Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

Anybody have one of these ??

My daily driver and part-time tow vehicle (1996 Grand Cherokee) is still running great. But it's developing a couple of quirks.........one electrical and one tranny..........that lead me to believe I could end up walking some day.

Found a dandy deal on an '06 GC Limited with the 5.7L Hemi. Drove it briefly today and was VERY impressed with the overall smoothness of this machine.

Anybody here have one ?? Let's hear about it.

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

My folks have one. It replaced a '94 with the 5.2L with 250,000 miles that is still running. THAT was a good truck, although it did go through a couple transmissions, and at this point is worn out from one end to other.

Their '08 (believe that's the year, I know it is a WK, could be an '06) has been a vehicle they regretted almost from day one. The power is fantastic, that much is for certain (5.7L), but it has been in the shop several times for four-wheel drive issues. It is a full-time 4WD; Quadra-Trac, is that the right name? The Chevy Cobalt I used to have had about the same back seat room. The sight lines are terrible; a semi can hide behind the A-pillars. Mom keeps talking about trading it, but at this point it is worth so little vs. the cost of a new SUV that they are going to wear it out. It has over 100K, and the engine at least has been reliable.

The fuel mileage is atrocious. It gets about 17 on the highway, and 13-14 general driving. I just can't see a smallish SUV getting that poor of mileage. The '94 got about 19 mixed and over 20 on the highway, and had more room in the back seat.

I'd put some money in your '96 if it's not totally worn out, or move on to something else. If you like the '06 though, that's all that matters. If you don't need to put adults in the back seat, and don't care about the mileage, go for it.

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

PM ezmobee he is driving one now.

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

geneseo1911 said:

My folks have one. It replaced a '94 with the 5.2L with 250,000 miles that is still running. THAT was a good truck, although it did go through a couple transmissions, and at this point is worn out from one end to other.

Their '08 (believe that's the year, I know it is a WK, could be an '06) has been a vehicle they regretted almost from day one. The power is fantastic, that much is for certain (5.7L), but it has been in the shop several times for four-wheel drive issues. It is a full-time 4WD; Quadra-Trac, is that the right name? The Chevy Cobalt I used to have had about the same back seat room. The sight lines are terrible; a semi can hide behind the A-pillars. Mom keeps talking about trading it, but at this point it is worth so little vs. the cost of a new SUV that they are going to wear it out. It has over 100K, and the engine at least has been reliable.

The fuel mileage is atrocious. It gets about 17 on the highway, and 13-14 general driving. I just can't see a smallish SUV getting that poor of mileage. The '94 got about 19 mixed and over 20 on the highway, and had more room in the back seat.

I'd put some money in your '96 if it's not totally worn out, or move on to something else. If you like the '06 though, that's all that matters. If you don't need to put adults in the back seat, and don't care about the mileage, go for it.

Click to expand...

I feel like this is a problem that many HD full-time AWD suvs share. The little things with AWD are a joke - it doesn't take a lot of engineering to keep a CRV on the road.

Any vehicle with a good tow rating and payload with AWD is going to be in the shop a few times for driveline issues. Both of my Rovers (a 99 and an 06) have had driveline items replaced.

This exact same problem carries over to the complaints on mileage - anything with a chassis stiff enough to retain rigidity off-road or while towing is going to be heavy, heavy = crappy mileage, and having 2x the driveline components of a FWD/RWD vehicle also hurts mileage significantly. Those are the same numbers my Range Rover gets.. even with an advanced ohc engine / variable cam timing, 6 speed, etc.. you can't beat physics.

Having said that, I think the new ones look great and I know from experience that they are in fact well made vehicles (yes, as a Rover guy it takes a lot for me to say this!) but if I had to buy a domestic SUV, I'd probably get a Jeep - it's the only one out there which isn't just PRETENDING to be a utility vehicle. I'm talking hardcore approach/departure angles, wading depths (axle-breathers above the water line, triple sealed doors, etc) along with a stiff chassis and strong towing numbers. They certainly fetch a premium price (the new ones are a joke, you could literally almost get a land rover for the same price now) but if you can grab one used for a good deal, I'd say jump on it! Mileage and maintenance will be a problem for any vehicle with this type of design and capability, it just comes with the job I feel like. You could beat both those issues with an early 00's cummins-powered ram (20+mpg) but you'd lose the refinement, handling, and interior space, along with the luxury the GC offers. You can't win it all!

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

Thanks for the input, so far !!

Looking for all the info I can gather.

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

Here's another thought:
You obviously like your 96 ZJ and know it's history, so why not have the issues fixed- and maybe even consider some level of restoration? Parts are easy to find, and even a full-blown restoration would cost half that of a newer jeep.

