2004 Jeep Grand Cherokee Laredo 2wd on 2040-cars
Engine:4.0L
Fuel Type:Gasoline
Body Type:SUV
Transmission:Automatic
For Sale By:Dealer
VIN (Vehicle Identification Number): 1J4GX48S54C422917
Mileage: 226925
Make: Jeep
Trim: Laredo 2WD
Drive Type: --
Features: --
Power Options: --
Exterior Color: White
Interior Color: Black
Warranty: Unspecified
Model: Grand Cherokee
Jeep Grand Cherokee for Sale
- 2023 jeep grand cherokee limited(US $30,833.00)
- 2021 jeep grand cherokee laredo e(US $20,825.00)
- 2011 jeep grand cherokee overland 4x4 4dr pano air ride navigation(US $12,550.00)
- 2019 jeep grand cherokee altitude(US $21,994.00)
- 2019 jeep grand cherokee altitude(US $20,998.00)
- 2011 jeep grand cherokee overland 4x4 4dr suv(US $14,995.00)
Auto blog
2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel
Tue, 26 Feb 2013Choose Your Own Adventure... But Choose Wisely
Jeep has got you covered. We can say this without even having to know what it is you want, because there's hardly an option or configuration that you won't find in the 2014 Grand Cherokee. There are three different engines, three different four-wheel-drive systems (plus rear-wheel drive), four different trim levels - not counting SRT - two different suspension setups and five different settings for various off-road terrain conditions. If you happen to check the box for Quadra-Lift, you'll also have five different ride-height settings for the driver-selectable air suspension.
As you might expect with so many customization possibilities, the way a buyer checks the options sheet can have a profound effect on the final product and its capabilities, to say nothing of its price. Nowhere is that more true than with the Grand Cherokee's choice of engines, with the brand-new 3.0-liter EcoDiesel V6 stealing the spotlight from the still excellent gasoline-fueled 3.6-liter Pentastar V6 and 5.7-liter Hemi V8 powerplants that carry over from last year. No matter which engine you choose, though, it will be paired up with Jeep's new standard eight-speed automatic transmission from ZF. This, ladies and gentlemen, is very good news indeed.
FCA seeking new trial in Jeep fire case, calls $150M judgement 'grossly excessive'
Sat, May 9 2015Fiat Chrysler Automobiles is fighting back after a Decatur County, GA jury ordered the company to pay $150 million to the family of a four-year-old boy that was killed after a 1999 Jeep Grand Cherokee crashed and caught fire. The company is requesting the judge reduce the award, and should Walden's family not agree to the lower sum, that a new trial be held. The Detroit Free Press reports that FCA would be forced to pay $120 million over the death of young Remington Walden, with an extra $30 million being paid to the boy's family. Neither figure sits well with the automaker, though, which called the fine "grossly excessive," and claimed it was in violation of Georgia state law. The judgment stems from FCA's long-running problem with the fuel tanks of certain Jeep models built in the 1990s and 2000s. According to the newspaper, FCA argues that the jury was biased after the Waldens' attorneys played on the their passions and pushed for a big award, saying the wrongful death award was 11 times more than any appeals court has ever upheld. FCA said attorneys for the plaintiffs told the jury to base the settlement on Sergio Marchionne's total compensation, $68 million. FCA also claims in its motion that the young boy's suffering was brief. "A $30-million pain-and-suffering award for what plaintiffs acknowledge was at most one minute of suffering is irrational," the motion, which was obtained by The Detroit Free Press, read. "Where such plainly improper arguments are immediately followed by irrational and stunningly excessive damage awards, there can be no doubt that the jury acted from passion and prejudice." Jim Butler, the attorney for the Waldens, has called the motion "nonsense," although he said the family will accept whatever figure the judge sets.
Ram and Jeep diesel emissions allegations spur class action lawsuits
Tue, Jan 17 2017This shouldn't come as a surprise. Last week, the EPA issued a notice of violation to FCA after it determined that Jeep and Ram installed eight undisclosed auxiliary emissions control devices on diesel vehicles. Since then US law firm Heninger Garrison Davis, LLC and Canadian firm Sotos LLP have launched class action suits on behalf of owners. These latest lawsuits are unrelated to a previous class action suit brought against FCA and Cummins over NOx emissions in 2007 to 2012 Ram models. The violation notice – and the subsequent lawsuits – covers 2014 to 2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee and Ram 1500 models equipped with the 3.0-liter turbodiesel V6, a total of about 104,000 vehicles in the US. The EPA says that while the emissions control devices aren't necessarily illegal, installing them without disclosing them to the EPA is, as they produce more emissions in real world use than in testing. Skirting certification in this way might be a violation of the Clean Air Act. FCA could see fines of up to $45,000 per vehicle, depending on the outcome of the EPA investigation. FCA denies that these are cheat devices, and has proposed software updates to bring the vehicles into compliance. As for the lawsuits, Heninger Garrison Davis says that "Fiat Chrysler marketed those vehicles as environmentally friendly with enhanced fuel efficiency, better performance, and lower emissions. Although the diesel vehicles were successfully marketed as 'clean,' their environmentally-friendly representations were deceptive to consumers." The suit seeks an undisclosed amount of compensation for owners of these vehicles. In Canada, Sotos LLP is seeking $250 million in damages on behalf of owners. This suit, filed in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, also claims deception on the part of FCA, "resulting in losses and damage" to owners. These are similar claims to group actions against Volkswagen with regard to its diesel emissions cheating scandal. While VW is fixing or buying back many of the affected vehicles, the company is defending itself against some suits on behalf of owners, saying it expects " no decline in the residual values of the affected vehicles as a result of this issue." Don't be surprised if FCA mounts a similar defense.