Grand Cherokee 5.9 Advice
Guest
Posts: n/a
Grand Cherokee 5.9 Advice
Hi All,
Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
they're asking for it though.
Thanks.
D
Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
they're asking for it though.
Thanks.
D
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Grand Cherokee 5.9 Advice
In article <BDXyf.33953$0e.22394@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, D <dpfer@r.com> wrote:
#Hi All,
# Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
#1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
#been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
#was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
#I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
#they're asking for it though.
# Thanks.
#D
Yes it was the firebreather for 1998, but now it is in the lower-middle of
the road v8 range for 2006.
The non-HO 4.7 has 230 hp, the HO 4.7 has 265 hp, and the 5.7 Hemi's got
325 hp.
The 5.9 also requires 91 octane gas. And it is a pretty thirsty engine
on top of that--13 city, 16 freeway (mpg). That's with a compression
ratio of "just" 8.7 to 1.
The 5.7 Hemi is recommended to use 89 and the compression ratio is higher
at 9.6 to 1.
As a sanity check, the 4.7 non-HO "must" take 87 octane and it's
compression ratio is 9.5 to 1. Heck, the manual says it will run
rough if you put better grades in it... (This I have NO idea why...)
The current hot-rod topend engine is the 6.1 Hemi and while it also has to
use 91, it's compression ratio is supposed to be 10-something to 1. And it
is supposed to have 415-425 hp... (!!!)
/herb
#Hi All,
# Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
#1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
#been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
#was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
#I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
#they're asking for it though.
# Thanks.
#D
Yes it was the firebreather for 1998, but now it is in the lower-middle of
the road v8 range for 2006.
The non-HO 4.7 has 230 hp, the HO 4.7 has 265 hp, and the 5.7 Hemi's got
325 hp.
The 5.9 also requires 91 octane gas. And it is a pretty thirsty engine
on top of that--13 city, 16 freeway (mpg). That's with a compression
ratio of "just" 8.7 to 1.
The 5.7 Hemi is recommended to use 89 and the compression ratio is higher
at 9.6 to 1.
As a sanity check, the 4.7 non-HO "must" take 87 octane and it's
compression ratio is 9.5 to 1. Heck, the manual says it will run
rough if you put better grades in it... (This I have NO idea why...)
The current hot-rod topend engine is the 6.1 Hemi and while it also has to
use 91, it's compression ratio is supposed to be 10-something to 1. And it
is supposed to have 415-425 hp... (!!!)
/herb
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Grand Cherokee 5.9 Advice
In article <BDXyf.33953$0e.22394@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, D <dpfer@r.com> wrote:
#Hi All,
# Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
#1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
#been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
#was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
#I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
#they're asking for it though.
# Thanks.
#D
Yes it was the firebreather for 1998, but now it is in the lower-middle of
the road v8 range for 2006.
The non-HO 4.7 has 230 hp, the HO 4.7 has 265 hp, and the 5.7 Hemi's got
325 hp.
The 5.9 also requires 91 octane gas. And it is a pretty thirsty engine
on top of that--13 city, 16 freeway (mpg). That's with a compression
ratio of "just" 8.7 to 1.
The 5.7 Hemi is recommended to use 89 and the compression ratio is higher
at 9.6 to 1.
As a sanity check, the 4.7 non-HO "must" take 87 octane and it's
compression ratio is 9.5 to 1. Heck, the manual says it will run
rough if you put better grades in it... (This I have NO idea why...)
The current hot-rod topend engine is the 6.1 Hemi and while it also has to
use 91, it's compression ratio is supposed to be 10-something to 1. And it
is supposed to have 415-425 hp... (!!!)
/herb
#Hi All,
# Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
#1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
#been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
#was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
#I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
#they're asking for it though.
# Thanks.
#D
Yes it was the firebreather for 1998, but now it is in the lower-middle of
the road v8 range for 2006.
The non-HO 4.7 has 230 hp, the HO 4.7 has 265 hp, and the 5.7 Hemi's got
325 hp.
The 5.9 also requires 91 octane gas. And it is a pretty thirsty engine
on top of that--13 city, 16 freeway (mpg). That's with a compression
ratio of "just" 8.7 to 1.
