Old Crow

On Fri, 16 Jan 2004 20:34:48 GMT, "charles stoyer"
<interpex@earthlink.net> wrote:


>> According them, you can run their chains on the Cherokee
>> and Grand Cherokee if you use these
>> tire sizes: [and stay under 30mph]
>> P215/75-15 P225/70-15 P245/70-15 P225/70-16 P225/75-15
>
>Jeep XJ no. 2 did not have front axle working at hunting camp. Chains on
>rear wheels P215/75-15 kept hitting something.
>

My wife's first XJ('94 2WD)had chains on it every winter for the last
3 years(of course this year she's got a 4x4 Cherokee and it ain't
snowed yet). We run P235/75-15's and once I got the chains fitted
properly I never had any clearence problems.
Were you running bungee's on the chains to tighten them up?
--
Old Crow
'82 Shovelhead FLT 92" 'Pearl'
'95 Jeep YJ Rio Grande
ASE Certified Master Auto Tech + L1
TOMKAT, BS#133, SENS, MAMBM, DOF#51

bowgus

Oops yer right ... I was focussed on the detonation problem associated with
less air. So there's another reason to go with the good old low octane 4.0
litre Cherokee ... if yer gonna stay stock, that is.


"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40087E91.9F473A1B@***.net...
> Higher altitude equals less air to compress, therefore less fuel
> and octane is needed.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> bowgus wrote:
> >
> > Oh yeah ... I'd also look into a higher octane fuel to prevent
detonation
> > ... if I ever moved to 11,000 feet that is .... maybe build a still ...
1
> > part alcohol to 10 parts gasoline if I recall gives a higher than you'd
> > think octane ... hmmm ... maybe I'll build the still anyway ... like the
guy
> > said ... most of my money I spent on booze and women ... the rest I just
> > wasted :-)
> >
> > "bowgus" <Bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:8q_Nb.58512$ZuL1.27321@twister01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.com...
> > > Ok so ... 1% to 2% loss per 1000 ft ... let's assume 2% ... so that's
> > about
> > > 20%. Now, I myself never run at 190 hp, so that says to me, run at
about
> > 20%
> > > more than I do down here, and I'm even. Now, I'm never above about
2000
> > rpm
> > > ... absolutely no need to ... shifts at about 1800 rpm, about 1800 rpm
at
> > 60
> > > mph ... so I'm guessing a gear change and another 1000 rpm would more
than
> > > do it for me. I'd go find you the power/torque curves but ...

bowgus

Oops yer right ... I was focussed on the detonation problem associated with
less air. So there's another reason to go with the good old low octane 4.0
litre Cherokee ... if yer gonna stay stock, that is.


"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40087E91.9F473A1B@***.net...
> Higher altitude equals less air to compress, therefore less fuel
> and octane is needed.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> bowgus wrote:
> >
> > Oh yeah ... I'd also look into a higher octane fuel to prevent
detonation
> > ... if I ever moved to 11,000 feet that is .... maybe build a still ...
1
> > part alcohol to 10 parts gasoline if I recall gives a higher than you'd
> > think octane ... hmmm ... maybe I'll build the still anyway ... like the
guy
> > said ... most of my money I spent on booze and women ... the rest I just
> > wasted :-)
> >
> > "bowgus" <Bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:8q_Nb.58512$ZuL1.27321@twister01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.com...
> > > Ok so ... 1% to 2% loss per 1000 ft ... let's assume 2% ... so that's
> > about
> > > 20%. Now, I myself never run at 190 hp, so that says to me, run at
about
> > 20%
> > > more than I do down here, and I'm even. Now, I'm never above about
2000
> > rpm
> > > ... absolutely no need to ... shifts at about 1800 rpm, about 1800 rpm
at
> > 60
> > > mph ... so I'm guessing a gear change and another 1000 rpm would more
than
> > > do it for me. I'd go find you the power/torque curves but ...

bowgus

Oops yer right ... I was focussed on the detonation problem associated with
less air. So there's another reason to go with the good old low octane 4.0
litre Cherokee ... if yer gonna stay stock, that is.


"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:40087E91.9F473A1B@***.net...
> Higher altitude equals less air to compress, therefore less fuel
> and octane is needed.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> bowgus wrote:
> >
> > Oh yeah ... I'd also look into a higher octane fuel to prevent
detonation
> > ... if I ever moved to 11,000 feet that is .... maybe build a still ...
1
> > part alcohol to 10 parts gasoline if I recall gives a higher than you'd
> > think octane ... hmmm ... maybe I'll build the still anyway ... like the
guy
> > said ... most of my money I spent on booze and women ... the rest I just
> > wasted :-)
> >
> > "bowgus" <Bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:8q_Nb.58512$ZuL1.27321@twister01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.com...
> > > Ok so ... 1% to 2% loss per 1000 ft ... let's assume 2% ... so that's
> > about
> > > 20%. Now, I myself never run at 190 hp, so that says to me, run at
about
> > 20%
> > > more than I do down here, and I'm even. Now, I'm never above about
2000
> > rpm
> > > ... absolutely no need to ... shifts at about 1800 rpm, about 1800 rpm
at
> > 60
> > > mph ... so I'm guessing a gear change and another 1000 rpm would more
than
> > > do it for me. I'd go find you the power/torque curves but ...

Charles Stoyer

That's 3% per 1,000 feet. At 11,000 feet there is 2/3 the air that you have
at sea level. My watch has a barometer on it. At sea level it reads around
30. At 11,000 feet it reads around 20.

Compound that with the fact that the hills are both steep and long. I know
one road goes uphill for 50 miles (along Cache la Poudre river). It is not
uncommon to have steep hills several tens of miles long.

Even empty (well, myself and a dog) the Jeep has to be in third (of five)
gear to maintain 65 mph on I-70 near the Eisenhower tunnel.

It won't pull the hill like that in fourth. Never mind fifth.

Charles.

