Cherokee Model Query
09-25-2005, 10:46 PM
#61
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cherokee Model Query
Is this the same 2.8 liter V-6 that would have been in the '86 Camaros?
My (ex-)wife's was fuel injected and I was surprised at how well it ran.
She and her boyfriend used it for a couple years to tow a ski-boat.
My '81 Malibu with the 3.8 liver V-6 did not run as well.
--
..
Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
..
"bllsht" <nospam@invaliddot.net> wrote in message
news:a5vdj1dm4dsaq58fj6lqcu5h0oltpuq6t3@4ax.com...
> That's a load of crap. It was a GM engine, and GM was using it at the
> same time
> AMC was. GM had already come out with a 1 piece rear main setup and was
> selling
> AMC the 2 piece engines. Some of the AMC ones even had the crankshaft
> knurled
> backwards, turning it into a 2.8L oil pump.
>
> Rear main seals weren't the only place that leaked oil on those though.
> Valve
> covers, intake manifolds, fuel pump o-rings, etc... Anything that could
> leak,
> would.
>
> Add to that the fact that it couldn't even get out of it's own way, and
> you have
> your basic boat anchor.
>
>
> In message <4336A937.D599B108@cac.net>, "tim bur" wrote:
>
>>just to let u know this was what i was told by jeep. amc owned the patent
>>on
>>that engine and when amc was bought by chrysler gm started to use that
>>engine,
>>chy. sued and then got 1500.00 for each engine used and then u seen the
>>2.8
>>disappear
>>any old jeep employee's here than can verify
>>wkearney99 wrote:
>>
>>> > Nope, 2.8 liter boat anchor. Reliable and fairly long-lasting, if the
>>> Chevy
>>> > S10 I owned was any indication, but underpowered. It has about as
>>> > much
>>> > power as the four cylinder offerings from the same years. If you find
>>> > one
>>> > of these in an otherwise acceptable vehicle, however, it is certainly
>>> worth
>>> > a second look.
>>>
>>> Also note that a 3.4L V6 long block is a drop-in replacement. My 2.8L
>>> quit
>>> after about 200k miles and I had it replaced with the 3.4L. Required
>>> adding
>>> an electric fuel pump but otherwise it was a pretty straight bolt-up.
>>> With
>>> the exception of making sure you use the right oil pan. There's one
>>> better
>>> suited for the 4wd front axle. The added .6L doesn't really give much
>>> in
>>> the way of performance improvement, but since my 2.8L threw a rod it's
>>> not
>>> like I had much in the way of choices.
My (ex-)wife's was fuel injected and I was surprised at how well it ran.
She and her boyfriend used it for a couple years to tow a ski-boat.
My '81 Malibu with the 3.8 liver V-6 did not run as well.
--
..
Billy_Ray@SPAM.fuse.net (remove SPAM)
2002 Jeep WJ 4 Liter Automatic
Sharing is why we are all here....... or should be.
..
"bllsht" <nospam@invaliddot.net> wrote in message
news:a5vdj1dm4dsaq58fj6lqcu5h0oltpuq6t3@4ax.com...
> That's a load of crap. It was a GM engine, and GM was using it at the
> same time
> AMC was. GM had already come out with a 1 piece rear main setup and was
> selling
> AMC the 2 piece engines. Some of the AMC ones even had the crankshaft
> knurled
> backwards, turning it into a 2.8L oil pump.
>
> Rear main seals weren't the only place that leaked oil on those though.
> Valve
> covers, intake manifolds, fuel pump o-rings, etc... Anything that could
> leak,
> would.
>
> Add to that the fact that it couldn't even get out of it's own way, and
> you have
> your basic boat anchor.
