|
TJ vs. JK
I have been reading some of the specs on the JK Rubicon
Unlimited.... front and rear lockers you can activate with the flick of a switch? dana 44s front and rear? 32" tires standard, no lift kit needed?? 4.10 gear ratio, 4:1 compression, and a six speed manual? And all with a factory warranty!!! Sounds like the most capable stock jeep EVER. You might even be able to stick 33s or 34s on it straight out of the showroom! Not to mention, it can tow 3500 pounds.... I might finally be able to get rid of the separate tow vehicle I had to keep for my jet skis and ATVs because my TJ couldn't tow over 2000 lbs! As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds like an offroader's dream! I remember when the TJ came out, people scoffed and said it would never be as good as the YJ. And when the YJ came out, people swore they'd never give up the CJ. I'm too young to remember when the CJ first hit the market, but I'm willing to bet people were dissing it when compared to the Willys. So... is all this anti-JK sentiment just "sour grapes" but people who are slow to change (and perhaps a bit unhappy/jealous that they bought a TJ and now something has eclipsed it)? Or is there some real, material failing in the JK that I need to be aware of before trekking to a dealership to lay down my cash for one? |
Re: TJ vs. JK
<txjeep7@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegro ups.com... >I have been reading some of the specs on the JK Rubicon > Unlimited.... front and rear lockers you can activate with the > flick of a switch? dana 44s front and rear? 32" tires standard, no > lift kit needed?? 4.10 gear ratio, 4:1 compression, and a six speed > manual? And all with a factory warranty!!! Sounds like the most > capable stock jeep EVER. You might even be able to stick 33s or 34s > on it straight out of the showroom! Not to mention, it can tow 3500 > pounds.... I might finally be able to get rid of the separate tow > vehicle I had to keep for my jet skis and ATVs because my TJ couldn't > tow over 2000 lbs! > > As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has > been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is > for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! > > But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and > disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like > "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." > > Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds > like an offroader's dream! > > I remember when the TJ came out, people scoffed and said it would > never be as good as the YJ. And when the YJ came out, people swore > they'd never give up the CJ. I'm too young to remember when the CJ > first hit the market, but I'm willing to bet people were dissing it > when compared to the Willys. > > So... is all this anti-JK sentiment just "sour grapes" but people > who are slow to change (and perhaps a bit unhappy/jealous that they > bought a TJ and now something has eclipsed it)? Or is there some > real, material failing in the JK that I need to be aware of before > trekking to a dealership to lay down my cash for one? > I looked at buying a JK myself. The appeal of the 4 door and the three piece top were additions that I was the most set towards. I found it to be still very much a Wrangler and I enjoyed driving it. With that said, at the end of the drive I had decided not to buy a JK and to keep my YJ. My reasons being that I found myself really cramped against the door of the JK, and I'm not a very larger person by any means, and I found that the 3.8V6 just was not enough engine for my liking. Granted my YJ is no sports car, but with it's 33's on 3.07's, my 4.0 could give me much more pull than the 3.8V6 seemed to be giving me. In a couple of years I will test drive another one and see if what I didn't like has been changed or not. Until then, I'll keep me YJ. |
Re: TJ vs. JK
<txjeep7@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegro ups.com... >I have been reading some of the specs on the JK Rubicon > Unlimited.... front and rear lockers you can activate with the > flick of a switch? dana 44s front and rear? 32" tires standard, no > lift kit needed?? 4.10 gear ratio, 4:1 compression, and a six speed > manual? And all with a factory warranty!!! Sounds like the most > capable stock jeep EVER. You might even be able to stick 33s or 34s > on it straight out of the showroom! Not to mention, it can tow 3500 > pounds.... I might finally be able to get rid of the separate tow > vehicle I had to keep for my jet skis and ATVs because my TJ couldn't > tow over 2000 lbs! > > As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has > been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is > for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! > > But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and > disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like > "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." > > Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds > like an offroader's dream! > > I remember when the TJ came out, people scoffed and said it would > never be as good as the YJ. And when the YJ came out, people swore > they'd never give up the CJ. I'm too young to remember when the CJ > first hit the market, but I'm willing to bet people were dissing it > when compared to the Willys. > > So... is all this anti-JK sentiment just "sour grapes" but people > who are slow to change (and perhaps a bit unhappy/jealous that they > bought a TJ and now something has eclipsed it)? Or is there some > real, material failing in the JK that I need to be aware of before > trekking to a dealership to lay down my cash for one? > I looked at buying a JK myself. The appeal of the 4 door and the three piece top were additions that I was the most set towards. I found it to be still very much a Wrangler and I enjoyed driving it. With that said, at the end of the drive I had decided not to buy a JK and to keep my YJ. My reasons being that I found myself really cramped against the door of the JK, and I'm not a very larger person by any means, and I found that the 3.8V6 just was not enough engine for my liking. Granted my YJ is no sports car, but with it's 33's on 3.07's, my 4.0 could give me much more pull than the 3.8V6 seemed to be giving me. In a couple of years I will test drive another one and see if what I didn't like has been changed or not. Until then, I'll keep me YJ. |
Re: TJ vs. JK
<txjeep7@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegro ups.com... >I have been reading some of the specs on the JK Rubicon > Unlimited.... front and rear lockers you can activate with the > flick of a switch? dana 44s front and rear? 32" tires standard, no > lift kit needed?? 4.10 gear ratio, 4:1 compression, and a six speed > manual? And all with a factory warranty!!! Sounds like the most > capable stock jeep EVER. You might even be able to stick 33s or 34s > on it straight out of the showroom! Not to mention, it can tow 3500 > pounds.... I might finally be able to get rid of the separate tow > vehicle I had to keep for my jet skis and ATVs because my TJ couldn't > tow over 2000 lbs! > > As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has > been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is > for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! > > But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and > disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like > "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." > > Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds > like an offroader's dream! > > I remember when the TJ came out, people scoffed and said it would > never be as good as the YJ. And when the YJ came out, people swore > they'd never give up the CJ. I'm too young to remember when the CJ > first hit the market, but I'm willing to bet people were dissing it > when compared to the Willys. > > So... is all this anti-JK sentiment just "sour grapes" but people > who are slow to change (and perhaps a bit unhappy/jealous that they > bought a TJ and now something has eclipsed it)? Or is there some > real, material failing in the JK that I need to be aware of before > trekking to a dealership to lay down my cash for one? > I looked at buying a JK myself. The appeal of the 4 door and the three piece top were additions that I was the most set towards. I found it to be still very much a Wrangler and I enjoyed driving it. With that said, at the end of the drive I had decided not to buy a JK and to keep my YJ. My reasons being that I found myself really cramped against the door of the JK, and I'm not a very larger person by any means, and I found that the 3.8V6 just was not enough engine for my liking. Granted my YJ is no sports car, but with it's 33's on 3.07's, my 4.0 could give me much more pull than the 3.8V6 seemed to be giving me. In a couple of years I will test drive another one and see if what I didn't like has been changed or not. Until then, I'll keep me YJ. |
Re: TJ vs. JK
<txjeep7@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegro ups.com... >I have been reading some of the specs on the JK Rubicon > Unlimited.... front and rear lockers you can activate with the > flick of a switch? dana 44s front and rear? 32" tires standard, no > lift kit needed?? 4.10 gear ratio, 4:1 compression, and a six speed > manual? And all with a factory warranty!!! Sounds like the most > capable stock jeep EVER. You might even be able to stick 33s or 34s > on it straight out of the showroom! Not to mention, it can tow 3500 > pounds.... I might finally be able to get rid of the separate tow > vehicle I had to keep for my jet skis and ATVs because my TJ couldn't > tow over 2000 lbs! > > As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has > been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is > for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! > > But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and > disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like > "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." > > Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds > like an offroader's dream! > > I remember when the TJ came out, people scoffed and said it would > never be as good as the YJ. And when the YJ came out, people swore > they'd never give up the CJ. I'm too young to remember when the CJ > first hit the market, but I'm willing to bet people were dissing it > when compared to the Willys. > > So... is all this anti-JK sentiment just "sour grapes" but people > who are slow to change (and perhaps a bit unhappy/jealous that they > bought a TJ and now something has eclipsed it)? Or is there some > real, material failing in the JK that I need to be aware of before > trekking to a dealership to lay down my cash for one? > I looked at buying a JK myself. The appeal of the 4 door and the three piece top were additions that I was the most set towards. I found it to be still very much a Wrangler and I enjoyed driving it. With that said, at the end of the drive I had decided not to buy a JK and to keep my YJ. My reasons being that I found myself really cramped against the door of the JK, and I'm not a very larger person by any means, and I found that the 3.8V6 just was not enough engine for my liking. Granted my YJ is no sports car, but with it's 33's on 3.07's, my 4.0 could give me much more pull than the 3.8V6 seemed to be giving me. In a couple of years I will test drive another one and see if what I didn't like has been changed or not. Until then, I'll keep me YJ. |
Re: TJ vs. JK
It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter
of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. B In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: > > As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has > been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is > for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! > > But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and > disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like > "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." > > Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds > like an offroader's dream! > |
