Talk:AMC Eagle

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Etiquette on reverting new edits 

message: 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.
# 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.
# 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.
# The fragment on Chrysler's AWD vehicles is moderately relevant, but we can live without such info per 1.
# 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Reverted material 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Incomplete, questionable, and inaccurate information. 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Production vs. Model Years 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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"www.cars-directory.net/history/subaru/leone/ was introduced in 1981. You also look at the WP article on 4WD.208.252.197.126 (talk) 19:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: And let's not forget the Jenson FF, which was full-time 4wd back in 1966. Yevad (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Factual Accuracy of being the first cross over? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on AMC Eagle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  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.
 - by CZmarlin (talk) 22:36, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  You are both correct, one from a marketing point of view, the other from a legal 

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
thread_title:  Original crossover 

message: 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)
thread_title:  HowStuffWork's outrageous claim that the Eagle is today known as the first crossover vehicle