If you’re like me and just can’t get you enough Wagoneer, you might be interested in this. I recently ran a very full CC on the Grand Wagoneer, which included a brief overview of the novel Independent Front Suspension that was available for the first five years of the Waggy’s long life. In the article and comments there was speculation about how well it worked and why it was only offered so briefly. The questions greatly outnumbered the answers, which got me searching deep into the World Wide Web where I was able to find Motor Trend’s first road test of Jeep’s newest creation. This article sheds light on both how well the i.f.s. worked and how much of a breath of fresh air the Wagoneer was when it first came out.
Since I don’t have a physical copy of the magazine to scan, I have the full text and pictures entered below. The road test text is in italics as are the captions, which are the original Motor Trend captions. The test starts below and runs continuously to the specification charts. I’ll put my commentary after the article so you don’t have to search within it. If you want to skim or skip the article text, just scroll down past the charts.
First Test: Willys Jeep Wagoneer
The Jeep Becomes A Gentleman: New Turnpike Engine and Country Club Look — Same Old Backroad Dependability
by Jim Wright
Long a builder of strictly, almost starkly functional, utility-type vehicles, Willys adds a whole new dimension to the line with the Wagoneer. Up to now, most four-wheel-drive enthusiasts (of which there are thousands) have been faced with the problem of two cars in the garage. Jeeps and other FWD vehicles are the greatest for tooling over cow trails or across uncharted deserts — but for the most part, they’re either too slow, or too cramped and uncomfortable for freeway cruising. In most cases, true four-wheeling aficionados tow their rigs to the point where the modern highway stops and the real back country begins. With the new Willys station wagon in the garage, the other car is no longer a necessity — this is one vehicle that’s equally at home anywhere. It’s also big enough for the whole family, and even the little lady wouldn’t be ashamed to drive it to her weekly bridge club.
Note that with both front wheels at lower limits of travel, they have undergone little or no camber changes.
The Truck Trend test wagon was loaded with just about everything offered: power steering, power brakes, automatic transmission, independent front suspension, radio and heater, plus a host of minor accessories. One other small, but important, accessory was the Warn hubs installed on the front wheels. These enabled us, by a simple twist of the wrist, to “cut out” the front drive in two~whee1 drive. This means less drag, therefore, better gas mileage, as well as less wear. We were favorably impressed with the recently introduced “Tornado-230” engine. This is the only single overhead cam engine produced in America at this time and could mean that if Willys is successful with it, other manufacturers might follow suit. This in-line Six features an aluminum head, 8.5-to-1 compression ratio, two-barrel carburetor, and 230 cubic inches. Horsepower is very conservatively rated at 140 at 4000 rpm. The relatively long stroke-to-bore ratio brings the torque peak in at a rather low rpm (210 pounds-feet at 1700 rpm) which means that this engine will really buckle down and pull when the going is tough and slow. Out on the highway, the high horsepower peaking speed allows the Wagoneer to keep up with traffic and still have plenty left for passing. The power flow is smooth and even though this is an ohc engine, its operation is very quiet.
Engine feels like its developing more than its rated 140 hp. Aluminum head keeps engine weight down to 575 lbs.
The automatic transmission, made by Borg-Warner, is hooked up to the front and rear axles through a single-range transfer case. Models with three-speed manual transmissions are equipped with a dual-range transfer case (Hi and Lo). Two-wheel-drive models can be had with three-speed manual overdrive transmission. Our test car had the standard (for automatics) 3.73-to-1 axle ratio. Wagons with manual transmissions have 4.09 rear axle ratios.
Wagoneer offers first 4WD with automatic transmission. Even steep grades with loose, sandy soil didn’t faze it. Conditions have to be really extreme before it bows to manual gearbox.
Acceleration is quite lively for a vehicle of this type. It compares favorably to most of the passenger cars of its size. A top speed of 90 mph (true — not indicated) was reached on the test track at Riverside Raceway. The standing quarter-mile took 20.5 seconds, with a speed of 68 mph. Standing-start acceleration runs of 0-30, 0-45, and 0-60 mph took 4.6, 8.8, and 16.1 seconds. We didn’t use forced shifts during any of the acceleration tests, but let the transmission do its own work. Maximum speeds, at shift points, were 31 mph (4000 rpm) in first and 51 mph (3800 rpm) in second.
At this time, Willys is selling all of this model they can produce, and they even have a rather large quantity of back orders. As a result, we couldn’t keep the Wagoneer as long as we’d have liked (it was already sold), so our fuel consumption figures aren’t as complete as they usually are. We were able to determine that normal city and freeway driving will give figures in the 14-to-18-mpg range, going as high as 21 or 22 mpg for steady, legal-limit highway cruising. In rough back country, with all four wheels pulling, the range drops to 10 to 14 mpg. With the 20-gallon fuel tank, this gives an operating range of anywhere from 200 to slightly over 400 miles to a tank of gas — regular grade at that.
