Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Toyota FJ Cruiser vs Jeep Wrangler

12021232526

Comments

  • Yeah mgnz,

    I don't think its the jeep, it's the driver. You should let him know that the four wheel drive lever on his TJ is on the console by his right leg. Once he finds that we can talk about how to engage the axle lock.
  • geez, where do I start with this thread? I'll start with this comment from gagrice. uhm yeh, of course the Wrangler has sold more than the FJ! How long has the Wrangler been around and tested and trusted? The FJC, although is supposed to be in the same "line" as the family of FJ, it's still a brand new vehicle that has yet to really be tested to the extent as the Wrangler. The sale numbers are not a reflection of the quality of the FJC. I'd say that the fact that they sold almost 60,000 in it's first year even though they only planned on 40,000 certainly does say something though.

    The fact that you can get on you tube and find tons of FJCs doing anything and everything any Rubi can do, and MORE, also says something. So why don't we get real here. The FJC and Wrangler are apples and oranges. Long vs. short wheel base. Solid fron vs. IFS. And the list goes on. They are both very good at what they are good for. Simple as that. I think there are a lot of things Toyota sacrificed in making the FJC. Of course. NO auto manufacturer is going to make something in production that ANY "hard core" wheeler is gonna want. Not even Jeep. But to compare the stock versions of both vehicles, the FJC simply kicks the pants right off the Wrangler. Even the Rubi. And for the "hard core" guys, folks are doing just as much crazy stuff to the FJC as they do to the Jeep. Even solid front conversions. For any "hard core" people, they are gonna have to do some major damage to their warranties to get the rig they want. This entire anguement is simply lame. I've never understood any of you people that would actually waste your time argueing weather the FJC or Jeep or Hummer or Land Cruiser or on and on and on are the best. The best "hard core" off road rig ever built was never made by any auto maker. It was made by some guy in his gagrage, built on a tube chassis.

    Oh, and by the way, let's count how many you tube videos ther are of FJCs going backwards, end over end, the wrong way down Hell's Revenge. Because there are at least a dozen idiots in Rubis doing just that. But in the end, it IS the driver much more than the rig, right.

    Yes, unlike most of you guys, I actually OWN an FJC. With a few mods and lots more to come, to get it where everyone thinks Toyota should have put it.I have yet to have any problems, on or off road. The dunes on the Oregon coast are a blast, even without airing down on stock tires! You can't do that in your stock Wrangler, can ya? No, you can't. I pulled out two Wranglers in one afternoon.

    I would be happier with a diesel powerplant though. I don't have any problems with the visability. It's called good spotters, which everyone should have. And the doors only suck in parking lots.
  • Yeah there’s a lot to cover here. Let’s start with what the FJC is not – It is not a Toyota FJ. Despite the similar looking grille and the white paint on the lid it is not even close. IFS, a non-removable top, doors that were not intended to be removed, are just a few of the glaring differences. By extension, you can also very easily argue that the FJC is not in the same class as a Wrangler.

    The sales of the FJC have been spurred on not by those who know anything about what makes a good off-road vehicle, but by what I call Chrysler PT Cruiser syndrome. The PT Cruiser, for 2 years enjoyed record demand above and beyond all expectations at Chrysler Headquarters, not because it performed well or was of especially good quality – it was not – but because it was different, and it got the hype in the beginning. The FJC is no different, it’s visibly very different than anything else on the road and it was hyped in the beginning. Like the PT Cruiser was just a different body on a neon chassis, the FJC is just bulbous sheet metal on a 4Runner frame.

    As far as where the rubber meats the dirt between the FJC and the Wrangler, you should make all comparisons on STOCK vehicles. Anybody knows that $15 000.00 of the right goodies on an FJC will probably result in a more capable off-roader than a stripped base model Wrangler. Just as a Ford Fiesta with enough goodies on it could out wheel a stock FJC if enough money was poured into the project.

