The Jeep Cherokee (XJ) was one of the great successes and milestone cars of the U.S. automobile industry, a pioneer in the sport utility vehicle segment of the market and widely acclaimed as one of the great automobile designs of all time. Many Americans may not know that the Cherokee also is one of the greatest worldwide hits of the U.S. automobile industry, possibly the most widely distributed American car since the Ford Model T and Model A. Overseas Cherokee production has occurred in South America (Argentina, Venezuela), North Africa (Egypt), and Asia (China), and the Cherokee was an export success in Europe and Australia. Unusual among post-World War II American cars, the Cherokee is a mainstream vehicle in countries on every continent.
The worldwide success of the Cherokee may be appropriate in light of the international parentage of its design. It was the product of a joint project between American Motors and Renault during their brief alliance, with Renault providing the funding and engineering design team and AMC providing the styling team headed by Dick Teague (An earlier CC described the design process of the Cherokee in greater detail). The result was a compact SUV that was intentionally sized for Europe, light in weight thanks to its unibody structure, rode and handled well on pavement while still excelling off road, and was well proportioned and stylish despite its boxy shape.
Export sales began soon after the introduction of the Cherokee in the U.S. Exports to Europe began in 1985, and the Cherokee soon became a popular vehicle in Europe and a familiar sight on the streets. Many may have noticed that in the movie Ronin, directed by car enthusiast John Frankenheimer and featuring numerous carefully selected cars and noteworthy car chases, one of the prominently featured automobiles was a Cherokee (seen above). The introduction of a right hand drive version in 1993 opened up sales to the United Kingdom, Japan, Australia and other right hand drive markets.
Overseas production began even earlier than exports from the U.S. and led to the conquest of further markets. In 1984, Chrysler established a joint venture in China that made the Cherokee the first American vehicle to be produced there. Cherokee production in China continued even longer than in the United States, until 2005, and a knockoff called the Knight S12 continues to be produced there. In Egypt, a Chrysler/Egyptian joint venture named Arab American Vehicles, which began under AMC as a producer of military Jeeps, produced the Cherokee from 1992 to 2001. Chrysler of Argentina also produced the Cherokee from 1997 through 2001.
The worldwide success of the Cherokee is especially evident in Sweden, a country where sport utility vehicles are popular and where American cars have some cachet. The Cherokee is present in large numbers in Sweden, so much so that there is nothing unusual about seeing a Cherokee parked on every block over long stretches of street in Stockholm. They even seem to outnumber Volvos at times, which is an accomplishment in Sweden.
Relevance to everyday driving needs is clearly part of the secret to the Cherokee’s success. The design’s compact size made it similar to a normal sized car in Europe, and its light weight and available diesel engine made it an economically viable proposition in countries with high fuel prices. Outside of the U.S., the Cherokee was available with a turbodiesel from 1985 to 2001, first with a 2.1 liter Renault/Douvrin unit producing 85 hp and 132 lb-ft of torque from 1985 to 1994 (available in North America only in 1985-87), then with more powerful a 2.5 liter VM Motori diesel producing 114 hp and 221 lb-ft of torque from 1994 to 2001. One sees Escalades and Hummer H2s and H3s in small numbers in Sweden, but these bloated heavyweights are unlikely ever to achieve the mainstream acceptance of the Cherokee.
With rare American cars a common sight in Sweden, it is unsurprising to see the more unusual Cherokee variants appear on the streets. The Wagoneer Limited with its Di-Noc “wood” panels was not a very popular model and lasted only from 1984 to 1990, but this one is still a daily driver in Stockholm. If fake wood sided early XJ Cherokees ever become coveted classics in Sweden, then this one should become a prime collectible.
Few automobile designs have survived in production fundamentally unchanged for at least 18 years in a competitive and rapidly changing automobile market, and even fewer have sustained worldwide popularity for that long. The XJ Cherokee is one of those automobiles. Its successor, the Jeep Liberty, wore the Cherokee nameplate outside of North America but did not have the same qualities that made the XJ Cherokee a success, lasting from only 2002 to 2012 despite a complete redesign in 2008. The Liberty’s replacement for 2014 will again receive the Cherokee name, but it will be a completely different and far more technologically advanced design. By then, the earliest XJ Cherokees will be 30 years old, but with approximately 3 million produced from 1984 to 2001, XJ Cherokees will be a common sight on streets and off-road trails around the world for many years to come.
Still a nice looking truck even after all these years.
Saving for a replacement for my S10. Must have a back seat and a trailer hitch. The only thing handicapping this one is the somewhat lower gas mileage for the 4.0. I consider the engine to be right up there with the 4.3 I’m driving and I’m having a love affair with that. It has kept the rest of the truck residing in my driveway.
In other posts I’ve mentioned my two Jeep Cherokees (1996 & 2001, both 4-door and 2wd with 4.0 six and 4-speed automatic) and my two Comanches (1991 & 1992 – lwb and with the same drivetrain in both as in the Cherokees). I can see why these are so popular around the world. They have sufficient power, are the right size, and, if mine were any indication, very reliable.
Today I have only the 1992 Comanche. A Texan should always have a truck no matter what else is in his garage or driveway. 🙂 Last December I traded the 12 year old Cherokee for something newer and more economical since my daughter would be taking that car to Virginia after her wedding in May.
I bought the 1996 Cherokee in October of 1995. I couldn’t see my way then to paying for a 4-Runner though I knew it was a good value. The other Jeeps came later based on the good fortune I had with the ’96. I have to admit my expectations weren’t too high (especially regarding build quality and durability) being as the car was the offspring of the then defunct American Motors, the always iffy in America Renault, and the on again-off again Chrysler Corporation. Although I knew the in-line 6 was a solid bit of machinery my concerns about the other aspects of the Jeep proved unfounded over 7 years and 150,000 miles.
Some of the people I hang out with are used car dealers in the area and I get their advice when I go to buy a car that is too old for the new car dealer’s used lot. They are the ones who congratulated me on my Jeep purchases (they seem to be a favorite of those who haunt the auctions – right Steve?) and one advised me to look at the 2006-2007 Ford Focus as a more economical replacement for the Cherokee my daughter was driving. So far that has been good advice.
Another of these car dealer buddies also sells cars on consignment. He offered to put the 2001 Cherokee on his lot for a very low flat fee and it could stay there as “long as it took to sell.” He told me many used U.S. Cherokees went overseas. In fact he sold the Cherokee the next day for my full asking price. I think he already had the Guatemalan buyer lined up – the sneaky twerp.
When I went to sell the 1996 Cherokee ten years ago (remember it was one-owner, garage kept, and well maintained) I parked it on an empty lot in front of our subdivision with a sign in the window which had my asking price and phone number. By the time I walked back to my house 3/4 of a mile away I had a phone call about the Jeep and a check in my hand for the full asking price 30 minutes after that.
Yeah, the XJ Cherokee was one of the rare bright spots in Chrysler’s recent history. Now what if Daimler-Benz had updated that platform a bit and added a Mercedes diesel instead of the Renault or Italian one . . .?
> Now what if Daimler-Benz had updated that platform a bit and added a Mercedes diesel instead of the Renault or Italian one . . .?
The Liberty, which replaced the Cherokee, was developed while Chrysler was under the ownership of MB. They still designed-in a 2.8L VM Motori diesel, which was an updated version of the 2.5L diesel used in the European Cherokees. I wonder why they didn’t spec a MB diesel for the Liberty?
It’s unfortunate that the diesel Cherokee wasn’t available in North America. The diesel engine available in the Liberty was apparently good. It was ultimately discontinued because it didn’t meet the federal emissions standards introduced for MY2007.
My sister has an 05 Liberty with the diesel. A recent turbo replacement through the dealer was eye-poppingly expensive.
These were everywhere in the UK, only disappearing from our roads over the past five years. Next to Chrysler minivans and a smattering of Neons, these are the only other American car to ever gain a foothold in the UK market. The strange thing, is that whenever I speak to anybody who owned one over here, they curse the thing for abominable reliability- and that’s coming from people who drive Discoveries and Range Rovers. I really do wonder what the difference is. When I lived in the states prior to 2003, I had quite a few friends who owned Cherokees at one time or another, and aside from a mate with a very early 2.8, all swore by them, clocking up 200K miles plus. Indeed, my ’96 Dakota which was powered by the 2.5 Cherokee engine was bulletproof. My only guess is perhaps the dealer network was very thin, and I do know that parts had to be shipped from the US, making small repairs very expensive.
I often thought about getting one, as now they’re in the under £1000 range even for the best as nobody wants an unfashionable petrol hungry and tax heavy 4×4 that’s not from Solihull.
Another interesting point, is that the body engineering of the Cherokee owes its existence to the Lada Niva, which was the first ‘body welded to frame’ compact 4×4. This, like the Cherokee isn’t exactly a unibody (where the bodyshell itself provides the strength), but rather a unibody with U-shaped frame members welded to the underside to give the rigidity needed for serious off roading.
Huh! Didn’t know about that ‘body welded to frame’ thing, even though I had both a Lada Niva and an XJ Cherokee once (not at the same time though). I just knew they didn’t have a traditional frame, but this really makes sense.
Both were a hoot to drive; lightweight, compact, easy to maneuver. And great looking, too; well, the Cherokee more so. And of course the Cherokee, for all its ruggedness, was still quite a bit more refined than the bare-bones Niva.
As Paul says, even in the ’60s, unitary structures had what I suppose you could call pseudo-frame members in the floorpan to make certain areas more or less stiff than others. British cars, for instance, often used big, fat sills for this purpose.
With a car or truck, the loads imposed on the body structure are obviously not uniform, if for no other reason than that the vehicle’s mass is irregularly distributed. You can make the whole shebang lighter without sacrificing strength if you do a load analysis and beef up the structure in the areas you know are going to be doing the toughest jobs. For example, you want to provide points where people can put a jack or jackstand so they can change a tire without damaging the body. Conversely, you may not want other areas to be too stiff, for example so that you don’t turn the floorpan into an echo chamber for road noise.
Also, while I’m no engineer, I think you sacrifice a certain amount of structural strength with various things you might need or want for practical purposes (such as a big hatchback or bolt-on rather than welded-on fenders). If you take strength out of some areas, you have to put it back somewhere else, usually in the floor.
Well, almost every unibody car/vehicle has something similar in their undersides. A completely flat floor just wouldn’t cut it. Frame-like U-members are almost inevitable components in every unibody car underside. Slide under your and take a look.
Of course the Cherokee’s U-sections naturally are bigger and deeper than in a typical passenger car. But that doesn’t negate its body being an important part of its overall strength and stiffness. Renault had lots of experience with unibodies, and used that to design the Cherokee’s.
AMC perhaps had even more experience – were they not exclusively unit construction dating back to the 1940 Nash 600?
True. But it was specifically at Renault’s instigation that the XJ be a unibody. They wanted a light and advanced unibody SUV that would also work well in Europe. I’m sure experience from both companies played into its development.
I still love these. There are some neighbors across the street who have a very nice looking later one. They moved in a few years ago and keep to themselves, so I have never had the chance to tell them how much I like it. As some have said, these are starting to get old and it is getting harder to find nice ones. 200-250K mile versions are everywhere on Craigslist in my area.
Definitely one of the best-looking SUVs of all time. The 1997-2001 facelift made them look fresh and modern without deviating from the proven formula. The “waffle” alloy wheels on the black one in the first picture are among my favorite wheel designs ever! They were also available on the Grand Cherokee Limited.
I have to agree with you on the Facelift. It could have been very very bad, but it could not have been more perfect for the reasons you stated.
I liked those wheels too, though I remember seeing them a lot more on Grand Cherokees than these. They remind me a lot of 77/78 Trans Am snowslakes, especially with the gold accents.
Lots of green Limiteds with gold wheels sold
I concur with Brian, these and the Chrysler minivans was by far the best selling american cars in Europe. Cadillacs was in the thousands for Europe as a whole, a market of 700 million people. These were ten or twenty times that amount.
The Americans were good for two things in Europe. One, being different. All over the world, there will always be a market for your Corvette or Camaro or Hummer or Mustang or whatever it is that is decidedly American and gas guzzling and different.
But what they did best was; Two, niche vechicles. The Cherokee and the Chrysler minivans was significant, because there weren’t anybody that did it better, even in Europe. A lesson that the Americans would never learn, and could never capitalize in a big way.
I also noticed the popularity of Chrysler minivans in Sweden, as well as the large number of Pontiac/Chevrolet Trans Sport minivans. At first I intended to feature both the Cherokee and the minivans in the same article as the “New American Classics of Sweden” (hence the URL), but I decided to do the minivans separately at a later date.
I had two of them, both 2000’s, one gold the other dark blue. Had my wife not totaled the blue one, I’d still have it. Right now I’m trying to work up the justification for buying a third.
As far as I’m concerned, if I’m going to do another SUV, I’ve got two choices: Cherokee and Discovery. Period.
As Ingvar already said this Cherokee model was very succesful in Europe too. It had just the right dimensions and it always had a diesel engine as an option. (If you don’t offer a diesel, certainly in this type of vehicle, then better not try to sell it at all)
My late uncle bought a new one in the late nineties, it had the 4.0 ltr. 6 cylinder. Dark green metallic, tan interior and dark grey 5 spoke rims. What a beautiful car, what a timeless design ! A lot of the 6 cylinders got an LPG-system to keep the fuel costs acceptable. My uncle didn’t bother, he ran it on gasoline and put the pedal to the metal as if it had some hybrid Muesli engine under the hood.
The successor of this square model was a disappointment. Lots of owners quickly ordered a new “old” model (I believe it was called the “Cherokee Classic”) to avoid the new model. The successor was a girly Jeep, too sweet, too kind, too round. Everything you didn’t want in this class of vehicles.
I’ve had a couple of these, originally an 88 years ago and more recently I had a 2000. Excellent vehicles, a good size for in town and off road, decent on gas for what they are too. I sold my last one to get a Grand Cherokee as I wanted the V8 for towing. I used the Cherokee hard and never had any major problems with it.
I wonder when these XJs will start to gain collector status.
Who says American car companies don’t build cars that the rest of the world can use?
Back when I was selling cars in the early 90’s, these were very popular. As I worked (mostly) at a Toyota store, we would just about run each other over to demo these cars to prospects. Pretty much if they had a pulse and a steady income, you could sell one of these.
I was a fan of the original design that came out in 1984, but not a fan of the GM mechanicals; at that time a 60 degree V6 was an invitation for trouble. When AMC started using the Nash six was the time to get these.
Of course, I wonder what it would take to put a SBC in one of these… LOL!
Well, if space efficiency is the driver, then the Cherokee was a great design, and well executed throughout its lifetime. The 4.0 was bulletproof; if only the trannies were. I once read a column by a mechanic of 20 years’ experience (at that time) who said he had worked on many, many of them and had NEVER seen one break. A good testament to a good engine.
It just had it’s 25th birthday, I gave it an oil change of Mobil 1 for the occasion, It is my daily driver with almost 190k on the dial. It has been the best vehicle I have ever owned. When they say they don’t make’m like this anymore, They are right!
Down here it’s still common to see them in the streets. In the suburb I live there are at least 3. I also see 2 near where I work.
The shape of that thing is truly timeless. In 1996, Automobile Mag called it “Dick Teague’s masterpiece” and I agree (mental note, I need to have that stuff sent over here). It’s still the template for SUV/CUV proportions. And after all these years it doesn’t look ancient.
