I'd still like to know why the 96 had lower ratings then the surrounding
years. It appears that 96 was a bit of a transition year, wasn't that
the first year for air bags? It was also the first year for OBD II and
I don't know what differences that would have made in reliability.

Jeff DeWitt

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> My favorite was of the reliability listings for one particular year (it
> might have been 96) the Cherokee had average or above average individual
> system ratings, with most being above average, none being below average, but
> they still gave it a worse than average overall reliability rating for that
> year.
>
> Yeah, CR isn't biased. Ha.
>
> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:HUZpg.5413$4c7.1625@tornado.southeast.rr.com. ..
>
>>After I bought my 96 Cherokee I looked it up in CR and for some reason the
>>96 was listed as worse then the 95 or the 97, and of course with no
>>explanation as to why.
>>
>>300,000 miles later I still haven't figured out what CR didn't like about
>>the 96 (other than the don't like real cars or trucks).
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt
>>
>>Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>>>>I LIKE the straight 6. It's bullet-proof. In fact, I have the 2.5L 4
>>>>cyl in my YJ with 162,000 miles on it and going strong. Plenty of grunt
>>>>and decent mileage.
>>>
>>>
>>>If feel like you got plenty of grunt on the 2.5L 4cyl, you'll love the
>>>V6.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The thought of a mini-van, robot-built V6 is a little unnerving.
>>>>Especially since Consumer Reports says there are reliability problems
>>>>with that engine.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bwahahahaha. If everyone who drives a Jeep cares about what CR says about
>>>cars, we would all be driving Camrys and Accords.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Another thing bothering me: The information on the 2006 Wrangler talks
>>>>about Quadra-track being "available". Are they implying that the base
>>>>model will be 2WD? In a Wrangler? That's heresy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Quadra trac is a full-time version of Jeep 4wd, but to my knowledge no
>>>Wrangler has ever had it, they all came with Command-Trac part time 4wd.
>>>'06 model is still the TJ, BTW.
>>>
>>>
>
>

 

I'd still like to know why the 96 had lower ratings then the surrounding
years. It appears that 96 was a bit of a transition year, wasn't that
the first year for air bags? It was also the first year for OBD II and
I don't know what differences that would have made in reliability.

Jeff DeWitt

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> My favorite was of the reliability listings for one particular year (it
> might have been 96) the Cherokee had average or above average individual
> system ratings, with most being above average, none being below average, but
> they still gave it a worse than average overall reliability rating for that
> year.
>
> Yeah, CR isn't biased. Ha.
>
> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:HUZpg.5413$4c7.1625@tornado.southeast.rr.com. ..
>
>>After I bought my 96 Cherokee I looked it up in CR and for some reason the
>>96 was listed as worse then the 95 or the 97, and of course with no
>>explanation as to why.
>>
>>300,000 miles later I still haven't figured out what CR didn't like about
>>the 96 (other than the don't like real cars or trucks).
>>
>>Jeff DeWitt
>>
>>Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>>>>I LIKE the straight 6. It's bullet-proof. In fact, I have the 2.5L 4
>>>>cyl in my YJ with 162,000 miles on it and going strong. Plenty of grunt
>>>>and decent mileage.
>>>
>>>
>>>If feel like you got plenty of grunt on the 2.5L 4cyl, you'll love the
>>>V6.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The thought of a mini-van, robot-built V6 is a little unnerving.
>>>>Especially since Consumer Reports says there are reliability problems
>>>>with that engine.
>>>
>>>
>>>Bwahahahaha. If everyone who drives a Jeep cares about what CR says about
>>>cars, we would all be driving Camrys and Accords.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Another thing bothering me: The information on the 2006 Wrangler talks
>>>>about Quadra-track being "available". Are they implying that the base
>>>>model will be 2WD? In a Wrangler? That's heresy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Quadra trac is a full-time version of Jeep 4wd, but to my knowledge no
>>>Wrangler has ever had it, they all came with Command-Trac part time 4wd.
>>>'06 model is still the TJ, BTW.
>>>
>>>
>
>

 

The 95 had airbags. Suspect a '96 splashed mud on a CR editor who was
crossing the street in the middle of the block.

