Some things sound just too good to be true. That pop-up that says “Click Here to claim your free iPad!” Or an e-mail from a “Nigerian Prince” wanting to deposit $20,000 into your bank account if give him your account information. But then some things come along that truly are good. Take my mom’s 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee; a Toyota owner and hesitant of American cars, her experience with it was so good, that it completely changed her opinion of them… at least temporarily.
I was a year old in 1994 when my mom made a decisive purchase: a brand-new Jeep Grand Cherokee. What made this car so different from the previous ones she had owned was that: 1) it was an SUV and 2) it was an American car. Mom’s 1st car had been a used orange Fiat 124 Sport Spider convertible. That was followed by a new and more practical early ’80s Datsun 200SX, a new 1987 Toyota Camry DX, and a new 1991 Toyota Camry LE. But the ’90s had arrived and by the time I was born in ’93, and America was entering an exciting age of peace, prosperity, and low gas prices.
So it was only natural that she went ahead and purchased a new SUV. As a new mother, the increased ride height, size, and 4WD proved an added sense of safety, especially in the New England winters. The handsome styling, along with the classic “Jeep” name (and not to mention all the positive publicity at the time) sealed the deal on a navy-blue 1994 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo (photographed by yours truly above circa 1998).
In 1994, Laredo was the mid-level Grand Cherokee trim, bookended by the rare base SE model and the gold-trimmed Limited. Externally, gray lower body cladding, 15-inch 5-spoke alloys, and accent-colored body-side stripes differentiated Laredos from other models. Laredos came pretty well equipped with power windows and locks, AM/FM cassette, air conditioning, four-speed automatic, and a 4.0 inline-six making 190 horses. Mom’s Jeep also had the optional overhead console and tinted windows. The cloth seats were much plusher than the cloth in today’s Laredos.
As I grew older and my car awareness heightened around age 3, I wished she had purchased the Limited with its monochromatic appearance, gold pin striping and wheels, and leather seats. I still love the look of the ZJ Limited’s, especially the ’93-‘95 models. But the Grand Cherokee was no bargain in 1994, with the base SE 2WD starting at $21,256 ($32,930 in 2013 dollars) and Limiteds going for $29,743 ($46,078 adjusted); so a mid-level Laredo was perfectly acceptable. Regardless, the ’94 Grand Cherokee has been my favorite of the cars my mom has owned (at least up until her ’07 BMW)
The Jeep was quite a capable vehicle. Growing up in a house with four adults, the Jeep was my family’s vehicle of choice for journeys of any length that involved all five of us. It was also great for hauling three friends and me around on play dates. I always thought it was way cooler to be seen in the Jeep than the Caravans, Taurii, and Volvo wagons driven by most of my friends’ parents.
Basically trouble-free for the five years my mom owned it, the Grand Cherokee was an overall happy experience for my mom. So much that she decided to trade it in for a new one when the redesigned model came out for ’99. It’s a happy story that should’ve ended there; but the second Grand Cherokee was a complete disaster.
Being pressured by the dealer into leasing, thus loosing the trade in value she had consistently accumulated from every vehicle she owned, didn’t start things off well. But that was just the tip of the iceberg. From loose interior pieces falling off, to ongoing brake problems, the second Grand Cherokee was a reliability nightmare. Upon abruptly trading it in for a 2004 Toyota Highlander, my mom vowed never to buy another Chrysler product ever again. Her experience with the second Jeep essentially ended any positive attitude she had about American cars in general.
Ahh yes, another story about someone who buys a winning automotive lottery ticket from their local Chrysler-Plymouth-DeSoto-Dodge-Jeep-Eagle-Imperial dealer, who goes back to the well a second time and is not so lucky. Just think of how different life could be if Chrysler had (starting around, say, 1957) fixed only HALF of the problems in its cars before they reached retail owners. The amazing thing is that even though the wild quality gyrations appear to continue apace, Chrysler is still at about the same U.S. market share than it had in 1962 (admittedly a horrible year for the company). Maybe God really is a Mopar fan. 🙂
There was something about the Grand Cherokee that never appealed to me in quite the way that the “regular” Cherokee of those years did. As time has moved on, however, these have grown on me. I once drove one owned by a friend of about that vintage. I needed a vehicle with a trailer hitch to rent some yard equipment, and a co-worker lent me his V8-powered Grand Cherokee. I quite liked the way it drove, though it seemed “too nice” for a Jeep. I am sure that with coming comments, I will learn what years were the better ones. My guess right now would be the vehicles from the pre-Eaton years.
