Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Lol! Well, since our family had a Jeep from that era, I can tell you it's a gas guzzler that started absolutely completely falling apart around year 10.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,260,275 times
Reputation: 57825
We had a '96 4Runner and had nothing but trouble with it, the 3.4 and the automatic cost us big bucks at about 100k miles. My son has a '95 Pathfinder running strong at 125,000 miles. None of those are going to get you much more than 15-20 mpg.
Cherokee 4.0. Some were bad, but overall, they are the strongest of the three. The Toyota is a bit more carlike inside, but the engines in those years were worse. Both are easy to have work done anywhere, however, and have good followings and communities around them, so there will always be someone to help you.
All 3 are not good on gas but I would take either the Pathfinder, although interior room is not great, or the 1996+ 4Runner. The Toyota 3.4 and the 2.7 are excellent engines. They rarely go bad, usually only if not taken care of.
If you get a 1994 or 1995, it will be OBD -I, and simpler to work on than the 96 and later. Some 1995 are OBD- II. Just a thought.
I agree with Wilson that the Jeep 4.0 is tough, long lasting, decent power, not hard to work on, not terribly thirsty considering. I agree also with us66 that the Toy 3.0 is known for blowing head gaskets, from what I read, this is a design problem and there isn't any aftermarket "fix" that can really be depended on.
The Jeep 4.0 block is very sturdy in construction, according to a friend who took his '90 apart. Wikipedia concurs (I'm looking right now) but says the '00 models on up have lousy cylinder heads.
I've owned two Grand Cherokees (96 & a 98 both had the 5.2 V8). Gas mileage wasn't that great... I averaged about 13mpg with both of them driving mainly in town, but both were very reliable. I sold the 96 with 287,000 miles on it nearly 4 years ago, but I still see it running around town. I just traded in my 98 which had 177,000 miles on it. The only real issue I had with either Jeep was keeping the front end in good shape, although the roads around here are awful.
I'd go for the Grand if you're considering a Cherokee. It's just a little nicer ride with better creature comforts. You can also get the 4.0 in these, although I don't think it's an available option for the Grand Cherokee Limited. Be sure to be thorough when you test drive these though, especially if it's equipped with the Quadra-Trac transfer case (which only offers the option to run in Fulltime 4wd or "4LO"). If the vehicle seems to bind up while making tight turns the transfer case is most likely in rough shape, which can be a little costly to replace/repair. Without getting technical, you're best bet would be to look for one with the ability to run in "2HI" or "2LO" in addition to "4HI" & "4LO".
. I agree also with us66 that the Toy 3.0 is known for blowing head gaskets, from what I read, this is a design problem and there isn't any aftermarket "fix" that can really be depended on.
The 3.0 head gasket is not a problem if it was corrected properly like mine was. I had it changed in 1996 and have had no problem since. I know of many others who have had the same result. Those that continue to blow were either repaired incorrectly or had their blocks slightly warped.
That said, i would not buy another 2nd gen, 1990-1995, simple because they lack power and have small gas tanks. The 3rd gens were much improved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.