"bowgus" <Bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:8q_Nb.58512$ZuL1.27321@twister01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.com...
> Ok so ... 1% to 2% loss per 1000 ft ... let's assume 2% ... so that's
about
> 20%. Now, I myself never run at 190 hp, so that says to me, run at about
20%
> more than I do down here, and I'm even. Now, I'm never above about 2000
rpm
> ... absolutely no need to ... shifts at about 1800 rpm, about 1800 rpm at
60
> mph ... so I'm guessing a gear change and another 1000 rpm would more than
> do it for me. I'd go find you the power/torque curves but ...
>
>
>
> "charles stoyer" <interpex@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nTXNb.13641$zj7.6791@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net...
> >
> > "bowgus" <Bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:OMINb.41252$ZuL1.2266@twister01.bloor.is.net. cable.rogers.com...
> > > Well ... I needed to pull a 3000 lb boat/trailer, do the daily drive,
> and
> > do
> > > the weekend trips. The '96 Cherokee 4.0 litre HO, 4spd auto, Command
> Trac
> > > suited perfectly ... a basic machine that best met my requirements.
> > >
> > > - 4.0 litre HO lots of power, regular gas ... and provides lotsa heat
in
> > the
> > > winter (246,000 km and running as new).
> >
> > But are you driving at 7,000 to 11,000 feet where your 190 hp engine now
> has
> > 150 to 125 hp?
> >
> > > - Cherokee ... 3100 lbs, 4 door ... comfortable ride.
> > > - 4 spd auto with lock up ... makes towing easy, relatively
economical.
> > > - Command Trac ... gives me RWD for day to day, 4H for winter, 4L for
> > > pulling the boat outta the drink ... just put it in gear and it'll
idle
> > it's
> > > way up the ramp/beach/stones.
> >
> > Aside from the fact that I don't do auto, 5-speed should give me at
least
> as
> > much power to the wheels. I am beginning to think that at 3,100 lbs or
so,
> I
> > won't get any more power, not without buying something new.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Charles Stoyer" <cstoyer@interpex.com> wrote in message
> > > news:6KednSM-UMFFzprdRVn-hA@4dv.net...
> > > > Right now I have Jeep Cherokees (2 x 1987) and am looking to
upgrade.
> I
> > > can
> > > > get a 1994 Cherokee for around $4k if I can find one. I am in Denver
> > area.
> > > >
> > > > Complaints about Cherokee are low power (I drive between 6,000 and
> > 11,000
> > > > feet above sea level), not so great mileage (20 mpg on a good day)
and
> > > poor
> > > > towing capacity (snowmobile trailer w/2 sleds). Cherokees have about
> > > > 180-190k miles on them.
> > > >
> > > > Chains don't fit well on rear wheels - low fender clearance, low
> spring
> > > > clearance (leaf springs).
> > > >
> > > > Engine compartment is tight, cargo capacity is OK. Off-road
capability
> > is
> > > > good.
> > > >
> > > > I am looking for 5-speed manual, maybe a more modern engine (24
> valves?)
> > > > than the straight six in the Cherokee. Cherokee supposedly has 177
HP,
> > > newer
> > > > (HO) engines have 190, I think. At 6,000 feet and above, my 86 SAAB
> 900
> > > > Turbo with 160 HP and weighing 2,900 lbs (Jeep weighs around 3,100)
> will
> > > > suck the doors off either of the Jeeps at 231k miles.
> > > >
> > > > It seems the Toyota 4runner is lower power and heavier vehicle, also
a
> > lot
> > > > more expensive. Got a loan of an Izuzu Rodeo and it seemed like a
nice
> > > > vehicle but they are notorious for burning up engines. Don't even
talk
> > > about
> > > > the Ford Exploder. Nissan Pathfinder is not impressive. JGC (ZJ)
does
> > not
> > > > come with 5-speed manual, so that is out (although some early ones
did
> > but
> > > > they are hard to find).
> > > >
> > > > Would most power in a light (3,000 lb) SUV be maybe a 94 or so
> Cherokee
> > > with
> > > > a free flow cat-back exhaust? I seem to keep coming back to Jeep for
> > light
> > > > vehicle with power and low cost.
> > > >
> > > > I know you guys are gonna favor Jeep but maybe you can say what to
> > really
> > > > stay away from, besides what I already mentioned. Or what
comparisons
> > have
> > > > you made before buying Jeep?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > >
> > > > Charles.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Charles Stoyer

That's 3% per 1,000 feet. At 11,000 feet there is 2/3 the air that you have
at sea level. My watch has a barometer on it. At sea level it reads around
30. At 11,000 feet it reads around 20.

Compound that with the fact that the hills are both steep and long. I know
one road goes uphill for 50 miles (along Cache la Poudre river). It is not
uncommon to have steep hills several tens of miles long.

Even empty (well, myself and a dog) the Jeep has to be in third (of five)
gear to maintain 65 mph on I-70 near the Eisenhower tunnel.

It won't pull the hill like that in fourth. Never mind fifth.

Charles.

