Possibly moving from a ZJ to an FJ (1 Viewer)

[slomatt]

Greetings all.

Long time reader, first time poster.

I currently wheel a 1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee ZJ, but for the last several months I've been considering selling the ZJ and purchasing a more reliable vehicle. I've added a 3" lift and 33" tires to the ZJ and it is quite capable offroad, but the increased tire size is reaching the strength limits of the stock axles and that combined with the less-than-reliable 42RE transmission make me hesitate to take the truck on a long trip.

I'm seriously considering a 93+ FZJ80 because with a small OME lift, sliders, and 33" tires it should offer better off-road capability than the Jeep.

My big concern is the same as most people considering an 80, fuel economy. The ZJ has averaged almost 15mpg over the last serveral years, which while low is higher than most people here are reporting for 80's with lifts/tires (12-13mpg). The alternative vehicle is a 1996-2000 4runner which would get much better mieage, but is less capable, less entertaining to drive, and of course has IFS.

So my question is, is an average of 15mpg of mainly highway driving completely unreasonable out of an 80 with a 2" lift and 33" (285x75 or 255x85)? I've searched and read the posts but cannot get a handle on economy with specific tires sizes. I really hate to center on this issue but with $3/gallon gas it is a major one.

Thanks.

- Matt

 

[nyk438]

Greetings all.

Long time reader, first time poster.

I currently wheel a 1996 Jeep Grand Cherokee ZJ, but for the last several months I've been considering selling the ZJ and purchasing a more reliable vehicle. I've added a 3" lift and 33" tires to the ZJ and it is quite capable offroad, but the increased tire size is reaching the strength limits of the stock axles and that combined with the less-than-reliable 42RE transmission make me hesitate to take the truck on a long trip.

I'm seriously considering a 93+ FZJ80 because with a small OME lift, sliders, and 33" tires it should offer better off-road capability than the Jeep.

My big concern is the same as most people considering an 80, fuel economy. The ZJ has averaged almost 15mpg over the last serveral years, which while low is higher than most people here are reporting for 80's with lifts/tires (12-13mpg). The alternative vehicle is a 1996-2000 4runner which would get much better mieage, but is less capable, less entertaining to drive, and of course has IFS.

So my question is, is an average of 15mpg of mainly highway driving completely unreasonable out of an 80 with a 2" lift and 33" (285x75 or 255x85)? I've searched and read the posts but cannot get a handle on economy with specific tires sizes. I really hate to center on this issue but with $3/gallon gas it is a major one.

Thanks.

- Matt

Stock 80's are rated 17MPG highway. Add the lift and tires and it goes downhill. Look at it this way, if you get the 80 you won't be paying a lot of money replacing heep parts when they go one..after the other...after the other..


Nick

 

[firetruck41]

I don't think a 4runner will get much better mileage, definitely a little better though. EPA estimates FZJ80 12/15, 4r V6 auto 17/20.
at 1500 miles/month you could be looking at this for monthly fuel costs:

18 mpg- 83 gal=$250 (18mpg for the 4r is optimistic, my t100 w/3.4l averaged 14mpg)
12 mpg- 125 gal = $375 (I actually get 12-15mpg in my FZJ80)

 

[Elijah]

Stock 80's numbers are 13/15, city/highway.

 

[photogod]

I don't think a 4runner will get much better mileage, definitely a little better though. EPA estimates FZJ80 12/15, 4r V6 auto 17/20.
at 1500 miles/month you could be looking at this for monthly fuel costs:

18 mpg- 83 gal=$250 (18mpg for the 4r is optimistic, my t100 w/3.4l averaged 14mpg)
12 mpg- 125 gal = $375 (I actually get 12-15mpg in my FZJ80)

I get 21mpg in my 2000 4 Runner and have had many 25 mpg tanks on trips to MI and back to MN.

 

[KliersLC]

If you keep it at 60 on the freeway and don't try to race anybody, 15mpg is easily attainable on a well tuned rig.
Dan

 

[cruiserdan]

The 80 will have a hard time hitting 15mpg if it is trail-prepared and is sporting 500-1,000 lbs worth of armor and trail equipment, especialy if you drive it fast enough to keep up with freeway traffic. An 80 will buzz along fine at 75-80 MPH but you will pay for that at the pump. My personal best MPG was a 300 mile run from Albuquerque to Monticello UT. 33 inch tires, supercharger, steel wheels, sliders, winch, light cargo load. I got 18.97 mpg doing a steady 55 mph, never exceeding 56-57 mph. The flipside, at 65 mph. was 14 mpg.