Re: TJ vs. JK
It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter
of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. B In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: > > As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has > been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is > for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! > > But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and > disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like > "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." > > Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds > like an offroader's dream! > |
Re: TJ vs. JK
It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter
of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. B In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: > > As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has > been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is > for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! > > But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and > disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like > "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." > > Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds > like an offroader's dream! > |
Re: TJ vs. JK
It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter
of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely nothing wrong with that. I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. B In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: > > As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has > been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is > for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! > > But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and > disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like > "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." > > Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds > like an offroader's dream! > |
Re: TJ vs. JK
It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there
was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!) I think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews? "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter > of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to > the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. > > What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and > different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to > rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective > physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL > Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have > complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely > nothing wrong with that. > > I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is > a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. > > B > > In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, > txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has >> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is >> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! >> >> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and >> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like >> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." >> >> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds >> like an offroader's dream! >> |
Re: TJ vs. JK
It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there
was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!) I think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews? "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter > of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to > the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. > > What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and > different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to > rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective > physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL > Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have > complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely > nothing wrong with that. > > I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is > a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. > > B > > In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, > txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has >> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is >> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! >> >> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and >> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like >> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." >> >> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds >> like an offroader's dream! >> |
Re: TJ vs. JK
It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there
was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!) I think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews? "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter > of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to > the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. > > What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and > different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to > rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective > physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL > Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have > complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely > nothing wrong with that. > > I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is > a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. > > B > > In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, > txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has >> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is >> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! >> >> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and >> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like >> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." >> >> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds >> like an offroader's dream! >> |
Re: TJ vs. JK
It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there
was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!) I think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews? "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter > of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to > the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. > > What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and > different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to > rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective > physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL > Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have > complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely > nothing wrong with that. > > I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is > a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. > > B > > In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, > txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has >> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is >> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! >> >> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and >> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like >> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." >> >> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds >> like an offroader's dream! >> |
Re: TJ vs. JK
I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm an XJ/YJ man, just my preference.
Carl "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter > of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to > the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. > > What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and > different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to > rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective > physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL > Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have > complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely > nothing wrong with that. > > I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is > a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. > > B > > In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, > txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has >> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is >> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! >> >> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and >> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like >> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." >> >> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds >> like an offroader's dream! >> |
Re: TJ vs. JK
I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm an XJ/YJ man, just my preference.
Carl "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter > of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to > the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. > > What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and > different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to > rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective > physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL > Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have > complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely > nothing wrong with that. > > I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is > a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. > > B > > In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, > txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has >> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is >> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! >> >> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and >> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like >> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." >> >> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds >> like an offroader's dream! >> |
Re: TJ vs. JK
I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm an XJ/YJ man, just my preference.
Carl "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter > of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to > the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. > > What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and > different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to > rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective > physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL > Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have > complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely > nothing wrong with that. > > I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is > a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. > > B > > In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, > txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has >> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is >> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! >> >> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and >> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like >> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." >> >> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds >> like an offroader's dream! >> |
Re: TJ vs. JK
I couldn't have said it better myself. I'm an XJ/YJ man, just my preference.