Another option- search for a better ZJ. They were great Jeeps and millions were made.
Since I'll never afford a REAL muscle car, this is my "Corvette". It's a '98 Grand Cherokee 5.9.
They were only made for 1 year, total production under 15,000.

specs from Wikipedia:
The 5.9 L Limited ZJ (1998)The 5.9 Limited was a Jeep Grand Cherokee produced only for the 1998 model year, having more luxury and performance than that of the regular Limited. Chrysler manufactured nearly a quarter million Grand Cherokees in 1998. Of those, fewer than fifteen thousand were 5.9s. It housed a Magnum 5.9 L V8 engine with an output of 245 hp (183 kW) and 345 lb?ft (468 N?m) of torque, going from zero to 60 mph (100 km/h)in only 7.3 seconds[10] (Motor Trend measured this at a slightly faster 6.8 seconds[11]), making it the quickest SUV available that year. The performance of the 1998 5.9 L V8 has been surpassed by Jeep only with the introduction of the 2006 Jeep Grand Cherokee SRT8, which housed a 6.1 L Hemi Engine.[12] The 5.9 Jeep Grand Cherokee was named the 1998 four-wheel drive vehicle of the year by Petersen's 4-Wheel & Off-Road Magazine.[13]

The 5.9 Limited was available only in Deep Slate, Stone White, and Bright Platinum. Other features separated the 5.9 from the standard Limited model including:[14]


Functioning heat-extracting hood louvers
Revised grill with mesh grille inserts
Five-spoke alloy Ultrastar wheels
Black-wall tires
An improved premium 180 watt, 10 speaker Infinity stereo system
A rear speaker bar for additional Infinity speakers
Calf-grain, soft leather seats and trim
Leather door inserts
Leather shift handle, e-brake and transfer case handle
Enhanced faux wood trim throughout, additionally around the transmission shift handle base
A full-leather spare tire cover with multiple pockets
A center leather armrest in the rear seat
A lower-profile roof rack that eliminated squeaking problems found on the base 5.2 L limited
Molded rocker panels
The Grand Cherokee 5.9 further included additional performance-enhancing features including:

A stronger 46RE transmission than the 5.2
Quadratrac heavy duty NV249 transfer case
Standard trac-lock rear differential
An electric fan
A high-output 150A alternator
Lower restriction exhaust and chrome plated exhaust tip


If you look hard enough, decent Niners can be found cheap. Saw one a few months ago on ebay with less then 90k.
Just took this picture yesterday among some toys at home. 165k on the clock!

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

x2 what arks said. while i don't have a jeep we've got a 2000 3.2 acura tl and it needed some maintenance issues about $1400 worth and had about 230,000 miles on it my dad thought about trading it in but they only offered him 800$ so he kept it gave it to my brother and it runs great. its at 270,000 miles now has only needed little things. original engine too! basically keep your old car you know maintenance tends to be cheaper on the older cars too with less computers and all. the zj was a fantastic vehicle too the 4.0 was a fantastic engine but so was the 5.7

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

NYGiants said:

original engine too! basically keep your old car you know maintenance tends to be cheaper on the older cars too with less computers and all. the zj was a fantastic vehicle too the 4.0 was a fantastic engine but so was the 5.7

Click to expand...

Up to a point... One thing to keep in mind, that pretty much from 1996 to 2008-2010 or so, the computer systems are almost identical in function in any vehicle you find. There are going to be the same type of sensors, same number of things to go wrong, and same troubleshooting procedures (OBDII vehicles). Pre OBDII vehicles can get a little weird. If its fuel injected, you still have a computer, but finding someone that knows how to troubleshoot it might be hard, and finding replacement parts might be impossible. (and in case anyone is wondering, CANBUS is replacing OBDII, basically just more computer power, more sensors, etc...)

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

Thanks crater about the NEW computer family.
I NEVER buy a new line or change over...............Too many bugs in them usually.
I tend to buy old established models.

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

I thought the early 2000's models looked really nice. Especially the ones that sit up a little higher than stock. I drive an F-350 myself. But it would be nice to find something a little bit better on the wallet when it comes to fueling up, and that would still be able to tow a decent amount.

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

I have a 98 ZJ Grand Cherokee with the 4.0 straight six and an 07 WK Grand Cherokee Limited with the 5.7 Quadradrive II. I like both, the 98 I bought new and the 07 I bought when it was 2 years old. The WK Hemi is a great tow vehicle for its size, the Hemi and the new style Chrysler 5 speed are much better than the older engines/transmissions used in previous Jeeps, those were good old tech but the new ones have more power, shift better, and do not use much more gas given the power of the Hemi. It has the MDS system which shuts off 4 cylinders when you don't need all 8 and saves some gas. I have had less trouble with the 07 than I had with the 98, even though the 07 is a much more complex machine. The ZJ is easier to see out of and has about as much room inside even though is is about a foot shorter and weighs 700 lbs less. The WK tows much better because it rides more stably with a load and the brakes are light years better than the little 11" discs on the ZJ. I do like the simple ZJ and thats why I kept it. But I would not hesitate to buy another WK with Hemi power. You can pass most of the vehicles on the road while pulling the boat. Feels like a '69 Charger with a 440. Fun, fast just be careful, they can be troublesome. Try to buy the newest best condition one you can find, preferably a Chrysler Certified one which they will give you an 80000 mile warrentee for.

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

What kinda mileage do you see with your WK, Lou?

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

TorchedGT said:

I feel like this is a problem that many HD full-time AWD suvs share. The little things with AWD are a joke - it doesn't take a lot of engineering to keep a CRV on the road.

Any vehicle with a good tow rating and payload with AWD is going to be in the shop a few times for driveline issues. Both of my Rovers (a 99 and an 06) have had driveline items replaced.

This exact same problem carries over to the complaints on mileage - anything with a chassis stiff enough to retain rigidity off-road or while towing is going to be heavy, heavy = crappy mileage, and having 2x the driveline components of a FWD/RWD vehicle also hurts mileage significantly. Those are the same numbers my Range Rover gets.. even with an advanced ohc engine / variable cam timing, 6 speed, etc.. you can't beat physics.

Having said that, I think the new ones look great and I know from experience that they are in fact well made vehicles (yes, as a Rover guy it takes a lot for me to say this!) but if I had to buy a domestic SUV, I'd probably get a Jeep - it's the only one out there which isn't just PRETENDING to be a utility vehicle. I'm talking hardcore approach/departure angles, wading depths (axle-breathers above the water line, triple sealed doors, etc) along with a stiff chassis and strong towing numbers.

Click to expand...

Does Approach/ departure angles really matter to you? You really take such a nice vehicle as a Rover off road? My personal experience with the Grand Cherokee is they are a hit or mis, you might have a good one or a crappy one, they are stout and the 4.7/5.7 are strong but I'm sure maintenance plays a part in keeping them up to par.

As for the full time 4x4 system, I understand their reasoning, but for efficiency, you can't beat being able to dile in 2HI. I drove a new Yukon Denali recently and even on dry roads, I somehow locked all the tires making a gentle 90* turn into a road... not necessary to have AWD activate and rub tires/ driveline in that situation.

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

gtochris said:

Does Approach/ departure angles really matter to you? You really take such a nice vehicle as a Rover off road? My personal experience with the Grand Cherokee is they are a hit or mis, you might have a good one or a crappy one, they are stout and the 4.7/5.7 are strong but I'm sure maintenance plays a part in keeping them up to par.

As for the full time 4x4 system, I understand their reasoning, but for efficiency, you can't beat being able to dile in 2HI. I drove a new Yukon Denali recently and even on dry roads, I somehow locked all the tires making a gentle 90* turn into a road... not necessary to have AWD activate and rub tires/ driveline in that situation.

Click to expand...

A new Yukon still has a g80 full locking differential (not a limited slip) correct or did they go to the electronic version of it? A gentle 90* should never activate the g80 unless maybe on ice and neither should the front wheels kick in. I've had/have many newer GM's suv's with the full time AWD and if that is how they operate on dry pavement without any slip happening, there is something wrong. Even if it had the electronic version, the computer won't let that happen. Even without the g80 and only an open differential the stabilitrac and the separate traction control system operate to not let the above happen.

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

For towing:
Hemi - good
Unibody - bad
IRS - bad

Re: Hemi Grand Cherokee ??

oldjeep said:

For towing:
Hemi - good
Unibody - bad
IRS - bad

Click to expand...

I agree on the HEMI+GOOD, but 10 years of towing on a ZJ Grand Cherokee, 4000 lbs, no problems with the unibody, at all.
The unibody on the WK series (05-10) is much stronger than the ZJ series, you can see that in crash tests.
IRS, the WK series does not have IRS, only IFS. And with Quadradrive II, it uses the heaviest duty axle that has been used on a factory Jeep in years. Compared to the light duty Dana 35 on my 98 (which by the way, also never gave me any trouble in almost 140000 miles) that axle is HUGE, much bigger than the Dana 35. After having towed with both Grand Cherokees, I do not see any problem with the unibody. The unibody drawbacks are seen in extreme off road situations, where repeated flexing over a long period of time can cause problems.
The newest Grands (WL series, 2011 on) do have IFS and IRS....I do prefer a rear live axle for towing.