5.2 vs 4.7 vs 4.0 ? - JeepForum.com
 7Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #1 of 47 Old 07-10-2019, 09:26 AM Thread Starter
MoMuddin
Registered User
2010 WK 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 78
5.2 vs 4.7 vs 4.0 ?

Hi guys - I'm looking for a winter vehicle (which tend to always be Jeeps for me) and would like some advice. I live in Boston but in the winter tend to head north to Vermont, New Hampshire, Maine for the weekends. I've owned many Jeeps including the 4.7 V8 which was a great engine, but leaning towards a 97 5.2 V8 or possible 2000 4.0 V6. So my question is, out of all those engines, what would you go with in terms of reliability for a winter Jeep during snow/cold winters here in New England? I'll be putting on 100+ miles per weekend going back and forth towards Boston and most likely Vermont.

The 5.2, the 4.7, or would you go with a 4.0 V6? Thanks for your advice and help.

MoMuddin is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #2 of 47 Old 07-10-2019, 11:17 AM
riverzj
Registered User
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 67
Wonít matter. If we were talking brand new you would want to choose between motors but as your getting used just pick whatever one is the better vehicle and more reliable


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
riverzj is offline  
post #3 of 47 Old 07-10-2019, 11:55 AM
nickfast
Registered User
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Newberg, OR
Posts: 253
Important question: do you want a ZJ (93-98) or a WJ? (99-04).
The 5.2 is only in the ZJ, the 4.7 is only in the WJ, and the 4.0 can be found in both.
nickfast is offline  
 
post #4 of 47 Old 07-10-2019, 11:57 AM
MaintMech
Old and in the way
 
MaintMech's Avatar
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Farmington
Posts: 734
I'm not sure there is any such thing as a 4.0 V6. I think they're all straight six.

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong!
Ross and riverzj like this.

'96 Grand Laredo, 4.0, Stock, Daily Driver

I fought Oracle and Oracle won!

Originally Posted by coralman
If the faith isn't there,the doubt is.
MaintMech is offline  
post #5 of 47 Old 07-10-2019, 11:59 AM
nickfast
Registered User
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Newberg, OR
Posts: 253
Maybe he found one swapped in from an Explorer?
nickfast is offline  
post #6 of 47 Old 07-10-2019, 12:20 PM
devildog80
Registered User
1981 CJ5 
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Apache Junction
Posts: 27
Oh YUK
Hate when the water gets poisoned like that!
devildog80 is offline  
post #7 of 47 Old 07-10-2019, 02:38 PM
Timo_90xj
Web Wheeler
 
Timo_90xj's Avatar
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Helsinki, Finland - on the European side of the Atlantic
Posts: 9,735
Yeah, Jeeps didn't use Ford engines. They were either Mopar or AMC So the 4.0 is an inline-6, not a V6 - thank god!

If you want reliability, skip any of the WJs. They aren't exactly the most reliable vehicles built by Jeep.. 4.7 and especially the 4.7 HO and Corsair versions are pretty damn nice engines, but WJ has other issues.
Good thing is you don't have the diesel WJs there in the States - those were BAD no matter if it had the VM 3.1TD (it's a piece of crap) or the 2.7CRD Merc diesel (engine not as crappy, but the tranny is way worse than a 44RE).

I'd definitely go with a '97-'98 4.0 ZJ or a 5.2/5.9 ZJ - 4.0 being a bit low on power but it is tolerable.

1998 Grand Cherokee 5.9 LX daily driver, 1.75" BB, 32" KM2s, HPD30 Eaton e-locker/D44a stock LSD, 4.56 gears, custom- fabbed tube bumpers and tube fenders,...


