Is '88 a good year for Cherokees?

[wikun]

Most assuredly x2 on the V6. The Buick designed engine that was put in the cherokee has not ever been known has its good points. The renix is a good system for managment. Simple to troubleshoot, only a handful of sensors, and anyone that says they are difficult to find is living in the middle of nowhere. All the parts houses still stock Renix era stuff. One thing to look for is rust. Cherokees rust badly, lift up the carpets as best you can and inspect the floor boards. Oh and the HO made its debut in 1991. I am rebuilding my 90 Limited as we speak. Good luck

 

[wADVr]

Assuming you're willing to tinker with it yes that is a good year. Not that any jeep is free from issues and doesnt require work to make work right but the renix era XJs do require a bit of a learning curve. Small stuff like an adjustable throttle position sensor, closed cooling system, all the worthless vacuum lines etc make this era XJ a bit overwhelming at first if a problem arises. That said once figured out they are very easy to work on and will almost run on coal.

A point in favor of the renix 4.0l engines is the substantually lower TQ curve. peaking at a bit above 2000rpm, highway cruising speed is comparatively efficient and has power for small grades reducing downshifting. I have owned an 89 MJ, 90 XJ, 94XJ, 96 XJ and my current 99 XJ and can say that the 89 and 90 renixs had the best economy and highway power. They do have less power compared to the HO 4.0ls but IMO the renix has more in the right spot.

 

[TerryD]

Chrysler electronics/ignition and HO is 91 and newer and the HO has about 10ft-lbs more torque and 15 ish HP

You're right! It's been a few years since I looked all that up and was just going from memory. :sombrero:

 

[toylandcruiser]

Most assuredly x2 on the V6. The Buick designed engine that was put in the cherokee has not ever been known has its good points. The renix is a good system for managment. Simple to troubleshoot, only a handful of sensors, and anyone that says they are difficult to find is living in the middle of nowhere. All the parts houses still stock Renix era stuff. One thing to look for is rust. Cherokees rust badly, lift up the carpets as best you can and inspect the floor boards. Oh and the HO made its debut in 1991. I am rebuilding my 90 Limited as we speak. Good luck

It's not the buick v6. That was in the 60's. The 2.8 is a totally different motor.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[juicexj24]

I bought one in 1997 fully loaded with 128k on it and just sold in this Spring with 300k plus and put in a new ATK rebuilt which had 34k on it.
4.0 inline 6, AW4 with a NP242 Selec Trac T-case, Dana 30 w/o disco and Dana 44. I drove this all over the country, put several different lifts and locker combos on it over the years and it was a great ride for me. I have had issues with the vacuum lines but did have issues with the CPS from time to time and I would heat wrap the wires on it and when I did that 80k ago it didn't have another issue. The big one for me was the power window motors go slow as did the power seats. Check for rust under the pass side carpet/seat above the muffler and also check inside the foot wells on both pass/driver sides. Very easy to work on. You can upgrade the front axle shafts to the larger U-joint if you plan to do any major wheeling, I ran Alloy USA's front and rear on mine but the stock 260x u-joint is very week. The brakes will be weak as well and upgrading to a larger mc is a good choice if your going to run a 33" plus tire. Good luck.

 

[Topgun514]

I love mine. Only thing I hate is the closed cooling system, everything else is so simple to work on. Stock I got 24 mpg highway, now I average about 19 or so city and highway with a few add ons.

 

[whowey]

The Chevy 2.6l V-6 was used from 1984-1986 in the Cherokee. It was replaced by the 4.0l for the 1987 model year. So if its truly an 88.. it won't have a 2.8l

The AW-4 automatic is a darn good reliable transmission. The BA-10 manual not so much. It was replaced mid-89 model year with the AX-15.

Either transfer case is also very reliable. The NP-231 part time case had the vacuum disconnect system on the axle. The NP-242 full time case did not.

The 2.5l 4-cyl motor was also quite reliable, if not a bit underpowered. It was fuel injected like the 4.0l. It was backed by an AX-5 manual transmission, or a A904 Chrysler automatic. 4.10 or 4.56 gearing could be had in these stock.

Remember this is the last of the truly AMC Cherokees. So even though a configuration was 'stock'... it could have been ordered different from the factory. AMC was the master of 'giving the customer what they want'.

 

[BLand Cruiser]

Great replies, everyone. Thanks!

 

[Super mud]

I have an 87 with an 88 motor and trans on 31s with stock gears and it is a torque monster with a intake, exaust and renix style tune lol. The engine bay is a bit of a rats nest but after some rewiring and elimination of a bunch of unessecary vacuum lines and emmisions stuff it's clean, simple and easy to work on. After looking at OBD1 and 2 systems I'm glad I have a renix.
Also the only thing you have to worry about failing on the renix is the crank position sensor which just tells the ecu to spark. The cam sensor supposobly controls injector firing but I've yet to hear about a failure (knock on wood). other than that if a sensor fails the system will still run the ecu just has to guess certain parameters.
One more thing is the system is very reliant on good grounds. Theres only one on the harness (2 ring terminals, 4 wires) and the rest is just chassis and battery grounds but they all supposobly make the system finicky.
Heres the list right of the top of my head
Crank s. (can mod to advance timing)
Cam s.
Throttle position s.
O2 s. (only 1)
Manifold air pressure s. (can mod for a a/f ratio)
Coolant temp s. (1)
Knock s. (people like this for tuning as it will avoid knocking and prevent timing problems)

So about as simple as it can get while providing good tune for all conditions
Oh yea the coolant system sucks. worked fine with dirty sludge coolant till I tryed to flush it and made it worse. Radiator swap is pretty easy. The main reason for overheating 4.0s is air leaks and pockets.

heres a pic of stock and i couldnt get any pics of mine cause the lighting cast a shadow.

 

[Topgun514]

That photo above is one with AC. Mine without AC has about 60% less vac lines- the 88 with no options is by far the best. Imagine a Cadillac now but with the typical "Jeep Owner" maintenance. Electrical and wires get chewed and are not seeing the shop every 6 months- less is more on a Jeep.

 

[Super mud]

Finnaly got a good picture of mine. Still replacing the overflow bottle on the right and gotta do some more wiringon the same side but big difference from stock. The only thing missing is cruise control which is going back in. AC and all is there

 

[BIGdaddy]

Wow, what a difference!

That's one of the things that I don't like about my cherokee. Compact engine compartment, tons of stuff to fit in it. Makes working on things a bit of a challenge.

To be 100% honest though, I've completed all my repairs by myself, with a simple toolset, in my garage, with my trusty haynes manual sitting next to me, so I guess I have nothing to complain about...lol.

And even though its a 1992, everything pretty much works as it should under the hood. Darn thing just keeps on trucking!

 

[Super mud]

That's one of the things that I don't like about my cherokee. Compact engine compartment, tons of stuff to fit in it. Makes working on things a bit of a challenge.

Actually after working a good bit of other people's junk I've relized the xj is one of the easiest rigs to work on. V8s and v6s cause lots of space issues compared to an inline. I think thats the #1 reason I like Cummins cause V8 diesels are a *****. I've relized the xj is actually extremely simple in design compared to many cars and the unibody is not really any more of a pain than a boxed framerail is.

 

[Kardec]

1988 Cherokee

I had one from '88 until the late 1990s. 4.0. Great mileage on the highway, 25+ under the best circumstances (55mph), plenty of power, decent room. In my case I HATED the seats, thought they were torture devices but other than that it was a great car. Things broke but it never broke down. The fit and finish was nowhere near the Land Cruiser it replaced, it wasn't nearly as hard core nor were the small items like window regulators and plastic bits particularly reliable ... but the core of the machine, the stuff that kept it running, worked perfectly. Plus it was fun to drive, the motor wound out nicely and handling, for what it was, was acceptable.

One of the big advantages is it's size. It would hold four people and a fair amount of junk yet was small enough to nose through tight spots that the LC found impossible. In the last few days I've been using a 1990s 4.0 HO while recording sound effects in the Pacific Northwest and my partner and I have been driving trails where my vehicle (an early Earthroamer) would have been 3 to 4 times too large for me to even consider. Yet we just keep going farther and farther back down old trails in the jeep, sometimes so tight we can barely get the doors open. On other days we've had all our recording gear, props, a 14' canoe, outboard, lunch, and sometimes our very small female assistant with us. Tightly packed. Intimate. Scraping tires ... but getting the job done. In many ways it's a more compact package than a wrangler and better on the highway. Most of us spend a lot of time on the road getting to the off road stuff, that's when a vehicle like this does its part.