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



  • murphydogmurphydog SeattlePosts: 715
    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.
  • Is the engine restart (without the clutch) an optional thing? I mean can you disable this feature so that for every day driving you have to push the clutch in and then when you're rock climbing can you flip a switch to start it without pressing the clutch?

    Yeah it sounds like a fairly impressive machine - I still haven't taken one out for a test drive yet though. Gonna have to do that; see how much better the ride is over my 2005 Rubi.
  • The engine restart(without the clutch) is only when you are in 4 wheel drive. I know everyone is worried about the torque, but I can put it in 4 wheel low, let go of the clutch and depress the brake and the car will not stall. I have to press on the brake extremely hard to force the car to stall... trust me its not easy. My wife can't make it stall.
  • steenhsteenh Posts: 103
    Sounds like your friend should have test driven a jeep before spending $30k on an FJC if one drive convinced him the "jeep is better". That's just silly talk.
  • Well lets see... ah yes.. because they did not have 4-door jeeps when the FJC came out. And you think our discusion was silly talk. When you have kids, you choices are more limited and at the time, the FJC was the best bet. I personnaly would take an FJC over a hummer 2 or 3 if jeep did not come out with a 4-door.
  • steenhsteenh Posts: 103
    Yes... that is silly talk. When the FJC came out, everyone knew that the jeep was coming out with a 4dr (ugly as it is) so if you are going to spend $30k, you could wait... or drive a 2dr and see what the difference is. Most people won't make a $30k decision over a couple of months wait.

    In the end, he made a better choice... far less travel to the dealerships :)
  • Well, I had a Wrangler, traded it for a BMW, now I have an FJ and if I'm going to spend the money, I'm looking for reliability and I see Toyota blowing Jeep out of the water. I don't like Chrysler. That being said, I loved my Jeep. It just got too small with my dogs and wife. Plus, I became a teacher and my Jeep was all decked out for a pro surfer, not a teacher. All in all, I had to make a decision with the 4 door Wrangler and the FJ and I feel I made the right one. I like to be unique and the FJ is certainly that. But, so does the Wrangler. But, if I had chosen the Wrangler, I'm sure I'd be happy. FJ just is a nicer ride. Offroading is a different story.
  • Canman,

    1. If you traded your Jeep for a BMW, then you aren't interested in off-road ability in the least; not that BMW makes bad SUVs. However their off-road ability is nil.

    2. If you really checked on the reliability of the WRANGER (I'm not talking about OTHER Jeep Models here) then you would see that its history of reliability is excellent. Nobody can say for sure what the reliability rating will actually be on new models like the FJ or the new Wrangler as they are new designs in many respects, but I'm willing to be they will both be good.

    By the way, if you had kept the surfer Jeep, you could have been one of those 'cool teachers' that every kid wishes they had a class with. ;) Just buggin' ya man, I'm sure you're a cool teacher.
  • Ahh the power of a wrangler. I bought my first wrangler in 90 (new) for 9500. I sold it 6 years later with 148k miles on it for $6K as a trade in. So basically the jeep cost me $3500 and only had to add pads and an exhaust. Not bad reliability if you ask me.
  • Well now Steenh hold on a minute. Just because you would make an informed decision and check things out carefully before dropping 30K does not mean someone else will.

    It's statistically accepted that most of the North American consumers are impulsive. They make on the spot emotionally based snap decisions regardless of cost or facts. This is why there is so much consumer debt in Canada and the USA. So I don't find it hard to believe that someone signed on the dotted line one afternoon for an FJC without giving the matter much logical thought; never mind waiting to do a comparison with a model that might be released in 6 months or more.

    Furthermore, I believe at the time of the FJC's March 21st Debut, the only Wrangler that was confirmed for release was the 2 door, so this would further remove the Wrangler from the equation for those who needed the extra space.
  • Solid front axle
    Lockers and more lockers ;)
    Roll Mitigation
    Seat Jack (Very cool toy)
    crawl ratio of 73:1 or 49:1 depending on the model
    You can sleep in the back or... :)
    you can see where you are going!
    Doors come off
    top comes off
    Window folds down
    It has a cage!
    and the most important of them all... its a jeep.
Sign In or Register to comment.