Rare Rides Icons: The Jeep Wagoneer, The First Luxury SUV Ever (Part IX)

Corey Lewis
by Corey Lewis

As we learned in our last Wagoneer installment, the SJ weathered the storm of the first (1973) and second (1979) oil shocks. The latter of which forced AMC to reinstall an inline-six and a manual transmission into its luxurious utility wagon barge, to advertise a lower cost of entry and better fuel economy figures. After more than 20 years, AMC was ready to move on from the Wagoneer entirely, and had a plan to do so which it implemented in 1984. Welcome to the new XJ.


In a long project that was in the works since the latter portion of the Seventies, XJ was a radical departure for Jeep. The arrival of Renault ownership in 1979 meant the French firm had input on the XJ’s development, and it became the second such product subsequent to the Renault Alliance that launched in 1983. 


Renault pushed for some not-so-American characteristics during XJ development. They wanted it to have an even smaller footprint, be lighter, have more fuel efficiency, and be more car-like with its ergonomics. Renault also applied some direction to AMC designer Dick Teague to come up with a more Euro-inspired design.

That’s what led to this design sketch from 1982 as featured in an edition of Popular Science at the time. With an angled grille, an AMC plate at the front, and even an AMC hood ornament, perhaps there was question whether the Jeep brand would be used on the XJ. However, shortly thereafter a prototype XJ was seen on the streets sans an AMC badge, and wearing the whitewalls and chrome wheel covers from an SJ Wagoneer. 

The XJ was the first all-new model since the SJ in 1963, and Jeep had to make sure they got it right. It was meant to replace the SJ Cherokee, Wagoneer, and Gladiator in one fell swoop. Unlike most utility wagons, the XJ had an integrated body and frame called a unibody. This saved weight, made for better ride and handling, and was a more efficient packaging style than the traditional body-on-frame truck or utility vehicle. And packaging was important, as Jeep intended from the start to create a compact utility vehicle. The project was a very expensive one, as AMC invested $250 million ($875.4M inflation adjusted to 1982) into the XJ’s development.

A compact SUV was on the minds of domestic manufacturers in the early Eighties, and GM beat AMC to the punch when it launched its S-10 Blazer and S-15 Jimmy lines in 1983. However - and it’s a big however - the GM options were not as family-friendly as the XJ from the get-go: They were only available with two doors until the 1991 model year. Ford also debuted the Bronco II in its roll-over friendly two-door guise in 1984, but it never became a four-door model. Ford’s first example of that was the Explorer of 1991.

Jeep’s offering was notably different to competition, much like the SJ was at its debut. It focused on practicality and livability. Jeep’s product people saw the SUV craze coming, and the XJ was made with as broad an appeal as possible. Available in two- and four-door versions, the XJ could be trimmed in utilitarian or luxury guises. It was the only unibody utility wagon on offer.

All examples were much smaller than the SJ, and at launch had an overall length of 165.3 inches, 21 inches shorter than the SJ Wagoneer and Cherokee. At 70.5 inches wide, the XJ was about 4 inches narrower than the SJ. Curb weight was around 3,350 pounds, positively a featherweight compared to the 4,510-plus weight of the Wagoneer dependent upon trim.

Powering that lightweight body was a new inline-four engine designed by AMC specifically for use in the XJ. The 2.5-liter was designed with cost savings in mind, and used the existing cylinder bore spacing of AMC engines so new tooling was not required. Performance and durability were the prime considerations during development, as the engine was designed for utility vehicles from the start. 

The new 2.5 shared some parts with the long-running inline-six AMC engines, like the water pump, connecting rods, and front housing. The engine used a heavy-duty timing chain design on double rollers with an automatic tensioner. Initial versions used a single-barrel carburetor, but that was swapped for throttle-body injection in 1986.

Parts compatibility was also shared with GM components, in an interesting twist. The 2.5 was a replacement for the GM Iron Duke used in other AMC and Jeep vehicles in the early Eighties. To that end, the new engine did not use the AMC bell housing pattern, but instead the General Motors I4 and small V6 bolt pattern.

Though the Iron Duke was replaced by the 1984 2.5 I-4 engine, AMC continued to source GM’s 2.8-liter V6 (used in lots of GM things) until its own modern inline-six was ready, the 4.0-liter launched in 1987. The 2.8 GM V6 powered the XJ’s more upmarket models until 1987. Other engine options in the XJ included a 2.1-liter Renault diesel, and a 2.5-liter VM Motori diesel.

Despite the GM bones underneath the XJ in some places, it never used a GM transmission. On offer through its run were a four-speed Borg-Warner T4, four- and five-speed manual transmissions from Aisin (a Toyota company), a four-speed Aisin automatic, a five-speed manual from Peugeot, two different three-speed TorqueFlite (A904) automatics from Chrysler, and a New Venture five-speed manual. 


All of those were paired to different transfer cases dependent upon year, and in part-time or full-time four-wheel drive configurations. Multiple different front and rear axles were used as well, with various gear ratios. All this meant the XJ was a very flexible vehicle for various use cases.

One such use case was the replacement of the SJ Wagoneer with a new XJ-based one. As Jeep saw it, XJ was the future (most everyone agreed there) and the SJ was a relic of the past. Jeep relaunched the Wagoneer in 1984 in a product split that proved very divisive and ultimately was sort of a flop. We’ll cover that in our next installment.


[Images: Jeep, Popular Science]


Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by subscribing to our newsletter.

Corey Lewis
Corey Lewis

Interested in lots of cars and their various historical contexts. Started writing articles for TTAC in late 2016, when my first posts were QOTDs. From there I started a few new series like Rare Rides, Buy/Drive/Burn, Abandoned History, and most recently Rare Rides Icons. Operating from a home base in Cincinnati, Ohio, a relative auto journalist dead zone. Many of my articles are prompted by something I'll see on social media that sparks my interest and causes me to research. Finding articles and information from the early days of the internet and beyond that covers the little details lost to time: trim packages, color and wheel choices, interior fabrics. Beyond those, I'm fascinated by automotive industry experiments, both failures and successes. Lately I've taken an interest in AI, and generating "what if" type images for car models long dead. Reincarnating a modern Toyota Paseo, Lincoln Mark IX, or Isuzu Trooper through a text prompt is fun. Fun to post them on Twitter too, and watch people overreact. To that end, the social media I use most is Twitter, @CoreyLewis86. I also contribute pieces for Forbes Wheels and Forbes Home.

More by Corey Lewis

Comments
Join the conversation
15 of 24 comments
  • Johnster Johnster on Apr 11, 2026

    Renault had a surprisingly large amount of influence in the design and engineering of the Jeep XJs, especially the light weight of the vehicles. Considering their light weight the XJs were surprisingly robust. (If one of the other Big 3 American companies had designed it, it probably would have had problems with body flex requiring reinforcements which would have added extra weight.)

    • See 9 previous
    • Jeff S Jeff S on Apr 14, 2026

      Lloyd or 1995 SC--No you are the one picking the fight just stated that AMC design was chosen did not state that Renault had nothing to do with the XJ you assumed that is what I stated. Renault rescued AMC and contributed the Alliance a car at the time that AMC needed. You can argue that the Alliance was not a good car and in retrospect it wasn't but AMC at the time did not have a car to compete in that field and lacked the funds to develop one. Tragically the Chairman of Renault was murdered. Renault contributed plenty to AMC more than money but Jeep was the reason why Renault invested in AMC. AMC without Jeep would have never gotten any investment from Renault and Chrysler bought AMC just to get Jeep.