Carl "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter > of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to > the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. > > What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and > different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to > rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective > physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL > Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have > complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely > nothing wrong with that. > > I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is > a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. > > B > > In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, > txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has >> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is >> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! >> >> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and >> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like >> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." >> >> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds >> like an offroader's dream! >> |
Re: TJ vs. JK
<txjeep7@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegro ups.com... >I have been reading some of the specs on the JK Rubicon > Unlimited.... front and rear lockers you can activate with the > flick of a switch? dana 44s front and rear? 32" tires standard, no > lift kit needed?? 4.10 gear ratio, 4:1 compression, and a six speed > manual? And all with a factory warranty!!! Sounds like the most > capable stock jeep EVER. You might even be able to stick 33s or 34s > on it straight out of the showroom! Not to mention, it can tow 3500 > pounds.... I might finally be able to get rid of the separate tow > vehicle I had to keep for my jet skis and ATVs because my TJ couldn't > tow over 2000 lbs! > > As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has > been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is > for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! > > But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and > disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like > "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." > > Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds > like an offroader's dream! > > I remember when the TJ came out, people scoffed and said it would > never be as good as the YJ. And when the YJ came out, people swore > they'd never give up the CJ. I'm too young to remember when the CJ > first hit the market, but I'm willing to bet people were dissing it > when compared to the Willys. > > So... is all this anti-JK sentiment just "sour grapes" but people > who are slow to change (and perhaps a bit unhappy/jealous that they > bought a TJ and now something has eclipsed it)? Or is there some > real, material failing in the JK that I need to be aware of before > trekking to a dealership to lay down my cash for one? > I guess I'll be the first one here to admit to buying a JK. We had an '01 TJ with the 4 banger engine and it was a perfectly capable off road Jeep. Not fast on the highway but it always got you where you needed to go. It was getting, as they say, a bit long in the tooth and was beginning to need lots of time and money to keep things under repair so we went and looked at the JK Jeeps. We have had it about a month, has a couple thousand miles on it now. What do we think of it? Well to start with, it is tremendously quieter on the road. You can actually listen to the radio at interstate speeds. The top is easier to put up and down, it's much, much easier to put the side windows in. The back seat folds up out of the way with the flick of a lever all by itself. It also comes out much easier than the TJ. We have the standard tranny and are getting an average of 18 MPG around town with country road driving mixed in, no highway to speak of. It's a LOT higher than the TJ was, both from the larger wheels and tires and the body seems to sit higher on the frame. When you take the doors off there is a plug that you simply pull and the dome lights are disabled, no more going in behind the glove box and pulling number four fuse. Folks rap the ESP stability thing but I haven't noticed that it's even there. There is a button on the dash to turn it off if you think it's bothering you. The disk brakes at all four wheels are awesome and have great stopping power compared to the old TJ we had. The old Jeep trick of pressing your brake pedal when you get a wheel spinning to send more torque to the other wheel has been used for years. The JK does this for you, it has traction control for all four wheels that will pinch the brake on a wheel that gets spinning so the power will go to the other wheel. Sort of a poor man's limited slip. I had to go try this out so I headed out to some muddy areas and got on the gas to spin things. I was surprised, it really does work and help. The other big knock I keep seeing is the demise of the 4 liter in line six. I came out of a 4 banger TJ so this moter has huge power to me. Folks will always like stuff and other folks won't, thats just life and makes it interesting. Now, what don't I like? The TJ front seats would fold and tip up to let people in the back. The JK just lets the seat back fold forward and the seat slides forward on it's track making it real difficult to get anyone into the back seat. We rarely use the back seat for passengers so it's not too big a deal to us but it would be if you use the back seat much. The radio still sucks. The front seat belts flap between the floor and the upper slide mount when you have the top off. Other than that, we are very happy with the new Jeep. After drooling over the Rubicon, we bought the X model with the only option being the package with a/c, cloth seats, adjustable height drivers seat and center console. I guess everyone will have to decide for themselves if this one is for them or not. We're quite happy and it is our daily driver as well as being our play toy and I'm convinced, now I'm comparing pretty much stock Jeeps here, it's a more capable Jeep both on the road and off than my TJ was. Time may change my mind or maybe not. Hope this answers some of your questions and is just my two cents worth on the JK. Happy Jeeping everyone! Les |
Re: TJ vs. JK
<txjeep7@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegro ups.com... >I have been reading some of the specs on the JK Rubicon > Unlimited.... front and rear lockers you can activate with the > flick of a switch? dana 44s front and rear? 32" tires standard, no > lift kit needed?? 4.10 gear ratio, 4:1 compression, and a six speed > manual? And all with a factory warranty!!! Sounds like the most > capable stock jeep EVER. You might even be able to stick 33s or 34s > on it straight out of the showroom! Not to mention, it can tow 3500 > pounds.... I might finally be able to get rid of the separate tow > vehicle I had to keep for my jet skis and ATVs because my TJ couldn't > tow over 2000 lbs! > > As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has > been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is > for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! > > But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and > disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like > "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." > > Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds > like an offroader's dream! > > I remember when the TJ came out, people scoffed and said it would > never be as good as the YJ. And when the YJ came out, people swore > they'd never give up the CJ. I'm too young to remember when the CJ > first hit the market, but I'm willing to bet people were dissing it > when compared to the Willys. > > So... is all this anti-JK sentiment just "sour grapes" but people > who are slow to change (and perhaps a bit unhappy/jealous that they > bought a TJ and now something has eclipsed it)? Or is there some > real, material failing in the JK that I need to be aware of before > trekking to a dealership to lay down my cash for one? > I guess I'll be the first one here to admit to buying a JK. We had an '01 TJ with the 4 banger engine and it was a perfectly capable off road Jeep. Not fast on the highway but it always got you where you needed to go. It was getting, as they say, a bit long in the tooth and was beginning to need lots of time and money to keep things under repair so we went and looked at the JK Jeeps. We have had it about a month, has a couple thousand miles on it now. What do we think of it? Well to start with, it is tremendously quieter on the road. You can actually listen to the radio at interstate speeds. The top is easier to put up and down, it's much, much easier to put the side