joshpallotta

umm why was the cherokee and the 4.0 discontinued? i had never really heard an answer as to why the most reliable engine a jeep had ever seen and a model that was the most practical between daily driving and off road capabilities was discontinued. they get rid of the cherokee and come up with the liberty, patriot and compass (no offense to anyone who owns one), i just dont understand it. no wonder why daimler chrysler is begging on their hands and knees to the feds for money

diskman

I read somewhere it was partially due to the insurance industry for vehicles. Kinda the same way that they forced out the muscle cars of the late 60s and very early 70s.

Seems that the 4.0L can do alot of damage to another vehicle/person/building since it's a heavy long motor. Every V6 configuration is designed to "roll" under the vehicle during impact so the damage is less.

Plus, it's typical behavior of a large corporation. I'll bet the sales of the XJ were dropping off so that was another nail in the coffin I imagine.

Who knows?

mudallday

hummer paid jeep to quit making them, everone knows that

jonb8

Goverment conspiracy, Clinton wheeled a hummer....

solderjunkie

Companies have to move-on.

Also the 4.0 is grossly inefficient... each year the MPG ratings were improving for every other vehicle except the XJ. When gas was $4 a gallon, you couldn't give traditional Jeeps away.

ol"blue

First issue is the V6 can be made to run cleaner than the 4.0 because of design. Second, and more important issue, is because of it's design, the 3.7 V6 can be machined using the same tooling as the 4.7, 5.7, and 6.1 V8's and the V10. Hence, cheaper to build.

Uncletruck

I was told this by my local jeep dealer. First, the 4.0's emissions were too high, it was one of the most smog-unfiendly engines on the market at the time it was discontinued and Daimler deemed the costs to be too high to make it meet federal emissions. The "answer" from Daimler was to either discontinue the Cherokee and the the 4.0, which they chose. The other alternative was to keep the Cherokee available with one of the newer "corporate" V6 engines that have much lower emissions. Their marketing people said that Cherokee buyers would not accept it with a V6, so away it went. It was a mistake in my mind as Wrangler buyers kept going to the showrooms when it was switched to the V6.

There are other therories. It is written in Wikipedia that Daimler's president at the time felt the Cherokee's design was way outdated and he wanted Crhysler to move forward in designs, and felt it couldn't do so with a vehicle and engine that basically dated itself back to AMC vintage. (Not that the Wrangler doesn't somewhat date itself back to ******?)

-UT-

XJ Stryker

From what I understand a remodel was in order for 2002. After 9-11 it was decided that instead calling the new model a Cherokee they renamed it to the Liberty.

I can not for the life of me remember where i read this so I can't prove it as fact. Just some FYI.

robertj

I agree with all of the above, and I'd add that they wanted that segment to have an IFS for a smoother ride. Let's admit it, for the majority of buyers the Cherokee was a bit on the rough side. I'm not knocking it, in fact I love the ride of my Cherokee, but my wife hates it. The good news is that the Liberty has sold really well and is a decent vehicle. The CRD could have been so much more if not for the poorly engineered EGR setup. We loved our CRD except for all the issues and recalls.

joshpallotta

with regards to the ride. i know this is kinda cliche but its a jeep in my mind its supposed to have a rough ride unlike a luxury car. a friend of mine has an 07 grand cherokee and it doesnt feel like a jeep on the inside, it feels more like a car. i like it, its fast as hell but it just doesnt seem like a jeep

Schmoozer

Another interesting thing to note. When the Cherokee was first designed AMC thought it would be a flop so the engineers and designers immediately started on the Grand Cherokee. The Cherokee sold so well that when AMC finished designing the Grand they decided not to produce it because the XJ was STILL selling so well. Then Chrysler got a hold of the plans after acquiring AMC and began producing the Grand.

So if you think about it the three most popular Jeeps (IMO) were not even designed by Chrysler. Just my.02

5-90

Hm. So why are Cummins and GM making inline sixes? The GM is a recent resurgence (2005 or so, I think) and Cummins is an example of "never stopped" - they've kinda been an inline six Diesel specialist over the years (considering Navistar, Detroit, and Caterpillar tend to make V-block Diesels, if you want an inline you end up with a Cummins. Not that that's a problem - Cummins does build a good engine!)

The "grossly inefficient" aspect can probably be handled with a cylinder head and cam redesign - that's what the GM Vortec package is all about.

The 3.7L and the third-gen Hemi are based on the old LA-block? I didn't think they were, but I may have missed that. I know the V10 (488ci and 515ci) are mainly based on the LA-block V8, as well as the 238ci V6. In that sense, they're related to each other (and the 318ci and 360ci) in much the same way that the Ford Modular/Triton V8 and V10 are related. But, I thought the third-gen Hemi was pretty much a "new evolution" of Chrysler engines, and not a derivation of an existing design. Maybe I shoud dig that Hemi book out again and thumb through it...