The 5.7 Hemi is recommended to use 89 and the compression ratio is higher
at 9.6 to 1.
As a sanity check, the 4.7 non-HO "must" take 87 octane and it's
compression ratio is 9.5 to 1. Heck, the manual says it will run
rough if you put better grades in it... (This I have NO idea why...)
The current hot-rod topend engine is the 6.1 Hemi and while it also has to
use 91, it's compression ratio is supposed to be 10-something to 1. And it
is supposed to have 415-425 hp... (!!!)
/herb
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Grand Cherokee 5.9 Advice
In article <BDXyf.33953$0e.22394@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, D <dpfer@r.com> wrote:
#Hi All,
# Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
#1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
#been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
#was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
#I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
#they're asking for it though.
# Thanks.
#D
Yes it was the firebreather for 1998, but now it is in the lower-middle of
the road v8 range for 2006.
The non-HO 4.7 has 230 hp, the HO 4.7 has 265 hp, and the 5.7 Hemi's got
325 hp.
The 5.9 also requires 91 octane gas. And it is a pretty thirsty engine
on top of that--13 city, 16 freeway (mpg). That's with a compression
ratio of "just" 8.7 to 1.
The 5.7 Hemi is recommended to use 89 and the compression ratio is higher
at 9.6 to 1.
As a sanity check, the 4.7 non-HO "must" take 87 octane and it's
compression ratio is 9.5 to 1. Heck, the manual says it will run
rough if you put better grades in it... (This I have NO idea why...)
The current hot-rod topend engine is the 6.1 Hemi and while it also has to
use 91, it's compression ratio is supposed to be 10-something to 1. And it
is supposed to have 415-425 hp... (!!!)
/herb
#Hi All,
# Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
#1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
#been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
#was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
#I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
#they're asking for it though.
# Thanks.
#D
Yes it was the firebreather for 1998, but now it is in the lower-middle of
the road v8 range for 2006.
The non-HO 4.7 has 230 hp, the HO 4.7 has 265 hp, and the 5.7 Hemi's got
325 hp.
The 5.9 also requires 91 octane gas. And it is a pretty thirsty engine
on top of that--13 city, 16 freeway (mpg). That's with a compression
ratio of "just" 8.7 to 1.
The 5.7 Hemi is recommended to use 89 and the compression ratio is higher
at 9.6 to 1.
As a sanity check, the 4.7 non-HO "must" take 87 octane and it's
compression ratio is 9.5 to 1. Heck, the manual says it will run
rough if you put better grades in it... (This I have NO idea why...)
The current hot-rod topend engine is the 6.1 Hemi and while it also has to
use 91, it's compression ratio is supposed to be 10-something to 1. And it
is supposed to have 415-425 hp... (!!!)
/herb
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Grand Cherokee 5.9 Advice
it's a specialty vehicle that does require premium gas or it's pings badly
D wrote:
> Hi All,
> Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
> 1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
> been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
> was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
> I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
> they're asking for it though.
> Thanks.
> D
D wrote:
> Hi All,
> Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
> 1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
> been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
> was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
> I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
> they're asking for it though.
> Thanks.
> D
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Grand Cherokee 5.9 Advice
it's a specialty vehicle that does require premium gas or it's pings badly
D wrote:
> Hi All,
> Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
> 1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
> been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
> was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
> I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
> they're asking for it though.
> Thanks.
> D
D wrote:
> Hi All,
> Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
> 1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
> been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
> was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
> I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
> they're asking for it though.
> Thanks.
> D
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Grand Cherokee 5.9 Advice
it's a specialty vehicle that does require premium gas or it's pings badly
D wrote:
> Hi All,
> Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
> 1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
> been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
> was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
> I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
> they're asking for it though.
> Thanks.
> D
D wrote:
> Hi All,
> Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
> 1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
> been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
> was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
> I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
> they're asking for it though.
> Thanks.
