Ad blocker detected: Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please consider supporting us by disabling your ad blocker on our website.
I understand the physical differences between a narrow- and wide-track Jeep Cherokee but I am curious if the added width difference (I understand it to be four inches) translates to a noticeable difference in performance for both daily driving and/or off-road for the 1975-1983 models? I did some searches and all I could find was one reference to the added width was Jeep's attempt to satisfy a perceived public idea that the wide-track was more stable than the narrow. Is this correct? Are there no real differences in performance between the narrow- and wide-tracks?
Thanks all!
1978 Jeep Cherokee S; 5.9L/360 V8 automatic/FiTech fuel injection and Davis Unified Distributor systems.
I went from 4" lift and 31s and NT axles to 33's and WT. Tires play in a bit with all that sidewall but with the current tires the GW has felt very sure footed on curvy roads. That's not much evidence I admit. It would be more interesting to compare identical suspensions and tires with the two axle sizes.
Theoretically it should matter. If you look at the physics, a wider stance means more force at CoG required to rotate the vehicle around the outside tire track.
As for off-road, I really can't tell nor do I feel the vehicle is that much wider on the trail. But I don't tend to find a lot of extremely narrow trails out here.
Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk
Broken Photobucket image in my post? PM me.
'86 GW "Troubled Child" tc.wagoneer.org
360, TBI, 4" Skyjacker, 33" BFG MTs, WT D44+ARB, WT AMC20 + LockRight, CB 2m 6m 70cm, K0FSJ
The world's first Robotic Full Size Jeep!
shimniok wrote:I went from 4" lift and 31s and NT axles to 33's and WT. Tires play in a bit with all that sidewall but with the current tires the GW has felt very sure footed on curvy roads. That's not much evidence I admit. It would be more interesting to compare identical suspensions and tires with the two axle sizes.
Theoretically it should matter. If you look at the physics, a wider stance means more force at CoG required to rotate the vehicle around the outside tire track.
As for off-road, I really can't tell nor do I feel the vehicle is that much wider on the trail. But I don't tend to find a lot of extremely narrow trails out here.
Sent from my XT1096 using Tapatalk
Yep, I agree that the wider the truck the more stability it should present, yet I was curious if the ~4 inches in this case actually translated to a meaningful difference in the two types of Jeep Cherokee. It is good to hear that the two feel more-or-less the same on the trails!
Thanks!
1978 Jeep Cherokee S; 5.9L/360 V8 automatic/FiTech fuel injection and Davis Unified Distributor systems.
Having owned several of each in stock form I did notice a slight difference at freeway speeds. The NT SJs were a wee bit more twitchy on bumps and during abrupt steering but not enough to bother me. Offroad, both felt the same but I was able to take the NT places the WT would have crushed the flares. IMHO, the big difference is as was mentioned: Tire diameter and widths.
Oh, regarding the reason for the WT? The word I got from the old timers was that Jeep got quite a bit of feedback from customers asking for a 2 door wagon with the J-Truck flares. Apparently even back in the early 70s many appreciated the tough wide stance of the trucks.
1977 Cherokee Chief - The Blair Jeep Project III
A collection of parts flying in close formation
There's a reason ALL the trucks were wider, and while looks probably played into that reason, stability surely had even more of a hand. Granted, the rear axle in the trucks is even wider than a standard WT axle, but it definitely makes a difference.
aa
1983 J-10 - 4.6L(MPFI)/CS130D/Hydroboost/NV3550/D300/44/44/3.54/Disc-Disc/32s/42 gallon 'burb tank
AFAIK the width of the bed determines the rear track width of the J-trucks. To be a full-sized pickup, a sheet of 4'x8' plywood must lay flat between the rear wheel houses. Assuming the Wagoneer design came first, to build a sufficiently wide bed using the Wagoneer body lines, the wide axle was required. Fender flares were used to make the wide axle work with the Wagoneer dimensions.
So Wagoneer plus plywood dimensions equals J-truck.
BTW I believe the Utility vehicles share this characteristic, with the 4' width of the bed controlling the width of the axle, and the front being narrower. So Jeep engineers may have started out with the whole FSJ package in mind, J-truck and Wagoneer, when they put pencil to paper. The 2-door Cherokee was more-or-less a replacement for the discontinued Commando, and it seems pretty clear that you can take elements from the J-truck and Cherokee and make a wide track model. I expect it would be difficult to pin down the single origin of the WT Cherokee - it seems kinda obvious, once you start making a 2-door Wagoneer, where the development would lead.
I'd guess the front axle and flares were used to make a more harmonious package. We have seen at least one example here or on IFSJA of a J-truck with Wagoneer front pieces, and it looks strange.
Tim Reese
Maine beekeeper's truck: '77 J10 LWB, 258/T15/D20/3.54 bone stock, low options (delete radio), PS/PDB, hubcaps.
Browless and proud: '82 J20 360/T18/NP208/3.73, Destination A/Ts, 7600 GVWR
Copper Polly: '75 CJ-6, 304/T15, PS, BFG KM2s, soft top
GTI without the badges: '95 VW Golf Sport 2000cc 2D
Dual Everything: '15 Chryco Jeep Cherokee KL Trailhawk, ECO Green
Blockchain the vote.
I have been driving FSJs since 1976 and have not noticed any significant difference between WT Cherokee and NT Cherokee or Wagoneer. Where I do see significant difference is going from a Wag/Cherk to either a short or long bed Jtruck. The trucks feel more stable because they have longer wheelbase. Especially for towing.
440sixpack wrote:axles on the J series and the WT Cherokee are the same width correct?
The front axles are the same, the J-truck rear axles are wider than the fronts by a hair. Quite possibly due to Tim's comment, but from everything I've ever heard and experience a wider rear makes for far more stable towing.
aa
1983 J-10 - 4.6L(MPFI)/CS130D/Hydroboost/NV3550/D300/44/44/3.54/Disc-Disc/32s/42 gallon 'burb tank
Well crap. I pulled out the 3.55 axles from my wide track Cherokee and fixed them up to replace the 4.09 ones in my J10. sounds like maybe I'll be doing a gear swap in the rear housing.