Dash layout is simple and convenient. 4WD lever has in-and-out action, with indicator light above.
One of the few complaints we had with the car centers on the fuel tank. Its a long, narrow tank that nestles up between the rear driveshaft and the curb-side frame rail. This in itself is fine, because it’s out of the way and well protected, but by necessity, the fill pipe, located on the driver’s side. is extremely long and almost horizontal — and because of this, it seems to take forever to fill the tank. Owners will have to make sure that station attendants really fill the tank, because most of them have a tendency to assume that the tank is full when gas begins to slosh out on the ground — and this happens constantly as the Wagoneer’s tank is being filled.
While we’re on the minus side, we’ll mention the compass that comes as standard equipment on all Wagoneers. This can be a very useful accessory in a vehicle such as this, and while it was accurate (as near as we could tell), it was designed in such a way as to make it a nuisance during night driving. The compass light is within the unit and not shielded at all. As a result, the light shines in the driver’s eyes, a perfect reflection of the compass is thrown up on the windshield, and since the light is behind the compass dial, the dial isn’t illuminated and can’t be read from the driver’s seat.
Cargo area is large and has more height than most wagons. Rear passenger seat can be folded to provide even more area.
We also felt the brakes could be improved a bit. During the course of our rough-country tests, we ended up on what must have been a wagon trail used by the original Forty-niners. It was about 50 miles long and took us up and down several mountains, through dry washes, and across a couple of stretches where the road disappeared completely. We didn’t break any speed records getting through this stretch but we didn’t waste any time either, and several times we had to stop to let the brakes cool down before we could continue. We found that they faded rather quickly on the 6O-mph stops during our brake tests. Also, when the brakes got hot they had a tendency to lock up suddenly, and this was accompanied by swerving. Pedal pressures were neither too heavy nor too light with power assist and didn’t require any getting used to.
Single pivot front axle allows differential to swing with curb-side half. Short upper A-arms tie into torsion bars at their inner pivot points. Warn hubs allow driver to easily engage or disengage front wheels and drive train when vehicle is in two-wheel drive. This means less drag and increased economy.
Next to the new engine, the most significant engineering advancement on the test car was the independent front suspension layout. In a way, it resembles the famous Mercedes unit. Basically, it’s a single pivot swing axle, but where Mercedes uses a pivot point several inches below the axle’s longitudinal axis, Willys’ pivots it right on the center line. Mercedes uses the low pivot to keep camber changes at the wheel to a minimum. Because the Willys unit is used at the front, it naturally contains steering knuckles at each end and in normal operation there are no camber changes at the wheel. So in effect, while it’s basically a swing axle, the steering knuckles allow it to operate just like a full independent system. The axle is the lower control arm and works with a shorter upper control arm, which is tied into a torsion bar at its inner pivot point.
Axles are located fore and aft by control link in lower right of picture. Torsion bar anchor is at top left of picture.
The Wagoneer is also available with the more conventional rigid front axle and semi-elliptic leaf spring system. Two-wheel-drive models use a tubular axle and leaf spring system or a swing axle with torsion bars. We would definitely recommend the independent layout and feel that its added advantages are worth every penny of the extra cost (approximately $160).
The rear suspension is conventional, with rigid axle and semi-elliptic springs. The springs are four-leaf, with an additional top half-leaf to prevent spring wind-up.
The boulevard ride is surprisingly smooth and not at all choppy. In two-wheel drive, the handling characteristics are quite a bit different from those of 4WD. The car seems to “heel” over suddenly in corners and doesn’t feel completely stable. This is, no doubt, caused by the amount of negative caster present in the front wheels – a necessity since directional stability increases with negative Caster in front-wheel-drive vehicles – just the opposite of rear-wheel-drive vehicles. With the front wheels engaged, the Wagoneer corners very well and directional stability is excellent.
Independent front suspension is at its best in terrain like this. In addition to improved traction, ride is very comfortable.
In the rough stuff, the i.f.s. really comes into its own. Traction is greatly improved, and it’s almost impossible to get the vehicle in a position where one of the front wheels is off the ground. With limited-slip differentials, front and rear, the Wagoneer would be able to keep pulling even with one or more wheels off the ground — but try as we did, we couldn’t get it into this position. With a straight front axle, it’s a fairly common occurrence in rough country. We maneuvered through quite a few exceptionally rough stretches that would have jarred our teeth loose, if it hadn’t been for the front suspension.
To check out the pulling power, we took the Wagoneer where the soil was loose and sandy and went as far as we could in two-wheel drive. When it bogged down, we engaged the front wheels and the Wagoneer kept right on going. The only time we ever lost traction completely was on a real steep grade (no road) where the ground was covered with loose shale.
Big advantage with this type of vehicle is that you aren’t limited to staying on conventional roads. Angle of departure here caused bumper to drag.
The fact that we could go just about anywhere wasn’t so surprising, because this is what you should be able to expect with 4WD. What surprised us was that we were able to do it with an automatic transmission. The transfer case is operated by shifting a single, two-position floor-mounted lever. This can be accomplished whether the car is moving or standing still. A light, mounted under the dash and right above the lever, indicates when 4WD is engaged.
A lot of quality has been built into these vehicles, and like their military forebears, they look as if they’re built to last and last. The interiors are finished in tasteful colors and materials that belie the car’s utilitarian purpose. Six good-sized passengers can be carried in complete comfort, with plenty of hip, head, and leg room available for everyone. There is also plenty of cargo space, which can be increased by folding the rear seat.
All controls and instruments are within easy reach of the driver, while seat adjustment is enough to satisfy anyone. All-around visibility is excellent, almost completely unobstructed. There’s also plenty of working space in the engine compartment for servicing.
Following the rest of the industry, Willys is offering extended lubrication periods. Under normal operating conditions, chassis points require service every 30,000 miles with oil-change intervals at 6000 miles. To complete the all-purpose character of the Wagoneer, options include power take-off (on 4WD models) for front-mounted snow plows and winches.
| Willys Jeep Wagoneer | |
| Layout | 6-passenger station wagon |
| Options on car tested | Automatic transmission, independent front suspension, power steering, power brakes, radio, heater, Warn hubs, electric windshield wipers |
| Basic price | $3,525.80 |
| Pirce as tested | $4479.05 (plus tax and license) |
| Odometer reading at start of test | 225 miles |
| Recommended engine red line | 500 rpm |
| PERFORMANCE | |
| Acceleration (2 aboard) | |
| 0-30 | 4.6 secs |
| 0-45 | 8.8 |
| 0-60 | 16.1 |
| Standing start 1/4 mile | 20.5 secs and 68 mph |
| Speeds in gears at shift points | |
| 1st | 31 mph @ 4000 rpm |
| 2nd | 51 mph @ 3800 rpm |
| Observed miles per hour per 1000 rpm in top gear | 20.5 mph |
| Stopping distances | |
| From 30 mph | 38 ft |
| From 60 mph | 185 ft |
| SPECIFICATIONS FROM MANUFACTURER | |
| Engine layout | Sohc in-line 6 |
| Bore | 3.34 in. |
| Stroke | 4.38 in. |
| Displacement | 230 cu in. |
| Compression ratio | 8.5:1 |
| Horsepower | 140 @ 4000 rpm |
| Torque | 210 lb-ft @ 1750 rpm |
| Horsepower per cubic inch | 0.6 |
| Ignition | 12-volt coil |
| Gearbox | 3-speed automatic, with single-range 4-wheel-drive transfer case |
| Driveshaft | 2, one-piece open tube |
| Differential (front and rear), standard ratio | Hypoid — semi-floating, 3.73:1 |
| Suspension, front/rear | Independent — single pivot swing axle with torsion bars and direct-acting tubular shocks/rigid axle, with leaf springs and direct-acting tubular shocks |
| Steering | Cam and lever, with external power-assist cylinder |
| Turning diamter | 41.2 ft |
| Turns lock to lock | 5.6 |
| Wheels and tires | 5-lug, steel disc wheels, 6.70 x 15 4-ply tires |
| Brakes (size) | Hydraulic, with power assist; cast iron drums (11-in. dia. x 2 in. wide) |
| Effective lining area | 161.16 sq in. |
| Body and frame | Separate body and frame |
| Wheelbase | 110.1 in. |
| Track, f/r | 57.0 in/57.0 in |
| Overall length | 183 11/16 in. |
| Curb weight | 3701 lbs |
The article mentions that their test truck was borrowed from Jeep and it had actually been sold already. I can’t imagine the proud owner of the allegedly brand new Wagoneer would have been too happy if he saw the kind of use it got on its way to him!
I had guessed that the i.f.s. setup would make for poor cornering due to excess camber changes. Apparently not! According to the test, there is virtually no camber change and it corners quite well, at least in four wheel drive. In two wheel drive, they say that it “seems to ‘heel’ over suddenly in corners and doesn’t feel completely stable.” The author attributes this to the negative caster, which is known to give a feeling of heeling over. He also says that’s “a necessity since directional stability increases with negative Caster in front-wheel-drive vehicles – just the opposite of rear-wheel-drive vehicles.” Maybe that was the practice then, but I’m not sure it is now. At any rate, the amount or direction of caster wouldn’t be inherent to the suspension design, so it could have been refined, and perhaps was during its five years of production.
I would be tempted to credit the extremely skinny 6.7 in. bias ply tires for any poor handling, though I’m sure the testers were used to that type of tires on most cars and they wouldn’t be responsible for any perceived deviation from normal handling standards. I do think it surely suffers from the lack of a sway bar.
The independent suspension cost $160 extra, which on the $3,332 base price would be only about 5%. That’s less than you’d have paid for the automatic transmission or (starting in 1965) the 327 Vigilante AMC V8. Motor Trend said “We would definitely recommend the independent layout and feel that its added advantages are worth every penny of the extra cost.” So why didn’t more customers choose it?
Of course there are some more questions outstanding, like: Were there reliability issues? How big of an improvement in ride or off-roading did the i.f.s. give compared directly to the solid axle?
In other areas, the review is mostly positive. They found the new Tornado SOHC engine quiet, smooth and reasonably powerful. They liked its roominess and versatility and even allowed that “the little lady wouldn’t be ashamed to drive it to her weekly bridge club.” If that isn’t a ringing endorsement, 60’s style, I don’t know what is.
A revolutionary vehicle issued from a sleeper auto manufacturer. A home run for the picking. Smart of AMC to grab Willys just for this one vehicle. The Wagoneer by itself made Willys far more valuable than it was just a year before. As to the order backlog, a lot of that is due to the inability of Toledo to manufacture many vehicles in 1963.
As to price, the Wagoneer is very competitive. A $3500 vehicle is 1963 puts the Willys in the same price spread as Buick, Chrysler, Oldsmobile and Mercury. The market favored those brands at that price range, however, as we all know today, a Wagoneer from 1963 can hold its own against those brands.
Was it a highway cruiser? I bet it really wasn’t. The standards of vehicular comfort has change quite a bit since the Wagoneer arrived. It wasn’t a CJ, so it probably seemed very much like a highway cruiser in comparison with other Willys vehicles, but I suspect that the 1963 market in that price range would have expected a much more comfortable and quiet ride than what a Wagoneer could have ever delivered.
Here is my guess: Back then nobody bought these to drive to the office and to the store. A traditional wagon was far more comfortable (and less expensive for a comparable size). Those who bought them did so for their ability to handle rough roads. My bet is that either the IFS was actually difficult to keep in line and gave odd handling quirks, or at least made buyers afraid that it would, with buyers opting for the “safe bet” of the traditional setup.
So the smooth-riding IFS did not really satisfy more than a small bit of the total market for these. And as for how well it really worked, it should tell us something that nobody since has used an IFS design anything like this one. The near-total lack of camber change on compression/rebound eliminates one of IFS’s greatest handling advantages.
At least two families I knew in Iowa City bought these to drive to work at the university daily from their rural farms, where the Wagoneers were used to haul horse trailers on weekends and do errands out in the fields. One of the families were the same ones that later replaced it with the ’69 Fury I wrote about. These were precisely the kind of market the Wagoneer was targeted at.
I never thought to get down and look to see if theirs had IFS or not, as I didn’t know back then that was an option. Towing horse trailers apparently did not agree with the OHC six, and by 1972, it was replaced by a ’69 Fury with a 383. Better for towing, but not as good in the fields.
The other family replaced theirs eventually with a 4WD Travelall. Which he drove to work too.
You’re misinterpreting the text about camber change, although it’s not really accurately written. Every IFS with a shorter upper arm and longer lower arm intrinsically has to have some camber change, and this is what this suspension is. The lower control arm is simply the axle, in the 4WD version, and a simple tube in the 2WD version.
What he said about not having camber changes is that he was pointing out that this is not a swing axle suspension, although it might appear to be at first glance. And as you know, swing axles have rather extreme camber changes, not welcome generally.
This suspension, like every LSA suspension, creates a certain amount of negative camber on both deflection as well as rebound, which is much preferred. it’s the same basic geometry as untold millions of cars with traditional SLA suspension.
I think your neighbors with farms and big horse trailers were the target. In my more suburban area, I can recall seeing exactly one of these in daily service – some neighbors whose other car was a Mercedes. I suspect that their vehicle choices may have been better represented in your area with the combination of farms and a University.
Thanks for clearing up the camber issue – I was looking at that side-on photo, which wasn’t a very good view.
Looking at the picture, my intuition is that those universal joints in the hubs were asked to do an awful lot of work in this design. Not only handling engine torque, but all of the up-down-fore-aft and maybe steering loads on the suspension too.
Out west, where folks have generally been more interested in exploring remote areas, recreating in the desert and mountains, the Wagoneer would undoubtedly have been a very good fit for someone who needed a true dual purpose wagon. I used to see quite a few of the older ones around in remote areas of CA in the ’70s and ’80s.