> D
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Grand Cherokee 5.9 Advice
and any car with the 6.1 is dam near 45 k ---- that DC it is not worth it
Herb Leong wrote:
> In article <BDXyf.33953$0e.22394@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, D <dpfer@r.com> wrote:
> #Hi All,
> # Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
> #1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
> #been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
> #was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
> #I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
> #they're asking for it though.
> # Thanks.
> #D
>
> Yes it was the firebreather for 1998, but now it is in the lower-middle of
> the road v8 range for 2006.
>
> The non-HO 4.7 has 230 hp, the HO 4.7 has 265 hp, and the 5.7 Hemi's got
> 325 hp.
>
> The 5.9 also requires 91 octane gas. And it is a pretty thirsty engine
> on top of that--13 city, 16 freeway (mpg). That's with a compression
> ratio of "just" 8.7 to 1.
>
> The 5.7 Hemi is recommended to use 89 and the compression ratio is higher
> at 9.6 to 1.
>
> As a sanity check, the 4.7 non-HO "must" take 87 octane and it's
> compression ratio is 9.5 to 1. Heck, the manual says it will run
> rough if you put better grades in it... (This I have NO idea why...)
>
> The current hot-rod topend engine is the 6.1 Hemi and while it also has to
> use 91, it's compression ratio is supposed to be 10-something to 1. And it
> is supposed to have 415-425 hp... (!!!)
>
> /herb
Herb Leong wrote:
> In article <BDXyf.33953$0e.22394@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, D <dpfer@r.com> wrote:
> #Hi All,
> # Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
> #1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
> #been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
> #was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
> #I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
> #they're asking for it though.
> # Thanks.
> #D
>
> Yes it was the firebreather for 1998, but now it is in the lower-middle of
> the road v8 range for 2006.
>
> The non-HO 4.7 has 230 hp, the HO 4.7 has 265 hp, and the 5.7 Hemi's got
> 325 hp.
>
> The 5.9 also requires 91 octane gas. And it is a pretty thirsty engine
> on top of that--13 city, 16 freeway (mpg). That's with a compression
> ratio of "just" 8.7 to 1.
>
> The 5.7 Hemi is recommended to use 89 and the compression ratio is higher
> at 9.6 to 1.
>
> As a sanity check, the 4.7 non-HO "must" take 87 octane and it's
> compression ratio is 9.5 to 1. Heck, the manual says it will run
> rough if you put better grades in it... (This I have NO idea why...)
>
> The current hot-rod topend engine is the 6.1 Hemi and while it also has to
> use 91, it's compression ratio is supposed to be 10-something to 1. And it
> is supposed to have 415-425 hp... (!!!)
>
> /herb
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Grand Cherokee 5.9 Advice
and any car with the 6.1 is dam near 45 k ---- that DC it is not worth it
Herb Leong wrote:
> In article <BDXyf.33953$0e.22394@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, D <dpfer@r.com> wrote:
> #Hi All,
> # Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
> #1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
> #been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
> #was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
> #I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
> #they're asking for it though.
> # Thanks.
> #D
>
> Yes it was the firebreather for 1998, but now it is in the lower-middle of
> the road v8 range for 2006.
>
> The non-HO 4.7 has 230 hp, the HO 4.7 has 265 hp, and the 5.7 Hemi's got
> 325 hp.
>
> The 5.9 also requires 91 octane gas. And it is a pretty thirsty engine
> on top of that--13 city, 16 freeway (mpg). That's with a compression
> ratio of "just" 8.7 to 1.
>
> The 5.7 Hemi is recommended to use 89 and the compression ratio is higher
> at 9.6 to 1.
>
> As a sanity check, the 4.7 non-HO "must" take 87 octane and it's
> compression ratio is 9.5 to 1. Heck, the manual says it will run
> rough if you put better grades in it... (This I have NO idea why...)
>
> The current hot-rod topend engine is the 6.1 Hemi and while it also has to
> use 91, it's compression ratio is supposed to be 10-something to 1. And it
> is supposed to have 415-425 hp... (!!!)
>
> /herb
Herb Leong wrote:
> In article <BDXyf.33953$0e.22394@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, D <dpfer@r.com> wrote:
> #Hi All,
> # Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
> #1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
> #been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
> #was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
> #I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
> #they're asking for it though.
