opinions on cheap, older, high-miles Cherokees

I need a good family camping/skiing/adventure rig. My TJ has been good enough to me that I am considering a Cherokee even though they have a terrible reliability rating (but then, so does the TJ and mine has been great). I see decent ones from the mid-90's for as cheap as $3000 or so; considering that this rig will be rode hard and put away wet, with dogs, food, gear, kids, etc in and out, I am leaning towards just such a cheap "beater" for this purpose, rather than a probably more reliable but much more expensive Toyota or Nissan or other Japanese SUV.

So... how do cherokees hold up once they get some miles piled on 'em? I'd get the 4.0L with the auto tranny most likely.

-jeff

-jeff

Reply to
Handywired
Loading thread data ...

Reply to
bowgus

Handy-

Funny you should ask! I have a really nice lowish-miles 89 Cherokee 4.0 that I am looking to sell to facilitate the purchase of a TJ.

Let me know if you are interested.

Carl

Reply to
Carl Saiyed

Ours has over 300K km on it and we still use it pretty hard off road. Last year we lost the back bumper corner in a 'mud puddle' and tore off some trim squeezing through trees with it. We get it back into places that have ATV'ers jaws dropping when they come across us. LOL!

It is what we take when we have to have the extra room.

Ours has been pretty reliable. I have fixed normal wear and tear parts and not that many of them over the last few years.

Mike

86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's

Handywired wrote:

Reply to
Mike Romain

So who gave them a terrible reliablity rating? And what exactly was used to determine that rating? I've seen nothing but bulletproof 4.0L XJs running around everywhere.

I had issues with the front end of my wife's, but that was my own fault after botching a lift.

Eric

99 TJ SE 00 XJ LTD
Reply to
Eric

I remember Consumer Report's auto issue a few years back, it listed the Cherokee with a poor reliability rating even though the majority of its member-reported system by system ratings were average or better than average. In contrast, one of the Toyota models had worse than average system by system ratings but a better than average overall reliability rating.

Reply to
Matt Macchiarolo

Reply to
L.W.(ßill) Hughes III

OK, that's two agreements on the same day. Prepare for the Rapture.

Reply to
Matt Macchiarolo

Reply to
twaldron

I wouldn't say they were bought and paid for, as then you would presume that every now and then, they might accidentally get one right. I'd say it is more accurate they are strongly politically motivated and totally clueless on anything more complex than a toothpick.

L.W.(ßill) Hughes III proclaimed:

Reply to
Lon

Agreed. In years past, their reports were useful if for nothing else than comparing features of various products. These days, they seem to only tell you what stores to look in. I was a subscriber for many years, and enjoyed the publication until about 1995 or so. After that, the political rants and lack of useful information became overwhelming. I think I finally let my subscription expire in 2000.

For some reason, they seem to test vacuum cleaners almost monthly, but avoid some other common household items. I came to the conclusion that these days, they suck.

Regards,

DAve

L>

Reply to
DaveW

rating.

Reply to
twaldron

:-)

Dave Milne, Scotland '91 Grand Wagoneer, '99 TJ

Reply to
Dave Milne

92 XJ Laredo, 4.0 auto - 220,000 miles (not km). Total maint/repair cost since new a little over $5000, including things like tires, state inspection, etc. (Yes, I keep a spreadsheet :-) ) Only engine repairs were new radiator (upgrade), water pump, oil pump. Best vehicle I've ever owned, still runs strong. I'm looking for another (newer) one for the missus.

-Ed

Reply to
Ed J.

My wife, for whatever reason, is looking at getting rid of hers in the next year. Wants something a little bigger -- like a Trailblazer or something.

I'm considering keeping hers and selling my TJ. I could sell my TJ for far more than I owe on it (her XJ is "upside down" right now). Besides, that XJ is the limited version and has just about every bell and whistle on it. Add a long arm kit, some lockers, 33s... man, it'd be sweet!

Eric

99 TJ SE
Reply to
Eric

They are generally rated low by the places that do that. Consumer Reports hates them (not that that matters to me)... truth is, "they" say the TJ should suck too but mine has been an excellent vehicle.

However, I guess what I was talkig about was the sort of overall opinion out there that they are not reliable vehicles. I have heard the story several times, from different people, that tow truck drivers say they are the #1 vehicle they pick up. Also if you do web searches you will find a few cases where companies bought them as fleet vehicles and really regretted it, according to the posters. I did a Google archive search the other day and found at least two such instances.

But that's actually all OK! What matters to ME is what the actual owners of the things say, and everyone seems to like them a lot. Plus they are like half the price of, say, a 4-runner...

-jeff

Reply to
Handywired

Damn,... and I was looking for that VAC review, 'cause the last one was back in July. I guess that blows that "almost monthy" crap all to hell.

You mean like those magazines that have 6-page ads in the issue where the Company's car is reviewed. Naw... there's no 6-digit pressure to put out a "favorable" review there, eh?

While some of their print comes across as a bit shallow, it's understandable considering the limited amount of space alloted to some items. I'd venture that they probably collect as much information on the vehicles they test as many car magazines, but distilling it down to a page of sniplets leaves lots to be desired.

You have proof of this? If so, how about sharing it with the world. Better yet, how about a website proclaiming it with your "proof."

That's what happens when you look at the pictures but don't read. They state that some sections of their reliability reports are weighed more than others in factoring for a reccomendation.

Reply to
F. Robert Falbo

Reply to
L.W.(ßill) Hughes III

The briefest look at his posting domain would quickly confirm that he would have to spend years in schooling to move upwards to "utterly stupid" status.

L.W.(ßill) Hughes III proclaimed:

formatting link

Reply to
Lon

formatting link
I'm not intending to imply insult or judgment here but I am curious> to know in order to be able to respond to your posts in an appropriate> manner, so please forgive what appears to be, but in fact is not> intended as, an insulting question: Are you stupid? Let's just cut to the chase. Since it appears that you didn't even bother to view the site, let me give you a snipplet which I'm sure they would approve of...

Consumer Reports® and ConsumerReports.org® are published by Consumers Union, an expert, independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves. To achieve this mission, we test, inform, and protect. To maintain our independence and impartiality, CU accepts no outside advertising, no free test samples, and has no agenda other than the interests of consumers. CU supports itself through the sale of our information products and services, individual contributions, and a few noncommercial grants. Consumers Union is governed by a board of 18 directors, who are elected by CU members and meet three times a year. CU's President, James Guest, oversees a staff of more than 450.

Would you like someone to explain the above to you?

Reply to
F. Robert Falbo

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.