Pardon my ignorance but what you mean by “pre-Eaton years”? Thanks in advance!
Robert Eaton was CEO of Chrysler after Lee Iacocca stepped back during the middle of the 1990s and was responsible for the merger of Daimler and Chrysler. He got a fat wad of change for that and exited stage left. Word is was that Bob Lutz was next in line to be head of Chrysler but Lido snubbed him like The Deuce snubbed Lido at Ford – whereas Lutz moved on to GM and Eaton sold Chrysler to the Germans. Supposidly Eaton lives in Naples Florida and I circulate in that car scene but never seen or heard of him.
The timeline is a little off.
Maximum Bob hanged around after Eaton got the Big Chair…he wasn’t happy but he was pleased with what he was able to do within Chrysler and didn’t want to walk away.
But with the sham-merger with Daimler, Jurgen Schrempp rubbed Lutz very, very much the wrong way. From the day the ink was dry, Schrempp was trying to toss Eaton overboard, while cozying up to Lutz – who was having none of it.
With one of the Daimler purges, Lutz left in disgust.
I wouldn’t be too hard on Eaton, though. He made money on the deal – every Chrysler officer who had stock did. But his job as CEO was to maximize shareholder value – and the Daimler deal certainly did that. Shareholders who sold their new, converted shares of DaimlerChrysler did very well – much better than they might have if all those complaints about the LH cars got the corporation wobbling.
Many of Chrysler’s problems were institutional. The management team inherited by Eaton and then Schrempp had a good handle on putting out exciting product with minimal cost and lead-time; but Lutz and Castaing weren’t going to be there forever. Perhaps the end was predestined no matter how it played out – by the high costs and regulatory obligations of the industry they were in.
You are kinder to Eaton than I would be. Lutz remained after Eaton, but was marginalized. He tried to remain as a loyal lieutenant. Eaton had spent his entire career at GM. How that prepared him to run a smaller company that had a focus on designing and selling vehicles that customers really wanted, I have no idea. (flame suit on). The GM system was so insular, I don’t believe that an average GM exec of those years came out with the kind of experience to run a much leaner, more nimble company. Eaton’s cost-cutting came out in the Neon head gasket disaster. many of those late 90s Chrysler quality disasters came from cost-shaving driven by Eaton. The concensus here is that by the products being sold in 1993-94, Chrysler was putting out some decent stuff, maybe their best quality since the mid 60s, anyway.
Eaton certainly ran up shareholder value in the short term, in that classic way of cutting costs, making the numbers look temporarily good, then selling out and lining your pockets. One of the few good things Daimler did at Chrysler was to dump Eaton. There are several interviews of Chrysler insiders who lived through Iacocca, Lutz, Eaton and Daimler. The latter two are not fondly remembered for what they did to the company.
When Iacocca retired, the rumor was that his choice of a successor was “anyone but Lutz”, meaning Bob Lutz. Lutz, as you likely know, headed to Exide for a time, then to GM. Chrysler hired a guy named Robert Eaton away from General Motors. I know I have a bias here, but in my view, Eaton came into Chrysler in 1993, right as it was becoming the most profitable car company in the U.S., which had in the pipeline the cars that would be the biggest hits Chrysler had in decades, and promptly panicked. First, he went on a nasty cost-cutting binge. The cheapening of many components in Mopars of the later 90s are often blamed on his stewardship. Then he decided that there was no way a Company like Chrysler could survive in the big wide world and promptly sold the farm to Daimler Benz in the now-famous “merger of equals.”
There’s little doubt Eaton was the wrong man at the wrong time.
But there was little likelihood that Lido would pick his longtime rival, another Ford castoff with an ego as big as his, to be his successor. They were too much alike in all the wrong ways…and different enough that they’d clash like positive and negative poles.
Eaton, as it looked to me, was a mediocre non-leader. Which shouldn’t have mattered much as Chrysler was humming along with their platform-team division of authority.
So…it comes down to: Did Eaton sell the company out?…or did he maximize shareholder value in arranging the deal?
The argument could be made both ways. Chrysler was always more affected by the cyclical nature of the auto business. Ford had extensive worldwide holdings and also a corporate structure which made a takeover unlikely. GM was thought to be depression-proof.
The auto industry did have a turndown in the early ’00s. Would that have weakened Chrysler to where it would have collapsed in 2009 or thereabouts, in the horrific sales-stall then?
Chrysler, unlike Ford, couldn’t save enough to ride it through. To do so would make it an immediate takeover target – and by folks worse than Daimler. Most likely it would have been an investment-banking firm – buy a controlling interest, empty the piggybank, and sell the pieces to the Japanese and Chinese.
So, while the ending was unhappy, perhaps it was the best of a whole lot of bad scenarios.
There is maximizing shareholder value in the short term and in the long term. It was always surprising to me that, while CEO of Chrysler, he behaved more like Roger Smith of GM in the 1980s, than the product and engineering guy that he was. Iacocca was a certainly a businessman, but a product guy first. He knows that the best way to profits is to build something people want to buy. You will always try to make a product more efficient, within reason, but when you upset the value ratio you will get burned. That is what we saw with Roger Smith by the late 80s when the products he had the most influence on came to the market. Case in point, the LH cars were great when the came out in 1993, Francois Castaing’s (who Chrysler inherited from AMC) cab forward concept was a bit hit coupled with good engineering and the 3.3/3.5 V6s. They monkeyed with the design for the 2nd generation and brought out the 2.7 which was a devil of a motor among other things.
I have heard the same things from people about Daimler who basically used Chrysler as a stepchild and Chrysler got the short end of the stick. By 2004 their products were disasters. About the only two things that came out of the merger are the Sprinter vans (which despite being unusual compared to domestic vans are very good) and the LX platform.
Eaton made a lot of money for himself and key executives and a marginal amount of money for the stockholders but at what cost to the company in the long term? In the late 70s and early 80s, Iacocca made both short term and long term decisions. He dumped bad products, bad processes, and worked to improve quality, plus the government backed loans allowed him solvency to move forward. Long term he invested in the K cars and derivatives which served Chrysler well in the 80s and early 90s. The first generation LH cars were hits and Chrysler looked good until the late 1990s. I don’t poo poo the Neons as much as others might (not withstanding some of the issues like the head gaskets) they were competent basic little cars that were popular during most of their years. They seemed to be more popular with females while Civics, Integras, tended to be slightly more male oriented while the others small cars were generally mixed m/f.
Its hard to say how Chrysler would have fared stand alone in the early 00s but maybe no worse than they did with Daimler as their product line was in a free fall and they were only saved by Jeep and the combined resources of the aggregate company.
I don’t totally disagree with you on this – but there’s caveats.
Lido…was a master of organization; and also very good at marketing. But conceiving new PRODUCTS…not new markets, but actual products…was never his strong point and he was weaker at it as he aged. The K car was conceived before he arrived; he rode with it, as he had to…but he didn’t have a whole lot of ideas for a follow-up. The minivan was arguably his, but his lieutenant, Hal Sperlich, who preceded him at Chrysler, argued the Mini-Max before the Ford board and got sacked for his troubles.
It was others, not Lido, who brought a new and better structure and ideas for improved design to Chrysler. Granted, buying AMC was Iacocca’s idea; but inside AMC were ideas Lido could never conceive, put forth by better men than he.
And that was Lido’s blind spot. He never came into that situation at Ford…but he was unable to spot and cultivate, or even TOLERATE, a superior talent. So he got an organization-man from another organization – Eaton.
Now. Daimler had been making overtures to Chrysler for about four years. Would Lutz have resisted?…after all, he was no spring chicken; retirement would have been a few years away. Would he have bitten the bait, maximized shareholder returns the quick and easy way?
