2005 - 2009 JEEP GRAND CHROKEE - QUESTIONS - Help? | Page 2 | GTAMotorcycle.com

2005 - 2009 JEEP GRAND CHROKEE - QUESTIONS - Help?

rmemedic said:
If I have a head wind, I can't and as soon as I start up hill it will switch off. But, to do 120 on flat with no head wind it will just barely do it, but I have to be VERY nice on the gas. 110 is not hard to maintain it in 4wd until there is a hill.
It's a bone stock (aside from a toneau cover) 2012 ram 4x4... I forget my gear ratio though. The lifted up truck was my Canyon that got the same mileage (or worse) than my new truck, and with my 5x10 enclosed sled trailer it was a huge difference, nevermind my new 7x12 enclosed trailer (which is why I needed the bigger truck).

I can even get it to stay in eco mode while slightly accelerating above 80, but again I have to be very very nice on the gas pedal.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that tonneau cover is helping it quite a lot. I used to leave the tail gate down for a highway trip, and had a smooth rubber cargo mat. Seemed to help a bit.

I almost bought a Canyon until I asked around about them and heard there were a lot of random problems with them. I was going to buy a used, fairly basic truck. Had the 2.9 litre 4 cylinder, was 4x4, A/C, windup windows and no extended cab, although I'd have preferred the extra interior room and have a long bed...something you just don't find in a pickup unless you go full size, and then the WB's are huge. So did you have trouble with the Canyon? Was it the reason you switched to Chrysler? Had you considered a Ford with the 3.5 turbo (which, FWIW, I suspect has to be super babied in order to get anywhere near the mileage they claim). Whenever I see that ad it bugs me, cuz if someone believes that and pays the premium to get it they're gonna be sorely disappointed in the real world driving. It almost sounds like the RAM on 4 cyl may be a bit thirstier, (driven equally gently) but will stay on 4 cyl longer than I thought. When it switches over, is there any discernible difference in engine vibration/smoothness or is it strictly an exhaust and intake sound difference?

I didn't know that Chrysler's 3.8 was an oil burner. That engine has been around since the early 90's if it's the optional engine to the 3.3 they used to offer on their AWD minivans. Almost think they changed it. And while the new Pentastar may be good on fuel and has good torque, who knows if it is going to be a good motor. The 3.3 was a pretty dependable slug. Had a bit of waterpump issues but not a killer when it had to be done.

edit - sorry, i realized after that my comment about the 3.8 was cuz i had been reading the Jeep Wrangler thread earlier.
 
Last edited:
I had a 2005 Grand Cherokee before I switched to my truck - both have the 5.7 litre Hemi's but the Jeep had the MDS (disable 4 cylinders) where my truck does not. To be honest with you, I notice very little fuel economy difference and the difference I do see is likely to do with the shape/weight differences... don't count on the 2005 MDS technology cutting your gas bill by very much.

Definitely get the Quadra-Drive II if you can - it comes stock with all the limited trim cherokees. That AWD system is AMAZING and driving through slushy or slippery winter roads is like riding on rails with that technology. My current truck has electronic front and rear lockers which is nice for true off-roading, but for everyday winter driving I really miss the QDII system.

As others have noted, you CANNOT switch to 2WD only (I wasn't even aware models in the states had this option).

With QDII and the 5.7 litre hemi, you'll out-accelerate a lot of vehicles out there that's for sure!
 
nesobriquet said:
I have a feeling that tonneau cover is helping it quite a lot. I used to leave the tail gate down for a highway trip, and had a smooth rubber cargo mat. Seemed to help a bit.

I almost bought a Canyon until I asked around about them and heard there were a lot of random problems with them. I was going to buy a used, fairly basic truck. Had the 2.9 litre 4 cylinder, was 4x4, A/C, windup windows and no extended cab, although I'd have preferred the extra interior room and have a long bed...something you just don't find in a pickup unless you go full size, and then the WB's are huge. So did you have trouble with the Canyon? Was it the reason you switched to Chrysler? Had you considered a Ford with the 3.5 turbo (which, FWIW, I suspect has to be super babied in order to get anywhere near the mileage they claim). Whenever I see that ad it bugs me, cuz if someone believes that and pays the premium to get it they're gonna be sorely disappointed in the real world driving. It almost sounds like the RAM on 4 cyl may be a bit thirstier, (driven equally gently) but will stay on 4 cyl longer than I thought. When it switches over, is there any discernible difference in engine vibration/smoothness or is it strictly an exhaust and intake sound difference?

I didn't know that Chrysler's 3.8 was an oil burner. That engine has been around since the early 90's if it's the optional engine to the 3.3 they used to offer on their AWD minivans. Almost think they changed it. And while the new Pentastar may be good on fuel and has good torque, who knows if it is going to be a good motor. The 3.3 was a pretty dependable slug. Had a bit of waterpump issues but not a killer when it had to be done.

edit - sorry, i realized after that my comment about the 3.8 was cuz i had been reading the Jeep Wrangler thread earlier.
Click to expand...

