Jump to content

I want an MJ.....now convince my dad.


88XJSport
 Share

Recommended Posts

This is gonna be a tough one. My dad wants me to get rid of my 88 XJ for something newer and more "reliable"...Problem is, I want an MJ in addition to my XJ. I would have no problem buying one, and insuring one, but I'm not gonna rely on it as my daily driver. I figure its just something neat to have and wrench on. I am 20 and in college and can't afford a NEW car at the time being. Any ideas on what to say to him, if I ever find a decent condition MJ?? Thanks.

 

 

 

 

Oh and here's the XJ he wants me to get rid of.

 

Image Not Found

 

Image Not Found

 

Image Not Found

 

Image Not Found

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you had alot of problems with the xj?

 

Tell him you'll sell the xj if he will match whatever you sell it for. Get a good reliable DD and then save for an MJ. If he won't match it tell him there is no guarantee the used car you buy will not break down also and that atleast the engine you have now is easy to work on, parts arent to expensive, and it is one of the most reliable engines around (Assuming it is a 4.0)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't have to say anything to Dad. I would keep the XJ and put off any plans on buying an additional vehicle until you finish school. You will have more time and money when you are finished to really concentrate on a project car.

 

Besides doing it this way makes sure that you can afford repairs on your current jeep. Nice xj by the way. Very clean!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any ideas on what to say to him,

You could tell him my reliability story.

 

At the end of 1998, my '88 XJ was (IIRC) around 175,000 miles and I was concerned about reliability, so I bought a new 1999 Grand Cherokee. Once it arrived, I put the XJ up for sale at what I felt was a decent, fair price. Nobody even called to look at it or make a counter offer. Not even after I reduced the price twice.

 

Meanwhile, the new "reliable" Grand Cherokee was spending more time in the shop than it was in my garage. At one point the factory flew in a special trouble-shooter, who spent an entire WEEK at the dealership doing things to my Grand Cherokee. And every single thing he touched was worse when he finished than it had been before he started. Finally, at about 14,000 miles, the Grand Cherokee simply died, right in the middle of a state road. I had it towed to the dealership, where they determined that they knew what was wrong with it, but they couldn't fix it because the part wasn't in the supply chain yet for the '99 models. At that point, Chrysler bought the Grand back from me to stop me from going lemon law with it.

 

I replaced it with a 2000 XJ, which my wife drives. I still have the original '88 XJ (the one I was worried about when I bought the Grand, remember). It is now at 275,000 miles, still gets better gas mileage than the 2000, and doesn't burn any oil. The head has never been off it. I replaced the clutch at 200,000 miles, and every three years or so I replace the exhaust from the cat back. That's it. Regular oil changes, and it runs like the Energizer bunny.

 

IMHO there is no vehicle available that is more reliable than a 1988 Jeep Cherokee. If your father is concerned about reliability, he should be begging you NOT to sell that XJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys I plan waiting till school is finished before I worry about an MJ, hopefully they won't all rust out and/or Jeepco won't buy them all, and Ill be able to get one then. I definitely plan on keeping the XJ. Eagle that story is amazing. And thanks for the compliments on the XJ guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could see your Dad's point, your driving a 20 year old vehicle :eek:

 

But..........It's one of the most reliable vehicles on the road ;)

 

You don't see alot of Ford or Chevy's that are 20 years old on the road every day. I see 50+ Cherokee's every day, Renix era, and newer.

 

Eagle's story is true, I've had bad experiences with "New" vehicles too, now I only buy used vehicles, and get the "market" value or less, and plan on putting some $$ into them, and I'm further ahead.

 

I see you made your choice, and I thing a good choice ;)

 

If your Dad insists that you get something newer, then I would go for a '89 MJ, at least that's newer that your '88 XJ :D

 

And........it is a good looking '88 XJ ya got there too :brows:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your Dad insists that you get something newer, then I would go for a '89 MJ, at least that's newer that your '88 XJ :D

 

UM, if I may....

 

Get a 1991 Comanche or newer. That way you get away from the Renix motor. The renix is a GREAT motor, but the 91+ 4.0L is just a weeee bit better!

 

;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

260,000 miles and still going strong on my mj. you just can't trust newer vehicles with all their electronic crap. older is better jamminz.gif

 

 

not sure about that... I have a 3.9L V8 on my lincoln LSE - its a Jaguar engine and entirely computer driven.

 

ITS A BLAST!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude thats a nice lookin xj. i would kill to have mine look that good. if it runs as good as it looks i don't see what he's complaining about.

mine needs a few thousand dollars worth of work done to it...its basically a p.o.s at the moment but i still drive it every day with no engine or tranny problems. tell your dad hes crazy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your Dad insists that you get something newer, then I would go for a '89 MJ, at least that's newer that your '88 XJ :D

 

UM, if I may....

 

Get a 1991 Comanche or newer. That way you get away from the Renix motor. The renix is a GREAT motor, but the 91+ 4.0L is just a weeee bit better!

 

;)

 

 

You may........

 

I'm just stuck in the Renix era......... :yes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If your Dad insists that you get something newer, then I would go for a '89 MJ, at least that's newer that your '88 XJ :D

 

UM, if I may....

 

Get a 1991 Comanche or newer. That way you get away from the Renix motor. The renix is a GREAT motor, but the 91+ 4.0L is just a weeee bit better!

I absolutely disagree. The Renix is easier to work on and they get better gas mileage. The HO puts out a few more horsepower, but the torque peak is MUCH higher in the RPM band. The Renix engines drive like a Jeep/truck engine should. The HO engines drive like "car" engines. (Which, of course, is what DaimlerChrysler wanted.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely disagree. The Renix is easier to work on and they get better gas mileage.

 

That's absolute crap Eagle. How can you generalize like that - it's not like you. The Renix system is an troublesome antiquated Renault/Bendix hodge-podge system of sensors all wired together with bad connectors, any one of which can screw up performance and/or mileage. How many threads have I read where guys are troubleshooting these things, replacing every sensor in sight trying to fix problems, and getting nowhere? What could be easier than flipping your ignition key on an HO and reading the OBDI codes? Nine times out of ten it puts you in the ballpark for ignition and electronics problems, the only major difference between the Renix and HO. The mechanicals are basically the same in both. For me, HOs are much easier to work on and troubleshoot - I've had both.

 

Good gas mileage is best had by a combination of maintaining peak engine efficiency by proper tuning and periodic maintenance, and by driving habits. Published factory mileage estimates actually improved when Chryco went to the HO system. 'Course, who believes any factory mileage estimates. :nuts:

 

The HO puts out a few more horsepower, but the torque peak is MUCH higher in the RPM band.

 

This is true. But who's to say this isn't good depending on what you rig is used for? Personally I'd rather have a higher peak power band for max efficiency AND the resulting better gas mileage. Having the peak torque and HP readings at lower RPMs is only good for tractors and/or off-road purposes. The ratio of on-road vs. off-road on 99% of our MJs is probably 10 to 1, if that. Who wants to peak out at 2300 RPM or so cruising down the interstate? And the best thing about HOs is that it's so much easier to develop them to their maximum potential and not be limited by an antiquated electronics system. Hell, if I wanted to go backwards I'd bypass the Renix era and go back to the 4.2 w. say a Clifford manifold, Webers, and a Mallory CDI ignition.

 

The Renix engines drive like a Jeep/truck engine should. The HO engines drive like "car" engines. (Which, of course, is what DaimlerChrysler wanted.)

 

That's nothing but personal opinion. If I wanted a pure "truck" engine I'd go with a Cummins or Mercedes diesel.

 

Let the shi-ite storm begin! :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I absolutely disagree. The Renix is easier to work on and they get better gas mileage.

 

That's absolute crap Eagle. How can you generalize like that - it's not like you.

It's not a generalization. It's a flat statement, based on my experience owning both types of XJ.

 

Good gas mileage is best had by a combination of maintaining peak engine efficiency by proper tuning and periodic maintenance, and by driving habits. Published factory mileage estimates actually improved when Chryco went to the HO system. 'Course, who believes any factory mileage estimates.

You said it yourself. The overwhelming consensus on NAXJA when I was active there was that the Renix vehicles got better gas mileage than the HOs. In my own mini-fleet, the very best mileage the HOs have produced has been around 21 MPG. When it was new, the '88 got mid-20s highway and had a high of 28 MPG, heavily loaded, on a trip from Connecticut to Vermont.

 

The HO puts out a few more horsepower, but the torque peak is MUCH higher in the RPM band.

 

This is true. But who's to say this isn't good depending on what you rig is used for? Personally I'd rather have a higher peak power band for max efficiency AND the resulting better gas mileage. Having the peak torque and HP readings at lower RPMs is only good for tractors and/or off-road purposes. The ratio of on-road vs. off-road on 99% of our MJs is probably 10 to 1, if that. Who wants to peak out at 2300 RPM or so cruising down the interstate?

Peak efficiency comes from operating the engine at the torque peak. The torque peak on the original HO engine was 3,950 RPM, and they later dropped it to 3,000 RPM in 1996, with the change to ODB-II. By contrast, the '87 had a torque peak at 2,000 RPM and the '88 - '90 had a torque peak at 2,400 RPM. Considering that at legal highway speeds the 5-speed with stock gears cruises at less than 2,000 RPM and an automatic on stock tires only turns 2260 RPM at 70 MPH, there's no justification using your efficiency argument for raising the torque peak in the HO engines. This is why the Renix engines typically produce better gas mileage -- they are operating near their torque peak at highway speeds.

 

The Renix engines drive like a Jeep/truck engine should. The HO engines drive like "car" engines. (Which, of course, is what DaimlerChrysler wanted.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peak efficiency comes from operating the engine at the torque peak. The torque peak on the original HO engine was 3,950 RPM, and they later dropped it to 3,000 RPM in 1996, with the change to ODB-II. By contrast, the '87 had a torque peak at 2,000 RPM and the '88 - '90 had a torque peak at 2,400 RPM. Considering that at legal highway speeds the 5-speed with stock gears cruises at less than 2,000 RPM and an automatic on stock tires only turns 2260 RPM at 70 MPH, there's no justification using your efficiency argument for raising the torque peak in the HO engines. This is why the Renix engines typically produce better gas mileage -- they are operating near their torque peak at highway speeds.

 

I hate to do this, but I respectfully disagree. Peak gas mileage occurs at the engine speed where torque divided by rpm is highest. This is usually a bit lower than peak torque. As rpms go up, mileage goes down (generalization), as torque goes down, mileage goes down (also a generalization), therefore, once you are past the torque peak, mileage goes down in an awful big hurry, but it actually starts to go down slowly even before you hit the torque peak.

 

Which engine gets better mileage depends on driving habits, type of driving, gearing and engine. I'm sure the Renix can get better mileage than the HO under certain circumstances. I'm also sure the HO can get better mileage under different circumstances.

 

All I know is that with stock gears (3.55?), AW4 overdrive automatic and a 2" front lift my 87 Renix got 24mpg on the highway, mostly flat ground doing a steady 65mph with slightly oversized tires (235/75R15). Mileage has been corrected for tire size. i was also pleasantly surprised but this as only expected around 20 when I bought a truck with a 4 litre engine.

 

This weekend I'm heading to Canada and will see what it will be at 70-75mph.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...