cinergi Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 What are your thoughts? I am considering getting one of the other and just wondered if anyone had driven/owed either or both. I will most likely use it as a DD. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRed Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 A 59er. The 1998 Grand Cherokee with the 5.9L was the fastest SUV until the SRT-8 model came out. They have a very cult fallowing in the Jeep community, esp the Grand Cherokee guys. I don't know much about the Durango other than I liked them. Durango's are bigger (3rd row seating) and weight more, so they will probably get a little less mpg. Also the Durango is built off the Dakota, so they are known to have ball joint problems and it will ride more like a truck with the leafs in the rear. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Bruh Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 FAIL. Their both Chryslers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SRTurbo04 Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 FAIL. Their both Chryslers! Says the guy who's had a pos dsm on. Broke or on jackstands for like a year. Ge the gc 5.9 they are bad asss a friend had 3 an they are sick!! Great ride fun an fast Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FyrhzrdGT Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 My buddys got one, was running 14.8 on a cutout and an air filter with 130k miles. We put a cam in it and an SCT tune, haven't had a chance to hit the strip yet, but they are bad ass rides. I was always under the impression the ZJ was the fastest of the the 5.9s. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ImUrOBGYN Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 I like the Jeep. However, as much as you may like the 5.9, the newer 4.7L motors has the same performance with less weight, and less liters. I know the 5.9L tend to come at a premium. On a separate note, my rav is quicker. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nitrousbird Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Without looking at specific specs, I'm pretty sure the Typhoon was quicker. So was the LM002....both sold many years before the 5.9L GC. Cayenne Turbo, GC SRT-8, TBSS, X5 M and X6 M, AMG M-Class, and I'm sure several others are quicker as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snowflake Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Jeep GC is the way to go. The 4.7 HO motor that the 2002-04 JGC have is performance wise pretty much the same as the 9er but newer and look better IMOwith the 5.9 having more mods available. The Durango is way more heavy than the GC in any case... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FyrhzrdGT Posted March 4, 2010 Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 4.7HO is just as fast or faster. But the ZJ is a solid, well supported platform as is the 5.9L Magnum motor. I've driven a stock 4.7HO and it felt as fast as the 5.9. I prefer the ZJ platform though, it's a preference thing. However I never have, and probably never will own either of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cinergi Posted March 4, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 4, 2010 Thanks for the info th us far. I am leaning more towards the jeep as I don't quite need the extra space or weight of the Durango. Not a huge Chrysler fan myself, but the vehicle seems to fit the needs better than anything else I can think of. I was considering a newer 4.7, but figured the older would be cheaper to insure in my case. I will investigate mpg 5.9 vs 4.7 and probably make a decision from there. I don't need the srt8 at all for any reason, but they are super nice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FyrhzrdGT Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 EPA says 4.7 is rated at 1 more mpg. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinner Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 Without looking at specific specs, I'm pretty sure the Typhoon was quicker. So was the LM002....both sold many years before the 5.9L GC. Cayenne Turbo, GC SRT-8, TBSS, X5 M and X6 M, AMG M-Class, and I'm sure several others are quicker as well. he was referring to Jeeps in general not the SUV market as a whole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FyrhzrdGT Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 Without looking at specific specs, I'm pretty sure the Typhoon was quicker. So was the LM002....both sold many years before the 5.9L GC. Cayenne Turbo, GC SRT-8, TBSS, X5 M and X6 M, AMG M-Class, and I'm sure several others are quicker as well. LM002 did 0-60 in 7.8 seconds, http://www.lambocars.com/archive/lm/lm002s.htm 1998 Jeep Grand Cherokee Limited (5.9L) 0-60 6.8 1/4 mile 15.2 (MotorTrend Jan 98) The Typhoon however was much faster. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cinergi Posted March 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 Yeah, I'm looking for a DD, not a asphalt scorching beast. It is good info, though. As much as I love forced induction I always respected the Typhoons. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave1647545494 Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 stay away from the 4.7 they have timing chain and head gasket problems Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cinergi Posted March 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 Thanks, Dave... off to try and find a 98 JGC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cinergi Posted March 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 http://raleigh.craigslist.org/cto/1607245248.html It's the color I like, too. I think he's dreaming on price, though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 Speed S4 Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 My mom has an 04 GC overland 4.7 HO thing has plenty of tq. Only has 48k miles on it so haven't experienced any issues with it yet. I always like the 5.9 GCs so I say go for that. Dave - any idea what mileage we could see any timing chain or head gasket issues or is it just whenever it happens? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cinergi Posted March 5, 2010 Author Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 My father used to have several of the JGC Overland models. They are nice and never gave him many issues. He maintains a vehicle very well, but he drives many miles and isn't the nicest to them so I know the reliability is there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
6 Speed S4 Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 My father used to have several of the JGC Overland models. They are nice and never gave him many issues. He maintains a vehicle very well, but he drives many miles and isn't the nicest to them so I know the reliability is there. Must be because my mom babies the shit out of it and never floors it. When I drive it I give it a good beating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FyrhzrdGT Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 http://raleigh.craigslist.org/cto/1607245248.html It's the color I like, too. I think he's dreaming on price, though. I think my buddy paid $5k for his with 110k miles. Those parts don't make it worth $4500 more. Given condition and parts, maybe its worth $6k-$6.5, personally I'd let that truck go. You don't offer people $4000 of their asking price even if the price is ridiculous. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jelloman4571647545499 Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 Do it greg and then sell me the wrx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRed Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 I was considering a newer 4.7, but figured the older would be cheaper to insure in my case. I had an 93 ZJ with the 5.2L that was more expensive to insure than my 2001 WJ. Ended up being about $60 cheapr per year for me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BloodRed Posted March 5, 2010 Report Share Posted March 5, 2010 Without looking at specific specs, I'm pretty sure the Typhoon was quicker. So was the LM002....both sold many years before the 5.9L GC. Cayenne Turbo, GC SRT-8, TBSS, X5 M and X6 M, AMG M-Class, and I'm sure several others are quicker as well. Sorry, I ment the fastest Jeep ever made until the SRT-8. But it was the fastest SUV the year it came out in 1998. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FST94TSI Posted March 6, 2010 Report Share Posted March 6, 2010 I have a newer durango with the 5.7 hemi and for what it is that thing is fast. I've owned some really fast cars over the years and i definately wouldnt call it a race car but for a pretty big suv it moves. All I really know about the older durangos is that they tended to eat trannys. You may want to look at the 04-up durangos with the hemi. I can tell you to expect single digit gas mileage around town so daily driving any of these is not going to be cheap. Its great to be at a stop light on my way home from the grocery and murder some kid in a fart can honda. The look on their face as they just got smoked by a grocery getter suv is oddly fulfilling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.