Talk:AMC Eagle

Etiquette on reverting new edits

Warning, this page is patrolled by editors who will revert your writing without registering concerns and letting other people look at it. Look at revert 3 times rule. Please before removing or reverting edits, put it up to discussion here first like you're supposed to. No dueling editors, this is simply not neccesary, this belongs to everbody, no one has the right to simply erase content that is posted in good faith. It simply ruins the experience for everybody to just kick down someone else's sandcastle. --Wiarthurhu 23:19, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

It has been discussed thoroughly here and in more places than it should even be. WP is not about building sandcastles. WP is about creating quality articles. And WP is certainly not about pursuing an agenda! Bravada, talk - 01:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Reverted material

Legacy isn't this the sort of thing that makes wp great instead of being deleted by dueling editors??

The Eagle would be the last AMC car before the 1988 Eagle Premier. By the 1990s, Subaru switched to a product line made completely of all-wheel-drive cars. Many auto reviewers remarked that the first sport utility wagon should be the Eagle, not the Subaru Outback, currently a best selling wagon in the US. Audi would also sell many AWD cars.

Chrysler would not introduce another all-wheel-drive sedan or wagon util the Chrysler Pacifica and Chrysler 300C. With the the Ford 500 / Freestyle and many european nameplates, the idea of the Eagle is finally coming of age.

1. There are many cars which were last cars by a company before the next cars of the company, including cases where this was the penultimate car of the company. If we stuffed articles with factoids like that, they would soon become undigestible. People wanting to explore AMC history further could see that in the AMC article, or could easily see that in the timeline template you said you are about to make.
2. Whether the Eagle Premier, which was never intended to be branded as AMC nor was actually made by AMC as such, can be called an "AMC car", is debatable. The fragment concerned tries to established a controversial POV as a fact.
3. The fragment on Chrysler's AWD vehicles is moderately relevant, but we can live without such info per 1.
4. There are many cars to which similar cars are now sold and are popular, but the other car was not popular, but it could be popular, but people didn't appreciate that, but they should, becuase it was a revolutionary car, and if the company existed today, it would flourish, but it doesn't, but it's a shame, but they should nevertheless be praised... blah blah blah. This is far from factual information, this is car mag column stuff, or material for a nostalgia book.

May I refer you to Wikipedia rules and directions as to what to include and what not to include in an article, as well as how to write the article, what the WP is and what it is not? Please acquaint yourself with that. Pay attention to WP policy on "weasel words" and "original research". I see there is no welcome message in your talk page, which is a shame, therefore please see the one on top of my talk page for useful links.
In short - anything which is not a 100% fact has no place in WP, and not anything which is a fact has a place in every article. Regards, Bravada, talk - 16:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
PS. Please sign your edits on talk pages by adding ~~~~

I see that you also added the Eagle Premier and Chrysler 300 as "successors" to the Eagle, which is quite ridiculous since the Premier and Chrysler 300 are COMPLETELY different from the Eagle. The Eagle was an AWD compact car, the Premier was a near-luxury, full-size FWD sedan and the Chrysler 300 is a RWD/AWD full-size luxury sedan. To say that the 300 is the successor to the Eagle would be akin to saying that Bill Clinton was the successor to Jimmy Carter. While Clinton was the next Democrat as president after Carter (like how the 300 was the next Chrysler AWD car after the Eagle), he did not succeed Carter as president. --ApolloBoy 05:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Incomplete, questionable, and inaccurate information.

The Sport package was available on the 1980 Eagle coupe, sedan, and wagon, according to my 1980 AMC brochure. It included the AMC Spirit's hood and straight trim piece at the hood's leading edge, as opposed to the standard Eagle hood, which came from the Concord and had a heavier header bar. The Sport package was not added for 1981.

1982 models did NOT get the tow package as standard equipment. The light-duty trailer package is listed in the 1982 American Motors full line catalog, not as standard equipment, but as an option. Also, '82 models added a wide-ratio automatic transmission and low-drag disc brakes for better fuel economy.

The Series 30 Eagle 2-door sedan was discontinued after 1982, not 1983, as my 1983 AMC full line brochure indicates. Also, the AMC 2.5L I4 became available on the Eagle in May 1983, according to Standard Catalog of American Cars 1976-1999. So alledgedly some (though most likely very few) 1983 Eagles were or could have been equipped with it.

