Jeep

[Ext User(Ronnie Stanton)]

As a brand are Jeep's any good? I am looking at Wranglers or Cherokees. I
have heard they are 'a bucket of bolts'

[Ext User(veritas)]

Ask the person who told you, why he thinks they are "a bucket of bolts".




Ronnie Stanton wrote:
> As a brand are Jeep's any good? I am looking at Wranglers or Cherokees. I
> have heard they are 'a bucket of bolts'
>

--
..
..
..
..
..
..

READ CAREFULLY. By reading this article, you agree solely, and/or on
behalf of your employer, to release me from all obligations and waivers
arising from any and all NON-NEGOTIATED agreements, licenses,
terms-of-service, shrinkwrap, clickwrap, browsewrap, confidentiality,
non-disclosure, non-compete and acceptable use policies ("BOGUS
AGREEMENTS") that I have entered into with your employer, its partners,
licensors, agents and assigns, in perpetuity, without prejudice to my
ongoing rights and privileges. You further represent that you have the
authority to release me from any BOGUS AGREEMENTS on behalf of yourself
and/or your employer.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Ronnie Stanton" <rst71058@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:C1FB9B6F.48E8%rst71058@bigpond.net.au...

> As a brand are Jeep's any good? I am looking at Wranglers or Cherokees. I
> have heard they are 'a bucket of bolts'

I've got a '99 XJ Cherokee Sport (the last of the "square" shaped
Cherokees), and in the 2 and a half years I've owned it it's been
outstanding, and probably one of the most hassle free vehicles I've ever
owned.

On the plus side it's far and away the *best* tow vehicle I've ever owed
without a doubt (and I've owned some pretty good ones), outstanding fuel
economy for a vehicle with all the aerodynamic ability of a bus shelter (it
averages a little over 12km's per 100 litres around town), it has *real* 4wd
ability if you want it without being a tank to drive (I've only ever used
low 4wd to pull tree stumps out with, but it does that *very* well :), and
they drive quite well indeed for what essentially is an F-100 style truck
with a full length roof. In fact, to drive they are very similar to a mid
'90's Falcon, with about the same performance. That might not be saying much
for the Falcon (or lots for the Jeep, take your pick), but they certainly
don't drive very "truck like". At under 1500kg in weight, they're certainly
quite nippy and agile.

The negatives aren't many for mine, but worth mentioning just the same.

They're not a large vehicle. The square shaped Cherokee is around the same
physical size as a Rav4, and the interior space is at somewhat of a premium.
They're certainly not cramped, but they're far from Land Cruiser style
large. The rear seat folding is very "1960's station wagon" style, in that
if you want to fold it down you have to lift the lower section up against
the rear of the front seats first. This isn't particularly difficult in any
way, and the lower rear seat bench comes out in a couple of seconds with the
flick of a lever if you was maximum space, but the rear seat belts have a
nasty habit of catching in the rear seat locks, or getting stuck behind the
seat once you've put it back up which is a pain.

Indicator & wiper controls are reversed from the Australian car norm (some
people find using their left hand to indicate to be a problem but it doesn't
bother me in the slightest), It's got a typical "dumbed down for Americans"
warning beeper that goes off to remind you of just about anything (which
annoys the crap out of me), The rear window wiper/washer switch is in the
worst possible place you could put it (being very low down in the centre of
the dash near the top of the console) and the 4wd selector lever is a *long*
way from the driver.

It's certainly reachable, but it's left in it's original left hand drive
location. I guess they figured that it's not a commonly used lever, so if
you have to lean over to get it big deal :)

Mechanically they're *very* good indeed.

They run a very old school pushrod operated single valve inline 6 cylinder
of cast iron head & block construction, they're *very* solid & reliable
engines. Mine's done 180 odd thousand km's now, and doesn't use an ounce of
oil between changes (or any other fluids for that matter), although it does
have a minor weep at the oil pump and one at the back of the transfer case.

Auto's are good also (manuals are for wimps anyway :), and of the two
different types of transfer case arrangements these things come with, the
"Selec-Trac" is the better one to have as it's less "soft roader" type with
a real low range. Air conditioners work well, they have a *sensational*
heater (best I've ever come across), their electrical systems are simply
brilliant, steering is very good for an old style steering box, and the
brakes are fair.

The brakes are the only real part I'm not overly crazy about. They're not
bad, and it certainly stops well, but the vehicles need 4 wheel disc brakes
in my opinion, or better assistance on the disc/drum models. The "sport"
models only had front discs with rear drums, while the "Limited" had 4 wheel
disc brakes and the difference is noticeable.

In all I've had an excellent experience with mine, and on lpg it averages
350km's for around 30 bucks worth of gas (at today's prices. It's still as
tight as a drum without a rattle or squeak to be heard, and almost everyone
who's been in it has been pleasantly surprised at how well they ride &
sprightly they are. Almost everyone who has no experience with them seems to
assume they because they look like a truck they have to perform like one,
but I can assure you that's *far* from the case.

If you're after this particular type of vehicle then I'm sure you wouldn't
be disappointed, but then again they're not everyone's cup of tea. As with
anything, a run down pig will cost you, and it pays to look around.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Clockmeister)]

"Ronnie Stanton" <rst71058@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:C1FB9B6F.48E8%rst71058@bigpond.net.au...
> As a brand are Jeep's any good? I am looking at Wranglers or Cherokees. I
> have heard they are 'a bucket of bolts'
>

One of the guys from work had a Cherokee that he bought 2nd hand with low
km's on it and it was forever giving him grief.

Apparantly is was quite a capable 4x4 when it was going though. Dunno if his
trouble was the norm or he just got unlucky.

[Ext User(Scotty)]

"Ronnie Stanton" <rst71058@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:C1FB9B6F.48E8%rst71058@bigpond.net.au...
> As a brand are Jeep's any good? I am looking at Wranglers or Cherokees. I
> have heard they are 'a bucket of bolts'
>

Go hire one for a week and drive it HEAPS, that would give you your best
idea.

I've heard that the only Jeep to buy is a Wrangler and to stay clear of
Cherokees but Noddy will tell you other wise.

I hired a Wrangler 4.0 High output model a while ago and the fuel
consumption was atrocious. It was however a brand new car so I cant give
accurate measurements for fuel use.

[Ext User(Diesel Damo)]

On Feb 16, 7:36 pm, "Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au> wrote:
> (it averages a little over 12km's per 100 litres around town)

Yeah? That good? ;-)

[Ext User(Kev)]

Scotty wrote:

> "Ronnie Stanton" <rst71058@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:C1FB9B6F.48E8%rst71058@bigpond.net.au...
>
>>As a brand are Jeep's any good? I am looking at Wranglers or Cherokees. I
>>have heard they are 'a bucket of bolts'
>>
>
>
> Go hire one for a week and drive it HEAPS, that would give you your best
> idea.
>
> I've heard that the only Jeep to buy is a Wrangler and to stay clear of
> Cherokees but Noddy will tell you other wise.
>
> I hired a Wrangler 4.0 High output model a while ago and the fuel
> consumption was atrocious. It was however a brand new car so I cant give
> accurate measurements for fuel use.
>
>
>


The problem with the Wrangler is the low ground clearence with the
standard tyres, especially at the rear, the fuel tank hangs down quite
low, almost lower than the diff and on the beach it drags it's arse all
the way through soft sand, shit fuel economy is their worst trait

a set of lifted springs and larger tyres will fix the clearence but not
much will fix the fuel economy


Kev

[Ext User(Ron)]

"Clockmeister" <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote in
news:12task88huf4n7f@corp.supernews.com:

>
> "Ronnie Stanton" <rst71058@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
> news:C1FB9B6F.48E8%rst71058@bigpond.net.au...
>> As a brand are Jeep's any good? I am looking at Wranglers or
>> Cherokees. I have heard they are 'a bucket of bolts'
>>
>
> One of the guys from work had a Cherokee that he bought 2nd hand with
> low km's on it and it was forever giving him grief.
>
> Apparantly is was quite a capable 4x4 when it was going though. Dunno
> if his trouble was the norm or he just got unlucky.
>
>
>

Not uncommon, they have a reputation similar to "Noddy's" thoughts on
Jaguar :-)

Iv'e heard of more unhappy owners, compared to happy ones.
Most problems appear to be "falling to bits".
However, the OLD V8, big, thirsty, Cherokee's appear to be very tough and
reliable.

Ron

[Ext User(the_dawggie)]

On Feb 16, 8:17 pm, "Diesel Damo" <Diesel_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 7:36 pm, "Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au> wrote:
>
> > (it averages a little over 12km's per 100 litres around town)
>
> Yeah? That good? ;-)

LOL!

Our 'luxen use around, or less than 10l/100km

Get into the biodiesel stuff, and me mates Smurf and
me 'lux run for next to feck all nothing $ wise.

[Ext User(Clockmeister)]

"the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171625174.211464.326730@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
> On Feb 16, 8:17 pm, "Diesel Damo" <Diesel_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> On Feb 16, 7:36 pm, "Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> > (it averages a little over 12km's per 100 litres around town)
>>
>> Yeah? That good? ;-)
>
> LOL!
>
> Our 'luxen use around, or less than 10l/100km

Yeah, but they're gutless.

[Ext User(the_dawggie)]

On Feb 16, 10:39 pm, "Clockmeister" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
> "the_dawggie" <the_dawg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1171625174.211464.326730@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > On Feb 16, 8:17 pm, "Diesel Damo" <Diesel_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> >> On Feb 16, 7:36 pm, "Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >> > (it averages a little over 12km's per 100 litres around town)
>
> >> Yeah? That good? ;-)
>
> > LOL!
>
> > Our 'luxen use around, or less than 10l/100km
>
> Yeah, but they're gutless.


Not when properly turboed.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Ron" <dodo@hotmail> wrote in message
news:Xns98D9CE31079F3GPS@64.209.0.81...

> Not uncommon, they have a reputation similar to "Noddy's" thoughts on
> Jaguar :-)

No, not like Jaguar Ronald. Jeeps are built to "rough it" *on purpose* :)

> Iv'e heard of more unhappy owners, compared to happy ones.

Yeah, but you think Jags are a good car, so what the fuck would you know? :)

> Most problems appear to be "falling to bits".

Biggest problem I've ever heard about with Jeeps, and mainly early model
Cheorkees, is front axle issues, and that's largely on American models. If
you look at any of the Jeep forums (and not that I do much as the thing is
just a tow vehicle to me and I have no real interest in "group activities"),
you'll see a few posts a year with some issues with the front differential.

Athol actually mentioned this some time ago, and up until he did I'd never
seen mention of it anywhere. I have since then, but in maybe half a dozen
posts.

I can only comment on my own experiences with any degree of accuracy, and as
I mentioned mine has been very good. It had a water pump fail at 140k km's,
which cost 68 bucks & an hour of my time to change, but in 40k km's since
then it hasn't so much as blown a globe. It had new tyres put on it when I
bought it, and after 50k km's they *just* got rotated last week-end, and
still look new :)

My friend wwith the older model hasn't had any drama's that I'm aware of
either, and it was his recomendation that got me thinking about them in the
fist place.

> However, the OLD V8, big, thirsty, Cherokee's appear to be very tough and
> reliable.

You mean like the '70's "Cherokee Chief" models?

Now, *they* were rough, and they rusted almost as quickly as an Alfa :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Scotty" <scoter1@warmmail.com> wrote in message
news:45d5732f$0$2917$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au ...

> I've heard that the only Jeep to buy is a Wrangler and to stay clear of
> Cherokees but Noddy will tell you other wise.

The Wrangler and Cherokee use exactly the same mechanicals, so any "issues"
affecting one would be common across the range.

The Wrangler is a pretty rough vehicle in terms of build quality. They're
basically a rough "bush tub" with crap fitting panels & parts, and pretty
cheap & nasty features. They are, however, a pretty competant off road
vehicle apparently, with nothing lese like them around.

> I hired a Wrangler 4.0 High output model a while ago and the fuel
> consumption was atrocious. It was however a brand new car so I cant give
> accurate measurements for fuel use.

I can only comment on my own, and that of a bloke I know who owns the same
model (albeit a couple of years earlier), and his fuel economy is quite
exceptional like mine is.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Kev" <kevcat@optunet.com.au> wrote in message
news:45d582ed$0$11741$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.a u...

> a set of lifted springs and larger tyres will fix the clearence but not
> much will fix the fuel economy

You've got me genuinely interested here. What kind of economy do they have?

Considering that my Cherokee is slightly heavier than a Wrangler and gets
12l/100km all day long, I'm curious as to what's so bad about the Wrangler.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Diesel Damo" <Diesel_4WD@yahoo.com.au> wrote in message

> Yeah? That good? ;-)

It's better than what my EF Fairmont used to get around town, and that was
just a tad better off in the aerodynamic department :)

Worst I've ever had out of it was a bit over 12 and a half litres per
100km's, but that was pulling a tandem trailer from Bendigo to Melbourne
with a ZD Fairlane and two V8 engines on it.

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message

> Our 'luxen use around, or less than 10l/100km

Yeah, but you guys have to put up with the rattle & stink :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(Noddy)]

"Clockmeister" <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote in message
news:12tb609r58hvpe3@corp.supernews.com...

> Yeah, but they're gutless.

And that too :)

--
Regards,
Noddy.

[Ext User(the_dawggie)]

On Feb 16, 11:11 pm, "Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au> wrote:
> "the_dawggie" <the_dawg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > Our 'luxen use around, or less than 10l/100km
>
> Yeah, but you guys have to put up with the rattle & stink :)

The rattle (at idle) is relaxing, however the stink of traditional
OilCo diesel kinda sux, although been improved with low
sulphur. Biodiesel, kinda nice.

[Ext User(Ron)]

Ron <dodo@hotmail> wrote in news:Xns98D9CE31079F3GPS@64.209.0.81:

> "Clockmeister" <whowhere@andwhy.com> wrote in
> news:12task88huf4n7f@corp.supernews.com:
>
>>
>> "Ronnie Stanton" <rst71058@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:C1FB9B6F.48E8%rst71058@bigpond.net.au...
>>> As a brand are Jeep's any good? I am looking at Wranglers or
>>> Cherokees. I have heard they are 'a bucket of bolts'
>>>
>>
>> One of the guys from work had a Cherokee that he bought 2nd hand with
>> low km's on it and it was forever giving him grief.
>>
>> Apparantly is was quite a capable 4x4 when it was going though. Dunno
>> if his trouble was the norm or he just got unlucky.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Not uncommon, they have a reputation similar to "Noddy's" thoughts on
> Jaguar :-)
>
> Iv'e heard of more unhappy owners, compared to happy ones.
> Most problems appear to be "falling to bits".
> However, the OLD V8, big, thirsty, Cherokee's appear to be very tough
> and reliable.
>
> Ron
>

Update, have a look at: http://www.carsurvey.org/model_Jeep_Cherokee.html

You will find some interesting reports :-)

Ron

[Ext User(Clockmeister)]

"the_dawggie" <the_dawggie@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1171626198.233129.72600@t69g2000cwt.googlegro ups.com...
> On Feb 16, 10:39 pm, "Clockmeister" <whowh...@andwhy.com> wrote:
>> "the_dawggie" <the_dawg...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1171625174.211464.326730@h3g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>> > On Feb 16, 8:17 pm, "Diesel Damo" <Diesel_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>> >> On Feb 16, 7:36 pm, "Noddy" <dg4163@(nospam)dodo.com.au> wrote:
>>
>> >> > (it averages a little over 12km's per 100 litres around town)
>>
>> >> Yeah? That good? ;-)
>>
>> > LOL!
>>
>> > Our 'luxen use around, or less than 10l/100km
>>
>> Yeah, but they're gutless.
>
>
> Not when properly turboed.
>

So you get 10L/100km when it's properly turboed?