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



  • steenhsteenh Posts: 103
    94 Camry, 160k miles, one set of replacement pads.

    4x4 might suggest that it's your personal braking style and not the quality of the braking system. I'll let Toyota take credit for my excellent brake results.

    Had a TR6 in high school that had to have competed with the Fiat for the coveted POC award. Great fun to drive... to the shop and back over and over again.
  • fourx4everfourx4ever Posts: 169

    I resent your predetermined sarcastic remarks. However, in the midst of your random, myopic, uninformed pondering you have stumbled on something: driving style does have a significant impact on brake pad life. Those who race light to light and pile on the brakes at the last minute to stop in time get do brake jobs more often. While those who pay attention and notice that the light way up the road is red and coast to a stop, with minimal brake use, not only use less fuel, but also go longer on each set of pads.

    That being said, a poorly designed brake system will still let you down sooner than a properly designed one. Probably pad quality in a given after market brand and pad grade will be the same from one automotive application to another. The same goes for the material the rotor is made from. So if you buy Wagner pads and rotors for a Neon, its likely made from the same stuff as the Wagner pads/rotors for an Echo. However, the design could be different, such as the rotor thickness and internal supports. So one make might be more prone to warping than another. But strictly as far was wear life goes, if the brake components are all made by the same company I doubt there will be much difference.
  • steenhsteenh Posts: 103
    You are resentful, but then spend a paragraph clarifying exactly what I thought your opinion would be.

    You said my pondering is "random, myopic, uninformed".

    Who should be resentful?

    I'm not by the way. I don't take this as seriously as you do.
  • fourx4everfourx4ever Posts: 169
    LOL! steenh, you only think I'm serious about you and your sarcastic remarks! But at least it gave the chance to use the word 'myopic' ;) LOL!

    By the way, I doubt if you can find much wrong with my reasoning in that 'paragraph I spent clarifying' exactly what you thought my opinion would be.
  • chiefjojochiefjojo Posts: 39
    I think the reason no one makes classics anymore is the demand for modern conveniences, performance, and more feature content grows each year. These factors cause Toyota to perhaps cut some corners with the FJ's off-road ability in favor of on-road composure for example. The auto-buying public demands good stereos, acceleration, high speed stability, gas mileage, braking, safety, AC, .... To build a vehicle that fits an audience, can be competitive, and sell very well, while making a profit is a difficult task in itself. Vehicles that sell on a mass scale like this almost HAVE TO cut some major corners to be designed and produced.
  • mtngalmtngal Posts: 1,911
    Have to laugh at this one, based on my own experience. I used to have a Tacoma (that I hated because it had uncomfortable seats) and a '98 Wrangler. I had to replace the rotors on both vehicles between 100,000 - 110,000 miles. From that I would say that the brakes and rotors wore at about the same rate, and can't draw any "better vs worse" conclusion from them.
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 31,179
    These factors cause Toyota to perhaps cut some corners

    The auto makers also have the government dogging them about emissions and safety crappola. To build a full size car with all the emissions and safety stuff and maintain tank like steel fenders and bumpers the car would weigh 3 tons. Life is a compromise. I am not sure I like the direction we have taken.
  • daedae Posts: 143
    I came to that conclusion, even before dring the new 4dr.

    Convertible. Nice hardtop. Optional half-doors. More usable space. Better off-road. Good enough on road.

    Will not buy now - will wait for the next year.

    If only they had 3.0 diesel offered...
  • daedae Posts: 143
    Vehicles like the Honda CR-V and Toyota Rav-4. should not even exist. There is really no point to them at all. They are completely useless off-road and their on pavement performance manners are among the worst out there.

    That's utter bollocks. CR-V is a nice, roomy, safe and capable vehicle for its purpose with excellent equipment, including all the safety doodads for its price. Its on pavement performance manners are just fine. Have you ever driven one?