Shift-on-the-fly capability was introduced for the 1985 model year, not 1984 as the article says. I'd need to see some sort of documentation to support the claim that only the Series 30 wagon was available for public sale from 1984-on. The sedan was featured in the 1984, 85, 86, and 87 retail brochures.

It also mentions the debut of Shift-on-the-fly, confusingly, again under 1985, though it fails to mention the fact that the Sport hood and front fascia trim became standard, while the former hood was no longer used, making this the Eagle's last styling change. And the Eagle picked up a key fob activated remote locking system as an option.

Under "1988", the article could stand to note that the last Eagle was built on December 14, 1987, according to Patrick Foster's "American Motors: The Last Independent", as well as other sources.

If I recieve no disputes, I'll update the page. Rhettro76 02:31, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Rhettro76

1988

While 1988 Eagles retained AMC badges, they were no longer officially AMCs. They were Eagles, and their proper make/model name was "Eagle station wagon", as Standard Catalog of American Cars 1946-1999 indicates.

Also, production would have already been under way for the '88 Eagle when the takeover was finalized in August of 1987. This is why, as Patrick Foster's "American Motors: The Last Independent" indicates, Chrysler had to order that dealers replace the Renault badges on 1988 Premiers (and doubtless, Medallions) with the new Eagle emblem, as some had already arrived at dealerships or were in transit. Rhettro76 00:35, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying the 1988 branding. My concern was with the style of edits by Nicholas McIntosh and wanted to organize the additional information. - CZmarlin 20:45, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

—24.220.125.243 05:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)== 1988 Eagles ==

I do not own Patrick Foster's book. However I do own the "Standard Catalog of American Cars 1976-1999" I find it odd that this catalog contains no information about AMC Eagles after the 1986 model year (not even 1987's), but on the same page as the 1986 AMC production figures, shows a photo titled "1988 AMC, Eagle 4WD station wagon." - a car which Rhettro76 claims the "Standard Catalog of American Cars 1976-1999" says is an "Eagle station wagon". Do you believe everything you read? If you go by the "Standard Catalog of American Cars 1976-1999" the 1987 AMC Eagle does not exist! Have you ever considered that these publications may be wrong?

So, OK, we have the word of the formost expert on AMC history, and another publication which probably got it's information from him. In a message to me on his Talk page Rhettro76 places great importance on "marketing". Do we have any print ads, or television ads backing up the claims of "Eagle station wagon"? No. The only reference to the name I have seen in ads for these cars (all years) is "AMC Eagle", "American Eagle" and "American Eagle Wagon". Show me proof of "Eagle station wagon" in any marketing materials. You can't. They do not exist.

However, we have the VIN which states "American Motors (Canada) Inc." {Canada is in parenthesis in the Eagle TSM}

We have several AMC badges on the car.

We have "American Motors" all over the car.

The car's build sheet says "American Motors (Canada) Inc".

The 1988 Window Sticker says "AMC". go here... http://home.comcast.net/~desoto60/1988_Eagle_Window_Sticker.jpg

The 1988 Shipping order says "AMC". go here... http://home.comcast.net/~desoto60/1988_Eagle_Window_Sticker_Style_2.jpg

The 1988 addendum to the 1987 Dealer Brochure says "AMC"

It was built in the AMC plant in Brampton (Yes owned by Chrysler at the time. The Jaguar plant in England is owned by ford, but no one claims that it is a Ford XJS. A change in corporate ownership does not change or eliminate the marque.)

OVERWHELMING evidence points to "AMC Eagle Wagon" while only one very respected person claims otherwise. I'm sorry, it's an AMC.

As far as Rhettro76's Renault statement to me on his Talk page. There is plenty of reference to American Motors in print ads ("marketing") for Renault cars of the era. Here's one example... http://www.nicholasmcintosh.com/Fuego-Racey.jpg

Also, why would you remove the Hornet from the related vehicles? Have you seen a Hornet Wagon? It is the very same body used on the Eagles. Go here... http://oldcarandtruckpictures.com/AmericanMotors/1971_AMC_Hornet_Sportabout_DL_Station_Wagon.jpg

I am sorry if I haven't gone about this in the right manner. I am new to this. I am only interested in documenting the facts about these cars. I do not believe that proof of fact is to be had in the books "Standard Catalog of American Cars 1976-1999" or "American Motors, the Last Independent". Though Mr. Foster is highly regarded. There are books out there that list the 1988 AMC Eagle as a Jeep, or an Eagle, or have no record of it at all. I beleive proof of fact is in the real world. I have proof sitting in my driveway. I have given many examples to back up my claims - Real World Claims, not blind faith in a printed word. What more do you need?