windows in. The back seat folds up out of the way with the flick of a lever all by itself. It also comes out much easier than the TJ. We have the standard tranny and are getting an average of 18 MPG around town with country road driving mixed in, no highway to speak of. It's a LOT higher than the TJ was, both from the larger wheels and tires and the body seems to sit higher on the frame. When you take the doors off there is a plug that you simply pull and the dome lights are disabled, no more going in behind the glove box and pulling number four fuse. Folks rap the ESP stability thing but I haven't noticed that it's even there. There is a button on the dash to turn it off if you think it's bothering you. The disk brakes at all four wheels are awesome and have great stopping power compared to the old TJ we had. The old Jeep trick of pressing your brake pedal when you get a wheel spinning to send more torque to the other wheel has been used for years. The JK does this for you, it has traction control for all four wheels that will pinch the brake on a wheel that gets spinning so the power will go to the other wheel. Sort of a poor man's limited slip. I had to go try this out so I headed out to some muddy areas and got on the gas to spin things. I was surprised, it really does work and help. The other big knock I keep seeing is the demise of the 4 liter in line six. I came out of a 4 banger TJ so this moter has huge power to me. Folks will always like stuff and other folks won't, thats just life and makes it interesting. Now, what don't I like? The TJ front seats would fold and tip up to let people in the back. The JK just lets the seat back fold forward and the seat slides forward on it's track making it real difficult to get anyone into the back seat. We rarely use the back seat for passengers so it's not too big a deal to us but it would be if you use the back seat much. The radio still sucks. The front seat belts flap between the floor and the upper slide mount when you have the top off. Other than that, we are very happy with the new Jeep. After drooling over the Rubicon, we bought the X model with the only option being the package with a/c, cloth seats, adjustable height drivers seat and center console. I guess everyone will have to decide for themselves if this one is for them or not. We're quite happy and it is our daily driver as well as being our play toy and I'm convinced, now I'm comparing pretty much stock Jeeps here, it's a more capable Jeep both on the road and off than my TJ was. Time may change my mind or maybe not. Hope this answers some of your questions and is just my two cents worth on the JK. Happy Jeeping everyone! Les |
Re: TJ vs. JK
<txjeep7@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegro ups.com... >I have been reading some of the specs on the JK Rubicon > Unlimited.... front and rear lockers you can activate with the > flick of a switch? dana 44s front and rear? 32" tires standard, no > lift kit needed?? 4.10 gear ratio, 4:1 compression, and a six speed > manual? And all with a factory warranty!!! Sounds like the most > capable stock jeep EVER. You might even be able to stick 33s or 34s > on it straight out of the showroom! Not to mention, it can tow 3500 > pounds.... I might finally be able to get rid of the separate tow > vehicle I had to keep for my jet skis and ATVs because my TJ couldn't > tow over 2000 lbs! > > As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has > been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is > for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! > > But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and > disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like > "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." > > Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds > like an offroader's dream! > > I remember when the TJ came out, people scoffed and said it would > never be as good as the YJ. And when the YJ came out, people swore > they'd never give up the CJ. I'm too young to remember when the CJ > first hit the market, but I'm willing to bet people were dissing it > when compared to the Willys. > > So... is all this anti-JK sentiment just "sour grapes" but people > who are slow to change (and perhaps a bit unhappy/jealous that they > bought a TJ and now something has eclipsed it)? Or is there some > real, material failing in the JK that I need to be aware of before > trekking to a dealership to lay down my cash for one? > I guess I'll be the first one here to admit to buying a JK. We had an '01 TJ with the 4 banger engine and it was a perfectly capable off road Jeep. Not fast on the highway but it always got you where you needed to go. It was getting, as they say, a bit long in the tooth and was beginning to need lots of time and money to keep things under repair so we went and looked at the JK Jeeps. We have had it about a month, has a couple thousand miles on it now. What do we think of it? Well to start with, it is tremendously quieter on the road. You can actually listen to the radio at interstate speeds. The top is easier to put up and down, it's much, much easier to put the side windows in. The back seat folds up out of the way with the flick of a lever all by itself. It also comes out much easier than the TJ. We have the standard tranny and are getting an average of 18 MPG around town with country road driving mixed in, no highway to speak of. It's a LOT higher than the TJ was, both from the larger wheels and tires and the body seems to sit higher on the frame. When you take the doors off there is a plug that you simply pull and the dome lights are disabled, no more going in behind the glove box and pulling number four fuse. Folks rap the ESP stability thing but I haven't noticed that it's even there. There is a button on the dash to turn it off if you think it's bothering you. The disk brakes at all four wheels are awesome and have great stopping power compared to the old TJ we had. The old Jeep trick of pressing your brake pedal when you get a wheel spinning to send more torque to the other wheel has been used for years. The JK does this for you, it has traction control for all four wheels that will pinch the brake on a wheel that gets spinning so the power will go to the other wheel. Sort of a poor man's limited slip. I had to go try this out so I headed out to some muddy areas and got on the gas to spin things. I was surprised, it really does work and help. The other big knock I keep seeing is the demise of the 4 liter in line six. I came out of a 4 banger TJ so this moter has huge power to me. Folks will always like stuff and other folks won't, thats just life and makes it interesting. Now, what don't I like? The TJ front seats would fold and tip up to let people in the back. The JK just lets the seat back fold forward and the seat slides forward on it's track making it real difficult to get anyone into the back seat. We rarely use the back seat for passengers so it's not too big a deal to us but it would be if you use the back seat much. The radio still sucks. The front seat belts flap between the floor and the upper slide mount when you have the top off. Other than that, we are very happy with the new Jeep. After drooling over the Rubicon, we bought the X model with the only option being the package with a/c, cloth seats, adjustable height drivers seat and center console. I guess everyone will have to decide for themselves if this one is for them or not. We're quite happy and it is our daily driver as well as being our play toy and I'm convinced, now I'm comparing pretty much stock Jeeps here, it's a more capable Jeep both on the road and off than my TJ was. Time may change my mind or maybe not. Hope this answers some of your questions and is just my two cents worth on the JK. Happy Jeeping everyone! Les |
Re: TJ vs. JK
