JeepForum.com

JeepForum.com (http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/)
-   XJ Cherokee Non-Technical Forum (http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f177/)
-   -   91 or 96 (http://www.jeepforum.com/forum/f177/91-96-a-1558266/)

Dscott 08-05-2013 02:19 PM

91 or 96
 
I'm a potentially new Cherokee owner. I'm trying to decide between similar models, one from 91 and the other 96. Both are sport 4wd, inline 6, 4.0. The 91 has 160,000 miles and is selling for $1400. The 96 has 218,000 and is selling for 2100. Both have extensive service records, but the 96 looks nicer (possibly simply because it is newer). Otherwise, they are comparable. I'm just looking for a reliable around town tank. I want something that isn't going to start slowing breaking down. Any advice on which to take and why? Thanks for the help

psychoteen101 08-05-2013 03:45 PM

Many different things you can base your decision off of. 96 is OBD2 and the 91 is OBD1. Depending on your area, the 91 may not require emission testing as opposed to the 96, which most likely does require it.

If maintenance records are good between the 2, mileage is just a number. These motors are very strong and if taken care of, can see in excess of 300K.

Check both for rust! The floors and rocker panels are very common. Although youre from down south, it can still present itself as an issue because of the lower layer below the carpet holding water and rotting out the floors.

And finally, have them both inspected by a mechanic. On vehicles this old, its always good practice to have them checked out so you don't miss anything. If its a good/reliable car, the seller should have no problem with getting it checked out. If it is a problem with them, that's usually a good sign not to purchase the vehicle.

Holder350 08-05-2013 05:45 PM

1991 is non HO and renix controlled.

1996 is OBD2 controlled and in my opinion a more reliable system.

Ultimately tho you are the one buying it and your the one there looking at each one. You have to make the best decision you can.

Sent from my phone

96xjKing 08-05-2013 11:47 PM

IMO it would boil down to condition I.e, as mentioned earlier , rust. I would go after the 96 because it's obd2, and you said the 96 was nicer, it's all preference really although the 91 is cheaper with less miles the 96 is in nicer condition with possibly less rust IF any between the two

mschi772 08-06-2013 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holder350 (Post 15760192)
1991 is non HO and renix controlled.

1996 is OBD2 controlled and in my opinion a more reliable system.

Ultimately tho you are the one buying it and your the one there looking at each one. You have to make the best decision you can.

Sent from my phone

91 is the first year of the OBD1 HO engine.

There are a decent number of VERY minor differences in these years the biggest of which are the computer and the air bag--yeah, the biggest differences aren't really even that big. My advice: simply choose based on condition and price.

Motorcharge 08-06-2013 07:00 PM

96 if it's in better shape because it's got a number of 97+ features in the older body style. The best being that the seat mounts are the same as 97+ XJs, as well as ZJs and WJs making swapping in nicer seats a lot easier. If the 91 is in better shape I'd go for it though.

scottmphoto 08-10-2013 12:39 AM

I have a '91 and it was the first year for the HO OBD1. I like the fact that I can read the codes with the flashing check engine light. Also, I HATE airbags. I just like the older ones. Out of the two, it was the less expensive one and had less miles. You said that the condition was comparable. Me, I'd go for the '91. It'll give you more money for upgrades. :D


The time now is 05:25 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.