--Nicholas McIntosh 04:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the Eagle brand section in that book for 1988. There's your source. Also, the reason that the 1987 AMC information isn't in that book is because the Chrysler buyout messed with the production numbers.

I adjure you to find me an ad for the 1988 Eagle - period - especially one that says it's an AMC. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that Chrysler continued the AMC marque as a brand in its own right for the 1988 model year. These two respected publications bear that out. Television ads of the day DID, however, refer to "Jeep Eagle" dealers, NOT "AMC Jeep Eagle" dealers. Since Chrysler was planning on ending production as soon as possible, why would they change the VINs, build sheets, etc? They didn't even do this for the Premier in '88! American Motors Canada, Ltd. didn't even exist after the Chrysler buyout. It's obvious that Chrysler simply wouldn't put up the money to change the paperwork when the car was about to be dropped.

The federal government's classification of vehicles by fuel economy calls the '88 Eagle a "Vehicle by Eagle" according to [1], whereas they list it as an vehicle by "American Motors Corporation" for 1987 ([2]).

According to the 1988 brochure supplement ([3]), the 1988 model was not an AMC, as the marque is not mentioned at all therein. The brochure does, however, show the "Jeep Eagle" division logo, with the words "Products from Chrysler" underneath it. It's also worth noting that, on said brochure, the 1988 model was subject to Chrysler's 7/70 powertrain warranty in effect at the time.

Technically, the Eagle is based on the Concord, since the Hornet was 2 years out of production when the Eagle line started. However, we can add the AMC Hornet to the list of vehicles related to it, since they're the same platform.

I've owned an '83 Eagle and a '76 Gremlin in my 9 years of driving. I know AMC cars and have studied them. It is not my aim to provide misinformation. However, it seems to me that if the federal government called the car an Eagle in 1988, when they called it an AMC in '87, since the '88 brochure supplemental does NOT mention AMC, but it DOES bear the Jeep Eagle logo, and since both Foster and Standard Catalog denote the change to Eagle branding, I would say that the evidence is overwhelmingly in support of the 1988 models being Eagles, not AMCs as officially branded. Rhettro76 17:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, We'll have to agree to disagree. You say you're going with your sources and calling it an Eagle (make), and I say I'm going with the VIN, badges, stickers, and all of the car's documentation and calling it an AMC. I'll have to leave it up to the Wiki gods to decide which way to go.

Just curious, when does Foster claim the last "AMC" was produced... August or December of 87? http://www.planethoustonamx.com/stuff/last_amc_built.htm --Nicholas McIntosh 17:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

When AMC was acquired by Chrysler, all former AMC products and property became property of the new owner. It is true that logos, insignia, and even VIN numbers continued to be used on "legacy" products. However, that does not change the fact that there is a new ownership. Another example would be the purchase of Jeep by AMC. The Jeep Wagoneer is considered to have been produced by AMC even though it was almost unchanged from the previous owner, Kaiser. Even more muddied would be calling the virtually same Wagoneers that were produced under Chrysler's ownership as a Kaiser product all the way to 1991. There are also AMC designed components in the Jeep Cherokee (XJ) all the way to 2001. Consider the example of the Eagle Premier. It was developed under the AMC and Renault partnership, but produced by Chrysler (in the factory built by AMC) and many components continued to have the AMC logo all the way through 1992. Such "evidence" does not make the 1992 Premier the "last AMC" car. Yes, we would like to have seen AMC survive as an independent automobile company, but the truth is it was sold as of March 2, 1987. Everything after that date became property of Chrysler Corporation - even vehicles in transit to AMC dealers. CZmarlin 19:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. But you're comparing apples to oranges. No one is trying to call it a 1970 Rambler Wagoneer, or a 90 Dodge Wagoneer, or a Rover XJS, or a Chevy 9-3, or a Mercedes-Benz Charger. Which is what you are doing when you call it an Eagle (make). New corporate ownership doesn't negate the make. AMC Bought Jeep, but it was still a Jeep Wagoneer. Chrysler bought AMC, but it was still a Jeep Wagoneer. Ford bought Jaguar, but it is still a Jaguar XJS. General Motors bought Saab, but it is still a Saab 9-3. And the company is now Daimler-Chrysler, but it is still a Dodge Charger.

And I'm not talking about parts. I'm not trying to call my car a ford because it has a ford starter. That is not my point. I'm talking about the emissions sticker, the door plate, the VIN, the badges, the build sheet, the window sticker, etc. Every bit of branding on the car says "AMC" or "American Motors". --Nicholas McIntosh 20:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the following: "all former AMC products and property became property of the new owner." This also includes the brand names, makes, and associated logos. Thus, AMC no longer existed as an independent corporate entity after being purchased by Chrysler. That is why a T-shirt today made with the image of a classic AMC Gremlin or AMX has the copyright by DaimlerChrysler Motors Company -- NOT by AMC. Using your example, the new Dodge Charger is a DaimlerChrysler vehicle even though the "old" Dodge brand name is the same, similarly as a new Saab carries all the traditional Swedish insignias, but it is manufactured by GM. The example of the final run of Eagle wagons is similar. It is not comparing apples to oranges. Chrysler, as the new owner of AMC of Canada and all other subsidiaries, saw no need in developing all new door plates, emissions stickers, etc. for the last run of this model. Government regulations allow continuation of the same safety and emissions certifications regardless of the corporate ownership. In a similar situation, I know employees at a company that was purchased by another corporation, who continued to receive pay stubs, envelopes, and other documentation with the name of the old company. Does that still make them employees of the previous firm? No, the new owner was simply using up the existing supplies. Just like Chrysler did with the final AMC wagon production! CZmarlin 21:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been asked to reply to this discussion. I posted something earlier today, but I do not see it any longer. So either I messed up, as a guest, or guest's cannot edit. Anyway I am the owner of the AMC Eagle Nest a little website devoted to the AMC Eagle and some may say I know a few things about this line of AMC's. Technically, yes, AMC did become part of Chrysler in 1987. At the time it was considered a merger (this can be debated hotly elsewhere). However, the 1988 AMC Eagle Station wagon was produced for model year 1988. With production ending in mid December. Throughout it's 9 year model run, AMC referred to this car as both the "American Eagle" and as the "AMC Eagle" in their corporate literature. If you look at a 1988 AMC Eagle Window Sticker and Invoice you will see either the AMC Logo and "American Motors" on it. Please follow this link to view them. [4] You will notice on the second document viewed there that the car was sold and warrantied by the American Motors Sales Corporation, not Chrysler. The 1988 brochure spoken about earlier also mentions the American Motors Sales Corporation along with the Chrylser information. The 1988 AMC Eagle was still badged as an AMC product, despite the myths. Other "Eagle" products other than the AMC Eagle Wagon were not advertised or sold as AMC products, just plain Eagles. Although, the Eagle Premier, if one was to look under the hood and elsewhere had AMC logo'd parts and stickers -- but so did Jeeps for a long time after the "merger". So yes, in my opinion, the AMC Eagle wagon for model year 1988 was an AMC product as a merged company with Chrysler. 71.7.23.126 23:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Doug Shepard, (IowaEagle) AMC Eagle Nest, LLC

