95 - 98 Grand Cherokees...opinions?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Aug 23, 2004
Messages
823
Location
Bay Area, CA
In my area, it appears that I can get '95 thru '98 Grand Cherokees pretty cheap ($2k < ). I see more V8s than I6s and from my readings, the six cylinder is pretty reliable. How are the V8s?

Anything I should be on the lookout for? Most that I'm seeing are 150k to near 200k. Ticking time bomb?

This would NOT be a daily driver, used more of heading up to Tahoe and when hauling stuff.
 
They are great if you off road a lot.

Completely impractical otherwise.

The V8 variants are Chrysler Magnum 5.2 and 5.9L

The 4WD 5.2L has a 6500lbs towing capacity
The 5.9L only has a 5000lbs towing capacity due to overheating from the high compression motor.
 
Gas hogs,seem to have a lot of suspension and brake issues.Flimsy bumpers,usually packed with electronic gizmos,and that means more repairs down the line.I'm thinking a pre-1996 Jeep Cherokee 4.0 would be a better choice (not great choice,because they rust terribly in floors and rockers).
 
We had a '96 with the 5.2L V-8. Great vehicle, towed dutifully and performed great off the road. Ours had the Up Country suspension package (taller springs and Bilstein shocks) and with good all-terrain tires, it'd embarrass the mall crawler Grand Cherokees on Jeep Jamborees.

It sucked gas like it was going out of style. 18 on the highway was a good day. I think it was rated 14/18 back in the day. Probably more like 12/16 on today's numbers. But it was a good vehicle otherwise.
 
I had a black 96 limited w/a 318 and quadratrac. Powerful, unstoppable in all conditions...

But..the quadratrac converter box kept failing (forget what its called but not the price $2500 back in 90's!). But that wasn't the biggest problem to me.

The biggest problem to me was handling on roads. Kept leaning over on its quadra coils. Back and forth, back and forth. Lean left, lean right and pull. Every little slope in the road over it went. shocks and suspension parts made no difference, it was just too narrow in proportion to its height. Future years to today the wheel base has gotten wider and wider.

I loved that jeep except for the wandering and the back and forth leaning.
 
When you say hauling stuff do you mean trailer or just stuff inside?

I have a 2001 and its an enjoyable vehicle to drive. I think it looks nice and drives well.

The engine did go on me (piston skirts) but I think older ones do not have the piston skirt problem.

I get about 20 MPG highway but I am an easy driver when it comes to the gas pedal.
 
The engine are all very reliable.

You *NEED* to be very careful with the horrible Chrysler automatic transmission behind the 4.0s , though. The 4.0 is capable of a few hundred K miles, the transmission ... not so much.

The early year ZJ grand cherokees (93-98) are pretty well known for frying ECMs and they do have a few typical Chrysler electronic problems.
 
buy it for 2k, and prepare to dump $4k in suspension, electrical, and probably every single vacuum and cooling lines.
 
Thanks for your opinions guys.

Looks like they're solid engines (either engine) but the rest of the stuff looks problematic. I'm guessing the low upfront price will be negated by the "extras"

I'll expand my search for a "spare" type utility vehicle.
 
Originally Posted By: InvalidUserID
Thanks for your opinions guys.

Looks like they're solid engines (either engine) but the rest of the stuff looks problematic. I'm guessing the low upfront price will be negated by the "extras"

I'll expand my search for a "spare" type utility vehicle.


It's not like there was one exceptional midsize SUV from that era:

The Blazer/Jimmy had CPI "spider" problems and eats fuel pumps more frequently
The Explorer/Navajo had 4R55E/5R55E problems and about the time they fixed the OHV 4.0 head cracking problem, they switched to an OHC design and brought entirely new timing chain problems.
The Durango....Well, just pick a problem. Any problem. Someone probably had it. They don't have a good reputation. I can see it in the later DC models but the early 5.2 Durangos should be similar to a Dakota of that vintage.

I have seen FAR more 300,000+ mile Cherokees than Explorers, Blazers, or even Chrysler's own Durango. I've seen a few 300,000+ Grand Cherokees. One in particular the driver's seat and floor area had wear consistant with a vehicle of that mileage. The rest of the interior looked like it had never been touched.

I do like the Cherokees. especially the '90-'96es. Just my personal preference. Most prefer the more Chryslerized interior. Any of the above can be good spare utility vehicles or mid-size money pits. One doesn't stand out head and shoulders above the others (except maybe the 4-Runner....but you aren't getting a 4-Runner for Cherokee/Blazer/Explorer money)
 
Originally Posted By: Spazdog

The Explorer/Navajo had 4R55E/5R55E problems and about the time they fixed the OHV 4.0 head cracking problem, they switched to an OHC design and brought entirely new timing chain problems.


The 4R and 5R transmissions are plenty reliable, I'd take one over a 4L60E any day. The Navajo only used the A4LD.

The 4.0 did not crack heads, but the predecessor 2.9 did. The 4.0 did have the Cologne top end oiling problems, but they could still go for 300K+ easy.

I've seen Explorers with over 300K. One had a squishy seat like an old Mercedes, but still ran great. One with over 600K on it (taxi) was getting junked, but still that's good mileage.
 
The ZJ Grand Cherokees are a bit quirky at times, but they're not unreliable. The only real issue a V8 one is guaranteed to have is a plenum gasket failure, which isn't major to fix. Suspension parts and such do wear out, but not in any unusually short period of time (I did ball joints and tie rod ends around 130k, my control arm bushings are still fine at 142k). Other than that, if it's well taken care of, they hold up pretty well.

Parts for these things are fairly cheap and pretty much everywhere.

The transmissions aren't nearly as bad as people say they are, unless they're abused. Put a big trans cooler on it and keep the fluid fresh and it'll be fine. My trans is still original with 142k. I added a huge cooler at 102k, shortly after buying the Jeep, and put a shift kit in at 120k (about 1k after the engine power upgrades), and it still shifts better than new and has no problem barking the tires into 2nd at WOT.

Also, if you find one of the 98 5.9s, the 5k lb tow rating (compared to 6500 for the 5.2) is only because of the electric fan. If you have your head on straight, it'll be fine at 6500 (I've done it for 370 miles in 75* weather), and if you're worried, it's easy to retrofit the mechanical clutch fan (and there's a TSB somewhere that up-rates the tow rating to 6500 with a clutch fan).

Also, my general opinion is the vehicles in the 100 - 150k range are those to be most scared of. Under 100k, it's still young. Over 150k, if it's still in good shape after a thorough examination, it was likely well taken care of.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Spazdog

The Explorer/Navajo had 4R55E/5R55E problems and about the time they fixed the OHV 4.0 head cracking problem, they switched to an OHC design and brought entirely new timing chain problems.


The 4.0L OHV was reliable, but a gas hog. It didn't have head problems. The Explorer was available with the 5.0L/4R70W combo which was bomb proof and also had a more robust transfer case than any of the V6 models. IMHO, the 5.0L Explorer was the best one ever made.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom