Home Forums Gear Hunting Trucks and Four-Wheel Drives What to look for in a used Jeep

I'm just beginning to keep my eyes open for a used Jeep Wrangler, primarily for occasional use at a summer cabin in the mountains on dirt roads and trails in the area. Probably wouldn't be doing very extreme stuff in it. I'd like it to have an automatic transmission to make it usable by family members who don't drive manual transmissions.

Because of the limited use it will get, I'm looking to stay on the low end of the pricing scale, and based on my initial research, it seems like model years 1993-1997 can be in my price range. Are there any years or engines that are favored or should be avoided? Any other things I should look for? I've got a lot of time to look for the right one. Thanks for your input.

4.0 inline 6, the little four cylinder just doesn't have the power, and teach those family members to drive a manual

plus 1 on the 4.0 in line six and tranny,have a 93 with 160k all ranch use cant break it, we call it the bone collector. rio7

The 4.0L 6 is low on power, but the 4 is WAY worse!!! I guess I've been spoiled by my V8 CJs.

I wouldn't go older than 97 if price is close. There was a redesign that year with major improvements. Check the axle ratio if possible. They made a lot with 3.07 gears back then. I'm not sure what the other options were, but somehing with a 3.55 or 3.73 would be far better.

I've had both the 4.0 I-6 and the 2.5 4 cylinder. The 4 cylinder isn't that bad for a lot of uses. It ain't gonna be fast on the open road, especially on inclines in mountains. But they came with 4.10 gears. In town, or offroad they are actually better in many ways. Fuel mileage is about the same, but you can often find 4 cylinder vehicles cheap. Either engine will last a long time.

Get the manual and make everyone learn how to drive it. Especially with the lower powered engines.

That's [bleep] up right there. If they develop a meth habit, you gonna help 'em out with that too?

You're so weird.
LOL.

that's a little harsh, the op's talking about his family not yours

US taxpayers have to pay serious money to train 28yo E-6's to drive a manual transmission pickup truck before they can be sent on a lot of deployments that require them to be able to safely drive such. That is absolutely GAY!

WOW.........even for you.


As a tax payer I don't mind teaching a 28yr old soldier a new skill. Sure, it would be nice if he'd grown up on a farm and learned a bunch, but that's not the reality. Hell, I'll pay for the lad to learn to do pretty much anything (useful) he wants while he's serving our country..........and pay for his college once he's out. FAR more money is being wasted elsewhere..........

And while a few here might beat their chests for knowing how to shift a manual tranny, I'd wager that many of them still can't do it w/o wearing the sycros, and likely don't even know what those are.

My just-turned 16yo daughter knows what a syncro is, and how best to manipulate a worn syncro in a 2nd gear with 265,000 on it. She'll have a decent draw time and be able to run our nation's service rifle just fine before she leaves home as well.

I thought the original comment was kinda funny and yeah, people should learn the joys of manual transmissions and other fundamental lessons of life. Like shooting and hunting.

Used to amuse myself shifting gears sans clutch in our 60 series Chevy dumptruck, while hauling along some of our summer employees in it. Usually school teachers, none of whom had ever "seen sucha thing". ;O)

Old Jeeps and other such things. Prefer manual transmissions for two reasons: Clutches aren't hard to replace and auto trannies that have sat around "unused" for periods of time, tend to go south with use. Three reasons, if counting the "fun factor".

I can descend some pretty steep slopes with my beater 5 spd. manual Bronco II in four WD low and in first gear. Auto version? Good luck with that.

Yeah, Dupe, you actually listed FOUR reasons.

I'm in a hurry for work and don't have my coffee down yet, but are a manual's strengths as I see them.

-allows driver to better match engine torque/HP to the conditions/needs

-cheaper to replace clutch than repair auto tranny
-easier to feel a tranny failure
-compression braking
-lighter

BTW, I did the clutchless shifting thing as a kid also. My dad and grandpa both fully explained how tractors and trucks work when I was young, and actually understanding WHY things are as they are goes a long ways towards mastering a piece of equipment. My dad also emphasized listening to, feeling, and being tuned into the equipment I was operating. That's been a life skill I've carried with me, and am thankful he didn't just throw me the keys or be content that I passed a DMV test.

TAK, I'm glad you're teaching your daughter correctly. She's definitely among the ranks of a minority already, and I'm sure you're rightfully proud.

Okay, off my soapbox now. I actually think an auto is superior to a manual in driveability offroad, maybe not durability. For wet, muddy conditions, a hot metal box full of thin 10W is going to get water inside of it.

Probably the biggest single reason not to have an auto in a Jeep is the excessive length of the tranny really works against ANY lift with a vehicle as short as a Jeep. Might be okay with something like an Unlimited.

in hardcore offroad stuff I agree an auto is better, but for a weekend cruising down a log road i'll take a manual

I've got a 2000 with a 4 cly. and a stick. JMR's comments are spot on. Off road at low speeds, it lacks nothing over the six. I am the original owner and it's been remarkably trouble free.
The big problem with the inline 6's were they weren't geared right for the slow off road speeds and were usually sold w/o the heavy duty rear ends. If you are going off road much, you are far better off with the 4.
BTW, if buying used, make sure it was well cared for and not beat up. Jeeps are designed from the ground up to be tough. But a careless or ignorant off road driver can ruin one w/o much effort. E

Having driven both, personally I prefer a manual, but maybe thats because we Brits tend to start out with manuals from the get-go..

I think part of that is because years ago autobox's were not so reliable, tended to be heavier on fuel, and were just not that particularly good at shifting when they should..

Most especially the autos you guys have over there. A GM turbo 350/400 or 460LE can be built up pretty bulletproof. Drag racers here have figured out how to do that, and most every tranny mechanic knows what aftermarket parts to use.

I suspect your right..Plus I would say most drivers over here want to buy a vehicle and just drive it, and they are not interested in buying something they know will need rebuilding just to perform as it should..LandRover fanatics are probably the exception though!

A friend as a newish Toyota Hilux with an autobox, and after driving it a time or two, I can say it is a huge improvement over the old British Leyland or Rover auto-transmissions..

Driving up to Scotland last year, the on board computer showed it was returning 36mpg on the main roads and that was fully laden and running at around 65 to 70mph and I suspect a manual box would not do any better...

Our police cars, vehicles that get used very hard, all went to automatic transmitions many years ago. That's because they hold up much better than any manuel transmition when used like that.
The only thing you need to do with one is make sure it gets serviced regularly. So they cost alot more than a manuel transmition to maintain. I have one in my 06 dodge diesel. Nice to have when carrying and towing heavy loads in the mountains.
Actually, having had a auto trans in an IH ScoutII for many years, I found them better for off roading. Much easier to ease over nasty rocks. Easier on the drive line components as well.
I dunno about you guys, but when I'm hunting, I tend to look around too much which means I don't drive as well as I should over rough ground. An auto transmition is much more forgiving. E