Jeff DeWitt proclaimed:

> I'd still like to know why the 96 had lower ratings then the surrounding
> years. It appears that 96 was a bit of a transition year, wasn't that
> the first year for air bags? It was also the first year for OBD II and
> I don't know what differences that would have made in reliability.
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>> My favorite was of the reliability listings for one particular year
>> (it might have been 96) the Cherokee had average or above average
>> individual system ratings, with most being above average, none being
>> below average, but they still gave it a worse than average overall
>> reliability rating for that year.
>>
>> Yeah, CR isn't biased. Ha.
>>
>> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:HUZpg.5413$4c7.1625@tornado.southeast.rr.com. ..
>>
>>> After I bought my 96 Cherokee I looked it up in CR and for some
>>> reason the 96 was listed as worse then the 95 or the 97, and of
>>> course with no explanation as to why.
>>>
>>> 300,000 miles later I still haven't figured out what CR didn't like
>>> about the 96 (other than the don't like real cars or trucks).
>>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>>>
>>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I LIKE the straight 6. It's bullet-proof. In fact, I have the
>>>>> 2.5L 4 cyl in my YJ with 162,000 miles on it and going strong.
>>>>> Plenty of grunt and decent mileage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If feel like you got plenty of grunt on the 2.5L 4cyl, you'll love
>>>> the V6.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The thought of a mini-van, robot-built V6 is a little unnerving.
>>>>> Especially since Consumer Reports says there are reliability
>>>>> problems with that engine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bwahahahaha. If everyone who drives a Jeep cares about what CR says
>>>> about cars, we would all be driving Camrys and Accords.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Another thing bothering me: The information on the 2006 Wrangler
>>>>> talks about Quadra-track being "available". Are they implying that
>>>>> the base model will be 2WD? In a Wrangler? That's heresy.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quadra trac is a full-time version of Jeep 4wd, but to my knowledge
>>>> no Wrangler has ever had it, they all came with Command-Trac part
>>>> time 4wd. '06 model is still the TJ, BTW.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

 

The 95 had airbags. Suspect a '96 splashed mud on a CR editor who was
crossing the street in the middle of the block.

Jeff DeWitt proclaimed:

> I'd still like to know why the 96 had lower ratings then the surrounding
> years. It appears that 96 was a bit of a transition year, wasn't that
> the first year for air bags? It was also the first year for OBD II and
> I don't know what differences that would have made in reliability.
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>> My favorite was of the reliability listings for one particular year
>> (it might have been 96) the Cherokee had average or above average
>> individual system ratings, with most being above average, none being
>> below average, but they still gave it a worse than average overall
>> reliability rating for that year.
>>
>> Yeah, CR isn't biased. Ha.
>>
>> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:HUZpg.5413$4c7.1625@tornado.southeast.rr.com. ..
>>
>>> After I bought my 96 Cherokee I looked it up in CR and for some
>>> reason the 96 was listed as worse then the 95 or the 97, and of
>>> course with no explanation as to why.
>>>
>>> 300,000 miles later I still haven't figured out what CR didn't like
>>> about the 96 (other than the don't like real cars or trucks).
>>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>>>
>>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I LIKE the straight 6. It's bullet-proof. In fact, I have the
>>>>> 2.5L 4 cyl in my YJ with 162,000 miles on it and going strong.
>>>>> Plenty of grunt and decent mileage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If feel like you got plenty of grunt on the 2.5L 4cyl, you'll love
>>>> the V6.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The thought of a mini-van, robot-built V6 is a little unnerving.
>>>>> Especially since Consumer Reports says there are reliability
>>>>> problems with that engine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bwahahahaha. If everyone who drives a Jeep cares about what CR says
>>>> about cars, we would all be driving Camrys and Accords.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Another thing bothering me: The information on the 2006 Wrangler
>>>>> talks about Quadra-track being "available". Are they implying that
>>>>> the base model will be 2WD? In a Wrangler? That's heresy.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quadra trac is a full-time version of Jeep 4wd, but to my knowledge
>>>> no Wrangler has ever had it, they all came with Command-Trac part
>>>> time 4wd. '06 model is still the TJ, BTW.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

 

The 95 had airbags. Suspect a '96 splashed mud on a CR editor who was
crossing the street in the middle of the block.

