Quirky or prescient? You could proffer that question about a lot of American Motors vehicles. I’d rate this 1984 AMC Eagle station wagon as a bit of both. And AMC had it all going on in ’84 as they introduced the downsized Cherokee XJ that same year – a vehicle that turned out to be the leader in a newly formed market segment. Whatever the case, this Royal Oak, Michigan resident has experienced 121K miles of use and, according to the seller, “is not afraid to go long distances in harsh weather“. Those with interest will find this “go anywhere” station wagon, produced by one of America’s more notable fallen-flag auto manufacturers, available here on Craigslist for $5,400. Thanks are due to Tony P. for this tip!
Back to my opening question, I had a late uncle, by law, who was an eccentric gentleman. He had a PhD in poly-sci and taught at universities in the Middle East, China, and, of course, here in the U.S. He lived on a 100-acre farm where access in foul weather could be impenetrable. And yes, he owned both an Eagle station wagon and a four-door sedan. And while I never considered him to be quirky, the AMC Eagle was right up his alley, but I did think these AMC models were quirky. But I lacked vision as AMC was on the cusp of a movement, and they did cover the bases. Like Sabaru, they produced and marketed 4X4 station wagons before the station wagon configuration fell out of favor, as well as a 4X4 sedan. And with the Jeep Cherokee, they essentially ignited a movement and a logical successor to the Eagle, one that’s still going strong today. Unfortunately, AMC lost its independence, mostly because of the Cherokee and Wrangler siblings. A bigger automotive player saw the value in those two models, though not so much with the Eagle. It makes one wonder how AMC was able to do so much with so little…
So, a twenty-footer? Maybe better than that, as this Eagle shows pretty well with the published listing images, probably better than one would expect considering 40 years of existence and 121K miles of use. It’s not perfect, but it’s good to go as she rests. I’m surprised that its belt line trim hasn’t curled up and fallen off – every piece appears to be still hanging on. The wheels are a nice touch, but I don’t think that they are original to this car – from a Chrysler something or other, maybe?
A 115 HP, 4.2 liter, in-line six-cylinder engine gets the “mo” to all four wheels courtesy of an automatic transmission and attached transfer case. The engine appears to be original and complete, and the seller adds, “Runs great, reliable“.
The biggest drawback to the interior is the carpet – it’s minor, but there is some serious fade going on. Typical for the era is the patterned cloth upholstery, which creates a cheery environment, though some of it is stained a bit. Regardless, none of the seating surfaces look ripped or worn out – just used, and what can be seen of the door panels and dash check out as OK. No images of the cargo area are included in the listing, so that might be worth an inquiry if it’s an essential matter to a potential buyer.
So, what’s your thought, quirky, prescient, or maybe just an in-betweeny model, one that worked at the time and then fell out of favor?
Probably more accurate to call the Eagle the first, or at least an early, crossover than the first SUV. (After all the Jeep Wagoneer debuted in 1963.)
AMC actually lost its independence when Renault took over the company, which was broke after breaking the bank tooling up the failed Matador Coupe and Pacer. Producing the Eagle cost very little and was pretty much a Hail Mary “what have we got to lose” move and it worked, for a while.
I’ve owned a couple of Eagles and they are excellent foul weather vehicles. Watch out for rust under the plastic fender flares, and that plastic valve cover will always wind up leaking. (Metal replacements are available.) The emissions system is very complex and could be a problem if you live in an area that emission-checks cars this old.
Correct…the first crossover.
The Jeep Wagoneer (1962) was the first SUV by today’s standards.
One could argue that the Travelall or Suburban were earlier, but to me it’s obvious those were true work vehicles.
“One could argue that the Travelall or Suburban were earlier, but to me it’s obvious those were true work vehicles“.
I agree with that thought and would place the original Jeep Wagoneer in that same category, it’s really no different than the Travelall. It would suggest that the Ford Bronco (1966) was really the first SUV. It’s all in a definition and the time in which it was coined – they change over time. The first time that I heard the term “Sport Utility Vehicle” used was at the introduction of the ’84 Jeep XJ Cherokee and it seemed to become more commonplace by the intro of the Ford Explorer.
As for the Eagle, it seems like more than just a jacked-up station wagon as there was no two-wheel version sitting at standard height – I really don’t know what to call it.
JO
The 2wd variations of the Eagle models were, variously, the Sportabout wagon and the Hornet/Concord and Spirit (already modded out of its Gremlin past by the time the 4wd chassis was ready).
