-
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.
XJ 86 GMC 2.8L, what to look for when buying ?
- Thread starter birkes
- Start date
comancheon33
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Casey,Ia
I would look for another XJ unless you use this one for parts. 2.8 is gutlaess and has a carb not fuel injected. Keep looking for 4.0 XJ there are tons of them out there for cheap. Just my .02 worth
- Location
- Rainy side of Washington
May be different in Norway, but I would do the same. Look for an 87 or later with the 4.0.
Silver60th
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Texas
Not coming from personal experience,
What I have read on here is that the early XJ's with the GM motors had some issues. Lack of power, lack of liability.
Also, I believe they have vacuum disconnect axles?
Could be wrong. All I know is that most people around her avoid them like the plague.
Can't beat the reliability and power/weight ratio of the 4.0L (unless you are going to swap something in).
My advice: keep looking. 4.0L Cherokees are a dime a dozen and cheap these days too.
You should be able to pick one up for under $3,000 depending on where you look.
What I have read on here is that the early XJ's with the GM motors had some issues. Lack of power, lack of liability.
Also, I believe they have vacuum disconnect axles?
Could be wrong. All I know is that most people around her avoid them like the plague.
Can't beat the reliability and power/weight ratio of the 4.0L (unless you are going to swap something in).
My advice: keep looking. 4.0L Cherokees are a dime a dozen and cheap these days too.
You should be able to pick one up for under $3,000 depending on where you look.
- Location
- Hartsville, South Carolina
- Location
- Hartsville, South Carolina
That engine is the worst engine ever built IMHO. Check above the cat and the muffler for rust holes. If its a MT check the drivers side floor board for leaking clutch fluid and a fried fuse box and or rusted out floor board.
stephenspann27
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- College Station, Tx
read this thread about 2.8 reliability: http://www.city-data.com/forum/automotive/654299-how-good-were-gm-2-8-a.html
A little story:
My first vehicle was an '86 S-10 Blazer with a fuel injected 2.8 My dad rebuilt it for a co worker when it had gasket issues and the coolant ended up in the oil. I think my dad might have actually only replaced the bearings, and possibly rings. This happened at around 120k miles.
A few years later my dad bought it from the coworker for my mom to drive. My mom put about 80k on it, then it became my brother's first car who logged some miles. 3 years later it was my ride.
My brother had spent a ton of $$ putting a nice stereo system in it. When it was mine, it was broken into and everything stolen insurance covered the cost of the system which was higher than the value of the Blazer. So it was basically totaled because of the stereo being stolen. Insurance auctioned it off, and my uncle spotted it in the Dallas area a few months later. It had 250k miles on it when insurance bought it from us.
A little story:
My first vehicle was an '86 S-10 Blazer with a fuel injected 2.8 My dad rebuilt it for a co worker when it had gasket issues and the coolant ended up in the oil. I think my dad might have actually only replaced the bearings, and possibly rings. This happened at around 120k miles.
A few years later my dad bought it from the coworker for my mom to drive. My mom put about 80k on it, then it became my brother's first car who logged some miles. 3 years later it was my ride.
My brother had spent a ton of $$ putting a nice stereo system in it. When it was mine, it was broken into and everything stolen insurance covered the cost of the system which was higher than the value of the Blazer. So it was basically totaled because of the stereo being stolen. Insurance auctioned it off, and my uncle spotted it in the Dallas area a few months later. It had 250k miles on it when insurance bought it from us.
obxxj
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Richmond, Va
Speaking as a stock 1984 Cherokee XJ owner, let me make the following observations.
First, what do you plan to do with your Cherokee? If you want to make a high-lift, rock-crawling 4WD with lots of power, the 1984-86 Cherokees are not for you. If you are looking for good mileage don't look at any Cherokees.
Still, allowing for the given limitations in the early Cherokees mentioned by the other posters they are a good 4WD vehicle for sand and snow if used within those limitations. The only real modification I've done is to install a 2" front and rear hitch to aid in recovery when I get stuck. Were money no object, I'd replace the 2.8l engine with the 3.4L engine which is supposed to be almost a drop-in replacement and much more reliable.
First, what do you plan to do with your Cherokee? If you want to make a high-lift, rock-crawling 4WD with lots of power, the 1984-86 Cherokees are not for you. If you are looking for good mileage don't look at any Cherokees.
