'08 Wrangler/Grand Cherokee V6 Owners?

I'd be leary of a 210-hp engine in a vehicle as heavy as a Grand Cherokee. The V8 seems to get almost as good mileage, and has 95 more hp.

The Wrangler, BTW, has a totally different V6 -- the 3.8 L ohv, used mainly in the minivans. The GC is the 3.7 L sohc, used in Liberty, Nitro, and Durango.

There is not any "new v6 motor" in any Jeep. The engine that they're now using instead of the 4.0L inline six in the Wrangler is the 3.8L

60-degree pushrod v6, which dates back to the late 1980s when it came out in 3.3L form. In other words, its history is only 4-5 years shorter than the 4.0 inline, which came out in 84. Its a rock-solid engine family in its own right, and has now logged a bazillion miles in minivans, Intrepids, Concordes, etc. If there were ANY six cylinder engine that might be a worthy successor to the venerable 4.0, THIS is it. The only problem it EVER had was a tendency to crack rocker shaft pedestals on the cylinder heads back in the pre-1992 era. NOTHING since then! The SOHC 3.7L 90-degree v6 in the first gen Liberty is OK, but has a lot less history behind it than the 3.8. And its also a 90-degree design, which in my mind is inherently inferior since even with a splayed-bearing crank it remains slightly odd-firing, whereas a 60-degree v6 is perfectly even-firing..

CR is useless. Ignore everything they say.

Same here. I wouldn't hesitate on the basis of the 3.8L engine AT ALL.

Thanks. I didn't mean the motor itself was new, I meant it was new to the Jeep (04 for Cherokee and 06 to Wrangler I think). My wife had two Chrysler minivans with the same motor, first in 3.3 form then in

3.8. The 3.3 always felt empty and "tinny" when you accelerated. Although maybe some of this was due to the weight of the mini van. The 3.8 felt more confident.

I used to feel the same way about CR, but am not so sure anymore. Of the 4 Chrysler products I've owned in the past 11 years (a 97 and 03 mini van, an 01 Durango and a 98 Jeep) only the Jeep survived 10 years. The mini vans and the Durango had problems with their electrical components since day one. The mini vans both had problems with their power steering and brakes. The Dodge dealer actually tried to turn the new Durango over to me with a service light on. The Chrysler dealer (who is no longer in business) that I bought the mini vans and Jeep from had a very poor service department who were out right liars and didn't repair a recall that I had to pay to have fixed a year after the warranty expired. I am only considering the Jeep again because out of the 4 products that was the one vehicle that lasted. But CR sited all these issues throughout the years and still rates the Chrysler products worse than average, so maybe it's time to consider what they are saying. Engine aside, it's the rest of the vehicle that I am also concerned about.

And why is the Jeep dealer giving away V6 Cherokees...? This alone has me concerned. A fully optioned Cherokee $4-5k less than a Wrangler Unlimited.......all equates to the Cherokees aren't selling.

Phil

Why? You feel CR is unbiased and skilled at making such calls? I'd strongly disagree. CR has been known to rate one vehicle above average and an identical but rebranded model poor. Their testing methods are questionable at best and not conducted evenly across all models. Look at the tests done on the Suzuki Samurai and Isuzu Trooper for instance. No other vehicles were subjected to the same tests. They had a biased agenda with a prewritten result in mind. IMHO CR is a very biased agenda based organization.

I prefer to read the forums online and talk to actual owners over anything CR may say.

My folks have an 00 Durango. Its been nearly flawless. Since those are sitting on used car lots for stupid-low prices right now, I've seriously considered getting another one for a turn-the-key-and-forget-it family hauler.

But CR sited all these issues throughout the years and still

CR has never given a Chrysler product a good rating. Useless waste of paper.

No demand. The Grand Cherokee is really too big for v6 in most people's minds. It was also underpowered with the 4.0, and has only gotten heavier since then.

I realize that and I used to "pooh pooh" CR as well, but Edmonds and JD Powers are saying the same things. I'm not soliciting an argument here, I own a Jeep already and have tried to stay loyal to Chrysler, but my dealership experiences and history with the non-Jeep Chrysler products have not been great.

Ok, so the dealer (Accella) is out of business and I'm still here considering the Jeep, but this time it isn't a "slam dunk" decision for me. And I am looking towards existing owners for real world feedback.

CR also diss'es all US brands to the extreme, not just Chrysler. And their feedback of the Japanese brands is just a regular "love fest". What's ironic is at the same time, right on CR's website, the owner feedback posted it's typically the exact inverse of CR's ratings. Owners rate the Wrangler and other Cherokee quite high.

I never thought my Grand Cherokee was underpowered with the 4.0. I acquired it because it met my needs, which did not include hauling a boat or horses but rather a load of 2x4s and sheetrock. My Durango had the 4.7 Hemi, but that was probably overkill. The i6 does just fine pulling a small trailer full of building materials.