The key phrase I used in my earlier SUV comments was “by today’s standards.” But even by the standards of the time of introduction, the Wagoneer was significantly different than the Travelall and Suburban. Four doors; a shorter wheelbase, about the same length as a Chevelle or Fairlane. The IH and GMC/Chevrolet models were three doors (until 1964 for the Travelall and 1973 for Suburban) and far too long to park in a garage.
They were still primarily work vehicles, all of them – true. It took the leisure-focused late-1960s to recast Jeep and then other 4wd vehicles, into playthings.
Not an SUV…just a nice medium size station wagon that’s all wheel drive.Could use cars like this in todays world.
Chevrolet had suburbans in the 30s
If today’s SUVs were like this, they might be more desirable.
Unique. Quirky nostalgia. But no matter how much time passes these are just plain ugly. Sorry, but true. Priced well enough, but really what other use than a daily driver and why put yourself through that?
Eye of the beholder. I have always liked the way these looked.
It’s only a deal if you want it.
My wife had a rare Eagle.
It was a four door sedan with a 258 cubic inch engine and FIVE SPEED transmission.
We bought it in Canada but apparently it came from the U.S.
I wonder how many were built.
Later on she had an AMC two door sedan Concord with an anemic Audi sourced four cylinder engine backed by an automatic tranny.
I pulled the four banger, installed an AMC 232 straight six and the car might still be going somewhere.
I had three of these that Were used on my mail route in Illinois. 84, 86, and an 88 through the late 80’s and 90’s. Best vehicle by far for Midwest winters. Out performing my Broncos and Jeep J20 pickups.
I’m with those who call it the first crossover. I like the styling, and these had slightly better use of interior space than the wagons from the Big Three. They slotted somewhere between the sub-compact Ford Pinto and Chevy Vega wagons and the mid-size offerings (Ford Torino/Mercury Montego, Chevy Chevelle et. al “A-Bodies” and the Dodge Coronet/Plymouth Satellite “B-Bodies”). Bigger than the sub-compact Pinto and Vega, but smaller than the mid-size competitors, they were just right for smaller families.
OTOH, the drivetrain was an antique, with a carbureted cast-iron straight six upfront providing the motive power upfront, with a Jeep-sourced transfer case in the middle, driving two (2) solid axles in the front and the back. I don’t remember if these had a center differential with full-time four-wheel drive (4wd), or had locking hubs, but true full-time, all-wheel drive would not appear until most of these had gone to the crusher. I don’t remember if you could get a V8 for these or they only had a range of six-cylinder power plants available, but with the extra weight of the 4wd system, they were “leisurely” performers.
I goofed, the front axle was independent, not a solid axle, a first for a 4wd car! Mea culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima culpa! Source: Wikipedia.
The early 1960s Jeep Wagoneer had available independent front suspension for 4WD models. (The Wagoneer also was initially powered by an overhead-cam six-cylinder engine.)
https://hooniverse.com/hooniverse-weekend-edition-a-jeep-wagoneer-4×4-with-independent-front-suspension/
The 4WD Subaru wagons pre-date the Eagle but only had part-time systems that could not be used on dry pavement.
I meant to say “The 4WD Subaru Wagons had independent front suspension…”
No V8s in the Eagles. Also no locking hubs.
The wheels are off an xj country model. Had the same wheels on my 93.
Lovely looking car. Although I was too young at the time to drive a car, I remember cars like the AMC Eagle.
Posted a comment here a little while ago. Don’t see it anymore, merely a comment about what the wheels were off of. I guess non members comments get kicked off. Not a problem . Won’t make anymore .
Non members don’t get “kicked off”. It was in the Spam filter and I have released it but I don’t know why it ended up there. Unfortunately, that is some of the vagary that occurs with cyber-space applications.
JO
Got it. Thought it strange it was there and then disappeared. Sorry guys . Won’t happen again
I owned an 84. I Rebuilt the engine and tranny- putting a lockout rubber ball in the locking torque converter oil passage. — to eliminate lock up prematurely that these were notorious for. The big six was terribly weak at high altitude. The front 4w drive was fluid coupled, and not really totally effective in the worst snow. I even cast new outer door handles for mine because two broke under normal use. Final straw was when the headliner came down. Plastics throughout just deteriorated over time. I liked the styling! Yet, the car became a joke in its later life. I chalk it up to an “Experience” . I still like my 1951 Ford F1 pickup better.
The first SUV was the International Scout!