What do you guys think of this cherokee chief ? Junk or ?

[candymancan]

Ok what about this J10 pickup 1976.. 360 auto. Quadra trac.. says it runs and drives only parked 6 months.. 80k miles.

Has everything. Just rusted out floor pans. But has everything on daah and the bench seat. Has tailgate as well

Guy wants 1250$. But hell take a trade for my 44 magbum henry lever action rifle.

Only issue is it has no title.. he claims he sold it 3 years ago transfered the title but the guy never came back maybe he died ?

So i asked since he was the last owner he can go to the dmv with the vin and get a lost title they should be able to see he owned it at one point.

He claims he will do that.. but i dunno.

What do you guys think ? This truck for my brass Henry lever action 44magnum ? Rifle is worrh about 700-900$. Wed just have to go to a gun shop and transfer ownership of it

[thej10guy]

Seems pretty rough for $1250. Bed would take quite a bit of work, the outside alone. And if the inside of the bed is rusty like the outside is (like my truck is) it will be a pita to fix because they don’t make replacement inner bed sides. The fenders also look not great. Also fixable, but not great. I’d say pass on this one. It would take a lot of work to be nice again. Unless you would just be using it as a beater, in which case you wouldn’t necessarily need to fix the bed and fenders.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tgreese]

Such bed rust is a problem for these trucks. The double-wall bed makes a hidden compartment between the inner and outer bed sides and the floor with no access to the outside. Moisture gets trapped in there with this result. I also wonder whether Jeep painted the interior of the bed sides at all, much less painted well.

The cab looks pretty good from here. The flares are another problem area, and these look kinda ok here; right front has some kind of notch out of it which is an issue. I would measure the front axle track; it looks too narrow to me. Maybe it's the perspective... the rear track is only about an inch or so wider than the front, but it's pretty close. If it has the narrower Wagoneer axle under the front, that's a big issue.

Be sure to get the tailgate if it's there. Good ones are scarce and pricey; subtract from the purchase price if it's missing. Bumpers too. Completeness makes a big difference, though you could use the missing parts as bargaining to get the price down.

The TSM is online at the Tom Collins site, and that will show you what the axle ratio should be. A long wheelbase (8' bed) J10 with the 2V 360, automatic and Quadratrac was undoubtedly the most popular combo in the day. I would up the value if it were a manual transmission or a 7' bed, either Thriftside or Townside. Could be a 360 4V or even a 401 - you'd have to look.

This looks more fixable than the Cherokee as long as it has the right axle, if you want a truck. Having a truck is handy, even if it's not pretty. Carrying 4'x8' sheet goods is the main thing to me; a J10 won't carry a scoop of gravel or such, but it'll handle your plywood or drywall needs.

[candymancan]

Well every single j truck in dmv for yesrs all have rusted beds.. i doubt ill ever find rust free.. Not sure if the guys who say the beds rusted realize this. That almost every Jeep here has rust unfortunatly. Especially the beds of these..

This one is looks less worse than others ive seen.. and it runs and has everything so thats a plus right ? Lol. Eveb has the bumpers he said and tailgate

Just gatta get this title thing situated aparently its against the law in va to buy a vejicle eith no title... which is silly.. what somekne died who owned it and we cant find a title..

Are you saying you think it has another axle under it ? Hmm would the original wheels still bolt up though ?


Tru k would be nice.. Tired of tossing 4-5 hay bails in my Jeeps and making 20 trips for my 14 acres. Couldnt i just get stiffer springs for more weivht capacoty.. If it has a dana 44 rear.. I mean the comanches had a 2000 lbs weight limit with stiffer springs. I know the j20s had a dana 60 though. But i havent seen a affordable j20 that isnt a peice of junk in years in the dmv.

But hey who am i kidding.. guys probly a redneck and wont get the title.. in which case its illegal to buy

[tgreese]

Well every single j truck in dmv for yesrs all have rusted beds.. i doubt ill ever find rust free.. Not sure if the guys who say the beds rusted realize this. That almost every Jeep here has rust unfortunatly. Especially the beds of these..
...

I got a J20 without bed rust by buying from Arizona and shipping it to me. The truck had some interior floor rust though, since the cab leaked badly. Does not rain much in AZ, but it does rain.

