RCSnyder

Interesting sentiment.

Approximately 14,000 customers put out over $38k for the 5.9 in '98. To pay
only $7k (less than 20 percent) more some 8 model years later for a
similarly loaded, Hi-po vehicle is really quite a deal.

Of course, those people could all be nuts and may have thrown their money
away. Perhaps we should ask if any of them think they got taken?

Meanwhile, the rest of us should make the Jeep dealer our best friend so
when one of these deranged types brings his/her '98 in as a trade, we can
grab for it $7-8k before it goes to the used car dealer.




"philthy" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
news:43D1A233.32AE35B1@cac.net...
> 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
>

Lon

Funny you should mention that... there is one in reasonably good
condition setting on a lot near here right now. Sooo.... do I trade for
it, or wait for the stock options to climb.


RCSnyder proclaimed:

> Interesting sentiment.
>
> Approximately 14,000 customers put out over $38k for the 5.9 in '98. To pay
> only $7k (less than 20 percent) more some 8 model years later for a
> similarly loaded, Hi-po vehicle is really quite a deal.
>
> Of course, those people could all be nuts and may have thrown their money
> away. Perhaps we should ask if any of them think they got taken?
>
> Meanwhile, the rest of us should make the Jeep dealer our best friend so
> when one of these deranged types brings his/her '98 in as a trade, we can
> grab for it $7-8k before it goes to the used car dealer.
>
>
>
>
> "philthy" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> news:43D1A233.32AE35B1@cac.net...
>
>>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
>>
>
>

Lon

Funny you should mention that... there is one in reasonably good
condition setting on a lot near here right now. Sooo.... do I trade for
it, or wait for the stock options to climb.


RCSnyder proclaimed:

> Interesting sentiment.
>
> Approximately 14,000 customers put out over $38k for the 5.9 in '98. To pay
> only $7k (less than 20 percent) more some 8 model years later for a
> similarly loaded, Hi-po vehicle is really quite a deal.
>
> Of course, those people could all be nuts and may have thrown their money
> away. Perhaps we should ask if any of them think they got taken?
>
> Meanwhile, the rest of us should make the Jeep dealer our best friend so
> when one of these deranged types brings his/her '98 in as a trade, we can
> grab for it $7-8k before it goes to the used car dealer.
>
>
>
>
> "philthy" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> news:43D1A233.32AE35B1@cac.net...
>
>>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
>>
>
>

Lon

Funny you should mention that... there is one in reasonably good
condition setting on a lot near here right now. Sooo.... do I trade for
it, or wait for the stock options to climb.


RCSnyder proclaimed:

> Interesting sentiment.
>
> Approximately 14,000 customers put out over $38k for the 5.9 in '98. To pay
> only $7k (less than 20 percent) more some 8 model years later for a
> similarly loaded, Hi-po vehicle is really quite a deal.
>
> Of course, those people could all be nuts and may have thrown their money
> away. Perhaps we should ask if any of them think they got taken?
>
> Meanwhile, the rest of us should make the Jeep dealer our best friend so
> when one of these deranged types brings his/her '98 in as a trade, we can
> grab for it $7-8k before it goes to the used car dealer.
>
>
>
>
> "philthy" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
> news:43D1A233.32AE35B1@cac.net...
>
>>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
>>
>
>

RCSnyder

Makes for a great driver while your '70 AAR is tucked in for the winter.


"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hL6dnZFzddGQeUPeRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
>
> Funny you should mention that... there is one in reasonably good condition
> setting on a lot near here right now. Sooo.... do I trade for it, or wait
> for the stock options to climb.
>
>
> RCSnyder proclaimed:
>
>> Interesting sentiment.
>>
>> Approximately 14,000 customers put out over $38k for the 5.9 in '98. To
>> pay only $7k (less than 20 percent) more some 8 model years later for a
>> similarly loaded, Hi-po vehicle is really quite a deal.
>>
>> Of course, those people could all be nuts and may have thrown their money
>> away. Perhaps we should ask if any of them think they got taken?
>>
>> Meanwhile, the rest of us should make the Jeep dealer our best friend so
>> when one of these deranged types brings his/her '98 in as a trade, we can
>> grab for it $7-8k before it goes to the used car dealer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "philthy" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
>> news:43D1A233.32AE35B1@cac.net...
>>
>>>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
>>>
>>

RCSnyder

Makes for a great driver while your '70 AAR is tucked in for the winter.


"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hL6dnZFzddGQeUPeRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
>
> Funny you should mention that... there is one in reasonably good condition
> setting on a lot near here right now. Sooo.... do I trade for it, or wait
> for the stock options to climb.
>
>
> RCSnyder proclaimed:
>
>> Interesting sentiment.
>>
>> Approximately 14,000 customers put out over $38k for the 5.9 in '98. To
>> pay only $7k (less than 20 percent) more some 8 model years later for a
>> similarly loaded, Hi-po vehicle is really quite a deal.
>>
>> Of course, those people could all be nuts and may have thrown their money
>> away. Perhaps we should ask if any of them think they got taken?
>>
>> Meanwhile, the rest of us should make the Jeep dealer our best friend so
>> when one of these deranged types brings his/her '98 in as a trade, we can
>> grab for it $7-8k before it goes to the used car dealer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "philthy" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
>> news:43D1A233.32AE35B1@cac.net...
>>
>>>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
>>>
>>

RCSnyder

Makes for a great driver while your '70 AAR is tucked in for the winter.


"Lon" <lon.stowell@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hL6dnZFzddGQeUPeRVn-tQ@comcast.com...
>
> Funny you should mention that... there is one in reasonably good condition
> setting on a lot near here right now. Sooo.... do I trade for it, or wait
> for the stock options to climb.
>
>
> RCSnyder proclaimed:
>
>> Interesting sentiment.
>>
>> Approximately 14,000 customers put out over $38k for the 5.9 in '98. To
>> pay only $7k (less than 20 percent) more some 8 model years later for a
>> similarly loaded, Hi-po vehicle is really quite a deal.
>>
>> Of course, those people could all be nuts and may have thrown their money
>> away. Perhaps we should ask if any of them think they got taken?
>>
>> Meanwhile, the rest of us should make the Jeep dealer our best friend so
>> when one of these deranged types brings his/her '98 in as a trade, we can
>> grab for it $7-8k before it goes to the used car dealer.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> "philthy" <dbrider@cac.net> wrote in message
>> news:43D1A233.32AE35B1@cac.net...
>>
>>>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
>>>
>>