like several other FCA SEMA concepts this year, it gets a pair of Dodge Viper seats. We're suckers for Viper seats. View 17 Photos The custom body also hides some impressive off-roading gear. There's a Warn winch tucked behind the front bumper, as well as an on-board tire inflation system, which makes it easy to deflate and inflate tires as the terrain requires. The truck also has 35-inch off-road tires on readily available wheels, front and rear differential lockers, and a custom roll cage and rock sliders. As you may have guessed from the V8 badges, this CJ66 also packs an octet of pistons. The 5.7-liter Hemi engine (or 345 cu. in. for traditionalists) makes 383 horsepower, and was installed using Mopar's new engine swap kit. The engine is hooked up to a six-speed manual transmission that sends power to Dana 44 axles front and rear. We have a feeling it will handle just fine on the trails. Related Video: Image Credit: FCA and Joel Stocksdale SEMA Show Jeep SUV Concept Cars Off-Road Vehicles SEMA 2016

Georgia jury awards $150 million in Jeep fire case

FCA US continues to fight allegations that some Jeep Grand Cherokee and Liberty sport-utility vehicles are unsafe because of the possibility of fires in rear-end collisions. In one recently decided case, a jury in Georgia awarded $150 million in damages to a family whose child died in a blaze in 2012 in a 1999 Grand Cherokee. The jury believed that FCA acted with "reckless and wanton disregard," and didn't do enough to warn owners, according to Reuters. The automaker was found liable for 99 percent of the damages, and the remaining one percent was for the driver who rear-ended the family's SUV. In a statement from FCA US, the company said that it is considering an appeal. Under Georgia law, the automaker was allegedly unable to present a three-year investigation of rear-impact data to jurors. This was the same information the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration used to decide that the '99 Grand Cherokee "did not pose an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety." The original recall for the models covered 1.56 million examples of the 2002-2007 Liberty and 1993-1998 Grand Cherokee. With the fuel tank located between the rear axle and bumper, NHTSA and FCA eventually agreed to install a trailer hitch for extra protection. A further 1.2 million 1999-2004 Grand Cherokees owners received notice of a customer service action to have their vehicles inspected, though no hitch installed. Subsequent tests showed this remedy to be effective for impacts below 40 miles per hour. The automaker has maintained the SUVs met the applicable safety standards of the period when they were built. The company was chastised by NHTSA last year for low repair rates of the problem. FCA US LLC Statement Regarding Walden v Chrysler Group Verdict: April 2, 2015 , Auburn Hills, Mich. - FCA US is disappointed and will consider an appeal of this verdict. It is unfortunate that under Georgia Law the jury was prevented from taking into account extensive data submitted to NHTSA during a three year investigation, which included more than 20 years of rear impact accident data for tens of millions of vehicles. This and other information provided the basis for NHTSA's determination that the 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee did not pose an unreasonable risk to motor vehicle safety.

Trying the new Compass and other Jeeps on for size

If any brand has license to sell several like-sized SUVs, it's Jeep, which invented the concept in the first place. Yet, with the Cherokee, Renegade, and the redesigned 2017 Jeep Compass revealed at the LA Auto Show, just how like-sized is this trio of compact SUVs? Well, as it turns out, that answer is more complicated than just looking at various spreadsheets of specifications. After the cover was pulled off the new Compass, I managed to explore each back-to-back-to-back to see how their back seats and cargo areas compare. Perhaps obviously, the Renegade is the smallest of the trio no matter how you look it. Well, it actually has the most headroom, but rear legroom is cramped (a 6-footer can't sit behind another 6-footer) and it's quite obvious the cargo area is about nine cubic feet smaller with the rear seats raised. However, the Cherokee and Compass are surprisingly similar both on paper and in person – and even more surprisingly, the newer, smaller-on-the-outside Compass is actually a bit more spacious despite being nine inches shorter in overall length. View 14 Photos When seated in back, my knees were just touching the driver seat when it was motored most of the way back to accommodate my 6-foot-3 frame. However, the Cherokee's slightly chunkier seatback meant the Compass actually had a bit more rear legroom. I then set the passenger seat to a more average distance and again, the Compass had a slight advantage. The Cherokee did have a bit more under-thigh support, however, which indicates the seat is mounted a bit higher. But that creates a problem, as headroom is more significantly affected when the panoramic sunroof is specified. In the Cherokee, my head was into the sunroof cavity and resting against its rigid surround. In the Compass, there was just enough clearance. It should be a difference, both in terms of headroom and perceived roominess that those of average height should notice. As for their cargo areas, the Compass' is larger and more useable. With the rear seats raised, it has 27.2 cubic feet versus the Cherokee's 24.6. You can scoot its sliding seat forward to nearly equal the Compass, but of course doing so reduces its rear legroom. The main reason is width. The Cherokee is noticeably narrow and it gets worse when equipped with the optional subwoofer. In terms of maximum cargo volume with the rear seats lowered, the Compass has 59.8 cubic feet to the Cherokee's 54.9.