GTP Cool Wall: 1997-2001 Jeep Cherokee XJ

[homeforsummer]

You take what you like but it was a breath of fresh air back then to just get in and drive and not do a darn thing on it. Unlike my BMWs which always gave hints to show it some love. With the Wrangler, I could focus on other stuff and not constantly popping the hood on it to give it a look through. That's just me.

Indeed. But for the rest of us there are more criteria to what makes an engine great than its ability to survive half-wits who can't keep up with maintenance.

 

[Famine]

Thank goodness for torque.

It must be a truly amazing engine if, despite losing 40% of its rated power at that altitude (due to air density), its torque is unaffected.

 

[Ingram]

You are also missing that AMC tuned the engine for torque not horsepower.

I just checked:

BMW M52 2.8: 210 lb-ft @ 3750rpm
Jeep 4.0: 225 lb-ft @ 3000rpm

15 lb-ft difference. Yes, I'm sure that the Jeep's torque curve is larger and starts from lower revs, but it really isn't that impressive.

The Jeep I6 should have lower fuel economy. It's a work engine. If you can't understand the meaning of that or its purpose and how it relates in everyday ownership then that is a personal problem.

If I was buying a work vehicle, the three most important factors I'd consider would be:

• Purchase price
• Reliability
• Low running costs (i.e good fuel economy.)

Trying to justify a weak fuel economy because it is a 'work engine' makes literally no sense.

Perhaps in the same way that many of the V8 crowd always say "Hurr Durr, uncool because 4cyl or FWD", I might start looking at these massive engined American motors and say "uncool because how the hell do they manage to get such a pathetic amount of power from such a big engine?"

..But I probably won't because I take each case individually rather than making a blanket judgement on an entire group of cars.

 

[King Kraven]

I just checked:

BMW M52 2.8: 210 lb-ft @ 3750rpm
Jeep 4.0: 225 lb-ft @ 3000rpm

15 lb-ft difference. Yes, I'm sure that the Jeep's torque curve is larger and starts from lower revs, but it really isn't that impressive.



If I was buying a work vehicle, the three most important factors I'd consider would be:

• Purchase price
• Reliability
• Low running costs (i.e good fuel economy.)

Trying to justify a weak fuel economy because it is a 'work engine' makes literally no sense.

Perhaps in the same way that many of the V8 crowd always say "Hurr Durr, uncool because 4cyl or FWD", I might start looking at these massive engined American motors and say "uncool because how the hell do they manage to get such a pathetic amount of power from such a big engine?"

..But I probably won't because I take each case individually rather than making a blanket judgement on an entire group of cars.

That actually is a sizable difference considering the torque curve and what Jeeps are used for or meant for. That gap in curve and torque is all of the difference. Secondly, the engine is old as the Bible. It never went through massive changes in its lifespan save fuel injection. Yet the M52 went through dual Vanos, reverse cooling and switching intake manifold amongst others. All of that technology for that? I'm not impressed.

I appreciate rugged simplicity. I appreciate engines that get the job done despite all of the fancy tech. Do more with less. European engines utilize more tech (so they really aren't doing more with less) because there is a certain degree of displacement laws or was when I lived there. They are the ones who need a turbo to bail them out and variable timing etc... It's all good stuff yet people slam the American engine for having a larger displacement? That's all you can reach for? Maybe I made a mistake in expecting more wit. If that makes the engine simple for an idiot to run then that's a good thing.

American engines aren't that massive than most because in truth many of them are lighter than their European counterparts. They don't have all of that technology on it which can cause fits and lines the pockets of people like me when they go wrong.

I wasn't trying to justify. There s no need to justify and you misread me. Low fuel economy isn't the be all and end all of low running costs. Reliability is for business owners and corporations. If example A can give you more quality and reliable miles/years but is slightly less fuel efficient than B. Then A is a better option because in the end it makes its money back. Ask the Ford Panther owners those V8 Modulars were quality.

Slash also can't decide how he chooses to vote on these threads.

But, I disagree. Toyota hasn't been topped yet considering how over-engineered this engine was out of the factory, turbo or not. It can't survive the negligence of no maintenance, but this isn't a car you should be driving if you're too stupid to go miles & miles & miles without changing the oil. Handling 700-800+ Hp on the factory internals reliably is a nice feat.

You may disagree and that's fine. I don't care but in my experience with the 1 and 2 JZ motors. They are finicky. They are reliable with the power as in they won't grenade themselves. You gotta have that right formula to get to that point. The Barra is an ancient motor with some changes and they stuck a massive turbo on it. Yet it's still a horse. Also the 2JZ for me is a bit of an annoyance in terms of small parts replacement. I prefer engines that will give me the least time under it's hood. I want the most but to do the least.