"bowgus" <Bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:8q_Nb.58512$ZuL1.27321@twister01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.com...
> Ok so ... 1% to 2% loss per 1000 ft ... let's assume 2% ... so that's
about
> 20%. Now, I myself never run at 190 hp, so that says to me, run at about
20%
> more than I do down here, and I'm even. Now, I'm never above about 2000
rpm
> ... absolutely no need to ... shifts at about 1800 rpm, about 1800 rpm at
60
> mph ... so I'm guessing a gear change and another 1000 rpm would more than
> do it for me. I'd go find you the power/torque curves but ...
>
>
>
> "charles stoyer" <interpex@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nTXNb.13641$zj7.6791@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net...
> >
> > "bowgus" <Bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:OMINb.41252$ZuL1.2266@twister01.bloor.is.net. cable.rogers.com...
> > > Well ... I needed to pull a 3000 lb boat/trailer, do the daily drive,
> and
> > do
> > > the weekend trips. The '96 Cherokee 4.0 litre HO, 4spd auto, Command
> Trac
> > > suited perfectly ... a basic machine that best met my requirements.
> > >
> > > - 4.0 litre HO lots of power, regular gas ... and provides lotsa heat
in
> > the
> > > winter (246,000 km and running as new).
> >
> > But are you driving at 7,000 to 11,000 feet where your 190 hp engine now
> has
> > 150 to 125 hp?
> >
> > > - Cherokee ... 3100 lbs, 4 door ... comfortable ride.
> > > - 4 spd auto with lock up ... makes towing easy, relatively
economical.
> > > - Command Trac ... gives me RWD for day to day, 4H for winter, 4L for
> > > pulling the boat outta the drink ... just put it in gear and it'll
idle
> > it's
> > > way up the ramp/beach/stones.
> >
> > Aside from the fact that I don't do auto, 5-speed should give me at
least
> as
> > much power to the wheels. I am beginning to think that at 3,100 lbs or
so,
> I
> > won't get any more power, not without buying something new.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Charles Stoyer" <cstoyer@interpex.com> wrote in message
> > > news:6KednSM-UMFFzprdRVn-hA@4dv.net...
> > > > Right now I have Jeep Cherokees (2 x 1987) and am looking to
upgrade.
> I
> > > can
> > > > get a 1994 Cherokee for around $4k if I can find one. I am in Denver
> > area.
> > > >
> > > > Complaints about Cherokee are low power (I drive between 6,000 and
> > 11,000
> > > > feet above sea level), not so great mileage (20 mpg on a good day)
and
> > > poor
> > > > towing capacity (snowmobile trailer w/2 sleds). Cherokees have about
> > > > 180-190k miles on them.
> > > >
> > > > Chains don't fit well on rear wheels - low fender clearance, low
> spring
> > > > clearance (leaf springs).
> > > >
> > > > Engine compartment is tight, cargo capacity is OK. Off-road
capability
> > is
> > > > good.
> > > >
> > > > I am looking for 5-speed manual, maybe a more modern engine (24
> valves?)
> > > > than the straight six in the Cherokee. Cherokee supposedly has 177
HP,
> > > newer
> > > > (HO) engines have 190, I think. At 6,000 feet and above, my 86 SAAB
> 900
> > > > Turbo with 160 HP and weighing 2,900 lbs (Jeep weighs around 3,100)
> will
> > > > suck the doors off either of the Jeeps at 231k miles.
> > > >
> > > > It seems the Toyota 4runner is lower power and heavier vehicle, also
a
> > lot
> > > > more expensive. Got a loan of an Izuzu Rodeo and it seemed like a
nice
> > > > vehicle but they are notorious for burning up engines. Don't even
talk
> > > about
> > > > the Ford Exploder. Nissan Pathfinder is not impressive. JGC (ZJ)
does
> > not
> > > > come with 5-speed manual, so that is out (although some early ones
did
> > but
> > > > they are hard to find).
> > > >
> > > > Would most power in a light (3,000 lb) SUV be maybe a 94 or so
> Cherokee
> > > with
> > > > a free flow cat-back exhaust? I seem to keep coming back to Jeep for
> > light
> > > > vehicle with power and low cost.
> > > >
> > > > I know you guys are gonna favor Jeep but maybe you can say what to
> > really
> > > > stay away from, besides what I already mentioned. Or what
comparisons
> > have
> > > > you made before buying Jeep?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > >
> > > > Charles.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Charles Stoyer

That's 3% per 1,000 feet. At 11,000 feet there is 2/3 the air that you have
at sea level. My watch has a barometer on it. At sea level it reads around
30. At 11,000 feet it reads around 20.

Compound that with the fact that the hills are both steep and long. I know
one road goes uphill for 50 miles (along Cache la Poudre river). It is not
uncommon to have steep hills several tens of miles long.

Even empty (well, myself and a dog) the Jeep has to be in third (of five)
gear to maintain 65 mph on I-70 near the Eisenhower tunnel.

It won't pull the hill like that in fourth. Never mind fifth.

Charles.

"bowgus" <Bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:8q_Nb.58512$ZuL1.27321@twister01.bloor.is.net .cable.rogers.com...
> Ok so ... 1% to 2% loss per 1000 ft ... let's assume 2% ... so that's
about
> 20%. Now, I myself never run at 190 hp, so that says to me, run at about
20%
> more than I do down here, and I'm even. Now, I'm never above about 2000
rpm
> ... absolutely no need to ... shifts at about 1800 rpm, about 1800 rpm at
60
> mph ... so I'm guessing a gear change and another 1000 rpm would more than
> do it for me. I'd go find you the power/torque curves but ...
>
>
>
> "charles stoyer" <interpex@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:nTXNb.13641$zj7.6791@newsread1.news.pas.earth link.net...
> >
> > "bowgus" <Bowgus@rogers.com> wrote in message
> > news:OMINb.41252$ZuL1.2266@twister01.bloor.is.net. cable.rogers.com...
> > > Well ... I needed to pull a 3000 lb boat/trailer, do the daily drive,
> and
> > do
> > > the weekend trips. The '96 Cherokee 4.0 litre HO, 4spd auto, Command
> Trac
> > > suited perfectly ... a basic machine that best met my requirements.
> > >
> > > - 4.0 litre HO lots of power, regular gas ... and provides lotsa heat
in
> > the
> > > winter (246,000 km and running as new).
> >
> > But are you driving at 7,000 to 11,000 feet where your 190 hp engine now
> has
> > 150 to 125 hp?
> >
> > > - Cherokee ... 3100 lbs, 4 door ... comfortable ride.
> > > - 4 spd auto with lock up ... makes towing easy, relatively
economical.
> > > - Command Trac ... gives me RWD for day to day, 4H for winter, 4L for
> > > pulling the boat outta the drink ... just put it in gear and it'll
idle
> > it's
> > > way up the ramp/beach/stones.
> >
> > Aside from the fact that I don't do auto, 5-speed should give me at
least
> as
> > much power to the wheels. I am beginning to think that at 3,100 lbs or
so,
> I
> > won't get any more power, not without buying something new.
> >
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Charles Stoyer" <cstoyer@interpex.com> wrote in message
> > > news:6KednSM-UMFFzprdRVn-hA@4dv.net...
> > > > Right now I have Jeep Cherokees (2 x 1987) and am looking to
upgrade.
> I
> > > can
> > > > get a 1994 Cherokee for around $4k if I can find one. I am in Denver
> > area.
> > > >
> > > > Complaints about Cherokee are low power (I drive between 6,000 and
> > 11,000
> > > > feet above sea level), not so great mileage (20 mpg on a good day)
and
> > > poor
> > > > towing capacity (snowmobile trailer w/2 sleds). Cherokees have about
> > > > 180-190k miles on them.
> > > >
> > > > Chains don't fit well on rear wheels - low fender clearance, low
> spring
> > > > clearance (leaf springs).
> > > >
> > > > Engine compartment is tight, cargo capacity is OK. Off-road
capability
> > is
> > > > good.
> > > >
> > > > I am looking for 5-speed manual, maybe a more modern engine (24
> valves?)
> > > > than the straight six in the Cherokee. Cherokee supposedly has 177
HP,
> > > newer
> > > > (HO) engines have 190, I think. At 6,000 feet and above, my 86 SAAB
> 900
> > > > Turbo with 160 HP and weighing 2,900 lbs (Jeep weighs around 3,100)
> will
> > > > suck the doors off either of the Jeeps at 231k miles.
> > > >
> > > > It seems the Toyota 4runner is lower power and heavier vehicle, also
a
> > lot
> > > > more expensive. Got a loan of an Izuzu Rodeo and it seemed like a
nice
> > > > vehicle but they are notorious for burning up engines. Don't even
talk
> > > about
> > > > the Ford Exploder. Nissan Pathfinder is not impressive. JGC (ZJ)
does
> > not
> > > > come with 5-speed manual, so that is out (although some early ones
did
> > but
> > > > they are hard to find).
> > > >
> > > > Would most power in a light (3,000 lb) SUV be maybe a 94 or so
> Cherokee
> > > with
> > > > a free flow cat-back exhaust? I seem to keep coming back to Jeep for
> > light
> > > > vehicle with power and low cost.
> > > >
> > > > I know you guys are gonna favor Jeep but maybe you can say what to
> > really
> > > > stay away from, besides what I already mentioned. Or what
comparisons
> > have
> > > > you made before buying Jeep?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance,
> > > >
> > > > Charles.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Kamen Penev