Most of the ones I see around here have been converted to LPG. The around here the Powertech 6 has a reputation of being a heavy drinker.
And some day, I’ll get one. Or a Range Rover, although the Disco (specially the early ones) is growing on me.
In addition to Europe, I can attest to these being very popular in Japan; a country not usually fond of American vehicles. You still see them here in Tokyo – and the owners I talk to say that they’re the right size for Japan streets, have that unique Jeep cache and cite the robust 4.0L 6 cylinder engine. The Liberty never got close to the Cherokees popularity.
The other somewhat prevalent US car here in Japan? Most would never guess (including me if I wasn’t here) – the Chevy/GM Astro vans. I can’t explain their popularity, they seem to just hit some niche that the major Japanese manufacturers have missed…….
The most popular non-Japanese make – hands down, the BMW 3 series…..
These Jeeps tend to disprove the “Japanese won’t/ can’t buy American” myth. If it is the right size and styled fairly discreetly with decent quality control, they will buy them. The same goes for the rest of the world.
I’m probably going to get slaughtered for this, but anyway… I have always thought, and still do, that the Cherokee is one of the best looking and sized SUV’s of all time. But… it is absolutely awful as an on road vehicle.
I scoured the local listings to buy one a few years back, before I actually put any miles behind the wheel of one. Found a perfect 1998, low miles, every option I wanted, went to test drive, and holy crap. It rides like a pogo stick, and has probably the worst throttle and brake inputs I’ve ever felt. The only vehicle I’ve ever ridden in that had as poor a ride on-road was, well, a Wrangler. And the back seat is an absolute joke. I’ve seen compact pickups with rear hinged 3rd doors bigger than the Cherokee’s opening. Again, I love the image, but these were outclassed by other SUV’s by the early 90’s.
good points.
I agree with you on that. I think the S10 Blazer was the first truly car-like SUV. It blew away the Cherokee for on road refinement, though the 4.0L inline-6 in the Jeep was a better engine than the 2.8L V6 in the Chevy. The Jeep got the size right but not the drive. Still it looked great, had no competitors for a while and sold like crazy. A milestone car.
The best most reliable vehicle I have owned in 40+ years of driving. Never a surprise… just normal wear replacements. 260,000 miles total with the original clutch. Was only “losing” 1/4 to 1/3 of a quart of oil every 3000 miles.
I am surprised that it took untilltd’s comment to mention the rear seat (lack of) room, apart from that they seem pretty good in most areas although I do remember the dash being criticised for being horribly plasticy and slabby – not surprising when hings had moved on quite a bit from when they were designed to when they went on sale here in Australia.
One of the Cherokees problems in OZ was the warranty didnt cover the whole country so if it broke too far from a dealer it was your problem.
I haven’t heard that one before.
About 30 years ago my uncle had a Jeep Cherokee (aka Wagoneer, not an XJ) that they took all over Australia with some serious off-roading. In the remote north of Western Australia he noticed the roof moving! He could feel a gap opening and closing between the windshield glass and the roof pillar as the vehicle rocked and tipped along a rough track. When they got into town (perhaps Broome?) they got in contact with Jeep’s Australian HQ in Brisbane, the result was they found out the roof pillars were designed to move rather than crack in severe offroad conditions, but they were advised to take some of the load off the roof rack.
From the time I was about 10, maybe 11 yrs old, I wanted a Jeep XJ Cherokee. I’d give anything to find one that’s in good original condition. For me, anything built between 1984 and 1995. That’s what I call an SUV. Not the softy car-based crossover vehicles you see today, but the truck based rigs that are capable of some serious off-road driving or snow driving when you need it. I understand that one could buy a right-hand drive XJ Cherokee. I’d buy one if I could find one for sale near where I live. I’d want mine with right-hand drive and a 2.8 litre VM Motori diesel engine.