You can patch over the bed rust - it won't look good, but it will be fine in terms of utility if you park the truck out of the weather. I would put a tarp under it if I parked it on a dirt floor - this will block moisture from the ground. After patching, I'd fill the bed cavities with some rust preventative - I posted a thread about that. viewtopic.php?p=219509

[tgreese]

... Are you saying you think it has another axle under it ? Hmm would the original wheels still bolt up though ? ...

Maybe. It looks like the wheels are too far under the fenders on the front.

The front axle should be wide track, like the Cherokee wide track. You can bolt up a Wagoneer narrow track axle and it will work, though a Wagoneer axle is probably the wrong ratio. Factory ratio on a J10 in '76 is 3.54, while the Wagoneer standard ratio is 3.07. Measure it - the track width is 63.3" for the model 45 J10, and 59.4" for the Wagoneer. Page A-9 in the TSM.

Yes, the wheels will bolt up.

Just make sure the front axle is original and has not been scavenged for parts. It's probably ok, but you don't want to buy trouble.

[tgreese]

...
Tru k would be nice.. Tired of tossing 4-5 hay bails in my Jeeps and making 20 trips for my 14 acres. Couldnt i just get stiffer springs for more weivht capacoty..

The whole truck is built for its GVWR, not just the springs. Brakes, tires, frame, springs, axles, etc. IME when overloaded, first to go is the rear wheel bearings. The 60 has larger bearings, and since it's full-floating, there are two bearings supporting the hub. A J10's GVWR is 6250, same as a Wagoneer. I think that's more to get the Wagoneer into the higher weight class for easier emissions compliance, but it is essentially the same parts as a Wagoneer with a different body and chassis.

Maybe you'd be better off with a trailer for occasional use? The heavier military trailers like the M1101 are not as popular as the dinky Jeep trailers, and might be an option.

[candymancan]

Ya i thought about trailer.. but honestly theyre more money than the Jeep lol.

If i do look at this Jeep ill measure the axles if i csn get under it. I doubt its been mollested only has 80k miles and it looks all original.. i did notice its rear bumper is missing. But it has the front.

As for rust.. naw i wouldnt oatch over id cut it out and do it right like i did on my 90. The patching thing is too ghetto. I would like to restore it and make it look nice even though itd be used for hauling stuff.

Ya i get the gvw thing.

So i guess my 90 at 5300lbs with me in it. Its oayload is 1300lbs.. And then another 1000lbs in the back is at the max for the gvw then ? Or how does that work.. if stock its 4400 lbs.. im 300 nearly.. than that means i can only carry another 900 lbs in the back ?? Or what if stock its 4400 and it weighs 5300 now with me. Then what ? I can only put 400 lbs in the back ?? Or i risk damaging my dana 44s. Im confused how this works... Or does TOTAL vehicle weight.. not matter as long as your payload in the back doesnt make it over the GVWR ?


But this pickup probably weighs what ? 4200 lbs tops. ? So does this mean the bed can carry 2000 lbs ?

[sierrablue]

You could buy one of those like $500 build-it-yourself small trailers from a hardware store, or do something like that.

It's a half ton so figure around 1000 lbs. I've read that for them it's like 1200 usually for the J trucks.

As far as that truck specifically goes, yeah, tgreese is right; it looks like it might have Wag axles under it or something. Ig it depends what the interior looks like if it's worth it or not.

Personally I wouldn't worry about rust on the bed. It's like four bolts and a couple wires to replace it, and having the fenders on the bed have some rust isn't gonna be a safety concern. And IMO, if it's not rusted through, paina/rust usually looks better anyway.

[tgreese]

... Personally I wouldn't worry about rust on the bed. It's like four bolts and a couple wires to replace it, ...

This is true, but decent beds are not plentiful.

[tgreese]

... Or does TOTAL vehicle weight.. not matter as long as your payload in the back doesnt make it over the GVWR ? ...

Weigh the truck with the bed empty, full tank and you and passengers onboard. That's the GVW. Subtract that from the GVWR to get the maximum payload according to Jeep.

[sierrablue]

... Personally I wouldn't worry about rust on the bed. It's like four bolts and a couple wires to replace it, ...

This is true, but decent beds are not plentiful.

Nothing on these trucks is plentiful. That's not a reason not to buy them. They're all gonna have their things like that.

[candymancan]

... Or does TOTAL vehicle weight.. not matter as long as your payload in the back doesnt make it over the GVWR ? ...