    Second, you should decide which Wrangler you wish to compare it to, the 1997-2006 generation or the new 2007 generation Wrangler (Rubicon?). Either Wrangler Rubicon generation will waste a stock FJC on the trails in maneuverability, visibility, crawling toque, and especially in articulation. In the dunes, where the sand is soft and deep the old Wrangler (’97-’06) will not perform as well as the FJC because the Jeep’s 4.0L I6 makes its power at an RPM that is too low for the high revving that required to stay on top of the sand. However, the V6 in the new Wrangler does make power at a higher RPM, which happens to mean it is quite at home in the dunes as well as king of the trails. Not to mention, that all of the Wranglers ever made, even back into the 80’s will fit places that the wide and bulbous FJC will never go.

    So if you want an out of the box 4x4 that will take you more places than any other OEM four wheel drive made, then order up the 2007/2008 Wrangler Rubicon in 2-door form.

    If you want a (more) comfy 4x4 with bulbous looks, and ok off-road capability, then buy the FJC. It’s pretty simple.
  • murphydogmurphydog Posts: 491
    just to be clear - the stock FJ has made it over the Rubicon trail - so by your statements the Rubicon trail requires a vehicle that has "ok off-road capability", and by your standards is considered light off roading?

    Did we miss anything in your long winded post?
  • so let's compare the rubi vs. the FJ. STOCK models here. The Rubi does out turn the FJ at a turning circle of 35ft. vs. 42ft. Again, long vs. short wheel base. 95 vs. 105 inches wheelbase. But a longer wheel base will take the FJ places the Rubi won't, and vice verse. Again, Apples and Oranges. What about the "bulbouse" width? Well, according the Jeeps site, the '07 Rubi is 82.8" wide and the FJ, again, according to Toyota's site, is 74.6" wide, overall. Not sure if that's right, but that's what they say. Yet, the track on the FJ is more than 2" wider, putting it on a more stable base. The Rubi has better aproach and departure angles by a few degrees. Something most of us who wheel our FJs will remedie with aftermarket bumpers, which acheaved the same angles as the Rubi. But we're talking stock, right? So we get back to solid vs. IFS. Well, yeh, you get slightly more articulation out of a stock Rubi. But you will flip over well before I do because I'm on a better footing, I'm longer, and I have a lower center of gravity. So I just go up on three wheels and lean right over. If you went up on three wheels, you'd end up on your roof. And there's plenty of footage of that on the net to prove it. The FJ is heavier, has a wider and longer footing and a lower center of gravity, all which keep it planted better than the Rubi.

    So again, we argue about apples and oranges. They are both exceptional at what they do. But just as poor for other reasons. I can go places you can't and you can go places I can't. So why the hell does this lame [non-permissible content removed] arguement exist? Because in the end, no matter what, my truck looks WAY better than yours and you can't stand it! hahaha ;)
  • The Rubicon trail??? Pfff. Like that's some measure. The crappy Jeep Liberty, makes it. The Hummer H3 makes it, I'm willing to bet that a Geo Tracker would probably make it. Just because the FJC makes it through the Rubicon trail does not hold it to a very high standard. However the Rubicon trail is probably the best known off-road trial in the world, so that's what everybody talks about.
  • OK, so are you gonne be a TROLL in here and just talk smack or are you gonna contribute? Let's talk about what and where you think the Jeep can go that the FJ can't. What is YOUR measure if the Rubicon trail isn't any measure. And remember, we are still talking STOCK vehicles here.

    Personlally I think, from what I know of it, since I've never done Rubicon, I think is a pretty good test. Sure the Liberty can do it. Yes, I'm sure with some help a Tracker could do it. However, from what I understand, there's an easy way to get around most of the more dificult portions of the trail, too. So just because Jeep took the Liberty up there doesn't mean they "did the rubicon trail". They probably went around most of the hard stuff.

    But the FJ hasn't just done Runicon. The Toyota trail teams have been taking it just about everywhere. They've done damn neer everything there is to do in Moab, too. Tellico, too. They've been all over the damn place. So tell me, what is a proper test that you think the Rubi can do that nothing else can?
  • makaser13

    Dude you have to get things straight. There is the 2 door Wrangler (shorter than the FJC) and the four door (longer than the FJC). BOTH Wranglers are available with the Rubicon package. The short Wrangler will always get into tight spots more than the long Wrangler or the FJC. The short Wrangler also has a much better breakover angle. However the long wheel base Wrangler will be more stable in s very steep climb than either the FJC or the short Wrangler. Given all the different off-road situations, I would say that you will go more places on average with a short wheelbase than a long one.

