• NAXJA is having its 18th annual March Membership Drive!!!
    Everyone who joins or renews during March will be entered into a drawing!
    More Information - Join/Renew
  • Welcome to the new NAXJA Forum! If your password does not work, please use "Forgot your password?" link on the log-in page. Please feel free to reach out to [email protected] if we can provide any assistance.

Best year to purchase: Already searched

cajun01

NAXJA Forum User
Hey everyone,
I have been reading the forums for a couple months.
I am purchasing a cherokee 4wd soon, still looking.
I need some help on the year though. So far 99-01 head problems.
96-01 drive line vibs. I will lift it maybe 3 1/2.
I have found a couple of 2wd 96-98's, but thats it.
Thanks for the help.
 
cajun01 said:
I need some help on the year though. So far 99-01 head problems.

Currently have a 2000 Limited, previously had a 2001 Sport. Both have gone in excess of 100,000 miles and no head issues. Yes, it affected some XJs with the 0331 casting, but is not as widespread as you may believe - there are a lot of runout models out there with higher mileages and no head issues.

96-01 drive line vibs. I will lift it maybe 3 1/2.

The 2000 is lifted 3.5" and has no major driveline vibes. There are some very minor ones at 10, 40, and 80mph but that's it. This is with the NP242 transfer case and no SYE or slip-shaft in the rear. However, 4-degree axle shims were also installed as part of the lift, so this probably helped a lot in that department. I've also been in pre-'96 XJs that get vibes at 2-3" lift, so don't take what anyone (myself included) is telling you as absolute; your mileage will almost certainly vary.

I'm keen on the '87-'90 pre-HO (Renix) and the runout (2000-2001) models. Renixes have a pretty simple engine management system, and IMHO run the most sweetly of all the 4.0 models. Runout models got distributorless ignition (which I'm a fan of, having had problems with moisture, etc. in past vehicles) and enough extra power over the Renixes to make them worth searching out. Not that the '91-'99 models are bad by any means, just that these are my preferences. If you're looking for a serviceable DD for low money, go for a Renix or HO but expect more mechanical wear; if it's something you want to hang onto for the next few years with potentially less servicing, get a runout. Just my $0.02.
 
What are you looking to do with it? Daily driver? Lift? Wheeling?

For a daily driver I'd look for a 97-01 simply because the interior is nicer. 91-96 would be a second choice. They come with the HO engine, no disco front axle, and (as unpopular as this opinion may be) I prefer Chryco's OBD over the Renix computer.

The 84-86 are worthless with the 2.8-liter engine, I don't think they made the 4.0 those years, could be wrong though. 87-90 with the 4.0 is a good bet, but the engines aren't HO and the Renix system is harder to diagnose than the OBD. I got an '87 because my budget was pretty tight and I couldn't find a 91+ within my range. Due to unrelated circumstances, I'm in the process of putting an HO motor in it and I have a 242 Tcase I'll install (needs a rebuild) when it's up and running again.

Either way, if this Jeep is going to be seeing driving on snowy roads, you DEFINITELY want to find one with the NP242 transfer case, which has the 4-Full-Time setting. That's the best for driving on pavement when there's snow on the ground.
 
anony91xj said:
Either way, if this Jeep is going to be seeing driving on snowy roads, you DEFINITELY want to find one with the NP242 transfer case, which has the 4-Full-Time setting. That's the best for driving on pavement when there's snow on the ground.

I MUCH prefer the 242 to the 231 that was in the last XJ for exactly those reasons, and would even expand that to include rainy weather - particularly if you're carrying a lot of cargo in the wet.

One other thing I recently got to try: a (IIRC) '98 4-cylinder. I actually kinda like the idea of building a later 2.5-litre into a trail rig; sure, there's less power than the 4.0, but sometimes underpowered vehicles can be more fun to sling around.
 
I would get a 99 with the good cylinder head. They changed heads in late 99 and all the 99's I looked at before buying mine almost a year ago had the better head.

JoBo
 
I own 4, 1990,1995,1996,2000. If you want plush, go 97' up. They all ride and handle the same though. My vote is for the 1996, it has the old body style but with OBDII. But my 96 gets wheeled the most so I'm a little partial.
 
Thanks for all the input guys.
This will be a daily driver. It will pull triple duty. Daily driver, used for small repair buisness(hauling some tools), trips to my fishing camp 260 miles one way. yes, I know I want it to do everything. After all it is a jeep.
I did try searching, but sometimes its better to get individual input directly related to your question. if someone knows of a thread detailing "the best year", please post a link here. I would be grateful.
Again thanks to everyone for their input it is greatly appreciated.

Well guys, I'm out. poker night for the guys.
 
well I can't speak for the other years but my 90 has been great to me. I picked it up for $1400 and dropped about another $500 into catching up on maintenence and repairs to make it reliable (cooling system). I use mine to tow my car once in a while, haul the family around, go back and forth to work everyday, haul all my tools and compressor around, and i wheel it once in a while, its even been flopped without any real damage to it mechanically or visually. I have never spent so little on a vehicle and gotten so much out of it. I know the non HO years can be had for a song too, i know of an 88 for sale for $500 right now in Chicago. If i had the room and the money i'd snatch it up quick.
 
xjtrailrider said:
My vote is for the 1996, it has the old body style but with OBDII.

One thing I'll add about OBD-II: it's nigh-on useless unless you're from the picture menu school of troubleshooting. Smog stations love it, but for every time that it's accurate about the cause of a problem it's usually wrong on three or four other occasions. Having only had OBD-II XJs, it really seems as though there is no substitute for knowing the vehicle and tracking down problems accordingly - hence my sneaking appreciation for Renix.
 
i have an 88 non ho 4.0 with 145k on the clock, and a 2000 4.0 with 59k on the clock. I think my 88 could beat it every day, and twice on sunday. I think the 88 will outlast the 2000 with the same care appled to both.
 
the_chief said:
i have an 88 non ho 4.0 with 145k on the clock, and a 2000 4.0 with 59k on the clock. I think my 88 could beat it every day, and twice on sunday. I think the 88 will outlast the 2000 with the same care appled to both.

thats funny - i was comparing my 96 to a buddy's 88 the other day...and his wife drives a 2000.

the 88 def. seems heavier duty, all around, and the 96 for whatever reason has the same feel.

there are places on the 2000 where things just look cheaper, lighter, and more prone to break.

who knows...
 
The Np242 is better why? Not being funny here I just wana know the differences please. I have a '91 HO with the 231 and am from florida, mud and sand...lived in wisconsin 2 years, snow and ice....and now in NC, rocks and mountains. I have used my 4wd on all of these and up to 55-60mph. Maybe not the greatest thing to do, but I know my jeep and she feels solid on it all. Now it may have bearings or other issues ready to fall out if I'm not supposed to be doing this with my transfer setup, but to be honest I've put about 200 of the current 300k on it since owned for the past 6 years. I try to pamper her but when called for duty I rag it and she complies. Was just curious as to why you guys think or know why the 242 is better? Maybe I should swap out to a newer model xj and find out. Just my .02. Great reading guys, please keep it up!
 
JoBo said:
I would get a 99 with the good cylinder head. They changed heads in late 99 and all the 99's I looked at before buying mine almost a year ago had the better head.

JoBo
If you get a '99, try to get one built late in '98 or the first couple months of '99. That way you can be sure you don't get the 0331 casting.
 
titan4u2c said:
The Np242 is better why? Not being funny here I just wana know the differences please.

The NP242 has what is effectively an AWD mode in high range - usable on pavement or other solid surfaces - that the NP231 lacks. Whether or not one or the other is 'superior' depends on how you intend to use your XJ; read this thread for more details.

I have a '91 HO with the 231 and am from florida, mud and sand...lived in wisconsin 2 years, snow and ice....and now in NC, rocks and mountains. I have used my 4wd on all of these and up to 55-60mph. Maybe not the greatest thing to do, but I know my jeep and she feels solid on it all.

My first XJ ran in similar circumstances. All I can say is that for my needs, the 242 is the better choice. YMMV; check out that link as it'll give you perspectives from both sides of the equation.
 
gotta go with the 1996. HO, Old Body Style, and has a slightly beefier frame then the 95-. 97-01 also has the added ridgity but have rounded off new style. to some they might seem less heavy duty. Can't say i have an opinion on that detail though - but i am looking for the center console and e-brake outa one of them...
 
Here's another vote for the '96. When I started looking for an XJ about a year ago, I went through the same delimma: What year, what trim level, drivetrain, etc. After extensive forum searching and checking out as many different XJs as I could, I decided on a '96 4DR, 4.0, AW4, NP231. I like the old square body style, wanted an automatic since it was going to be a DD (we sit in a lot of stop & go traffic in the Dallas area) and 4WD for moderate wheeling. I lucked out by finding a Country with EVERYTHING working (amazing!) with 120k on the clock and no leaks. I do home repair and remodeling and haul tools, supplies, etc and it works great. The interior is nice enough and has all the creature comforts so long trips are comfortable. It's got a 3.5" lift w/ 15x8 Ravines on it and will handle moderate wheeling pretty well. I put a tranny cooler on it and do some towing with no problems. All in all, it is truly a multipurpose vehicle. Hell, the wife even likes riding in it! Can't say the same about the old CJ!
 
xjtrailrider said:
I own 4, 1990,1995,1996,2000. If you want plush, go 97' up. They all ride and handle the same though.

Um... "plush" isn't the word I'd use!! That's reserved for Lexuses, Cadillacs, etc.

Frankly, after I spent a week driving a Chrysler LHS rental (on vacation) a couple of years ago, my '00 XJ felt somewhat like a lawn tractor!! :)

Which year to buy is strictly a matter of (a) what you intend to use it for, and (b) where you live. Around here, anything over 10 years old is usually getting pretty ratty looking. But as a trail rig, that wouldn't be so much of a problem. For a daily-driver, I'd buy as new as I could afford.

Den
 
the_chief said:
i have an 88 non ho 4.0 with 145k on the clock, and a 2000 4.0 with 59k on the clock. I think my 88 could beat it every day, and twice on sunday. I think the 88 will outlast the 2000 with the same care appled to both.

IMHO, and this is just that, the early ones are nicer for two reasons:

1) They were the top-dog back then (well, if you exclude full-size waggies)
2) They hadn't been "optimized" yet (!)

I think that the XJ became the lineup's bastard son after the ZJ was introduced. Similar enough that the beancounters couldn't see spending money on both - and yet the XJ continued to sell well.

Add in Chrysler's longstanding tendencies to "improve" models by way of cheapening them up over the years (see Shadow/Sundance "America" models for proof), and there are valid reasons for the late model ones to seem cheaper and less luxurious. (That's always been my take).

Den
 
Back
Top