Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see May lease deals!
Options

Toyota FJ Cruiser vs Jeep Wrangler

1567911

Comments

  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    Climb,

    Please explain this 'seat jack' thing you keep talking about. I have never heard about it before.

    Thanks
  • Options
    steenhsteenh Member Posts: 103
    2climbbig... I was with you right up to the end ;)
  • Options
    2climbbig2climbbig Member Posts: 20
    Seat Jack... its a lever on the left side of the seat that allows you to raise the seat up 3 inches or so. It improves visibility when wheeling. And when you are ready to hit the pavement... just crank it back down. I had this problem with my old jeep, but just learned to stretch my neck. I have heard of people modifying their seats to improve visibility.

    P.S. Its not a hight issue as I am 6' tall.
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    Yeah that's a cool innovation. I have never had a problem with visibility in a CJ or a Wrangler, but then I'm 6 foot 2 (maybe you just need that extra 2 inches in height ;)) However no amount of seat adjustment would help the FJC's visibility - looking out the windshield is like sticking your head in a drainage culvert to see what’s on the other side of the road.
  • Options
    steenhsteenh Member Posts: 103
    "looking out the windshield is like sticking your head in a drainage culvert to see what’s on the other side of the road."

    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.
  • Options
    shaggy105shaggy105 Member Posts: 4
    I love my 4.0L TJ, especially on the trails, but on the highway that thing is horrible... And forget about the interstate, getting up to speed there is a nightmare... I'm looking at getting a new wrang, but HP is only 202 on them. I can get a new Nissan Xterra with 261 HP and still have OK off road abilities. I would consider a FJ if I didn't throw up every time I see one! However, there is NOTHING like a Jeep in the summertime. I guess I'll stick with my TJ till DCX puts something worth dropping some cash for in the wranglers
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    Wait for the diesel Saggy. It's almost certainly going to happen. The pressure on DCX to put a CDR in the new wranglers is intense! I would expect it in the next 1 to 2 years.
  • Options
    shaggy105shaggy105 Member Posts: 4
    Yea i heard about the possibility of a diesel... That would be sweet, I would certainly buy one of those! =D
  • Options
    shaggy105shaggy105 Member Posts: 4
    OR if my engine dies before that I'll get a 4.6L stroker engine... those things are NASTY :D

    Talk about getting the most out of an I6!

    link golenengineservice.com
  • Options
    soopereddsooperedd Member Posts: 32
    Test drove an '07 Wrangler 2 days ago and test drove an '07 FJC today. I like the styling of the 4 door Wrangler, it was a soft top and 4 door. The soft top was noisy. Not just general noise, but specifically right above the windshield there was significant wind noise. Not an issue in the FJC, it was much quietier on the street. I thought the FJC would be a little smoother on the street than it was, but it wasn't too harsh. The Wrangler looks like it would perform better off-road, but the FJC looked like it would meet my basic needs as I won't spend $30,000 for a new ride and then trash it. I think what has me leaning more towards the FJC is the engine. The Wrangler's 3.8 was loud and felt gutless. It hesitated twice when I mashed it; not a delay but hesitated like something was wrong. The FJC's 4.0 was more responsive, less noisy and did not hesitate. I felt more confident with the FJC's engine. I think the Wrangler is under-powered. The FJC will cost more, but I can't live with a gutless engine. I was pretty much set on the Wrangler until I drove it.
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    Oddly enough, if the FJC had a soft top (too bad it doesn't) it would be every bit as noisy as the Wrangler on the highway. If one were to drive the HARD top Wrangler you would probably think you were in another vehicle.

    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.
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    When I look at what is useful and important off-road there are a few key points I consider:

    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.
  • Options
    soopereddsooperedd Member Posts: 32
    Agree on Articulation, Visibility, Maneuverability.
    Disagree on Torque and Reliabilty...

    http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/autos/reliable/7.html
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    Well you can disagree on the torque but I idled (foot OFF the gas) both a new FJC and a new TJ over the SAME exact humps and bumps and the FJC stalled repeatedly and the Jeep TJ didn't.

    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.
  • Options
    steenhsteenh Member Posts: 103
    On reliability... only hard core jeep lovers would say that a wrangler is comparable to a toyota in that category... and many jeep owners I know don't even drink that cool aid. They love their jeeps, but wish they were more reliable. Actually, they wish they weren't built by DC.

    As an ex jeep owner, I can tell you it's no contest.
  • Options
    soopereddsooperedd Member Posts: 32
    I just can't believe the FJ stalled. A brand new fuel injected engine won't do that. The graph I saw for the FJ shows a very flat torque curve. Now I'm not foolish enough to believe a piece of paper and could only properly judge it on the trail. The Jeep just was gutless when I drove it and it hesitated when I mashed the gas pedal, so why would I buy it? I wanted to buy it!

    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?
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    sooperedd,

    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.
  • Options
    diegotexeradiegotexera Member Posts: 11
    Not to say that I wouldn't buy an FJ, but it is what it is. It's got unique styling...which, if that's up your alley, then great. If not, then I can see why lovers of simplicity might find it a little tacky and flashy. The FJ is not meant to do what the Jeep was meant to do. Regardless of the name FJ and it's roots, this is not a Jeep. Personally, I am a proud owner of a 1990 toyota previa minivan that has more miles than you can imagine. The ORIGINAL paint still shines. The dashboard isn't cracked and faded, and it starts every morning on the first click...so MAJOR respect for Toyota. However, it's not a Jeep.

