I want a Jeep Cherokee. Not a Grand Cherokee, not a Liberty, not a Wrangler. I like the way they look and the AMC engine they use.
I know there are different generations of that I6. I am looking at 99 and up models. I don't have specific questions except which years and engines should I watch out for and how do these engines fare? I am seeing 99-2000 models with 200k miles on them (!).
I'd prefer a stick with 4x4. Seems most of them are 4x4 but not many stick.
My current wife and her ex had one in the era. If I remember right they really liked it. I'm IZ_ on details since it was sort of before my time. I know it was an auto. Wifely unit doesn't do a stick. Yeah, that's right... I said it that way on purpose! [laugh] Late afternoon entertainment. ;D I bet most of them will be autos. I can see manuals being few and far between. I'm on pretty good terms with her ex, I'll ask him about it next time I see him.
Derby
http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=48032.0 (http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=48032.0)
Quote from: Stella on August 12, 2011, 02:52:22 PM
Derby
http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=48032.0 (http://www.ducatimonsterforum.org/index.php?topic=48032.0)
That's on jeeps in general. I'm looking for specific info on the Cherokees.. i.e. engine, fueling, electrical etc
Jeepforum.com. Consensus is the '99 is best. Strongest engine and also upgraded rear axle. I may be biased, I own one
Quote from: DW on August 12, 2011, 03:51:13 PM
Jeepforum.com. Consensus is the '99 is best. Strongest engine and also upgraded rear axle. I may be biased, I own one
The 99 has a better axle than the later years?
I assume the engine output is related to emissions limitations?
I googled the 99 model and they have a 4-cylinder model too? What motor is that?
Quote from: ducatiz on August 12, 2011, 03:52:42 PM
The 99 has a better axle than the later years?
I assume the engine output is related to emissions limitations?
Backwards actually. The '99 on received a stronger Chrysler rear axle, but mid 2000 they changed the head design. Output is the same, but the 2000-01 head is prone to cracking. Look up the XJ section at jeepforum for all the answers you could want.
Hence the '99 is the best of bthe old cOmbined with the best of the new. Also axles change based upon abs as an option. Tons of configurations.
Expect to change electric window motors. CONSTANTLY.
Other than being really light on the rear and prone to skidding in the wet, they're uber solid.
They also have a particular smell that can only be described as the Cherokee smell. Every single one I've been in has it.
Quote from: ducatiz on August 12, 2011, 03:37:40 PM
That's on jeeps in general. I'm looking for specific info on the Cherokees.. i.e. engine, fueling, electrical etc
The convo in the prior thread covered a bit of what you were
originally looking for.
Re: engines, fueling, electrical, etc. - yes, jeepforum is the place for that. (Also www.cherokeeforum.com (//http://))
My '99 is still holding strong at 277k - original engine. No electrical issues other than a one-time
window motor fail that we fixed at home with minimal effort.
Can't say it has any particular smell that I ever noticed nor has anyone brought it to my attention.
Maybe I'm used to it after so many miles?! If anything, it smells like Armor All. [thumbsup]
Good luck w/your search!
It's from the off gasing of the plastic interior or so the theory goes
Avoid the peugoet(sp) transmission
You WILL replace the header often
On the I6 At 250,000 miles you should consider changing the timing chain
On the 258's you will want to change out the plastic valve cover
[quote
They also have a particular smell that can only be described as the Cherokee smell. Every single one I've been in has it.
[/quote]
That's funny. Mine smells like sweaty mountain bike gear. Pretty much overwhelms everything else...
Lift kits for the Cherokee sports are fairly cheap as well. There is lots of aftermarket stuff for them as well. I'm considering building one as well.
I'm not interested in modding it too much. I originally got interested because the early models had a Renault diesel in them. I see them pop up every once in a while. The look has grown on me and a girl in my office has one which she's let me drive and I rather like it.
I had a Ranger for a truck and it died, and I've been thinking maybe a ute would be better, esp since I have a trailer for when I need a truck bed.
You don't want a 99 and up, you want a 98. In 99 they changed the head design. Smaller exhaust ports to decrease emissions. The new casting is prone to warping when it gets hot, and Cherokees have a tendency to get hot.
Justin
Quote from: A.duc.H.duc. on August 12, 2011, 09:41:49 PM
You don't want a 99 and up, you want a 98. In 99 they changed the head design. Smaller exhaust ports to decrease emissions. The new casting is prone to warping when it gets hot, and Cherokees have a tendency to get hot.
Justin
Reference above, '99 still has the old head design.
(http://www.cherrytree.co.uk/img/45/4576/p/4576.jpg)
I had a '94 XJ Cherokee Limited, 4x4, auto I6. Did 250,000 trouble free Kms all on LPG. No failures ever. Nothing. Beat the living crap out of it in the bush doing stuff it was never meant to do.
IMO, absolutely dependable and unbreakable. Except for the time I drowned it in a river [laugh].
Quote from: El Matador on August 12, 2011, 04:44:16 PM
Expect to change electric window motors. CONSTANTLY.
Other than being really light on the rear and prone to skidding in the wet, they're uber solid.
They also have a particular smell that can only be described as the Cherokee smell. Every single one I've been in has it.
worst part of owning a jeep.....
Quote from: DW on August 13, 2011, 05:09:08 AM
Reference above, '99 still has the old head design.
My mistake. However, '99s will have the low pinion front axle which is less desirable. If you need more details, the late head casting number is 0331, the head casting that you want is 0630.
I've been searching and it seems like VERY few of them were sold as stick -- or no one wants to sell theirs.
What about the I4 engine? is it any good?
I had the experience of driving one with a 4 banger, manual trans, 4 wheel drive. To some it up in three words, SLOW AND CRUDE.
My wife had one. It was a 4X4 auto with an inline 6. We got it at a government auction. Being a former federal car it had no extra options. We were lucky it had a radio. As I remember Consumer Report hated them. Terrible reliability issues and poor fuel economy. However, we did not have much trouble with ours. It had hand crank windows so no problems with electric windows ;D.
I've also heard to avoid the I4.
JM
Had a '98 Wrangler with the I4. Wasn't bad if you never had to pass on the highway. ;)
I went to a '99 with a 4.0 the next year.
Quote from: ducatiz on August 15, 2011, 11:47:43 AM
What about the I4 engine? is it any good?
It is a good little motor actually you just have to keep in mind it is trying to pull a 4k lb vehicle with full sized truck tires and zero aerodynamics
The best Cherokee version of the 2.5 had 130hp and 149lbs-ft...early to mid 90's
The worst Wrangler version of the 2.5 had 105hp and 130lbs-ft
by comparison
The 258 (both versions)I-6 ('71-'90) was 112hp and 210lbs-ft
The 242 (4.0 High Output) I-6 ('91-'06) was 190hp and 230lbs-ft
The 2.5 is simply a 258 with 2 cylinders chopped off
All those are great motors if you utilize common sense
I quantify my opinion as I have blown up all of them...some more than once
Quote from: Jacob on August 16, 2011, 02:05:34 AM
It is a good little motor actually you just have to keep in mind it is trying to pull a 4k lb vehicle with full sized truck tires and zero aerodynamics
The best Cherokee version of the 2.5 had 130hp and 149lbs-ft...early to mid 90's
The worst Wrangler version of the 2.5 had 105hp and 130lbs-ft
by comparison
The 258 (both versions)I-6 ('71-'90) was 112hp and 210lbs-ft
The 242 (4.0 High Output) I-6 ('91-'06) was 190hp and 230lbs-ft
The 2.5 is simply a 258 with 2 cylinders chopped off
All those are great motors if you utilize common sense
I quantify my opinion as I have blown up all of them...some more than once
What makes the HO models? Supercharged? Turbo?
I don't need a speed demon, and if the I4 is good enough and can pull a class 1 hitch, then i am fine with it.
Are there overbore kits for the I4 or supercharger kits?
I would turbo it anyways. Better gas mileage.
Quote from: cokey on August 16, 2011, 07:28:03 AM
I would turbo it anyways. Better gas mileage.
Turbo is far more complex to retrofit, unless someone has a kit.
Supercharging is easier to retrofit.
Quote from: ducatiz on August 16, 2011, 06:01:18 AM
What makes the HO models? Supercharged? Turbo?
I don't need a speed demon, and if the I4 is good enough and can pull a class 1 hitch, then i am fine with it.
Are there overbore kits for the I4 or supercharger kits?
I used to own a 90 wrangler with the 2.5 4 banger. The 'HO' in the 4.0 straight six stands for high output. One big difference between that motor and the 4.2 six is that the HO is fuel injected and the 4.2 is carburated. They make various fuel injection kits for the 4.2 (well they did 8-9 years ago when I kept up with jeeps). The fuel injection kit reportedly is night and day with the added power. I have driven both the 4.2 and the 4.0 wranglers, and the 4.2 was pretty much as slow as my 2.5. The 4.0 was a great motor that had gobs of torque.
I'm not a jeep expert, and I am definitely not a Cherokee expert, but I was pretty enthusiastic about them in the mid-late 90's. One thing to be aware of is that the Cherokee is uni-body construction, but it seems you are not intending to modify it or wheel it that much, so it might be a moot point.
I can't see them calling an FI motor high output unless its supercharged or turboed but then again, that's marketing.
http://www.avengersuperchargers.com/ (http://www.avengersuperchargers.com/)
Quote from: Speedbag on August 16, 2011, 12:45:55 PM
http://www.avengersuperchargers.com/ (http://www.avengersuperchargers.com/)
i saw that.. i haven't seen any turbo setups
all of the supercharged vehicles i have seen get crappy mpg.. not that that is the most important on a jeep, but i'd rather not lose it!
The HO was just an indication of the new intake and fuel injection system when the redesigned the 4.0 liter motor do differentiate it from the previous "RENIX" fuel system. The new system did include a very significant boost in power, without changing any of the mechanical workings of the motor, hence, high output.
Quote from: A.duc.H.duc. on August 16, 2011, 12:54:57 PM
The HO was just an indication of the new intake and fuel injection system when the redesigned the 4.0 liter motor do differentiate it from the previous "RENIX" fuel system. The new system did include a very significant boost in power, without changing any of the mechanical workings of the motor, hence, high output.
thanks for the info. i've seen references to the renix fuel system. now i know. and knowing is half the battle.
Quote from: ducatiz on August 16, 2011, 12:49:44 PM
all of the supercharged vehicles i have seen get crappy mpg.. not that that is the most important on a jeep, but i'd rather not lose it!
True.
Based on my experience with the Wranglers, the 2.5 wasn't all that much better than the 4.0 when it came to mileage. I think I eked out 21 on the highway once or twice with the 2.5, where the 4.0 got high teens.
Quote from: ducatiz on August 16, 2011, 12:22:22 PM
I can't see them calling an FI motor high output unless its supercharged or turboed but then again, that's marketing.
If you get a chance to drive a 4.2 carb VS a 4.0 FI, you will see the justification of calling it a "High Output" [laugh]
I'd drive the carbed I-6 about as far as I could kick that make the beast with two backsing carburetor
you cannot and will not tow shit with the 2.5
you want the 4 litre HO
it is the only way to go and you can get about 23mpg in the cherokee with it
plus you said you aren't interested in modding it so none of the axle preferences matter
the dana 30/35 will do you just fine
forced induction on a jeep motor is....make the beast with two backsing stupid comes to mind
it would cost less, make more power, get better fuel mileage, and last longer to drop a small block in one vs forced induction