 

[T Y L E R]

You lost me at cruiser-mileage



TY

 

[G-Cat]

Lift, 33's, front ARB/winch:

Best ever, 400 miles at 72 mph = 13.54 mpg

Worst ever, with ARB rack and a head wind, 400 miles at 68 mph = 9.2 mpg

 

[Dusty]

i have a 94 zj also with 5.2l motor 2" spacers and 31's-my brother has 2 of said trucks in hardcore trim. my 96 lx450 is twice the truck on and off road. bring the vast majority of zj's that arn't new to 80 mph and continue that all day and you is not happy--steering vague and interior is making all sorts of squeeks. how do like the vicious coupler in your heep?--probably making all sorts of noises. and ill bet its a monster to keep strait around town if the road is icy and that abs chatters like a jackhammer when it works. mine is on its 2nd transmission and needs a new transfer case-how many transmissions you been through? Its good off road and luckily those wimpy sealed cv joints are cheep and easy to service. (you probably have xj shafts dont ya?) hopefully you dont mind that your doors dont line up anymore cause you took it off road and that unibody isn't as rigid as road and track had thought. you probably have upgraded your zj to longer arms and radius arms in the front--well they still arn't as long as those on the 80 series. the zj is a good play truck but once i got my cruiser the world got better. i feel safe putting the fam in it to drive cross country-and feel confident it will get us there in any wheather. I havn't done hardcore in my 80 yet as i need it as the fam vehicle till wife can get new fam car in 4 months (please choose 100 series babe) but the the milder stuff we do camping feels so good (oe lockers + cdl). the zj is a silly toy when compared to the 80 series.

 

[KliersLC]

I got 18.97 mpg doing a steady 55 mph, never exceeding 56-57 mph.

Maybe we should have Romer add this to the FAQ. I am sure that this is about the fifth time I've heard it. You and yer durn little mpg book thingie....keep rubbing it in







NO I will not buy PRIUS parts! and I sold all my cruisers so there. you can't hurt my bicycle.........











I hope





Dan

 

[reffug]

You lost me at cruiser-mileage



TY

exactly.........

Something you have just had a personal experience with ay?????

 

[tacomafj-80]

i rather pay at the pump and not the parts store.

 

[Jason Andrews]

on a '92

I have had 32" michelins on mine, 33's, and now have 35's...and 4.88's which prolly actually helped, but MY experience is that lots of extra weight will decrease it but...lead foot or not, tires don't affect the mileage that much depending on which tire of course. It is just a steady and consistent 12/14 or better with the newer models. The weight combo of your wheels/tires can make a BIG diff tho. 35"BFG=58lbs? and 35"TOYO m/t=85lbs!!

 

[cruiserdan]

NO I will not buy PRIUS parts! and I sold all my cruisers so there. you can't hurt my bicycle.........











I hope





Dan

What brand is your bike?........

 

[slomatt]

Thank you to everybody for the replies.

Based on the above it sounds like it will be quite difficult to average 15mpg with a mildly modified 80 (lift, tires, sliders). Even with re-gearing I wouldn't expect to get more than the stock 13/15 numbers.

Just fyi, as photogod mentioned a stock 1999-2000 4runner is quite capable of 19-21mpg on the freeway if driven at 65-70mph.

Ultimately I'm looking for a vehicle that can be comfortably and reliably driven to the Sierras to run Deer Valley or the Rubicon, to Moab to run Golden Spider, or to explore other parts of the West.
http://www.blankwhitepage.com/gallery/southwest_2005/eIMG_4945
http://www.blankwhitepage.com/gallery/landscapes/IMG_1691

I'm going to continue thinking about the 80 and see if a reasonbly priced one appears in my area. Thank you all again for your input.


Dusty,

Good to see other Jeep owners on here. My 96 ZJ has the 5.2l with 130k miles, a 3" f->r lift, and 33" tires. It drives fine at hightway speeds, tracks straight, and the only rattle is the tailpipe which I cracked loose on a rock. My steering is a little vague, but that is because one of the front lower control arms is bent from a trail, replacement is on the way. The VC in the 249 is doing fine, so is the ABS. The previous owner replaced the transmission at 60k miles. I've replaced all cv joints on the truck with u-jointed shafts. The uniframe is doing well, all doors shut fine. I'm still running the stock short arms up front, for the amount of lift I needed to articluate 33"s moving to long arms was an unecessary expeense.

I would disagree that the ZJ is a "silly toy" when compared to the 80. Yes, a stock 80 is a much better built and more capable vehicle than a stock ZJ. But you can buy and build a ZJ for a very reasonable amount of money and end up with a rig that is extremly competent on the trail. After 4 years of dedicated use as a trail rig (I have a daily driver) the only major failures I've experienced were a blown front driveshaft, broken ps pump pully, and a leaky ps gear unit. All of these were related to offroad use. The two reasons I am considering the 80 are that the next logical step with my ZJ would be to re-gear and install a rear locker and I'm not convinced the stock D44a can handle that, and because I feel the 42re transmission is a piece of junk.