Dodge VIN, Dodge Badges, Dodge documents, Daimler-Chrysler Ownership = Dodge; Saab VIN, Saab badges, Saab Documents, GMC Ownership = Saab; Jaguar VIN, Jaguar Badges, Jaguar Documents, Ford Ownership = Jaguar; AMC VIN, AMC Badges, AMC Documents, Chrysler Ownership = AMC no matter what the all trustworthy and common-sensical US federal government or Patrick Foster say. But don't look to the real world for answers, just bury your nose in a few books, and regurgitate. --Nicholas McIntosh 01:51, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Please do not think that I am trying to "bury my nose" or even quote from books -- and please be civil in your discussions on Wikipedia. However, the cold truth is -- no matter what the overwhelming evidence of tags, stickers, brochures, logos and other "hard" items -- American Motors Corporation was purchased by Chrysler. Thus, the legal corporate entity after the acquisition that took responsibility for all products, people, and service was Chrysler. The statement that the Eagle continued to be sold and warrantied by the American Motors Sales Corporation, is true -- but please don't forget that the actual owner of the corporate entity was Chrysler after the buyout. In other words, the ultimate decision to make good on an owner's issue with their Eagle (or any other AMC product) was an employee now working for Chrysler and any payments to the dealer for service under the terms of "AMC's warranty" would have been by Chrysler. Yes, I am a certified "AMC-nut case" and would have hoped that American Motors continued operations. Nevertheless, the truth is that Chrysler and not AMC ultimately performed all operations, controlled the subsidiaries, and did the strategic decision-making. Of course, many people and departments continued in their existing form. They also took time to use up the stock of AMC supplies, stickers, warranty cards, etc. Nevertheless, it makes no difference how we want to believe that AMC "lived on" after March 2, 1987. There were no more AMC corporate shareholders or other securities. Chrysler took all the debts and obligations of the company. The buyout was complete -- and Chrysler now backed each of the AMC products. Another example is the safety and emissions programs. Chrysler honored the few problems that AMC vehicles encountered in succeeding years under the federal warranty requirements. For example, the case of heater core problems in Renault Alliances was discovered in 1988 and again in 1992. The report by the Office of Defects Investigation lists the manufacturer as Chrysler Corporation in its NHTSA Campaign ID # 88V087000 and # 92V051000. Of course we well know that the Renault Alliances were built in the same plant in Kenosha -- and most likely by many same people -- that made so many of our favorite AMC cars. It is worth noting that Chrysler kept the production of the Eagle going even though they put a very quick halt to the Alliance and Encore models. Chrysler also took advantage and expanded their international business and government operations by using the existing AMC entities serving those markets. Thus, I do not have my nose buried. I also have personal knowledge of the situation having purchased a brand new 1987 Cherokee Laredo just prior to the buyout. When it needed some work done under the warranty, the now “former” AMC dealer (with the same name and signs as before) handled it as if it was a Chrysler vehicle. The paper work still had AMC on it, but it was Chrysler employees who now took care of everything. This is because AMC did not exist. There was no continuation of a separate AMC entity that had AMC money to hire people. Obviously, it took some time for the companies to mesh their operations. I also toured the old Jeep factory in Toledo and there were AMC signs everywhere -- long after Chrysler’s purchase. I even signed the guestbook in the “Jeep House” museum on the grounds of the facility, right beneath the previous visitor there: Lee Iacocca. In my "book" AMC is still very much alive and I strive to keep AMCs on the road! The brutal reality is that the AMC as a corporation ceased to exist after Chrysler bought it out. CZmarlin 03:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

My last word in this futile argument... It doesn't matter that the company was purchased by Chrysler, and warrantee serviced by Chrysler, and sold at Jeep/Eagle dealerships. The VIN and everything else on the car say it is an AMC.... period.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nicholas McIntosh (talk • contribs).

The government calls the car an Eagle, not an AMC, for 1988. The 1988 sales literature calls the car an Eagle, NOT and AMC. It doesn't matter what the build sheets say, Chrysler did NOT continue the AMC brand after the buyout. The only thing they did continue was the badge (which doesn't matter, as evinced by the '83-84 Alliance and Encore...they were still Renaults), the same VIN series, and the paperwork.

AMC DID NOT EXIST after August 1987, when the buyout was closed (the agreement happened in March). Neither did American Motors Canada, Ltd. The AMC brand was discontinued at that point, multiple sources say this. So does Chrysler's own literature, as evinced by the 1988 brochure supplemental. It is obvious that Chrysler decided not to spend the money re-VIN-ing, rebadging, and updating the paperwork on a car they would only be building for 4 months. The plates, sheets, and codes had most likely already been made.

However, since AMC no longer existed as a company, it cost them NOTHING to market it as an Eagle Wagon. Not an AMC. Even the EPA took the hint!Rhettro76 18:14, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• The fact that AMC did not exist after August 1987 did NOT mean the end of production of vehicles designed by AMC/Renault. Some, such as the Eagle wagon continued in production, as did Jeeps. The Cherokee (XJ) was almost unchanged from its 1984 blueprints all the way to 1996. However, please recognize that after 1987, all of the "former" AMC products were "made" by Chrysler -- even if they were in the assembled in the same factories as before and continued to have AMC logos on some of the parts and components after the buyout date. The Eagle that was built on July 5, 1987, was assembled under the ownership of the Chrysler Corporation -- even though it had the leftover AMC tags, stickers, and VIN. It was Chrysler (not AMC) that paid the employees that worked on it. The money collected from the dealer upon this car’s sale also went to Chrysler - not AMC. — CZmarlin 13:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Production vs. Model Years

Before this erupts into a tussle, I want to ask the question generally.