    The widths of the FJC vs. the Wrangler, I don’t have in front of me. I have factory brochures for both some place – for some reason I remember the over all width of the FJC being significantly wider. One thing is for sure the FJC design team didn’t plan the placement of some things like the taillights very well – talk about being exposed. And the totally crappy forward and front side visibility it inexcusable!! I mean really, did they want to let the driver see the trail or was a styling statement more important!? Some pretty basic stuff the Toyota team gaffed on if they were really trying to make a competitive off-road vehicle.

    As for the articulation between the FJC’s IFS and the Wrangler’s solid axle: there is NO COMPARISON. Not even close! The FJC does 491 RTI, the Wrangler is 832.

    And by the way, the Wrangler’s already better approach and departure angles also get even better with aftermarket bumpers. Furthermore, there is much more aftermarket goodies for the Jeep to custom tailor it to your specific needs than any other off-road vehicle - PERIOD.
  • You’ve never ‘done the rubicon trail, but from what you know it’s a pretty good test’???? Well maybe you’ve never done Rodeo drive either, is that a good off-road test too??? Come on Here! I’ve never done the Rubicon either, but then how hard can it be if something like a BONE stock Jeep Liberty can do it!?!??!? I know what the Liberty is like, and saying it made it some place is not saying much. And it’s a trail, to say there is an easy path and a hard one would imply there are really two trails, not one and at this point your just speculating about things you know nothing of.

    The FJC’s I have seen doing moderately more difficult trails are modified ones. Yeah ones that don’t come with all season radials (Sorry I have to turn and laugh: ha ha ha) - what a way to launch a killer off road product into the market – The FJC’s I have seen doing stuff have been lifted with over size swampers, rock rails, aftermarket bumpers! There is now even a kit to throw a sold axle in the front of your FJC too – what does that say about the adequacy of the IFS????? BTW there is no kit to put IFS in a Wrangler.
  • Dude, I'm not mixing up anything. I'm talking about the two door.

    Who cares if the Jeep has better articulation if the damn thing tips over on it's head before it ever reaches full artculation? You still have yet to answer either of my questions. Why is it that you can find dozens of videos Rubis rolling over. Especially down things like Hell's gate. Yet I've been strugling to find any video of an FJ rolling over. I found one vid that shows an FJ being recovered from a roadside ditch, but you can't tell if it was actually from wheeling. Looks more like your average everyday car accident. The FJ is simply far more stable, PERIOD. If I was to be on three wheels in a Rubi, I'd be worried about tiping over. But not in the FJ. Been there, done that, no worries.

    And WHERE exactly can you take a Rubi that you can't take an FJ. What do you concider a proper test of a STOCK vehicle?

    Oh, by the way, I own both a Wrangler and an FJ. I'm not sure what you mean by better forward visability. The forward visability is really only marginably better with the Wrangler. Wheeling is all about knowing your vehicle and knowing where your feet are. If you don't know where your feet are, then it doesn't matter how good you can see. And I make it a point to go forward, so I don't need to see behind me much.

    As far as the goodies go, so what? Of course there is more stuff for the Wrangler. It's been around for years. The FJ is barely into it's second year. How is that even a comparison? It's not like there isn't anything out there for the FJ. I can get skids from at least five different places. Suspention from dozens. Good bumpers from least a dozen. Trust me, there's plenty of goodies for the FJ! And there's more coming almost daily. Including solid axle conversions. :surprise:
  • Do you even know what the point in having better articulation is??? Its to keep ALL the tires on the ground with the most contact patch. This also means you are not going to tip over. When you have wheels in the air is when you are in danger of tipping over!

    Keep in mind you can tip a Ferrari over if you try hard enough. And of course you’re going to see move videos of Jeeps rolled over since there about 50 times more Jeeps on the trails than FJCs. BTW I have seen pics of a rolled over FJC too.