But that didn’t last; as the Wagoneer morphed into a luxo-SUV, it became less appealing to the more rugged outdoorsy types, as well as the folks I mentioned above. There were increasingly more attractive alternatives, from the Land Cruiser to all of the big domestic SUVs like the Blazer and such. You never saw a GW bopping out in the desert in CA, or in the woods of Oregon.
I’m with you, seems to me the universal joints would need to be be extremely stout. Did they have a reputation for poor durability? Maybe enough people were just instinctively untrusting of an unproven design like that.
No, and no.
Wow, I had no idea that these Wagoneers were so slow…0 to 60 in 16 seconds must have been VW Beetle territory. A Prius does the 0 to 60 in about 9 seconds.
When this article was written I was still satisfying my car “fix” leafing through Hot Rod type magazines, I guess Motor Trend was a pretty decent car magazine right up until Car & Driver really took off in the mid 60s. After the infamous GTO vs GTO road test, Motor Trend must have decided that being factual wasn’t that important with readers.
That was a perfectly typical 0-60 time for a six cylinder American car, at a time when sixes were still very common. A VW Beetle always took over 20 seconds to do 0-60.
What’s a Prius have to do with this?
that was 0-50 in 16.1 according to the stats (but 0-60 in the body of the article)
PERFORMANCE
Acceleration (2 aboard)
0-30 4.6 secs
0-40 8.8
0-50 16.1
so 0-60 could have been @20 secs, depending on which stat is correct
That 0-50 is undoubtedly a typo. Note that it’s not a scan from the actual article; someone transcribed it manually, and made a typo.
If the 0-60 time had been 20 seconds, they would not have said that “Acceleration is quite lively for a vehicle of this type. It compares favorably to most of the passenger cars of its size”
I’m sure you’re right about the typo, so I went ahead and changed the chart stat to 0-60. I didn’t notice the discrepancy before.
the body of the article also says 0-45 in 8.8
but it’s 0-40 in 8.8 in the stats
Thanks, I fixed that too now!
Well according to the spec, the recommended engine red line is 500rpm, so we can’t expect 21st century-type acceleration. 🙂
My first reaction looking at the photos is “wow, those tires are skinny!”. Not unusual for 1963, but since I’m more familiar with this exact same body as they were sold in the 1980s and early ’90s, it stands out more. Also, I knew nothing of the standard compass; was that discontinued at a later point? I don’t remember seeing one in any Wagoneer I’ve been in.
Interesting that the author never refers to the Wagoneer as a Jeep, only a Willys. As it turns out, that brand name would be dropped before the next year, the company becoming Kaiser-Jeep Corporation. But when did Jeep become a marque name rather than a model name?
I don’t know how an IFS-equipped Wagoneer drove compared to a standard 1960s model; I do know that serious off-roaders seem to love solid axles. I’m guessing the low sales were because the advantages of IFS may not have been well known to likely Wagoneer buyers, and adding 5% to the cost for something they cant see or easily comprehend. Of course many people paid extra for invisible 4WD then, and even more do now, but the traction advantage of having all four tires propel the car is easier to understand than alternative front suspension designs. I think IFS may have sold better on late-model Grand Wagoneers had it been offered.
Wow – thanks for this… it’s a great review. I was also intrigued by the Wagoneer’s independent front suspension and did a little bit of digging as well. I didn’t turn up too much that hasn’t been said ehre before, but I was surprised to see that the IFS was evidently available on the Gladiator pickups as well. That’s got to be even more of a rarity than on the Wagoneers.
Thanks for posting this.
Thanks for this! I have been intrigued by the Wagoneer IFS since becoming aware of it. It’s a very clever design, using the axle shafts as the lower control arms (or plain tubes in the 2WD version) along with the shorter upper control arms to create a classic short-long-arm (“SLA”) suspension, comparable in geometry to what just about every American car had in the front.
I am a bit disappointed that the IFS wasn’t just standard across the board (it was standard in the 2WD version), as this would have added refinement to what became an expensive luxury SUV. The solid front axle did the late GW no great favors.
I had very good friends in Iowa City who had one of these early OHC six Wagoneers, who used it for daily commuting from their farm into town and to haul a horse trailer on weekends. I rode in it a number of times, including on a double date to a drive in on a chilly March or April Iowa evening. The four of us knew how to keep warm, though. 🙂
You made me think of another question. In the Wagoneer’s final “luxury” iteration with the Limited/Grand, why didn’t they revive the IFS? The engineering was already done and it would have been simply a matter of tooling up the parts.
Conservative customers and serious off-roaders may have originally preferred the solid axle to the point of making the IFS too passed-over to be worth selling, but the later customers may have been a different breed.
The top picture just smacked me: That suspension is fully unloaded, yet there is virtually no camber difference compared with the rear wheel.