<txjeep7@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegro ups.com... >I have been reading some of the specs on the JK Rubicon > Unlimited.... front and rear lockers you can activate with the > flick of a switch? dana 44s front and rear? 32" tires standard, no > lift kit needed?? 4.10 gear ratio, 4:1 compression, and a six speed > manual? And all with a factory warranty!!! Sounds like the most > capable stock jeep EVER. You might even be able to stick 33s or 34s > on it straight out of the showroom! Not to mention, it can tow 3500 > pounds.... I might finally be able to get rid of the separate tow > vehicle I had to keep for my jet skis and ATVs because my TJ couldn't > tow over 2000 lbs! > > As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has > been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is > for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! > > But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and > disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like > "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." > > Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds > like an offroader's dream! > > I remember when the TJ came out, people scoffed and said it would > never be as good as the YJ. And when the YJ came out, people swore > they'd never give up the CJ. I'm too young to remember when the CJ > first hit the market, but I'm willing to bet people were dissing it > when compared to the Willys. > > So... is all this anti-JK sentiment just "sour grapes" but people > who are slow to change (and perhaps a bit unhappy/jealous that they > bought a TJ and now something has eclipsed it)? Or is there some > real, material failing in the JK that I need to be aware of before > trekking to a dealership to lay down my cash for one? > I guess I'll be the first one here to admit to buying a JK. We had an '01 TJ with the 4 banger engine and it was a perfectly capable off road Jeep. Not fast on the highway but it always got you where you needed to go. It was getting, as they say, a bit long in the tooth and was beginning to need lots of time and money to keep things under repair so we went and looked at the JK Jeeps. We have had it about a month, has a couple thousand miles on it now. What do we think of it? Well to start with, it is tremendously quieter on the road. You can actually listen to the radio at interstate speeds. The top is easier to put up and down, it's much, much easier to put the side windows in. The back seat folds up out of the way with the flick of a lever all by itself. It also comes out much easier than the TJ. We have the standard tranny and are getting an average of 18 MPG around town with country road driving mixed in, no highway to speak of. It's a LOT higher than the TJ was, both from the larger wheels and tires and the body seems to sit higher on the frame. When you take the doors off there is a plug that you simply pull and the dome lights are disabled, no more going in behind the glove box and pulling number four fuse. Folks rap the ESP stability thing but I haven't noticed that it's even there. There is a button on the dash to turn it off if you think it's bothering you. The disk brakes at all four wheels are awesome and have great stopping power compared to the old TJ we had. The old Jeep trick of pressing your brake pedal when you get a wheel spinning to send more torque to the other wheel has been used for years. The JK does this for you, it has traction control for all four wheels that will pinch the brake on a wheel that gets spinning so the power will go to the other wheel. Sort of a poor man's limited slip. I had to go try this out so I headed out to some muddy areas and got on the gas to spin things. I was surprised, it really does work and help. The other big knock I keep seeing is the demise of the 4 liter in line six. I came out of a 4 banger TJ so this moter has huge power to me. Folks will always like stuff and other folks won't, thats just life and makes it interesting. Now, what don't I like? The TJ front seats would fold and tip up to let people in the back. The JK just lets the seat back fold forward and the seat slides forward on it's track making it real difficult to get anyone into the back seat. We rarely use the back seat for passengers so it's not too big a deal to us but it would be if you use the back seat much. The radio still sucks. The front seat belts flap between the floor and the upper slide mount when you have the top off. Other than that, we are very happy with the new Jeep. After drooling over the Rubicon, we bought the X model with the only option being the package with a/c, cloth seats, adjustable height drivers seat and center console. I guess everyone will have to decide for themselves if this one is for them or not. We're quite happy and it is our daily driver as well as being our play toy and I'm convinced, now I'm comparing pretty much stock Jeeps here, it's a more capable Jeep both on the road and off than my TJ was. Time may change my mind or maybe not. Hope this answers some of your questions and is just my two cents worth on the JK. Happy Jeeping everyone! Les |
Re: TJ vs. JK
attnews was the first person on RAMJ+W I ever killfiled. ;) Very poor
signal-to-noise ratio. I also remember folks saying that leaf spring conversions would be the biggest after-market "upgrade" for TJs. Hah! B In article <4uidnZIni7JrXwPbnZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d@comcast.com>, "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote: > It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there > was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the > suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!) I > think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and > long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews? |
Re: TJ vs. JK
attnews was the first person on RAMJ+W I ever killfiled. ;) Very poor
signal-to-noise ratio. I also remember folks saying that leaf spring conversions would be the biggest after-market "upgrade" for TJs. Hah! B In article <4uidnZIni7JrXwPbnZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d@comcast.com>, "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote: > It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there > was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the > suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!) I > think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and > long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews? |
Re: TJ vs. JK
attnews was the first person on RAMJ+W I ever killfiled. ;) Very poor
signal-to-noise ratio. I also remember folks saying that leaf spring conversions would be the biggest after-market "upgrade" for TJs. Hah! B In article <4uidnZIni7JrXwPbnZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d@comcast.com>, "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote: > It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there > was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the > suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!) I > think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and > long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews? |
Re: TJ vs. JK
attnews was the first person on RAMJ+W I ever killfiled. ;) Very poor
signal-to-noise ratio. I also remember folks saying that leaf spring conversions would be the biggest after-market "upgrade" for TJs. Hah! B In article <4uidnZIni7JrXwPbnZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d@comcast.com>, "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote: > It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there > was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the > suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!) I > think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and > long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews? |
Re: TJ vs. JK
I like my 03 Rubicon even though it costs a lot more to lift it than the JK.
Sometimes I wish the TJ were narrower on some of the trails I ride - can't imagine the extra width of a JK. I've never had much trouble with the TJ not being wide enough for stability. The JK's huge advantage for off-roaders is that you can lift it for a lot less money. Paul Nelson 03 Rubicon - 4.5 RE lift - Tom Woods driveshaft - 1" body - 35 BFG MT/KM (coming very soon) in article 1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.c om, txjeep7@gmail.com at txjeep7@gmail.com wrote on 7/18/07 3:45 PM: > So... is all this anti-JK sentiment just "sour grapes" but people > who are slow to change (and perhaps a bit unhappy/jealous that they > bought a TJ and now something has eclipsed it)? Or is there some > real, material failing in the JK that I need to be aware of before > trekking to a dealership to lay down my cash for one? |
Re: TJ vs. JK
I like my 03 Rubicon even though it costs a lot more to lift it than the JK.
Sometimes I wish the TJ were narrower on some of the trails I ride - can't imagine the extra width of a JK. I've never had much trouble with the TJ not being wide enough for stability. The JK's huge advantage for off-roaders is that you can lift it for a lot less money. Paul Nelson 03 Rubicon - 4.5 RE lift - Tom Woods driveshaft - 1" body - 35 BFG MT/KM (coming very soon) in article 1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.c om, txjeep7@gmail.com at txjeep7@gmail.com wrote on 7/18/07 3:45 PM: > So... is all this anti-JK sentiment just "sour grapes" but people > who are slow to change (and perhaps a bit unhappy/jealous that they > bought a TJ and now something has eclipsed it)? Or is there some > real, material failing in the JK that I need to be aware of before > trekking to a dealership to lay down my cash for one? |
Re: TJ vs. JK
I like my 03 Rubicon even though it costs a lot more to lift it than the JK.