The cover may help a bit, I had it on only a month after I got the truck so I was still getting used to it.

My Canyon was AWESOME. It was really reliable and I don't really baby my vehicles, my trucks are always pulling or hauling something. It was jacked up 7" with 33" tires on it (looked awesome) and it was off roaded a few times, and really didn't want to sell it, but I needed more towing capacity, and even though the Canyon was capable it would have just strained it too much so I had to let it go. Some 04 and 05 year Canyons/Colorados had valve seat issues, but those were covered if they were found to have a defect. Some had a one time faulty brake light switch, and that is really the only common issues with those trucks. I still think they are among the best looking.
I got the ram because it has the most hp in the class, I got about $13000 off the sticker price and I liked the looks. I was interested in the ecoboost ford, but to get it to the proper package to have that motor in it I was way over my budget... But it's a sweet little motor. I know they had some transmission issues though. However, with the turbo set up they are prime candidates for easy HP mods.

I can tell when my engine switches to ECO mode. It's not a bad feeling, it's just different. No comment on the noise because I still have the stock exhaust and can't hear it.
 
Xhumeka said:
I had a 2005 Grand Cherokee before I switched to my truck - both have the 5.7 litre Hemi's but the Jeep had the MDS (disable 4 cylinders) where my truck does not. To be honest with you, I notice very little fuel economy difference and the difference I do see is likely to do with the shape/weight differences... don't count on the 2005 MDS technology cutting your gas bill by very much.

Definitely get the Quadra-Drive II if you can - it comes stock with all the limited trim cherokees. That AWD system is AMAZING and driving through slushy or slippery winter roads is like riding on rails with that technology. My current truck has electronic front and rear lockers which is nice for true off-roading, but for everyday winter driving I really miss the QDII system.

As others have noted, you CANNOT switch to 2WD only (I wasn't even aware models in the states had this option).

With QDII and the 5.7 litre hemi, you'll out-accelerate a lot of vehicles out there that's for sure!
Click to expand...

Well the issue is that...I don't haul much. Its about 200 - 300kms per week at most during spring months.....so I would prefer the the V-6 for daily driving. Im more of a Sunday Grandpa driver actually too...so V-6 will do just fine.

The 4WD Low is mostly only found in the V-8 stuff....which is a lot of gas....so I think V-6 is best?

Yeah! I LOVE 4WD...with LOCKERS - that would be AWESOME!
 
Fundamental question for you: Why are you fixated on having 4wd low range?

I've seen what you have been towing, and I tow more than that with a Jetta. For towing (one or two bikes on your open trailer) you don't need 4wd, you don't need low range, you don't need V8 power. If you've gone and bought a decent-size enclosed trailer for yourself, different story, but you still don't need 4wd, you don't need low range. For bike towing and general small trailer towing, don't need 4wd at all, nevermind the low range part of it.

If you are set on building a rock crawling or mudding vehicle then it's a whole different story, but then I'd suggest that that generation of Grand Cherokee as a whole is not the best choice. Too big, too heavy, too wide, too expensive. Wrangler or the Unlimited (the 4-door wrangler-looking thing) are better choices but they pretty much suck for driving on the road - even worse than the JGC already sucks (which it does ... compared to a car).

Disclaimer, aside from bikes, I'm a car guy rather than a truck guy. (But your previous vehicle was more car than truck, too.) Aside from horrible fuel consumption, Jeeps with solid front axle don't have good highway manners. Ride quality is abysmal with all sorts of funky sideways-kick ride motions (because the geometry of a solid front axle causes the tire contact points to kick sideways when going over a one-wheel bump). Handling, for a chassis with a solid-axle front end, is imaginary. They come into their own off-road ... but not that many owners use them like that.

The truck guys might be used to the awful ride motions and lousy mileage and poor handling characteristics.

So what are you really going to do with this vehicle ...
 
Brian P said:
Fundamental question for you: Why are you fixated on having 4wd low range?

I've seen what you have been towing, and I tow more than that with a Jetta. For towing (one or two bikes on your open trailer) you don't need 4wd, you don't need low range, you don't need V8 power. If you've gone and bought a decent-size enclosed trailer for yourself, different story, but you still don't need 4wd, you don't need low range. For bike towing and general small trailer towing, don't need 4wd at all, nevermind the low range part of it.

If you are set on building a rock crawling or mudding vehicle then it's a whole different story, but then I'd suggest that that generation of Grand Cherokee as a whole is not the best choice. Too big, too heavy, too wide, too expensive. Wrangler or the Unlimited (the 4-door wrangler-looking thing) are better choices but they pretty much suck for driving on the road - even worse than the JGC already sucks (which it does ... compared to a car).

Disclaimer, aside from bikes, I'm a car guy rather than a truck guy. (But your previous vehicle was more car than truck, too.) Aside from horrible fuel consumption, Jeeps with solid front axle don't have good highway manners. Ride quality is abysmal with all sorts of funky sideways-kick ride motions (because the geometry of a solid front axle causes the tire contact points to kick sideways when going over a one-wheel bump). Handling, for a chassis with a solid-axle front end, is imaginary. They come into their own off-road ... but not that many owners use them like that.

The truck guys might be used to the awful ride motions and lousy mileage and poor handling characteristics.

So what are you really going to do with this vehicle ...
Click to expand...

Gotta +1 all of this.
I practically never put my truck in to 4wd with the trailer, only times I do are when the pits are muddy and I'm about to get stuck, or when I'm pulling the sled trailer on heavily snowed in roads. The reason I got 4WD is my trucks all end up off road in the mud.

I'm a truck guy, so I'm used to how a truck rides, and I HATE how my mom's Grand Cherokee rides, even after we did a full shock and sway bar end link change on all 4 corners. Heck, my lifted up stiffened up Canyon drove a million times nicer. I just hate the way her truck wiggles with every little bump, it doesn't feel precise in any way.
 
rmemedic said:
Gotta +1 all of this.
I practically never put my truck in to 4wd with the trailer, only times I do are when the pits are muddy and I'm about to get stuck, or when I'm pulling the sled trailer on heavily snowed in roads. The reason I got 4WD is my trucks all end up off road in the mud.

I'm a truck guy, so I'm used to how a truck rides, and I HATE how my mom's Grand Cherokee rides, even after we did a full shock and sway bar end link change on all 4 corners. Heck, my lifted up stiffened up Canyon drove a million times nicer. I just hate the way her truck wiggles with every little bump, it doesn't feel precise in any way.
Click to expand...

Yup, unibody shutter..I don't like it either.
 
It's not that it's unibody ... every car nowadays is unibody, and EVERY car rides better than a JGC.

It's the solid front axle suspension geometry.

rmemedic's Canyon has (had) independent front suspension.

I've been in a late model Ford Expedition with 4 wheel independent suspension, and it rides like a car.

I am not sure but I think the current model JGC has gone to an independent front suspension.
 
Brian P said:
It's not that it's unibody ... every car nowadays is unibody, and EVERY car rides better than a JGC.

It's the solid front axle suspension geometry.

rmemedic's Canyon has (had) independent front suspension.

I've been in a late model Ford Expedition with 4 wheel independent suspension, and it rides like a car.

I am not sure but I think the current model JGC has gone to an independent front suspension.
Click to expand...

Could be? I know they went with coils and links which helped a lot with the abruptness of the ride.

As for unibody shutter, just take a 2nd last (and maybe current?) gen CRV for a drive...it's there in spades. Best handling/riding CRV is 2006 and older.

I meant to add..I get that unibody structures have a lot of crash worthiness built in, but some mfgrs do it better than others..without the shutter.
 
Last edited:
Brian P said:
It's not that it's unibody ... every car nowadays is unibody, and EVERY car rides better than a JGC.

It's the solid front axle suspension geometry.

rmemedic's Canyon has (had) independent front suspension.

I've been in a late model Ford Expedition with 4 wheel independent suspension, and it rides like a car.

I am not sure but I think the current model JGC has gone to an independent front suspension.
Click to expand...

since 05, they went to a independent front. and still solid rear with a 4-link setup.

the independent front aren't bad at alll....they last for EVER and need little to no maintenance.
 
Brian P said:
Just found this relevant tidbit. Watch the video. Also note the comparison to competitive models in the European market at the bottom of the article.

http://www.teknikensvarld.se/jeepmoosetest/
Click to expand...

neat!

327_pg_0005.jpg
 
Brian P said:
Just found this relevant tidbit. Watch the video. Also note the comparison to competitive models in the European market at the bottom of the article.

http://www.teknikensvarld.se/jeepmoosetest/
Click to expand...

Interesting, but..if you look very closely, that test was flawed.

Watch when he has made his first left, and look closely at the point he should have a straight steering correction for the short 3 pylon straight stretch...instead, notice that the wheels are still pointed slightly to the right, which would indicate he was trying to cut back to the right sooner than the pylon course is indicating, and using up precious chassis settling time to regain momentary composure. This is proven by the fact that when he goes up on two wheels, the right side wheels, while in the air, actually go over the last pylon and remains untouched as the car comes back down, and the rear wheels were forward of it by that time to clear it.

I don't have time to see how they did the Hi Lux, or the others but with that specific Jeep video, I'd suggest they are promoting the EU brands since the Jeep is considered an import competitor there. They gotta love that we are watching it over here. I'd like to see the full video of the other 3 mentioned..the BMW, VW and Volvo.

In any event, it doesn't take slow-mo photography to see that Jeep sits a lot higher with a probable significant higher COG as a result, and as such still might not achieve the 43.5 mph that the other 3 did even if the guy wasn't influencing the test. Gotta watch those Swedes..sneaky sneaky.. no hate here though, I have no problem at all with Swedish people.

Lastly, I am no fan of excessively big wheels. Sure they look great, but the buck stops there. With the vast majority of our vehicles under 2300 kg, no need for wheels greater than 17". Look how many years 15"ers did just fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom