Jeep Enthusiast Forums banner

What model years of Cherokee are better offroad vehicles?

8K views 117 replies 43 participants last post by  CB3 
#1 ·
What model years of Cherokee are better offroad vehicles in stock form?

What about modified form?

1995 and older?

1997 to 1999?

2000 to 2002?

I'm wanting to buy a new Cherokee and have a low mileage 95 and a low mileage 2001 to choose from. What are the advantages/disadvantages of each?

Neither has tow package or offroad package.
 
#2 ·
all are good platforms to work off of, i would personally pass on the 00-01's with the low pinion front axle.

and the 86's and older with the 2.8l gm engine.

other than that, there isnt much to stay away from.
 
#5 ·
I have seen like 20 of these types of threads since I signed up here. Most of them agree on the '97-'99. Search and read those threads over carefully...

I bought a '99 after doing quite a lot of reasearch but either way they are all great platforms.
 
#6 ·
I'd have to say '99! Last year for the high pinion front diff. and the first year for the new improved intake manifold. I think they did away with the distributor in '00 also. Personally, I'd rather have a distributor than not. Also the '99 will have the 29 spline Chrysler 8.25 if it doesn't have ABS. '97 and '98 will also, just won't have the new intake manifold. So you see, '99 all the way!:thumbsup:
 
#7 ·
What are your end plans for it? Tire size, etc.

I'd avoid anything with the vacuum disconnect (has the vacuum disconnect which often fails and the 2 piece inner shafts as compared to the 1 piece on later models without the vacuum disco) and without a 4.0l in it.

Everything else can be swapped easily. There's not much to an XJ and if you have a little mechanical know how, then it's not very hard to mod it to your likings.

If you just want something stock that you can don't have to worry about much, anything with the 4.0l and the 29 spline 8.25 up until 00 (which has the low pinion front d30) is the way to go.
 
#8 ·
Tangowhiskey said:
Also the '99 will have the 29 spline Chrysler 8.25 if it doesn't have ABS.
negative ghostrider.

throughout the history of the XJ, while there were things that would ensure the vehicle had the D35, nothing ensured it would have the 8.25".

edit: my vote would be '97-'99 as the best 'starting' point. HP D30 with 297x or 760x u-joints. The 8.25" used in those years is the 29-spline version. The front fenders on '97+ are already bobbed even with the top of the bumper (it's easy to trim older models yourself, but hey, it's just one less thing to do). And personally I just prefer all the stylistic changes on the '97+ body style (1-pc front windows, improved controls on the door, cup-holders in the center console, backlit gauges, steel liftgate, rotary HVAC controls)
 
#10 ·
NinjaofDoom said:
'87 is by far the best dana 44 rear stock. some other stuff
very rare axle option

has many others less desireable features, low output motor, vac disco, just to name 2 off the top of my head right away.

so yeah another negative ghostrider
 
#11 ·
negative ghostrider.

throughout the history of the XJ, while there were things that would ensure the vehicle had the D35, nothing ensured it would have the 8.25".

edit: my vote would be '97-'99 as the best 'starting' point. HP D30 with 297x or 760x u-joints. The 8.25" used in those years is the 29-spline version. The front fenders on '97+ are already bobbed even with the top of the bumper (it's easy to trim older models yourself, but hey, it's just one less thing to do). And personally I just prefer all the stylistic changes on the '97+ body style (1-pc front windows, improved controls on the door, cup-holders in the center console, backlit gauges, steel liftgate, rotary HVAC controls)
My mistake, I was under the impression that if it didn't have ABS it would have the 8.25. I stand corrected, thanks.
 
#13 ·
And negative on the new intake manifold, it's just making up for emission related power losses. Supposedly it's worth about 15 horsepower on an older HO.

If you want the older body style I suggest the 1996, you get the D44 u joints in the HP D30, the new style slip yoke which is bad for vibes but the cheapest to make into an SYE with the Hack'n'Tap. And then theres the possibility of a 29 spline C8.25 (though I just swapped in an MJ D44 so it was a moot point). It's also easier to trim the front fenders on the old body style because the washer fluid bottle doesn't get in the way. And the older body has the door joints to make the doors easily removable.
 
#15 · (Edited)
I've read that the 00 and 02 engines have the best porting, as well as better (in some peoples opinion anway) ignition system. I tend to think those years are the best engines, though I haven't read all the prior post in this thread (yet). They're even rated for slightly better fuel economy and more horse power. However, I was reluctant about the front diff pinion thing being low angle. I don't know much about diffs, but I thought that might be a bad thing.

One thing I do know is that the 95 and older ones have the most comfy seats by far, at least to my body.

I think at this point I'd want a 95 with low miles, or a 97 to 99 with low miles and then change the seat to the older, more padded and more adjustable 95 and older seats.

I would not want to ever own a 96 again because the "wing" window is fake and fixed in place that year only. That sucks in summer. Older ones have a working, functional wing window, and newer ones have no wing at all - just have bigger front window - my window preference. Well, I guess a 96 could have the doors replace by an older or newer model years doors?

I know some things, but there are many, many things that I do not know about Cherokees. So I really appreciate you guys helping and educating me. Please keep the info coming. I have not yet read the entire thread and everyone's posts cause I'm at work now, short of time, and must back to work. However, I will read and consider carefully everything that each of you shares with me before I buy another Cherokee. I want to buy one this week though.

Thanks very much. Please keep the info coming.
 
#16 ·
IMO those wing windows leak so I'd rather not have them. And it's so hot where I live it's usually windows up and AC on. I'd rather have stronger u joints than wing windows, though both could be changed with the help of a junkyard. Also, the '96 (or '95, I can't remember) and later have the same seat rails as the ZJ so you can snag comfy Grand Cherokee seats if you so please.
 
#17 ·
gregmondro said:
What are your end plans for it? Tire size, etc.

I'd avoid anything with the vacuum disconnect (has the vacuum disconnect which often fails and the 2 piece inner shafts as compared to the 1 piece on later models without the vacuum disco) and without a 4.0l in it.

Everything else can be swapped easily. There's not much to an XJ and if you have a little mechanical know how, then it's not very hard to mod it to your likings.

If you just want something stock that you can don't have to worry about much, anything with the 4.0l and the 29 spline 8.25 up until 00 (which has the low pinion front d30) is the way to go.
I want to have 31" x 10.5" BFG or **** Cepek Fun Country II tires with the least amount of lift that can work with that without rubbing offroad. I would like a TruLock limited slip/locker combo in the rear, which I realize I'll have to add myself.

I also realize I'll have to trim fenders and change to aftermarket flares and trim them some.

I'd like to do all this with a 2" OME lift, if possible. I know I'll have to trim, but would that work with trimming? If not, I could had a bit of spacer. Would a half inch spacer on top of OME 2" spring do it? Are those OME springs actually two inches? I want a light duty OME spring in front cause I'm leaving front stock. I want a medium duty OME spring in rear cause I'm having a heavy rear bumper and gas tank skid.
 
#18 · (Edited)
Why XJs rule, IMO

Six months ago, I sold my Cherokee (a 96) and bought a Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited 06. I freakin hate the LJ and miss the XJ very much. XJs are the best 4x4s ever made. XJs are better offroad, IMO; and way better onroad for acceleration, handling, ride comfort, fuel economy, storage space, and everything. XJs are also much less money to operate due to smaller, less expensive tires.

It's not how big your tires are that matters, it's how big they are in relation to the weight of the vehicle. That is one of many areas where XJs beat all others by a mile.

A Cherokee XJ with 31" X 10.5" tires whips a Wrangler Rubi Unlimited with 33 X 11.5 tires in everyway both on and offroad, and I know since I've owned both. My prior XJ had 30 X 9.5 tires and even that would keep up with or beat my Rubi Unlimited offroad by a little, and onroad by a mile.

The Rubicon Unlimited is 1,000 lbs heavier than an XJ. Because of that, an XJ with 31 X 10.5 tires actually has larger tires in relation to weight of the vehicle than a Rubi Unlimited with 33 X 11.5 tires.

It's the tire size to weight ratio that rules onroad, and especially offroad, IMO. In that area, the XJ beats all comers, and the Rubi Unlimited is rather poor.

XJs are lean, mean, off and on road machines. Rubi LJs are fat pigs by comparison, and the Rubi LJs rough ride is also breaking my back. My XJ was comfortable and more capable, and easy on gas. My XJ got 16 to 17 mpg around town with 30 X 9.5 BFG ATs. My Rubi LJ gets 11 mpg around town with 33 X 11.5 tires.

XJs rule in every way (except elbow and shoulder room). I want another XJ, or two, but I want to choose wisely. That is why I need your advice. Thank you.
 
#19 ·
CB3 said:
I would not want to ever own a 96 again because the "wing" window is fake and fixed in place that year only. That sucks in summer. Older ones have a working, functional wing window, and newer ones have no wing at all - just have bigger front window - my window preference.
another negative ghostrider... the 'wing' went out around '91. '92-'96 have a fixed triangle window.
 
#21 ·
The '00+ have the cylinder head cracking issues from what I remember so that turned me away from them as well as the LP D30...
 
#22 ·
CB3 said:
I sold my Cherokee (a 96) and bought a Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited 06. I freakin hate the LJ and miss the XJ very much. XJs are the best 4x4s ever made. XJs are better offroad, IMO; and way better onroad for acceleration, handling, ride comfort, fuel economy, storage space, and everything. XJs are also much less money to operate due to smaller, less expensive tires.

It's not how big your tires are that matters, it's how big they are in relation to the weight of the vehicle. That is one of many areas where XJs beat all others by a mile.

A Cherokee XJ with 31" X 10.5" tires whips a Wrangler Rubi Unlimited with 33 X 11.5 tires in everyway both on and offroad, and I know since I've owned both. My prior XJ had 30 X 9.5 tires and even that would keep up with or beat my Rubi Unlimited offroad by a little, and onroad by a mile.

The Rubicon Unlimited is 1,000 lbs heavier than an XJ. Because of that, an XJ with 31 X 10.5 tires actually has larger tires in relation to weight of the vehicle than a Rubi Unlimited with 33 X 11.5 tires.

It's the tire size to weight ratio that rules onroad, and especially offroad, IMO. In that area, the XJ beats all comers, and the Rubi Unlimited is rather poor.

XJs are lean, mean, off and on road machines. Rubi LJs are fat pigs by comparison, and the Rubi LJs rough ride is also breaking my back. My XJ was comfortable and more capable, and easy on gas. My XJ got 16 to 17 mpg around town with 30 X 9.5 BFG ATs. My Rubi LJ gets 11 mpg around town with 33 X 11.5 tires.

XJs rule in every way (except elbow and shoulder room). I want another XJ, or two, but I want to choose wisely. That is why I need your advice. Thank you.
1) Unless your XJ was locked front and rear, or you're on easy trails, there's no way I believe that an XJ on 30's is going to keep up with a Rubicon on 33's.

2) Put 33's on your XJ and see what kind of mileage you get...

3) I also have a hard time believing your LJ has a "rough" ride vs your XJ unless you're running something like a ProComp lift on the LJ.

4) Your comments about tire size vs weight make no sense at all... I think I know what you were getting at, but the way you said it is all wrong. You're leaving power and axle gearing out of the equation, plus you're comparing apples to oranges because the vehicles weren't running the same gears or tires.
 
#26 ·
Yeah, pretty sure. ;) The vent wings are an AMC-era only part, like the non-HO 4.0L and vac-disco D30. Chryco did away with it when they made their initial changes to the XJ in the early 90's.
FWIW, the '92 Limited I bought for parts had/has operational vent windows. I have no reason to believe that they were not stock. My '94 Country has the fixed windows.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top