Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Most popular vehicles
Popular New Cars
- New Acura MDX
- New Acura RDX
- New Audi Q5
- New BMW 3 Series
- New BMW X3
- New Buick Enclave
- New Cadillac Escalade
- New Chevrolet Equinox
- New Chrysler 300
- New Dodge Challenger
- New Ford Edge
- New Ford Escape
- New Ford Expedition
- New Ford Explorer
- New Ford F-150
- New Ford Focus
- New Ford Mustang
- New Honda Accord
- New Honda Civic
- New Honda CR-V
- New Honda Fit
- New Honda Odyssey
- New Honda Pilot
- New Hyundai Elantra
- New Hyundai Santa Fe
- New Hyundai Sonata
- New Hyundai Tucson
- New Jeep Compass
- New Jeep Grand Cherokee
- New Jeep Wrangler
- New Mazda 3
- New Mazda 6
- New Mazda CX-5
- New Nissan Altima
- New Nissan Maxima
- New Nissan Rogue
- New Porsche Cayenne
- New Ram 1500
- New Subaru Crosstrek
- New Subaru Forester
- New Subaru Impreza
- New Subaru Outback
- New Tesla Model S
- New Tesla Model X
- New Toyota 4Runner
- New Toyota Camry
- New Toyota Corolla
- New Toyota Highlander
- New Toyota Prius
- New Toyota RAV4
- New Toyota Sienna
- New Toyota Tacoma
- New Volkswagen Jetta
- New Volvo XC60
- New Volvo XC90
Popular Used Sedans
- Used BMW 5 Series
- Used Chevrolet Impala
- Used Chevrolet Malibu
- Used Chrysler 200
- Used Dodge Charger
- Used Ford Fusion
- Used Ford Taurus
- Used Honda Accord
- Used Honda Civic
- Used Hyundai Elantra
- Used Hyundai Sonata
- Used Tesla Model S
- Used Toyota Camry
- Used Toyota Corolla
- Used Volkswagen Jetta
Popular Used SUVs
- Used Acura MDX
- Used Acura RDX
- Used Ford Edge
- Used Ford Explorer
- Used Honda CR-V
- Used Honda Pilot
- Used Hyundai Santa Fe
- Used Jeep Compass
- Used Lincoln Navigator
- Used Mazda CX-5
- Used Nissan Rogue
- Used Subaru Crosstrek
- Used Subaru Forester
- Used Tesla Model X
- Used Volvo XC90
Popular Used Pickup Trucks
Popular Used Hatchbacks
Popular Used Minivans
Popular Used Coupes
Popular Used Wagons
Comments
Please explain this 'seat jack' thing you keep talking about. I have never heard about it before.
Thanks
P.S. Its not a hight issue as I am 6' tall.
At least you won't be looking at the back of a tow truck
Sorry, couldn't help myself.
You are right about the visibility... sucks in the FJC.
Talk about getting the most out of an I6!
link golenengineservice.com
No doubt about it that the 3.8L engine in the new Wrangler is under powered for the larger 4 door model. However, hold on because I much more powerful, fuel efficient diesel is probably on its way very soon. Although the FJC is not under powered on the street, when I drove it light to light it didn't do any better than the out going TJ Wrangler with a 4.0L and six speed. I feel that both the FJC and the new Wrangler should have better engines.
Ultimately I think the FJC was not designed by people who knew what made a good off-road vehicle.
Articulation (RTI), Bottom end torque, visibility, crawl ratio, reliability, useable space balanced off with vehicle outside dimensions for ease of trail maneuverability. That being said lets compare the new FJC to the OLD Jeep Wrangler TJ (Not Rubicon) short wheel base model, never mind the new one:
ARTICULATION: The OLD WRANGLER had an RTI of over 600 right off the dealer floor. The NEW FJC pretty good for an IFS machine but its 491 RTI does not stack up to the Jeep. WINNER - JEEP TJ
TORQUE: Wile the FJC has more peak torque than the old Jeep 4.0L has, it does not produce near as much at the Jeep motor off-idle where you need it in most off-road situations. In a very few situations such as loose sand, torque at a higher RPM can be advantageous and indeed the FJC performs better here than the TJ. However, [most] people who off-road do not have access to a lot of 4×4ing in sand. Overall, having more bottom end is probably more useful. WINNER – JEEP TJ
CRAWL RATIO: The FJC and the stock TJ have similar crawl ratios in and around the 40:1.0. The industry exception is the TJ Rubicon with a whopping 72:1.0 ratio. However, the 40:1.0 ratio is still better than the industry standard and I feel adequate for most off-road situations, save extreme rock crawling. WINNER – TIE
VISIBLITY – This category really disappoints those who have driven the FJC. Weather it was engineers, stylists, or the cook at Toyota’s cafeteria that designed the FJC they didn’t seem to think that actually seeing the trail would be beneficial to the driver. The FJC has about the worst visibility of any vehicle I have ever driven. A cube van with no rear windows and a 10 foot hood could hardly be any worse. Of all the areas the FJC falls down this has got to be the worst. On the other hand, with a removable top, doors, narrow short hood, folding windshield, visibility does not get much better than a TJ. Weather it’s off-road or a tight parking lot, it’s hard to beat. WINNER – JEEP TJ
SPACE – Here is where people have to make personal choices. Not everyone has to carry the same amount of junk. However, the FJC certainly wins over the short wheel base TJ. WINNER – FJC
Maneuverability – The FJC is probably Toyota’s most maneuverable 4×4, at least of all those sold in north America. However, that being said it’s a few pegs more cumbersome than a TJ. The TJ has a wheel base almost a foot shorter, and a turning circle that beats the FJC by about 7 feet. The TJ is also noticeably narrower, allowing it to fit places where the FJC simply won’t go. WINNER – JEEP TJ
RERLIABILITY – Yes this is the category that all the Toyota fans wait for. There is no doubt about it most Toyotas made in the past 15 or so years have been very reliable. Though the FJC hasn’t been out long enough to prove this on it’s own yet, since it shares a lot of components with proven Toyotas I’m willing to bet it’s pretty good. Now before all the Toyota fans claim victory in this area they should really do their research on the TJ. I’m not talking about other JEEPS here, ONLY the TJ. Like Toyota, the TJ has an excellent reliability track record. If you check the customer satisfaction ratings in this area you will be pleasantly surprised how high it scores. I have personally seen many, many stock 4.0L engines over 400K and a couple over 600K with no major repairs. WINNER - TIE
This is what I have observed thus far.
