Howdy, Stranger!

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

Have you purchased a new car in the last year and had it delivered to your home/office from a dealership? If so, a reporter would like to talk to you about it. Please reach out to [email protected] by end of day Sunday, December 9, and the Edmunds PR team may connect you with the journalist.
If you experience loading issues with the login/register form, please completely disable ad blocker or use an incognito or in-private window to log in.

Toyota FJ Cruiser vs Jeep Wrangler



  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    Just curious, but which Kia was it and how big a gap was there between it and the Wrangler?
  • Tomorrow I'll get the article and post some more detials. The gap between the Wrangler and the FJC was by no means small. They had numerous complaints about the Toy while the only bad thing they really had to say about the Jeep was that it could use some more power.

    I'll have more tomorrow on it.
  • steenhsteenh Posts: 103
    Remeber, when the FJC came out they were selling for $3-$5k over invoice as well. Every one of them that has hit the shores has sold. No doubt that the Wrangler will outsell them... they don't make as many FJC's.

    As far as the article, I haven't read it yet, but just the fact that Peterson's had the kahuna's to rate a KIA over any other 4x4 put's the results in serious doubt in my mind.

    What they point out as problems with the FJC are actually pretty mild. Visibility sucks... you can look at one from 100 yards away and know that. Lack of front locker? ATRAC makes up for that (people wheeling the FJC rarely use the rear locker because the ATRAC works so well). Why didn't they point more towards the IFS? (Maybe they did) Bad tires? Come on! Test it with real tires?

    I'll also point out one other thing. When all this started back before the FJC had hit the shores, there was a lot of talk about how the FJC was nothing more than a fluffy mall cruiser for women. Now even Peterson's says it's the most capable Toyota 4x4 in NA. (It's not a 70 Series :mad: )

    Give me some credit... I've always said that the Rubi probably wins the competition off-road (though maybe not when both have 100k miles assuming the Rubi makes it) but that the FJC will be a very capable machine. Looks like it is a capable off-roader as stated by Peterson's.

    So, who's first to market with Diesel?
  • murphydogmurphydog SeattlePosts: 728
    Thanks Steenh for pointing out the obvious. Keep in mind that our friend bleeds jeep colors. I suppose if there was a Jeep badge and a locking diff mounted to my old water heater Mr. fourX4ever would proclaim it to be the best vehicle ever! I am glad the jeep is so capable off road. I will let the sorority girls know what a great purchase they just made.

    In all seriousness, the Jeep is a fine vehicle, and if you can afford a pure fun car I say go for it. :shades:

    However if you desire to play on the weekends, but also need a vehicle to get you around town during the week I would take the FJ. ;)
  • Steehn, LOL 'Interesting... Jeep must advertise in Peterson's more than Toyota' I often wondered how much the advertising plays a role in this too, however in this issue there is a full 2 page add for the FJC and not one single Jeep or Daimler ad. So really I don't think this happens too much.

    As far as the test goes, it is strange that they didn't make more the of the IFS solid axle thing. They did say however that the Jeeps articulation was 'Jaw dropping'

    Now I know several people think the A-Track is fantastic. The test teams didn't think so. In fact, in their summary they said the 'A-Track is worthless' - to use their exact words. The testers praised the rear locker and repeatedly, and I mean REPEATEDLY, said it needs a front locker - Did I mention repeatedly.

    The FJC took the praise in the sand. This is where the teams seemed to like the FJC the best.

    They tested FIVE main categories and the associated winner:

    RIDE AND DRIVE: Wrangler
    EMPERICAL: Sorento
    MECHANICAL: Wrangler
    INTERIOR: Avalanche
    EXTERIOR: Wrangler

    In those main categories there were sub categories. Out of ALL the subcategories the FJC only won one of them: Sand.

    Apparently the new Wrangler is nothing like the old one when it comes to road manners and comfort, so we're not talking about a comparison in comfort between the FJC and the out going Wrangler here.

    PS and for that other dog guy, it's not that I bleed anything. I like Jeeps because they are one of the best for getting the off-road job done. If you read back in my other posts I also like FJ-40's because they also get the job done.

    One of the summations the teams had for the FJC was: 'A great start, but not an FJ-40'
  • steenhsteenh Posts: 103
    I've driven them. ATRAC is far from worthless. Could be they didn't know how to use it because it works great. The FJC Trail Team rarely uses the rear locker because of it.

    I'm all for good competition. Maybe this will spur Toyota to revise the FJC and do the things that they should do. Front locker, removable top and Solid front axle. I'd buy one if they did that... well, maybe not. I like my 40 too much!

    Of course, from my perspective build quality and the ability to run well past 100k miles is still the downside to the jeep... and I haven't seen anything from DC in the past few years that indicates quality is improving.
  • murphydogmurphydog SeattlePosts: 728
    I guess I have to reply now and again as you are so intent of "being right". Vehicles are a matter of choice. Right for you ( or Peterson's) is not right for everbody else. I have to agree with Steenh, my experience is the quality is not there yet. I sat in a new Wrangler at the Auto show and felt let down. I was not impressed with the interior. If felt like a step back. In fact the interior is what I really liked and the previous jeep. That said I did like the exterior, I think the wider stance looks good. The changes to the top are a great feature as well.

    All that said with a jeep or an FJ I would be out in the woods maybe 20% of the time. The rest of the time this would need to be my daily driver, with a 20 month old son, wife and dog. I don't think I could trust a jeep, and I don't think I could live with the trades offs. The FJ also would force trade offs, but I can deal with those...if Toyota would put a darn factory sunroof in the thing!

    BTW if a solid front axle is the "bomb" why do the Ironman trucks they race in the desert have IFS? Surely there is more to going off road than rock crawling?
  • 'from my perspective build quality and the ability to run well past 100k miles is still the downside to the jeep...'

    This is where you and I have very differing experiences. To add to my long list of long lived Jeeps, just yesterday one of our suppliers' salesmen drove up in a Cherokee sport. He said it's been great; 325K on the clock and no problems. As I said before, I know of several (some friends) that have 450K, 500K and even 600K without any major repairs on that 4.0L in line six. From what I've seen it's pretty well bullet-proof.
  • ‘BTW if a solid front axle is the "bomb" why do the Ironman trucks they race in the desert have IFS? Surely there is more to going off road than rock crawling?’

    There is one place IFS works better than a solid: In washboard – it gives the driver more control at high speeds… This is why all teams use IFS in BAJA trucks. Pretty much everywhere else it’s a off-road detriment. IFS is inherently weaker and more prone to rock damage. It makes the vehicle much more expensive to lift and it really really kills articulation: The FJC’s Ramp Travel Index (RTI) is 491, while the new Wrangler is 835! That’s something you tend to notice off road.

    ‘All that said with a jeep or an FJ I would be out in the woods maybe 20% of the time.’

    This is probably about right. So in the test, why did the teams feature the Wrangler as best in Urban driving out off all the other contestants? My guess is because it is so easy to park because of the awesome visibility and the world class 34 foot turning circle. Moreover, the 4-door Wrangler has more room and much better access to the back seat than the FJC. This makes the Wrangler much more practical than the FJC for most people with a dog, wife and a 20 month old son – but perhaps this is just not you Murphy.

    ‘Vehicles are a matter of choice. Right for you ( or Peterson's) is not right for everbody else.’

    Again you may be right. Perhaps Petersen’s didn’t know what the heck they were doing when they awarded the Tundra 4x4 of the year in 2000 or the Lexus GX 470 in 2003. Rather, I think we should just leave their judgement as being listed as ‘experienced’ and call this just one more valid opinion on the FJC matter.

    ‘ I have to agree with Steenh, my experience is the quality is not there yet’

    Nobody knows yet what the quality will be like for the new Wrangler: its only been out for 3 months!!!! To say the quality is not there yet is nothing short of asinine. The history of the mechanical reliability for outgoing WRANGLER (not talking about other Jeeps here) has been impeccable over the last 10 years if you {bother} to look it up! The resale value has historically also been astounding; the industry’s best, tied with the Tundra.
  • murphydogmurphydog SeattlePosts: 728
    Tee hee...That is what I love about fourx4ever. Always right and always the last word. My experience with morpar products is that they break down. My friends experience with morpar products is they break down.

    I don't know people who have 300k on jeeps and are "happy" with them, heck they get rid of them long before 300,000 miles, and they are sad to have to let it go.

    Kind of cute how you manage to praise the 4.0 six (which is not in the new wrangler) then some how pan people who question the quality of the new wrangler. Either history is an indicator of future performance or it is not. Pick one argument and stick with it.

    For me the 4 door wrangler is a no go. Too weird looking. The current 2 door version looks pretty darn good on the outside, but the inside let me down.

    IFS vs solid axle - non issue. I have no intention of a lift kit, nor do I intend to go rock crawling. Wrangler may have a huge ramp travel index - however I do not intend to spend much if any time on the ramp.

    I like the style, size and ability of the FJ. You like the style size and ability of the wrangler. 'nuff said.
  • Murphy, the thing I like most about you is your ability to morph what other people say into suiting your argument. I didn’t make a statement about ‘mopars’ – I made a statement about wranglers and ONLY wranglers, and unlike you, I can back it up with published surveys.

    But hey don't let me stop you - go buy an FJC! I don't really care how you waste your money, at least I won’t have to drive it. Why don't you buy a Honda Element – Honda says they are the 'Swiss army knife' of vehicles - probably much better than a Jeep or even an FJC.

    The 4.0L was a damn good motor. I have seen it listed as ‘the best off-road’ motor ever made in more than one off-road publication and my experience backs that up. It’s a heck of a lot more bullet proof than ANY V-6 and it makes the torque where you need it off-road; at the bottom end not way up at 3700 RPM! Sad to see it not offered anymore.

    And as far as panning people who comment on the reliability quality of the new wrangler - who wouldn't?? Where do you go for your information, the psychic hot line?
  • murphydogmurphydog SeattlePosts: 728
    tee hee...again. Silly boy. you make me giggle reading your posts. I for one would wish you luck and many years of enjoyment with your new jeep should you choose to buy one. It sounds like your perfect car. ;)

    As far as wranglers and jeeps go, I have two friends who both dearly love their Wrangers - yet both of them lament the quality issues. I for one am not willing to endure what they endure to enjoy their 4x4's.

    Why the obsession with the 4.0 motor anyway, as you stated it is no longer offered anymore.
  • Murph, what's up with the 'tee hee' stuff anyway? You sound like some kind of school girl bud.

    Hey man I was just passing on some published stats on the Wrangler. Sorry I don't have any buddies with 'gut intuition' and 'scientific' opinions on the topic.

    As for the 4.0L. It’s an inline 6; probably the best basic configuration for an engine around that displacement. It has a main bearing on each side of every con rod (7 in total) providing excellent crankshaft stability which in turn provides longevity and strength. It has natural harmonic balancing so it is smooth, once again helping to provide longevity. I6 engines also are capable of having a long stroke for much more bottom end torque. They generally also offer good space in the engine compartment for performance modifications or just general maintenance - oil changes etc.

    I have owned several I6 motors. Most of them were original 20 years old and upwards of 200 – 300K with no major repairs. NONE of them burned oil or had any mechanical problems.

    Also, when I test drove the FJC I did some light off-road with it – took it over some moguls, varied ground etc. It stalled repeatedly when I tried to idle it over this stuff. I later took a 2005 Rubicon (4.0L) over the same place and it idled through without the slightest hint of stalling.

    The one short coming I see in the new Wrangler is that it does not have an I6 motor. Word is that will be rectified very soon with a common rail diesel.
  • Petersens just put on paper what I already found after I tested the FJC. Several concessions were made to production and corporate practicalities which have sacrificed the off-road ability of the FJC. Moreover, the styling department appears to have completely overridden any thought about trail visibility or that

    I have heard the FJC being compared to a cocoon. One off-road publication compared off-roading in an FJC to "having sex with a snowsuit and mittens on’. Comments like this don’t come for no reason.

    Based on Toyota press releases and their continued ‘brown paper’ magazine adds we are led to believe that this vehicle’s intended market is for the hard core off-road crowd, aka, the FJ-40 crowd. Now we see it is not so; the only thing that is remotely like a 40 is that piece of plastic between the front headlights they call a grill. So where does this vehicle belong? It seems to be an orphan! Its not a hard core off-roader, that’s the Jeep. And if you want a great vehicle to go to the lake and up rough logging roads then drive to work on Monday, take the family on vacation in comfort, then the 4-Runnin is a much better choice.

    I challenge Toyota to give the people what they want: An open top FJC, with good visibility, solid axles, a 60:1.0 (or better) crawl ratio, lockers in the front AND back axles equipped with a diesel engine! Then we’ll talk.
  • murphydogmurphydog SeattlePosts: 728
    I understand about the motor, so why do you think it is no longer offered?
  • steenhsteenh Posts: 103
    Now, if we are going to start talking about stupid add campaigns, how about the jeep commander ads where they drive up to the beach... from the ocean? And, that's to advertise a true "Mall Rated" vehicle.