Still, allowing for the given limitations in the early Cherokees mentioned by the other posters they are a good 4WD vehicle for sand and snow if used within those limitations. The only real modification I've done is to install a 2" front and rear hitch to aid in recovery when I get stuck. Were money no object, I'd replace the 2.8l engine with the 3.4L engine which is supposed to be almost a drop-in replacement and much more reliable.
5-90
NAXJA Forum User
- Location
- Hammerspace
It's actually a Chevvy engine, not GMC. GMC did a better job...
Look for a donor for the swap - S-series with the 3.1L or 3.4L will be a drop-in for the whole powertrain (1988-up THM700R4 or 4L60. The 4L60E should be doable with some effort...) and will pick up an overdrive gear as well.
The F-body (Camaro/Firebird) with the 3.1L/3.4L will be a drop-in as well - but the engine only.
FWD variants will only bolt in if there is an unused starter motor mounting pad on the back of the engine block (as mounted.) Dedicated FWD engines have the starter on the wrong side of the block.
The THM700R4/4L60 will require some small fabrication to move the crossmember and make it work, but I think it's worth it. An effective THM700R4/4L60 is a better transmission than the "Baby 904" that AMC used, and the overdrive can pay for the swap with a lot of highway driving. The transfer case used behind the THM700R4/4L60 is the GM/Chevvy version of the NP231, with a wider chain. You'll probably have to do some fabrication to make the transfer case shift linkage work as well - but the transmission shifter should be easy.
The 2.8L V6 was a frickin' dog in terms of power, and leaked like a seive at the rear intake/cylinder head/valve cover junction. I had one in a pax car, and I never could get the damned thing to seal! I just topped up the oil as required, and changed the filter every six months (the engine oil pretty well changed itself.) Next car I had had the 3.1L V6 in it, had a 300# greater kerb weight, and the same transmission & final drive ratio. Ran like a scalded hog, didn't leak, and was a quite reliable vehicle.
The point of all this? I say to avoid the 2.8L, unless you're going to plan a swap at the same time. The use of the 2.8L was an interim measure by AMC - to get the XJ going with a "high performance engine option" (it wasn't) until they had the 242ci I6 ready for market. Considering that the 150ci I4 was comparable to the 173ci V6 in both horsepower and torque output, it wasn't very "high performance" - they'd have been better served using, say the odd-fire 231ci V6 instead...
Look for a donor for the swap - S-series with the 3.1L or 3.4L will be a drop-in for the whole powertrain (1988-up THM700R4 or 4L60. The 4L60E should be doable with some effort...) and will pick up an overdrive gear as well.
The F-body (Camaro/Firebird) with the 3.1L/3.4L will be a drop-in as well - but the engine only.
FWD variants will only bolt in if there is an unused starter motor mounting pad on the back of the engine block (as mounted.) Dedicated FWD engines have the starter on the wrong side of the block.
The THM700R4/4L60 will require some small fabrication to move the crossmember and make it work, but I think it's worth it. An effective THM700R4/4L60 is a better transmission than the "Baby 904" that AMC used, and the overdrive can pay for the swap with a lot of highway driving. The transfer case used behind the THM700R4/4L60 is the GM/Chevvy version of the NP231, with a wider chain. You'll probably have to do some fabrication to make the transfer case shift linkage work as well - but the transmission shifter should be easy.
The 2.8L V6 was a frickin' dog in terms of power, and leaked like a seive at the rear intake/cylinder head/valve cover junction. I had one in a pax car, and I never could get the damned thing to seal! I just topped up the oil as required, and changed the filter every six months (the engine oil pretty well changed itself.) Next car I had had the 3.1L V6 in it, had a 300# greater kerb weight, and the same transmission & final drive ratio. Ran like a scalded hog, didn't leak, and was a quite reliable vehicle.
The point of all this? I say to avoid the 2.8L, unless you're going to plan a swap at the same time. The use of the 2.8L was an interim measure by AMC - to get the XJ going with a "high performance engine option" (it wasn't) until they had the 242ci I6 ready for market. Considering that the 150ci I4 was comparable to the 173ci V6 in both horsepower and torque output, it wasn't very "high performance" - they'd have been better served using, say the odd-fire 231ci V6 instead...