Disagree on Torque and Reliabilty...
http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/autos/reliable/7.html
I was quite disappointed in the lack of bottom end the FJC presented. No matter how much those brown paper ads for the unit yap about variable valve timing - it is still woefully lacking in this area compared to anything I’m used to.
As for the reliability, I’m just going by what I have read in the customer satisfaction reports. And several stock 4.0L I have personally seen go well over 400K without having being opened up.
As an ex jeep owner, I can tell you it's no contest.
I think the new Jeep is called a "JK". I do think that Jeeps are built better than most American vehicles, but they seemed priced a little higher for what you get. ( I don't want to start a debate about foreign vs. American reliability, this isn't the forum for that )
If the 4.0L engine was so great why did they scrap it?
Dude, you can stall anything - even a diesel - if the engines torque output at that RPM can not overcome the job required ie. lifting the vehicles weight over irregularities in the terrain. It has absolutely nothing to do with being EFI or not.
Furthermore, when I dumped the clutch a little too quickly a few times without adding enough gas the FJC promptly stalled too.
You have to remember the Jeep 4.0L I6 gets 85% of it’s peak torque just off idle, that’s something like 200 ft-lbs of torque in the 1000 to 1400 RPM range. It’s pretty much diesel like torque. The TOY V6, despite the fact that it has VVT does not appear to be able to do this.
As for the 4.0L this was discussed starting around Post 391. Basically it comes down to a mix of political reasons and the fact that the bean counters couldn't justify production of an engine for just one vehicle model.
So, I would STILL buy an FJ, but it's never seeing mud...and I'm NEVER selling my Jeep...
Diego
Miami, FL (North Cuba)
Be sure to report back to us in 20 years!
tidester, host
Just a little doctoring to the grille and walla!
Ironically, this AMC Pacer abomination, with its much shorter wheel base, solid axle, and bottom end grunt of the I6, MUCH better visibility, and much smaller, lighter package, would probably out wheel the FJC in most situations.
Since it's essentially a jeep, I'm guessing the I6 has long since bitten the dust, the frame is probably cracked, the electronics are shot, the axles broke hitting a curb etc...
It is a beaut though... very nice stylin!!!
Actually it's not a Jeep at all. apparently the guy who made this thing from a pacer didn't put the car on a sub frame at all. It's the Pacer's unit body with a solid front axle swapped in the front and a lifted rear axle. Before the solid axle was swapped in it even had more in common with an FJC: it had independent front suspension! LOL! It has an AMC 360 V8 (so it would kill any FJ light to light) mated to a 4 speed.
But it sure does bare some resemblance to an FJC LOL! Ha ha ha that really slays me! A 1975 AMC FJC!!! LOL!
Might be nice to go wheeling with some torquey electric motors driving each wheel.
The torque part sounds good. Electric motors have a completely flat torque profile.
Now we just have to work out some bio-electrical engineering problems so the trees in the forest grow power outlets.
I think the first thing they'd have to work out is the $88k price tag though I'm not seen too many gas nozzles on those trees either. If they get to solar powered we are in business.
By the way, I'd pay $88K for one of those hand crafted FJs before I'd buy an FJC for $30K
I'm not sure what you mean by "flat torque profile" but the torque certainly changes if you vary the current flowing through the coils. Perhaps you mean torque per watt delivered? (τ/I2)
tidester, host
Or that an electric motor exerts maximum torque at zero rpm?
There's no doubt about it, some pretty cool things could be done with an electric motor at each wheel. Perhaps some form of hybrid with a diesel motor. A large alternator generator tied in to the diesel. Extremely precise torque delivery to any given wheel or equally to all wheels. Reverse rotation of some wheels with respect to others to make the vehicle spin on a dime like the Jeep Hurricane can do. The reverse for the braking on given wheels and precise control of all aspects of braking would be simple to manage. Even regenerative braking - however the storage of the energy is always an issue - I'm not a fan of power storage in battery packs.
Chevrolet Volt Concept
And no, it's not a new idea by any means. That's how diesel locomotives operate, the diesel powers a generator, and the wheels are driven by massive electric motors.
You know most of the so called 'advanced automotive' ideas are not new. I remember when everyone thought that overhead cams were so 'revolutionary' in the early 80's LOL! Little did most people know this idea dates back to the 1930's and Jeep actually had a production overhead cam motor in the early 60's. What's old is new
The "hemi" type engine dates back to 1905. Of course, the first fax machine beat that by 50 years.
By the way, wanna see a really cool Jeep video? I found this on Youtube. Talk about punishing!
What would you say to the people who buy the 4-door 2007 Wrangler, with more space and off-road capability than the FJ, to tow their killer (not even street legal) off-road TJ to the 'play ground'?
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.
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.
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.
Did we miss anything in your long winded post?
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
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?
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.
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.
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: