Cherokee vs Grand Cherokee

File: 4runner.png (1MB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x768px

>>14800323
Should have added 4runner to the list, except that imo it looks ugly compared to the Cherokee.

>>14800323
get a jeep patriot new for like 20k

yea its a chryslers but fuck it its big, 4wd and cheap as all fuck

>>14800378
whoops nvm just read that you wanted to mud with it, that wont work in a patriot lol

S T R A I G H T
I
X

>>14800323
As a guy who used to own a Jeep Grand Cherokee, do not buy a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Sure, they're really nice for a while; they're very comfortable to sit in, high off the ground, and have lots of nifty gadgets... However, they are notoriously unreliable, especially the electronics. Mine left me stranded in the middle of a busy street one night after work and I had to push it into a nearby parking lot. The worse part was I was meticulous with the maintenance of the damned thing. Do not, I repeat, DO NOT, buy a Jeep Grand Cherokee unless you're ready to put up with that.

But, I will say the regular Cherokees (the Sport, ect. ect.) are actually pretty good. Sure, they don't have all the frills of the Grand, but that's just less shit to break.

Ford Rangers are decent little pickups, but being a pick-up truck, they don't have much in the way of cab-space. I don't have much experience with them, but my friends who've owned them think they're easy to work on.

>>14800323
>Ford ranger
Simple little truck. You can find many of then in 5 speed manual and they're available in 3 engines: the 2.4, 3.0 or 4.0. A post on /o/ a while ago said either get the 4.0 or 2.4 because the 3.0 get 2.4 power with 4.0 gas efficiency. If you want a sedan-like pickup the ranger is a decent choice.
>Jeep Cherokee
Great motor and transmissions that will last a long time, everything else about them is iffy, mostly the little stuff like electrical gremlins and what have you will go wrong. Watch the cooling system though, jeeps have cooling issues now and then. Them and the wrangler have a rich aftermarket so if you wanted to make it into a trail warrior, there are no limits to how far you can mod it.
>CR-V
Ultra practical and very reliable. However they're bland, they have very little to offer in the way of fun.

>>14800418
Oh, god... So THAT'S the difference between the two? Comfort may be nice, but I'm just starting to learn about how cars work, and I don't want to learn more with something that shits on me at the worst times. >>14800323 I guess that takes the GC off the list.

>>14800481
>A post on /o/ a while ago said either get the 4.0 or 2.4 because the 3.0 get 2.4 power with 4.0 gas efficiency.

Noted. By the way, does 4WD affect the cost of ownership significantly? Obviously it will cost more in gas, but does that add up much like how a Prius will save you at the pump compared to a Suburban?

>>14800555
Oh yeah, there's a reason why you see a lot of GC's on craigslist when they get to around 120k-150k miles; that's about the point where all the pretty trim; the electric seats, the heated mirrors, the leather interior, and especially all the electronics just starts falling to pieces. Mine lasted to 170k before it started stalling randomly at red lights, but that was hardly the only issue it had.

If you do buy something with 4WD there is more maintenance involved, like changing differential, and transfer case fluids. Depending the car, it doesn't require it too often. Of course, with more moving parts, there is more of a chance of something to go wrong, but as long as the maintenance was kept up with, it shouldn't be a problem. If you're deciding between a 4WD model or a 2WD model of the same car, usually the only difference in fuel economy is usually a few MPGs.

Grand Cherokees are soccer mom SUVs. Cherokees are for a man.

i have both a cherokee and grand cherokee the grand is a better dd but the cherokke is more fun on the mud and trails

>>14800698

Cherokee never came with a V8

>>14801069
>implying that garbage Chrysler v8 is better than the godly AMC i6

>>14801087

the 4.7 was awesome

5.7 was awesome

6.1 was awesome

6.4 is awesome

all of them were great

transmissions...eh...

File: 1451279793166.png (1MB, 986x656px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 986x656px

I can speak for both the Jeeps.

The Grand Cherokee WILL be more comfortable and spacious, with more luxuries (but this is 90s Jeep we're talking about, so don't expect too much). You'll have more power from the v8, but more weight, and it won't be nearly as reliable- both mechanically and electronically (and while you may be able to fix mechanical issues, you'll need to take it to a mechanic for electronic issues). It'll also be less fuel efficient, you'll get 14-15 mpg.

The Cherokee will be very basic, mine doesn't have ABS or traction control, and some don't offer full time 4 wheel drive. But because they're basic they're very reliable as they don't have much to break. The AMC 4.0 engine in them is nearly bulletproof, it'll get to 300k miles with normal fluid changes. The transmissions are solid too, but aren't comfortable- they'll shift hard but last forever. Go for the automatic unless you're set on a manual, Cherokees are one of the few cars with autos more reliable than manuals. You'll get 17-18 mpg.

Go for the Cherokee, 3k should get you a good one, and you'll have a throusand dollars or more to pay for upkeep and gas basically forever. They also have lots more aftermarket support of you're into that. Try to get a 97-99 model of you can, some 00-01 model years have issues with head gaskets, though that's easily fixed.

Ford Ranger would be my second choice, CR-V third, and Grand Cherokee last.

Good luck br/o/!

>>14801091
>4.7 was awesome
Not the ~90s/early 2000s ones.

I agree on all the others, especially the 5.7. It's fantastic.

>>14801197

owned a 2002

better v8 than the ohv gm engine

and the awd to 4wd to 4 lo t case was great

suck it

>>14801213
Shit my bad senpai, got the 4.7 confused with the 3.7, which definitely is garbage. I'm my first post I was talking about the ZJ v8, not the WJ. Come to think of it, I think my parents have a 4.7 Commander which they really like. I don't remember that being too bad, despite the car being heavy as fuck. Transmission didn't want to upshift in high gear, but like you said, it's... questionable.

>>14801257

5.2 sucked

5.9 had torque for days

i ragged on my 5-speed auto for a couple years but the only sign of wear was a squeak at full-throttle upshift

no idea what that was, but it obviously something interesting

>>14801279
The 5.9 was the precursor to the Viper v10, right? I've heard they're nice