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



1990 XJ Limited (4-door), 4.0 I6, AW4, NP242, ***rolled and totalled @ 165k miles***

***Under construction***
1990 XJ (4-door), 4.0 I6, AW4, NP242, PBR 42" tires, Unimog 404 portal axles, 110" WB, full cage + uniframe completely rebuilt, front 3-link + panhard / double triangulated 4-link rear,... ***SOLD***
Timo_90xj is offline  
post #8 of 47 Old 07-10-2019, 06:06 PM
PolkaPower
Registered User
 
PolkaPower's Avatar
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss
Posts: 22,573
I'd go 5.2 for off road lots of torque and very reliable. Around the same mpg as the 4.0. I could never do a 4.0 in a ZJ.

Sent from my BND-L24 using Tapatalk
PolkaPower is offline  
post #9 of 47 Old 07-11-2019, 07:27 AM Thread Starter
MoMuddin
Registered User
2010 WK 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Timo_90xj View Post
Yeah, Jeeps didn't use Ford engines. They were either Mopar or AMC So the 4.0 is an inline-6, not a V6 - thank god!

If you want reliability, skip any of the WJs. They aren't exactly the most reliable vehicles built by Jeep.. 4.7 and especially the 4.7 HO and Corsair versions are pretty damn nice engines, but WJ has other issues.
Good thing is you don't have the diesel WJs there in the States - those were BAD no matter if it had the VM 3.1TD (it's a piece of crap) or the 2.7CRD Merc diesel (engine not as crappy, but the tranny is way worse than a 44RE).

I'd definitely go with a '97-'98 4.0 ZJ or a 5.2/5.9 ZJ - 4.0 being a bit low on power but it is tolerable.
Yes, thank you for this. And correction on my part, didnt mean V6, I'm aware that its an inline 6. I found a 97 with a 5.2 with 86k miles, looks like its in decent shape. I've owned/driven the 4.0 and 4.7, so Im going to take the 5.2 out for a drive and see how it goes. Again, all im looking for is a used winter beater that has some amount of reliability (after some TLC post purchase) to make sure it gets me through the cold winter months up here in New England. Plus, theres something about finding an old Jeep, in good condition, relatively low miles, that makes it all worth it.

Thanks everyone for the help and Ill keep you posted. Going on a search for the next Jeep always a fun thing!
MoMuddin is offline  
post #10 of 47 Old 07-11-2019, 10:55 AM
kg6mov
Hears the voices
 
kg6mov's Avatar
1996 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Cupertino
Posts: 15,830
The 5.2 is a good motor, the 4.7 was an attempt to make around the same power with less displacement. If you liked the 4.7 you’ll probably like the 5.2.
jrcromwell likes this.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

1984 F250, 460 BB, T19, work truck/future tow pig
1987 Mercedes 300D Turbo, the diesel daily, 30mpg in style

Quote:
Originally Posted by Texas ZJ1 View Post
I heard someone yell "mall crawler" from the back porch. I'll go see who said that. Be right back.
kg6mov is offline  
post #11 of 47 Old 07-11-2019, 06:08 PM
jrcromwell
Registered User
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Fort Morgan
Posts: 389
The 4.0 will have the least amount of power but the low-end torque is appreciable due to the fact its an inline and basically a tractor engine.

The 5.2 is the magnum engine and the 4.7 is a next-generation small V8.

I have experience with all of these engines. I would based solely on personal experience say that the 4.0 is the most reliable. However, is and underperformer in horsepower without stroking her.

The 5.2 is just like the 5.9 with it's know problems. Intake plenum being the most prevalent and of course sensor issues like the rest.

The 4.7 in various configurations produces respectable horsepower and torque curves. The 4.7 has some upper valve train issues with poor maintenance or hot rodding without making improvements to upper valve train especially oil flow.

IMHO I think they're all decent power plants. I had a moderately built 4.7 in a Dakota and it was a performer.

That being said the small block magnums are great performers I have a 5.9 with the usual improvements and it is a very respectable performer. She is reliable mechanically I mostly run into sensor and PCM issues.

I like the horsepower personally but if I needed a reliable solid power plant to take across the world on an expedition I would be happy with the 4.0 for its reliable simplicity.

Just my 2 cents...
teamodave likes this.

Last edited by jrcromwell; 07-11-2019 at 06:21 PM. Reason: Spelling error...
jrcromwell is offline  
post #12 of 47 Old 07-12-2019, 11:14 PM
rep-tile
Cash 4 Clunkers Survivor
 
rep-tile's Avatar
2004 WJ 
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: bakersfield
Posts: 1,427
If you go with a WJ choose your poison.
The 4.7L (WJ) drops valve seats (why you don't put an alumium head on a cast iron block) and timing chain tensioners tend to break.
The 4.0 (WJ) has bad cylinder head, piston skirts break off and pistons litterally disintegrate. Years 99 to 02 (not all 02s) are affected. If you go for this engine make sure it has a TUPY head (some 02s and all of 03-04).

4.0 and 5.2/5.9 ZJs are solid engines. Why many are still on the road.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Timo_90xj View Post
Yeah, Jeeps didn't use Ford engines. They were either Mopar or AMC So the 4.0 is an inline-6, not a V6 - thank god
True. Although they did use a 2.8L V6 GM on very early XJs which was a huge pile of garbage.
teamodave likes this.

04 WJ 4.0 - Avital 4103, DB-ALL
91 XJ 4.0 - Avital 4103, Stage-2 aFe intake system, BBK high flow Throttle Body, Jones Exhaust A3518M-5
rep-tile is offline  
post #13 of 47 Old 07-13-2019, 12:41 AM
IMMORTEN
Registered User
 
IMMORTEN's Avatar
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Feb 2019
Location: Kongens Lyngby, Denmark
Posts: 204
Garage
5.2 vs 4.7 vs 4.0 ?

I donít have any experience with the V8s, but I do want to say that the 4.0 is a very smooth engine and while yes; itís no power house, it delivers its power in a very smooth and linear way, which makes it a very comfortable engine to drive around with.

Also; due itís longitudinal shape itís a very easy engine to work on as everything is easily accessible and itís about as basic as an engine gets to work on....you can pretty much fix it with a basic mechanic toolset (at least do most maintenance work)

I did oil filter, oil change, spark plugs, air filter and belt, using only a basic ratchet & socket set and my bare hands, it didnít take me long or cause me any headaches either...everything was easy to get to and straight forward

Again; itís no power house, and thereís nothing fast or remotely sporty about it, but to live with on a daily basis itís a great engine and has a lot of good things going for it.

Lastly I will say; that itís not completely gutless either, you are not going to win any races with it, but it is plenty powerful enough to tow with and keep up with modern traffic without any issues.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
IMMORTEN is offline  
post #14 of 47 Old 07-13-2019, 12:53 AM
PolkaPower
Registered User
 
PolkaPower's Avatar
1998 ZJ 
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: The Abyss
Posts: 22,573
Well, the small humble 5.2 makes 295 torque at 3000 rpm. It weighs in at slightly more than the 4.0, both are around 500+lbs. It's also just as reliable.
Try one.

Sent from my BND-L24 using Tapatalk
PolkaPower is offline  
post #15 of 47 Old 07-15-2019, 07:16 PM
billychetm
Registered User
2006 KJ Liberty 
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sandusky
Posts: 4
The 4.0 is a straight inline 6 cylinder not a v6. I was an assistant service manager at our Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep and Toyota Dealer for 10 years. I also had a 96 G Cherokee, 4.0, and a 2000 G Cherokee 4.0. The 4.0 is a bullet proof engine. I currently have a 2006 Liberty with a 3.7 v6, 99,600 miles, and it gets worse mpg, 20mpg, than the 4.0 inline 6 cylinder, 25mpg. I put K & N Air filter, throttle body spacer and all synthetic fluids in the 96 and 2000 G Cherokee's 4.0 engines and mpg went up from 20 mpg to 25 mpg. On the Liberty, 3.7 v6 engine, I put a Mopar cold induction air kit , throttle body spacer and all synthetic fluids and mileage stayed the same at 20 mpg.
billychetm is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on the JeepForum.com forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.



Email Address:
OR

Log-in











Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome