I just picked up a 97 ZJ as my bad weather commuter car and couldn't be happier. After having owned both ZJ's and XJ's I will definitely tell you the Grand Cherokees are a much more comfortable ride. If that doesn't matter, then either one would be a great choice.

As far as reliability, you just have to make sure you follow a good maintenance schedule. Jeeps are somewhat like VW's in that they have a lot of idiosyncrasies.

You might also want to check out JeepForum.com

That's where I pulled a lot of my information when I made my purchase. They're a great bunch of guys that are extremely helpful.

Good luck!

Fat Rabbits #30 -- When super-sizing isn't enough!

Other than day, it is a great car.

The regular maintenance goes for any vehicle... If you take care of your Cherokee (don't forget the grease zerks on the front end) you should be able to get well over 200k out of it (if it doesn't rust away first lol)

I have used JeepForum for a couple writeups, but I'm not a member so I can't comment either way...

*EDIT* btw, the 4.0L is an inline 6, not a V6

FWIW, I didn't have a bad rear main, but I think I would have preferred that to the exhaust manifold.

If I had a need for something that small with 4 wheel drive, I would definitely consider another. They're really not that roomy, but then again, no midsize SUV is.

[Oo=\X/=oO] The Jetta

Grad school in the middle of the Amazon rain forest?

4.0L = indestructible

Modified by umeng2002 at 8:30 AM 7-11-2008

I've said it before, but the Jeep 4.0L engine is the toughest, least maintenance-demanding engine I have ever had personal experience with. Folks on the internet know that the Jeep 4.0L is durable, but they know little of its history.

The original Jeep 4.0L inline-six was hewn from a solid block of granite by lightning bolts. Its cylinders were bored by the Imperial Winds and its rotating assembly was balanced by the Scales of Justice. The Ancient Egyptians used Jeep 4.0L engines to move the blocks which built the Pyramids, only switching to slave labor when it was found to be cheaper than the olive oil used to fuel the engines. Scientists have ranked the Jeep 4.0L engine as one of the strongest forces of nature, racking right up there with tectonic plate shifts for its low-end torque, and being surpassed by hurricanes only for its comparatively low redline.

Mechanics have found imprints of fossilized dinosaur bones in block castings, and serial numbers in Roman numerals are a common sight. The design of the 4.0L's fuel injection system has been traced to the archives of Leonardo DaVinci, and early manuscripts of Shakespeare plays have been used as head gaskets for this engine (which, incidentally, explains the gaps in Shakespeare's collected works as well as the 4.0L's tendancy to leak oil). The engine's ancient roots also explain its ability to run on some very non-conventional fuels (original translations of the Rosetta Stone include evidence of Jeep 4.0L engines running on ox blood) as well as lubrications (during the Middle Ages, Jeep 4.0L crankcases were often filled with barley, with no detrimental effect on power output).

Historians maintain that the fall of the Roman Empire hinged on their inability to design a superior engine, and had the Titanic been powered by a 4.0L Jeep engine, 1912 might have been a much happier year. Yes, had early-20th-century naval engineers had a touch more foresight, the Jeep 4.0L may have saved mankind from ever having to endure Leonardo DiCaprio and Celene Dion in the same sitting.

The only weakness in this otherwise unstoppable force of nature? Emissions. Yes, the engine's design may have come from the hand of Zeus, and its exhaust note at full throttle may have reverberated along the rock formations of Arizona to forge the Grand Canyon, but by the year 2007 its crude emissions control (originally consisting of papyrus strips soaked in the tears of the young Tutankhaman) had become outmoded, and the legendary, nay Biblical force of the Jeep 4.0L was put to rest.

I have two of these, a '98 and a '96. Cheap, easy to work on, not too bad gas mileage for a rolling brick, and dead reliable.

FWIW, a lot of people who look at 4Runners also look at Pathfinders, and they end up buying the Pathfinder and being very happy with it. In case it matters, I was much happier with my Pathfinder ('92 5-speed) than my '86 Cherokee (4.0 auto). I didn't buy either for off-roading (99.999% of people don't, I think). Both got the same mileage, but the Pathfinder was more reliable and nicer to drive, even though it didn't have the power/torque of the Jeep. 3.0 V6, BTW.

And I have my doubts about how common it is for control arms to rip out. If that's the case, why do Jeeps seem to be the hands-down favorite among the off-road crowds?

[Oo=\X/=oO] The Jetta

Bought it for $3500, drove it for 2 years and 20k miles, and then sold it for $3500. In those two years it cost me $4 to change a tail light.

I bought it was 130k on it without even thinking twice.

However, between all my buddies from high school, they've gone through at least 12 XJ's. New, used, all abused, all very reliable. A few of them just buy $1000 beaters, run them hard from wheeling, work, hauling crap, then replace as necessary.

edit: BillyD, I must say that, from your sig, you have excellent taste in vehicles.

