• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

2005 Jeep Grand Cherokee (3.7/4.7) - Any reason to avoid?

mvbighead

mvbighead

Diamond Member
Considering adding a vehicle to my garage. The 2004 MDX pops up for a lot of the criteria I am looking for.

Main concerns I would have is a dodgy transmission or engine that uses oil and things of that nature. Bolt ons I can deal with.

Other options I am considering include 2005+ Jeep Grand Cherokee, some Subarus (Outbacks/Forester), Nissan Pathfinder, Toyota 4Runner, and anything similar

Edit: Removing MDX for the time being. New focus is 2005 Jeep GC.

Latest edit: narrowing in on Edge or RX330.
 
Last edited:
Given the type of vehicles you are looking at it probably doesn't matter much for you, but 15/21 mpg would be an automatic write off for me in 2014, maybe not in 1999.
 
fstime said:
Given the type of vehicles you are looking at it probably doesn't matter much for you, but 15/21 mpg would be an automatic write off for me in 2014, maybe not in 1999.
Click to expand...

Really??? A 2012 has a bump in horsepower and less MPG. I dunno, unless I am buying something less than 5 years old, I am more or less looking at a max of 25 MPG. So for 20ish, that's not going to bother me one bit.
 
That generation MDX had some reliability issues associated with the J35 engine and the transmission. Transmission failure is one of the reliability concerns, and there are a few rare but possible engine concerns as well (most notably the 5th cylinder spark plug backing itself out and leading to engine failure). I would look for one with a full service history and documentation that the transmission fluid changes were performed on-schedule.

I wouldn't say that the MDX is unreliable (it's not), but personally I think the 4Runner is probably going to be a more reliable vehicle.
 
Last edited:
Thanks 996. That's along the lines I was looking for. The consumer reviews appear to be stellar, but I'd hate to have an issue like that. That, and if at all possible I would like to avoid a vehicle that requires premium gas (which this appears to). Premium gas can sometimes be strange to find in the Omaha area.

So I guess I may be more inclined now to look at the 2005+ Jeep Grand Cherokee. Mileage will be a tid bit worse, but should still get around 18 or so average (lots of highway driving).
 
Another option that is considerably less expensive than 2005 Jeep GC is the 2003/2004 Lexus RX300. Definitely leaning toward Jeep, but I would consider the Lexus as it does seem many rack the miles on them as they are more or less an upscale Toyota.
 
I'd avoid the 4.7l dodges. They're pretty problematic. The 5.7l is generally more reliable.

Other than that, it's a dodge/jeep. There's going to be your typical Dodge problems. I think I'd go for it still, if it's 5.7 and cheap enough.
 
Oddly enough, the one I am most interested in right now is a 5.7. Also, it appears the mileage doesn't vary much, but the 5.7 has significantly more power.

Thanks for the input. Also, what typical Dodge problems are you referring to. Just curious what others takes are on it. I am not much for most Dodges, but the Jeep side of things I usually look at differently for whatever reason.
 
Rattles. Lots and lots and lots of rattles. Poor build quality. Half-baked engineering.

Every time I fix a rattle in my ram, 2 new ones show up. It's crazy how poorly some of their stuff is put together.

Like, for instance, the door panels are held to the door with a single screw in the center of the panel, and some wedge style hooks, nothing else.
 
Well, my 2008 GC 5.7L 4X4 is still solid, and trouble free. Have had only very minor problems.

It still rips off nice 0-60 runs, too.

If I detail it, you'd be hard pressed to tell it's 6 years old, imo.
 
LTC8K6 said:
http://www.wkjeeps.com/

That site has just about all you need to know if you own a WK.
Click to expand...

Yep. I recall something similar for my 2000 Jeep GC. WJ? That was actually a pretty good Jeep, main reason I unloaded it was the repair to the differential wasn't quite perfect so there was a fair about of noise that came from it. That and the fear of exhaust manifold problems that apparently plagued the 4.7 around then (my dad's 03 Dodge Ram with a 4.7 had that problem).
 
ummduh said:
Rattles. Lots and lots and lots of rattles. Poor build quality. Half-baked engineering.

Every time I fix a rattle in my ram, 2 new ones show up. It's crazy how poorly some of their stuff is put together.

Like, for instance, the door panels are held to the door with a single screw in the center of the panel, and some wedge style hooks, nothing else.
Click to expand...

That is pretty much every car. I can't think of a car that has more than 3 screws holding a door panel on. The other 10+ mount points will be door panel clips.
 
Well, I drove a couple of 5.7, and it appears the mileage wasn't getting near 18/19 very easily. That, and the couple I drove were not in the best shape (one the front doors wouldn't seal, the other the AWD system was trashed).

I may be steering more into 3.7/4.7, and likely 4.7 as that seems to be the most common for the Limited trims. Found a 2005 4.7 Limited with 91k listed at 10.4k. Seems to be in great shape, just need to take it for a drive.

Other than exhaust manifold issues, anything else to be concerned with? My dad has the 4.7 in his 2003 Dodge RAM 1500 and has 230k on it, and while it does have the exhaust manifold leak, it has otherwise been very reliable.

Any specific reason to avoid? I know it doesn't have much more power than the 3.7, but it does appear the MPG is very similar between the 3.7/4.7. I'm guessing I could average around 18mpg, which is fine. 15mpg with the Hemi may be a nuisance, and having driven a couple, I didn't feel that I would benefit from the roaring power they seemed to have.
 
iamwiz82 said:
4.7L has an oil sludge issue as a heads up.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the tip... oddly enough, it sounds like a lot of RAM/Durango owners are the ones reporting this problem, but not as much on the Jeep side of things.

That's odd to me, being that they're the same engine. But knowing this, I'll be sure to pay extra attention to oil should I end up buying this. Probably run a solid detergent through to flush the crank case to clear out any existing sludge, and then just be very diligent about oil changes.

I'll read a bit more to see if I can find a case of a Jeep owner having the same thing. I do know that might dad's hasn't seen this problem, and he is religious about 3000 mile oil changes.
 
One other thing I am seeing on the sludge, is that the more common issues are tied to those with very short driving intervals. As I commute 30 miles each way, I won't have that issue.

From the sounds of things, cleaning up sludge can be done with a few short OCI with a high quality oil. I may run a couple 2000 OCI even if there are no seen issues just to be sure, and then switch over to a high quality synthetic like Penzoil Platinum or Mobil 1. All in all, it does seem like the sludge can be remediated and avoided, so long as the vehicle doesn't have a major sludge problem where chunks break off and clog oil intakes/pickups etc.

Granted, this is all if I buy the vehicle, but if it checks out, I may be moving quickly.
 
LTC8K6 said:
There's really no noticeable/significant fuel economy difference between the 3 engines.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Powe...ake=Jeep&model=Grand Cherokee 4WD&srchtyp=ymm
Click to expand...

I have seen those numbers... I've been perusing several forums on the different lines, and it seems the numbers in the link above aren't entirely accurate. For most, it seemed the V6 was closer to 20MPG, the 4.7 at about 18-19, and the 5.7 closer to 15-16. While it isn't much, that extra 3-4 could mean a bit longer fuel range and a few dollars saved. I'm most interested in the fuel range, as I do lot of highway driving. And that said, I seldom need to pass someone on the highway as they're either going slow enough making it easy to pass, or I simply drive a few MPH slower and deal with it.

But I was about to believe those numbers, but most of those with the hemi reported a max average of around 16. I also test drove a couple of Hemis. On each, I reset the average MPG indicator while coasting on the highway, and it had a hard time reaching 15-16. The 4.7 I drove today got up to 18 fairly easily. That isn't the most conclusive test, but you get the idea. Also, as this was a very straight driving car compared to the two hemi's I drove, it is currently leading my search.

Also, at this point in time, I am finding more 4.7s in the right range. I checked the one out tonight, and aside from replacing the headlight assemblies (one is cracked, the other is dull), as well as the driver side interior door handle, it was in excellent shape. I just need to re-check out whether the head room is sufficient. I noticed a support that seemed to be in the way, but I was in a rush to go get my kid. I also wanted to see how bad the damage would be on replacing the items mentioned. At this point, dorman brand headlamps run $100 a piece, and then add 60-80 for the dorman handle. From what I can tell, the dorman brand is one of the better replacement grade parts, though I could be wrong.
 
LTC8K6 said:
I do pretty good on the highway, but I have MDS, so I cruise on 4 cylinders.
Click to expand...

That's what initially lead me to believe that the Hemi was a better choice. Happen to have some numbers on what you tend to average?

My typical driving anymore is about 80% highway, and some coasting at about 30mph through one section of town. I'd like to think I can average close to 18/19 with the 4.7, but not so sure I can do that with the Hemi. If I only get 16/17, it won't bother me that much.

At this point, based on forum folks elsewhere, it just seems the 4.7 is just a touch more powerful than the 3.7, but roughly the same MPG or just a hair worse. But most with the hemi suggest they live with the loss in MPG for the extra fun that comes with the power.
 
MongGrel said:
Just from what I've seen over time, I wouldn't go there.
Click to expand...

Is this just an in general comment about Jeep/Dodge products, or more specific to the Hemi, or? Just looking for input.

And if you have alternatives, I am all ears. I was considering RX330/RX350s from Lexus at one point, but it sounds as if their AWD system is extremely weak. Their motors from what I read were very Toyota like (IE - reliable).

I'm open to suggestions, but thus far, the JGC 2005 Limited and above appear to meet most of my wants the best. The 4.7 motors have a fairly good track record both from personal and internet based experiences. Only concerns are sludge (which should be able to be mitigated with use of a good oil and filter and regular OCI) and exhaust manifold, which appear to be a repair I can manage if it comes to that.
 
I've had several Jeeps, I've just known a few people with Grand Cherokees that were plagued with problems with them, from personal experience.

No they weren't Hemi's, the wife is still driving my old 1996 Cherokee Sport with a 4.0 HO in it below 100K, and it still looks good, she actually had the non sport version we sold last year that had almost 200K on it with the same engine.

I've just known people that have owned some of those Grands in that time frame I guess.

My two cents.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top