Towing capacity is only 2000lb with the 5 sp manual. With the automatic
and heavy-duty cooling, the XJ is rated to tow 5000 lb. Power is
plentiful with the 4.0. I have towed a popup trailer over the Grapevine
in So. Cal. (about 5000 ft elevation). No problem. The Jeep easily
maintained 65 mph uphill.

Mine is 5sp. I see no advantage whatsoever. Why do you insist on the stick?

Kamen
93 XJ 4.0

Charles Stoyer wrote:
> Right now I have Jeep Cherokees (2 x 1987) and am looking to upgrade. I can
> get a 1994 Cherokee for around $4k if I can find one. I am in Denver area.
>
> Complaints about Cherokee are low power (I drive between 6,000 and 11,000
> feet above sea level), not so great mileage (20 mpg on a good day) and poor
> towing capacity (snowmobile trailer w/2 sleds). Cherokees have about
> 180-190k miles on them.
>
> Chains don't fit well on rear wheels - low fender clearance, low spring
> clearance (leaf springs).
>
> Engine compartment is tight, cargo capacity is OK. Off-road capability is
> good.
>
> I am looking for 5-speed manual, maybe a more modern engine (24 valves?)
> than the straight six in the Cherokee. Cherokee supposedly has 177 HP, newer
> (HO) engines have 190, I think. At 6,000 feet and above, my 86 SAAB 900
> Turbo with 160 HP and weighing 2,900 lbs (Jeep weighs around 3,100) will
> suck the doors off either of the Jeeps at 231k miles.
>
> It seems the Toyota 4runner is lower power and heavier vehicle, also a lot
> more expensive. Got a loan of an Izuzu Rodeo and it seemed like a nice
> vehicle but they are notorious for burning up engines. Don't even talk about
> the Ford Exploder. Nissan Pathfinder is not impressive. JGC (ZJ) does not
> come with 5-speed manual, so that is out (although some early ones did but
> they are hard to find).
>
> Would most power in a light (3,000 lb) SUV be maybe a 94 or so Cherokee with
> a free flow cat-back exhaust? I seem to keep coming back to Jeep for light
> vehicle with power and low cost.
>
> I know you guys are gonna favor Jeep but maybe you can say what to really
> stay away from, besides what I already mentioned. Or what comparisons have
> you made before buying Jeep?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Charles.
>
>
>

Kamen Penev

Towing capacity is only 2000lb with the 5 sp manual. With the automatic
and heavy-duty cooling, the XJ is rated to tow 5000 lb. Power is
plentiful with the 4.0. I have towed a popup trailer over the Grapevine
in So. Cal. (about 5000 ft elevation). No problem. The Jeep easily
maintained 65 mph uphill.

Mine is 5sp. I see no advantage whatsoever. Why do you insist on the stick?

