Forums » Grassroots Motorsports » Non-grand Cherokee vs Grand Cherokee reliability 1 2

• 

  Oct. 16, 2010 5:35 p.m. Xceler8x SuperDork

  What gives with Jeep Cherokee reliability vs. Grand Cherokee reliability?

  After all the talk of Cherokee's I was checking some out on the local CL. They're dirt freaking cheap. So I'm thinking to pick one up and mess with it until I'm bored, then ditch it wiser for the experience. Also, I've never had a 4x4 to monkey with. I'm like some confused kid at college, trying on the auto-bisexuality thing to see what I think of the other side. Most of my experience is in go fast stuff so doing the 4x4 thing might be fun. Another thing to consider is VA got 30+ inches of snow last year. Go fast stuff goes real slow in 30 inches of snow.

  Like I said, I'm cruising CL and see that Grands are as cheap as the baby Cherokee's. On paper it doesn't make sense. Usually a larger, more luxurious, V8 equipped anything goes for more cash than the spartan, 6 cyl, utility.

  Then I noticed the reliability ratings, repair costs, and list of problems of the trucks on CL. The Grands are usually more afflicted with mechanical gremlins. The Cherokee's might have high miles but you don't often see one with failing engines or with the list of maladies Grands come with.

  What's up with that? Is it somehow a Miracle? Like how Magnets work?

  They often have the same drivetrain, same transfer case, etc. I get that the Grand's are more complex thanks to the already mentioned luxo items. Often I'm reading about issues with Grands where the luxury items aren't the failing component.

  Is it a thing like VW where you don't want to buy the VW cars made in Mexico? Stick to cars put together in the land of Oktoberfest (Sweet, sweet Oktoberfest...)

  Deep thoughts? I'm curious what the more knowledgeable or downright insane have to say on the subject. Commence arguing, jabbering, and incoherent screaming at trees.

• 

  Oct. 16, 2010 5:51 p.m. Knurled HalfDork

  It's like minivans. Never buy a used, fully-optioned minivan.

  Theory: The kind of people who get every option under the sun tend to be somewhat impetuous and ignore maintenance. This is definitely true, I've observed, on the used market.

• 

  Oct. 16, 2010 5:52 p.m. thatsnowinnebago Dork

  Baby cherokees have a larger following in the offroad community so that may be affecting the prices some. That's pretty much all I've got.

  I'm gonna butta yo bread

• 

  Oct. 16, 2010 6:11 p.m. Junkyard_Dog Dork

  The Grands are more complex ans have more electrickery to go bad-even the base models. The all coil suspension is "better" but doesn't overcome the negatives. Run away from a V8 as fast as you can.

  I love going to the Pull-a-Part because the dollar admission is cheaper than most car shows and you almost always see cooler cars.

• 

  Oct. 16, 2010 6:15 p.m. 16vCorey SuperDork

  All Grands have crappy transmissions, except for Grands equipped with a 4.7L, because the engine fails WAY before the transmission gets to show you how crappy it is.

• 

  Oct. 16, 2010 7:18 p.m. WilberM3 Reader

  yea nearly every grand i've looked at for cheap cherokee pricing has some trans slippage. only the early 93 4.0L grands came with the reliable AW4 transmission or a manual, after that they all got crappy chrysler autos, regardless of engine. plus the electrical doodads suck 10+ years later.

  Dave

• 

  Oct. 16, 2010 9:59 p.m. Sonic Dork

  Small Cherokee automatic is the Asian Warner AW4, which is nearly unbreakable. GC's came with Chrysler transmissions, which are not the best.

  Remember, most of the XJ Cherokee was designed by AMC way back in the day, not by Chrysler.

  Chris - 2007 BABE champion, 2008 2nd place. Miata, MGA, DiscoII 2010 - Trifecta of Crap in the Wartburg. $2002, $2006 $2010 challenger

• 

  Oct. 16, 2010 11:13 p.m. Javelin SuperDork

  Ding ding ding!

  The XJ Cherokee was designed and over-engineered by AMC to be real Jeep. Go anywhere, do anything, and make it home with nothing but a hammer.

  The Grand Cherokee was a price-point designed POS using horrible quality drivetrain components and suspect wiring/electronics.

  Michael Pinto - 73 AMC Javelin / GoKart / 93 Miata STS / 01 Grand Prix GT

• 

  Oct. 17, 2010 5:37 p.m. plance1 Dork

  Wife's grand cherokee blew up on me, had to get a new engine, was not impressed. But then again I tend to blow up most cars I own so maybe its me.

• 

  Oct. 17, 2010 6:23 p.m. bluesideup New Reader

  Here's the story as a ZJ (93-98 Grabd Cherokee) owner.

  The ZJ was designed by AMC before they were bought. Chrysler then figured they would shoehorn their V8 into the AMC design. the years go like this

  93-95

  V8 has a 318 backed up by a 46RH trans. The rear end is a Dana 35. If you find one that is using oil it's probably blown an intake manifold gasket and is sucking oil out of the valley (easy fix). The transmission bands need to be adjusted on a regular basis.

  I6 is the same as the XJ but most ZJs use a 42RE trans which is 50/50. My mom's WJ lunched it's first 42RE without warning at 36K but many people have run 200K on one.

  All 93-95s have a problem with flexing the driver's door harness and it causes power window/lock problems. Easy fix. The solder joints in the ABS ecus also crap out and cause the abs to malfunction, again an easy fix.

  The 96-98 has a much nicer interior and rear discs on all models. The V8 switched to a 44RE meaning a lower torque rating but electronic controls. All V8s also got the Dana 44a rear end with the refresh. All V8s have an awd transfer case that will crow hop as the viscous coupling goes bad, easy to replace with a normal transfer case.

  I have 211k on my 93 V8 and have done everything with it, towing, off road, etc.. It has the original engine, trans, alternator, in fact all the accessories are original. It runs great and uses a quart every 3K or so. Like any vehicle just try to get one that's been maintained

• 

  Oct. 17, 2010 7:25 p.m. Javelin SuperDork

  AMC got bought in 84, there is no way they were "designing" a 93 at the time. No AMC history book I own mentions anything about AMC and the ZJ.

  Michael Pinto - 73 AMC Javelin / GoKart / 93 Miata STS / 01 Grand Prix GT

• 

  Oct. 17, 2010 7:32 p.m. BoneYard_Racing Reader

  Im a big grandy ( I think Im about the only person who refers to them in such a way) fan. My biggest tip would be to drive both I cant stand the way XJs drive harsh, floaty, and, generally odd are the words that come to mind. My ZJ is many times better at least as good as the brand new GM offerings I drive everyday. It takes awhile to get used to the loose and overboosted power steering and the brakes on both arent great. A few points Id like to make:

  1. Chrysler autos arent inherently bad just need a little loving as they age read this: http://www.allpar.com/fix/trans.html Add a big thermostatic trans cooler and fresh Mopar ATF+4 and you should be golden

  2. If you are after something luxurious try for a Laredo with leather this keeps you from the terrible auto climate control of the ZJ and WJ heated WJ seats pretty much bolt in if your after that

  3. No reason to get a 6cyl the fuel economy isnt that good (buy a new Terrain if that is what you're after) and its a much more rewarding vehicle to drive plus it will tow 6500lbs

  After everything I just said and putting 7000mi on my ZJ in 4 months a small part of my brain still says I should have gone for the XJ

• 

  Oct. 17, 2010 7:33 p.m. ignorant SuperDork

  I will say only one good thing about the zj vs the xj. My dad was tboned by a drunk driver in a zj. He had just started across an intersection when a drunk guy doing 70 in a geo prizm tried to run a red light super late. He was hit drivers side pass door. If he had been in an xj, He'd be dead. The zj just got knocked for 3 lanes over. My dad lost some of his memory and hearing, but he's alive.

  When you have to shoot, shoot, don't talk.

• 

  Oct. 17, 2010 8:00 p.m. HappyJack Reader

  I use a 95 Grand Cherokee as my tow vehicle. v8, Quadra-trac. (full time 4WD) I have 378,000 kms on the original motor and tranny. Driveline is fine. The body is starting to rust off, though that is due to where I live. Drivers door sags due to worn out hinge pins. Cruise and A/C don't work. I love it, and would buy another. Anything that is wrong with mine is due to age, not poor quality.

• 

  Oct. 17, 2010 8:05 p.m. Jensenman SuperDork

  5+ years at a Jeep dealer. Little Cherokees tend to be rattletraps but they last pretty much forever. The 4.0 is tough as nails, the aforementioned Aisin Warner tranny too. They have weird little stuff go wrong all the time but overall keep on going.

  Grands are turds. 16VCorey summed up the transmission and engine problems. The 4.0's were the same as the Cherokee, tough motor but it was the only good feature those had. 93-97 V8's had the 5.9 gas hog. Woe on you if you had a Quadra Trac, each month your gas card bill was doing battle with the mortgage payment. 98-up V8's were the 4.7 which would go for ~90K miles then suddenly slurp up its oil in ~2500 miles and subsequently explode. Nice.

  The 2000-up were Chrysler's first attempt at a CAN BUS electrical system and they had some horrid weird problems. I have seen one car which continually stalled due to a right front power window switch control module (switch assembly). No I am not making that up. Everything electrical would start shutting down, then the engine would stall. By the time it was towed in, the module would have reset itself and the engine would start. No fault codes.

  Then there are the spun sugar power window regulators, the 'Mom and Pop' climate control A/C actuators, the front and rear axle diff and pinion bearings, the early Bendix brake calipers which seized, the brake rotors which warped if you sneezed hard, yada yada yada. Add to that the same rattletrap tendencies as the little ones and it was no wonder almost no one traded a 2000-up GC for another one.

• 

  Oct. 17, 2010 8:10 p.m. Knurled HalfDork

  Jensenman wrote: Grands are turds.

  They rust out, too.

  
• 

  Oct. 17, 2010 9:04 p.m. bluesideup New Reader

  Javelin here's a little history on the design of the ZJ...

  "On March 9, 1987, Chrysler agreed to buy Renault's share in AMC, plus all the remaining shares, for about US$1.5 billion.[1] AMC became the Jeep-Eagle division of Chrysler. It was the Jeep brand that Chrysler CEO Lee Iacocca really wanted—in particular the ZJ Grand Cherokee, then under development by Jeep engineers, which proved highly profitable for Chrysler (the nameplate remains in production today)."

  "The Grand Cherokee's origins date back to 1983 when American Motors (AMC) engineers were designing a successor to the smaller Jeep Cherokee (XJ).[2] Three outside (non-AMC) designers — Larry Shinoda, Adam Clenet, and Giorgetto Giugiaro — were under contract with AMC to create and build a clay model of the replacement model, then known as the "XJC" project.[3] However, the basic design for the Cherokee's replacement was well under way by AMC's in-house designers and the 1989 Jeep Concept 1 show car foretold the basic design.[4]

  The Grand Cherokee was the first Chrysler-badged Jeep product. Development work for the new model continued and Chrysler employees (after the 1987 buyout of AMC) were eager for a late-1980s release date; however, CEO Lee Iacocca was pushing for redesigned Chrysler minivans, thus delaying the Grand Cherokee's release until late 1992 as an Explorer competitor."

  Picture of the Concept 1. Glad they didn't go with those door handles.

  

  I've had my Jeep since new and it did get a new transfer case around 100K due to a locked up viscous coupling. I get 15mpg in the city and 17-18mpg on the highway. That's with 30" tires and a 2" lift.

  If you have loose steering replace the steering linkage, steering damper, and ball joints. The box can also cause issues but it's a direct swap over to the bigger Durango box.

• 

  Oct. 17, 2010 9:24 p.m. WilberM3 Reader

  aesthetically i cant help but like the ZJ, especially the 5.9 Limited, and i'd love to put my 4.7L i6 stroker in the simplest electrical example with an AX15 manual trans. i bet it'd make a more comfortable street/trail rig than an XJ.

  Dave

• 

  Oct. 18, 2010 10:06 a.m. twolittlebroncos New Reader

  Here's what I know:

  My brother has a 1993 Grand Ltd with the 4.0. Has 250k miles on it. It got a tranny rebuild at 240k, otherwise it is the original drivetrain. Steering is loose, engine is tired and the original shocks leave a lot to be desired. The on board computer is a bit haywire, the horn no longer works and some of the windows don't roll up or down any more. I think it has been a remarkable vehicle given the treatment it has received.

  We own a 2002 WJ Overland edition. 4.7 HO with all the bells and whistles. We inherited it from my parents (also the original owner's of the ZJ above). The WJ has 160k on it now. It did start burning a significant amount of oil at about 145k miles. It has had problems with the auto climate control from the get go (apparently the blend doors are poorly designed). It also grenaded the a/c compressor about 5k miles ago. It had the warped rotor syndrome early in its life, but that has been corrected and stops smoothly now.

  In my opinion, both vehicles have been pretty pleasant to own, but maybe I have really low expectations. :)

• 

  Oct. 18, 2010 10:42 a.m. Greg Voth HalfDork

  A good friend of mine and my little brother both have/had 5.2 V8 ZJ's.

