Questions about Wrangler vs Cherokee

amp2286 · #1 (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 12:45 AM

Hey all,
I've been looking at Jeeps for about 2 months now, looking to get my first one. Mostly I have been looking at wranglers, but have recently started looking at Cherokees also. I have found a 98 Cherokee with a 4.0, auto trans, and 87k miles. I'm wondering whether to seriously consider this, or to just keep looking at wranglers. I have come to love the lifestyle that comes with owning a Jeep (at least what I've read about). I have some hesitations about this that I was hoping y'all could help answer. As far as fixing cars, I know nothing, and I was excited to learn with a wrangler because of their simple set up. Will I be looking at a similar set-up with the Cherokee? I don't intend to do much serious off-roading, but I do want to ride some trails and such, what might I be giving up or gaining by having the Cherokee for this? What are the argument for/against the frame of the Wrangler vs the lack of frame with the Cherokee?

I want to thank eveyone now for any responses, I really do appreciate the help. Also, I am posting this in the Wrangler forum and the Cherokee forum so that I can get opinions from owners of both (which will hopefully help minimize biases and focus on the straight facts). I also understand that some of the reasons for one or the other depend on personal opinion and preference, so I will keep that in mind. Thanks again.

Crazy4diesels · #2 (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 10:34 AM

Your personal preference would be your best bet. The Cherokee is very well built and will pretty much be just as easy to maintain as the Wrangler. The Cherokee is a little more refined in ride and comfort and has more room. Both do well off road. The Wrangler is a blast to drive with top and doors off (and that's hard to match). True, the Cherokee is unitized (no "frame" ) but it's one tough little vehicle. Just make sure the one you get is not rusted underneath. With the Wrangler you can change the body (or frame) if need be. Whichever one you decide on, I would suggest the 4.0 liter (or the all-iron 4 banger) and a standard tranny. My 05 Wrangler (4.0 with six speed std) gets 16-19 MPG. My brothers 01 Cherokee (4.0 with auto tranny) gets as much as 24 MPG. Best of luck - John

JohnnyO · #3 (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 02:05 PM

Going topless has its advantages but I think it mostly boils down to how much interior room do you need?

JeepRox · #4 (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 03:30 PM

I agree with both answers but myself I love the Wrangler. There are so many things that can be done like the Windjammer in the summertime. It's also a lot of fun for off roading...I can't speak for the cherokee in that aspect. Good luck in your decision making..

SteelHeadz · #5 (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 04:05 PM

Wrangler

xt master · #6 (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 07:46 PM

I would have to agree with some of the other people that it is all preference.The Cherokee has more interior room.Nothing compares to the wrangler with no roof and doors.They both do well off road.The wrangler will do better in tighter spots.

volaredon · #7 (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 07:49 PM

I have 1 of each; they both have their place; personally I prefer driving the Wrangler when I dont need much hauling space. (being a stick helps with that assessment; automatics are BORING)

but at least you didnt mention a Cherokee vs a Grand Cherokee; in that case a Cherokee wins hands down! those phoney plastic "bumpers" on the Grand's and the gaudy plastic all the way up n down both sides a foot tall along the bottom sides of a Grand, just scream CHEAP. not to mention that all that plastic along the bottoms of the doors and fenders works GREAT as a water trap;heck, I remember people complaining about 2-1/2" wide chrome moldings for thareason in the 70s as a kid; and they put a foot of plastic on these? But back when they were new,boy did all that plastic cost plenty!

The cherokee does most of our "family duty"; it's the wife's daily driver and the one that my son gets the most drive-time in with his new drivers license. We have an 01 Cherokee and a 97 Wrangler both with 4.0's in them.

Mooseknuckles · #8 (**permalink**) 11-02-2009, 09:41 PM

The Wrangler is a hell of a lot of fun, whereas the Cherokee is a little more practical... so, basically, what everyone else is saying. If you need space, don't go with the Wrangler. It's probably the one and only regret I have about buying mine, other than that, it's been a blast.

Sine Deviance · #9 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 01:02 AM

Basically it's what everyone else is saying here. I currently have a '95 Wrangler and before this I had an '89 Wagoneer Ltd (essentially a glorified Cherokee.)

I know from experience that both will do great offroad. The Wrangler seems to be built a little better than the Cherokee, it's more rigid and it just seems to be more stout. Cherokees are good all-around vehicles; they have plenty of storage space for a small SUV and they are quite comfortable. Some people say Cherokees get better mileage but my Wagoneer got less MPG than my Wrangler, so I think it's relative to the person you ask (could also be related to weight, the Wagoneer Ltd was a high-luxury model.) For reference the Waggy had the 4.0 EFI engine, my Wrangler has the 2.5L EFI.

I will say that when it comes to mods and availability nothing beats a Wrangler. I'm pretty sure the Wrangler/CJ models have the best aftermarket of any car ever.

My favorite part of having my Wrangler is cruising with the doors off. I don't think I could go back to the Wagoneer after experiencing that.

If you don't care much for stock comfort (there's always aftermarket seats and suspension to make it more comfortable) and you want versatility, nothing beats a Wrangler. There's just so many configurations and variations you can get with a Wrangler. It just doesn't end.

palehawaiian · #10 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 01:42 AM

Wrangler, hands down. The cherokee can hold its own offroad, as can the wrangler. In the stock form the wrangler will go twice as far. It has better ground clearance better approach angles. A convertible top and removable doors. Unless your worried about the cargo room I think that you would be better off in the Wrangler. And just to let you know the cherokee dont have alotta room in the back either.

Plus dont you think the lights and grill look like a big ass grin? Theres a reason for that.

volaredon · #11 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sine Deviance

Basically it's what everyone else is saying here. I currently have a '95 Wrangler and before this I had an '89 Wagoneer Ltd (essentially a glorified Cherokee.)

Some people say Cherokees get better mileage but my Wagoneer got less MPG than my Wrangler, so I think it's relative to the person you ask (could also be related to weight, the Wagoneer Ltd was a high-luxury model.) For reference the Waggy had the 4.0 EFI engine, my Wrangler has the 2.5L EFI.

IDK if the gas mileage dispute even goes so far, as Wrangler vs Cherokee; but 2.5 vs 4.0; I have had exactly ONE 4 cyl vehicle, in my life; a 93 YJ with a 2.5. Both of my brothers have Wranglers with 2.5s; one has a '92 YJ, the other has a 98 TJ. all 3 Wranglers are manual trannys and 4.10s. though my brother's 92 is still going daily, on its original, unrebuilt motor with 230K miles on it! and my nephew overheated the 98 so bad that he warped 2 intake valves and popped all 4 exh seats loose in the head, but the bottom end is still the original. (dumb arse blew the waterpump and kept driving til the engine died, even though he knew that he'd blown off all the coolant!)

MY 97 TJ with a 4.0 is equivalent in MPG, to all the 2.5 ones we've had; and the difference in available power (all are "stock", maintenance parts replaced as needed) is so noticeable, having a 4.0 and getting the same MPG as the 2.5s that I have experience with, is like having cake and eating it too. I guess its because the 2.5 has to work harder than a 4.0 to do the same work. My YJ was the doggiest vehicle I have ever owned. even though it had the 4.10s. that motor always "screamed" from the higher revs needed to hold a given road speed compared to my 97, or my Cherokee.

Now on the other hand, I also have an 01 XJ; also with a 4.0.
Its not a straight-across comparo, between the Wrangler and the Cherokee, because of trans and gearing differences but yeah the Cherokee does do a bit better than the Wrangler over the road; in town they are about equal.
but with 3.07s and a 5 speed with a nearly worthless OD gear in the Wrangler (because of the 3.07s), vs. an OD/Auto and 3.55s in the Cherokee, I can't compare "straight across";
Both run 235/75/15 tires; when I had the 31s on the Wrangler, I could hardly ever get it into 5th, I get better use out of it now that I went back to the 235s.
The Cherokee "lugs" much less in top gear, than does the Wrangler.
I do have a set of 3.73 gears for the rear of the Wrangler, but gotta wait til I can afford to get the carrier and the matching gears for the front axle before I can swap them out. Then I expect my 5th to be more beneficial, and a more straight-across comparison can be done to the Cherokee; but unless I put the same gearing into both vehicles, one will always have an "edge" over the other.

amp2286 · #12 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 06:16 PM

I appreciate all the assistance. It has all been very helpful. The main reason for asking all of this was because I am looking at a nice 98 Cherokee and I just wanted to double check before I look further into it. I will be checking out the Cherokee tomorrow and taking it to a nearby dealership for inspection. If all goes well I might have my first Jeep in the next few days. So I will let everyone know how it goes. Thanks again for all the advice.

HiHood · #13 (**permalink**) 11-03-2009, 07:40 PM

Chrysler Wranglers are a direct descendant of the original Willys-Overland civilian Jeep (CJ) which was born of WWII army Jeeps. They wanted to introduce the Jeep to the FARM community as a workhorse with off-road capabilities. With ALL that said, the Wrangler inherits some not too good qualities as well. They have improved drastically but still ride ROUGH. The Cherokee will be a better riding vehicle. Many get Jeeps not knowing this and are not happy. Also, they sit high compared to other vehicles and have a short wheel base and again, they have improved drastically since 1946 but they still cannot be driven like a Vette or a Viper. If understand all this, then the stiff ride will not disappoint you and when you do take it out off road, be careful where you point the sucker, it'll probably make it!!
I say WRANGLER, the descendant of the CJ.

volaredon · #14 (**permalink**) 11-04-2009, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by amp2286

I appreciate all the assistance. It has all been very helpful. The main reason for asking all of this was because I am looking at a nice 98 Cherokee and I just wanted to double check before I look further into it. I will be checking out the Cherokee tomorrow and taking it to a nearby dealership for inspection. If all goes well I might have my first Jeep in the next few days. So I will let everyone know how it goes. Thanks again for all the advice.

Taking to a DEALER for an inspection? If you don't have a buddy working there that you can assure will pull your inspection ticket, that may be your 1st mistake. Find an independently owned garage, or a reputable chain type repair facility like a Good Year, firestone etc for that sort of work. an "old timer" who owns his own shop will probably be more up front/honest with you on the inspection assessment.

twmattox · #15 (**permalink**) 11-04-2009, 10:29 AM

Well...I can say regardless of your choice, make sure you get one with no rust and get it protected. I have dealt with a number of CJs that are in great mechanical order...but shot with rust. It takes a weekend to do a complete brake job with ball joints, tie rod ends, wheel bearings, hoses, etc... It takes a lot longer to replace a tub.

I would also recommend driving both. Personally, I feel cramped in a Cherokee...(the way the transmission hump has me torque my right leg is a bit uncomfortable long term)...