damunoz32: I don't know. Since you said you want to off-road, wouldn't it make more sense to save the modification money on a four-wheel drive vehicle? Then you'd have a beater you can take to the trails and a separate daily driver. On the other hand, Wranglers do look so much nicer with a bit of lift and bigger tires, no arguing about that. I guess it comes down to what your priorities are.
And to discuss the topic in general, personally, I've never really understood the whole concept of a two-wheel drive Jeep. Especially Wrangler. I can understand that not everyone wants to take their Jeep to technical trails and see how far they can push it before something breaks, but to me, the whole point of a Jeep is that it is more capable than a regular car. You don't need to be up to your door handles in mud to appreciate four-wheel drive, a simple snow storm ought to be enough for that. And the whole point of a Wrangler is its off-road capability. Things like fuel economy or comfort are compromised in favor of it. People tolerate the negatives of a Wrangler because of its off-roading capabilities. But without a four-wheel drive, how much of those capabilities are left? Does accepting the compromises in on-road behavior make sense at that point? Not having seen what a two wheel drive Wrangler can do, these are just questions, not statements. Although, I do have to admit that a Wrangler does look very nice... And I suppose it does at least have better ground clearance than other convertibles.
That alone might be enough to get you where you are going, if the point of the vehicle is just to get you to the places where you want to go and not off-roading for the sake of off-roading.
Eh. I guess I just feel strongly that "form follows function" - or, at least it should. Usually, when you deviate from that, the function part tends to suffer. But on the other hand, this should be a free world - if someone wants to sacrifice function to follow form, who am I to deny them?