    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)
  • Options
    tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    and I'm NEVER selling my Jeep...

    Be sure to report back to us in 20 years! ;)

    tidester, host
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    Well Now I know where they got the styling for the FJC! - FROM AMC! LOL!

    image

    Just a little doctoring to the grille and walla!

    image

    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.
  • Options
    steenhsteenh Member Posts: 103
    4x4... you do make me laugh sometimes.

    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!!!
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    Hey it's a 1975 or so: I don't think Toyota has any cars from the early 70's that are still on the road; the puddle jumper crap they made back then burned oil after about 30K miles and was completely rusted out after 5 years!

    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!
  • Options
    steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    Ok, how about an Electric Version of Replica FJ40?

    Might be nice to go wheeling with some torquey electric motors driving each wheel.

    image
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    Hmmmm,

    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.
  • Options
    steenhsteenh Member Posts: 103
    Now your talking...

    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.
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    At least if I run out of gas on the trail I can walk back with a gerry can. I don't know if Wal-Mart sells 10 mile extension cords to charge your electric car and I'd probably be retired before a solar panel charged it.

    By the way, I'd pay $88K for one of those hand crafted FJs before I'd buy an FJC for $30K
  • Options
    tidestertidester Member Posts: 10,059
    The torque part sounds good. Electric motors have a completely flat torque profile.

    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
  • Options
    mac24mac24 Member Posts: 3,910
    Perhaps you mean torque per watt delivered?

    Or that an electric motor exerts maximum torque at zero rpm?
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    Yes actually an electric motor would exert peak torque at a stall or zero RPM, simply because the electromotive force stays constant for a given current passing through the motor's windings.

    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.
  • Options
    wideglidewideglide Member Posts: 146
    Actually, GM is considering exactly that for future vehicles. Electric motors driving the wheels - exclusively - with a gas or diesel motor powering a generator to run the motors (or maybe even a hydrogen fuel cell providing the electricity). They're talking 640 miles from 12 a gallon tank... pretty impressive fuel economy.

    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.
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    Yeah this idea has actually been around since the 1940s when diesel locomotives came out as you mentioned. However it's an excellent idea and it works very well because the diesel engine can be run at it's ideal RPM for peak efficiency no matter what.

    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 ;)
  • Options
    steverstever Guest Posts: 52,454
    most of the so called 'advanced automotive' ideas are not new

    The "hemi" type engine dates back to 1905. Of course, the first fax machine beat that by 50 years. :D
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    Yeah and I believe Chrysler's first HEMI was actually an aircraft engine that was intended for a WW II fighter plane. Interesting stuff ;)
  • Options
    gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    Digging out some pictures and came across this one from one of the Tierra del Sol runs in the 1960s. The CJs went through this and I thought I could also. Too much over hang in front. I got out no damage. Would a new FJ fare so well? FJs were very rare. Out of 300 some vehicles I think there was one other Toyota LC.

    image
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    Wow, I would have thought the old FJ-40 would have had the same approach angle as a CJ. Interesting. The new FJC certainly would not fair as well as your old FJ-40.
  • Options
    gagricegagrice Member Posts: 31,450
    I think the public has made it clear with their wallets which is the off-road vehicle to own. The Wrangler is selling more than twice the FJ sales. YTD the FJ sits at 29k the Wrangler at 65k sold. The Wrangler is selling about 11k per month and the FJ is around 4500 per month. It is the blind spots and those horrible doors. The only reason the FJ sells at all is the odd ball look. If Jeep starts selling the Wrangler diesel over here I will buy one for my fun vehicle.
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    Yeah I hear ya. I guess that pretty much sums it up. Upon the mountains of other evidence about the Wrangler vs. the FJC and how the Jeep is so much more capable. I'm with you on the diesel thing. Although I'm very impressed with the new Wrangler I can't bring myself to buy it with that V6. I have the 2005 Rubicon now and it has the 4.0L - the V6 would be a step down. However put a diesel in and I'll be there waiting to sign.

    By the way, wanna see a really cool Jeep video? I found this on Youtube. Talk about punishing!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qIS7VJz47kY
  • Options
    knollibeknollibe Member Posts: 1
    I have my 2000 TJ for rock crawling and going any damn place I point it. And I have my FJ cruiser for when I want to pack more than a lunch box to take with me. My Tj will go thru almost any canyon rock garden and suffer very little. the FJ and the like with the exposed sheet metal will cry with every scrape. My advice...Buy an FJ to tow your jeep out to the playground.
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    knollibe,

    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'?
  • Options
    mgnz47mgnz47 Member Posts: 5
    My buddy has a 06 Rubicon, and even he admits after a few rides together that his Jeep can't hang with my FJ. The Jeep is seems only better in small tight spots off road. Plus on road its not even a contest in any area. His wife and kids want to ride in my truck, not theirs?
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    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.
  • Options
    makaser13makaser13 Member Posts: 6
    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.
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    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.
  • Options
    murphydogmurphydog Member Posts: 735
    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?
  • Options
    makaser13makaser13 Member Posts: 6
    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 ;)
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    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.
  • Options
    makaser13makaser13 Member Posts: 6
    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?
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    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.
  • Options
    fourx4everfourx4ever Member Posts: 169
    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.
  • Options
    makaser13makaser13 Member Posts: 6
    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:
Sign In or Register to comment.