> # Thanks.
> #D
>
> Yes it was the firebreather for 1998, but now it is in the lower-middle of
> the road v8 range for 2006.
>
> The non-HO 4.7 has 230 hp, the HO 4.7 has 265 hp, and the 5.7 Hemi's got
> 325 hp.
>
> The 5.9 also requires 91 octane gas. And it is a pretty thirsty engine
> on top of that--13 city, 16 freeway (mpg). That's with a compression
> ratio of "just" 8.7 to 1.
>
> The 5.7 Hemi is recommended to use 89 and the compression ratio is higher
> at 9.6 to 1.
>
> As a sanity check, the 4.7 non-HO "must" take 87 octane and it's
> compression ratio is 9.5 to 1. Heck, the manual says it will run
> rough if you put better grades in it... (This I have NO idea why...)
>
> The current hot-rod topend engine is the 6.1 Hemi and while it also has to
> use 91, it's compression ratio is supposed to be 10-something to 1. And it
> is supposed to have 415-425 hp... (!!!)
>
> /herb
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Grand Cherokee 5.9 Advice
and any car with the 6.1 is dam near 45 k ---- that DC it is not worth it
Herb Leong wrote:
> In article <BDXyf.33953$0e.22394@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, D <dpfer@r.com> wrote:
> #Hi All,
> # Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
> #1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
> #been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
> #was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
> #I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
> #they're asking for it though.
> # Thanks.
> #D
>
> Yes it was the firebreather for 1998, but now it is in the lower-middle of
> the road v8 range for 2006.
>
> The non-HO 4.7 has 230 hp, the HO 4.7 has 265 hp, and the 5.7 Hemi's got
> 325 hp.
>
> The 5.9 also requires 91 octane gas. And it is a pretty thirsty engine
> on top of that--13 city, 16 freeway (mpg). That's with a compression
> ratio of "just" 8.7 to 1.
>
> The 5.7 Hemi is recommended to use 89 and the compression ratio is higher
> at 9.6 to 1.
>
> As a sanity check, the 4.7 non-HO "must" take 87 octane and it's
> compression ratio is 9.5 to 1. Heck, the manual says it will run
> rough if you put better grades in it... (This I have NO idea why...)
>
> The current hot-rod topend engine is the 6.1 Hemi and while it also has to
> use 91, it's compression ratio is supposed to be 10-something to 1. And it
> is supposed to have 415-425 hp... (!!!)
>
> /herb
Herb Leong wrote:
> In article <BDXyf.33953$0e.22394@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com>, D <dpfer@r.com> wrote:
> #Hi All,
> # Just looking for input on what you think of the 5.9 Grand Cherokee from
> #1998 as a reliable vehicle. I have a 1993 with the 4.0 inline 6 that has
> #been great for over 265,000 miles. Is the V-8 as reliable? I know this V-8
> #was a special order type thing and is a real fire-breather. Reason I ask is
> #I have seen one for sale in town and it's very nice looking. Not sure what
> #they're asking for it though.
> # Thanks.
> #D
>
> Yes it was the firebreather for 1998, but now it is in the lower-middle of
> the road v8 range for 2006.
>
> The non-HO 4.7 has 230 hp, the HO 4.7 has 265 hp, and the 5.7 Hemi's got
> 325 hp.
>
> The 5.9 also requires 91 octane gas. And it is a pretty thirsty engine
> on top of that--13 city, 16 freeway (mpg). That's with a compression
> ratio of "just" 8.7 to 1.
>
> The 5.7 Hemi is recommended to use 89 and the compression ratio is higher
> at 9.6 to 1.
>
> As a sanity check, the 4.7 non-HO "must" take 87 octane and it's
> compression ratio is 9.5 to 1. Heck, the manual says it will run
> rough if you put better grades in it... (This I have NO idea why...)
>
> The current hot-rod topend engine is the 6.1 Hemi and while it also has to
> use 91, it's compression ratio is supposed to be 10-something to 1. And it
> is supposed to have 415-425 hp... (!!!)
>
> /herb