Sometimes I wish the TJ were narrower on some of the trails I ride - can't imagine the extra width of a JK. I've never had much trouble with the TJ not being wide enough for stability. The JK's huge advantage for off-roaders is that you can lift it for a lot less money. Paul Nelson 03 Rubicon - 4.5 RE lift - Tom Woods driveshaft - 1" body - 35 BFG MT/KM (coming very soon) in article 1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.c om, txjeep7@gmail.com at txjeep7@gmail.com wrote on 7/18/07 3:45 PM: > So... is all this anti-JK sentiment just "sour grapes" but people > who are slow to change (and perhaps a bit unhappy/jealous that they > bought a TJ and now something has eclipsed it)? Or is there some > real, material failing in the JK that I need to be aware of before > trekking to a dealership to lay down my cash for one? |
Re: TJ vs. JK
I like my 03 Rubicon even though it costs a lot more to lift it than the JK.
Sometimes I wish the TJ were narrower on some of the trails I ride - can't imagine the extra width of a JK. I've never had much trouble with the TJ not being wide enough for stability. The JK's huge advantage for off-roaders is that you can lift it for a lot less money. Paul Nelson 03 Rubicon - 4.5 RE lift - Tom Woods driveshaft - 1" body - 35 BFG MT/KM (coming very soon) in article 1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups.c om, txjeep7@gmail.com at txjeep7@gmail.com wrote on 7/18/07 3:45 PM: > So... is all this anti-JK sentiment just "sour grapes" but people > who are slow to change (and perhaps a bit unhappy/jealous that they > bought a TJ and now something has eclipsed it)? Or is there some > real, material failing in the JK that I need to be aware of before > trekking to a dealership to lay down my cash for one? |
Re: TJ vs. JK
Ah, ok, so the complaints seem to be twofold:
1) Longer Wheelbase. A valid worry for 4-wheeling, but I bet the complaints are overblown. I currently drive a CJ Scrambler, and the main difference between my rig and the smaller CJ5s/CJ7s on the trail is that when they have to do a 3 point turn, I have to do a 5 point turn. A pain in the ass, to be sure, but doesn't come into play in most wheeling situations, and a worthwhile tradeoff for the improved stability and the ability to bring a couple guests, a ginormous cooler, tent, toolbox, and plenty of other gear to camp at the wheeling site... not to mention the occasional ability to haul a load of dirt or heavy cargo home from Lowe's. (I don't use my scrambler for people-hauling, but I imagine an additional benefit of the JK would be third row seats.) All in all, methinks this issue is a wash. 2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---... hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size, especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs.... I bet it's more, don't you? One can always hope that in a model year or two, Chrysler puts their reliable 5.9L in a Wrangler... or, if you really want to make your mouth water.... maybe they could steal a page from the Dodge division and make an "SRT" model with the 6.1L Hemi or, god save my bank account, the 8.3L Viper! And I suspect Chrysler execs would love to do this too.... but I bet they won't. New fleet emissions and mileage standards, California (CARB) rules, and general bad press and political hostility in congress are rapidly making the V-8s and V-10s of this world a thing of the past in everything but large work trucks and tow vehicles, and the occasional Corvette or Mustang. |
Re: TJ vs. JK
Ah, ok, so the complaints seem to be twofold:
1) Longer Wheelbase. A valid worry for 4-wheeling, but I bet the complaints are overblown. I currently drive a CJ Scrambler, and the main difference between my rig and the smaller CJ5s/CJ7s on the trail is that when they have to do a 3 point turn, I have to do a 5 point turn. A pain in the ass, to be sure, but doesn't come into play in most wheeling situations, and a worthwhile tradeoff for the improved stability and the ability to bring a couple guests, a ginormous cooler, tent, toolbox, and plenty of other gear to camp at the wheeling site... not to mention the occasional ability to haul a load of dirt or heavy cargo home from Lowe's. (I don't use my scrambler for people-hauling, but I imagine an additional benefit of the JK would be third row seats.) All in all, methinks this issue is a wash. 2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---... hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size, especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs.... I bet it's more, don't you? One can always hope that in a model year or two, Chrysler puts their reliable 5.9L in a Wrangler... or, if you really want to make your mouth water.... maybe they could steal a page from the Dodge division and make an "SRT" model with the 6.1L Hemi or, god save my bank account, the 8.3L Viper! And I suspect Chrysler execs would love to do this too.... but I bet they won't. New fleet emissions and mileage standards, California (CARB) rules, and general bad press and political hostility in congress are rapidly making the V-8s and V-10s of this world a thing of the past in everything but large work trucks and tow vehicles, and the occasional Corvette or Mustang. |
Re: TJ vs. JK
Ah, ok, so the complaints seem to be twofold:
1) Longer Wheelbase. A valid worry for 4-wheeling, but I bet the complaints are overblown. I currently drive a CJ Scrambler, and the main difference between my rig and the smaller CJ5s/CJ7s on the trail is that when they have to do a 3 point turn, I have to do a 5 point turn. A pain in the ass, to be sure, but doesn't come into play in most wheeling situations, and a worthwhile tradeoff for the improved stability and the ability to bring a couple guests, a ginormous cooler, tent, toolbox, and plenty of other gear to camp at the wheeling site... not to mention the occasional ability to haul a load of dirt or heavy cargo home from Lowe's. (I don't use my scrambler for people-hauling, but I imagine an additional benefit of the JK would be third row seats.) All in all, methinks this issue is a wash. 2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---... hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size, especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs.... I bet it's more, don't you? One can always hope that in a model year or two, Chrysler puts their reliable 5.9L in a Wrangler... or, if you really want to make your mouth water.... maybe they could steal a page from the Dodge division and make an "SRT" model with the 6.1L Hemi or, god save my bank account, the 8.3L Viper! And I suspect Chrysler execs would love to do this too.... but I bet they won't. New fleet emissions and mileage standards, California (CARB) rules, and general bad press and political hostility in congress are rapidly making the V-8s and V-10s of this world a thing of the past in everything but large work trucks and tow vehicles, and the occasional Corvette or Mustang. |
Re: TJ vs. JK
Ah, ok, so the complaints seem to be twofold:
1) Longer Wheelbase. A valid worry for 4-wheeling, but I bet the complaints are overblown. I currently drive a CJ Scrambler, and the main difference between my rig and the smaller CJ5s/CJ7s on the trail is that when they have to do a 3 point turn, I have to do a 5 point turn. A pain in the ass, to be sure, but doesn't come into play in most wheeling situations, and a worthwhile tradeoff for the improved stability and the ability to bring a couple guests, a ginormous cooler, tent, toolbox, and plenty of other gear to camp at the wheeling site... not to mention the occasional ability to haul a load of dirt or heavy cargo home from Lowe's. (I don't use my scrambler for people-hauling, but I imagine an additional benefit of the JK would be third row seats.) All in all, methinks this issue is a wash. 2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---... hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size, especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs.... I bet it's more, don't you? One can always hope that in a model year or two, Chrysler puts their reliable 5.9L in a Wrangler... or, if you really want to make your mouth water.... maybe they could steal a page from the Dodge division and make an "SRT" model with the 6.1L Hemi or, god save my bank account, the 8.3L Viper! And I suspect Chrysler execs would love to do this too.... but I bet they won't. New fleet emissions and mileage standards, California (CARB) rules, and general bad press and political hostility in congress are rapidly making the V-8s and V-10s of this world a thing of the past in everything but large work trucks and tow vehicles, and the occasional Corvette or Mustang. |
Re: TJ vs. JK
> 2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a
> satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor > difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant > failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the > Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---... > hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried > about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size, > especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty > to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs.... > I bet it's more, don't you? The listed curb weight from Chrystler for the JK Rubicon w/ Auto tranny is 4442 pounds. I would love to have a V8 in the JK. If it had one when I took it for a test drive, there would most likely be one sitting in my driveway. Even the 4.7L V8 would have been a nice option. Doesn't need to be standard, but having options is nice. |
Re: TJ vs. JK
> 2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a
> satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor > difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant > failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the > Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---... > hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried > about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size, > especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty > to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs.... > I bet it's more, don't you? The listed curb weight from Chrystler for the JK Rubicon w/ Auto tranny is 4442 pounds. I would love to have a V8 in the JK. If it had one when I took it for a test drive, there would most likely be one sitting in my driveway. Even the 4.7L V8 would have been a nice option. Doesn't need to be standard, but having options is nice. |
Re: TJ vs. JK
> 2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a
> satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor > difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant > failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the > Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---... > hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried > about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size, > especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty > to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs.... > I bet it's more, don't you? The listed curb weight from Chrystler for the JK Rubicon w/ Auto tranny is 4442 pounds. I would love to have a V8 in the JK. If it had one when I took it for a test drive, there would most likely be one sitting in my driveway. Even the 4.7L V8 would have been a nice option. Doesn't need to be standard, but having options is nice. |
Re: TJ vs. JK
> 2) Smaller 3.8L engine. I can agree that smaller engines are rarely a
> satisfying change, but 3.8L vs 4.0L is really a pretty minor > difference (unless someone's aware of a particularly significant > failing of the 3.8??? I recall the GM-sourced V6 used on the > Cherokees in the 1980s was supposedly a complete peice of s---... > hopefully this engine isn't also a weak sister?) I'd be more worried > about the increased size of the vehicle relative to the engine size, > especially with the "Unlimited" trim level. 3.8L is probably plenty > to push a 2500lb TJ. I wonder, though, how much the JK weighs.... > I bet it's more, don't you? The listed curb weight from Chrystler for the JK Rubicon w/ Auto tranny is 4442 pounds. I would love to have a V8 in the JK. If it had one when I took it for a test drive, there would most likely be one sitting in my driveway. Even the 4.7L V8 would have been a nice option. Doesn't need to be standard, but having options is nice. |
Re: TJ vs. JK
Thank you, Matt. I not only remember att news, I AM att news. really. I
have not gone away, I have just been in an undisclosed location., but not with that ignoramus, Dik chainey. I am using a friend's computer, as I no longer have access to Outlook express, and people with narrow minds...Ha ha.. Time was, having a Jeep identified one as being just a little bit different, a little bit daring, perhaps. It certainly meant one was not a follower, or one who wanted to be just like everyone else. Chrylser never cought on, the dummies, that trying to make their so-called Jeeps just like all the other land barges would dilute and ruin the pedigree, somewhat like crossing a sleek Greyhound with a fat hippo. which is what krysler has done. (See "Liberty.") Krysler's dunces thought they could build any old thing and paste on the letters J and ee and P and make a Jeep. No way. Chrysler engineers (?) and stylists (?) were jealous (and rightfully so, considering their other poor-selling junk) of AMC's artistically and skillfully designed wide product line. Chrysler borrowed Ford's famous slogan, "Cheap is job One," and ruined amc's XJ in oh, so many ways. The Liberty looks like a fat, bloated Bulldog with long legs, and handles like one as well. "Tippy-over-easy," as consumer reports, bleated. If Chrysler bought the Empire State building they would put aluminum awnings on its windows, and would brag about their improvements. The new, so-called wrangler, is a grotesque, cartoon-like jeep. It is a mucked-up charicature. over-blown, over-stuffed, over-priced, clumsy-looking, and a sad attempt by chrysler to seem "progressive." I could go on, but I don't want to get started. No serious sportsman, off-roader, or anyone sensitive to good esthetics and beautiful proportions and intelligent engineering would even consider one of the new Jeep "thingies." The more people that "Jeep" appeals to, the weaker the Jeep "blood-line " becomes. Es Verdad. The above opinions are not necessarily subscribed to by the owner of the computer that att-news has temporarily hi-jacked. "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message news:4uidnZIni7JrXwPbnZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d@comcast.com. .. > It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there > was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the > suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!) > I think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and > long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews? > > "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter >> of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to >> the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. >> >> What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and >> different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to >> rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective >> physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL >> Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have >> complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely >> nothing wrong with that. >> >> I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is >> a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. >> >> B >> >> In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, >> txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> >>> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has >>> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is >>> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! >>> >>> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and >>> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like >>> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." >>> >>> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds >>> like an offroader's dream! >>> > > |
Re: TJ vs. JK
Thank you, Matt. I not only remember att news, I AM att news. really. I
have not gone away, I have just been in an undisclosed location., but not with that ignoramus, Dik chainey. I am using a friend's computer, as I no longer have access to Outlook express, and people with narrow minds...Ha ha.. Time was, having a Jeep identified one as being just a little bit different, a little bit daring, perhaps. It certainly meant one was not a follower, or one who wanted to be just like everyone else. Chrylser never cought on, the dummies, that trying to make their so-called Jeeps just like all the other land barges would dilute and ruin the pedigree, somewhat like crossing a sleek Greyhound with a fat hippo. which is what krysler has done. (See "Liberty.") Krysler's dunces thought they could build any old thing and paste on the letters J and ee and P and make a Jeep. No way. Chrysler engineers (?) and stylists (?) were jealous (and rightfully so, considering their other poor-selling junk) of AMC's artistically and skillfully designed wide product line. Chrysler borrowed Ford's famous slogan, "Cheap is job One," and ruined amc's XJ in oh, so many ways. The Liberty looks like a fat, bloated Bulldog with long legs, and handles like one as well. "Tippy-over-easy," as consumer reports, bleated. If Chrysler bought the Empire State building they would put aluminum awnings on its windows, and would brag about their improvements. The new, so-called wrangler, is a grotesque, cartoon-like jeep. It is a mucked-up charicature. over-blown, over-stuffed, over-priced, clumsy-looking, and a sad attempt by chrysler to seem "progressive." I could go on, but I don't want to get started. No serious sportsman, off-roader, or anyone sensitive to good esthetics and beautiful proportions and intelligent engineering would even consider one of the new Jeep "thingies." The more people that "Jeep" appeals to, the weaker the Jeep "blood-line " becomes. Es Verdad. The above opinions are not necessarily subscribed to by the owner of the computer that att-news has temporarily hi-jacked. "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message news:4uidnZIni7JrXwPbnZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d@comcast.com. .. > It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there > was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the > suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!) > I think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and > long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews? > > "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter >> of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to >> the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. >> >> What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and >> different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to >> rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective >> physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL >> Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have >> complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely >> nothing wrong with that. >> >> I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is >> a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. >> >> B >> >> In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, >> txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> >>> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has >>> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is >>> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! >>> >>> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and >>> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like >>> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." >>> >>> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds >>> like an offroader's dream! >>> > > |
Re: TJ vs. JK
Thank you, Matt. I not only remember att news, I AM att news. really. I
have not gone away, I have just been in an undisclosed location., but not with that ignoramus, Dik chainey. I am using a friend's computer, as I no longer have access to Outlook express, and people with narrow minds...Ha ha.. Time was, having a Jeep identified one as being just a little bit different, a little bit daring, perhaps. It certainly meant one was not a follower, or one who wanted to be just like everyone else. Chrylser never cought on, the dummies, that trying to make their so-called Jeeps just like all the other land barges would dilute and ruin the pedigree, somewhat like crossing a sleek Greyhound with a fat hippo. which is what krysler has done. (See "Liberty.") Krysler's dunces thought they could build any old thing and paste on the letters J and ee and P and make a Jeep. No way. Chrysler engineers (?) and stylists (?) were jealous (and rightfully so, considering their other poor-selling junk) of AMC's artistically and skillfully designed wide product line. Chrysler borrowed Ford's famous slogan, "Cheap is job One," and ruined amc's XJ in oh, so many ways. The Liberty looks like a fat, bloated Bulldog with long legs, and handles like one as well. "Tippy-over-easy," as consumer reports, bleated. If Chrysler bought the Empire State building they would put aluminum awnings on its windows, and would brag about their improvements. The new, so-called wrangler, is a grotesque, cartoon-like jeep. It is a mucked-up charicature. over-blown, over-stuffed, over-priced, clumsy-looking, and a sad attempt by chrysler to seem "progressive." I could go on, but I don't want to get started. No serious sportsman, off-roader, or anyone sensitive to good esthetics and beautiful proportions and intelligent engineering would even consider one of the new Jeep "thingies." The more people that "Jeep" appeals to, the weaker the Jeep "blood-line " becomes. Es Verdad. The above opinions are not necessarily subscribed to by the owner of the computer that att-news has temporarily hi-jacked. "Matt Macchiarolo" <matt@nospamplease.com> wrote in message news:4uidnZIni7JrXwPbnZ2dnUVZ_rignZ2d@comcast.com. .. > It must be said that in mid-96 when the '97 Wrangler TJ was released there > was a huge uproar over the redesign, mainly with the redesign of the > suspension. (No leaf springs? No bone-jarring ride? It's not a Real Jeep!) > I think with every redesign you get purists that just can't handle it, and > long for the good old days. Anyone here remember attnews? > > "Brian" <bsheller@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:bsheller-A1AB09.21374718072007@comcast.dca.giganews.com... >> It's just different. Maybe some good, maybe some bad. It's all a matter >> of taste. Many people have an emotional and/or personal attachment to >> the TJ, and many might just love the capabilities of the new version. >> >> What you're missing is that people just have different tastes and >> different opinions, that's all. And those people will attempt to >> rationalize their subjective personal feelings by citing the objective >> physical differences. "Electronic stability control??? That's not a REAL >> Jeep!!!" What they really mean is, "I don't want MY Jeep to have >> complicated electronics, I like it the old way." There's absolutely >> nothing wrong with that. >> >> I'll bet the JKs do AWESOME off-road and on-road. But the Jeep I want is >> a 2006 Rubicon Unlimited. Just my personal preference. >> >> B >> >> In article <1184791538.410883.168290@j4g2000prf.googlegroups. com>, >> txjeep7@gmail.com wrote: >> >>> >>> As soon as I saw the photos and read the first specs, my heart has >>> been racing with desire. Pamela Anderson move over, all my lust is >>> for the latest and greatest off the Chrysler assembly line! >>> >>> But wait. There seems to be a derisive undercurrent of scorn and >>> disappointment here on the jeep group. People are saying things like >>> "the TJ is the last wrangler I'll ever buy." >>> >>> Why?????? What am I missing? What's wrong with the JK... it sounds >>> like an offroader's dream! >>> > > |
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:44 PM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands