LOST JEEPS
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/

Which is the better option...2.5 or 2.8?
http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=72002		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  Troutman [ Sat Oct 13, 2012 12:05 pm ]
Post subject:  Which is the better option...2.5 or 2.8?
From the UK and currently run a 4.0L XJ. I do a fair bit of towing and the XJ is no good with that auto box and big petrol engine so I am now looking for a Cherokee(UK)/Liberty(US) CRD manual diesel.
My budget will take me up to about a 2006.
Question is..should I go for a 2.5 or a 2.8? Is there any real difference, will the 2.8 be a better option for tuning later? Have read a few things on EGR delete etc.
I can get a 2.5 with sub 80k miles quite cheap, the 2.8 command a higher price but not out of my budget.
Author:  Pippobug [ Sat Oct 13, 2012 2:42 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Which is the better option...2.5 or 2.8?
Hi
Welcome to Lost KJ !!!
I am in the UK to and i run a CRD 2.5. Most of the members here have CRD 2.8 auto as it's the only model available on the US market.
I love mine and i personally think it's better than the 2.8, but then I am biased!
Fil
Author:  Troutman [ Sat Oct 13, 2012 5:28 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Which is the better option...2.5 or 2.8?
Its the auto box that is no good for towing, the torque converter winds up too much, a manual diesel means much better control and economy.
I guess i will just look for a good car...2.5 or 2.8

Just wondering if the 2.8 is noticeably more powerful and has more grunt low down.
Author:  Billwill [ Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:10 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Which is the better option...2.5 or 2.8?
Troutman wrote:
Its the auto box that is no good for towing, the torque converter winds up too much, a manual diesel means much better control and economy.
I guess i will just look for a good car...2.5 or 2.8

Just wondering if the 2.8 is noticeably more powerful and has more grunt low down.


The early 2.8 L in the Export market...up to 2004, is basically a bored out 2.5 L and came with Auto box only.
The manual versions as far as I know only came out with the Command Trac 4X4 system as apposed to the Select Trac system on the auto models. The Select Trac lets you drive in Full Time High 4X4 which is good for wet roads.

These early Export engines had the advantage that they are a lot simpler than the later model 2.8 L such as the USA now had in that the turbo is a fixed vane setup as apposed to the variable vane turbo of the later models, the EGR is easy to over-ride without causing codes and the glow plugs are 11 volt one as apposed to the later 7 volt and then 5 volt ones...these 11 volt glow plugs seem more robust than the later ones and do not have a glow plug controller and do not have an ECM checking the plugs for failure....which is a good thing and a bad thing at the same time.

So if you are looking for an early Export CRD the 2.8 L has more power than the 2.5 L but comes in auto mode only....at least it comes with the Euro torque converter which is the envy of USA owners. Make a note of what 4X4 system you are looking at as well.

I am very happy with my 2002 2.5 L CRD Sport 5 speed manual with Traclock rear diff...much less finicky setup than the later models but if I had to replace it I would go for a 2007 2.8 L Ltd automatic....much better auto box and more power. :D
Author:  ATXKJ [ Sun Oct 14, 2012 8:31 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Which is the better option...2.5 or 2.8?
Billwill wrote:
....at least it comes with the Euro torque converter which is the envy of USA owners.


actually the 'envy of USA owners' - would be the manual transmission option.... at least for this owner....

- no opinion about the 2.5 - although simpler - generally means it lasts longer and is easier to maintain.
2.8 is fun to drive though - and folks have towed some good size trailers.
Author:  papaindigo [ Sun Oct 14, 2012 9:23 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Which is the better option...2.5 or 2.8?
I probably shouldn't off too much of an opinion but I will offer a couple thoughts:
1. IMHO simpler is generally better. Do with that thought what you will.
2. given today's transmissions (auto/manual) there is little durability or mgp difference IMHO so the choice really comes down to personal preference. FYI years ago I would have said manual transmission preferred no question but not today.
3. as to the "Euro" TC; as far as I know it was not fitted to any KJ anywhere until the 2007 model year. In fact the tendency to call it a "Euro" is somewhat misleading. That term is used here in the US but more properly the term should be "export" since post-2006 KJ CRDs were manufactured in the US for export only (e.g. not sold here much to our distress) hence the "Euro" TC is only found on post-2006 export KJ CRDs.
Author:  Troutman [ Sun Oct 14, 2012 5:13 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Which is the better option...2.5 or 2.8?
Billwill wrote:
Troutman wrote:
Its the auto box that is no good for towing, the torque converter winds up too much, a manual diesel means much better control and economy.
I guess i will just look for a good car...2.5 or 2.8

Just wondering if the 2.8 is noticeably more powerful and has more grunt low down.


The early 2.8 L in the Export market...up to 2004, is basically a bored out 2.5 L and came with Auto box only.
The manual versions as far as I know only came out with the Command Trac 4X4 system as apposed to the Select Trac system on the auto models. The Select Trac lets you drive in Full Time High 4X4 which is good for wet roads.

So if you are looking for an early Export CRD the 2.8 L has more power than the 2.5 L but comes in auto mode only....at least it comes with the Euro torque converter which is the envy of USA owners. Make a note of what 4X4 system you are looking at as well.

I am very happy with my 2002 2.5 L CRD Sport 5 speed manual with Traclock rear diff...much less finicky setup than the later models but if I had to replace it I would go for a 2007 2.8 L Ltd automatic....much better auto box and more power. :D



So how is the Export type of Torque Converter different from the none export one? I have basically decided against an auto due to experience with my XJ, you really have to give it some throttle to get it moving from a standing start (when towing) which I am not used to.
My XJ has Selec Trac which is great so I need to check on that too.

One other thing: is the later 2.8 a different engine to the 2.5? as you say the early ones are simply a bored out 2.5 and not much else. It is still a VM I suppose
I also noticed the later ones have Traction Control.
I phoned up a dealer today who had a 2006 2.8 Renegade with FSH and 39kmiles for £5995. A deposit had been taken on it so missed out there but I nearly had my first Liberty/Cherokee!
Author:  Pippobug [ Mon Oct 15, 2012 2:51 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Which is the better option...2.5 or 2.8?
Hi,

First, as you are in the UK you easily find a 6spd 2.8 around. The 2.8 is a bored out 2.5 and that is across all models. The 2.5 CRD comes all the way back from VM2.4 but as all engines it has evolved with time and been impoved (see comment with turbo and necessary EU/USA legislation for emitions, PS you find it now in the Wrangles aswell).
Being in the UK you have a better option than the US market so if I were you I would go for a CRD 2.8 6spd and try to avoid if possible the Select Track transfer box ( LESS HASSEL IN THE LONG RUN). Only other thing, as previously posted, the 2.5 have less electronics to go wrong. If you have a look around Ebay/Autotrader you find what look like good KJ from £ 4000 all the way up to £ 7500, the choice is yours. Personally when the day comes to change mine I will be looking for a CRD 2.8 6spd possibly Sport or Renegade, it's a shame Jeep never offered the KK in a Sport set up here in the UK with 2.8 CRD, and yes we do get over here KK CRD 6 spd saddley only in Limited edition.

Good Luck hunting one down and let us know what you find.


Fil.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/