It has been a long time since high school geometry, but I suspect that the right-angle offset of the pivot point on those upper arms flatten out the arc of travel quite a lot. Those upper A arms would seem to add and subtract a bit of effective length as the wheel goes up and down, contributing to keeping the camber change to a minimum.
To answer your question, I suspect the real world answer is that the setup didn’t perform all that well in terms of handling, durability or both.
The speculations continue…
The amount of camber change in a typical SLA suspension is very small, and typically barely visible. Here’s a Mustang catching air; where’s the camber difference in comparison to the rear wheel?
I try to avoid speculating, but here’s my speculation, based not on thin air, but on things I’ve read:
The OHC six and the IFS were overly expensive to build. For that matter, the whole Wagoneer/Gladiator development just about broke Willy’s finances. It was a very expensive program for such a small company.
Kaiser was hard at work during this time to lower costs and rationalize operations at Kaiser-Jeep. This explains why the OHC six was sent to Brazil, as it was actually cheaper to buy the 232 six from AMC rather than to keep its own engine plant in operation, which it had actually leased from Continental.
Undoubtedly, the IFS was expensive too, especially so if the take rate was low. Which it clearly was. Given the choice, most buyers went the cheap route, especially since they weren’t likely in a position to evaluate or know the differences. How many cars were ever available with two completely different front suspensions? I strongly suspect dealers preferred to stock the cheaper straight front axle version.
It’s not a mere coincidence that both went away for 1965. It was an effort to lower costs and rationalize production. And the following year, the two door version was cut. And starting in 1967, 2WD versions were cut. Reducing the number of versions is key to maximizing production efficiency and profits.
As to speculating that the IFS “didn’t perform all that well in terms of handling…” that rather contradicts the test, eh? They were quite impressed with it, both off and on the road.
As to its durability, a bit of Googling will confirm that it was quite durable indeed. Some folks are still driving on them.
Can we maybe move towards more evidence-based speculation now? I’m spending way too much time in responding to all this wild speculation.
Good points. It could be wrong, but my Standard Catalog of 4×4’s has the IFS available through 1968. Not so?
Not so. From Wikipedia:
Although the independent front suspension was positively reviewed,[14] the option was not popular and was dropped from production, at least for the 4WD models, in 1965.[7]
Look at the 1965 brochure. Zero reference to IFS.
It’s never safe to rely on one source, especially those catalogs/encyclopedias. Brochures are a good first step.
Just a nitpick. The OHC Tornado was never sent to Brazil but rather to Argentina where it had a long and distinguished career, even acquiring a 7 main bearing crankshaft in its later version. IKA (Kaiser’s Argentinian branch) applied the engine to several veihicles and it garnered a high reputation. By the way, that motor was a development from Continental’ s Red Seal engine of the 30’s.
The OHC Tornado was never sent to Brazil but rather to Argentina
I know, but my fingers wrote “Brazil”. I wrote a very comprehensive post on the Torino here: https://www.curbsideclassic.com/curbside-classics-american/cohort-classic-1971-ika-torino-ts-the-legendary-rambler-south-american/
Paul over the years I’d herd that the IFS/T bar was prone to abnormal heavy wear
Interesting item: 1965 Wagoneer AMA specs from Jan. 8, 1965:
https://wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990631122175/1965_Jeep_Wagoneer_AMA_1-31.pdf
These still list the IFS as optional with both 2WD and 4WD.
You have to keep in mind the era of the vehicle and how suspensions were tuned at that time. Maximum cornering grip was not the top priority. You also need to keep in mind that author of the original article sees this as a form of a swing axle and that is their likely point of comparison for camber change.
There is a lot that goes into the camber change in an IFS. Ratio of the lengths of the arms is a big factor but so are the angles at normal load relative to each other. The relative angles are the big determining factor in the camber change over the complete range of travel and that can make for a non linear camber change.
If lines drawn between the pivot point of the arms are parallel to each other and the ground at normal load the camber change per inch of droop will be very similar to the camber change per inch of compression and the arm length ratio will determine just how much camber change there is. In this case both arms would be at their longest (measured parallel to the ground) at normal ride height and they will both get shorter with any travel.
Now if those lines are not parallel with each other nor with respect to the ground suspension travel can cause one to get longer while the other is getting shorter.
For example place the upper arm parallel to the ground (again relative to pivot points) and the lower arm at an angle where the wheel end is lower than the frame end. Now when you compress the suspension the upper arm gets shorter and the lower arm gets longer. When the suspension droops both arms get shorter. So you can have more gain per inch of travel on compression than you get per inch of travel on droop.
In other words you can’t really compare the camber change due to that suspension being unloaded to the camber change that would occur due to a similar amount of compression.
