Inexpensive, reliable winter vehicle?

[ZetaEpyon]

I'm considering picking up a second vehicle to use during the winter so that I don't have to take the Mazdaspeed3 out in nasty weather. It runs really poorly in cold weather, and I'd just rather not subject it to Wisconsin winter weather as much as possible.

It occurred to me that I might be able to capitalize on the summer weather and high gas prices and be able to get a good deal on a used SUV or truck of some sort, preferably with 4wd.

I've always liked the appearance of the Jeep Cherokee (moreso than the Grand), and it looks like they can be had fairly inexpensively. But I have no idea how they are in terms of reliability. I'm ok with doing some of my own maintenance, and it's not a killer if I need to use the Speed3 while I'm getting something fixed; I do have snow tires for it, I'd just prefer to not use it if I don't have to.

Does anyone have any suggestions or advice that might help?

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Reliability wise, they're not excellent, but they're not bad. The parts are cheap and the labor easy to do. The biggest problem you'll have is with the power window and door lock switches. On the plus side, they'll run happy crappy for a rather long time whereas many other cars just up and quit.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Old fullsize GMC or Ford 4X4 pickup with the inline 6. Both the GM and Ford I6 engines were incredibly solid, and the basic 4X4 systems in those older pickups are all mechanical and quite durable.

The I6 Cherokees are pretty reliable too as far as starting, running, and driving goes. The interiors will fall apart, but they'll keep going for a long, long time. There will be more little issues than with the older pickups, but if you find one with a manual transmission then the basic drivetrain should be solid.

ZV

 

[Nyati13]

If it's for winter driving and you don't have an additional serious off-road second use, I would suggest a used Subaru. Any model would do, but the Outback/Outback Sport/Forester do feature additional ground clearance if you get deep snow.

 

[BW86]

The best winter vehicle I've had was an '87 subaru gl 5-speed.

 

[mc866]

Originally posted by: Nyati13
If it's for winter driving and you don't have an additional serious off-road second use, I would suggest a used Subaru. Any model would do, but the Outback/Outback Sport/Forester do feature additional ground clearance if you get deep snow.

:thumbsup:

Exactly, as long as cargo space isn't a concern, except for the forrester or a HB, and if clearance isn't an issue Subaru's are reliable and great in the winter.

second edit:

Also with gas prices as high as they are now why would you want to get a full size 4X4 or jeep unless you really need the clearance?

 

[Throckmorton]

I came in this thread to tell you to buy a Cherokee. Go with your gut!!

They are reliable and cheap to fix when something goes wrong. They're also really cheap to buy. If you want to go on Forest Service trails, etc, it's one of the most capable vehicles stock. A stocker should get 20mpg, or even 25mpg if it's a manual. I've never heard of the automatic being less reliable than the manual, so get whichever you want. Also, look for the NP242 transfer case. You'll know because it has a 4 wheel drive full time mode, which is what you want for snow. The NP231 transfer case only lets you use 4wd in locked mode.

A Subaru doesn't give much better gas mileage, and if you ask me is too similar to the car you already have.

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I came in this thread to tell you to buy a Cherokee. Go with your gut!!

They are reliable and cheap to fix when something goes wrong. They're also really cheap to buy. If you want to go on Forest Service trails, etc, it's one of the most capable vehicles stock. A stocker should get 20mpg, or even 25mpg if it's a manual. I've never heard of the automatic being less reliable than the manual, so get whichever you want. Also, look for the NP242 transfer case. You'll know because it has a 4 wheel drive full time mode, which is what you want for snow. The NP231 transfer case only lets you use 4wd in locked mode.

A Subaru doesn't give much better gas mileage, and if you ask me is too similar to the car you already have.

QFT.

The locked 4wd isn't good for situations when there's only slippery patches mixed with normal pavement. You'd have to keep switching back and forth into 4wd and it would drive you nuts.

I second getting the cherokee. Awesome vehicle.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I've never heard of the automatic being less reliable than the manual,

Chrysler automatics enjoy a reputation only slightly above that of the Yugo in automotive circles. While it's true that the older Cherokees had non-Chrysler automatics, some of the later models did use an automatic of Chrysler design that was significantly less reliable. Overall, for a beater, a manual transmission eliminates complexity and tends to increase overall reliability. All else being equal, a manual will be more reliable than an automatic in any vehicle.

ZV

 

[ZetaEpyon]

Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone. I definitely have a few more things to keep my eye out for as well.

I had thought about a Subaru, but I have a couple reservations about going that route. First, I wouldn't gain much utility beyond what I already have in the Mazdaspeed 3. Second, I have doubt about ease of doing my own maintenance on them. A friend of mine had an Impreza WRX (03, I think), and I remember that doing something as simple as changing the spark plugs was quite an ordeal due to the orientation of the boxer engine as well as the size of the engine bay. Is that something that's unique to the Imprezas, or would other Subarus be similar?

Oh, and I'll definitely be going for a manual transmission if at all possible. I've driven manual solely for the last 10 years, and it just doesn't feel right to drive an auto. 😀

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: ZetaEpyon
Thanks for all the suggestions, everyone. I definitely have a few more things to keep my eye out for as well.

I had thought about a Subaru, but I have a couple reservations about going that route. First, I wouldn't gain much utility beyond what I already have in the Mazdaspeed 3. Second, I have doubt about ease of doing my own maintenance on them. A friend of mine had an Impreza WRX (03, I think), and I remember that doing something as simple as changing the spark plugs was quite an ordeal due to the orientation of the boxer engine as well as the size of the engine bay. Is that something that's unique to the Imprezas, or would other Subarus be similar?

Oh, and I'll definitely be going for a manual transmission if at all possible. I've driven manual solely for the last 10 years, and it just doesn't feel right to drive an auto. 😀

All Subarus use boxer engines, so access to the heads will be difficult for any of them. An old 1980's Subaru will have a good deal more room than the modern ones do though. Still, the Cherokee will have even more room to work around, and with the full-size pickups you can practically stand inside the engine bay to work on things. When the engine bay is designed to also be able to fit a 460 cubic inch (7.5 litre) V8, a 300 cubic inch (4.9 litre) I6 gives lots and lots of room.

The Ford straight-6 is practically indestructible. It doesn't even have a timing belt or chain, it actually has gear-driven camshafts. No belt to break, no chain to stretch. And the C6/E4OD automatics used for the F150 were built to handle big-block V8 power, so they last almost forever with the little I6 (hell, they last almost forever with the big-blocks). The manual transmissions are bulletproof as well, and less complicated.

GM's straight-6 engines have similar recommendations, but I do not know if they use a timing chain or gears. In any case, they should be similarly reliable.

ZV

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

All Subarus use boxer engines, so access to the heads will be difficult for any of them. An old 1980's Subaru will have a good deal more room than the modern ones do though. Still, the Cherokee will have even more room to work around, and with the full-size pickups you can practically stand inside the engine bay to work on things. When the engine bay is designed to also be able to fit a 460 cubic inch (7.5 litre) V8, a 300 cubic inch (4.9 litre) I6 gives lots and lots of room.

The Ford straight-6 is practically indestructible. It doesn't even have a timing belt or chain, it actually has gear-driven camshafts. No belt to break, no chain to stretch. And the C6/E4OD automatics used for the F150 were built to handle big-block V8 power, so they last almost forever with the little I6 (hell, they last almost forever with the big-blocks). The manual transmissions are bulletproof as well, and less complicated.

GM's straight-6 engines have similar recommendations, but I do not know if they use a timing chain or gears. In any case, they should be similarly reliable.

ZV

You're very much right about there being a ton of space. I remember changing spark plugs on my dad's '78 GMC w/ a 400SB by sitting on the quarter panel with my feet on the frame rail. It was quite possibly the only engine bay I've ever worked on where you could slip and fall through ending up beneath the car while the engine was still in it. Nobody liked the old I-6s because they didn't make much HP, but if you ran one until it died you'd actually be able to witness plate tectonics.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth
Nobody liked the old I-6s because they didn't make much HP, but if you ran one until it died you'd actually be able to witness plate tectonics.

Yeah, there's a reason that Ford advertised the I6 as the "Mileage Maker" or "Thriftpower". 🙂

Still, even without HP, they did well enough with torque. A buddy of mine had an F-150 with the 4.9 and while it wasn't fast, it pulled all kinds of things that it shouldn't have been able to pull. 😉 For a beater truck, the I6 isn't a bad engine, and it's the best mileage option available for the full-size trucks.

ZV

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I've never heard of the automatic being less reliable than the manual,

Chrysler automatics enjoy a reputation only slightly above that of the Yugo in automotive circles. While it's true that the older Cherokees had non-Chrysler automatics, some of the later models did use an automatic of Chrysler design that was significantly less reliable. Overall, for a beater, a manual transmission eliminates complexity and tends to increase overall reliability. All else being equal, a manual will be more reliable than an automatic in any vehicle.

ZV

Um, the original cherokee used the same automatic from 1987 until the end of the model run in 2001. This was the AW4, made by Aisin Warner, and possible the best automatic you could find in a jeep (and the only automatic that made it into JP magazine's article on jeeps you can buy and expect to last 200k or more).

The grand cherokees used other transmissions, and often had lower reliability.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I've never heard of the automatic being less reliable than the manual,

Chrysler automatics enjoy a reputation only slightly above that of the Yugo in automotive circles. While it's true that the older Cherokees had non-Chrysler automatics, some of the later models did use an automatic of Chrysler design that was significantly less reliable. Overall, for a beater, a manual transmission eliminates complexity and tends to increase overall reliability. All else being equal, a manual will be more reliable than an automatic in any vehicle.

ZV

Um, the original cherokee used the same automatic from 1987 until the end of the model run in 2001. This was the AW4, made by Aisin Warner, and possible the best automatic you could find in a jeep (and the only automatic that made it into JP magazine's article on jeeps you can buy and expect to last 200k or more).

The grand cherokees used other transmissions, and often had lower reliability.

Only an I6 Cherokee is guaranteed to have the AW4 transmission. The 4-cylinder versions were split between the AW4 and the Chrysler-designed A904 (1984-1986) and the 30RH (1994-2000). Models with the 2.8 litre V6 (admittedly rarer, only '84-'86) also used the A904.

ZV

 

[PingSpike]

While I'm not suggesting that the subaru is the best choice for the OPs situation, I just wanted to add that in regards to utility: the subarus do seem to pack a pretty impressive tow rating for a small vehicle. It was 2800-3500 or something IIRC. In a world of small "SUVs" with pathetic tow ratings of 1000lbs (if they're even listed at all) there's something to say for that.

They do seem like complicated little beasts that are not easy to work on and have a good deal of parts to break though.

I've kind of decided that I'll be choosing between a subaru or a mini van (most of which have surprisingly solid tow ratings as well) for the next vehicle. And then I'll use a utility trailer for dump runs.

 

[krunchykrome]

I'm not sure what you consider expensive, but it appears the 2004+ Dodge Dakotas with 4WD and V8 engines are fairly cheap. I've seen a few around here not more than a few years old with less than 30K miles for around $14K.

 

[Demon-Xanth]

Originally posted by: krunchykrome
I'm not sure what you consider expensive, but it appears the 2004+ Dodge Dakotas with 4WD and V8 engines are fairly cheap. I've seen a few around here not more than a few years old with less than 30K miles for around $14K.

There was a generation gap between 2004 and 2005. Admittedly, few Dakota fans (myself included) like the 2005+. If you go the Dakota route, don't bother with the V6, they only get 1MPG better than the V8s at most.

 

[Throckmorton]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I've never heard of the automatic being less reliable than the manual,

Chrysler automatics enjoy a reputation only slightly above that of the Yugo in automotive circles. While it's true that the older Cherokees had non-Chrysler automatics, some of the later models did use an automatic of Chrysler design that was significantly less reliable. Overall, for a beater, a manual transmission eliminates complexity and tends to increase overall reliability. All else being equal, a manual will be more reliable than an automatic in any vehicle.

ZV

Um, the original cherokee used the same automatic from 1987 until the end of the model run in 2001. This was the AW4, made by Aisin Warner, and possible the best automatic you could find in a jeep (and the only automatic that made it into JP magazine's article on jeeps you can buy and expect to last 200k or more).

The grand cherokees used other transmissions, and often had lower reliability.

Only an I6 Cherokee is guaranteed to have the AW4 transmission. The 4-cylinder versions were split between the AW4 and the Chrysler-designed A904 (1984-1986) and the 30RH (1994-2000). Models with the 2.8 litre V6 (admittedly rarer, only '84-'86) also used the A904.

ZV

The vast majority of Cherokees are I6, so they have the AW4. Aisin Warner is in the Toyota group. So whether or not Chrysler autos are reliable is irrelevant.

 

[thedarkwolf]

Originally posted by: PingSpike

I've kind of decided that I'll be choosing between a subaru or a mini van (most of which have surprisingly solid tow ratings as well) for the next vehicle. And then I'll use a utility trailer for dump runs.

My beater/winter vehicle is an old 4 banger turbo caravan. I don't bother with a utility trailer though. Take the seats out and you have a massive amount of space. It still doesn't get great gas mileage at 16/24ish thanks to the 3 speed auto but if you can find one of the 5 speed manual, not easy, they get a couple more mpgs. The big advantage of the 4 banger compared to the v6 is you can work on the damn things.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Throckmorton

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Only an I6 Cherokee is guaranteed to have the AW4 transmission. The 4-cylinder versions were split between the AW4 and the Chrysler-designed A904 (1984-1986) and the 30RH (1994-2000). Models with the 2.8 litre V6 (admittedly rarer, only '84-'86) also used the A904.

ZV

The vast majority of Cherokees are I6, so they have the AW4. Aisin Warner is in the Toyota group. So whether or not Chrysler autos are reliable is irrelevant.

True, though I stand by my statement that, all else being equal, a manual will always be more reliable by the simple virtue of being less complex. For a beater, I tend to prefer a manual, even though some automatics can be very reliable (the AW4 for one, Ford's C6/E4OD for another).

ZV

 

[krunchykrome]

Originally posted by: Demon-Xanth

Originally posted by: krunchykrome
I'm not sure what you consider expensive, but it appears the 2004+ Dodge Dakotas with 4WD and V8 engines are fairly cheap. I've seen a few around here not more than a few years old with less than 30K miles for around $14K.

There was a generation gap between 2004 and 2005. Admittedly, few Dakota fans (myself included) like the 2005+. If you go the Dakota route, don't bother with the V6, they only get 1MPG better than the V8s at most.

oh, i'm referring to the newest model

so I meant to say 2005+

 

[Bignate603]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Bignate603

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Throckmorton
I've never heard of the automatic being less reliable than the manual,

Chrysler automatics enjoy a reputation only slightly above that of the Yugo in automotive circles. While it's true that the older Cherokees had non-Chrysler automatics, some of the later models did use an automatic of Chrysler design that was significantly less reliable. Overall, for a beater, a manual transmission eliminates complexity and tends to increase overall reliability. All else being equal, a manual will be more reliable than an automatic in any vehicle.

ZV

Um, the original cherokee used the same automatic from 1987 until the end of the model run in 2001. This was the AW4, made by Aisin Warner, and possible the best automatic you could find in a jeep (and the only automatic that made it into JP magazine's article on jeeps you can buy and expect to last 200k or more).

The grand cherokees used other transmissions, and often had lower reliability.

Only an I6 Cherokee is guaranteed to have the AW4 transmission. The 4-cylinder versions were split between the AW4 and the Chrysler-designed A904 (1984-1986) and the 30RH (1994-2000). Models with the 2.8 litre V6 (admittedly rarer, only '84-'86) also used the A904.

ZV

That makes sense, but I wouldn't recommend buying anything but the I6. I haven't really ever even looked at the 4 bangers.