2000 Grand Cherokee Questions
#1
CF Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wilmington,NC
Posts: 3,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Year: 1989
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
2000 Grand Cherokee Questions
Hey guys I am finally back. I went and bought a 2000 Grand Cherokee and need some advice. I noticed while riding down the highway if I tried to accelerate the Jeep struggled and had an odd vibration. The engine was just rebuilt and the only miles it has are the ones I have been putting on it (125 miles so far). The GC has a 4.0 with an automatic transmission and its only 2 wheel drive. Any and all help would be great.
#2
Old fart with a wrench
Two things I can suggest, check the torque converter bolts and bell housing bolts for being tight. Also the rear u-joint bolts and the trans mount. Make sure the u-joint caps are fully seated.
Loose bell housing bolts can tear the center out of the flex plate.
Loose bell housing bolts can tear the center out of the flex plate.
#4
Old fart with a wrench
No, but I'd say as tight as you can get them with two hands and a 3/8 ratchet. You might want to use some light duty Loc-tite.
#6
CF Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wilmington,NC
Posts: 3,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Year: 1989
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Finally got around to checking the torque converter everything is tight and this seems to have fixed the vibrations. How do these beast compare to the XJ performance wise? Seems like for a new 4.0 its a bit underpowered compared to my old XJ on 37s and stock gears. Even when I floor it itll rocket thru the rpms but doesnt really go anywhere. Any advice as to what might be the cause?
#7
CF Veteran
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Oroville, CA
Posts: 12,367
Likes: 0
Received 19 Likes
on
18 Posts
Year: 1995
Model: Grand Cherokee
Engine: 4.0 with all of the noise and clatter
The Chrysler transmission has more parasitic loss than the more efficient AW4 in the XJ, plus a WJ is quite a bit heavier than an XJ.
Trending Topics
#8
Old fart with a wrench
Yes, my WJ's unladen weight is 3980 lbs. I believe your XJ is much lighter and probably has lower gears. My WJ has 3.55. My '97 ZJ 4.0 felt like a rocket at WOT with 3.73's.
#10
CF Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Monett, MO.
Posts: 7,554
Likes: 0
Received 14 Likes
on
14 Posts
Year: 1999
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
My "04" isn't a 4.0 but a 4.7HO and came stock with the towing package and 3.73 gears. It runs extremely well and fast for what it is with over 200,000 mi. on it. If your 4.0 is an complete rebuild with only 125 mi. on it the rings aren't even broken yet or any of it yet. This could account for some power loss, are you getting any codes or are they all good and sensors working.
Was the head rebuilt/replaced as well and what about the injectors?
Was the head rebuilt/replaced as well and what about the injectors?
#11
CF Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wilmington,NC
Posts: 3,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Year: 1989
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
My "04" isn't a 4.0 but a 4.7HO and came stock with the towing package and 3.73 gears. It runs extremely well and fast for what it is with over 200,000 mi. on it. If your 4.0 is an complete rebuild with only 125 mi. on it the rings aren't even broken yet or any of it yet. This could account for some power loss, are you getting any codes or are they all good and sensors working.
Was the head rebuilt/replaced as well and what about the injectors?
Was the head rebuilt/replaced as well and what about the injectors?
#12
Old fart with a wrench
Ya Know? I'm sick and tired of people telling me the 4.0 is a slug. It's a reliable "tractor" engine, designed for torque, not gut wrenching acceleration. It's quick enough to get me out of a couple of on-ramp near misses and that's all that matters to me. I've had a couple of super-cars that needed constant tweaking to stay quick, but I'm over that now. I'd rather have a car that starts every time and does what I ask in normal service than a high-strung power machine. Yes, I've been there, but that's water under the bridge at this point in my life.
Call me an old fart if you like, it's true, I am an old fart.
Call me an old fart if you like, it's true, I am an old fart.
#13
CF Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Wilmington,NC
Posts: 3,004
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Year: 1989
Model: Cherokee
Engine: 4.0
Ya Know? I'm sick and tired of people telling me the 4.0 is a slug. It's a reliable "tractor" engine, designed for torque, not gut wrenching acceleration. It's quick enough to get me out of a couple of on-ramp near misses and that's all that matters to me. I've had a couple of super-cars that needed constant tweaking to stay quick, but I'm over that now. I'd rather have a car that starts every time and does what I ask in normal service than a high-strung power machine. Yes, I've been there, but that's water under the bridge at this point in my life.
Call me an old fart if you like, it's true, I am an old fart.
Call me an old fart if you like, it's true, I am an old fart.
#14
Junior Member
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Red River Valley
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Year: 1997
Model: Grand Cherokee
Engine: 4.0 I-6
Slim, I don't know the HP & torque figures of the top of my head, but I recall reading about the "hot-rodding" mod of putting a 99+ intake on a 98- head (maybe only certain years like 95-98) and it claimed that the mixed engine produces more power than either of them did originally. It said that the 99+ were redesigned for better emissions, and in order to continue to produce acceptable power, the intake was fine-tuned. However, the head would considerably flow less than the 98-, resulting in a total package that was either slightly worse or only slightly better than previous. I think they say 93-95 heads flow the best. So whatever you had before would feel different, because even if the HP & torque max values are nearly the same, the power band and throttle response will be different, giving a very different seat of the pants feel.
#15
Old fart with a wrench
Yeah, I did notice the earlier 4.0s made max torque at 3000 rpm where my WJ's figures are 4000 rpm. So, having said that, the mid-range torque is less compared to the '98 and older. At 65 mph, it's around 3000 when it kicks down to 3rd gear for passing. Also, I've noticed the transmission seems to lag making up it's mind what gear to downshift to. Several times, I've been trying to merge on an on-ramp and it won't immediately downshift so I boot it some more, only to have it downshift to 2nd!
Last edited by dave1123; 03-01-2015 at 06:18 PM.