>
>
> In message <4336A937.D599B108@cac.net>, "tim bur" wrote:
>
>>just to let u know this was what i was told by jeep. amc owned the patent
>>on
>>that engine and when amc was bought by chrysler gm started to use that
>>engine,
>>chy. sued and then got 1500.00 for each engine used and then u seen the
>>2.8
>>disappear
>>any old jeep employee's here than can verify
>>wkearney99 wrote:
>>
>>> > Nope, 2.8 liter boat anchor. Reliable and fairly long-lasting, if the
>>> Chevy
>>> > S10 I owned was any indication, but underpowered. It has about as
>>> > much
>>> > power as the four cylinder offerings from the same years. If you find
>>> > one
>>> > of these in an otherwise acceptable vehicle, however, it is certainly
>>> worth
>>> > a second look.
>>>
>>> Also note that a 3.4L V6 long block is a drop-in replacement. My 2.8L
>>> quit
>>> after about 200k miles and I had it replaced with the 3.4L. Required
>>> adding
>>> an electric fuel pump but otherwise it was a pretty straight bolt-up.
>>> With
>>> the exception of making sure you use the right oil pan. There's one
>>> better
>>> suited for the 4wd front axle. The added .6L doesn't really give much
>>> in
>>> the way of performance improvement, but since my 2.8L threw a rod it's
>>> not
>>> like I had much in the way of choices.
09-25-2005, 11:06 PM
#62
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cherokee Model Query
On 25 Sep 2005 17:23:23 -0700, kdarling@basit.com wrote:
>Drifter wrote:
>> I'll probably get seriously jumped on for this comment but my
>> viewpoint runs something like this... You see a lot of GC's available
>> because they have so much "luxury" crap and half of it goes wrong all
>> the time and the owner can't stand it and dumps the vehicle. People
>> who have "plain vanilla" Cherokees seem to keep them until the wheels
>> fall off (and then they get them lifted and put bigger wheels on,
>> until the snap an axle then upgrade the axle...oh, sorry, getting
>> carried away).
>
>Well, not really jumpin' on ya, but I think you see a lot of GC's
>simply because they're good looking and quick as hell (V-8).
Okay, that might explain why you see so many on the road, but if they
are so nice you do have to wonder why you see so many FOR SALE. I
mean Subarus are great cars, look nice, and you see a lot of them on
the road... but I rarely ever see them for sale in a used car lot.
Everyone I know who has had a Subaru (including me) has pretty much
kept them until they run the wheels off.
>The only thing I've had go bad on my 2000 GC Limited in 70K miles is
>the turn signal flasher module ($50). I adore this vehicle! You can't
>beat the heated seats in winter, nor the dual climate control, nor the
>Quadra-Drive in deep snow. It's just a comfortable, incredibly
>powerful vehicle.
>
>OTOH, my luck with Cherokees hasn't been so good. I like them too, but
>I've replaced engines at 80K, had transmission and header troubles,
>etc.
>
>Of coure, everyone's experience varies. But no, I don't think you see
>a lot of GC's because the luxury stuff goes bad, especially not the
>1999+.
>
>Best, Kev
No doubt a lot show up on lots simply because a large number were
sold, but when I went looking for a solid, used, Cherokee last
November I found the following...
-A handful of 2WD Cherokees (Why the heck would anyone buy a 2WD
Jeep?). They were all in great shape, but I needed 4WD.
-A handful of 4WD Cherokees of various trim packages, most of which
were in good shape but nearly all of them had some sort of cooling
system issue(s) and a few had bad neutral safety switches.
-A large number of Grand Cherokees, most in good-to-great shape
overall, but almost every darn one had an electrical issue of some
sort (from nitpicky "rear window won't always roll down I think it
needs a new switch" all the way up to "none of the lights work"
<YIKES>!
Maybe it's just me, I HATE dealing with electrical gremlins. In the
end I bought a 97 Cherokee sport, re-did the cooling system, and it's
treated me well ever since.
Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
>Drifter wrote:
>> I'll probably get seriously jumped on for this comment but my
>> viewpoint runs something like this... You see a lot of GC's available
>> because they have so much "luxury" crap and half of it goes wrong all
>> the time and the owner can't stand it and dumps the vehicle. People
>> who have "plain vanilla" Cherokees seem to keep them until the wheels
>> fall off (and then they get them lifted and put bigger wheels on,
>> until the snap an axle then upgrade the axle...oh, sorry, getting
>> carried away).
>
>Well, not really jumpin' on ya, but I think you see a lot of GC's
>simply because they're good looking and quick as hell (V-8).
Okay, that might explain why you see so many on the road, but if they
are so nice you do have to wonder why you see so many FOR SALE. I
mean Subarus are great cars, look nice, and you see a lot of them on
the road... but I rarely ever see them for sale in a used car lot.
Everyone I know who has had a Subaru (including me) has pretty much
kept them until they run the wheels off.
>The only thing I've had go bad on my 2000 GC Limited in 70K miles is
>the turn signal flasher module ($50). I adore this vehicle! You can't
>beat the heated seats in winter, nor the dual climate control, nor the
>Quadra-Drive in deep snow. It's just a comfortable, incredibly
>powerful vehicle.
>
>OTOH, my luck with Cherokees hasn't been so good. I like them too, but
>I've replaced engines at 80K, had transmission and header troubles,
>etc.
>
>Of coure, everyone's experience varies. But no, I don't think you see
>a lot of GC's because the luxury stuff goes bad, especially not the
>1999+.
>
>Best, Kev
No doubt a lot show up on lots simply because a large number were
sold, but when I went looking for a solid, used, Cherokee last
November I found the following...
-A handful of 2WD Cherokees (Why the heck would anyone buy a 2WD
Jeep?). They were all in great shape, but I needed 4WD.
-A handful of 4WD Cherokees of various trim packages, most of which
were in good shape but nearly all of them had some sort of cooling
system issue(s) and a few had bad neutral safety switches.
-A large number of Grand Cherokees, most in good-to-great shape
overall, but almost every darn one had an electrical issue of some
sort (from nitpicky "rear window won't always roll down I think it
needs a new switch" all the way up to "none of the lights work"
<YIKES>!
Maybe it's just me, I HATE dealing with electrical gremlins. In the
end I bought a 97 Cherokee sport, re-did the cooling system, and it's
treated me well ever since.
Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
09-25-2005, 11:06 PM
#63
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cherokee Model Query
On 25 Sep 2005 17:23:23 -0700, kdarling@basit.com wrote:
>Drifter wrote:
>> I'll probably get seriously jumped on for this comment but my
>> viewpoint runs something like this... You see a lot of GC's available
>> because they have so much "luxury" crap and half of it goes wrong all
>> the time and the owner can't stand it and dumps the vehicle. People
>> who have "plain vanilla" Cherokees seem to keep them until the wheels
>> fall off (and then they get them lifted and put bigger wheels on,
>> until the snap an axle then upgrade the axle...oh, sorry, getting
>> carried away).
>
>Well, not really jumpin' on ya, but I think you see a lot of GC's
>simply because they're good looking and quick as hell (V-8).
Okay, that might explain why you see so many on the road, but if they
are so nice you do have to wonder why you see so many FOR SALE. I
mean Subarus are great cars, look nice, and you see a lot of them on
the road... but I rarely ever see them for sale in a used car lot.
Everyone I know who has had a Subaru (including me) has pretty much
kept them until they run the wheels off.
>The only thing I've had go bad on my 2000 GC Limited in 70K miles is
>the turn signal flasher module ($50). I adore this vehicle! You can't
>beat the heated seats in winter, nor the dual climate control, nor the
>Quadra-Drive in deep snow. It's just a comfortable, incredibly
>powerful vehicle.
>
>OTOH, my luck with Cherokees hasn't been so good. I like them too, but
>I've replaced engines at 80K, had transmission and header troubles,
>etc.
>
>Of coure, everyone's experience varies. But no, I don't think you see
>a lot of GC's because the luxury stuff goes bad, especially not the
>1999+.
>
>Best, Kev
No doubt a lot show up on lots simply because a large number were
sold, but when I went looking for a solid, used, Cherokee last
November I found the following...
-A handful of 2WD Cherokees (Why the heck would anyone buy a 2WD
Jeep?). They were all in great shape, but I needed 4WD.
-A handful of 4WD Cherokees of various trim packages, most of which
were in good shape but nearly all of them had some sort of cooling
system issue(s) and a few had bad neutral safety switches.
-A large number of Grand Cherokees, most in good-to-great shape
overall, but almost every darn one had an electrical issue of some
sort (from nitpicky "rear window won't always roll down I think it
needs a new switch" all the way up to "none of the lights work"
<YIKES>!
Maybe it's just me, I HATE dealing with electrical gremlins. In the
end I bought a 97 Cherokee sport, re-did the cooling system, and it's
treated me well ever since.
Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
>Drifter wrote:
>> I'll probably get seriously jumped on for this comment but my
>> viewpoint runs something like this... You see a lot of GC's available
>> because they have so much "luxury" crap and half of it goes wrong all
>> the time and the owner can't stand it and dumps the vehicle. People
>> who have "plain vanilla" Cherokees seem to keep them until the wheels
>> fall off (and then they get them lifted and put bigger wheels on,
>> until the snap an axle then upgrade the axle...oh, sorry, getting
>> carried away).
>
>Well, not really jumpin' on ya, but I think you see a lot of GC's
>simply because they're good looking and quick as hell (V-8).
Okay, that might explain why you see so many on the road, but if they
are so nice you do have to wonder why you see so many FOR SALE. I
mean Subarus are great cars, look nice, and you see a lot of them on
the road... but I rarely ever see them for sale in a used car lot.
Everyone I know who has had a Subaru (including me) has pretty much
kept them until they run the wheels off.
>The only thing I've had go bad on my 2000 GC Limited in 70K miles is
>the turn signal flasher module ($50). I adore this vehicle! You can't
>beat the heated seats in winter, nor the dual climate control, nor the
>Quadra-Drive in deep snow. It's just a comfortable, incredibly
>powerful vehicle.
>
>OTOH, my luck with Cherokees hasn't been so good. I like them too, but
>I've replaced engines at 80K, had transmission and header troubles,
>etc.
>
>Of coure, everyone's experience varies. But no, I don't think you see
>a lot of GC's because the luxury stuff goes bad, especially not the
>1999+.
>
>Best, Kev
No doubt a lot show up on lots simply because a large number were
sold, but when I went looking for a solid, used, Cherokee last
November I found the following...
-A handful of 2WD Cherokees (Why the heck would anyone buy a 2WD
Jeep?). They were all in great shape, but I needed 4WD.
-A handful of 4WD Cherokees of various trim packages, most of which
were in good shape but nearly all of them had some sort of cooling
system issue(s) and a few had bad neutral safety switches.
-A large number of Grand Cherokees, most in good-to-great shape
overall, but almost every darn one had an electrical issue of some
sort (from nitpicky "rear window won't always roll down I think it
needs a new switch" all the way up to "none of the lights work"
<YIKES>!
Maybe it's just me, I HATE dealing with electrical gremlins. In the
end I bought a 97 Cherokee sport, re-did the cooling system, and it's
treated me well ever since.
Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
09-25-2005, 11:06 PM
#64
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cherokee Model Query
On 25 Sep 2005 17:23:23 -0700, kdarling@basit.com wrote:
>Drifter wrote:
>> I'll probably get seriously jumped on for this comment but my
>> viewpoint runs something like this... You see a lot of GC's available
>> because they have so much "luxury" crap and half of it goes wrong all
>> the time and the owner can't stand it and dumps the vehicle. People
>> who have "plain vanilla" Cherokees seem to keep them until the wheels
>> fall off (and then they get them lifted and put bigger wheels on,
>> until the snap an axle then upgrade the axle...oh, sorry, getting
>> carried away).
>
>Well, not really jumpin' on ya, but I think you see a lot of GC's
>simply because they're good looking and quick as hell (V-8).
Okay, that might explain why you see so many on the road, but if they
are so nice you do have to wonder why you see so many FOR SALE. I
mean Subarus are great cars, look nice, and you see a lot of them on
the road... but I rarely ever see them for sale in a used car lot.
Everyone I know who has had a Subaru (including me) has pretty much
kept them until they run the wheels off.
>The only thing I've had go bad on my 2000 GC Limited in 70K miles is
>the turn signal flasher module ($50). I adore this vehicle! You can't
>beat the heated seats in winter, nor the dual climate control, nor the
>Quadra-Drive in deep snow. It's just a comfortable, incredibly
>powerful vehicle.
>
>OTOH, my luck with Cherokees hasn't been so good. I like them too, but
>I've replaced engines at 80K, had transmission and header troubles,
>etc.
>
>Of coure, everyone's experience varies. But no, I don't think you see
>a lot of GC's because the luxury stuff goes bad, especially not the
>1999+.
>
>Best, Kev
No doubt a lot show up on lots simply because a large number were
sold, but when I went looking for a solid, used, Cherokee last
November I found the following...
-A handful of 2WD Cherokees (Why the heck would anyone buy a 2WD
Jeep?). They were all in great shape, but I needed 4WD.
-A handful of 4WD Cherokees of various trim packages, most of which
were in good shape but nearly all of them had some sort of cooling
system issue(s) and a few had bad neutral safety switches.
-A large number of Grand Cherokees, most in good-to-great shape
overall, but almost every darn one had an electrical issue of some
sort (from nitpicky "rear window won't always roll down I think it
needs a new switch" all the way up to "none of the lights work"
<YIKES>!
Maybe it's just me, I HATE dealing with electrical gremlins. In the
end I bought a 97 Cherokee sport, re-did the cooling system, and it's
treated me well ever since.
Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
>Drifter wrote:
>> I'll probably get seriously jumped on for this comment but my
>> viewpoint runs something like this... You see a lot of GC's available
>> because they have so much "luxury" crap and half of it goes wrong all
>> the time and the owner can't stand it and dumps the vehicle. People
>> who have "plain vanilla" Cherokees seem to keep them until the wheels
>> fall off (and then they get them lifted and put bigger wheels on,
>> until the snap an axle then upgrade the axle...oh, sorry, getting
>> carried away).
>
>Well, not really jumpin' on ya, but I think you see a lot of GC's
>simply because they're good looking and quick as hell (V-8).
Okay, that might explain why you see so many on the road, but if they
are so nice you do have to wonder why you see so many FOR SALE. I
mean Subarus are great cars, look nice, and you see a lot of them on
the road... but I rarely ever see them for sale in a used car lot.
Everyone I know who has had a Subaru (including me) has pretty much
kept them until they run the wheels off.
>The only thing I've had go bad on my 2000 GC Limited in 70K miles is
>the turn signal flasher module ($50). I adore this vehicle! You can't
>beat the heated seats in winter, nor the dual climate control, nor the
>Quadra-Drive in deep snow. It's just a comfortable, incredibly
>powerful vehicle.
>
>OTOH, my luck with Cherokees hasn't been so good. I like them too, but
>I've replaced engines at 80K, had transmission and header troubles,
>etc.
>
>Of coure, everyone's experience varies. But no, I don't think you see
>a lot of GC's because the luxury stuff goes bad, especially not the
>1999+.
>
>Best, Kev
No doubt a lot show up on lots simply because a large number were
sold, but when I went looking for a solid, used, Cherokee last
November I found the following...
-A handful of 2WD Cherokees (Why the heck would anyone buy a 2WD
Jeep?). They were all in great shape, but I needed 4WD.
-A handful of 4WD Cherokees of various trim packages, most of which
were in good shape but nearly all of them had some sort of cooling
system issue(s) and a few had bad neutral safety switches.
-A large number of Grand Cherokees, most in good-to-great shape
overall, but almost every darn one had an electrical issue of some
sort (from nitpicky "rear window won't always roll down I think it
needs a new switch" all the way up to "none of the lights work"
<YIKES>!
Maybe it's just me, I HATE dealing with electrical gremlins. In the
end I bought a 97 Cherokee sport, re-did the cooling system, and it's
treated me well ever since.
Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
09-26-2005, 12:30 AM
#65
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cherokee Model Query
In message <6472d$43376203$d8449845$25799@FUSE.NET>, "Billy Ray" wrote:
>Is this the same 2.8 liter V-6 that would have been in the '86 Camaros?
Pretty sure it was. It was the same carbureted motor they used in the little
blazers.
>
>My (ex-)wife's was fuel injected and I was surprised at how well it ran.
>She and her boyfriend used it for a couple years to tow a ski-boat.
>
>My '81 Malibu with the 3.8 liver V-6 did not run as well.
>Is this the same 2.8 liter V-6 that would have been in the '86 Camaros?
Pretty sure it was. It was the same carbureted motor they used in the little
blazers.
>
>My (ex-)wife's was fuel injected and I was surprised at how well it ran.
>She and her boyfriend used it for a couple years to tow a ski-boat.
>
>My '81 Malibu with the 3.8 liver V-6 did not run as well.
09-26-2005, 12:30 AM
#66
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cherokee Model Query
In message <6472d$43376203$d8449845$25799@FUSE.NET>, "Billy Ray" wrote:
>Is this the same 2.8 liter V-6 that would have been in the '86 Camaros?
Pretty sure it was. It was the same carbureted motor they used in the little
blazers.
>
>My (ex-)wife's was fuel injected and I was surprised at how well it ran.
>She and her boyfriend used it for a couple years to tow a ski-boat.
>
>My '81 Malibu with the 3.8 liver V-6 did not run as well.
>Is this the same 2.8 liter V-6 that would have been in the '86 Camaros?
Pretty sure it was. It was the same carbureted motor they used in the little
blazers.
>
>My (ex-)wife's was fuel injected and I was surprised at how well it ran.
>She and her boyfriend used it for a couple years to tow a ski-boat.
>
>My '81 Malibu with the 3.8 liver V-6 did not run as well.
09-26-2005, 12:30 AM
#67
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cherokee Model Query
In message <6472d$43376203$d8449845$25799@FUSE.NET>, "Billy Ray" wrote:
>Is this the same 2.8 liter V-6 that would have been in the '86 Camaros?
Pretty sure it was. It was the same carbureted motor they used in the little
blazers.
>
>My (ex-)wife's was fuel injected and I was surprised at how well it ran.
>She and her boyfriend used it for a couple years to tow a ski-boat.
>
>My '81 Malibu with the 3.8 liver V-6 did not run as well.
>Is this the same 2.8 liter V-6 that would have been in the '86 Camaros?
Pretty sure it was. It was the same carbureted motor they used in the little
blazers.
>
>My (ex-)wife's was fuel injected and I was surprised at how well it ran.
>She and her boyfriend used it for a couple years to tow a ski-boat.
>
>My '81 Malibu with the 3.8 liver V-6 did not run as well.
09-26-2005, 12:33 AM
#68
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cherokee Model Query
Or S-10 truckettes.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> Pretty sure it was. It was the same carbureted motor they used in the little
> blazers.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> Pretty sure it was. It was the same carbureted motor they used in the little
> blazers.
09-26-2005, 12:33 AM
#69
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cherokee Model Query
Or S-10 truckettes.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> Pretty sure it was. It was the same carbureted motor they used in the little
> blazers.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> Pretty sure it was. It was the same carbureted motor they used in the little
> blazers.
09-26-2005, 12:33 AM
#70
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Cherokee Model Query
Or S-10 truckettes.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> Pretty sure it was. It was the same carbureted motor they used in the little
> blazers.
God Bless America, Bill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
bllsht wrote:
>
> Pretty sure it was. It was the same carbureted motor they used in the little
> blazers.