(first posted 1/23/2013) One of the American automobile industry’s most unlikely milestones was Renault’s alliance and eventual ownership stake in AMC, and one of its most unlikely results has itself become a milestone in American automotive history: the Jeep XJ Cherokee. It’s ironic that the French would play a key role in financing, designing, engineering and building what has become one of the all-time iconic American cars, and the gateway drug to what has become The Great American SUV Epoch. Perhaps it should have been called the Jeep Liberté.
That the existing Jeep Wagoneer/Cherokee needed replacing was a foregone conclusion by the mid-lto-late seventies. What was actually a fairly compact (110″ wheelbase) wagon in 1963 was looking decidedly piggish after the first energy crisis. Taking it upscale as the woodsy Jeep Grand Wagoneer gave it a new lease on life, but that lease certainly wasn’t considered long-term at the time. A lighter, more efficient Cherokee/Wagoneer was going to be essential to Jeep’s future, especially in light of a federal mandate that all four-wheel drives average 15 mpg by 1981. But developing one was another matter.
In 1979, Renault was tapped for $150 million—the first of a number of cash injections—to finance, among other things, the development of the XJ. And to make sure its money was going to be spent wisely, Renault sent along one Francois Castaing to head up AMC’s product development. Castaing not only shepherded the XJ, but completely revamped AMC’s product development operations into a formidable machine that soon became the envy of the industry. Castaing’s approach to vehicle development would be adopted wholesale by Chrysler after it purchased AMC in 1987.
Castaing’s platform teams went on to revolutionize Chrysler, making its product development costs the industry’s lowest, and thus Chrysler’s profit margins the highest. That’s fodder for another story, but needless to say, Francois Castaing’s brilliance is all over the Cherokee; or, more like inside it…
The exterior design is credited to another man who has certainly shown moments of brilliance (and some lacking it): AMC’s Design Chief, Dick Teague. I wasn’t there, so who exactly on Dick’s staff first penned the Cherokee is anyone’s guess. But obviously it was a team effort, and undoubtedly its clarity of line and basic dimensions were spelled out in the XJ’s brief, as well as a degree of continuity with existing Jeep design. But Teague gets the points, and it certainly was a fine way to wrap up a somewhat uneven career at AMC (he left in 1983).
Renault wanted the Cherokee to be suitable for Europe, and Castaing made sure it was: The XJ was light (weighing as little as 3,100 lbs), thanks to its unibody construction and a watchful eye on every other detail, including these lightweight, Renault-designed center-rail front seats lifted right out of the Renault 9/11 and Alliance. It was a totally different approach than Ford and GM took with their new small SUVs: They simply shortened their compact pickups, which sat on traditional frames. As a consequence, the S-10 Blazer and Bronco II generally weighed up to several hundred pounds more than the Cherokee.
Perhaps the biggest single feather in the Cherokee’s war bonnet was that it was available as a four-door, unlike its competition. Presumably the overwhelming buyer preference for the four-door version surprised AMC, as the two-door was always rather scarce. But its practical advantages were obvious, especially with the segment of the market that clamored most eagerly for the new compact SUVs.
The XJ’s lightness and lower frontal area also resulted in higher EPA mileage ratings (unadjusted) for the Cherokee, although it was hardly a true miser unless powered by the 85-hp Renault 2.1-liter turbo-diesel four. That option intrigued—at least in theory—but it was not a popular one; after 1987, it was no longer available. Are there any still out there?
The base engine was AMC’s new 2.5 “Litre” OHV four (shown is a later 1999 version), based on the existing AMC six architecture but new in most respects. Rather than calling it a cut-down 258 six, it’s more correct to say the subsequent 4.0-liter Jeep six was a 2.5 four with two more cylinders. In any case, it has the same rep as the AMC sixes for being a tough and durable unit. It started life with 105 hp and a carb; later developments had injection and various ratings, all the way to 130 hp. What’s more, it was also used in the Laredo and the Dodge Dakota.
This hard-working four worked best with a stick, and it powered a not-too overburdened Cherokee well enough, at least for those with appropriate expectations.
The optional engine was the Chevy 60-degree 2.8 V6, rated at 115 hp. Why not the AMC six? Because the Cherokee was developed right during the worst-ever run up in oil and gas prices, when it was assumed that prices would keep climbing forever. Thus, the Cherokee’s engine compartment was designed for compact, short engines only, and not the big inline six.
The Chevy V6 had a wee bit more grunt, and it certainly ran smoother than the somewhat rough 2.5 four. But the early 2.8s were inconsistent quality-wise, prone to rear main seal oil leaks and a few other issues. The one in our 1985 Cherokee survived 15 years and 170K miles with no seal issues, but its expensive, electronically-controlled carb was problematic and needed replacement. The ideal Cherokee for my use would be a four with the five-speed stick, which is the only non-diesel combination that can readily break the 20 mpg barrier, but my leanings toward minimalism are known here. Also, the fours have been well known to run up an impressive number of miles.
By the the time the Cherokee saw the light of day in late 1983, oil prices had begun their long retreat, and performance was soon a sought-after commodity once again. So what else to do but get out the Sawzall, sledge hammers and crowbars, and make the big six fit? It took a bit of doing, including modifying the whole front radiator support structure and such. It wasn’t the old 258 AMC six, though, but a heavily worked-over one, now with 4.0 liters (244 CID), fuel injection (the advanced Renault-designed RENIX system), and…173 hp(!). And the next year, power was up to 177. And in 1991, the HO version raised that to 190, through the end of production.
Seriously, that was very hot stuff in 1987, and the 4.0-liter Cherokee was instantly a veritable hot-rod, and not just only among feeble contemporary SUVs. In 1987, the Cherokee 4.0 was also faster than the majority of new cars (the top-dog Mustang 5.0 HO engine made all of 225 hp that year). The 4.0 Cherokee could easily click off sub-ten second 0-60 times, and totally overshadowed the rest of its field. As if the hot-selling Cherokee needed it.
Given that every other compact SUV had independent front suspension, the XJ’s solid front axle might have seemed a throwback. But there was plenty of rationale. Where to start? Ground clearance never varies under a solid axle; that’s probably the biggest reason. There’s also an intrinsic simplicity that goes so well with the rest of the Cherokee. And given that the front axle was located by four primary links and one horizontal Watts-type bar, and sprung with coils, the typical shortcomings of old-school solid axles were largely moot.
Perhaps surprisingly, the Cherokee rode and handled better on pavement than any of its competitors; no doubt its relatively low center of gravity and stiff unibody helped. And off-road, the Cherokee was every bit as much a genuine Jeep as a Wrangler. I don’t know if there was ever any question about the XJ’s front axle, but for what it’s worth, the two top-dog European SUVs, the Range Rover and Mercedes G-Class, both used similar front suspensions. The Cherokee was the closest thing to a Range Rover, and very affordable in comparison.
I’m not going to delve much in the Cherokee’s almost unlimited off-road potential. Needless to say, it soon became by far the most popular SUV for off-roading, and it still has a massive following. I suspect it will be a while before we’ve seen the last jacked-up, mud-splattered Cherokee driven by a young enthusiast.
Somewhat ironically, the Cherokee was also available as a RWD-only version, with a solid tube front axle, beginning in 1987. Other variants sprouted as well, including the ritzy Limited and the most-popular Laredo. AMC was raking in massive profits with the Cherokee, especially the high-trim versions.
Those profits were really kicking in by 1987 when AMC was sold to Chrysler. That’s a story in itself: The sale was precipitated by the November 1986 assassination of Renault Chairman Georges Besse by a radical group. Renault had invested heavily in AMC, building a new, state-of-the-art factory at Bramalea (Brampton, Ontario), and their 1988 line-up was looking rather promising. But the new management at Renault wanted to retrench, and exiting the North American market was a key step.