And if not, would Chrysler have crashed and burned when octagenarian Lutz retired around 2008?
Want to know who the REAL losers in this deal were? Daimler-Benz/DaimlerChrysler/Daimler shareholders. They got control of Chrysler for a large sum; Daimler management threw away everything about Chrysler that gave it value; and then basically threw it into the garbage, into a venture-capital company, in return for the venture-capital boys making promises about future liabilities.
THAT was REAL destruction of shareholder value. The Chrysler shareholders who sold quickly got a little extra. The original Daimler shareholders and the D-C shareholders who hung on…got raped.
“But conceiving new PRODUCTS…not new markets, but actual products…was never his strong point”
e.g., the Mustang totally bombed upon release.
The 93-98 generation of the Grand Cherokee was exceedingly popular and a major hit for Chrysler, who purchased AMC, in large part, for Jeep and specifically the Grand Cherokee which had already been in development at the time. Chrysler postponed the introduction of the model for several years while they integrated AMC/Jeep into Chrysler but I remember when it came out, and wow it was something to be seen. Unlike the severely boxy and utilitarian Blazers and Explorers (of the early 1990s), the Grand Cherokee was downright luxurious and really moved the ball of SUVs up river. The 4.0I6 was one of the oldest most reliable engines that Chrysler inherited from AMC while they added their 5.2 Magnum V8 as an option. As was stated in the article, the first generation GC was generally very reliable and was generally regarded as being the catalyst for Jeep’s continued success. It is too bad that the author’s mother’s experience with the 99 was so poor, I have not known the 2nd generation to be unusually less reliable than the 1st generation, although I liked the 5.2 better than the 4.7 V8.
A lady friend of my mother had an “Orvis” edition 1st generation Grand Cherokee that came in a dark green color with a curious looking leather interior. Sort of like a designer LL Bean type of look.
The Jeep GCs were generally fairly easy to work on except for the HVAC system which was a complete bear to dig into. Heater cores and evaporators are multi day affairs that basically require near complete removal of the dashboard for access.
One bit of trivia, the original 93-95 Grand Cherokees used the old AMC-designed nameplate as well as the general Jeep insignia.
The hot model for this generation was the 1998 Limited with the 5.9 V8 which was the fastest SUV in the US until the SRT8 came out for 2006.
This and its smaller stable mate the XJ Cherokee were the two most influential SUVs designs of the 80s and 90s.
If you can live with the fuel consumption the latter Cherokees and Grand Cherokees are one of the best bargains in the used car market. They can be had for 40-60% of the price of a comparable mileage and condition Toyota.
The later 4.7 V8s in the 2nd Gen WJs don’t age as well as the 5.2 in the ZJs The 5.2 is a much better bet in a used car with limited or no service records scenario, however the 4.0L I6 trumps them both.
I would agree, I think that the GC in particular suburbanized the SUV as it was a comfortable, even luxurious, and less austere looking vehicle that was available in 2WD form as well. The first generation Explorers and the XJs were more spartan and severely styled vehicles that were not as cozy as the GC. And they were something of a status symbol until the rest of the makes followed with their redesigns.
That ancient 6 cylinder motor was one of its downfalls for export, sorry but selling something with a dungery old gas hungry engine doesnt generate sales in the modern marketplace these things failed here overpriced with marginal off road ability and appalling fuel consumption the Japanese and UK manufacturers laughed all the way to the bank.
That may be true for your corner of the world, but it was the right product for the U.S. at the time. American market Land Rovers are some of the least reliable and most expensive to maintain cars that could be bought here, and the Japanese trucks would totally rust out in less than a decade. They may run forever, but if it fails the safety inspection at 60,000 miles due to rust, what good is reliability?
A Jeep can easily last 25 years here with regular maintenance. The only real downside (aside from abysmal fuel economy) is the Renix/Chryco electrical components.
Sorry to ruin your story Landrovers and Land cruisers rule the offroad world Jeep hasnt had a presence outside the US in decades and when Chrysler released Jeep onto the Aussie market the Manufacturers warranty didnt even cover the entire country so going off road adventuring in a jeep pretty much kept you on nice tar town roads. Just what kind of an out back rugged 4WD is that huh?