- Matt

 

[cruiserdan]

No offence ment but I do find it ironic that someone involved in motorsports has a make or break concern regarding fuel usage.

 

[re_guderian]

Get the 80, and spend an extra $2K for an old Toyota Corolla for your DD. Best of both worlds. 4runners are a dime a dozen.

 

[Nay]

I'm seriously considering a 93+ FZJ80 because with a small OME lift, sliders, and 33" tires it should offer better off-road capability than the Jeep.

That's a really poor assumption, especially if we are talking rock crawling. The ZJ is quite a bit smaller, has a better wheelbase (80's have a breakover angle problem with a 112" wheelbase), is capable of much better front end flex with a simple set of $100 swaybar disconnects and some adjustable control arms, and has a lower low range, I believe. You can't just disco the swaybars on an 80 like you can on a Jeep, so if excellent flex matters in the wheeling you do, then you are going to have to think outside of the box.

The 80 may have radius arms, but they are nothing like the long arms that people are using on Jeeps. The bushings are tiny and flex is very restricted (this isn't always a bad thing, mind you), plus you can't just swap in adjustable arms to fine tune caster and such.

An 80 is going to feel like a absolute dog to you. You are adding 1,500 lbs of weight with a less powerful engine. Where the 80 is better out of the box is the factory lockers, but it is easy to lock a Jeep.

Having said this, the 80 is a much better dual purpose rig, IMO. Going from the unibody to body on frame is huge. It is quiet, comfortable, and IMHO handles better - I only care about this because I have a family, though. OME on an 80 is so much easier than getting 33's on a ZJ, and with some tinkering you could run 35's on OME. One thing you will notice right away is that the 80 wheel wells are huge, and you'll wonder why only 33's on 2.5" of lift (this is due to the use of stock length shocks in the stock mount positions).

If money matters, and reliabilty is the goal, and the fact that the unibody scores poorly in NVH factors with big tires doesn't bother you, then you ought to look at the XJ. People rag on the unibody, but what we found over time is the kind of reinforcements you need for extreme wheeling are similar to rigs with body on frame. For the price of a low mileage XJ, you could probably replace both front and rear axles for just the cost of the 80 and have a rig that will run well for you for a long time (the 4.0L and AW4 combo have an excellent reliabilty and durability reputation). I sold my 1997 XJ at 104K miles, and it had less fit and finish issues than the 1995 80 that replaced it with 105K miles (virtually none offroad and with double the sticker price). 80K of those miles were modified, half at a lift of 6" plus. The doors were tight, it had no rattles at all, and ran like new.

It's all which way you want to come at it. Jeeps give you the easily modified supension with excellent out of the box performance, but you are shackled by the toothpicks they call axles. Older Toyotas tend to be underpowered and the suspensions don't seem to be quite as easily to modify for taller lifts while gaining excellent increased suspension travel. Just don't go thinking that an 80 with OME is going to walk all over a similarly built ZJ - I think you'd be quite disappointed if that is your goal.

Nay

 

[clownmidget]

You can't just disco the swaybars on an 80 like you can on a Jeep, so if excellent flex matters in the wheeling you do, then you are going to have to think outside of the box.

Nay, that's not really true. There just aren't any "off the shelf" disconnects available. And that's mainly based on the swaybars not limiting flex, but just pulling the body over. The rear disconnects are absolutely stupid easy to make and the fronts are only slightly more work but both front and rears could be fabricated for less than $100

The 80 may have radius arms, but they are nothing like the long arms that people are using on Jeeps. The bushings are tiny and flex is very restricted (this isn't always a bad thing, mind you), plus you can't just swap in adjustable arms to fine tune caster and such.

This is where the comparo gets dicey. If it's stock arm to stock arm then the 80 gets the nod. True you can get a cheaper set of long arms for the xj but I don't think you'll get anymore from the front of the xj than you'd get with the slee arms (+12"). And as you mention, that's not always a bad thing when having a dual purpose rig.

An 80 is going to feel like a absolute dog to you. You are adding 1,500 lbs of weight with a less powerful engine. Where the 80 is better out of the box is the factory lockers, but it is easy to lock a Jeep.

Again, how much do you spend to re-gear/ARB lock an xj? If it gets close to or in any way offsets the expense of a s/c for the 80 then it's a wash. I never had a v8 xj drop me

It's true that the 35's will fit the 80 with very little work compared to doing it on a xj. It'd be tough call though to compare both the 80 and xj on 33's on a trail. I have seen xj's break axles on trails though so that is a real concern. My main isssue is how ugly the xj is...