4 Vehicle Choice for Budget SUV

[m3at333hp]

I'd vote a full size Montero, but I'm obviously biased. Great rig, for a bargain used price. Yeah, the gas mileage isn't great for the power, but it's not bad. Plus, compared to a similar year Toyota, (not that you are considering one) you will have a lot if extra cash for gas.

 

[4x4junkie]

I'd be willing to bet you're seeing in those Fuelly numbers some of the effect of Ford's use of 3.27 axle gears in a lot of Explorers to try to (artificially) pump up their EPA calculations. In reality, these gears hurt their mileage more than helped it (not to mention makes life harder for the transmission).

As I mentioned in my previous post, I frequently see low-20s hwy out of stock Explorers with 3.55 or 3.73:1 gears, even pushing into the mid-20s on those with a stickshift (my '94 Ranger with the same 4.0L engine was also turning in those same numbers before the lift & 33" tires). Of course this while doing 60-65 MPH, and also running a proper 35 PSI in the tires (not the 26 PSI the door placard has listed on it). If you must blast along at 80-something, then yeah you probably won't ever see any MPG in the 20s.

 

[L_Kilkenny]

Just joined, first post, couple week old thread, I'll try to make it worth it.........

Currently have a 1998 Grand Cherokee. The 4.0 GC is reliable, gets decent MPG's (19-20 backroads, 18 interstate, both with 2" lift and 31's) and is down right easy/cheap to fit 31's on. Rear axle is the weak point but fine if you keep it open and stick to 31's. On paper it's only slightly larger than the Cherokee in the real world it's much better on anyone riding and more storage. The Cherokee is gone the GC isn't. It's also a better vehicle than the ZR2 pickup I used to have. Not the electronics mind you. Chrysler electronics have always been notoriously fussy but over all it's just better.

Don't go throwing the idea of full size out either. One of the reasons I ditched the ZR2 was the MPG's wasn't much if any better than a full size Ford or Chevy. Extended cab Fords with 4.9's and 5.0's can pull 16, maybe 17-18 if you stick to back roads. Their Chevy counterparts will do about the same, maybe slightly better for I've always found a 350 SB to be better on gas then their Ford counterparts. As for young family's and extended cab trucks........ we hauled 2 daughters all over the western U.S. riding in booster seats back there. No complaints, plenty of room, access is tolerable, great times were had. Look close at the Broncos.

 

[Madmaxwell87]

Just joined, first post, couple week old thread, I'll try to make it worth it.........

Currently have a 1998 Grand Cherokee. The 4.0 GC is reliable, gets decent MPG's (19-20 backroads, 18 interstate, both with 2" lift and 31's) and is down right easy/cheap to fit 31's on. Rear axle is the weak point but fine if you keep it open and stick to 31's. On paper it's only slightly larger than the Cherokee in the real world it's much better on anyone riding and more storage. The Cherokee is gone the GC isn't. It's also a better vehicle than the ZR2 pickup I used to have. Not the electronics mind you. Chrysler electronics have always been notoriously fussy but over all it's just better.

Look close at the Broncos.

I love the huge aftermarket for the GC. The problem is I would have to take purchase or maintenance money away to put a BB or probably upcountry v8 coils and shocks under it to get 31's to fit whereas with the Explorer or Montero or Montero Sport they can fit those stock. The drivetrain of the GC is great and reliable if you stay with smaller tires but I agree with anything inside the body maybe being an issue(VIC mainly).
GC- Lower weight, better exterior dimensions(length, ground clearance), better engine, and about 30 more miles of range. Explorer- Better cargo room (not by very much) more interior room (second hip room mainly), and slightly bigger brakes. They're tied on MPG and steering( turning diameter)

I haven't made my mind up. I would love a bronco but bad mpg and 2 doors kinda kills it for me in this period in my life. I will own one as a off road toy someday though.

 

[L_Kilkenny]

I love the huge aftermarket for the GC. The problem is I would have to take purchase or maintenance money away to put a BB or probably upcountry v8 coils and shocks under it to get 31's to fit whereas with the Explorer or Montero or Montero Sport they can fit those stock. The drivetrain of the GC is great and reliable if you stay with smaller tires but I agree with anything inside the body maybe being an issue(VIC mainly).
GC- Lower weight, better exterior dimensions(length, ground clearance), better engine, and about 30 more miles of range. Explorer- Better cargo room (not by very much) more interior room (second hip room mainly), and slightly bigger brakes. They're tied on MPG and steering( turning diameter)

I haven't made my mind up. I would love a bronco but bad mpg and 2 doors kinda kills it for me in this period in my life. I will own one as a off road toy someday though.

All it took to fit 31's on our 4.0 is BB pucks and extended bump stops. I'll probably swap in new OME springs later this year or next but for Colorado this year it's going as it sits. Issues with the VIC are hugely over discussed. It's an easy delete but ours hasn't given us a lick of troubles. Windows and door locks are all good too. Anything that has been an issue is generally maintenance related and applicable to any 17 yo SUV. My 2004 Mountaineer has more little things that need attention (Didn't bring it up before cause it's 2WD and a completely different generation/style than you are looking at). Good luck whichever way you go and have fun.

 

[Madmaxwell87]

Directly comparing the GC and E shows them to be much closer than I thought. With the explorer I would be limiting myself to 3 years to get the specific engine/trans combo I want. The GC I could do a 4.0l or a 5.2l. The 5.2 gets me a stronger trans and rear end with probably a 1-2 mpg hit but the 249 transfercase which can have the VC go out. This does get me the best of both worlds- family carrying upgradable 4x4 suv with the potential for a nice loud v8 which I love.

I would want to do new springs and a BB or new upcountry springs (age and mileage of the vehicle and relatively low cost of new springs) and probably some bilstein 4600 or 5100 shocks. It's a very tempting idea as I have missed having real power from a vehicle. It will come down to test drives and whats available when I put my car up for sale soon. I'm gonna hold off posting until I purchase a vehicle because as you can see my choice varies daily.

 

[L_Kilkenny]

I've always had a hang up for MPG's and 6's but you have a valid concern with the power. I too get tired of lack of power but calculating the mileage when I fill up helps tremendously . Plus I HATE the 249 or any full time AWD for that matter. Being said you may of just talked me into a 351 for my next project... a Bronco. I was leaning towards a 300/6. Hats off to ya......

 

[Madmaxwell87]

After looking into the actual mileage people are getting with the 4.0l vs 5.2l (2-3 mpg worse on avg), the fact that this vehicle will never have bigger than 31-32s, and the less desirable transfercase with the v8 I will probably end up with a 4.0l. Not having extra power will also mean I won't be tempted to drive it like a v8 which will also help mpg. I know people argue that the mpg isn't that different or that a 249 isn't that bad but after owning vehicles with inherent problems and most of them surfacing on me I want something with the least/ no known issues so that my budget doesn't go towards repair instead of modifications.

300's in broncos are more rare the newer you go, you'd have to stay mid to late 80s really, but they are a bulletproof torque motor like the 4.0l. Since a bronco will probably be more focused towards an off road toy you can never have too much power to turn bigger tires and haul more weight. Plus that v8 sound....

 

[L_Kilkenny]

The 4.0 is a solid engine, I've had 2 (3 if you count a 4.2) and they are great. The solid 3 MPG increase over the 5.2 is what... 20%? That's reason enough.

The Bronco I'm dreaming up will be my first purpose built overland rig for road tripping out west with the wife. It'll see it's share of local mud(Iowa) and rocks(think Moab) due to the folks I seem to find myself around (who say's peer pressure goes away when you get older). But still, I'll keep it at a modest 2" lift and 33's. Probably BFG AT's again for the umpteenth time. If that won't get me someplace I just won't go there. I can get away with the 2 doors now that the daughters are starting to leave the nest.

 

[KBC]

2000-2004 Nissan Xterra. The gas mileage is the weak link but 31"s fit stock and it's pretty cheap to fit 33"s. All you need for 33"s is a cheap 2" body lift and some trimming. You can also add an even cheaper 1.5" suspension lift also referred to a poor man's lift (PML). I think you can fit 32"s stock with some plastic trimming in the front fenders.
You get Japanese reliability without the Toyota price tag. Just make sure the timing belt is done. The price might be pushing it a bit as well but they seem to be a bit cheaper where I'm from in the Great White North.

 

[rxinhed]

The full size Gen II Montero will fit 33" tires with no mods. Add a 2" body lift, fit 35" tires. Add OME suspension and fit 37"...and the 5.29 gears with ARB.

 

[Wolvee]

Chevy's are cheap, Fords are only as reliable as the previous owner. Cherokee's have terrible head room so if you're over 5'9" be prepared to kiss the roof and tilt your head down to find traffic lights. the Montero's not even a consideration for me as I think they were terrible at everything they did.

My money's on the Ford but I'd go newer. Once you learn how to fix it, it'll be no different than any other engine you've become familiar with.

 

[Weeds]

Look for a soccer mom grand Cherokee. I had one before the kids left home and I could afford the Rubi. Most of the Grands in my state have never seen 4 wheel drive and have been maintained by the dealer. Because there are so many the price can be reasonable. I looked for the poorly written add and found a good buy. Some people do not know how to sell.

Good Luck.:gunt:

 

[BigSwede]

Cherokee's have terrible head room so if you're over 5'9" be prepared to kiss the roof and tilt your head down to find traffic lights.

True.

 

[Madmaxwell87]

Grand Cherokee- Do I go for the 96-98 ZJ or the 99-04 WJ (both 4.0L)? The WJ will cost more so it will stay stock longer or will have higher miles. It has the slightly stronger 4.0L, slightly better mpg and more second row room. The ZJ will probably be cheaper and is more prevalent in my price range so better selection to choose from, it weighs less, has a bigger tank for larger range, more cargo room, and is shorter and narrower outside. From a purely numbers perspective they are basically balanced so I want to hear some first hand experiences with each rig.