    It's the Caddilac Escalade that should not exist.
  • keatskeats Posts: 412
    And the Hummer H2...
  • gagricegagrice San DiegoPosts: 31,179
    It's the Caddilac Escalade that should not exist.

    I would own an Escalade in Pearl Diamond White. I would never even consider a CR-V, Escape or RAV4 sized vehicle. too cramped feeling for me. Right now between the FJ Cruiser and the Rubicon I would take the Rubicon. In actuality I would not buy either till they have a more practical diesel engine. First mid to large sized SUV with a diesel gets my cash. Except the R Class Mercedes. My wife does not like the looks. I think the Grand Cherokee with the 3.0 will be the first and may get my money. I wanted to like the Liberty CRD and it was a bit too small.
  • fourx4everfourx4ever Posts: 169

    Yeah the CR-V IS complete garbage. The Rav-4 is not far behind it either.

    And while I have not driven a Rav-4 I have spent time driving a CR-V around. My daily driver is a 1984 AMC Eagle 4x4 wagon and I test drove a Subaru Outback. Between the 3 of them the CR- V comes in dead last – far behind the other two.

    The CR-V handled like a school buss compared to my Eagle and the Outback. It also got worse gas mileage than either of them. Spending time under the hood of the CR-V showed me that it was hell to do maintenance work – what moron decided that was a good place for an oil filter!!?? The CR-V has much less ground clearance than my Eagle but at the same time has a higher, more unstable, center of gravity than the Eagle – now that’s some great engineering honda!

    None of these vehicles are really meant to go off-road, but the Eagle has the most ground clearance and the most robust construction to take some light off-road. But the CR-V doesn’t have it anywhere; on or off-road! It’s tippy in the corners, and it has the ground clearance of my clenched but cheeks! Oh sure it’s got space to stand something tall up in the back, but if that’s what you want buy an AWD minivan!

    I’ll keep my 22 year old Eagle; the body and paint is still good, it uses no oil, very easy to maintain, gets good gas mileage, handling is decent, its never left me stranded. Operating costs are very low and it’ll probably go another 300 000! If I had to buy something new it would be the Subaru Outback: Very good handling, ample power, logical engine compartment lay out and easy to maintain. The CR-V is rubbish.

    By the way, I agree, the Escalade it a garbage concept too.
  • fourx4everfourx4ever Posts: 169

    You pretty much hit the nail on the head. This kind of government over-intervention has caused all makers to cut corners, not just Toyota. Lighter lighter lighter is all they know. And because materials to make it stronger AND lighter are expensive, they just make it LIGHTER. Yeah I hear ya man, I don’t like where things are going either.

    I heard a rumor that 90% of the reason makers went away from timing chains in engines during the 1980’s was to save a couple of pounds. So because a belt weighs 2 pounds less the public gets to deal with higher maintenance costs due to more frequent change intervals, and the prospect of bent valves, cracked heads, pistons and blocks if the belt fails – things that almost never happened when chains were used. I have nothing but contempt for agencies like the EPA who err on the side of stupidity and muscle makers into a corner.
  • daedae Posts: 143
    Yeah the CR-V IS complete garbage. The Rav-4 is not far behind it either.

    You are welcome to stay opinionated. People have all sorts of opinions. Its just yours is so far off collective wisdom of prudent car buyers it is not even funny.

    As for me - you will not find me in a car with 20 year old safety technology - no side and curtain airbags, no stability control. And before you utter some bollocks about learning to drive - I am an experienced autocross and off-road driver. I am not risking my life and my kids life in a 20 year old pile of rust, and I have no time to waste fixing it up :sick: either - my hourly rate is far above what mechanics would charage.

    Subaru is a nice car. It just not enough space compared to CR-V and new Rav4.

    As for handling - I have a better car (330CiC) to have fun - I ain't doing stupid things on a family trip. My family trip Odyssey and wife's 325XiT are just fine, and my daughter's 2006 CR-V ain't far behind either.

    CR-V is a nice, well handling and very practical car.
  • fourx4everfourx4ever Posts: 169
    Having a bad dae????

    About the '20 year old car' of mine:

    Despite being 22 years old it has NO rust!

    It gets better mpg than ether the Subaru or the CR-V.

    It would stand a side impact much better than a CR-V - the doors are twice as thick and there is more reinforcement in the Eagle over all. Besides the Eagle doesn't give you the feeling it's going to tip over if you hit the speed bump off angle in the grocery store parking lot either.

    I have seen Eagles involved in collisions, my mom was driving one that was run into. She came out fine - the other guy died.

    Furthermore, I don't really care what 'popular opinion' is on the CR-V. I don't really care if most of the North American population thinks it's ‘great deal’! Most of the population thought chest X-rays twice a year, aluminum cooking pots, asbestos, and paint made with lead was great too.

    And by the way I make far more than a mechanic does - I probably make more than you dae; I didn't have to rebuild this car and it still runs like a top. Can I afford a new vehicle??? – Yes, I have a brand new Rubicon. So why don't you soak $30K into some useless WussUV that will become a pile of iron oxide in 15 years like all the other Hondas! I’ll tell you one thing, despite the jack-of-all-trades, master of nothing approach Toyota had taken with the FJ, I would have it a 1000 times over before I would spend a dime on a completely pointless vehicle like the CR-V.
  • murphydogmurphydog SeattlePosts: 710
    ;) fourx4ever-

    Thank you for making it clear you live in a different world, you go on and enjoy your little eagle, likely the last one still running in the USA. Good luck if you ever are in a side impact! you might look to Cuba for your next car, I hear they do a good job keeping old junkers running.

    An Eagle as the ultimate you crack me up! ;)
  • fourx4everfourx4ever Posts: 169
    Dae, I can see you are a individual of absolutes. However the universe is not just black and white – new evidence suggests gray also exists.

    ‘IF you have any doubt - take a trip to some corner of the world where this is not required. New Deli, or Moscow, or Beijing’.

    Dae I have been there, I have been to Kiev, Ukraine, where there are between 5 and 10 million people and the streets are flooded with Lada’s from the early to mid 80’s. The air was GOOD. But again dae, one size does not fit all! What is fine in Kiev will be no good in L.A. where the westerly air movements back up against the eastern hills and aid in causing an inversion over the city – One solution may not be the best for all.

    I did NOT say that the EPA has NO place in the automotive regulation. I simply pointed out that some of there policies are extreme and perhaps not the right approach. This drives companies to do stupid things like use timing belts to save 2lbs, lighten brake rotors so that they last 1/4 of the time.

    Do you realize how much more pollution and energy does it take to make 4 brake rotors rather than the 1??? No you didn't think about it did you??? All the energy it takes to reduce iron oxide to elemental iron, then alloying and melt for casting, then machining, then packaging, shipping, labor etc??? Yeah. Imagine if you took this whole approach on the entire vehicle just so you could save a few pounds to improve city gas mileage by a fraction? The EPA historically does not do studies that catch things like this before they implement their draconian requirements. It’s the same old (government) game of unintended consequences.

    I have seen a few studies that showed that the average automobile will never use as much energy (burn fuel) as it took to construct it from conception to show room floor. Based on that, we should be designing vehicles that can last much longer, but be flexible for up grades and technical modifications.

    ‘… death rate on highway is triple that one in U.S’.

    The EPA has nothing to do with automobile safety dae. That’s the DOT/NHTSA and private associations like the SAE. Sorry bud.

    Furthermore, regarding traffic fatalities in those other parts of the world; it is not the cars which are the major contributor to traffic deaths in places like Ukraine and Russia (I was in Samara, Russia this spring); it is the drivers. If you had ever been there you would understand this.
  • fourx4everfourx4ever Posts: 169
    Hey dog,

    Did you ever drive one, much less own one??
  • murphydogmurphydog SeattlePosts: 710
    yes i did, spent 12+ years working as a valet, drove every kind of car/truck/rig you can imagine. Trust me, when we saw something like your eagle coming into our lot we ran! :cry:

    Don't get me wrong - It likely is a fine car for your needs, however your are very much in the minority. Given the choice my kids would ride in a CRV way before an Eagle. They likely will be in an FJ soon.
  • fourx4everfourx4ever Posts: 169
    Hey dog dae,

    I don't really care what you two brainiaks think about my Eagle. I paid $2500.00 for it 5 years ago, its in great shape, gets great mileage, I don't do anything to it but wax it, oil changes, grease it and vacuum it. It has almost 300 000 on the clock.

    I know a few other AMC Eagle owners that swear by them too.

    On the icy winter roads when everybody else is in the ditch or doing 5% the speed limit I have no problems and no worries. It's stability and AWD has saved my butt so many times I can't even remember; furthermore its allowed me to avoid collisions with other out of control cars on the icy roads.

    So you geniuses can go spend your kids' college fund to buy that CR-V (Crummy Road – Vehicle), it doesn't bother me at all.

    Like I said before, if and when I have to replace it, I will probably buy a Subaru.
  • fourx4everfourx4ever Posts: 169
    If any of you are interested in the the AMC Eagle then here is a good site on the topic:
  • murphydogmurphydog SeattlePosts: 710
    WOW, Somebody does not agree your opinions and all heck breaks lose!! Keep in mind you have been the one posting in here with buzz words designed to get under everybody elses skin. Don't be such a wuss. Your posts are your OPINION, not facts. Especially the high MPG opinion...

    Glad to hear your are thrifty with your money, no need for anybody to buy new cars all the time. Clearly the Eagle is a winner, especially judging by the financial success AMC has enjoyed.

  • 1finejeep1finejeep Posts: 29
    Man this started out to a good topic, now people are comparing the FJ's to everything under the sun. I'm not sure if they figured out the Wrangler is better off road, and the FJ is better on road, or what happened.
  • murphydogmurphydog SeattlePosts: 710
    Fine jeep -

    I think you hit it right on. I have always had fun in Wranglers, but it does not work as a daily driver for me. If I were in the market for a purely fun 3rd car the Wrangler would fit the bill. However for me I need something I can take the boy and dog to the fishing hole on the weekends and easily drive to work during the week. Wish the FJ had a sunroof though.

    The reason I think for the down hill slant here is some posters cofuse their opinions with facts. ;)
  • fourx4everfourx4ever Posts: 169

    Take a history lesson before you open your exhaust pipe.

    Studebaker and Pakard went broke - but I doubt if you have ever heard of those companies.

    AMC did not go broke; they amalgamated with Chrysler. And with them they brought the Jeep to which Chrysler owes much of its sales success of the past 19 years. The Jeep division of AMC, which pretty much ran the entire company in the 80's, was put in charge of Chrysler’s truck division. Many AMC engineers also apparently had significant influence over V8 engine development too, particularly regarding cylinder heads. Chrysler also owes much of the success of the completely new Dodge truck design changes which took place in the early '90s to AMC engineers.

    Some more trivia about AMC: They owned AM General – it was their military contract division which they inherited when they purchased Kaiser Jeep Corporation in 1970. AMC actually designed the Hummer H1 before they sold AM General – hence the H1’s Jeep-like looks and the 7 slot grille. GMC took the ball further in refinements and of course developed the H2 and 3 on their own.

    And about the mileage on my Eagle, I'm not joking with you. It gets about 7-8 MPG better on the highway than my brand new Wrangler Rubicon. The EPA rating on the Eagle in 1984 was 31MPG and that's not an OPINION.
  • murphydogmurphydog SeattlePosts: 710
    fourx4ever Nice history of AMC and Studebaker and Pakard. Not sure what the other two have to do with all this but a couple of things remain. The Eagle line of cars is GONE and for the most part forgotten. Glad to hear you and a few people still love 'em but the rest of the world has long forgotten them. Are you telling me that an AWD eagle was rated at 31 MPG or is that for the 4 cyl, two wheel drive model? More importantanly are you getting 31 MPG?

    Either way lets return to some earlier posts/topic. People keep referring to the new FJ as a soft roader, yet an FJ was able to cover the Rubicon trail with nothing more that upgraded tires. Does that make the Rubicon a "soft road"? Are a new set of tires that amazing? Or (like it or not) is the FJ a pretty good off roader? Clearly the two vehicles are very different, yet each is able to deliver some amazing off road performance. The continued references to "light duty" and "soft roader", or "Crummy Road Vehicle" do nothing to create conversation - They simply encourage people to view you as an over opinionated troll. :P
  • keatskeats Posts: 412
    Hiya, murphy,

    I can drag my Sub Zero refrigerator over the Rubicon Trail, that doesn't make it a great off road vehicle.

    Seriously, though, I think the FJ is probably very capable offroad. And about the Jeep as a daily driver: if I had to drive a lot of hwy miles I don't think I'd want my Rubi as a daily driver, but thankfully, most of my driving is on city streets so for me it works great as a daily driver, and man, it is a blast to drive. So, like you say, it all depends on ones needs. I can tell you that I certainly didn't need all the capability the Rubicon provides offroad. A Wrangler Sahara would have fit my needs just as well and saved me a couple of grand, but it's nice knowing I have the capability of the Rubicon and I don't have to wonder should I have gotten it.

    My coworkers and I saw an FJ in the parking lot the other day, and we all thought it horribly ugly. I think that's the kind of impact it will have, love it/hate it. Toyota, usually so boring in styling, really went out on a limb with this one. Of course, I never thought Honda would sell many of those horrible sqaure boxes, but they've done it.
  • fourx4everfourx4ever Posts: 169

    Thanks, glad you liked the automotive history lesson. Tomorrow we'll cover Rolls Royce and Bently - kidding. ;)

    Yeah I believe these EPA ratings on the Eagle are done for the 4.2L I6. The automatic has a lock up converter that results in pretty much the same thing as the manual trans for highway mileage. Of course you NEVER can achieve quite same mileage in real life as the EPA lab conditions. I get about 26MPG on the highway in real life. Most people experience about 5 MPG lower than the EPA numbers in real life.

    The one of the reason's the '84 Eagle wagon can get that kind of mileage is because it can be operated in 2WD or AWD with the flip of a lever on the dash. If you run in AWD my experience is that you can subtract about 3 MPG from the 2WD mileage. At that point it comes pretty close to the MPG the Subaru Out Back gets. However it still out paces the CR-V. (I live in Canada so I have to convert the numbers for US gallons – The US gallon is about 83% of the Canadian gallon. In Canadian gallons I get about 30-31MPG on the highway.)

    One of the other reasons is that in '82 AMC went to a great lengths to make the intake manifold pre-heats the air/fuel mixture promoting better thermal efficiency and better atomization of the fuel. It was also the first year they had a computer feed back controlled carb with an O2 sensor.

    I had an 1980 Eagle wagon before which was always locked in AWD and did not have the 'new' type of intake. It got about 5-6 MPG less than my current Eagle.

    I agree dog, we should get back on the FJ/Wrangler topic.
  • steenhsteenh Posts: 103
    4x4... I see you've been making lots of new friends here.

    Your "facts" are being exposed for what they are... your opinions. And wrong as they've been, at least you are emphatic about them. (remember the "toyota doesn't make solid front axle fact") ooops, they produce more than jeep.

    I've been all through Russia and Eastern Europe... the air is horrible due to the lack of emissions controls.

    Eagle is dead. Why don't we create an Edsel vs. FJ topic?
  • steenhsteenh Posts: 103
    Can't even respond... I'll let your post stand on it's own.

Sign In or Register to comment.