Jeff DeWitt proclaimed:

> I'd still like to know why the 96 had lower ratings then the surrounding
> years. It appears that 96 was a bit of a transition year, wasn't that
> the first year for air bags? It was also the first year for OBD II and
> I don't know what differences that would have made in reliability.
>
> Jeff DeWitt
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
>> My favorite was of the reliability listings for one particular year
>> (it might have been 96) the Cherokee had average or above average
>> individual system ratings, with most being above average, none being
>> below average, but they still gave it a worse than average overall
>> reliability rating for that year.
>>
>> Yeah, CR isn't biased. Ha.
>>
>> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:HUZpg.5413$4c7.1625@tornado.southeast.rr.com. ..
>>
>>> After I bought my 96 Cherokee I looked it up in CR and for some
>>> reason the 96 was listed as worse then the 95 or the 97, and of
>>> course with no explanation as to why.
>>>
>>> 300,000 miles later I still haven't figured out what CR didn't like
>>> about the 96 (other than the don't like real cars or trucks).
>>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>>>
>>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I LIKE the straight 6. It's bullet-proof. In fact, I have the
>>>>> 2.5L 4 cyl in my YJ with 162,000 miles on it and going strong.
>>>>> Plenty of grunt and decent mileage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If feel like you got plenty of grunt on the 2.5L 4cyl, you'll love
>>>> the V6.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The thought of a mini-van, robot-built V6 is a little unnerving.
>>>>> Especially since Consumer Reports says there are reliability
>>>>> problems with that engine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bwahahahaha. If everyone who drives a Jeep cares about what CR says
>>>> about cars, we would all be driving Camrys and Accords.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Another thing bothering me: The information on the 2006 Wrangler
>>>>> talks about Quadra-track being "available". Are they implying that
>>>>> the base model will be 2WD? In a Wrangler? That's heresy.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Quadra trac is a full-time version of Jeep 4wd, but to my knowledge
>>>> no Wrangler has ever had it, they all came with Command-Trac part
>>>> time 4wd. '06 model is still the TJ, BTW.
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>

 

Lon wrote:
> The 95 had airbags. Suspect a '96 splashed mud on a CR editor who was
> crossing the street in the middle of the block.

Thanks would explane it <G>

Jeff DeWitt

>
> Jeff DeWitt proclaimed:
>
>> I'd still like to know why the 96 had lower ratings then the
>> surrounding years. It appears that 96 was a bit of a transition year,
>> wasn't that the first year for air bags? It was also the first year
>> for OBD II and I don't know what differences that would have made in
>> reliability.
>>
>> Jeff DeWitt
>>
>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>>> My favorite was of the reliability listings for one particular year
>>> (it might have been 96) the Cherokee had average or above average
>>> individual system ratings, with most being above average, none being
>>> below average, but they still gave it a worse than average overall
>>> reliability rating for that year.
>>>
>>> Yeah, CR isn't biased. Ha.
>>>
>>> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:HUZpg.5413$4c7.1625@tornado.southeast.rr.com. ..
>>>
>>>> After I bought my 96 Cherokee I looked it up in CR and for some
>>>> reason the 96 was listed as worse then the 95 or the 97, and of
>>>> course with no explanation as to why.
>>>>
>>>> 300,000 miles later I still haven't figured out what CR didn't like
>>>> about the 96 (other than the don't like real cars or trucks).
>>>>
>>>> Jeff DeWitt
>>>>
>>>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I LIKE the straight 6. It's bullet-proof. In fact, I have the
>>>>>> 2.5L 4 cyl in my YJ with 162,000 miles on it and going strong.
>>>>>> Plenty of grunt and decent mileage.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If feel like you got plenty of grunt on the 2.5L 4cyl, you'll love
>>>>> the V6.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The thought of a mini-van, robot-built V6 is a little unnerving.
>>>>>> Especially since Consumer Reports says there are reliability
>>>>>> problems with that engine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bwahahahaha. If everyone who drives a Jeep cares about what CR says
>>>>> about cars, we would all be driving Camrys and Accords.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another thing bothering me: The information on the 2006 Wrangler
>>>>>> talks about Quadra-track being "available". Are they implying
>>>>>> that the base model will be 2WD? In a Wrangler? That's heresy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quadra trac is a full-time version of Jeep 4wd, but to my knowledge
>>>>> no Wrangler has ever had it, they all came with Command-Trac part
>>>>> time 4wd. '06 model is still the TJ, BTW.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>

 

Lon wrote:
> The 95 had airbags. Suspect a '96 splashed mud on a CR editor who was
> crossing the street in the middle of the block.