Thanks for adding this important additional detail. Some SLA suspensions show obvious camber change at full compression, others at full rebound, and a lot of variations in between. That’s the magic of suspension tuning, and the reason why the SLA was/is so popular: the ability to easily change it geometry.
Glad to help.
This link gives a little more insight on how those angles affect the camber curve and how vehicle suspensions were designed back in this era.
https://www.speedwaymotors.com/the-toolbox/understanding-shelby-arning-drop-changes/29324
The Car Life review from April 1963 includes some unofficial measurements of front wheel camber change, which are of interest:
https://wildaboutcarsonline.com/members/AardvarkPublisherAttachments/9990437866316/1963-04_CL_1963_Willys_Wagoneer_4WD_Road_Test_1-7.pdf
Jon over the years I’ve read on various forums that the bushings were prone to premature wear and none of the torsion bar pickups had strong sales. The IHC/Jeep and GMC had half tons that had a T bar option. I think it was too much outside the box for that time. (Remember the Corvair debacle?) Also pickup owners were more conservative in buying. 6 cylinder outsold V8s across the board up the until the late 60s. Also for all its hype the 230 was almost the same across the board as a 225 Slant . Same power/torque operating RPM . The Argentinians still race 6s and get BIG power out of both. Too bad the OHC 230 turned out to have oiling and cam chain issues which BTW the Argentinians have cured.
I see two types of potential buyers for the early Wagoneer:
a) People coming from a CJ or a Scout who want something almost as useful but more civilized.
b) People coming from a passenger-car based station wagon who are willing to give up some civility for more utility and 4WD.
I don’t know which of these two types actually bought more Wagoneers, but I suspect it was the first type and they seem like the sort that would want the (perceived or real) durability of the solid axle.
Hah! Motor Trend reckon it’s a swing axle resembling the Mercedes low-pivot job too! (I still say it is too, albeit a modified one, as the A-arms don’t actually locate the axles: they provide a fixture for the top of the king pin or ball joint, and beyond that, they just provide a connection to the springing just as the longitudunal arm on a VW does. Theoretically, if a doubtless-too costly/complex knuckle was cobbled up for steering, attached to the end of the axle, the swinging arm is still located fore-aft by the lengthwise arm, and sideways by the central pivot, with perhaps a coil on top for springing. But I am digressing).
I reckon all of the comments above cover the field. Benefits not wanted/seen by 4wd crowd, possibly got a rep for odd feeling in 2wd as described, possibly wasn’t strong enough (forces on that central pivot seem huge), conservatism of buyers in that class generally.
Unfortunately, the A-arm travel issue that seemed apparent on the pics in the last post aren’t solved by the pics here – the whole shebang still shouldn’t work anyway!
as the A-arms don’t actually locate the axles: they provide a fixture for the top of the king pin or ball joint, and beyond that, they just provide a connection to the springing just as the longitudunal arm on a VW does.
I’m not getting what you’re saying. Take a close look at the suspension detail in the image below. The upper suspension arm, with its ball joint, functions just like every other dual wishbone or SLA (Short-Long-Arm) suspension.
And the lower axle shafts (plain tubes on the 2WD version) do the same, since their universal joints allow movement in the horizontal plane as well as the vertical plane. How is this any different than the typical SLA suspension?
Best ignore my rambling above: right idea, wrong tree.
It’s a type of swing axle because the solid half-axle, bolted on that middle pivot, locates the lower “arm” in the sort-of SLA, with driveshaft turning within. The axle swings, up and down. SLA’s also don’t have a locating arm lengthwise running forward (though did sometimes on cheap older MacPherson running from front backwards).
I believe there is no FWD arrangement that uses the driveshaft to locate the suspension: there is always a lower arm and an upper (or bottom of a strut), with the driveshaft in between for drive only.
And there is a reason for it. Because the axle locates the suspension and the driveshaft is within it, it has to mean that the geometry is “wrong” (or at least, very limited) for an SLA arrangement. I cannot see a way of giving the car any caster. From side-on, if you move the top arm forwards to get positive caster, there is no central point to move forward around, as the lower “arm” is smack in the middle.
Without caster, this means poor directional stability, bump steer, and no self-centering in the steering, all undesirable, and barely an improvement on the solid front end.
In short, this unique FWD swing-axle front end is an elegant-looking but ultimately inadequate design that cost more and inherently didn’t have the ability to provide dramatically better results (except perhaps in ride).
There is caster. There are two ball joints, the universal joint in the drive shaft is the lower ball joint, while the upper arm provides the upper ball joint. The relative fore-aft position of the two ball joints defines the caster.
Thank you. I’ve given up trying to explain this system…it looks so obvious to me.