  • Flashindapan Flashindapan on Apr 11, 2026

    Around 2005 when I worked at a Land Rover dealer we had a 2000 sport model taken on trade. White grey cloth interior, super nice maybe 30-35k think we were asking about 15k at the time. I was surprised at how archaic it felt driving and it was shocking easy to lock up the breaks at even low speeds. Despite that, it was fun driving in weird kind of way and I did miss it after it sold. Still, if this was a evolutionary step from the Wagoneer or contemporary S-10 I can’t even fathom how awful they must have drove by comparison.

    • See 2 previous
    • Jeff S Jeff S on Apr 14, 2026

      1995 SC--Seems you have given me a lot of free rent in your head. Didn't bring up Mustang you did.


  • Vid169489471 The technology exists today to produce a variable color temperature (kelvin) LED lamp. It can vary from 2700k that soft orange look to 6500k the bright daylight with the bluish tint.Since everything in a late model car is computer controlled, it would be an easy task to write a few lines of code that enables your vehicle to not only dim down from hi to low beam but to shift color temp down to the 2700k range for oncoming traffic, then back up to 5000k once oncoming traffic has passed. For the operator it would be automatic and seamless. For older cars they could be retrofitted with LEDs that are 2700k on low beam and 5000k on hi beam. As far as standards, there could be a lumens max, and a minimum. Several States already have minimum lumen standards going back to the old incandescent bulbs. Why not update these to national standards.
  • Jam169859557 More regulation is needed for ALL vehicle lighting systems. [list=1][*]The lighting that is most blinding are the rapidly flashing red, blue and amber lights on emergency vehicles. The lights themselves are blinding, flashing so rapidly that it's impossible for even the sharpest eyes to adjust. What's worse, is the nature of the emergency requires a careful view of the area surrounding the emergency vehicle. There is something going on that needs to be seen. More flashing lights is not the solution.[/*][*]Brighter headlights need to be regulated. The tall riding vehicles do not need headlights positioned so high that they blind drivers in lower riding vehicles. And those heasdlights need to be aimed properly. When I first started driving my 2020 Subaru Outback, many drivers would flash their lights, hoping I would dim my lights. This stopped after I performed am easy adjustment that tilted the beam lower. Late model Subaru headlamps are designed with a sharp cutoff that project less glare above the hood line. When the headlights are properly aimed, other drivers are not blinded by the beam.[/*][*]Customized light assemblies make it more difficult to see the marker lights (tail lamps, turn signals and side marker lamps) that have been tinted. There are many municiple codes that prohibit this tinting, but these laws are seldom enforced.[/*][/list=1]Solutions: Tight controls on emergency vehicle lighting. In trying to make these vehicles more visible, a dangerous side effect is reducing the ability of drivers to see the surrounding perils.Headlight design regulations that reduce the height of the headlight assemblies. Just because a pickup truck has a hood that sits 4 feet abouve the pavement, it does not mean the headlights need to be so high. Owneres should maintain proper adjustments to their vehicle headlights.Establish and enforce regulation requiring a illumination standard be followed.
  • Stl170698708 as someone who hates big government, and their interference;but you can add me to the list of people that are blinded by the lights.unfortunately "the poop is out of the horse and no way is it going back in"They have had 5 years to make lights bigger, badder and brighter because in the vehicle work it is go big or go home!Trucks are the worst because so many people use them to express their dominance and that is big, big, big $$ both at the Original Purchase and in the Aftermarket world.If, we are so lucky to get some good government regulation on this it will also take some very good Court enforcement to get the aftermarket people with fines and lawsuits.Much like the EPA did with the Diesel Tuner Industry that felt emission regulations didn't apply to them.This is from someone that owns said pickup truck with the same bright headlights,but i only use the truck when I have too and always turn off the Fog lights when driving in traffic.
  • Art65765977 I saw a porsche 911 with the most amazing headlights from behind approaching the Sunshine skyway in Florida. The pattern was 108 degrees across sweeping the road like a broom. My brother and I were amazed. I don't know what it looked like from the front but i am sure it was better than American cars
  • Master Baiter This is what happens when you take a chance on a startup auto company. Designing and building cars is hard.
Next