Weigh the truck with the bed empty, full tank and you and passengers onboard. That's the GVW. Subtract that from the GVWR to get the maximum payload according to Jeep.

I see so the Grand Wagoneer, at 4400 lbs, with say 6 people at 150lbs each. Is 5300lbs, then the payload Jeep says is 1300lbs, that 6600lbs. The GVWR is 6200-6300 ? So that makes sense i get it.

Than my waggy at 5300 with me in it, can haul about 1000lbs before its at its max GVWR. Thats usually all i ever put in it anyway or can fit in it. by the time its stuffed.

But i thought 1/2 ton means 1,000lbs payload. If thats the case, than a 4200-4400 lbs J10, with me is 4700lbs, The J10 GVWR is 6400LBS, that means it could haul 1700lbs and be at its max. 1700 is more than 1/2 ton rating ? How did they manage to get the 1 ton 2,000lbs rating on a dana 44 Comanche then ? I found the dana 44's are rated 3200lbs each.

Interesting how the GW IS 6200 gvwr, and a grand cherokee zj with a dana 44 is only 5300. must be that little dana 30 up front thats doing it. I found charts showing the dana 44 gawr is 3500lbs. and dana 60 is 6500lbs.. wow the 60 is 2x the weight. Now i see why a J20 is so much better

[tgreese]

Suspect the ZJ was homologated/sold as a passenger car, and the GVWR does not affect its emissions requirements.

If you look at the '71 or '72 J-truck GVWRs, the base model trucks had a GVWR of 5000. These vehicles have the same semi-floating Dana 44 rear axles as the later trucks rated at 6250. In the 70s emissions standards changed rapidly, dividing the "trucks" from the passenger cars at a GVWR rating of 6000. Even the CJs and Commandos which were classified as "utility vehicles" just like the Wagoneer, required more emissions equipment than the Wagoneer and J10. Clearly the 6000+ GVWR rating for the Wagoneer - obviously a passenger car - was applied to provide these less stringent emission standards.

I expect that the emissions standards for trucks caught up to passenger cars by the time the ZJ was offered. Thus there was no economic advantage to that higher GVWR; assigning a more realistic GVWR allowed the use of lighter components, limited potential abuse by owners, and reduced liability for vehicles that been overloaded (which was now officially abuse).

[sierrablue]

Suspect the ZJ is homologated/sold as a passenger car, and the GVWR does not affect its emissions requirements.

If you look at the '71 or '72 J-truck GVWRs, the base model trucks had a GVWR of 5000. These vehicles have the same semi-floating Dana 44 rear axles as the later trucks rated at 6250. In the 70s emissions standards changed rapidly, dividing the "trucks" from the passenger cars at a GVWR rating of 6000. Even the CJs and Commandos which were classified as "utility vehicles" just like the Wagoneer, required more emissions equipment than the Wagoneer and J10. Clearly the 6000+ GVWR rating for the Wagoneer - obviously a passenger car - was applied to provide these less stringent emission standards.

I expect that the emissions standards for trucks caught up to passenger cars by the time the ZJ was offered. Thus there was no economic advantage to that higher GVWR; assigning a more realistic GVWR allowed the use of lighter components, limited potential abuse by owners, and reduced liability for vehicles that been overloaded (which was now officially abuse).

^^^this

The whole reason the F150 was born in the '70s was that it had a SLIGHTLY higher GVW than the F100, so while the F100 got all smogged down and had to run unleaded gas and have a cat, and all that fun stuff, whereas the F150 got away without that stuff for a couple more years. The F100 was finally killed off after the 1982 model year, as they weren't selling enough of them and the F150s had to meet more or less the same requirements by then, making them virtually identical 1/2 tons.

Sorry I know I reference Ford a lot, but I know them pretty well, but they're a major company that has a lot of answers/logical conclusions in it.

[candymancan]

Well yes. But dana specifies the GAWR for a dana 44 is 3500 lbs, and a dana 30 is 2500.. total vehicle weight on a 44 could theroretically go to 7000 lbs with that rating. So if you had the brakes. And springs your carrying capacity can be 2000lbs on a truck easy. This might be why some comanche have a 1 ton rating.. all they have are dana 44 and stiffer springs.

I imagine a J10 with 44s and good brakes/springs. Could easily haul 2000lbs.

This might also explain the ZJ with 1000lbs less rating as it has dana 30/44. Or even 30/35 for base models

[sierrablue]

You can't JUST go off of what the axle can hold though. The suspension has to be able to support it, and not only support it, but keep it safe and stable. And then the frame (subframe on the ZJs; I realize they effectively have subframe connectors but still a unibody) has to be able to support the weight, AND you have to have enough structure in the floor to be able to support that.

If you look at how the bed is built on a 1/2 ton vs a 3/4 ton, the beds are usually completely different except for the bedsides and tailgate.

Also they're usually overbuilt for two reasons, and they were overbuilt a lot more in the '70s than they are now. Number one people are stupid and try to way overdo it, so the truck needs to be able to protect them. And number two, manufacturing wasn't what it is now at the time, so they manufactured everything so that the absolute weakest, worst stuff they built would do everything they said it would, which meant that the stuff that came out without any flaws was INCREDIBLY overbuilt and lasted forever. That's part of the frustration with new parts on these trucks and why they don't last--they've gotten a lot more precise with manufacturing and now they're not overbuilt.

So yes, you probably COULD put 2000 lbs in the back. My dad's had 1800 lbs plus a trailer in his '70s 1/2 ton Ford and never broke anything (one time thing); I'm sure the Jeeps are overbuilt (but knowing their frames they probably can't handle quite as much as the dentside Fords). I don't think I'd recommend it, but I'm sure you could get away with it, especially with those slotted wheels, as those are forged so good luck breaking them.

[tgreese]

...
This might also explain the ZJ with 1000lbs less rating as it has dana 30/44. Or even 30/35 for base models

You are putting the cart before the horse. The ZJ has a 5300 GVWR which determines the components the designers chose, not the reverse.

I'd guess the payload is higher for the Commanche because it's lighter than a J10. Both smaller and unibody. Lighter vehicle allows more payload for the same GVWR.

The Wagoneers have a different history, since they existed before the need to increase their GVWR. Was the change to a 44 front axle in '74 a part of this? Maybe. The CJs got the open 30 in 1972, which was fine for them. The '73 Wagoneer had a closed 30, which replaced the earlier 27 and was seemingly fine in terms of load capacity. The base J-trucks had front and rear 44s from the beginning.

[sierrablue]

...
This might also explain the ZJ with 1000lbs less rating as it has dana 30/44. Or even 30/35 for base models

The Wagoneers have a different history, since they existed before the need to increase their GVWR. Was the change to a 44 front axle in '74 a part of this? Maybe. The CJs got the open 30 in 1972, which was fine for them. The '73 Wagoneer had a closed 30, which replaced the earlier 27 and was seemingly fine in terms of load capacity. The base J-trucks had front and rear 44s from the beginning.

From what I can tell from reading there's not a whole lot of rhyme or reason to which early Wagoneers got the D27 front, which got the D30, and which got a closed knuckle D44...it should also be noted that the early J trucks had closed knuckle D44s until '74, and a totally different spring setup (outside the framerails rather than under them).

I think swapping to the open front end was more of a functional/availability thing. Easier to work on, tighter turning radius, a little lighter (in theory), and more parts availability since Ford, GM, Dodge, and IH were all using the D44. And with the J10s using it, that meant more interchangeability and less having to think about it when somebody came in asking for parts.

Also when people did stupid stuff to them, crawling around with big lifts and big tires, they were less likely to break stuff

[tgreese]

You are correct that the open knuckles came along because they were the latest design that Dana was offering.

There was no mixing when it comes to the early Wagoneer axles. They got the closed 27 through about 1970, then the closed 30 through 1973. In the transition years (70-71), they may have sold 27s and 30s side-by-side on the dealership lots. Prior to 1972, Jeep VINs did not include the model year; seemingly up to the dealership to assign a year at time of registration. The CJs held on to the closed 27 one year longer than the Wagoneer. The first Wagoneer 44s came in 1974. These earlier Wagoneers did not get the 44. All the J-trucks got a 44 front.

The Wagoneer, Cherokee, J10 and J20 all got the open knuckle 44 first in 1974. Prior to that, they all had closed knuckle axles. Dana may have had some influence over this; suspect there's no way to tell today - nearly all who were involved are gone, and any records went in the dumpster decades ago.

Tires are the biggest difference for modern 4x4s. The tires we run now are huge compared to what they had in the day.