Tempted to say that’s one helluva definition of a lower balljoint you got there Kita -grow “em big in your parts, do they? – but yeah, I’d say in truth, you’re almost certainly right. I still hold a stubborn suspicion there’s something about the geometry of see-saws vs half-see-saws that means there’s SOMETHING in what I’m saying (that and the rather odd complaints from MT about 2WD operation and handling in the article), but I concede, I got it wrong. Probably. Most likely, anyway.
And as for “obvious”, PN, well, let’s just say one man’s grassy knoll is another’s Mt Hood.
Just like one Melbournian’s unique swing-axle IFS is another Eugenian’s SLS IFS.
(Say, I don’t expect to write in this year a nerdier line than that last one, or possibly ever).
The U-joint is not the lower ball joint. If you look closely you can see the studs for the cap of the lower ball joint.
And don’t you go worrying your head about the lack of suspension travel. 🙂
I assume the torsion bars in that bare chassis were quite likely disconnected at the other end. The image below shows plenty of travel; there frame is indented to facilitate that. Don’t forget, the travel is much greater at the outer end than close in at the pivot end. That frame member is right up against the pivot end.
Nice pictures! Additional angles are very welcome for envisioning this set up.
There’s a superb set of detailed pictures of every element of an extremely well preserved ’63 Wagoneer here: http://wagoneers.com/rigs/63_ifs_rice/ALL.html
Wow, that’s a great find! That Waggy looks completely unrestored and apart from some wear and patina, in amazing condition. Some observations:
-I did not realize that the original hubcaps were two piece units.
-In the other CC there were comments on the rear crank window. Here is a perfect example, looks like a swinging emblem to access the lock.
-I wish it had a close up of the gadget on the top of the dash, which I assume is the compass mentioned in the MT article.
-The bottom of the tailgate is a notorious rust spot on Wagoneers, even this Washington truck with an otherwise solid-looking body has it.
-Great views of the suspension. I was wondering where the steering box is exactly, now I know.
-Double brake master cylinders, never seen that before. Was that a feature on other vehicles of the era?
Dual master brake cylinders started to be used around this time by some makes. Cadillac in ’62. Studebaker in ’63. Willys was a bit ahead of curve on this one too.
That is a brake master cylinder, the old single circuit style and a clutch master cylinder.
Does the IFS actually use CV joints? I can’t envision enough room in those knuckle assemblies for a double Cardan setup.
Thanks Scoutdude!
I kinda think, in this case, Jeep was competing with itself. Oftentimes the cheaper solution, when perfectly adequate solution for it’s time and place, solution will win out in this case.
Sometimes it takes 2 to tango. Consider how long it took the competition: Range Rover (after 2002), Land Cruiser (1998), International (never), Bronco (twin I-beams in 1980), Blazer/Yukon (1992), Gelandwagen (2018), Unimog (never).
Now, if the Pinzgauer had ever been officially imported into the U.S!
I was born on 1963 and I wood like to have one a Jeep Grand wangear in my last year’s of my life if there’s one out there I had a Grand Wàngear 1968 she was the best Jeep I ever had we went where ever we need to go up down over if you can wake the dogs there me and my Jeep drove there I love her so much my wife that I had is gone now need money to stay a live I had to loze all my toys I ever had hay do feel sorry I it was all in love now its my dog and the hiway I got to help all the people out there I just a truck driver that live in a truck and drive to live to help
I’m curious if they used U joints or CV joints at the axle ends? Would seem that would be the largest potential for a reliability issue on these.
Hello, I have a 1963 Willys Wagoneer IFS and a 1964 Kaiser Wagoneer IFS and I am looking for all available information on them. I will be rebuilding and restoring them. 1963 and 1964 were the only years IFS was offered. I would be happy to here from any of you. I have tried to contact Chrysler with the new Wagoneer but no response. I do appreciate your comments on the IFS. I am sorry I found this article and chain so late. Thank you
Good luck with your Wagoneers. I don’t know of any good sources to point you to. We discuss cars in their historical context, but none of us are apparently genuine experts beyond what we have discussed here.
You might check with Wagonmaster. I think their main focus is on Wagoneers later than yours, but it seems likely they’d at least have some pointers for you.
Wow! Just found this article and it really takes me back. We had a 63 Wagoneer Custom when I was in high school. My Dad was a notorious trader and got it from a “rancher” that had taken it to a Chevy dealer to trade it for a new 4WD Suburban. He was offered next to nothing due to the Jeep using oil and leaking oil copiously. My Dad somehow knew the rancher and finagle a deal for some land levelling, building a new Stockpond, and a Chevy stakebed truck. Dad spent some time doing a complete overhauling the engine and gave it to my Mom for her car. It was white with a blue interior. I took my girlfriend to Prom in it! I remember it pretty much as the MT article described it. It did not have any weird handling characteristics, was reasonably responsive, and was great on gas. Mom drove it for about 10 years with no problems, and then found a Buick that she had to have.