Does the word "production" as it appears in the table indicate the years it was produced, or the model years for which it was marketed?

It is unclear, I will grant. However, I prefer to err on the side of literality until "model years" becomes its own valid line entry.

The table says "Production", not "Model Years". Therefore, in my opinion, the timeline of when the vehicle was produced is what's being asked...not the model years for which the vehicle was produced.

Thoughts? Rhettro76 21:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy of being the first cross over?

Subaru had installed AWD on a select few of its 1000 model for specific off road purposes in the late 60s. Also, the leone had a 4 wheel drive option in the early 70s. Could these be considered early cross overs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.228.181.253 (talk) 17:55, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

The Subaru had a simple part-time system that could not be used on regular roads. The AMC Eagle was the first complete line (sedan, coupe, and station wagon) of permanent automatic all-wheel drive passenger cars. The Eagle was not designed to be a strictly off-road vehicle. It offered full passenger comforts and features that included automatic transmission as standard, as well as "crossover" with its 4-wheel-drive traction in difficult conditions. CZmarlin (talk) 04:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article is just factually incorrect about the AMC Eagle being the pioneer of crossover vehicles. Subaru were making 4x4 wagons in the early 1970s - check out the wiki pages on the Subaru Leone. By the time the Eagle arrived, the Leone was into its second generation. The Eagle didn't inspire the Subaru Outback - 25 years of Subaru's own 4wd wagons, and the enthusiasts who had been installing lift kits and larger tires, are the more likely source! It is also unfair to call the Subaru part time 4wd system 'simplistic', and then proclaim the AMC Eagle's off-roading abilities. The old Subaru part time system, especially with the dual range gearbox, provides far better off road traction than any viscous coupled AWD system. It is also extremely rugged. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.54.168.225 (talk) 07:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

The AMC Eagle was the first mass production car to use a full-time all-wheel drive system. The Subaru vehicles still used part-time four-wheel drive systems that could not be engaged on dry pavement. You even state "The old Subaru part time system" meaning it was not designed to operate on dry pavement. This is an important distinction for drivers and gave the AMC Eagle a significant technological advance. Moreover, "enthusiasts who had been installing lift kits and larger tires" are not the more likely source of information. The differences between the technologies are noted in the article. It also provides reputable references confirming that the AMC Eagle was a pioneering vehicle in the automobile industry, as well as "pioneered the cross-over SUV" before the crossover term became popular. CZmarlin (talk) 19:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I corrected the Introduction date for the Subaru Leone/DL/GL is was available as a production vehicle as of 1972 and 1974 in the US. the AWD using "wet hydraulic multi-plate clutch" was introduced in 1981. You also look at the WP article on 4WD.208.252.197.126 (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)sgtdonwilson

References

And let's not forget the Jenson FF, which was full-time 4wd back in 1966. Yevad (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

You are correct, Yevad! The first permanent four-wheel drive coupe, was indeed the Jensen Interceptor FF. However, it was hand-built and expensive with a grand total of only 320 units produced during the six years that it was marketed. It was the AMC Eagle that entered the marketplace in 1979 that offered a range of body styles equipped with fully automatic all-wheel drive as an affordable option for consumers. Cheers! CZmarlin (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on AMC Eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090301043706/http://www.edmunds.com:80/insideline/do/Drives/LongTerm/articleId=139726 to http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do/Drives/LongTerm/articleId=139726

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool. - by CZmarlin (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

You are both correct, one from a marketing point of view, the other from a legal

To you fellows fighting over whether or not AMC existed after the Chrysler takeover: yes, it did. Not as an independent entity, but as a corporate entity, yes. And, yes, the final Eagles were built by American Motors Canada, which was a legal, corporate entity owned originally by AMC and never an independent company. A corporate entity does not have to be independent to exist as a legal entity. During a merger it takes time to legally dismantle a large corporation, such as AMC. The cars were marketed as Eagles during the brief period they were on the market but that doesn't mean they were built by Eagle or Chrysler proper. They were built by a Chrysler subsidiary named American Motors Canada. Chrysler eventually renamed American Motors Corporation "Jeep-Eagle Corporation" before dissolving the corporation and folding it into Chrysler subsidiaries. Yes, there was a Jeep-Eagle Corp.! In fact Nash-Kelvinator Corp, never ceased to exist, it simply changed it name to American Motors just before the merger (actually a consolidation) with the Hudson Motor Company.