    I also happen to know that when I have driven FJC’s that they don’t corner better than the old TJ Wranger, so I would really hesitate to say they have a lower CG to track ratio.

    Come to the mountains in the trees and I’ll show you trails where your FJ will not be able to follow a TJ or the new Wrangler simply because it can’t turn sharp enough or fit. The old Jeep CJ-5 is one of the best trail rigs ever since it’s got an 83” wheel base and is about 5 inches narrower than the old TJ Wrangler (much less the new wrangler). When I took that CJ-5 out to the trails I could follow most quad trails where the TJ (rubi or not) would not even fit. There were times when I was on an incline and where there were two trees so close that putting the windshield down allowed me to pass. There is no way on earth your FJC would follow a Wrangler never mind a CJ-5 in that area unless you brought a chan saw.

    ‘And I make it a point to go forward, so I don't need to see behind me much.’ This right here tells me the kind of wheeling you mostly do. If you never use reverse gear you never go into tight spots. And when you’re in tight spots you take all the visibility you can get. Maybe you are, but most off-roaders aren’t Jedi nights that can drive the trail blindfolded. Being able to see ground closer to the front of the vehicle over the hood and front corners is a big asset. Taking the doors off and even folding the windshield down further helps the situation. Hell, having the top off helps! Don’t worry bud, when Four Wheeler magazine tested the FJC their comment about visibility was ‘I would be nice to see the trail;

    The new Wangler has been around for 1 year (keep in mind it shares no components with the 2006 – it’s an all new design) and it has more aftermarket stuff than the FJC which has been out longer. Not to say there isn’t stuff for the FJC, there is, and it desperately needs these goodies to do the tougher trails.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    Do you even know ... ???

    I do know that illumination is preferable to confrontation. :)

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • Yes, I know what the point of better articulation is. Do you know what the point of stabilizer bars is? Because the Wrangler only get that RTI with the stabilizers disconected. With them connected it's 652 for the '07. The FJ gets 515 with stock height and WITH sway bars to keep it from landing on it's head. With 3" lift you can get 704 and with the solid axle swap you get 1100! But RTI isn't everything now is it? I've seen Rubis roll with seemingly no effort. They go from all four wheels on the ground to rolling in no time. Seems like it doesn't matter if all four wheels on the ground. The point of articulation is to keep all four on the ground not just to keep from tipping over but to get traction. But with the atrac engaged, you don't need all four on the ground to get traction. The Rubi can only do that if it has a front locker. But then you're stuck with having your front end locked. Not the best way to do things in all situations.

    Look, the whole point of this thing is that you seem to think that the FJ is only marginally capable and yet the FJ has proven to be FAR more than just marginal. Not, it's not perfect and has it's drawbacks, just like the Rubi does. You prefer the Jepp, I prefer the FJ. We obviously do different things with our vehicles and you have chosen the one that works best for you. I've chosen the one that works best for me. If I were trying to make my way through the woods between tight narrow paths, I would take the Wrangler. But I don't really do that kind of wheeling. I do take it up into some of the forrests here in Oregon and have no problems with the trails here.

    So far the FJ has been more than satisfactory for what I want to do. I guess maybe you're more hard core than me. Maybe not. But who cares? I'm having fun with it. I don't think anyone who buys an FJ expects it to do anything it's not capable of doing unless they plan on doing some major mods. I'm really strugling with what the point of this thread is to begin with. Why bother comparing the two when they are very different vehicles meant to aproach off roading in different way? Makes no sense really. But you've been trying to say that the FJ isn't anygood for any of it, and I'm sorry but you're very wrong. The FJ continues to prove that it's very good at what it does and far better than most will give it credit for. But hey, why do I even care what you think of MY truck? YOU don't have to drive it if you don't want. Keep your Jeep in the trees where it belongs so you don't clog the places I like with your wrecked and overturned and stuck Jeeps.
  • Ok First off – Four Wheeler tested the FJC at 491 RTI – I trust their tests since they have been doing it for about 20 years. 652 (with stock ride height) on the wrangler is noticeably different than 491. Second the OPTION to disc
    onnect the sway bar with the push of a button is a HUGE advantage. Sway bars are mainly for cornering and keeping the contact patch of all four wheels on the ground on a SMOOTH surface for best cornering traction.

    A-track is nothing new and nothing special, its simply an active limited slip system for the front and back axle that uses the brakes to redirect the torque. GM has been doing this on vehicle for almost 20 years. It does in NO WAY come close to comparing to a locker. Neither A-track or the Lockers will replace a Good RTI. Good RTI means you have more rubber on the ground and you can apply MORE torque if you have more rubber on the ground – PERIOD. So it certainly does matter if all four wheels are on the ground – to think otherwise is folly!

    Any dolt can roll any vehicle just about anywhere, regardless of make or model. And we know that there is no shortage of dolts on the trails!

    Second, are we talking about an FJ here or an FJC??? They are not even remotely the same thing!

    More than one year ago (before the 2007 Wrangler was out) I said the FJC had an advantage in soft sand because of the torque profile. The Jeep’s 4.0L engine, while superior in just about every other off-road situation, did not make the power at the right RPM for soft sand. Now the new Wrangler does well in the soft sand also with the new engine. Plus its superior in many other areas to either the old Wrangler or the FJC. AND you can get it in a more roomie 4 door with decent back seat access and more cargo room than either the 2 dr Wrangler or the FJC. So as far as I can see, unless you love the way the sheet metal is folded on the FJC there it has nothing on the Jeep.
  • murphydogmurphydog Posts: 491
    makaser -

    Very well put, and I agree with you 100%, however this is pointless. fourx4ever will not accept that the FJC is a solid performer on and off road. In his mind if it is not a rubicon it is not suitable for anything other than a fire road. He will not change his mind.

    The rest of us know that both machines will likely cover the same ground with no problems. :shades:
  • murphydog-

    Yeh, I agree. Oh well. fourx4ever. we'll agree to disagree. At least that's what i've been trying to do. In the end, the proof is in the pudding. I'm sure that even that won't be enough for you. You'll come up with any number of reasons to think that the FJ that just passed you on a trail can't possably be what it is. And I'm sure you'll refuse my assistance when I (or any other FJer) offers to yank you out of some hole somewhere. I personally think the whole rivalry between all the various brands of rigs is pretty stupid and childish. I'm not sure where I read it, but on one of the forums recently, someone made a very good point about this. Why is it that we are infighting when we should be spending the enery we put towards this and put it towards an effort to preserve the access we enjoy to public lands. While we are fighting over IFS vs. solid axles, the Green Party is going behind our backs and legislating our sport away.
  • You guys are smoking some seriously bad stuff. To say that a vehicle without Lockers, Without, (real) skidplates, without solid axles, and a lame 42:1.0 CR can keep up on any trail with a vehicle that has those things with a 72:1 CR that's also physically smaller: that's being stupid. Get real. You guys are deluded. Bring your knife to a gun fight!

    I'm not saying the FJC is totally useless, I'm just saying out of the box it's not even close to being in the same league as a Rubicon. Moreover, a 4Runner has pretty much the same potential as the FJC and it's more practical.
  • makaser,

    It's not rivalry between brands, its the triumph of reality. The two vehicles don't have the same off-road potential off the show room floor - not even close. The same driver can take the Rubicon places the Toyota would only see hanging from a helicopter.

    Regardless of what Toyota's propaganda department (marketing) has told you doesn't change the fact that their design department didn't equip the FJC to do the same things as a Rubicon. Plain and simple! For the future FJCs who knows what they will do.

    And yes, I could pour about $15K into an FJC and be close to a stock rubicon, but the physical size wont be any smaller and the visibility won't be any better.
  • m6vxm6vx Posts: 142
    You’ve never ‘done the rubicon trail, but from what you know it’s a pretty good test’????

    And what does 'doing' a trail really mean?

    I've seen vehicles 'do' a trail. They get stuck half way through an obstacle and get pulled/winched through the rest of the obstacle!
  • Exactly!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    My point well made. Just because it made it over some trail does not make the FJC or the Jeep Liberty amazing off-roaders. I could probably get a deepfreeze over the Rubcon trail too, does that make it a good off-road machine???
Sign In or Register to comment.