Kamen
93 XJ 4.0

Charles Stoyer wrote:
> Right now I have Jeep Cherokees (2 x 1987) and am looking to upgrade. I can
> get a 1994 Cherokee for around $4k if I can find one. I am in Denver area.
>
> Complaints about Cherokee are low power (I drive between 6,000 and 11,000
> feet above sea level), not so great mileage (20 mpg on a good day) and poor
> towing capacity (snowmobile trailer w/2 sleds). Cherokees have about
> 180-190k miles on them.
>
> Chains don't fit well on rear wheels - low fender clearance, low spring
> clearance (leaf springs).
>
> Engine compartment is tight, cargo capacity is OK. Off-road capability is
> good.
>
> I am looking for 5-speed manual, maybe a more modern engine (24 valves?)
> than the straight six in the Cherokee. Cherokee supposedly has 177 HP, newer
> (HO) engines have 190, I think. At 6,000 feet and above, my 86 SAAB 900
> Turbo with 160 HP and weighing 2,900 lbs (Jeep weighs around 3,100) will
> suck the doors off either of the Jeeps at 231k miles.
>
> It seems the Toyota 4runner is lower power and heavier vehicle, also a lot
> more expensive. Got a loan of an Izuzu Rodeo and it seemed like a nice
> vehicle but they are notorious for burning up engines. Don't even talk about
> the Ford Exploder. Nissan Pathfinder is not impressive. JGC (ZJ) does not
> come with 5-speed manual, so that is out (although some early ones did but
> they are hard to find).
>
> Would most power in a light (3,000 lb) SUV be maybe a 94 or so Cherokee with
> a free flow cat-back exhaust? I seem to keep coming back to Jeep for light
> vehicle with power and low cost.
>
> I know you guys are gonna favor Jeep but maybe you can say what to really
> stay away from, besides what I already mentioned. Or what comparisons have
> you made before buying Jeep?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Charles.
>
>
>

Kamen Penev

Towing capacity is only 2000lb with the 5 sp manual. With the automatic
and heavy-duty cooling, the XJ is rated to tow 5000 lb. Power is
plentiful with the 4.0. I have towed a popup trailer over the Grapevine
in So. Cal. (about 5000 ft elevation). No problem. The Jeep easily
maintained 65 mph uphill.

Mine is 5sp. I see no advantage whatsoever. Why do you insist on the stick?

Kamen
93 XJ 4.0

Charles Stoyer wrote:
> Right now I have Jeep Cherokees (2 x 1987) and am looking to upgrade. I can
> get a 1994 Cherokee for around $4k if I can find one. I am in Denver area.
>
> Complaints about Cherokee are low power (I drive between 6,000 and 11,000
> feet above sea level), not so great mileage (20 mpg on a good day) and poor
> towing capacity (snowmobile trailer w/2 sleds). Cherokees have about
> 180-190k miles on them.
>
> Chains don't fit well on rear wheels - low fender clearance, low spring
> clearance (leaf springs).
>
> Engine compartment is tight, cargo capacity is OK. Off-road capability is
> good.
>
> I am looking for 5-speed manual, maybe a more modern engine (24 valves?)
> than the straight six in the Cherokee. Cherokee supposedly has 177 HP, newer
> (HO) engines have 190, I think. At 6,000 feet and above, my 86 SAAB 900
> Turbo with 160 HP and weighing 2,900 lbs (Jeep weighs around 3,100) will
> suck the doors off either of the Jeeps at 231k miles.
>
> It seems the Toyota 4runner is lower power and heavier vehicle, also a lot
> more expensive. Got a loan of an Izuzu Rodeo and it seemed like a nice
> vehicle but they are notorious for burning up engines. Don't even talk about
> the Ford Exploder. Nissan Pathfinder is not impressive. JGC (ZJ) does not
> come with 5-speed manual, so that is out (although some early ones did but
> they are hard to find).
>
> Would most power in a light (3,000 lb) SUV be maybe a 94 or so Cherokee with
> a free flow cat-back exhaust? I seem to keep coming back to Jeep for light
> vehicle with power and low cost.
>
> I know you guys are gonna favor Jeep but maybe you can say what to really
> stay away from, besides what I already mentioned. Or what comparisons have
> you made before buying Jeep?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Charles.
>
>
>