Modified by Noisyninja at 2:26 PM 7-11-2008

Same here. I never saw any control arm problems, though I certainly tried:

I know, these pictures weren't taken while blasting down washboard roads. I did that, too; I just don't have pictures of it.

Quote, originally posted by xdre »

None of us are rejecting OHC technology, we just don't accept that it's automatically and intrinsically superior. Especially when it's not.

Quote, originally posted by Juniper Monkeys »

The scale is very complicated. There was some quantitative change, the specifics of which I am not party to.

P.S.- but if you do have a turbo caravan, you get some points...

Modified by TurnFour at 12:09 AM 7-12-2008

Def try and get one with a good rear main seal as I've read it's a real pain to change, though this probably won't be an issue if you're looking at a newer one.

If gas prices weren't what they are I'd be looking for the nicest '02ish grand cherokee I could find.

I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -GB

And I appreciate your willingness to tell him what you've seen. I just found it a little odd since I hadn't experienced it myself. Besides the XJ pictured above, I've also owned 3 modified TJs. Despite abusing all of them, I've never broken a control arm on any of them. Maybe I'm just lucky?

As for the turbo caravans, I've owned (and raced) a number of them. I even run a small, hardly-known website that talks about how you, too, can race a turbo minivan for pocket change.

Quote, originally posted by xdre »

None of us are rejecting OHC technology, we just don't accept that it's automatically and intrinsically superior. Especially when it's not.

Quote, originally posted by Juniper Monkeys »

The scale is very complicated. There was some quantitative change, the specifics of which I am not party to.

I love my Jeep, even though it's crude as hell, dog slow, and people laugh at my red houndstooth plaid interior. It's capable in rough going, gets decent mileage, is cheap and easy to repair, and it's size makes it very practical and easy to manuever around town.

Of course, mine is a 22-year-old AMC-era Cherokee. I'm sure by the end of the production run, it was still crude, but not as bad as mine is.

EDIT: I should mention that my Jeep is not powered by the 4.0, but is instead powered by the 'baby 258' AMC 2.5l 4-cylinder, an equally bomb-proof but totally underpowered engine. I'm sure the 4.0 ones can actually merge onto a freeway without scaring their drivers.

Modified by tehAndy at 2:47 AM 7-12-2008

-"My groceries are faster then yours!"

-"There's no such thing, Like a female, with good looks, who cooks & cleans"

I have a 99 XJ with a auto AW4 tranny and 4.0 and I got 25 mpg on the highway before the lift and get about 20 now, not bad for 3 1/2 inches and 31's with factory gears.

Now if your looking for good gas milage with a Jeep look for a 4.0 with a AX-15 manuual tranny and 4.0. I used to get mid to high 20's on the highway. The AX-15 has an airplane gear for fifth gear and runs on the highway at 75 mph at under 2,000 rpm = great MPG's

the black one

As for the runner ours gets about 22-23 on the highway. It runs solid and it has over 230'xxx miles on it and I just had the first real problem with it, blown radiator. Which can be the biggest problem with the runner, the cost of parts. The radiators start at $130 and the Jeeps start at about $60. The price of the Jeep is better than the runner when you buy and the price of parts is important to.

As far as what TURNFOUR said about cracking mounts, he said what the problem is. Old guys blasting down washboard roads. That is the worst abuse you can put any 4x4 through, that is what car manfacturers use to test the frames on their new vehicles and for good reason. Fast sudden movement with high stress loads will crack any weld no matter who made it.

I havent had any cracks yet and I have been far from nice to my jeep over the years.

On a side note try to find a 99 instead of a 2000. The 99 is know as the best year for the XJ for many reasons. The 2000 and newer went to a new distributorless ignition system which is more expensive to fix, coils pack instead of plug wires. And they had a new head design which was prone to crack and caused alot problems. It's any easy fix if you know how to or have a friend who can and you catch it before it ruins your engine.

Modified by wildcar at 4:21 PM 7-12-2008

Unban Ben.

Great stuff !

Here's to an indestructible engine. We have three XJ's on the farm that we only use for off roading through the woods. Trust me, these things can take a beating.

Quote, originally posted by Travis500 »

Wow, tons of great info wildcar. I was hoping for someone to post Wimbledon's 4.0 origin story, at best. What a pleasant surprise

AHEM

overal, never again will i buy this piece of ****

The XJ, in stock form, really isn't all that bad as far as SUV's go. Credit is due here to its lightweight unibody construction -- just a smidge over 3,000 lbs -- and a really understressed 4.0L that likes to rev L-O-W. As wildcar mentioned (and as I've seen for many years in the Jeep community), it's not unheard of to see 25MPG in a Cherokee in good tune. That's damn skippy good economy in any SUV, particularly one that's lugging around solid axles front and rear and can tackle the Rubicon trail.

A challenge: show me a new, MY 2008+ SUV that can touch 23MPG (a more realistic expectation for a Cherokee) and do all the things offroad that an XJ can do.

Modified by Wellington P Funk at 3:13 PM 7-12-2008