Phil

SOHC, not Hemi. The Hemi is a 5.7 or 6.1

but that was probably overkill. The i6 does just

You're right, the 4.0 wasn't truly underpowered. But the 4.0 was a torque monster with practical capabilities far beyond what might be implied by its 190 hp rating. I think just the mere availability of the

4.7 v8 in the Grand Cherokee, combined with the fact that although very off-road capable- FAR moreso than a 4-runner, Xterra, FJ Cruiser, etc. its been marketed to the upscale end of the SUV market a bit too much. The Grand Cherokee is the closest thing Jeep still makes to the original XJ Cherokee, and that's a huge recommendation in my book. But it does mean that a lot of the automotive pseudo-intelligentsia will call it "archaic" and "unrefined." That was (undeservedly) especially true when it had the 4.0 because the 4.0's power delivery is so radically different than the typical modern high-revving sporty car engine that is perceived as being technologically advanced.

My memory is questionable. I bought the truck right before 9/11. I work across the street - still do - and ever since that day, I don't retain details like before. Anyway, don't mean to be a downer or anything....

Now that I think about it, the 4.7 was a PowerTech and I remember missing the HO Magnum by a year, maybe another 30hp if I recall. I thought I remember the advertisements of the time touting it as a Hemi, then I thought further and remember the whole Magnum thing, but now don't think it was either.

You got it. I feel like - and I mean this in a good way - like I'm driving a tractor with my 98 Jeep. It sounds different also.

Searching for a Cherokee with the 5.7 (Hemi, right), got a call into a few dealers, maybe this is the way to go, if I locate one and test drive I will report.

Thanks, Phil

Reading Bill Weertman's book on Chrysler engines was enlightening. Weertman is a retired Chrysler engine designer, 1949-circa 1990, part-time after 1990, worked on the 50s Hemis, the original B/RB big-block v8 engines, the A and LA small block v8s, the slant-6- pretty much every engine from the first V8s through the 3.3 v6, and then consulted on the Viper v10. When he retired he was, IIRC, the head of the engine department.

His book also had chapters on the non-Chrysler engines that Chrysler inherited or used, including all the AMCs (the 360 v8, the 258 six, and the 2.5/4.0 family). The really interesting thing is how impressed he seemed to be with the 2.5/4.0 in particular. He never outright says, "this engine was a complete POS and Chrysler should have kicked it in the weeds" about any engine although he comes really close to saying that about the PRV v6 from the Eagle Premier. But its more an absence of any praise at all, rather than criticism. The really telling fact was how much positive stuff he included about the the AMC/Jeep 2.5L, and noted that it had much higher output than any normally aspirated form of his own 2.5L SOHC engine. Chrysler ultimately switched the rear-drive application of the Chrysler 2.5 (the Dakota) over to the Jeep engine when there was no longer a need for the FWD version of the Chrysler 2.5. He also gave the 4.0 high marks (the 4.0 is the same basic block as the

2.5 with a longer stroke and 2 more cylinders- the blocks were even finished on the same assembly line.) If anyone had a right to be institutionally biased against the 2.5 and 4.0, it might have been Weertman. But he loved 'em, and that's a pretty strong testimonial.

They were stout, I guess. But 190 hp in the so-called "high output" version? Honda gets more than that out of a 2.4 L IL-4 in the Accord.

Unless you've ever actually used one offroad, you just won't get it. Even onroad, its a lot of fun in city driving. The horsepower rating really means nothing- its the torque delivery of the 4.0 that makes it so superb. The torque peak is at 3000 RPM (1996 and up engines, it peaked at 4000 for the earlier engines), but its really basically just a flat line from 1500 to around 4400, and there's plenty at *idle* to crawl over huge rocks in 4-low. 190 HP *is* impressive for a gasoline engine that delivers torque that way and is only a 4L. Most comparable torque engines up to that time had barely over 100 horses and many displaced a lot more than 4 liters. Today, that whole segment has been pretty much taken over by diesels. Its *not* the engine you want in a sports sedan, luxury car, or 3/4 ton pickup. Its *exactly* the engine you want in a Jeep. By contrast, you wouldn't get 50 feet offroading with a Honda engine under the hood, even if it had 250 hp at 7500 RPM. There'll never be a replacement to match the 4.0, although the 3.8 comes about as close as anything I can think of as I already said.

Not really. 225 lb-ft is not impressive for a 4 L. You might take a look at the torque curve of the Toyota 4.0 L

Looks like 230 lb-ft at 1500 rpm, more than the Cherokee's peak torque.

One number again. Means nothing, unless it maintains that number from idle to 4000 RPM.

You can be impressed by whatever you want, but the FJ Poseur's engine has a peaky torque curve compared to the Jeep, despite the fact that it

*should* reflect 25 years of technology improvement.

If it starts out higher then the old 4.0 L and then gets higher still, that's better than flat. Heck, a 1908 engine has a very flat torque curve, but it's also very low.

Depends on how much weight it has to haul, and whether or not it really does start out higher and get higher. A Cummins N-14 starts out higher and gets higher too, but since it weighs more than a Wrangler all by itself..... :-p

But that's not the point. The Jeep engine did its thing in 1988- that's

20 years ago, and if anyone has actually made a better offroad engine for light vehicles, its only better by a tiny fraction. Certainly no one makes one that really represents 20 years worth of progress the way comparing, say, a 5.7 Hemi to a 1988 360 shows progress.