Pennzoil HM Vehicle 10w-40 in Cherokee 4.0

[Toros]

I was going to go with a jug of Super Tech 10w-30 HM with a quart of reg. ST 10w-40 in my sons 2001 Jeep Cherokee with a 192,000 miles on it. However, I was in Walmart yesterday and picked up a jug of Pnnzoil HMV 10w-40. I thought it it would be better for the hot summer at the Jersey shore and the stop and go, quick trip driving he does for his job.

Oh and I'm going with a Driveworks filter for the upcoming OC.

Am I nuts with this plan? I figure I'll use the ST HM in the Fall.

 

[TomYoung]

I understand going with a better brand of oil. I don't understand changing the weight. If the engine is in proper order, you are misinformed in thinking that a different weight of oil is required for the hotter months. The engine runs at the same temperature and really does not "know" the difference in temperature. If that oil is not okay in the owners manual, I would suggest you do not use it. BITOG readers at this point generally accept that thin is in.

 

[jeepman3071]

10w40 works well in the 4.0 for the summer months. I'm actually changing mine to Pennzoil Yellow Bottle 10w40 for summer. I have some UOAs posted in the UOA section and the 4.0 seems to like the Pennzoil with the high moly content it has.

 

[lawman1909]

Nuts? No. Excessive? Probably not. If the oil is only needed until September, any oil will be fine really. Filter as well.

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: TomYoung
I understand going with a better brand of oil. I don't understand changing the weight. If the engine is in proper order, you are misinformed in thinking that a different weight of oil is required for the hotter months. The engine runs at the same temperature and really does not "know" the difference in temperature. If that oil is not okay in the owners manual, I would suggest you do not use it. BITOG readers at this point generally accept that thin is in.


The 4.0 Jeep engine is not a modern car engine. In fact, it has more in common with a 1940s tractor engine, and will do just fine on a 40 weight oil, especially with 192,000 miles.

 

[bullwinkle]

I have 10W40 Defy in mine, seems to have quieted it down some, up to 218K now.

 

[TomYoung]

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
Originally Posted By: TomYoung
I understand going with a better brand of oil. I don't understand changing the weight. If the engine is in proper order, you are misinformed in thinking that a different weight of oil is required for the hotter months. The engine runs at the same temperature and really does not "know" the difference in temperature. If that oil is not okay in the owners manual, I would suggest you do not use it. BITOG readers at this point generally accept that thin is in.


The 4.0 Jeep engine is not a modern car engine. In fact, it has more in common wit 1940s tractor engine, and will do just fine on a 40 weight oil, especially with 192,000 miles.


It would probably also "do fine" on 0W20 also. I don't see what the mileage has to do with the choice of oil weight. As far as the engine itself, it is a solid, fuel injected unit connected to a catalytic converter. It compares to an old tractor engine in the same way it compares to a moderin, DGI, Turbo engine.

Just to be clear to the OP, the car is specced for 10W 30, and there is no reason for a different weight. Using the higher weight will not deliver any advantage, but will not cause any problem either.

 

[Toros]

Thanks gentlemen. Does anyone know offhand how many grease/zero fittings there are on an 01 XJ including the universals?

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: TomYoung
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
Originally Posted By: TomYoung
I understand going with a better brand of oil. I don't understand changing the weight. If the engine is in proper order, you are misinformed in thinking that a different weight of oil is required for the hotter months. The engine runs at the same temperature and really does not "know" the difference in temperature. If that oil is not okay in the owners manual, I would suggest you do not use it. BITOG readers at this point generally accept that thin is in.


The 4.0 Jeep engine is not a modern car engine. In fact, it has more in common wit 1940s tractor engine, and will do just fine on a 40 weight oil, especially with 192,000 miles.


It would probably also "do fine" on 0W20 also. I don't see what the mileage has to do with the choice of oil weight. As far as the engine itself, it is a solid, fuel injected unit connected to a catalytic converter. It compares to an old tractor engine in the same way it compares to a moderin, DGI, Turbo engine.

Just to be clear to the OP, the car is specced for 10W 30, and there is no reason for a different weight. Using the higher weight will not deliver any advantage, but will not cause any problem either.



The engine has actually been spec'd for a 10w40 over the years it was in production. From my UOAs I have noticed it tends to shear the oil a bit. If you think an old inline six compares to a "moderin" turbo engine I think you have some reading to do.

 

[jeepman3071]

Originally Posted By: Toros
Thanks gentlemen. Does anyone know offhand how many grease/zero fittings there are on an 01 XJ including the universals?


There are a few on the front steering components and the upper ball joints. The factory u-joints are not greaseable, but if it has aftermarket ones you might have grease zerks on those.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: Toros
Thanks gentlemen. Does anyone know offhand how many grease/zero fittings there are on an 01 XJ including the universals?


Upper Ball Joints (2)
Tie Rod Ends (2)
Drag Link end @ Tie rod end (1)
Trac Bar joint @ frame (1)
Front drive shaft slip joint (1)

Factory u joints have no grease fittings.

 

[TomYoung]

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
Originally Posted By: TomYoung
Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
Originally Posted By: TomYoung
I understand going with a better brand of oil. I don't understand changing the weight. If the engine is in proper order, you are misinformed in thinking that a different weight of oil is required for the hotter months. The engine runs at the same temperature and really does not "know" the difference in temperature. If that oil is not okay in the owners manual, I would suggest you do not use it. BITOG readers at this point generally accept that thin is in.


The 4.0 Jeep engine is not a modern car engine. In fact, it has more in common wit 1940s tractor engine, and will do just fine on a 40 weight oil, especially with 192,000 miles.


It would probably also "do fine" on 0W20 also. I don't see what the mileage has to do with the choice of oil weight. As far as the engine itself, it is a solid, fuel injected unit connected to a catalytic converter. It compares to an old tractor engine in the same way it compares to a moderin, DGI, Turbo engine.

Just to be clear to the OP, the car is specced for 10W 30, and there is no reason for a different weight. Using the higher weight will not deliver any advantage, but will not cause any problem either.



The engine has actually been spec'd for a 10w40 over the years it was in production. From my UOAs I have noticed it tends to shear the oil a bit. If you think an old inline six compares to a "moderin" turbo engine I think you have some reading to do.

Sorry for the typo. The engine in this vehicle was spec'd for 10W30 in all the years that the vehicle with this engine was on the market. That engine has ancient roots to be sure, but could easily be sold today with modern components. I have worked on engines both old and new, and don't need to read any more to know that moving to a 10W40 is based mostly on hokum.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071

The 4.0 Jeep engine is not a modern car engine.

Very true.

Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
In fact, it has more in common with a 1940s tractor engine,


Now that's a little exaggerated! After all, it does have overhead valves, hydraulic lifters, and was never sold WITHOUT electronic fuel injection. But its only a small exaggeration...


Originally Posted By: jeepman3071
and will do just fine on a 40 weight oil, especially with 192,000 miles.


I almost always used a synthetic 5w40 in mine (Rotella T6). They do very well on a 40-grade, regardless of mileage. All AMC-designed engines are prone to dropping oil pressure with increasing age (well, ALL engines are,but AMCs seem to be so more than others mostly due to rotor end clearances increasing in the oil pump itself as it wears.) 40-grade will delay the inevitable oil pump change needed at about the halfway point through the life of the rest of the engine. Which is usually around 200k miles... They're awesome engines, primitive or not.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: Toros
Thanks gentlemen. Does anyone know offhand how many grease/zero fittings there are on an 01 XJ including the universals?


Upper Ball Joints (2)
Tie Rod Ends (2)
Drag Link end @ Tie rod end (1)
Trac Bar joint @ frame (1)
Front drive shaft slip joint (1)

Factory u joints have no grease fittings.


Some aftermarket track bar end-links have zerks at both ends. Some aftermarket steering dampers have a zerk at the drag link. Some replacement lower balljoints have zerks (I believe...) It kinda depends on how much prior front-end work the vehicle has had, but I think Miller got all the rest that I can think of. Who was it (SteveSRT8?) that said 'you can tell how long a vehicle is meant to last by the number of zerk fittings it comes with.' The XJ was meant to last in some ugly environments.

 

[GregGA]

My 87 came with zerks on the u joints.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Miller88
Originally Posted By: Toros
Thanks gentlemen. Does anyone know offhand how many grease/zero fittings there are on an 01 XJ including the universals?


Upper Ball Joints (2)
Tie Rod Ends (2)
Drag Link end @ Tie rod end (1)
Trac Bar joint @ frame (1)
Front drive shaft slip joint (1)

Factory u joints have no grease fittings.


Some aftermarket track bar end-links have zerks at both ends. Some aftermarket steering dampers have a zerk at the drag link. Some replacement lower balljoints have zerks (I believe...) It kinda depends on how much prior front-end work the vehicle has had, but I think Miller got all the rest that I can think of. Who was it (SteveSRT8?) that said 'you can tell how long a vehicle is meant to last by the number of zerk fittings it comes with.' The XJ was meant to last in some ugly environments.




I always replace with greaseable wherever I can. My ball joints were bad because they just dried up. As were any U Joints I have ever had to replace. So front axle u joints, rear drive shaft, replacement steering parts, upper and lower ball joints and rear driveshaft (Front grand cherokee shaft) have greaseable everything.

The greaseable lower ball joints don't work so well with the U Joint axle shafts. The angled zerk fitting hits the U Joint ears so I had to put the straight on from the top on.

Now, if I want to grease my lower ball joints (which I am due), the axle shafts have to come out.

Only condition in which they were not designed to last is the highly corrosive roads of the northeast. But, I have not lost yet!

Hot idle, 120,000 miles, with a mix of PYB (4x 5w-30, 1x 10w-30, 1X SAE30) I have 20PSI. Not terrible.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Miller88


Hot idle, 120,000 miles, with a mix of PYB (4x 5w-30, 1x 10w-30, 1X SAE30) I have 20PSI. Not terrible.


My daughter's 99 4.0 does that at ~160,000 miles on T6 5w40. Actually about 25 PSI hot idle.

The 2001 with 105k I just sold, on the other hand, had gotten to where it wouldn't keep the warning light off at hot idle, even with 15w50. Rolling down the highway (hot) max pressure was about 35. New oil pump (no other engine changes) and it now runs 15 at hot idle and 45 at highway speed on M1 5w30. There seems to be a lot of variability, both in initial clearance and wear rate, on those 4.0 oil pumps. The Jeep shop I use also tells me that the occasional 4.0, for reasons only known to the engine itself, will tend to open the clearances in the camshaft bearings and dump a lot of oil pressure there. They were worried that mine was one of those and so practically made me sign a "no promises!" waiver when I asked for the pump replacement. But they were happy to be wrong ;-)

I spent as much fixing that '01 XJ up to get it ready to sell as I got for it... but since it went to a friend of my daughter who really needed a solid vehicle, I wanted to make sure it was good for the long haul.

 

[fdcg27]

IIRC, this engine is a direct development of an old Rambler six and the original Cherokee was an AMC (the renamed Rambler) design, although the inline six was not initially used in it. In 'sixties Rambler form, this engine certainly didn't have EFI, although it would have had hydraulic lifters.
IIRC further, AMC bought the Jeep brand from Kaiser and it was then sold to Chrysler during the divorce from Renault which killed AMC as a viable, if small, carmaker.
This was not unlike the divorce of Chrysler from DB, which about killed the company and would have if not for American government help and a Canadian venture capital firm, which then sold the corpse to Fiat.
Renault was regarded as the savior of AMC, pretty much as Fiat is regarded now WRT Chrysler.
Didn't work out too well for AMC or Renault. Chrysler is so far batting 1-1 on it's marriages. DB was a disaster for both companies. I'm not sure that Fiat will work out any better.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: fdcg27
IIRC, this engine is a direct development of an old Rambler six and the original Cherokee was an AMC (the renamed Rambler) design, although the inline six was not initially used in it. In 'sixties Rambler form, this engine certainly didn't have EFI, although it would have had hydraulic lifters.


According to Bill Weertman's book on Chrysler engines (including the inherited ones such as the 4.0, 258, 360, and 2.5), the Jeep 4.0 was actually a "clean sheet" design by AMC in the early 80s. The fact that a lot of parts interchange with the older 258 (you can build a 4.7L stroker by putting a 258 crank and conrods in a 4.0) is actually due to the fact that it was intentionally designed with the same bore-center spacing and a number of other parameters so that it could be built on the same assembly line as the 258. But the block and head castings, crank forging, rods, pistons... basically everything... was a new design. That said, it didn't push the technology very hard, so even in the early 80s it had the look, sound, and feel of an older engine. And it did inherit accessories like the oil pump design.


Originally Posted By: fdcg27

IIRC further, AMC bought the Jeep brand from Kaiser and it was then sold to Chrysler during the divorce from Renault which killed AMC as a viable, if small, carmaker.
This was not unlike the divorce of Chrysler from DB, which about killed the company and would have if not for American government help and a Canadian venture capital firm, which then sold the corpse to Fiat.
Renault was regarded as the savior of AMC, pretty much as Fiat is regarded now WRT Chrysler.
Didn't work out too well for AMC or Renault. Chrysler is so far batting 1-1 on it's marriages. DB was a disaster for both companies. I'm not sure that Fiat will work out any better.


Another interesting bit of trivia about the XJ and Renault involvement- François Castaing of Renault had overall supervision of developing the XJ plaform and designed the unique suspension that's still used on both the front and rear of the Wrangler. Its got far more articulation for offroading than most other solid-axle suspensions, and has survived (and actually dominated) the market for 30 years. Castiang went on to become Chrysler VP of Engineering and along with Bob Lutz was one of the key people to Chrysler surviving the decay (use modified K-cars for EVERYTHING!!) at the end of Iacocca's tenure. So in many MANY ways, AMC was the savior of Chrysler. AMC tech and aggressive attitude really revived the company.

 

[fdcg27]

Interesting.
I'd always thought that the 4.0 was a direct development of the old 258 six. Guess not.
I'd thought that AMC's main contribution to Chrysler was the Jeep line and that Renault's main contribution to AMC was death.
Didn't know that a Renault engineer actually made a very positve contribution to both Jeep devlopment and Chrysler engineering.
Agree that Iacocca revived Chrysler, with a little help from his friends in the Carter administration, but then ran it into the ground by using the K-car platform as the basis for every car the company made as well as the instant hit minivans.