|
How'd you manage to blow up the transmission in a 95 Cherokee? Is it a 4.0L or a 2.5L, and auto or manual? If it is a 4.0L they usually last at least 200, if not 300 or 400k without problems, I know a guy with 500k on his. The transmissions behind the 2.5Ls are known for being a pile of poo poo though. I mean, I came into this thread literally planning on suggesting exactly that vehicle - a 4.0L Cherokee. If you are anywhere near the new england area I can probably get you a great condition transmission for a 4.0L one for under 100 bucks on any given week, they're super common, bulletproof enough that they sell dirt cheap because no one needs them, and I wouldn't ever bother rebuilding one unless I was doing it myself. e: BTW, if you do go for a Cherokee, avoid the 00-01 years and if you are in the rustbelt, avoid 96 too. Any 91-95 and any 97-99 is a pretty good choice. 90-down are... harder to find parts for the engine management system, and significantly more obnoxious to work on. 95 and 99 are generally considered the cream of the crop. kastein fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Oct 21, 2016 |
#
¿
Oct 21, 2016 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 21:15 |
|
|
Cached Money posted:Some sort of Subaru wagon? Outback/Forester? If you enjoy head gasket and rod bearing problems 
|
|
#
¿
Oct 22, 2016 17:55
|
|
|
rally posted:You asked kastein but - the 4 cyls get the same gas mileage and gutless is being generous. What this guy said. By the time you wring its neck enough to move, it will get roughly the same mileage. They are anvils like the 4.0 but that's all I can really say for them. They have a noise pedal, not an accelerator pedal. E: oh yeah the mantrans behind the 2.5 is hot wet garbage and the auto is not far behind. It's a 3spd chryco shitbox auto or an AX5 5spd manual that is known for stripping out second or third gear (usually third) with the thundering raging power of the 2.5L inline 4, stock. kastein fucked around with this message at 01:45 on Oct 23, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Oct 23, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Yu-Gi-Ho! posted:I've driven a Dakota with the 2.5/manual combo and it was approaching 70s/80s Mercedes diesel slowness. I can't imagine how badly it would do in a heavier vehicle. Unlike the jeeps with that same 2.5 (you're talking the one in 96-up Dakotas, right? The 2.2/2.5 in 95-down Dakotas was the K-car engine, not the AMC/jeep engine. Complicated automotive incest) the Dakota with a 2.5 got the AX15 instead of the AX5, and it actually stays together as a result. In fact 96-up 4cyl Dakota mantrans are a common swap when 4cyl jeep owners get fed up with replacing their trans regularly, because it's reasonably simple, just bolt it onto the engine, change trans crossmember (maybe), driveshafts, and transfer case input gear. 4.3s are solid as hell like rndmnmbr said, but are the vehicles he recommended available RHD? I have no idea.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 24, 2016 16:32
|
|