  My friends is a 96 with 26X,XXX miles. Aside from the trans going at 200,000 it has been reliable. The truck has done quite a bit of towing (18' homebuilt trailer) over that time as well. AC doesn't work anymore, passenger window disconnected from the regulator. Dimmer switch died. The warning panel in the console gives odd warnings. I.E The lights arent working when they are. For a well used old truck I would rate it highly.

  My younger brother had a 1998. Over the five or six years and 50,000 miles he never had an real problems with it. Replaced the exhaust once. AC leak. At 180,XXX it was a victim of Cash for Clunkers when he got a 2010 Mazda. 3.

  Both were off roaded and did suprisingly well stock. Gas mileage is low teens around town high teens on the highway.
  

  The 5.2 is suprisingly quick off the line.
  

  The kill list includes my wifes old 00 Impreza 2.2 (manual), a modified 00 Impreza RS (manual), 04 Infinity G35 Coupe (Auto), 00 E46 2.5L (Auto), 04 Scion TC (manual)

  I imagine the results would be different on the highway but with a bit of staging they launch hard.

• 

  Oct. 18, 2010 11:01 a.m. psteav Reader

  Former 5.2 ZJ owner.

  The long and short of it:

  It really is a better DD than the cherokee. It handles better than a 4wd pig with solid axles at both ends should have a right to.
  -It is remarkably quick with the V8. And it damn well better be, because it's seriously thirsty. If I seriously watched my driving, I could eke out 17 on the highway. -All the ZJ V8's had full-time 4wd with a viscous coupling in the transfer case. The viscous coupling eventually wears out and makes low-speed tight turns less than fun. They will continue running for a long time like this, though. Any serious off-road use with this transfer case is to be avoided. Fortunately, you can swap in a part-time case from another jeep relatively easily (although you have to get one with the correct input shaft length and gear pitch-google it, it's pretty easy to find the table that shows which one you need). -The Chrysler transmission is not the greatest. It generally does go out and need a rebuild. I've been told that it can easily be rebuilt to avoid the inherent problems in the design. -The interior is nicer than the Cherokee. Ride and handling is also noticeably better. -For '93 only, they did make a few (and I mean very few) 4.0 5-speed ZJ's. I've never seen one, but they are apparently out there. This would be my ideal winter beater.

  As for the newer Grand Cherokees, my parents had '00 with the 4.0 that was later passed on to my brother. They bought it with 40k miles, it now has 120k, and has been completely trouble-free. YMMV.

• 

  Oct. 18, 2010 11:22 a.m. miatame Reader

  Not going to beat a dead horse, I would agree with all the above sentiments.

  Does anyone have experience with the new Grand Cherokee, WK (2005-present)? I'm seriously considering an '09 or '10 with the HEMI but don't want to step away from my XJ for the wrong reasons.

• 

  Oct. 18, 2010 11:41 a.m. 93celicaGT2 SuperDork

  miatame wrote: Not going to beat a dead horse, I would agree with all the above sentiments. Does anyone have experience with the new Grand Cherokee, WK (2005-present)? I'm seriously considering an '09 or '10 with the HEMI but don't want to step away from my XJ for the wrong reasons.

  I can has your XJ?

  SCAVENGE THE SEA FLOOR FOR NUTRIENTS

• 

  Oct. 18, 2010 12:56 p.m. Knurled HalfDork

  I missed this before...

  Jensenman wrote: The 2000-up were Chrysler's first attempt at a CAN BUS electrical system and they had some horrid weird problems. I have seen one car which continually stalled due to a right front power window switch control module (switch assembly). No I am not making that up.

  That's basically any CAN vehicle ever. Your kid putting pennies in the CD slot in the radio can result in a no-start.

• 

  Oct. 18, 2010 2:02 p.m. MadScientistMatt Dork

  bluesideup wrote: Here's the story as a ZJ (93-98 Grabd Cherokee) owner. The ZJ was designed by AMC before they were bought. Chrysler then figured they would shoehorn their V8 into the AMC design.

  Another bit of the story: Chrysler had a group of engineers from AMC go over their V8 about the same time they put it in the Grand Cherokee. The Magnum had several AMC-like features added when they updated the design, such as changing out shaft-mounted rockers for a pedestal type. In some ways, the V8 they put in there was a Chrysler-AMC hybrid.

  "Mad Scientist" Matt Cramer

1 2  

You'll need to log in to post.