There are a fair amount of Grand Cherokees in Angola of all places because we were sending a lot of parts to them as late as 2011.
I have not studied the markets outside of the US much so I am not going to comment on international sales directly, but I will say this, and going along with what Jim says about Land Rovers, which are terrible in the US. The original Land Rovers Series I and the Range Rover now are not too bad especially when equipped with the basic suspension (not the airbags) which are capable off road performers. But Land Rover has drunk the volume kool-aid a bit and now offers a full range of models so there is like two sets of products being offered, commercial grade products that are certainly competent performers, and the consumer grade vehicles like the Discovery, Freelander, and Evoq which are not particular off road worthy are are more like cross over SUV stats symbols (expensive ones at that).
So I guess, like with many things, it depends on which models you are talking about.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2179067/Land-Rover-revealed-UKs-reliable-car-71-cent-years-old-break-year.html
@Bryce: You completely ignored my point. Jeeps were a grand success in the market they were intended for, a market where Toyota and Land Rover fell flat on their faces by failing to adapt to the unique needs of the market.
Toyota trucks couldn’t stand up to the weather in most of the U.S. and were not well suited to 85MPH freeway travel, Landies were not suited to leave a twenty mile radius of the JLR mechanic.
And to your point, who goes off-roading in a brand new car?
Another market where old Grand Cherokees thrive is in Mexico. Whenever I’m visiting there I always see a ton of ratty old GC’s. There’s at least one on every block. The paint is usually failing but they look like they see plenty of service in their old age. I imagine that’s because Chrysler has always had a strong presence in Mexico, and thus parts are cheap and easy to find, and of course the simple technology is easy to work on. The most prevalent Japanese brand is Nissan, and they also hold up well in the dry rust-free climate. Very few Toyotas at least in the parts of Mexico I visit.
I suspect that lots of the GCs in Mexico come into the country late in life from US and Canada, as they were probably a bit expensive new in that market. I know if I were living part of the year down there I’d be tempted to relocate my GC there to use in its latter years (and mine).
Funny. The original Jeep Cherokee was known, in Britain, as the most reliable vehicle for years, and that with it’s “old gas sucking L6 engine”….
In Norway we sold a bunch of both Cherokees and Grand Cherokees, even if they cost a least 100.000 USD due to the Norwegian cartaxes.
The Landrover and the Range Rovers is the biggest POS I have ever seen, and in Norway none want a 5 year old LandRover. The reliability is horrible, absolutely horrible.
In Norway about half of the Jeeps/Chryslers was sold with it’s 2,5 litre VM Diesel enging. Today most of the Jeeps are still on the road, the 4 and 5,2 (GC and Cherokee) are original. The dieselengines are either replaced or overhauled….
If you would go offroad a Wrangler is the best. Landcruiser or Landrover can’t match it. THough, The old 2 door Tahoe is also a good offroad vehicle, but it may be to heavy sometimes.
…but selling something with a dungery old gas hungry engine doesnt generate sales in the modern marketplace… the Japanese and UK manufacturers laughed all the way to the bank.
If you didn’t buy a diesel, weren’t Land Rovers running the old Rover/Buick V8 and Toyotas still running the F-family I6 in ’94?
No they had the 4.5L DOHC in 1993. Still had F in the engine code but that means petrol (gas) in Toyota terms, vs H for diesel.
I can see Bryce’s point, and at 130kW / 301Nm they were well behind the contemporary Ford sohc 4.0 I6’s 157kW / 357Nm. Part of that could be attributed to SUV torque curve tuning but the Falcon’s peak torque only came in at 3000rpm versus the Jeeps 2400rpm. Thanks to relatively light weight when all competitors were full chassis, fuel consumption was average.
Build quality on the Cherokee was poorly regarded, the Grand Cherokee was better but still not great and I don’t think the reliability experience was great – and it needed to be for a brand that was returning to the market in the mid-90’s. I don’t have personal experience with Jeeps, but that is the general feedback I get, note that they are not as bad as Land Rovers in that respect!
I agree the Toyotas had rust issues, the 80 series onwards seem to be better there, and would not handle 85mph driving well, eg having non-overdrive transmissions for a long time, but that is pretty well a US-only thing when you are talking SUV drivers. True British and European freeways run those sorts of speeds but there were/are relatively few SUV’s over there and fuel costs would preclude running an SUV at that speed for most people.
I had very good experiences with a pair of these myself. A black ’94 GC Laredo, and two years later when it was stolen and wrecked, a ’95 black GC Laredo. Both had the 5.2 litre (318 ci) V8 and 4×4 quadratrac. Both were bought new and were virtually trouble free for the entire 8 years I owned them. Including some abuse from my teenaged son who learned to drive on the second one and practiced some hoonery in the process.
I had heard that the early WJ models introduced in ’99 were problematic. But I now have a later version of that model, an ’04 GC Laredo 4.0 6-cylinder. I got this one used, and fully depreciated as it had started its life as a rental. I’m the 3rd owner and I’ve had it for 4 years now. Only repairs have been the mass air flow sensor and a corroded frost plug. It’s barely depreciated from what I paid for it 4 years ago, so it may go down as one of the best, most reliable, cheapest to operate and most useful vehicles I’ve owned.
And that son of mine, now 30, liked the earlier Jeeps so much he’s now also got an ’04 GC Overland that serves as their main family vehicle. So that’s a total of four GC’s that have been in our family and with absolutely no regrets.
I have come to notice that, while initial depreciation is high on just about any vehicle, that Jeeps (specifically the Wranglers, Cherokees, and Grand Cherokees) tend to hold good value after a while. When they reach a cash level value they seem to become quite popular especially if they are kept in good condition. They seemed to have become something of a popular project vehicle for the outdoorsy type. You can get the idea from the pic below.
Its a 5.2 V8. The Grand Cherokees used the old AMC derived 4.0 I6 until the 05 redesign, while using the 5.2 Magnum V8 until the 99 redesign when they started using a 4.7 V8.
Yes mine will definitely be in demand when I sell it. It was dealer serviced from new so I have all the records. It still looks like new in, out and under… and with the 4.0 inline 6 and selec-trac it will be well suited to an owner who wants to use it for some real 4-wheeling. I’m sure it will serve its last years jacked up with big tires and a whole lot of stickers on the windows.
Like anything else, they hold their value if there’s a demand for them as used cars.
The Cherokees, of various flavors, rode the crest of the wave in the SUV craze of fifteen years ago to the economic crash. And since vehicles that size with fuel-using all-wheel-drive are not going to meet the new CAFE “standards” these will continue to hold their value – until they fall apart from rust.
The Wrangler, direct descendant of the CJ (“Civilian Jeep”), has a huge cult following. Prices in the 1970s were downright reasonable…AMC once billed it as “America’s Lowest-Priced Convertible.” They rose with popularity; but I was able to get a new, closeout stripper TJ Wrangler for about $9999.
When I traded three years and 50,000 miles later…depreciation was nil. I got $8000 on it…on a TRADE-IN! By then the TJ had really taken off, and new ones were going for $20,000 and up.
At some point the price will come down, reflecting the cost of operating one…but it’s hard to say when that might be.
These pop up regularly on Craigslist, but most seem to quite used up with severe undercarriage issues. Of course, living in the salt belt will do that.
Oh yeah, these things were definitely cooler than a mini-van. It’s so unfortunate about the ’99 being crap; it was still a cool-looking vehicle, anyway.
Anyone up for a 2014 Jeep Cherokee?
GAG! They must be competing with Nissan for the Ugliest Car of the Year.
I had the same thoughts when I saw the pics on Allpar yesterday. If they clean up the FUGLY split DRLs and Headlights a bit it wont be too bad, it just needs the clean and simple headlights similar to the 05-07 KJ Liberty’s and it would look decent. Rest of the design does a decent job of matching the current design language of the WK2 Grand and the refreshed Compass and Patriot.
I’m curious to see pricing, powertrain options and how how much off road ability it has.
That is ugly almost cartoon like maybe from the movie CARS… Now that the blob virus has hit SUVs…
I like the first and third generations of the GC better than the second. These vehicles look good with crisp angular lines.
Well, it is different, but I must admit that I’m surprised at the blogosphere’s fairly negative reaction to the grille.
What I like is that they’ve managed to maintain the traditional vertical Jeep look with a much more aerodynamic shape.
Gawd thats ugly even for a minivan
Yikes! I thought the original Compass was ugly!
That grille doesn’t remind me of Jeep, it reminds me of a 76 base Cutlass, melded together with 2013 Fusion headlights and a Mazda like body. Not a good combo.
Seriously, trying to make a brick aero just creates an ugly brick.
Cherokees are still occasionally seen in the UK. Though I’ve never seen a V8 and most of the 4.0l models have been retired as they are too thirsty. A friend has a 2.5 litre model powered by an Italian diesel (available in US?) which is a handy load lugger. Early models were kind of handsome in an old fashioned way, like an old Volvo, but they never had the off road ability of a land rover.
We never got the VM diesel in the USA, not in these anyway. They did finally offer it on the Liberty (2002+ Cherokee in the UK) years later, but it wasn’t very popular and got dropped after a year or two. There was a Mercedes-Benz diesel available in the newer Grand Cherokees for awhile which seemed to be a slightly bigger hit, but that died with the end of DaimlerChrysler.
This was my first brand new car, a 94 Laredo V8 in hunter green and the fog lights which came with the skid plates.
It was a looker, but pretty piss poor quality, especially inside the cabin. It was so cheap in there that the plastic rattled when I turned up the optional Infinity stereo.
I bought it, though, because of that old (albeit heavily revised) 318 V8. No, it wasnt a sports car, but it sure sounded great when I floored it.
Those fog lights only last about 2 years. Eventually, the seals break and the lenses fall off. Nice.
This generation of Grand Cherokee is actually a pretty good car, especially in the six cylinder Laredo model. They are quite reliable and have stout drive trains. That doesn’t say you aren’t going to do a lot of front end stuff to make it drive straight but it is not that expensive to fix. The Chrysler store I worked for sold loads of these cars and raked in nice profits doing it, too. The were the only Jeep dealer between West Vancouver and Whistler. They had a money factory.
And, presto-chango, the 1999 came along. Yes, they sold loads of them as they looked much nicer and the 4.7 V-8 was really nice but whoa Nelly, did they come back in record numbers. Chief complaint was the brakes, which warped rotors and ate pads at prodigious rates. Chrysler had cheapened out the caliper carrier so it vibrated and so warped the rotors, which were too small to begin with. These things gobbled brakes at an alarming rate in our hilly terrain. Anyway, most of their well-heel clientele headed off to the Lexus store, never to return.
Shows to go ya…when you try to exploit persons who do have options…you get left holding the bag.
It’s a story as old as Man; and as crude as the French Revolution. You’d think if someone is selling a premium product to people who want QUALITY…they’d at least make a pretense of delivering.
I wasn’t aware of so much trouble on that generation of GC. But after two previous rounds of doing the same thing and nearly going bust…you’d think someone at Chrysler would have either remembered or understood the past history and mistakes.
Which brings us back to Mr. Eaton.
“Yes, Doctor, I realize that sometimes I have trouble letting go of things and moving on with my life.”
It’s basic human nature, unfortunately.
The first generation GC was really unlike anything out there: it was a brilliant product that combined comfort with real off-road ability (for like 2% of people who drove them off road). This package could fit in a garage and tow up to 7500 lbs when optioned correctly. There was simply nothing to compete with it.
By 1999 there were plenty of competitors around and by the time the GC2 was shown to be a reliability nightmare. I could list a litany of the problems that car had, all of which were big money. We said, “They call them a Grand Cherokee because every time you service it, you spend a grand!”
I’m surprised we don’t have any AAMCO folks chiming in here – I’ve heard AAMCO guys say the 93-96 Grand Cherokee kept them in business – transmission guaranteed to blow by 60K miles.
That being said, the Magnum in-line 6 was one of Detroit’s all time great engines – with origins dating back to Rambler’s first thin-wall overhead valve 6 in 1964. Another place you find lots of Cherokees (not Grand Cherokees) outside the US is here in Japan – the Japanese appreciate its iconic Jeep styling and the Magnum 6 – they know that engine ts just as tough and reliable as anything Toyota puts out……
Yup, there were plenty of transmission jobs one these things, usually from abuse and/or trailer hauling but they were never that stout to begin with. On a dealer level, it actually didn’t matter that much since they cars got traded in a lot due to our well-heeled clientele. Let’s face it, even the Laredo’s weren’t what anyone could call cheap.
The six was a good motor but not perfect, I saw more than a few with cracked heads.
Wow, this car brings back so many memories! My mother bought a bright red 1994 GC laredo, as well. It looked just like the one in the photo second from top. She bought in late 95 – the car was a demonstrator for the dealership. She kept it up until 2004, when she traded for a MDX. The car was great to her for the first, roughly 7-8 years, but after that it began to break down. The tranny was failing by the end, as well as some other problems. I was a year old when she bought the car, as I was born in ’94. Since I was only 9 going on 10 when we traded it in, I can’t really remember what else was wrong with it other than the tranny. I do remember at the end, though, the car often didn’t start, and I have recollections of various rental cars, and flatbeds picking up the poor Jeep from our driveway. My mom loved that car, though, and she has very fond memories of it, as do I. if it wasn’t for the mechanical issues, she would have kept it for a while longer.
However, I don’t think she’ll buy another one, as when I showed her pictures of the current one, she said that it looks nice but she doesn’t want to deal with more reliability issues. ALso, before the GC, she owned a ’87 Lebaron, which was a lemon. Between that car and the issues with the Jeep, she’ll be staying away from chryslers for some time…
Not all Laredos were 4 speed automatics … I test drove a red 5 speed manual, just like the Four Wheeler magazine test vehicle.
At all the time I worked for Chrysler, I never saw one.
My family had a red 98 with the straight 6 and a brown 99 with the 4.7. The 98 was a much better vehicle except for transmission problems that from what I hear was pretty common once they got over 130,000 miles on them.
My parents had a ’98 GC, and other than bad brake rotors, it was a good vehicle. My ’99 XJ Cherokee, which I still daily drive has been excellent for the almost 12 years I have owned it. Wish they still produced them, and not that FUGLY POS ’14 “Cherokee”..
Grand Cherokee = Complete Piece of Garbage.
Tried really, really hard to steer my friend away from a used WJ GC. He didn’t listen, and now he’s a proud owner of a $6,000 paperweight. No need to look any further than the pentastar on the key fob to know how that story was going to turn out.
I’ve spent plenty of time around these as my parents bought a 96 Limited with the V8 new. I don’t recall it having any major issues in the time that we had it other than what appeared to be paint or dye on a few interior panels peeling off. The 96 that replaced it a year or two later after the first was totalled didn’t have any issues at all that I can remember, except maybe a water pump. It was sold a few years later when my parents separated, then later my dad got another 96 in about 2002 that he still has. That one has had issues but I think was a lemon when he got it. It needed both diffs rebuilt when he got that one, and has also had to replace the heads as those cracked. Cracking heads is a common issue with the Magnum V8s. By now though most of the remaining ones seem fairly reliable. I am currently driving a 1998 5.9 Limited which is easily the pinnacle of this style, aside from it’s appalling fuel consumption.
Shame on Mom for loathing American vehicles, especially after owning a Fiat Spider. I assume she is American after all.
Ah, the ZJ Grand Cherokee – the last of the real Grand Cherokees in my opinion. This vehicle became a dedicated grocery getter after the ZJ… I still have fond memories of going out to the Jeep dealer on my twentieth birthday with my own Mom, where we took the keys to a brand new 1998 Grand Cherokee Limited…
Dark Cherrywood Metallic, Agate leather interior, sunroof, Infinity stereo, even the 5.2 V8! No we didn’t buy it, but it did turn into a two hour “test drive”. By the time we drove back the dealer, they’d probably thought we stole it! I still remember how strong the brakes were, and how torquey that engine was – and how numb the seats made my backside! But such a great vehicle, and great looking.