And of course, Lee Iacocca was waiting at the door with a big check ($1.5 billion), salivating at the chance to scoop up, at a big discount the most profitable SUV lineup, the Bramalea Plant, and also Francois Castaing, who took over as Chrysler’s Development Chief and worked miracles at a time when Chrysler was struggling to dig out of the accumulated messes of prior decades.
The Cherokee certainly paid a hefty dividend on Lido’s investment, turning into an evergreen. Although AMC was already at work on its successor, the Grand Cherokee, it was decided, wisely, to keep both lines in production. With the benefit of numerous refinements, the Cherokee stayed in production 18 years, right through the 2001 model year. Lifetime production was just shy of 3,000,000 units, with almost 300,000 sold in 1996 alone.
Those numbers don’t include sales in China, where the Cherokee was the first American car to be built there, and was still available at the time of this article’s original posting, in a joint venture. Local assembly was also undertaken in Argentina and Venezuela.
The Cherokee story is a long one indeed, and this article hardly does it justice. There were police versions, RHD versions for mail carriers and, of course, the XJ-spawned Jeep Comanche pickup…and also the Wagoneer version in the early years…so let’s celebrate one of the most mot successful and innovative vehicles of the times. And raise a toast to Renault’s Francois Castaing.
Postscript: I’m not actually sure this is a 1984 Cherokee; It might be an ’85 or ’86, but these early ones are getting pretty rare and usually have some impressive mileage on them.
In any case, it’s a genuine pioneer.
Don’t forget the unforgettable RENIX engine management computer system.
Yes, the 1st 2 or 3 yrs of the 232 I6 had this turd. My stepmom had one and it was downright dangerous, the engine would go from idle to 3000rpm without warning.
Few if any of these turds are still on the road, its easy to swap the slightly better flowing head with the non problematic fuel injection system from the later years.
Let’s not forget that wonder Renault ABS controller.
The ABS was horrible… it wasn’t a Renault part, though. It wasn’t even available until after Chrysler purchased AMC and I believe some other Chrysler vehicles from that era used the same frail, overcomplicated Bendix-9 pump. When it works, it works fine – when it doesn’t, your brakes literally stop working out of nowhere one day. It’s nearly impossible to depress the pedal without the hydraulic assistance and the best you can do is slow it down slightly.
Believe it or not, (in the US at least) Chrysler will actually – to this day – fix these for free under a lifetime warranty. I was unfortunate enough to have one that Chrysler refused to fix, with good reason. It was in a Frankenstein Cherokee that was titled with a non-ABS VIN#, so I ended up ripping it all out myself and switching over to a normal vacuum booster from a Grand Cherokee. Pain in the ass, and I lost the anti-lock system, obviously – but probably a better solution in the long run.
I don’t agree at all and I don’t think too many other people would either.
IMO the RENIX fuel-injection was better all around than Chrysler’s. The HO improvements were all in having a better flowing head/intake/exhaust manifold – the older, weirder French EFI was a better engineered, smoother operating system. Not that there’s even really anything “weird” about it… it’s just like any other mass airflow system, with the one quirk being that the ECM has no ability to store fault codes. You do everything on it with a meter and pressure gauge. They hardly ever break and if there’s anything wrong with them, 999 times out of 1,000 it’s the impossible-to-reach crank position sensor on the back of the motor. In something like 250,000 miles between two RENIX 4.0’s I never had anything go wrong except that and a short in the TPS wiring.
The Chrysler system is fine too, but I found it to be a little more brittle. It also got worse gas mileage, didn’t like cold weather as much and didn’t idle/rev as smooth. It lacked the knock sensor and EGR system from the older 4.0, which were the only key differences aside from being OBD-I compliant. I did like the 190HP, though.
Your stepmom’s Jeep sounds like it’s biggest problem may have been the garage working on it. I’m sure whatever was wrong with it had to be something incredibly simple. All fuel-injected cars eventually have sensors and wiring that wear out. I’ve dealt with similar problems on everything from Jeeps to Mercedes-Benz’ – always something easy to repair but often tough to diagnose.
I don’t agree that the RENIX was better than the Chryslers OBD-system. The RENIX was fine, but it couldn’t store codes and it needed an EGR-valve to pass the emissions. It does have the knock sensor though.
In Norway I’ve lived with both systems, and I have to say that the Chrysler system was more reliable, cheaper parts and I actually got better gas mileage with the Chrysler system than the Renix. The car has now 220.000 miles on it and still starts easy in the winter. The engine it self is solid, but it clatters like hell at idle when warm.
Check for a cracked exhaust manifold. They tend to crack, and leaking when warm is not unusual.
My ’89 Renix XJ is still on the road, running fine. Just passed CA smog a few weeks ago.
My 88 Keeps on ticking at 220k just fine.
Outstanding writeup that taught me a lot about this ubiquitous-for-many-years small SUV. I always thought the early ones looked best; the rounded front/rears after the facelift just didn’t do it for me.
Excellent article on an excellent vehicle. I thought I had remembered that Brooks Stevens (or his firm) had some involvement with styling the XJ. He had, of course, done the original Wagoneer in the early 1960s. I found a reference to this on a site devoted to Stevens, but nothing else in a quick search. Perhaps others more informed on these can either confirm or kill this thought.
My sister bought a new 93 with the 4.0 and a 5 speed. I recall that it was a real hot rod and an absolute hoot to drive. When she bought it, I was driving a fox-body Marquis station wagon, and it was uncanny to me how closely they matched up on interior room. The Jeep may have been marginally taller from floor to ceiling, but the fox wagon had more rear cargo area (and did not have a HUGE spare tire taking up 25% of the load area.) I still harbor a grudge that sis did not let me know when she was getting rid of it, I would have bought it from her in a second.
I currently have a neighbor with one of the later versions – a beautiful white one, and I periodically get the urge to walk across the street and make them an offer. This is one middle-aged car that I would still love to own. Nice, unmolested ones are getting harder to find.
My memory would have the Fox being somewhat roomier. The Cherokee is rather cramped inside. The front passenger’s legs are constrained by the driveshaft and transfer case. The rear legroom is pretty modest. And the luggage are was also pretty modest, especially with that spare there. Compact.
Not really possible considering the transfer case and front prop shaft is on the driver’s side. The passenger side has some transmission hump intrusion, but nothing from the four wheel drive system.
The coolest car I have ever owned was a dark blue ’90 Cherokee with full-time AWD (Selec-Trac, I think it was called). It was loaded up, so it had power door locks and windows and mirrors and the 4.0 and was absolutely magnificent while I was in college in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. In our hometown (the Jeep and I, we’re both from Toledo), there are so many of these, they are very inexpensive to buy, and ridiculously cheap to fix and maintain. It met an untimely end when I unwisely kept the cruise control on during a very cold rainstorm on the way home for Christmas. A lane change later, I was swerving into the concrete guardrail and mangling the front end. Sigh. I would have liked to have been able to keep that thing instead of being relegated once more to a car I thought I had escaped forever: my first car, a ’97 Hyundai Accent.
My wife has never liked the design, but our son LOVES Jeeps, so she now no longer opposes the idea of one day owning another. If we ever get back to the States (Japanese gas prices and road taxes being what they are, it is inconvenient here to say the least), another Jeep may join my future Subaru as one of our cars.
Whenever I see these I can’t help but think of Chunk from the 1985 classic “The Goonies”; “4 wheel RV!, Bullet holes the size of motza balls!”
ORV! ORV!
(Who ever called them “ORVs”???)
Bullet holes, Mikey!
I love The Goonies but have never since heard someone refer to an SUV as an “RV.” Was that some kind of West Coast thing?
I always like the part where the old lady yells:
“Put it in FOUR WHEEL DRIVE”
And you see the shot of the Select-Trac lever being yanked back.
Yes! The Goonies was the first time I ever saw a Cherokee, and it was love at first sight! I can still see it blasting across the sand making a getaway. It had a sunroof, and I’ve never seen another Cherokee with one, so I’m assuming it was for production purposes. But a great piece of product placement!
Some had sunroofs-it was not that unusual a dealer option. I have seen several-no idea if they ever got it factory, though.
Love it. The low-zoot feature car really shows off how perfect the basic proportions are. The only drawback to the light-and-limber look is that there wasn’t much legroom, which probably drove a lot of families into Exploders.
“But the early 2.8s were inconsistent quality-wise, prone to rear main seal oil leaks and a few other issues.”
Bingo. My then-girlfriend’s ’86 2.8 dumped all its oil climbing a hill in Milford, PA. We spent some time getting to know Milford, PA. At least there was a liquor store and a cheap motel. Little red Jeep is long gone, still have the girl.
Ahh, Milford, PA! Home to the late, lamented Sparkomatic Corporation world headquarters, off PA 209! If you came of driving age in the 70’s, most likely some Sparkomatic 6×9 rear coaxials powered by a Sparkomatic Graphic Equalizer/Power booster was your car audio’s soup du jour!
This is the SUV that hurt the Bronco II more then any roll over stories. I recall that every major car magazine had nothing but raves for the Cherokee. In comparison tests, the winners were usually: 1. Cherokee 2. S10 Blazer 3. Bronco II. Obviously, the unit body construction and Jeep underpinnings are what ensured these rave reviews.
Just a shame how the Cherokee, the S10 Blazer and the Bronco II morphed into overweight, overwrought pigs. But the driving public sure loved them….
Ha! I had no idea. One of those once-common brands like “Audiovox” and “Kraco” that just faded away over the years.
All I remember (this was in ’94) is that the tow truck guys were friendly and the motel was shabby, but the liquor store was downright palatial. They opened our wine for us because we’d foolishly left our corkscrew in the dead Jeep!
I love love loved these. Still do. My little 10 year-old brain just thought they were awesome, and when I was buying a winter-friendly car to replace a short-lived no-love affair with my Mazda 3 I wanted to find one of these. But then I realized that, bare-minimum, it would be 9 years old. And that my memories were probably founder than the realities.
I still want one, the newer ones (such as the green one pictured towards then end) would be ideal. I know it sounds weird for this to be coming from a 24-year-old (that appreciates CUVs no less), but these were one of the last true SUVs. Small, maneuverable, could go anywhere, basic, reliable, square with great sight lines. Then we got the Liberty. *sigh*
I have three and I love them, no regrets. Visibility of a greenhouse, super reliable even though they all range from between 19 and 14 years old, and easy to fix if they do break. You won’t be impressed with a Cherokee if all you want out of a car is a cushy interior and a bigger infotainment system than your neighbor, but as an affordable and unstoppable little 4×4? Can’t be beat by anything but a Wrangler or Tacoma, and they cost waaaaaaay more 🙁
Another fine write up-Liberte, indeed! I wonder what some of the USA#1 types who hoon these would think if they knew the truth about this truck’s French connection. I had a girlfriend with a ’97 “Cheap Cherokee,” white 2WD with the 4.0. 2WD was actually a good option in FLA-with Michelins and KYB shocks it rode well, handled quick and drove pretty straight on the highway (for a solid front axle vehicle). Pretty much unstoppable in the rain, pretty good on sand, too, if you adjusted the tire pressure. It was a great city vehicle with the torque of the 4.0 and the great sight lines-after my Rabbit, would be my first choice for NYC or Boston. Not at all refined-that engine made sounds with which I was not familiar when you put your foot in it, mileage wasn’t that great (see, above, “foot in it”), that spare tire in the back squeaked all the time unless you kept it seriously tightened, the back seat, once you got in there, was a joke. But such fun-a real, solid, beast of a little truck. Yup, I want one of these, too.
If this is “the” Iowahawk…good to see you here!
Ha! My wife had an ’86 “Cheap Turkey” when we met. A few years later we replaced it with a new 2000 model, called the “Not So Cheap Turkey.”
Solid axle ????? You say it was a 2wd. There is NO solid or any axle in the front of a 2WD
85 and later Chevy 2.8’s have a one piece neoprene rear main seal. No leaks. ’80-84 2.8’s have an old school rope (yes ROPE) seal not used on Chevy engines since ’58 because of leaks. Why, oh why did those boneheads decide to use a rope seal on a clean sheet engine design?? When one piece seals were nothing new? The ’65 240 & 300 Ford six had it since day one. Certainly a GM Technical Deadly Sin…
I recall Buick V6s also used rope seals to the late 80s. As to why…it probably saved 1.3 cents per engine!
So seals could be replaced without disassembling lower end ( crank shaft etc)
In my 45 years of car owning, I’ve only owned the same make and model twice: A-body Buick Century (both were inherited, and kept for awhile), and two 2000 Jeep Cherokee’s (both bought with my own money, the first new, the second used five years later). Right now, if I came up with the justification for ownership of another SUV, there are only two on my want list: A Land Rover Discovery, and another Cherokee.
My Cherokee ownership years cover my wife’s real estate career, and she’d often come home apologetic that the Jeep was covered in mud from new home sites (you can’t expect the client to get his feet muddy now, just because he wants to see the view of the prospective back yard?). I’d laugh and tell her to do the grocery shopping at the ritzy nearby mall with all those shiny Lexus RX300’s in the parking lot. Go remind the suburban bitches what an SUV is designed for.
Unfortunately the final one (dark blue) got totaled into a tree one night, which was the point that we realized that Patti’s health issues were becoming incredibly serious. She broke her knee in the wreck which bent the Jeep in half. As her real estate career was over (both due to her health and the collapse of the bubble), I couldn’t justify another 19-mpg SUV in the driveway. I still miss those Jeeps.
The solid axle suspension design was re-used in the ’94 Grand Cherokee line as well for many years. Chrysler was obviously sold on it too.
Was always interesting to me that AMC named this car the XJ, and that Jaguar never filed suit against them for trademark infringement,
I always thought the 2.5 was the Iron Duke. After all, they were using Chevy 6 cylinders for a while. Interesting to know it was a Jeep design.
My friend has a 97 Cherokee, I forget how many miles but I think just under 200k. It’s enjoying semi-retirement life right now, but he has no intention of getting rid of it. His son is 15 and loves the thing, so they plan to restore it a little and then it will be his.
Jeep used the “Iron Duke” in some CJs & DJs for a while, until the AMC 2.5 became available. Easy way to tell the difference- AMC has both manifolds on driver side, GM has crossflow head.
I don’t remember AMC using Chevy sixes, except for the 2.8 V6. AMC always had their own straight sixes. They did use Buick V8s, and then of course they built the Buick V6 for some years, until they sold it back to Buick.
Also, the XJ designation was an internal code, and never used on the vehicle badging or advertising. Most consumers had no idea they were XJs.
When did they use the Buick V8? From what I recall, they only used their own V8 (which looked very similar to the Buick with its front-mounted distributor and aluminum timing cover, mind you).
The old AMC 327 was used through 1967. For 1968 – 1971 the Wagoneer used the Buick 350 V8. Starting in 1972, they used the new AMC 360 V8.
Of course, the AMC 327 and the switch to Buick V8 was under Kaiser ownership.
“XJ” was the internal engineering platform code, not the model name used in marketing. So, no copyright infringment.
The Grand Cherokee (ZJ) had the same front end suspension (Dana 30), but in the rear the ZJ had coil springs and four control arms instead of leaf springs.
Paul, thanks for the great writeup on this vehicle; I wasn’t aware of the strong French connection to the vehicle. When these vehicles appeared I REALLY, REALLY, REALLY
wanted one. Unfortunately, I never could get the financial wherewithall to afford one, still they were and remain really great looking vehicles. In my opinion they were Dick Teague’s best styling effort.
Great article on a great car! The entire AMC-Renault saga is an interesting one, and the Chrysler purchase of AMC in 1987 only adds to it.
It’s interesting that two of Dick Teague’s best designs were at the very beginning and the very end of his career. The 1964 Rambler American was the first design credited completely to him, and this Jeep is the last.
The “popular consensus” (not on this site, of course) is that the 1980s were a uniformly terrible decade for domestic cars. As the decade fades into the past, certain vehicles are starting to look much better. This Jeep, the Fox-body Fords (yes, the platform debuted in the fall of 1977, but it really came into its own during the 1980s) and the front-wheel-drive Electras and Ninety-Eights were pretty nice vehicles.
I found the diesel option really interesting, had to google search it. Found this:
http://jalopnik.com/1985-diesel-jeep-cherokee/
The 4 door compact SUV Cherokee was revolutionary. GM and Ford assumed that buyers still wanted 2 doors only, the old think of them being “Sportier” left over from 60’s and 70s.
But, 4 door vehicles attained a ‘cooler’ and fashionable status in the 80’s. People wanted the extra accessibility. GM took years to finally add more doors to the S-10 Blazer. They were still thinking ‘not invented here’ and ‘2 doors are sporty’ and gave in.
Well, the thing was that Jeep sold a large 2 and 4 door Cherokee, same body as the Grand Wagoneer, so to them a 2 and 4 door seemed like a logical choice, they already made them. GM and Ford only sold the 2 door K/5 Blazer/Jimmy and Bronco(the Suburban being so much bigger than a K5 as to not really count)so they just made junior versions of those 2 trucks. GM truck group had been pushing for a 4 door Blazer for 1986-87, but it kept getting pushed to the back burner until 1990.
Toyota also arrived at hte party later in 1990 with the 4-door 4Runner (Nissan just introduced the Pathfinder in 1987, and they introduced the 4-door in 1990 as well).
Don’t forget, the birthrate in the ’80s was on its’ way up after having bottomed out sometime in the ’70s as the entire first wave of baby boomers who were the first generation to delay reproduction into their 30s started spawning at once.
No, the US birth rate has declined steadily since 1960. There was no upturn in the 80s or 90s.
Actually, there was a noticeable increase in the US birth rate in the 1980s.
The birth rate bottomed out in 1975 at 14.6 per 1,000 people but then it increased to 15.9 in 1980 and 16.7 by 1990.
During the 1990s the birth rate fell again, falling to 13.9 in 2002 and even below 13 in recent years. But there was in fact a bump in the birth rate (though not necessarily the female fertility rate) in the 1980s.
A year-by-year examination of birth and fertility rates in the 1980s & ’90s can be found here (data in this report ends in 2003):
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/statab/natfinal2003.annvol1_01.pdf
With so many people now compared to 60’s even a lower birthrate per 1000 people could still be a higher rate because many more thousand people if not double or triple. So rate could be 1/2 or 1/3 but still be adding more than in 60’s
Wow, now there’s some content today Paul!!!
I really like these, sadly I don’t think I’ll ever own one because the newest ones are now 12 years old and unsuitable for DougD family daily driver duty.
I should have bought a new one in 1993 when I bought my Ranger pickup, I don’t know why that never occured to me. I might still be driving it, certainly it would have lasted longer than the Ranger, which got the boot because of lack of kid space.
This is my #2 automotive regret. (#1 of course buying the world’s worst TR4 instead of saving up for a good one)
Our driver had one when I was working in China in 2003, by that point all the big bosses had black Audi sedans…
There it is. I rode around in this for a month…
There are many Cherokees about here lots of them diesel powered. When this landed in Aussie the 4.0 l6 was the only engine option which did nothing for the popularity that along with a limited warranty and higher fuel prices than the US made these things an urban vehicle. Anyone venturing very far into the bush bought a Land Cruiser or Nissan Patrol certainly not a Jeep. Getting that far from a dealer and a void warranty put most off the idea of Jeep. Never saw very many Jeeps in OZ but NZ is littered with them.
Also the 4.0 was only available with the automatic. A guy at work had one – at approx 6’7″ he had the seat mounts modified and an aftermarket seat installed. The car then became a 3 seater at most because the seat nearly touched the rear seat, of course the rear legroom was poor to begin with.
Later on they had a 2.8 turbodiesel (manual trans only) in Australia, I’d think that most are in long-term ownership by now. Plenty of the petrol sixes were modified to run on LPG.
As a committed sports-car dweeb, the XJ is the only SUV I have ever seriously considered owning. It’s basically its own Platonic ideal, and a wonderful bird flip to the overstuffed mallcrawlers that clog up the suburbs (which, of course, owe their existence to this thing).
Wish that Jeep could find the magic formula again. Until then, pre-facelift four-door Sport with the 4.0 and manual gearbox.
Nice writeup, too.
Agreed on your version of the “magic formula” and your choice of XJ. I had the pleasure of driving that very package many times.
Also had the pleasure of frequent drives in a ’95 with the 4.0 and an automatic. I swear I read somewhere that the ’95 engine was special in some way. I can testify that it would absolutely destroy my buddy’s V8 Explorer at the time. Like, not even close in a straight line. That ’95 had SERIOUS pep.
I can live with the exterior redesign, but the interior redesign was horrific. It’s like they set out to make it worse and more cramped in every possible way.
That’s because the 1995 4.0 had 190 hp; the highest rating ever for that motor. It was lowered again after that, to improve its low-rpm torque and fuel efficiency.
Paul, the 4.0 in the XJ was rated 190HP starting in 1991 and stayed that way until they went out of production. The last few years might have been 195HP, not sure… they never really fluctuated, though. The nearly identical engine in the Wranglers and Grand Cherokees did change horsepower ratings every few years, though.
AFAIK there’s nothing different from 1991-1995. 1996+ has a slightly different cam that is supposed to give it a flatter torque curve, like the pre-High Output version.
You’re right. I’m going to amend the text.
We didn’t get them in Aus ’til around 1994!
Always wanted an XJ. Couldn’t afford a decent one back when they were plentiful, and now I can’t find a decent one now that I could afford it.
If I ever find a clean early ’90s model, I’ll have to jump on it. A Laredo or Country with the 4.0 and Select Trac would still be a great rig. They just weren’t the same after the Chrysler rework for ’97. Everything was cheaper, especially the seats.
I have such a vehicle, but unfortunately, it’s on its last legs. My ’92 XJ Laredo has the 4.0 and the SelecTrac. It’s also nearly fully-loaded as well.
It is about to turn 325,000 miles and until recently, I would have driven it anywhere. Just recently, it developed “death wobble” – if I hit a bump at more than 45 mph, the whole front end starts shaking violently, and I have to slow down to less than 40 mph to make it stop.
It’s also developed a horrible case of body cancer, especially in the rocker panels and the areas around the rear wheel wells.
I bought a new Hunter Green 2-door in 1992. It’s still going on the original engine, transfer case and transmission. No repairs at all, just regular maintenance.
Had a 90 Cherokee Laredo (black cherry) loved that color, select-trac loaded, traded up from a 85 Bronco ll Eddie Bauer edition with a cologne v6 that me and my future wife drove from Boston to Marco island Florida via Delmarva to visit relatives and back. The drone of that noisy v6 on that trip did in that Bronco II for me, gave it to my mom who never went more than 10 miles a day in it. Back to the Jeep traded up for a 95 ZJ Grand Cherokee that rode a little better looked more modern inside but was still basically the same underpinnings. Except the ZJ had command trac and was not as good in snow handling-wise, liked to swap ends going around snowy corners. Well I sold the ZJ to a friend so I could buy a used 94 Mustang GT (last of the OHV 302’s) about ten years ago and recently found myself looking for a vehicle for my 18 year old son and settled on 2002 WJ but not after trying to find a clean XJ but all the ones around the northeast seem to have atleast 140k on them now. However a friend looking for winter beater while he garages his new Boss 302 asked me about XJs and after I vouched for their reliability and found a 98 with …..wait for it 140k for about 3k and after fixing the usual wear items is now singing its praises as a go anywhere SUV. This coming from a guy who sold his Cayenne for a Subaru Legacy after the warranty was up as the thought of the repair costs freaked him out. he then traded said Legacy for the Boss and so began the search for a reliable winter beater.
I will forever remember the Cherokee as the end of a joke in a Joe Isuzu commercial. After all, it doesn’t have skid plates, and he’s not blowing smoke… signals.
Great write up on one of the most significant vehicles of the 1980’s. Ford and GM didn’t figure out the whole 4 door thing until the 1990’s. And even when the Explorer seemed to have the XJ outclassed Chrysler has the sense to move it down market and be built profitably for many more years.
Given Chrysler’s recent tribulations it may seem hard to believe that in the 1990’s Chrysler was the envy of the industry with almost every plant running atfull capacity plus and earning more profit per car than Ford or GM. Much of the credit for that belongs to Bob Lutz and Francois Castaing who completely changed the way Chrysler developed cars. Once the “Merger of Equals” with Daimler-Benz was announced the exodus began with many of the people responsible for Chrysler’s success. By the time Blitzkrieg hit Auburn Hills much of the culture that allowed Chrysler to be so successful during the 90’s was lost.
This is my daily driver, a 90 Cherokee. I inherited this fleet vehicle with the 4.0, 5 speed and two wheel drive. It has 64,000 on the clock and is not a bad rig for Montana backroads.
I was told years ago that the difference between 2 wheel drive and 4 wheel drive is about 30 feet. I don’t miss 4 wheel drive .. Yet.. but its an easy conversion.
I have a vivid memory of going with my dad to pick up his new 92 XJ in Laredo trim with beautiful Spinnaker blue paint. That little beast is phenomenal in Minnesota winters and has been dead reliable, even with every option (including the early Bosch ABS.) Reasonably quick, phenomenal visibility, tight turning radius, and a certain “rightness” of design that has yet to be duplicated. Eventually my brother bought it and drove the heck out of it for a several years. Finally, 3 years ago it was my turn to buy it for my daughter to commute to college. What’s amazing is my daughter was an infant when this XJ was new and it’s been driven daily since then. Sure it’s starting to show some rust, but, it won’t quit. The deal is, I get it back when she graduates and It’s getting a repaint and some well deserved TLC. I still love driving it. Way to go AMC and Renault!
The Cherokee is still in production to this day as the Beijing Auto Works Knight S12. Wish that Chrysler would buy back the tooling, I think even today the XJ would still sell well.
http://www.carnewschina.com/2012/04/27/jeep-cherokee-is-still-in-production-in-china/
Not to be confused with the REAL, S12…
The Nissan S12 Silvia and Gazelle.
I doubt it very much. And it wouldn’t pass crash/emissions standards without a huge, huge investment. And that’s just not worth it…
I have to add an observation about the fuel-injected 4.0l engines that you should pay attention to the next time you get the chance: they all have an abnormally-long cranking time! My friend bought a used one 20 years ago, and not knowing that they all did this, I told him that something was wrong with it and he proceeded to spend over $800 at the local dealer trying to ‘fix’ it. My bad, as I later found out by noticing others in parking lots all doing the same thing.
It’s something in the engine controller setup that I have never taken the time to pinpoint exactly – possibly inefficient firmware code that takes too long to assess the crank/cam relationship upon initiation of cranking. Whatever it is, they left it that way for years and I’m not even sure if they ever corrected the issue.
All I know is that the 216 cid 6-cylinder that we had in our 1941 Chevrolet (a car that essentially sat in our yard from 1980-92 and I started up every few months to keep it operable) started up significantly quicker than any fuel-injected AMC 4.0l. There is something very wrong with that!
It has to do with how timing synchronizes inside the ECU.
Timing synchronization doesn’t start until the engine reaches 300rpm.
the ecu first reads the crankshaft position sensor to determine TDC of #1, it does this for three revolutions. it then synchronizes with the distributor sensor (sync sensor) to determine if it’s on a compression stroke or an exhaust stroke. once the ECU locks into timing, then and ONLY then does it pulse the coil and injectors, permitting the engine to fire.
if you don’t let it make its full three revolutions at 300rpm or higher, it won’t start, period.
what’s funny, is if you just put bigger battery cables on it and strengthen up the ground wiring, they start alot faster, but I guess having something that needs points reset every month, lead additives and lots of weekly work because our current ethanol impregnated fuel works so great with carburetors is obviously much more reliable than something that takes an extra THREE FUCKING SECONDS to fire… boo fucking hoo.
Regarding why the GM 2.8L V6 was nixed, I was told by one of the cooling system engineers involved in the 4.0L conversion that it was because GM wouldn’t increase their allocation to AMC because the XJ was selling like gang busters and GM didn’t want to help their competitor. So a crisis was declared and the 4.0L was born. I just wonder what the engine would have been had they had more time.
A couple of clarifications.
First, the 4.0 Liter six was, indeed, the same engine as the 258 it replaced. A shorter stroke, and fuel injection; and other improvements…but similar enough that Jeepers have been known to take the 4.0 head and FI and wiring and bolt it all up to a 258 block for serious torque.
The AMC Jeep four was, by their own description, the six with the center two cylinders removed. How they got that calculation is anyone’s guess, but it’s their confession: They took the six and cut it down. And – as the owner of one – I admit it showed the same reliability and long life and willingness to lug as did the six.
The Cherokee was truly remarkable. A day late to save AMC as an independent company, it did save Jeep as a viable franchise and provide a shot in the arm for Chrysler. There’s a million “what-if” scenarios that could be written…but the real tragedy is that, when Daimler’s gang got through with Chrysler, Castaing and Lutz and the other players were too old, too otherwise occupied, to regroup and re-create the Chrysler of the 1990s.
Even though certain internal parts interchange, they’re really not the same engine. Here’s what Jeep’s Chief Engineer Roy Lunn has to say about the subject of the 2.5 and 4.0 (from wikipedia):
American Motors devoted three years to the development of a new four-cylinder engine.[1] The brand new engine was carefully designed to use AMC’s existing tooling so that the spacing between the cylinder bores remained the same.[2] The location of other major components, such as the distributor, oil filter, and starter were also kept the same to reuse the machine tools as for the AMC straight-6 engine.[2]
According to Jeep’s chief engineer, Roy Lunn, “unlike most engines available today [it] was not designed for passenger cars and then adapted for trucks. We specifically developed it with our Jeep vehicles and Eagle in mind. That’s the reason that performance and durability were of such prime consideration from the very beginning.” Although some of components were interchangeable between the AMC 258 cubic inch six-cylinder and the new engine, the four-cylinder was not a cut down version of the big six. Noted Roy Lunn, “There is some common competency, but the 4-cylinder includes many unique items such as its own electronics systems. It also has a shorter stroke and larger bore. The valves are larger and the pistons are new.” Roy Lunn recalled: “We wanted as much displacement – for power and torque – as possible within the confines of bore centers of the tooling. The only parameter we could influence substantially was stroke. So we picked the largest bore and stroke in order to get 2.5 Liters.”[1]
The AMC 150/2.5 L engine has a bore of 3.875 in (98.4 mm) and a stroke of 3.1875 in (80.96 mm). The head features a combustion chamber and port design that was later used on the 4.0 L — the 2.5 L I-4 head gained two cylinders in its center for use in the six-cylinder engines. The 2.5 engine also features five main bearings and eight overhead valves.
I was selling cars in Atlanta in the early 90’s for a Toyota dealership, even though we had the new FourRunner, our used car manager always kept a bunch of XJ’s on the lot. They were great sellers. For me, at 6′ .25″ tall, they were a bit cramped, but for most folks they fit just fine.
I can remember getting my hands on the 4.0L versions, those things were FAST! I made it a point to show that to all of the rednecks who came in to test drive one of them, it was a great way to get them to sign on the dotted line.
More than once I have thought that the original ones from 1984 were the best looking, the ad with the black hood at the top of the post remains my favorite. I would like to find a way to stuff a small block of some kind in the engine bay, but it is supremely tight. Maybe a 3.4 or a 3.9 60 degree V6 would work better, and have more grunt than the AMC six. But it is hard to argue against the ur-six…
Actually rather than putting the 4.0 head on a 4.2 block, you can use the 4.2 crank in a 4.0 engine, throw some custom pistons in, et voila, a 4.7 liter Jeep six… I would love to do that someday but I suspect it may be a few years yet before my 4.0 is worn to the point that would really justify a rebuild…
Give me the beautiful FSJ any day. There’s a reason Americans loved the Cherokee Chief, Grand Wagoneer, and Jeep Pickups along side the classic Jeeps of all configurations. It’s the same reason they loved Harley Davidson motorcycles, the stunning for it’s era, 1962 Grand Turismo Hawk, those Diesel Train Engines with the dual set-back windshield and the wide, fluted chrome band wrapping around the curved front, and even influences upon the late ’60’s Mustangs. That reason was one genius Industrial Designer named Brooks Stevens. He designed them all, along with Miller Brewing logos, Scotch/3M branding, and a list that includes boats, tricyles, bicycles, including the classic Roadmaster, Allen Bradley motor contactors, Cutler Hammer Electrical panels, all of the Mirro brand appliances of the ’60’s, and even the Oscar Meyer Weinermobile. That was classic America, beautifully curving complex lines, 32 cents a gallon gasoline, a Cherokee Chief 401 w/ dual exhaust thundering everywhere it went, and all of my friends laughing at the occasional European biscuit tin on wheels.
Any thoughts about micro-managing fuel economy and saving the planet mean nothing to me, because I know it’s all a hoax. One volcano eruption is equal to man’s ENTIRE 5,000 year pollution. The earth thrives on cleaning and managing most pollutants, in fact, that’s how Mother Earth evolved. Yes, don’t waste, don’t put crap in our rivers, and use materials that Earth can degrade, but don’t try to manipulate me with bullcrap. (unless you live in a big city. I don’t know what to do about those pollution engines)
We lived 10 times more free back then. I wish you all could see how it was. Government was much smaller, and working for the government was a tick lower, instead of being the power elite that it is today. Their offices were in plain buildings, and most of them sat behind those gray steel desks. The didn’t tell us what to say, what to drink, where and how to buy insurance, and when to put a seatbelt on, Or Else! We were happier, less stressed, racial relations were about 1/10th as bad as they are today, AND we all drove beautiful Full Sized Jeeps, Mustangs, and muscle cars. It wasn’t perfect; wide spread fuel injection would have been nicer, but I would trade 10 years of this America for 2 years of that.
Hey, it’s just one guy’s perspective, having lived in both eras. And although my little business makes me 140K a year, if trading was all you could do, I would trade 10 of those French Cherokees for One 1979 Cherokee Chief, just like the one I drive every single day. It’s a Brooks Stevens work of art.
Ah yes, the rose colored glasses are on. The government back then “didn’t tell us what to do, what to drink”
Except for alcohol, during Prohibition. And there was the New Deal. And many industries were highly regulated. And the top tax rate was 91%. And then there was Joe MacCarthy’s witch hunt. And blacks and minorities had no rights. Nor women, for the most parts. Lynchings were common. The air was polluted. The good old days!
BTW, you do know that cities create much less environmental stress per person than suburbs, and most of all rural dwellers. But don’t take off those glasses!
Live for today not in the dark ages. Life may be more hectic today, but with all the modern marvels we’ve got I wouldn’t trade today for any other time! People are living to be well over 100 years old today with life sustaining medications like statins, etc., and people are eating healthier, smoking less, driving the safest cars ever and our air and water quality is leaps and bounds cleaner than it was 40 years ago. I’ll say it again, live for today!
Fascinating story. I’ve always liked the look of the XJ Cherokee. It’s simple, by today’s standards. it’s especially true of those built before 1995, before the SRS air bag became standard. It’s a truck-based SUV, rather than a car-based SUV (crossover vehicle). My only serious complaint is that not many were offered with a diesel engine as an optional engine. I’d buy one in a heartbeat if one were available. I’d also buy a right-hand drive model.
I’m surprised nobody (not even Paul) mentioned the EU-spec XJs built by Magna/Steyr in Austria which probably were the best put together of the breed (Chrysler apparently sent a bunch of guys to Steyr to find out why the Austrian XJs (and the minivans built here too) had such high build quality, lol). The XJ was the most popular SUV in Austria all through the 90s and the early 2000s. What a shame they replaced it with either bloated Grands and strangely styled Cherokees. Oh, they were available with ether the Italian VM or Benz diesels (other than the 4.0). Used good ones usually go for €4000 regardless of the mileage (which in most cases is not low) which should tell one how highly they are still regarded…
I’m afraid you’re mistaken. The XJ was never built by Magna Steyr or by anyone else in Europe. The successor model, the successor Grand Cherokee (3 generations) was built there, for many years (1994-2010), but not the XJ Cherokee.
On my trips back to Austria, I did see a number of Grand Cherokees, but I can’t remember seeing any Cherokees.
In Norway the american built ZJ’s and Voyagers was regarded as better cars than the cars built in Austria.
Paul, you are of course correct. I confused the two types due to my senility. Talking to my Chrysler guru here the story about the Chrysler delegation is apparently correct but it was the Voyager they were looking at. As for popularity, I don’t know when you visited but, when I first came here (1994), those seemed to be the most popular SUV when compared with other, similar vehicles which, in the EU, I suppose were the Range Rover Discovery, Mitsubishi Pajero, Isuzu Trooper, the smaller Toyotas and Nissans and, to a lesser extent, the US competitors (which did not, to my knowledge, had the important diesel option). The VM-equipped version was the one mostly encountered – that used to go reasonably well but at 100K the head gasket would go. My friend who used to do them for living did a roaring trade of replacing the gaskets but, once done, they would go for another 100K without problems. Some heads however cracked – again, back when spares were available, not a huge issue as the VM had separate heads (it was originally an industrial/marine design). The six cyl. gasoline engine was thought of as bullet-proof…
Wandering off at a tangent if I may, to me the spiritual successor was the Commander and, as their prices slowly fall, I am becoming more and more tempted… Yes, it is bigger but the styling is not as hard to stomach as the later Cherokees. I suppose that’s what the market wants, or else it would have been in production still!
The 2.5 and 3.1 VM diesel is a piece if junk actually. Heads cracking, timing chain brokes and pushrods who jumps off.
It’s amazing how ugly those old Cherokees look now. Who could actually love that egregious ’80s styling? Well, the Cherokee didn’t look too bad in its day, since the vast majority of new cars back then looked like crap (the American made cars that is.) I remember sitting in one of those new Cherokees at an auto show back in 1983 and how terribly cramped the interior was. Not to mention how cheap and cheesy the plastics and upholstery was including the horrible fit and finish. I knew a mechanic who refused to work on Cherokess that had the horrible GM 2.8 V6. Head gaskets were always popping on those, as well as oil leaks. The 2013 Cherokee is light years ahead of the old Cherokee, but it’s odd looking, though not as ugly as the old boxy ’80s Cherokee.
Actually the new cherokee looks like someone took a Kia Sorento and then gave it not one but two front clips, one of which is apparently modeled after a WWII era propaganda caricature of the Japanese
http://image.motortrend.com/f/wot/never_again_marchionne_learns_from_2014_jeep_cherokee_launch_mistakes/59398159/2014-jeep-cherokee-front-three-quarter-motion.jpg
http://i222.photobucket.com/albums/dd21/xjbanker/IMG_5744.jpg
If you think the lifted dodge dart is the prettier of the two vehicles here, something is broken in your brain 🙁
Aesthetics aside The KL also ditched the Aisin-Warner transmissions famous for reliability in XJs and TJs in favor of an unproven automatic which has been a dismal failure just two years in. Look at the frankly hilarious jump in reported problems between the XJ and KL:
http://www.carcomplaints.com/Jeep/Cherokee/
It’s not just the transmission either, whereas Jeep had a large amount of independence from Chryco during the XJ and TJ years the entire brand now shares the parts bin of what is literally one of the least-reliable manufactures in the developed world
It has a lower power to weight ratio than the 4.0 XJ, it’s larger but has less cargo space, it tows 500 pounds less, and enjoy
I never did make the plunge, but there was a few years in the 90s when I really really wanted a 2door 2 wheel drive Cherokee with the big AMC straight six motor, a stickshift, no roof rack, and no external spare tire carrier. I wanted it plain white
You know, if you compare the front end styling of the post – facelift Renault Le Car and pre – facelift Cherokee, they do share a few similarities . . . . .
In my auto tech class, we have an older Cherokee that was donated quite a few years back (oldest vehicle we have there actually) There is some discrepancy between what model year it is as the VIN reports back as a ’91 but the documentation is saying it’s a ’94. It sat dead for a couple years until we decided to try to get it running. Was a minor electrical issue (solved by switching some of the Relay’s around) and a clogged cat (solved by a straight pipe). Sure it’s literally the base model being the 2.5 liter RWD with 5 speed manual, but it sure does hold good power, we quite often use it to tow some cars around as we have gotten kinda tired of pushing cars everywhere. Sits at 231K miles, but still starts right up. And it is also a class favorite to work on due to being extremely simple to disassemble.
It may perform better, but I’d stay away from the Renix. After 27 years, detailed diagnostic information for French electronics is hard to find, leading to multiple parts, including three hard-to-change crank sensors, to get a friend’s 88 back on the road.
OTOH, I really like the straight-six. There was a very clean looking, 1998 dark green 2wd Cherokee Sport for sale in the Pick-N-Pull last month that might have been tempting, if I didn’t already have a Tacoma, and there hadn’t been ‘head gasket’ written on that Jeep’s windshield.
Happy Motoring, Mark
So sad to read this in light of what Chrysler has become, when you consider how well it was going for them when they bought AMC.
The neighbor across the road had her 2005 JGC up for sale…$800. Could’ve been an easy flip…
Until you consider the electrical issues endemic to seemingly every MoPar built since the Daimler era. I didn’t even bother to look at it. Stupid stuff seemingly unique to Chrysler vehicles. Stuff that didn’t used to happen on older models.
Cherokee, OTOH, was a grand slam. ChryCo was wise to take all the parts of AMC that they took when they bought the company; it arguably paved the way for the Lutz era and the Cab Forward triumph the following decade.
I once read an interesting tidbit that claimed the recently discontinued, Caliber-based Jeep Patriot had dimensions very close to the original XJ Cherokee. To top it off, the Patriot was actually enjoying rather good sales towards the end of its life. I don’t quite understand why FCA didn’t keep it in production, much the same way the last generation Dodge Grand Caravan refuses to die. Considering the constant robust sales of the archaic Jeep Wrangler, you’d think keeping a Jeep in the traditional style of the XJ Cherokee/Patriot would also have the same sort of lasting, outdoor-lifestyle appeal. I certainly like the Patriot better than the new Jeep Compass. Frankly, the Compass (also Caliber-based) was the one that should have died instead of the Patriot.
Speaking of dying, one of the saddest automotive-related things I ever saw was the killing of a Jeep Cherokee’s engine during the infamous Cash-For-Clunkers program. The death cocktail was poured into its carburetor and the old Jeep valiantly tried to stay running before it finally succumbed.
I may have read the same piece. I recall reading something when the Patriot was introduced applauding Jeep for coming out with a vehicle that essentially captured the spirit and general dynamics of the Cherokee. The tone of the article was very complimentary. Afterwards I did a bit of research on the Patriot and came away confused, as the drivetrain, componentry and overall package seemed pretty distant from the simple rugged goodness of the Cherokee, but over the years I’ve warmed up to the Patriot. It seems a shame that aside from the Wrangler, Jeep seems to only be offering some pretty “glammed up” vehicles nowadays. And frankly even the Wrangler has become almost a parody of itself in recent years, although its 4WD prowess does remain.
The Patriot is regularly slammed by CR for worse than average reliability tho. That rep and past family experiences keeps me away from any Chrysler product
Lower than the Wrangler? AFAIK, the Wrangler has consistently ranked at the very bottom of CR’s ratings. But, then, that miserable reputation certainly hasn’t seemed to impact sales, either.
Daimler-Chrysler somehow ended-up making 3 different Jeep models that were basically the same size — Liberty, Patriot, and Compass. And the Grand Cherokee was only a notch bigger. So I guess something had to give.
(And I think the Liberty was supposed to be the off-roader to replace the Cherokee.)
“Perhaps the biggest single feather in the Cherokee’s war bonnet was that it was available as a four-door..”
GM and Ford were stuck in the 60s/70s thinking of “2 doors are sportier” and easy sale. So no 4 door Bronco II/Blazer for awhile. GM took nearly a decade, and then it looked like a HS body shop project. Kind of like the “2 doors only” W bodies, right when 4 doors were gaining sales and losing the ‘grocery getter’ image.
Shows that best to think ahead and not backwards. Sure car collectors say “too many doors”, but they are a whole other marketplace.
My dad has had 3 XJ’s. The first was a red-on-red 84, 2.5/auto. DOG slow, but was unstoppable in the winter. It went to the dealer for something, and was stolen out of their lot! They gave him a deal on a recently traded-in 87 “Wagoneer” (fancy model with the 4 small headlights). It was grey (and no fake wood, only one I ever saw like that) with the 2.8/5speed. Only slightly faster than the 2.5, and his blew head gaskets. I was in it when the power window switches started on fire, we were just driving somewhere when all this smoke started pouring out of the door panel, we pulled over, ran to the store we were in front of, and watched it burn to the ground while the fire department got called… It was the first car he had with power accessories, and he constantly was having electrical issues with it. At one point, the AC had gone out, and none of the windows would roll down-that was an uncomfortable summer. With the insurance settlement from the Wagoneer, he went and got a base model 93 Cherokee, 4.0/automatic. He kept that one until 2008, he and my mom pulled a pop-up camper all over the country with it, took it off road on hunting trips every year, and just generally loved it. It lived in WI most of its life, other than a stint in Mass near the ocean, so it was pretty rusty when it got retired. He gave it to one of our cousins, who’s still driving it 9 years later, so it’s like the old Chrysler adage- either you get a total lemon, or an unstoppable machine. Oh, he replaced the 93 with an 08 Grand Cherokee that’s been all over the country. He still talks about his 93, though….
Late to the party again but, I have 2 XJ’s.
I had an early – production ’84 XJ, with a V6, auto and Selec-Trac, bought with 6000 miles (dealer demo) on it. I initially loved the car, but it was the worst piece of crap ever, the worst vehicle I’ve ever had, by far. Defective engine, defective torque converter, unrepairable transfer case marginal cooling system and electrical trouble are the highlights.
In the first 60k miles, it got a rebuilt engine, 2 rebuilt transmissions, 3 torque converters, and 2 rebuilds of the transfer case. The cost of repairs exceeded the purchase price of the car, which is completely utterly and totally unforgivable. Yes, I know early production examples of any new design are risky, but still, this design was half baked and should not have been released in that state.
There’s blame to go around, GM gets big thumbs – down for shipping thousands of defective V6 engines to AMC. Steyer-Puch is to blame for designing a converter unsuitable for the Mopar 904 transmission that AMC bought for these vehicles.
After 25 k miles, I bought a used Ford and parked this Jeep because I was so fed up with it. After about 4 years, I took it out of storage and fixed it, only for another catastrophic breakdown in 10k miles. Park,-store-fix-break, rinse and repeat to about 70k miles when I parked it for good.
5 years ago, the pain of XJ ownership had worn off enough I tried it again….. I bought a ’90 Cherokee, (6 cyl/5spd) because it was really cheap, and which was better. It’s only problem is bad death wobble that defies repair, after rebuilding and replacing everything on the front end… ball joints, track bar, tie rods, steering box, control arms, bushings, shocks, tires and wheel bearings.
Jeep? Never, never, never, ever again. The thoughts of so much money spent on Jeeps for so little return still haunts me, and fills me with regret for ever buying them.
I’m a bit surprised reading through these comments going back 4 years, that no one mentioned the XJ’s (and most all other Jeep/Dodge/Ford coil-sprung live front axle set ups) propensity to develop a “death wobble”, which is what happens when the front Watts link/Panhard rod/track bar wears out and lets the front axle move laterally. One good pothole or hard corner and you’ll quickly find yourself up-side down. It’s no bueno when you turn the wheel at speed and the front axle slides sideways out from under the car.
Thanks,… but if you read my post just above yours, I fume about my death wobble struggles.
You are correct, its a serious problem and significant safety defect of the XJ design that should get more attention. It also affects some 90’s Dodge trucks, where Chrysler copied the AMC suspension design (because they bought the design when they bought AMC) and also copied the wobble defect.
It’s not just the track bar, its a fundamental defect of the front suspension design. The center of rotation of the suspension is behind the center of pressure…. so its a bit like a dart flying backwards. Any looseness in the front end will contribute to an oscillation. For example…… the wobbles in my Cherokee was fixed, temporarily by replacing the track bar, tie rod ends, steering box, control arms etc. Each time the wobble would go away for a couple of thousand miles until another part wore -out, producing looseness and violent shaking.
Death Wobble is a problem for almost all cars/trucks with a solid front axle. Range Rover, MB Gelendewagen and other, not just the XJ.
I remember this the first time around, and how the front seats are cribbed from the Alliance. I had an Alliance, and those were the best seats ever in any of the parade of cheap cars I’ve owned.
But I’ve only ever ridden in the back seat of a Cherokee, and that was punishment that would make Beelzebub smile.
Thinking back.. SUVs tended to be driven by manly-men types, you know that were into huntin’ and fishin’, or at least wanted to look like they were.
Then the XJ hit the market, and it seems like everyone of them was being driven by upper-middle-class mom who traded-in her Volvo, or something. I couldn’t understand why these women would ever want to drive a *Jeep*. Of course it all makes sense now, but it was pretty shocking to me at the time. It was a revolution.
I always wanted a Cherokee but could never get away from owning Jeep Wrangler YJ ’93 models…I hated the redesign as well, it killed a lot of the character of that design. And it made me chuckle to hear everyone chime in about how cramped those backseats were…I remember back in college having to sit back there in a friends Cherokee a few times and complaining the whole time-every time-about him not moving the seat up enough and him claiming it he was as far forward as he could go, after all these years I guess he WASN’T lying! lol Still a really cool old-school SUV though;)
A friend of mine bought one. Wound up getting a Lemon Law full refund it was such a mess.
I still drive my 1984 Jeep Cherokee 2.5 Liter 5 speed. It’s a summer runabout, and in winter, my primary snow plow vehicle. I store it at the top of my 600 foot long, 100 foot elevation gain, twisting Wisconsin driveway. I keep a pair of crampons in my road vehicle, park at the bottom, and trudge up to my trusty Cherokee. The ‘Eep’ (the J fell off decades ago) performs like a champ and is a riot to drive!
Based in Switzerland, just got a 92 Limited (one owner car) and I love it. Great design, ultra reliable, future classic. They are getting rare here and good ones are hard to find. One of the best car ever made. Great writing btw., thx.
My RARE 1985 Pioneer with Renault 2.1L Diesel… also seen at https://www.hemmings.com/classifieds/cars-for-sale/jeep/cherokee/2201049.html
Always, a huge fan of these. A timeless design. At the time, I wished the Jeep Comanche would achieve similar popularity. In looks, they bridge the gap between conventional pickups, and the Gladiator. Almost 40 years later, both the Cherokee and Comanche, still look fresh.
I saw a surviving KJ Liberty the other day, for the first time in ages. If there’s a metric where the KJ is as good or better than the XJ, I don’t know what it is. The XJ was one of the better driving American cars of any description when it arrived in 1984, and only improved when the 4.0 arrived. The KJ was about as roadworthy as a Kubota tractor that I used to mow a divorcee’s lawn with when I was a pre-teen.
The KJ Jeep Liberty had multiple fatal flaws. They were heavy, and probably overbuilt, for off-road use. Limited models could weigh over 4,000lbs. With corresponding poor fuel economy. They weren’t reliable. Reflective of Daimler-Chrysler quality at the time. And, they were seriously rust-prone. Another, in a series of Chrysler products from that era, that got initial rave reviews. And generally fared poorly, over the long haul owner experience.
Early XJs had horrible quality too, but the Liberty drove like an early SUV of the Scout/Bronco/CJ mold rather than something descended from the roadworthy SJ and XJ.
When I was a kid, my dad had a 85 2 door, 4 cyl, carb, 4 speed. Didn’t even have a factory passenger mirror or rear speakers. Eventually started to burn a ton of oil but it kept running.
I have a 96 4 door, 4.0, 5 speed. Manual everything, no ABS. Working on putting new floors in it, and fixing up part of the uniframe that’s started to rust. Got almost 180k and still runs good. Everybody and their brother makes parts for these, from stock to totally beefed up. It only makes sense to keep it going as long as possible. 96 is the last year of the original design. Supposedly OBD2 was required by 96, but I’m not sure if mine is. I can still flash codes using the ignition switch.
Mine seems to eat water pumps. In the 66k or so I’ve put on it, its gone out twice.
It was certainly a home run and it laid the ground work for the ’91 Ford Explorer as well as the later 4 door S10/15 GM twins.
In my part of the world, all these vehicles turned to powder by 15 or so years so not many are sighted here anymore. My ’92 Explorer is the exception. Brought here from California around 2011 and religiously sprayed with lots of oil before each salt season it is still in remarkable condition. (only 107K miles helps too). It gets compliments every time I take it out and the most common comment is “these things used to be everywhere”.
I would have loved a Cherokee when I bought the Explorer but the rust free condition of the Explorer clinched the sale (and the search).
My XJ, which will be my COAL post on July 8th, is towards the end of the production run. It was built in June 2001. I seriously considered buying one back in 1984 and a few other times over the years. The odometer is showing just over 250,000 miles. I bought it in 2014 and refurbished it. I refurbished it again after Hurricane Harvey in 2017.