Thanks would explane it <G>

Jeff DeWitt

>
> Jeff DeWitt proclaimed:
>
>> I'd still like to know why the 96 had lower ratings then the
>> surrounding years. It appears that 96 was a bit of a transition year,
>> wasn't that the first year for air bags? It was also the first year
>> for OBD II and I don't know what differences that would have made in
>> reliability.
>>
>> Jeff DeWitt
>>
>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>>> My favorite was of the reliability listings for one particular year
>>> (it might have been 96) the Cherokee had average or above average
>>> individual system ratings, with most being above average, none being
>>> below average, but they still gave it a worse than average overall
>>> reliability rating for that year.
>>>
>>> Yeah, CR isn't biased. Ha.
>>>
>>> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:HUZpg.5413$4c7.1625@tornado.southeast.rr.com. ..
>>>
>>>> After I bought my 96 Cherokee I looked it up in CR and for some
>>>> reason the 96 was listed as worse then the 95 or the 97, and of
>>>> course with no explanation as to why.
>>>>
>>>> 300,000 miles later I still haven't figured out what CR didn't like
>>>> about the 96 (other than the don't like real cars or trucks).
>>>>
>>>> Jeff DeWitt
>>>>
>>>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I LIKE the straight 6. It's bullet-proof. In fact, I have the
>>>>>> 2.5L 4 cyl in my YJ with 162,000 miles on it and going strong.
>>>>>> Plenty of grunt and decent mileage.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If feel like you got plenty of grunt on the 2.5L 4cyl, you'll love
>>>>> the V6.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The thought of a mini-van, robot-built V6 is a little unnerving.
>>>>>> Especially since Consumer Reports says there are reliability
>>>>>> problems with that engine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bwahahahaha. If everyone who drives a Jeep cares about what CR says
>>>>> about cars, we would all be driving Camrys and Accords.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another thing bothering me: The information on the 2006 Wrangler
>>>>>> talks about Quadra-track being "available". Are they implying
>>>>>> that the base model will be 2WD? In a Wrangler? That's heresy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quadra trac is a full-time version of Jeep 4wd, but to my knowledge
>>>>> no Wrangler has ever had it, they all came with Command-Trac part
>>>>> time 4wd. '06 model is still the TJ, BTW.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>

 

Lon wrote:
> The 95 had airbags. Suspect a '96 splashed mud on a CR editor who was
> crossing the street in the middle of the block.

Thanks would explane it <G>

Jeff DeWitt

>
> Jeff DeWitt proclaimed:
>
>> I'd still like to know why the 96 had lower ratings then the
>> surrounding years. It appears that 96 was a bit of a transition year,
>> wasn't that the first year for air bags? It was also the first year
>> for OBD II and I don't know what differences that would have made in
>> reliability.
>>
>> Jeff DeWitt
>>
>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>
>>> My favorite was of the reliability listings for one particular year
>>> (it might have been 96) the Cherokee had average or above average
>>> individual system ratings, with most being above average, none being
>>> below average, but they still gave it a worse than average overall
>>> reliability rating for that year.
>>>
>>> Yeah, CR isn't biased. Ha.
>>>
>>> "Jeff DeWitt" <JeffDeWitt@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:HUZpg.5413$4c7.1625@tornado.southeast.rr.com. ..
>>>
>>>> After I bought my 96 Cherokee I looked it up in CR and for some
>>>> reason the 96 was listed as worse then the 95 or the 97, and of
>>>> course with no explanation as to why.
>>>>
>>>> 300,000 miles later I still haven't figured out what CR didn't like
>>>> about the 96 (other than the don't like real cars or trucks).
>>>>
>>>> Jeff DeWitt
>>>>
>>>> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I LIKE the straight 6. It's bullet-proof. In fact, I have the
>>>>>> 2.5L 4 cyl in my YJ with 162,000 miles on it and going strong.
>>>>>> Plenty of grunt and decent mileage.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If feel like you got plenty of grunt on the 2.5L 4cyl, you'll love
>>>>> the V6.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> The thought of a mini-van, robot-built V6 is a little unnerving.
>>>>>> Especially since Consumer Reports says there are reliability
>>>>>> problems with that engine.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Bwahahahaha. If everyone who drives a Jeep cares about what CR says
>>>>> about cars, we would all be driving Camrys and Accords.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Another thing bothering me: The information on the 2006 Wrangler
>>>>>> talks about Quadra-track being "available". Are they implying
>>>>>> that the base model will be 2WD? In a Wrangler? That's heresy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Quadra trac is a full-time version of Jeep 4wd, but to my knowledge
>>>>> no Wrangler has ever had it, they all came with Command-Trac part
>>>>> time 4wd. '06 model is still the TJ, BTW.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>