Lon

James Spillane proclaimed:

> Any comments pro/con this machine. We have a 2000, but are not sure
> about the 2005? _Jerry

It is a bit different than the older series in that it is a bit lower,
has an independent front end, a rather different rear suspension
layout as well and sway bars that connect and disconnect on their
own. Allegedly a bit better on the highway, altho good shocks could
do a lot for that on the older series. The front seats look a bit
nicer and are a bit more comfortable, but only a bench rear seat is
available even on the Limited. The Overland is not available in 2005.
Has several drivetrains including a set of electronic gizmos that
allegedly work...in a direct test against an LR3 the GC was claimed to
have far less wheel slip in loose terrain. Also has the optional
multiple displacement Hemi, a tad faster than the 5.9 or the 4.7 V8.
Or you can get the Grand SRT-8 that doesn't offer a tow package but
does have 425 hp for street rodding.

Lon

James Spillane proclaimed:

> Any comments pro/con this machine. We have a 2000, but are not sure
> about the 2005? _Jerry

It is a bit different than the older series in that it is a bit lower,
has an independent front end, a rather different rear suspension
layout as well and sway bars that connect and disconnect on their
own. Allegedly a bit better on the highway, altho good shocks could
do a lot for that on the older series. The front seats look a bit
nicer and are a bit more comfortable, but only a bench rear seat is
available even on the Limited. The Overland is not available in 2005.
Has several drivetrains including a set of electronic gizmos that
allegedly work...in a direct test against an LR3 the GC was claimed to
have far less wheel slip in loose terrain. Also has the optional
multiple displacement Hemi, a tad faster than the 5.9 or the 4.7 V8.
Or you can get the Grand SRT-8 that doesn't offer a tow package but
does have 425 hp for street rodding.

Lon

James Spillane proclaimed:

> Any comments pro/con this machine. We have a 2000, but are not sure
> about the 2005? _Jerry

It is a bit different than the older series in that it is a bit lower,
has an independent front end, a rather different rear suspension
layout as well and sway bars that connect and disconnect on their
own. Allegedly a bit better on the highway, altho good shocks could
do a lot for that on the older series. The front seats look a bit
nicer and are a bit more comfortable, but only a bench rear seat is
available even on the Limited. The Overland is not available in 2005.
Has several drivetrains including a set of electronic gizmos that
allegedly work...in a direct test against an LR3 the GC was claimed to
have far less wheel slip in loose terrain. Also has the optional
multiple displacement Hemi, a tad faster than the 5.9 or the 4.7 V8.
Or you can get the Grand SRT-8 that doesn't offer a tow package but
does have 425 hp for street rodding.

Neoisthe1

I can't stand the outward vision compared to my 98 JGC. The beltline has been
raised and the windows are a lot smaller then my JGC. Looking out the front
window, my line of sight is about 3/4 up the windshield which means 1/4 of my
vison is looking straight into the visors. Since the A pillars are raked more
then my JGC as is the windshield, the blind spot is larger on the sides at the
A pillars - reminds me of the new VW Beetle.

Front seats seem slightly larger but rear seats are not and the storage area
seems smaller then my GJC.

Ride is pretty good and I would say better than my JGC. 3.7 Engine was smooth,
but acceleration was just OK.

Think I'd probably buy a Liberty instead.

Neoisthe1

I can't stand the outward vision compared to my 98 JGC. The beltline has been
raised and the windows are a lot smaller then my JGC. Looking out the front
window, my line of sight is about 3/4 up the windshield which means 1/4 of my
vison is looking straight into the visors. Since the A pillars are raked more
then my JGC as is the windshield, the blind spot is larger on the sides at the
A pillars - reminds me of the new VW Beetle.

Front seats seem slightly larger but rear seats are not and the storage area
seems smaller then my GJC.

Ride is pretty good and I would say better than my JGC. 3.7 Engine was smooth,
but acceleration was just OK.

Think I'd probably buy a Liberty instead.

Neoisthe1

I can't stand the outward vision compared to my 98 JGC. The beltline has been
raised and the windows are a lot smaller then my JGC. Looking out the front
window, my line of sight is about 3/4 up the windshield which means 1/4 of my
vison is looking straight into the visors. Since the A pillars are raked more
then my JGC as is the windshield, the blind spot is larger on the sides at the
A pillars - reminds me of the new VW Beetle.

Front seats seem slightly larger but rear seats are not and the storage area
seems smaller then my GJC.

Ride is pretty good and I would say better than my JGC. 3.7 Engine was smooth,
but acceleration was just OK.

Think I'd probably buy a Liberty instead.

mic canic

they are for rear end impacts,


attnews wrote:

> the '05 has the same 2 cast iron tuna fish cans attached to the differential
> as the liberty has. duh. Also, the cherokee has 2 sled runners going from
> the rear bumper to the axle. duh again. No one seems to know why the tuna
> cans, OR the sled runners are there. In the looks department, they look a
> lot more like the AMC grand cherokee than the chrysler made-over curvy
> rendition that was around for awhile. And this is somewhat of a plus. Dash
> and console look kinda like a $9.95 re-do..and krysler decided 4 gages were
> too expensive, so they dropped one or two ..double-duh, not to mention the
> independent front flop suspension. From the rear, one is reminded of the
> beautiful pontiac azztec... hmmmm.
> "James Spillane" <bancroft_99@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:j931t0tnkb1k65a4qiclh39hgt95sr1s6o@4ax.com...
> > Any comments pro/con this machine. We have a 2000, but are not sure
> > about the 2005? _Jerry

mic canic

they are for rear end impacts,


attnews wrote:

> the '05 has the same 2 cast iron tuna fish cans attached to the differential
> as the liberty has. duh. Also, the cherokee has 2 sled runners going from
> the rear bumper to the axle. duh again. No one seems to know why the tuna
> cans, OR the sled runners are there. In the looks department, they look a
> lot more like the AMC grand cherokee than the chrysler made-over curvy
> rendition that was around for awhile. And this is somewhat of a plus. Dash
> and console look kinda like a $9.95 re-do..and krysler decided 4 gages were
> too expensive, so they dropped one or two ..double-duh, not to mention the
> independent front flop suspension. From the rear, one is reminded of the
> beautiful pontiac azztec... hmmmm.
> "James Spillane" <bancroft_99@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:j931t0tnkb1k65a4qiclh39hgt95sr1s6o@4ax.com...
> > Any comments pro/con this machine. We have a 2000, but are not sure
> > about the 2005? _Jerry

mic canic

they are for rear end impacts,


attnews wrote:

> the '05 has the same 2 cast iron tuna fish cans attached to the differential
> as the liberty has. duh. Also, the cherokee has 2 sled runners going from
> the rear bumper to the axle. duh again. No one seems to know why the tuna
> cans, OR the sled runners are there. In the looks department, they look a
> lot more like the AMC grand cherokee than the chrysler made-over curvy
> rendition that was around for awhile. And this is somewhat of a plus. Dash
> and console look kinda like a $9.95 re-do..and krysler decided 4 gages were
> too expensive, so they dropped one or two ..double-duh, not to mention the
> independent front flop suspension. From the rear, one is reminded of the
> beautiful pontiac azztec... hmmmm.
> "James Spillane" <bancroft_99@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:j931t0tnkb1k65a4qiclh39hgt95sr1s6o@4ax.com...
> > Any comments pro/con this machine. We have a 2000, but are not sure
> > about the 2005? _Jerry