Indeed. But for the rest of us there are more criteria to what makes an engine great than its ability to survive half-wits who can't keep up with maintenance.

For the rest of you but for me there is more than performance. I consider it's purpose and era and tech amongst others but how it can take abuse is one comparison that is fair to all engines. As all engines are expected to take careless abuse from time to time. So that's what I chiefly look at hence the AMC I6 has my full respect.

 

[Bopop4]

They don't have all of that technology on it which can cause fits and lines the pockets of people like me when they go wrong.

Totally agree, we don't need all that fancy internal combustion technology when we have perfectly good horses.

 

[Clark]

@King Kraven So what about fuel injection? Doesn't that count as technology as well?

 

[AlvaroF]

I feel nothing for it. Meh

 

[Joey D]

Yes because I always wanted to have a vehicle which didn't require anything off schedule even topping the oil off....
I value the engine's ability to survive crap maintenance because people aren't perfect and a lot of people simply don't care about maintenance.

Please tell me you don't own a V70R like that's in your avatar then, those aren't exactly known to be terribly reliable even if you stick to the maintenance schedule.

 

[McLaren]

You may disagree and that's fine. I don't care but in my experience with the 1 and 2 JZ motors. They are finicky. They are reliable with the power as in they won't grenade themselves. You gotta have that right formula to get to that point. The Barra is an ancient motor with some changes and they stuck a massive turbo on it. Yet it's still a horse. Also the 2JZ for me is a bit of an annoyance in terms of small parts replacement. I prefer engines that will give me the least time under it's hood. I want the most but to do the least.

So basically, your whole basis for how you judge engines is how much you can do to one without ever actually doing something to it.


World's greatest car everyone.

 

[Famine]

I just checked:

BMW M52 2.8: 210 lb-ft @ 3750rpm
Jeep 4.0: 225 lb-ft @ 3000rpm

15 lb-ft difference. Yes, I'm sure that the Jeep's torque curve is larger and starts from lower revs, but it really isn't that impressive.

And, in a miracle of naturally aspirated engine technology, is unaffected by altitude...

 

[Space Dynamics]

Why fight over two great engines? Why not take joy in knowing that they both make more horsepower and get better gas mileage than my 170hp 350.

 

[Cano]

Altough I think this is one of the cleanest and most coherent designs of it's time, and apretty capable off-roader with enough aftermarket to make it a monster, this thing isn't cool. A great car, but not a cool one.

 

[Badasp5.0]

They probably should have turbocharged it then - it'd only have 110hp crawling up Pikes Peak.

Meh you get used to it after a while LOL.

 

[lilcat89]

Seriously uncool from me. Besides the fact that it has the problem-prone 4.0 liter 6, all the ones out here have the back hatch section cut off of them. Only Chrysler could put a car out on the market and it be instantly be outdated and obsolete. I'm pretty sure it came pre-depreciated from new.

 

[Slash]

Problem prone? Are you nuts? This engine is probably one of the most reliable engines in existence.

 

[lilcat89]

Problem prone? Are you nuts? This engine is probably one of the most reliable engines in existence.

I have at least 3 friends that have that engine in their jeeps. I have seen and worked on all of them. The water pumps are almost useless, the crank pulleys come unbalanced out of the box, and also, the block was designed in the 50s and the head was developed in the 70s. The XJ was designed in a pinch and was effectively two steps backward.

I forgot to mention that they leak oil from everywhere. Never saw one that doesn't leak some kind of fluid out of it.

 

[Slash]

And yet they continue to run. I've never seen more than a misfire on them.

They do leak oil though.

 

[ScottPuss20]

I'm no fan of SUV's or Jeeps
Uncool

 

[SVT Cobra GT]

Decent off-road capabilities, doesn't really matter what engine it has it will move. Styling is bland too. Meh.

 

[Sage Ages]

Boring, but practical.

 

[SlipZtrEm]

Reliability be damned. Engine efficiency be damned. It came with wood paneling, and is one of the half-dozen vehicles I picture populating New England (the others being a Wagoneer, an old Mercedes diesel, and three variations of the Volvo 200 series). Enough time has passed that I'll consider it Cool.

 

[DrivenGTR]

My boy has a 98 Cherokee sport classic. He built it into a urban off road vehicle (he goes to old buildings & structures & crawls up them.. almost like what a Par-core person would do body wise or BMX rider would do on a bike)

 

[huskeR32]

My boy has a 98 Cherokee sport classic. He built it into a urban off road vehicle (he goes to old buildings & structures & crawls up them.. almost like what a Par-core person would do body wise or BMX rider would do on a bike)

Videos or GTFO.

 

[DrivenGTR]

Videos or GTFO.

i chose video