XJ Jeep - still one of the answers?

I'm sitting in one right now. It's slow :) But it makes up for it with bad fuel economy!

My XJ is the 2nd fastest car I've ever owned after my E36(not that that says a lot).

When I bought it everybody told me 17mpg was all I'd ever get. Here in Tahoe, with my 1000 vertical foot descent to work and then climb back home, I average 20mpg. I've had as bad as 16.5 into a 35mph headwind at 85mph and as good as 26mpg on I95 in SC.

I longed after XJs for years growing up (90s-00s). Finally bought myself one about 15 years ago (2-door, 5MT, 4WD), spent a year upgrading things (even found a rare swing-out rear tire carrier!) and.....turned out I really didn't enjoy driving it, at all :/ Might of had something to do with the fact that my wife's 4Runner was immeasurably better in every single way.  Or maybe I just didn't care about those things back in high school and college when I really wanted an XJ. 

The XJ was fairly reliable, there was that. And it looked cool and had legit offroad ability. But general handling, ride, steering, and brakes all sucked (even after upgrading/refreshing literally everything in the suspension/steering/braking system).  The OEM seats are terrible, the dash and controls are typical junky 80s Chrysler off-the-shelf stuff

I'll be honest, from that same era I much prefer the Montero (I have an '89 now). Just nicer vehicles in most measures and just as capable off-road unless you're doing rock-crawling and really need a solid front axle. Less aftermarket, of course. 

and just so you don't think I'm BSing :) Mine was a '90

I've gotta tell you, coming from a 1967 Land Rover, an XJ is incredibly luxurious, powerful and even fuel efficient :) But its still happiest when flexing offroad. Stuff like straight front axles are fantastic here in rockcrawling country but you have to be willing to make the sacrifice. But in terms of bang for the buck, they're hard to beat. You could probably get 5 XJs for the price of a 4Runner around here, and that 4Runner would probably have the 3.0 V6 that needs a set of head gaskets with every second oil change.

Since we're now posting gratuitous XJ pics...

Keith Tanner said:

I've gotta tell you, coming from a 1967 Land Rover, an XJ is incredibly luxurious, powerful and even fuel efficient :) But its still happiest when flexing offroad. Stuff like straight front axles are fantastic here in rockcrawling country but you have to be willing to make the sacrifice. But in terms of bang for the buck, they're hard to beat. You could probably get 5 XJs for the price of a 4Runner around here, and that 4Runner would probably have the 3.0 V6 that needs a set of head gaskets with every second oil change.

Just to clarify, I definitely was not suggesting 4Runner as an alternative, due to the huge price disparity (as Keith noted).

I am, however, suggesting a Gen2 (1992-1996) Montero as an excellent alternative, probably in the same general price range as an XJ (also many of them came with stock rear lockers). There's a reason the Monty(aka Pajero) was sold all over the world in places where 4wD is compulsary lol...

The solid front axle in the XJ isn't necessarily ideal on the road, but it's certainly possible to get them to drive well.  Just requires some attention to alignment and if you drive it any bit hard on the street, offset ball joints to add some camber (and then wheel spacers to get the scrub radius back to good) will help tire wear a lot. 

In my opinion the sweet spot is '97 - '99.  Maybe '00 but not sure.  Re: these got both the Chryco 8.25 rear and the high-pinion Dana 30 front.  Both of these are very good for moderate off-road use.  In '00 or just after they switched to the weaker low-pinion 30 (they ran out of the better ones).  These years also have the facelift which I prefer although unfortunately it does cost you the cool old-school vent windows.  

A 401 CJ said:

In my opinion the sweet spot is '97 - '99.  Maybe '00 but not sure.  Re: these got both the Chryco 8.25 rear and the high-pinion Dana 30 front.  Both of these are very good for moderate off-road use.  In '00 or just after they switched to the weaker low-pinion 30 (they ran out of the better ones).  These years also have the facelift which I prefer although unfortunately it does cost you the cool old-school vent windows.  

I'd agree with 97 - 99 for the XJ.  00/01 had the more problematic 0331 head on the 4.0 and the low pinion D30 (which is weaker, although not by all that much).  IIRC, the 8.25 vs D35 rear end wasn't entirely dependent on year.  I'm almost positive that any XJ with ABS got the D35 rear.  Without ABS, many had the 8.25. 

00/01 intake manifold on a 97-99 works well. The small port head got a better intake to nit be down on power.

In reply to rslifkin :

Mine has good street manners and no steering problems. Nothing exotic, just good condition ball joints and "the cure". It'll cruise at 75 with good stability. I think it's got a 2" lift and 30" tires, nothing crazy. 

rslifkin said:
IIRC, the 8.25 vs D35 rear end wasn't entirely dependent on year.  I'm almost positive that any XJ with ABS got the D35 rear.  Without ABS, many had the 8.25. 

That is correct. Non-abs is 8.25 up until 2001. The change is in March of 96(I love owning a changeover month car) the 8.25 went from 27 to 29 spline. Way better aftermarket for the 29 spline.

Is it just side gears and axles that are different, or was there a bearing dimension change too?

Ordering rearend parts for Mopars in general and Jeeps in particular is fun because they are like boxes of chocolate.  A friend's neighbor had a Rumble Bee (or whatever the truck was called) and it was at the dealership for months with rearend issues because they couldn't figure out what rearend it had and kept getting the wrong parts.  He said that eventually they just ordered every possible part and figured out it needed gears for a V10 model (??)

I had an 01 XJ for about a year back in 2010. I was coming from a powerstroke f350 with a 5 speed, but wanted something that could still tow my MR2 (on paper...) and would be sufferable in traffic. As mentioned, the mileage sucked! It was fun in the little bit of off reading I did. I'd own another, but would need to upgrade the brakes - mine were terrifyingly bad. The pedal was fine, but had zero bite. There's no way I'd tow anywhere near their max rating.  Eventually sold it for a Jetta TDI.

I love being able to take our '01 apart with mainly just a Philip's head screwdriver and a set of torx sockets. That's a good thing because you get to take it apart often. 

It's been a great mild offroader and light truck stand in. I only had to replace the intake (cracked), cylinder head (cracked), radiator (leaking), thermostat, shocks, rocker panel, headlights, rear brakes, and some u-joints to get it to driver status.  

I have towed the Abomination with mine a bunch of times. 

It does OK. I wouldn't buy one as a tow vehicle.

Mine also drives very well and is one of the best riding vehicles I own since I bought the Fox shocks on Keith's recommendation. 

The best thing I did to the brakes is the rear disk conversion. It stops with very little effort now and has a decent pedal feel. 

I'm seriously considering sending mine to Davis Autosports in VA and letting them turn it into a like new one with the LS conversion. 

Someone figured out an LS conversion that retains Ac/PS? I'm going to have to look into that. 

Brakes with a good pedal and zero bite need new friction material.

With good pads XJ brakes should be fine.  My ZJ has the same front brakes (but with rear discs) under something about 1100 lbs heavier than an XJ.  With any cheap off the shelf pad, the brakes were awful.  With good pads they've got more stopping power than any tire I've run can make use of and enough heat capacity to be fine, despite being tiny brakes relative to the weight involved. 

In reply to Keith Tanner :

Davis is running AC and PS with their LS Cherokees. I haven't found any good pictures of how the compressor is mounted though. 

How does the average LS compare for weight with the several feet of cast iron that is the I6?  

The biggest brake improvement I have made is replacing all the hardware and properly adjusting the rear drums. Went from sketchy stopping in the wet and snow to something that has close to rental car touchiness of brakes.  

Picture to prove I don't actually hate the damn thing. 

In reply to GhiaMonster :

Davis claims 60 lbs lighter for an alloy LS, which is plausible. I'm definitely going to be taking a good look at their build pics. 

Had the XJ working today, retrieving a dormant and non-running Miata from a long term parking spot that had some mud involved. I was moving the car trailer around with it too, but not with a car in it. 

Miata had four flat tires, XJ only had half of one :) I was only going up and down the driveway so it wasn't an issue. 

My brakes sucked when I bought my Jeep. Turns out the front pads were banana shaped. All it took was Rock Auto replacements and they're plenty for everything I put it through. 

Leaving work yesterday 

There were a few years of 4.0 that had weak pistons that would crack the skirts off.  I replaced two engines for this and have heard several more rattling along.

I believe they were late 1998 through 2004 range.  Basically just a fit issue that gets worse, if you have a set that fit well to begin with they last, if not they break eventually.  

My '98 stick loved to pre-detonate.  Warm days, mountain roads, lazy driver that didn't like to shift down and she'd start the rattle song.  I worried about it for awhile.  Started running 93 in the warm months which took care of it (mid '00s gas prices).  Then I said screw it.  Not running high octane in a Jeep.  I just let it knock.  It was still running strong with 160k on the clock when I traded it for my JK.  I had actually looked into water injection but never got around to it.

I wouldn't be surprised at all if an aluminum LS is lighter than a 4.0.  In a ZJ, the cast iron small block Mopar is only something like 50 lbs heavier than a 4.0.