The roads incident (very few of them are 'accidents' anymore...) that you get the least damaged in is the one you don't get into in the first place. We don't need to make safer cars, we need to make safer drivers. I've been saying that we're training and certifying incompetent drivers for years - but no-one is listening.

Especially here in CA. When I mustered out of the Air Force, I decided to stay out here. I had to transfer my driver's license from IN to CA (and my IN driver's license carried endorsements for heavy trucks and motorcycles.)

The CA test is so badly written that you pretty much can't pass it unless you have no idea what you're about - in English. I failed it three times on the run. They told me I'd have to come back in two months (and I'd already run around enough, thank you very much.)

So, I asked if there was anything in the rules that said I couldn't take it right away in another language? He went back, checked with his boss, and they decided that I could do it in another language, then and there (I had six to choose from.) He got pretty shirty with me about it, and was smirking as he asked me which language I wanted to take it in.

"Arabic will serve - I have the most recent practise in it. I can also do Farsi, Portuguese, Greek, German, Spanish, or Latin - but I'd expect you don't have Latin test docs..."

Wouldn't you know it - the test made more sense in Arabic than it did in English?

I have two boys. I taught one of them driving before he got his license (he's an exceptional driver, but failed his test the first couple of times as well...) and taught the other one after he got his driver's license (also an exceptional driver, but he passed his written the first go.)

As far as me goes, I've driven pretty much all over the world - yes, all seven continents. Sandstorms in North Africa, Blizzards in Northern Europe and Antarctica, monsoons in Korea; if it's foul weather, I've been through it. I've driven through it. Suffice it to say I know what I'm doing.

So why does the insurance company treat me like I'm the typical jackass out here (I'm not - I don't drink the water) and lump me in with all the other incompetents who are raising my rates? I was sixteen with my own car, paid $600 per annum, and had enough coverage that I could actually rent a car under my own insurance policy if I had to. My car? Fully-restored 1966 Bug, with some small modifications.

I came out here, I just wanted basic coverage ($50K PL/PD) on a 1974 Toyota Corolla - its saving grace was that it ran (bought it non-op for $50, put points and a condenser in, and drove it away.) They wanted something like $1900 per six months for basic coverage, no frills, just the legal minimum.

I ended up selling that car for $100 and buying bus passes - it was cheaper. How do you expect an enlisted man to afford that much for auto insurance? I hate to think what it would have been like if I had a vehicle that was remotely new...

My wife and I moved a while back - just far enough to change ZIP codes. Literally - we moved like two miles. Howcumzit it was worth something like a 20% hike in rates?

The auto industry isn't the only people having trouble with insurance companies - we all are having trouble! And you can't even get a straight answer out of them...

As far as crashworthiness (!) goes, I like my philosophy. "My crumple zone is your car." If you don't like it, then hang up and drive! Pay attention to your driving, not to some other damned thing you're donig - that's the problem we have to-day, not the vehicles...

OK, I'll stop now. This is a sore subject for me, and it does tend to make me wander just a bit...

RCB

An inline motor is a very efficient design, they simply choose to go with a V6, as another mentioned, to share more common tooling. It wouldn't have been difficult to update the motor for modern efficiency standards, but I digress.

Too many soccer moms wanting a big car turned trucks into pansy wagons. They wanted them to be more people friendly and less like a tool... because that's what sells to new car buyers. Those of us that use our vehicles like a tool can typically repair what we have and thusly don't influence the new car market very much.

There are people that give me nonsense because I do drive the jeep and a powerwagon (but I also have a motorcycle and a nissan). You need the right vehicle for the right job. I also like to point out that everyone who buys a new car every three or so years is actually creating more pollution than I am by multiples, as it takes far more for all these factories to keep churning, pumping out all these cars than all my vehicles could hope to do in twenty years, for every one new car produced.

Again, I digress...

I think as money will dry up over the coming decade, you will see more no frills vehicles like the Cherokee. Definitely a more modern power plant, but I wouldn't be surprised to see a "revier" I6.

On that note has anyone ever blueprinted a 4.0 and balanced the crank?

pwn

HAH!
I like this line.
Tools are friendly.

JeepCoMJ

well reguarding emissions, you may be right. but that would mean that the 4.0 cherokee would have been around until 2004 or 2005, with the last years of 4.0's in TJ's.


since the cherokee ended in 2001, you can, FACTUALLY rule out anything emissions related as being the end of the cherokee.

it's a fact that cherokees are more aerodynamic than a wrangler...so, if it were emission related which do you think would be first in line for a redesign/engine change?


no, it was ended on the simple basis that it was a 17 year old chassis design that more or less couldn't meet modern crash safety standards.

much the same reason that the old body-style VW bug was removed from most markets, and yet remains in other (3rd world) countries with less stringent safety standards.

and thus the reason that the "XJ" chassis was still produced until around 2004 in China and Brasil...the chinese being dubbed the "2500" and the brasillian being a nonvariant save for availability of a dana 44 front axle.