'08 Wrangler/Grand Cherokee V6 Owners?

I have a '98 Grand Cherokee with the i6 motor, 158k miles, have loved
the thing since day one. Been contemplating acquiring a newer model,
but have reservations since the new motors are a V6, and the q/c
issues Chrysler has.

Took a Wrangler Unlimited for a test drive yesterday. This was a hard
top, 17" wheel version, not full Sahara package but a bunch of
options. Not as much road noise as all the reviews said it would
have, I suspect the road noise is a product of the nobby tires on the
Rubicon versions. But the car did feel a bit "nervous" or twitchy.

(As a comparison, I also took a Toyota FJ Crusier for a test drive,
which handled much nicer, had more interior room, and I think I like
the kooky look. It felt a little anemic when you pressed your right
foot down, as compared to the Wrangler. The one I drove was an
automatic, I suspect the 6 speed would feel better.)

Next I took a look at a new Grand Cherokee, they're running some good
deals and the interiors are much more plush than my '98. A well
optioned out vehicle will run 5k less then the Wrangler - at least at
the dealer I was at.

My concern is this new V6 motor, and the quality problems Chrysler has
had over the past few years. My brother had an '05 Grand Cherokee and
couldn't wait to get rid of it given its repeated brake and a/c
problems.

I read Consumer Reports but I prefer first hand experience. Anyone
have either of these vehicles built int he last 2-3 years that can
comment on how they hold up, quality problems, if the electrical
gadgets all hold up, etc?

I buy my vehicles and hold onto them for a while, and have to admit
the '98 Grand Cherokee was (at this point looking back) a bargain,
except for a couple of electrical glitches that arise intermittently
and only when the interior is hot, and a recent overheating issue, the
car lasted and probably still has a few years left. I intend on
keeping it regardless on if I get a new one.

Thanks,
Phil

On Sep 8, 8:46*am, PhilB > wrote:
> I have a '98 Grand Cherokee with the i6 motor, 158k miles, have loved
> the thing since day one. *Been contemplating acquiring a newer model,
> but have reservations since the new motors are a V6, and the q/c
> issues Chrysler has.
>
> Took a Wrangler Unlimited for a test drive yesterday. *This was a hard
> top, 17" wheel version, not full Sahara package but a bunch of
> options. *Not as much road noise as all the reviews said it would
> have, I suspect the road noise is a product of the nobby tires on the
> Rubicon versions. *But the car did feel a bit "nervous" or twitchy.
>
> (As a comparison, I also took a Toyota FJ Crusier for a test drive,
> which handled much nicer, had more interior room, and I think I like
> the kooky look. *It felt a little anemic when you pressed your right
> foot down, as compared to the Wrangler. *The one I drove was an
> automatic, I suspect the 6 speed would feel better.)
>
> Next I took a look at a new Grand Cherokee, they're running some good
> deals and the interiors are much more plush than my '98. *A well
> optioned out vehicle will run 5k less then the Wrangler - at least at
> the dealer I was at.
>
> My concern is this new V6 motor, and the quality problems Chrysler has
> had over the past few years. *My brother had an '05 Grand Cherokee and
> couldn't wait to get rid of it given its repeated brake and a/c
> problems.
>
> I read Consumer Reports but I prefer first hand experience. *Anyone
> have either of these vehicles built int he last 2-3 years that can
> comment on how they hold up, quality problems, if the electrical
> gadgets all hold up, etc?
>
> I buy my vehicles and hold onto them for a while, and have to admit
> the '98 Grand Cherokee was (at this point looking back) a bargain,
> except for a couple of electrical glitches that arise intermittently
> and only when the interior is hot, and a recent overheating issue, the
> car lasted and probably still has a few years left. *I intend on
> keeping it regardless on if I get a new one.
>
> Thanks,
> Phil

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.

PhilB wrote:

> My concern is this new V6 motor,

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..

>
> I read Consumer Reports but I prefer first hand experience.

CR is useless. Ignore everything they say.

>
> I buy my vehicles and hold onto them for a while,

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

On Sep 8, 5:06*pm, Steve > wrote:
> PhilB wrote:
> > My concern is this new V6 motor,
>
> 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

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.

> 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..
>
>
>
> > I read Consumer Reports but I prefer first hand experience.
>
> CR is useless. Ignore everything they say.

> > I buy my vehicles and hold onto them for a while,
>
> Same here. I wouldn't hesitate on the basis of the 3.8L engine AT ALL.

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

PhilB wrote:
> 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.

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.

PhilB wrote:

>>
>>> I read Consumer Reports but I prefer first hand experience.
>> CR is useless. Ignore everything they say.
>
>>> I buy my vehicles and hold onto them for a while,
>> Same here. I wouldn't hesitate on the basis of the 3.8L engine AT ALL.
>
> 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.

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
> 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.

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

>
> And why is the Jeep dealer giving away V6 Cherokees...? This alone
> has me concerned.

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.

On Sep 9, 9:10*am, Steve > wrote:
> PhilB wrote:
>
> >>> I read Consumer Reports but I prefer first hand experience.
> >> CR is useless. Ignore everything they say.
>
> >>> I buy my vehicles and hold onto them for a while,
> >> Same here. I wouldn't hesitate on the basis of the 3.8L engine AT ALL.
>
> > 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.
>
> 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
>
> > 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.
>
> CR has never given a Chrysler product a good rating. Useless waste of paper.

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.

> > And why is the Jeep dealer giving away V6 Cherokees...? *This alone
> > has me concerned.
>
> 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 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

PhilB wrote:

>>> And why is the Jeep dealer giving away V6 Cherokees...? This alone
>>> has me concerned.
>> 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 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,

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

but that was probably overkill. The i6 does just
> fine pulling a small trailer full of building materials.
>
> Phil

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.

On Sep 9, 1:47*pm, Steve > wrote:
> PhilB wrote:

> > boat or horses but rather a load of 2x4s and sheetrock. *My Durango
> > had the 4.7 Hemi,
>
> SOHC, not Hemi. The Hemi is a 5.7 or 6.1

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'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

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.

> 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.

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

PhilB wrote:

>> 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
>
> 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.
>


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.