There are many examples of companies marketing under one name but legally existing under another. It is called a D/B/A. The Ohio Bell Telephone Company has not been an independent corporation for well over 80 years yet has changed ownership and the way it markets itself. It has been marketed as Ohio Bell, Ameritech Ohio and now AT&T Ohio but the legal name is still the Ohio Bell Telephone Company.

So the final AMC was sold as an Eagle in advertising though badged an AMC and built by AMC after it was bought by Chrysler. From the now defunct Chrysler Corporation's point of view (yes, that Chrysler no longer exists) the Eagle would be considered among the first of the Eagle's make's first products. From a purely internal legal point of view they were AMC products. From the EPA's point of view they are Eagles. I saw one at the Eagle display at the Philadelphia auto show and it said AMC all over it. I would be interested to see who the door sticker said who built the very first Premiers. So, in a sense, you are both right. From a historical point of view I would consider the last 2,000 Eagles to be last AMCs.

What make did the various state and territorial vehicle registries use, AMC or Eagle? That would probably vary as well.

As for Patrick Foster, I have read many of his writings but he still doesn't understand that the legal entity known as American Motors did not begin in 1954 but in fact was a corporation incorporated in 1918 as the Nash Motor Company. Moody's industrial manual is a good source for the legal goings on that corporations don't even mention in their annual reports.2601:85:C001:FB9B:C828:B76D:6128:6E5A (talk) 01:16, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Original crossover

A contributor added a claim that the Lada Niva is a "predecessor to current crossover SUVs" with a cite to That Car Review (30 Sep 2011). However, there is no indication in this reference of this "relic from the cold war era" as being a real crossover. Instead of it being a comfortable passenger car, it "is best described as agricultural." The Niva is a "cheap way to get workers around the farm" and not a crossover. On the other hand, the AMC Eagles with full-time all-wheel drive system are directly related to the Concord passenger line of cars. Therefore, the unsubstantiated opinions have been removed. CZmarlin (talk) 20:49, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

"Agricultural" and a "cheap way to get workers around the farm" are opinions. That the Niva is a vehicle built using car-based components (engine, transmission, HVAC, most of the suspension components), has a unibody, has full-time AWD with inter-axle differential, has independent front suspension - these are hard facts. I thought Wikipedia is based on facts, not opinions. Just because it is small, blocky and does not ride as cushy as a mid-size car does not make it less a crossover. And by the way, I did not remove the claim that the AMC Eagle was the first crossover, I simply added a link to another possible contender, that is it. Let the readers decide. Mikus (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

HowStuffWork's outrageous claim that the Eagle is today known as the first crossover vehicle

First, does the HowStuffWork's article has an author? At least there is a name attached to the article, Eric Baxter. Click it, and you get... nothing. No info about the author, his credentials. At least the article has a list of references, which are very authoritative, like the Edmunds forum. Let's follow it: Edmunds.com. "What is a crossover?" Oct. 23, 2009. (July 13, 2011) http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f1325f3 The link is long dead, but Internet remembers everything: https://web.archive.org/web/20090427040819/http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com:80/direct/view/.f1325f3/1 We can see that someone nicknamed chelentano posted a message about the origins of crossover vehicle. He dropped many names, including Subaru Leone, Lada Niva, Matra Rancho and the Eagle. Nowhere in his message he called the Eagle as the first crossover vehicle, so Eric Baxter simply pulled this info from thin air. The closest he comes is: ""Cross-Over" ... has often been retroactively applied to modified cars such as the AMC Eagle." This is it. Chelentano even has the start of production dates for the Niva and the Eagle. Eric Baxter, whoever he is, created the claim, and CZmarlin gave his words weight by quoting him in Wikipedia. This is how fake news spread and amplify.

Now, Eric Baxter himself writes: "Most people have a basic understanding of what a crossover vehicle is -- think car-like uni-body construction and fuel efficiency coupled with a four-wheel-drive or all-wheel-drive drivetrain." The Eagle was one of the first vehicles to have these features, but hardly the first one. So it is one of the first crossovers, but not the first one. No need to quote the "expert" who cannot even correctly quote his source. Case closed. Mikus (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)