    Or, let's cover a jeep in tons of mud and put it on the street in downtown NY and let people swoon over it.

    At least the "brown paper bag" campaign actually shows the vehicle driving on a real trail? Haven't seen a rubi ad with one on dirt yet.

    Maybe it's also time to be realistic. Hard core wheeling means a high potential for body damage, or it isn't hard core wheeling. Who's going to take a $35k vehicle into that type of environment? What the hard core people do is take an old vehicle with a junk body and modify the guts of it to the hilt... both jeeps and yotas. Out of the box, neither the Rubi or the FJC would hold a candle to the real hard core vehicles that are built for a fraction of the price by garage mechanics.

    People in the market for a new rubi or FJC are not hard core wheelers... period.
  • Steehn,

    You are absolutely right. I have not seen the commander ads, but from what you say it sounds dumb. Jeep does have ads of the wrangler doing real off-road stuff but most of other ads for their other vehicles show something that is ether impossible or ridiculous! Not that I like any of the other Jeeps in their line-up today anyway.

    The FJC ads just push the bounds of what most people could ever do with that vehicle - kind of like if Kawasaki had a dirt bike ad that showed the bike being jumped 30 feet in the air and performing a double back flip. Yes, a trick rider could do this with THAT bike, but could you and I? Hmmm well perhaps with a lot of practice and some broken bones. The FJC COULD negotiate a difficult trail with a very experienced driver and a lot of spotters. Jeep had promoted the Rubicon as capable for the average person to do fairly serious off-roading out of the box.

    About the hard core stuff with a new vehicle. I totally have to disagree with you dude. Just look in Fourwheeler, 4x4 and Off-road, or JP magazine. There are scores of people that bought and buy Rubicons and hit the hard core stuff from brand new. Lots and lots.
  • steenhsteenh Posts: 103
    "About the hard core stuff with a new vehicle. I totally have to disagree with you dude. Just look in Fourwheeler, 4x4 and Off-road, or JP magazine. There are scores of people that bought and buy Rubicons and hit the hard core stuff from brand new. Lots and lots."

    Why would they? I could buy a $2k vehicle, put maybe $8k into it and blow a stock rubi away on the trails, and not care if I hit a rock or a tree? Quite a waste of money... and if they don't suffer body damage, they aren't wheeling hard enough. Guess if you have money to burn... but not many buying rubi's or FJC's have money to burn.
  • Murphy,

    The reasons that I6 motors have fallen out of favor is largely political. I6 motors have been in automobiles for probably close to 80 years in one form or another. It is seen as an 'old' engine architecture. I have seen many cases where automotive journalists have panned I6 motors just because of this. The didn't say much about how it functioned just that it was 'old' and should be replaced with 'something else new'. They don't acknowledge the virtues that I sated in the previous post nor do they seem to have a concrete reason why they don't like the I6 - they just don't - so the seed of ignorance is sewn.

    Marketing departments in most automotive companies tend to be pretty sensitive to what is written about their brands. I believe this has prompted many companies to dump tried and true designs for something new - anything new just so they could say it was NEW! We can see many examples of this if we look. Just because the BASIC design is proven and has been in use for some time does not mean that it should be thrown away just for the sake of being old.

    If I was manager at DCX I would have done things a little different in the engine department. I would have taken the 4.0L idea and ran further with it: I would have designed an aluminum high flow head; perhaps even reworked it to have an aluminum block. Given it variable valve timing or perhaps a throtleless motor where all air flow is controlled at the intake valves like BMW's valvetronic motors. I would have probably made provisions for the future addition of direct injection also.

    Then this engine would not only be lighter but have even more torque and hp at all RPMs, get better fuel economy and have lower emissions than the 4.0L. I would dump the V6 option in all the Jeep and Dodge truck line up. This 'new' I6 would be the base motor in all mid and full size dodge trucks. And one of the options in the Wrangler (among a diesel).

    As it is now. I feel the 4.0L is still a much better off-road engine than the either the Mopar or Toyota V6.
  • Steehn,

    I don't know why they do this but they do!

    Well on the other hand let's examine it a bit closer:
    I have heard several people say that to bring a stock TJ up to RUBI it cost about $10K. So lets see if that makes sense. I'll be guessing on some of this so let me know if you have a line on a price

    4.0:1.0 Ratio transfer case with fixed yokes - Replace with Atlas T case - $2200.00

    Rear Dana 44 axle with limited slip and air locker - Replace with Currie Enterprise built 44 with air locker system and rear disc breaks - $3000.00 (includes air system)

    Front Dana 44 axle with air locker - $2200

    Five 16" Moab aluminum wheels - $1600.00

    Five Good Year MTRs - $ 1200.00

    Various rocker and other skid plates - $600.00

    Bumper tow hooks: $50.00

    Off Road fog lamps: $250.00

    300 Watt amp, 7 speakers - $700.00 (Hey ya want loud trail tunes right?)

    I come up with $11200! Not far off.

    But Steehn you're hard presses to even get a Wrangler beater that runs for $2000.00 - If you want something that isn't a Flintstones floorboard special with a soft top that has a stereo thief installed sunroof - aka a big rip, you're gonna pay more - more like about $5000.00 So lets call it $16 200.00 now.

    So now you're up to the same standards as a RUBICON TJ probably with a carburetor breathing 20 year old motor. Want a new fuel injected 4.0l? Add another $3000.00 - now you're at $19 200 (NOT INCLUDING LABOR)

    But you have all the bells and whistles of a Rubi, good motor, good drive line and a body that still looks like crap. Basically $20 000.00 and all your time to do this.


    Spend another $8 000.00, skip the skinned knuckles and the wife screaming at you because of your eyesore project and all the help she doesn't get because you're in the garage, and have a brand new Jeep that looks great with a warranty.

    I can see why some people would spend the cash for the new Rubicon. But to be honest Steehn, I'm like you though, I take my '81 CJ-5 out to do the hard stuff. It's not as capable as the Rubi but I still have piles of fun.
  • murphydogmurphydog SeattlePosts: 728
    I wonder if there is any bean counter behind the change as well. Is it somehow cheaper to make the V6 vs the I6? Smaller brands like BMW seem more immune to this kind of engineering by accountant, but not detroit.

    Or, I wonder if the overall packaging is easier with a v6 for saftey reasons?

    Either way seems silly to drop a proven winner and go with an unknown engine.

    Of course it has been ages since Toyota did an I6, and their trucks are all V6 or V8, so I can see why they stayed the course.
  • Murphy,

    I think you hit the nail on the head more than once here. Sadly, the fact seems to be that the bean counters rule these companies with few exceptions. I can just about guarantee, that the reason we didn't get a REAL FJ is mostly because of bean counters.

    Probably (for Chrysler anyway) the other issue is that the I6 won't work in a minivan and since the 'bean counters' (yes again) want to cut cost so they put the pressure on development to 'streamline production' Why have 2 engines when you can have one. That kind of thinking - no matter that one of them doesn't do the job properly, bean counters don't care about that stuff.

    - Do I come off as having a lot of contempt for bean counters and many automotive journalists? Oh yeah add the marketing department to my list of hated groups too ;)-

    I don't think there is much difference in the crash safety of an I6 or V6 when the engine is mounted longitudinally, in fact the slightly longer hood on an I6 vehicle could be an asset in this regard.
  • actually, the changed the engine because of new DOT regs...
    Since the new jeep does not have a crumple point on the core frame in order to keeps its rigidity, they had to build a crushable front end. Having an engine that goes into the crush zone would not allow the vehicle to pass its front end crash tests. So they chose a short stocky engine. The next time you look at the new jeeps, look how much space there is between the engine and the radiator. Then look and the extended frame that is crushable.

    I just bought the Unlimited X with rear lockers… It is a great off –roader.
  • wideglidewideglide Posts: 146
    Four-By, what's with the obsession with the I-6? Yeah, my Cherokee has one, and it's a good motor. And I generally like them better than V-6's. But some of what you're saying isn't accurate. I haven't seen many automotive writers panning an I-6, unless they were talking about an old Chevy stovebolt motor. I've yet to see anything but praise for BMW's I-6, which is about the only one still in mass production. As far as torque, an I-6 isn't inherently any more torquey than a V-6. It's all in the tuning; oversquare vs undersquare design, cam and ignition timing, flywheel weight, etc. BMW's motors are wonderful, high revving engines, but they are not terribly torquey. An I-6 is inherently smoother, but that hardly matters in a Wrangler.

    The motor you proposed would be nice, but it would also be very expensive, raising the Wranglers price considerably. And high-flow heads are for high RPM operation, which again is not really needed in a Wrangler.

    Instead of carping about something DCX is never going to do (resurrect a discontinued engine), we should be petitioning them to drop in the new 4.0L V-6, which has much more horsepower AND torque than the old I-6 has. That would be easy for them to do, and much more likely to happen.
  • wideglide,

    I don't think you were paying attention to what I was saying in some cases.

    I did not say the 4.0L necessarily had MORE torque, but it gets the torque where it is needed in an off-road vehicle (and trucks in general) - at a low RPM. True that most of this comes from the LONG stroke of the 4.0L engine, but then this long stroke is not really possible in a V-6 since the geometry of the engine does not allow for it.

    I have seen so many auto journalists pan the 4.0L (and other I6 motors) just because they were an 'old' architecture - I wish I had a dollar every time. But about all they can come up with is the word 'old' to knock it.

    About my 'dream' engine (because that's about all it will ever be): I disagree that it would be expensive; in the long run it would be a lot cheaper than what they (DCX) has now. Here is why I think this:

    First, such an engine would be used in a very wide range of vehicles bringing economies of scale into play; right now DCX uses several engines to cover what could be done by 'my' motor.

    Second, with the advances that I spoke, of emissions could be controlled with much more ease, meaning less catch-up foot ball and fewer major revisions over the ensuing years to just scrape by the ever tightening EPA requirements.

    Third, such a motor could be made to get significantly better fuel economy AND better performance over all RPMs! The better fuel economy plays into reducing the fleet vehicle fuel consumption saving DCX even more money and/or reducing the ticket price of their products. While the both the better fuel economy and better performance are selling features which would help move more vehicle across the dealer floors.

    Fourth, there is little argument that an I6 is more robust and durable than its V6 counterpart. (I can give numerous examples of this if you wish). With a main bearing on each side of every con-rod there is no doubt this engine would stand a lot more abuse or better yet, performance tweaking ;)

    This is why I think it would be in DCX’s best interest to invest in the development of such an engine rather than what they are doing now.
  • 2climbbig,

    Yeah I know this is one of the reasons we are given, but believe me, if you want a crush zone, then you shouldn't let the type of engine in the vehicle stop you. It would be a simple matter to maintain the collapsing frame rails and add motor/trany mounts that would 'break away' allowing the drive line assembly to submarine in a collision. It's just really not that complicated.
  • Fourx, Sure you can put crumple points into the vehicle, but then you loose valuable stiffness. When designing a vehicle with crumple points, there needs to be two points. One between the firewall and radiator and the other just forward of the firewall... that ensures the front will crush and not affect the passenger compartment. The first hard jump or other forces as a result of off-road activity could result in a bent frame. I am sure there are other ways to meet DOT regs, but not sure if it is as economical.
  • 2climbbig ,

    No need to do it the way that you are describing. The collapsible frame rails you see in the 2007 Wrangler could have been incorporated regardless of engine type. All I was saying is that mount(s) could be made to let the engine/transmission assembly break free during a front impact - further absorbing crash energy - this would in no way affect the chassis stiffness since loading due to frame flex is not transmitted through the drive-line.

    If you want to get really carried away, you could add a collapsible frame element before the fire wall with an internal sleeve that would maintain rigidity and loading in shear, but collapse in compressive loading beyond the yield point of the element along the longitudinal frame axis.
  • FourX,

    Your probably right... my background is in ship design so I am always thinking for the structure carrying the load. On a ship, I would be very nervous having any crumple points especially in high sea states.. ;)
  • I absolutely love it. I went 4 wheeling with a couple of my friends, one owning a 2004 jeep and the other has an FJC. We all concluded that my new jeep is better than his FJ. We switched vehicles for a bit. funny thing was that I wanted my jeep back and he wanted to keep it. The things that I felt where easier on the jeep was visibility, steering, and it just seemed like the jeep was better able to climb. We had similar components minus the IFS. I only have a rear locker and so does his FJ.

    I have the unlimited X with 410 gear ratio, dana 44’s in the rear with trac-lok. The front axle is a Dana 30. I wanted the Rubicon but no one had them in stock and I was without a car. The dealer said it would take 3 months to order one and I just didn’t have the time nor patients… So this was the next best thing.

    A couple of really cool feature is the seat jack and engine restart without the clutch being depressed. The fly by wire feature also makes a difference when you are bouncing all over the place. My last jeep was a 90 with the square eyes and the leaf spring suspension. The difference between the two is amazing.
Sign In or Register to comment.