[N2rock]

Originally Posted by terrahawk

Bull****. I have an open diff Sahara with a 6 speed, 4.10s, and 35's and have no issues climbing 2 foot rocks or going up steep hills without jamming the skinny pedal. Most of the time it's not the vehicle so much as it is a driver.

[CDNBEAR2009JEEP]

Originally Posted by odwaud

If you plan on doing any wheeling defiantly the rubicon. Personally I would take a TJ x or a JK x any day. JK rides, feels, and looks weird. And you defiantly have to love the mini van engine and all the plastic.

I have read a few posts mentioning that the JK has a minivan engine in it. Well, I have minivan (2006 Ford Freestar SEL), that has a 4.2L V6 with 201 HP @ 263 lb/ft torque. Now, the last time I checked, my Jeep has a 3.8L V6 with 202 HP @ 237 lb/ft torque. As you can see, the horsepower is almost similar, but the torque goes to my minivan. And, they both have lots of plastic in them. Oh well.
Although my minivan has lots of goodies (many power options), space, DVD, etc., it will never get in the places that I have had my Jeep. Soon, my wife and I will wave "bye bye" to the minivan and we will have 2 Jeeps to enjoy the trails.

Anyway, the 2006 Jeep TJ Rubicon has a 4.0L V6 with 190 HP @ 235 lb/ft of torque. Why is that not compared to a minivan engine? Or, do you have a biased opinion toward the JKs? I will tell you that the JKs don't look, drive, or feel weird. If that was the case, then all of the Jeeps would be that way.

Even though the horsepower (+11) and torque (+2) is more in the JK, the Rubicon is more suited for hardcore trails because of the upgraded suspension, etc. Mind you, you will have lots of plastic and a few more buttons.
No matter what, you can't go wrong with either version of the Jeep. Do some research, test drives, and comparisons before you have any regrets in the future.

On a personal note, I purchased my 2009 Jeep Wrangler (JK) X on November 12, 2008. I have put close to 1000 km both highway and trails. I absolutely love my Jeep! I don't miss the keyless entry, power locks, power windows, heated seats, power moonroof, etc., but, I wish my fuel economy was a bit better, . Nonetheless, I made small sacrifices to get into a very off road worthy vehicle.

[Avian]

Originally Posted by CDNBEAR2009JEEP

I have read a few posts mentioning that the JK has a minivan engine in it. Well, I have minivan (2006 Ford Freestar SEL), that has a 4.2L V6 with 201 HP @ 263 lb/ft torque. Now, the last time I checked, my Jeep has a 3.8L V6 with 202 HP @ 237 lb/ft torque. As you can see, the horsepower is almost similar, but the torque goes to my minivan. And, they both have lots of plastic in them. Oh well.
Although my minivan has lots of goodies (many power options), space, DVD, etc., it will never get in the places that I have had my Jeep. Soon, my wife and I will wave "bye bye" to the minivan and we will have 2 Jeeps to enjoy the trails.

Anyway, the 2006 Jeep TJ Rubicon has a 4.0L V6 with 190 HP @ 235 lb/ft of torque. Why is that not compared to a minivan engine? Or, do you have a biased opinion toward the JKs? I will tell you that the JKs don't look, drive, or feel weird. If that was the case, then all of the Jeeps would be that way.

Even though the horsepower (+11) and torque (+2) is more in the JK, the Rubicon is more suited for hardcore trails because of the upgraded suspension, etc. Mind you, you will have lots of plastic and a few more buttons.
No matter what, you can't go wrong with either version of the Jeep. Do some research, test drives, and comparisons before you have any regrets in the future.

On a personal note, I purchased my 2009 Jeep Wrangler (JK) X on November 12, 2008. I have put close to 1000 km both highway and trails. I absolutely love my Jeep! I don't miss the keyless entry, power locks, power windows, heated seats, power moonroof, etc., but, I wish my fuel economy was a bit better, . Nonetheless, I made small sacrifices to get into a very off road worthy vehicle.

The basic 3.8L engine used in the JK is based off an engine design used in minivans in the 90's. It, however, has been tweaked and reworked to be better for the JK than the vans though. Kind of like the GM 3800. It was used in everything from a grand national to a silhouette. Same basic design, but reworked to fit its application.


Calling the 3.8 a mini van engine is like calling the 4.0 a gremlin engine.

[chuck45]

Originally Posted by odwaud

But that is not my point, the 3.8L V6 engine actually has more HP than the I-6. But the 3.8L V6 does not have the "grunt" torque the I-6 does. I have wheeled with both my TJ and my dad's JK Sahara. I can go over 2 foot rocks or up hills so steep I can only see sky by just letting out the clutch. There is no way in hell you can do that in a JK. You have to use alot of gas, then you end up spinning the tires and loose traction. That is why I would never wheel a JK. That is the difference between the 3.8L V6 and the I-6, which I think is a very big difference.

BS. I have both a TJ and a JK and the JK is the better vehicle. So you have to let the engine rev a bit higher than the JK in certain situations. The converse is that in comparison the TJ is as rough as a cob and noisy at higher speeds and falls flat on it's face at higher elevations.

The TJ NEEDS longer arms and the JK is fine with stock arms up to 4.5" lift and 35's or 37's. My 4 dr JK gets 6 mpg MORE than my (obviously smaller and lighter) 2 dr TJ. And my 4 dr is heavy with aftermarket RockHard bumpers, sliders, skids and a Warn PP winch. Saying a person shouldn't get a JK because you observed a person in a JK who was less than a stellar driver makes no sense.

[michaelmjc]

Originally Posted by chuck45

BS. I have both a TJ and a JK and the JK is the better vehicle. So you have to let the engine rev a bit higher than the JK in certain situations. The converse is that in comparison the TJ is as rough as a cob and noisy at higher speeds and falls flat on it's face at higher elevations.

The TJ NEEDS longer arms and the JK is fine with stock arms up to 4.5" lift and 35's or 37's. My 4 dr JK gets 6 mpg MORE than my (obviously smaller and lighter) 2 dr TJ. And my 4 dr is heavy with aftermarket RockHard bumpers, sliders, skids and a Warn PP winch. Saying a person shouldn't get a JK because you observed a person in a JK who was less than a stellar driver makes no sense.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[Avian]

Here it is again.

[odwaud]

Originally Posted by terrahawk

Bull****. I have an open diff Sahara with a 6 speed, 4.10s, and 35's and have no issues climbing 2 foot rocks or going up steep hills without jamming the skinny pedal. Most of the time it's not the vehicle so much as it is a driver.

I never said you had to jam the skinny pedal. I said you have to use more gas because the low end torque is not there. I don't think you read my post, I dont USE ANY GASe except in extreme rock crawls. There is so much torque I just let out the clutch and it will climb a 90 degree wall.

And I really would like to see your stock sahara climb 2 foot rocks with 90 degree angles. My dad has a sahara and he must really suck at wheeling because there is not way in hell he can do that.

Originally Posted by chuck45

BS. I have both a TJ and a JK and the JK is the better vehicle. So you have to let the engine rev a bit higher than the JK in certain situations. The converse is that in comparison the TJ is as rough as a cob and noisy at higher speeds and falls flat on it's face at higher elevations.

The certain situations you are talking about is rock crawling. IMO a TJ with a few mods is way better at rock crawling than a JK with a few mods. Unless the guys I wheel with don't know how to wheel, we use as little gas as possible on the rocks because as soon as you spin your tires you loose traction. You are forced to use more gas with a JK, and that is not a positive IMO.

Originally Posted by chuck45

The TJ NEEDS longer arms and the JK is fine with stock arms up to 4.5" lift and 35's or 37's. My 4 dr JK gets 6 mpg MORE than my (obviously smaller and lighter) 2 dr TJ. And my 4 dr is heavy with aftermarket RockHard bumpers, sliders, skids and a Warn PP winch. Saying a person shouldn't get a JK because you observed a person in a JK who was less than a stellar driver makes no sense.

Bull****. I have over 5 inches of lift and I have stock upper control arms and some junky Skycrapper lowers that are barely an upgrade. I better go out and buy longer control arms because you just informed me that my TJ NEEDS longer control arms.

And if you do any hardcore wheeling a JK NEEDS after market front and rear bumpers, a TJ does not. Thats well over a grand and even if you are correct in that TJ's NEED longer control arms, it would be cheaper to do that. I could long arm my TJ right now for about $900. I am not going to because it doesn't need it.

And when did gas mileage become and issue with Jeep owners? We all get under 20 MPG, it isn't like a JK gets 30 and a TJ gets 15... And it was not just one time I saw someone wheel a JK. I have seen many JK's (X's, Rubi's, and Sahara's) on the trail and I have wheeled one. They just don't do well in the types of wheeling I do, rock crawling. I think they are great rigs for trails but I have never seen a JK tear up the rocks like I see TJ's and XJ's do.

[CDNBEAR2009JEEP]

Originally Posted by Avian

The basic 3.8L engine used in the JK is based off an engine design used in minivans in the 90's. It, however, has been tweaked and reworked to be better for the JK than the vans though. Kind of like the GM 3800. It was used in everything from a grand national to a silhouette. Same basic design, but reworked to fit its application.


Calling the 3.8 a mini van engine is like calling the 4.0 a gremlin engine.

Thank you for the information, but I would much it not be considered a minivan engine, especially when our Jeeps aren't minivans and the tweaks have been done by the manufacturer. Also, the fact that the 3.8L V6 is obsolete, in minivans, should be the end of the story. That is what Chrysler decided to put into the JKs, and unless you decide to change that, (i.e. replace with a bigger engine), there is nothing wrong with what is in there.

At one point, there were much smaller engines in the Jeeps. Actually, a 2.5L I4 was used, maybe we should consider that Nissan XTRAIL engine, .

Bottom line, the 3.8L V6 is more than sufficient.

[terrahawk]

Keep on hatin' bro. Nothing we say can sway you.

[CDNBEAR2009JEEP]

Originally Posted by odwaud

I have seen many JK's (X's, Rubi's, and Sahara's) on the trail and I have wheeled one. They just don't do well in the types of wheeling I do, rock crawling. I think they are great rigs for trails but I have never seen a JK tear up the rocks like I see TJ's and XJ's do.

Now, is this based off of your lifted Jeep, or your stock Jeep? Is your opinion based on a stock JK, or a lifted JK? Both questions pertain to rock crawling.

[GEM1N1]

Well this thread is making it easy to decide... LOL...

[chuck45]

Originally Posted by odwaud

Bull****. I have over 5 inches of lift and I have stock upper control arms and some junky Skycrapper lowers that are barely an upgrade. I better go out and buy longer control arms because you just informed me that my TJ NEEDS longer control arms.

And if you do any hardcore wheeling a JK NEEDS after market front and rear bumpers, a TJ does not. Thats well over a grand and even if you are correct in that TJ's NEED longer control arms, it would be cheaper to do that. I could long arm my TJ right now for about $900. I am not going to because it doesn't need it.

And when did gas mileage become and issue with Jeep owners? We all get under 20 MPG, it isn't like a JK gets 30 and a TJ gets 15... And it was not just one time I saw someone wheel a JK. I have seen many JK's (X's, Rubi's, and Sahara's) on the trail and I have wheeled one. They just don't do well in the types of wheeling I do, rock crawling. I think they are great rigs for trails but I have never seen a JK tear up the rocks like I see TJ's and XJ's do.

I don't know how to make this thing do multiple quotes. At any rate I think you're the first person I've come across that thought the TJ was OK with 5" lift on stock length arms - unless a lot of that is body lift.

I will certainly grant that the stock JK bumpers suck.

As too mileage it isn't a big deal to me most of the time; but better mileage is, well, better. I see you're for Minnesota and I confess that I don't have a clue what kind of wheeling you all do back there. Is it like ski mountains where 700 ft of verticle lift is good - until you get 3000 plus at places all over the west. I suppose those of us in Colorado and Utah with places like Moab in our back yard don't have a clue about rock crawling.

I just caught your last sentance. Our JK's don't do as well as XJ's! You've lost all credibility with me. I'm done.

[Avian]

Originally Posted by CDNBEAR2009JEEP

Thank you for the information, but I would much it not be considered a minivan engine, especially when our Jeeps aren't minivans and the tweaks have been done by the manufacturer. Also, the fact that the 3.8L V6 is obsolete, in minivans, should be the end of the story. That is what Chrysler decided to put into the JKs, and unless you decide to change that, (i.e. replace with a bigger engine), there is nothing wrong with what is in there.

At one point, there were much smaller engines in the Jeeps. Actually, a 2.5L I4 was used, maybe we should consider that Nissan XTRAIL engine, .

Bottom line, the 3.8L V6 is more than sufficient.

The mini van engine thing was just started by the tj/ yj crowd to try and pick at jk owners. Just like when the yj guys picked at the (superior) coil springs of the tj, and how the cj guys picked at the yj's square headlights and plastic dash.

[premo]

big lol @ this thread!

i go wheelin with YJ's, TJ's, XJ's and JK's (both 2 and 4dr). they all have their up's and downs. the motor makes just as good TQ/HP at low end. the TJ has a cable actuated throttle body making it more responsive and SEEM like it has better low end TQ....it does not. end of story. regear if you're having to rev up to get over rocks...

both TJ's and JK's have their up's and downs...just do your research. admittedly, aftermarket parts are stupid expensive for the JK. give it a couple of yrs though and theyll drop in price.

i love my JK and wheel the hell out of it.....and i go rock crawling all the time...

[CDNBEAR2009JEEP]

Originally Posted by Avian

The mini van engine thing was just started by the tj/ yj crowd to try and pick at jk owners. Just like when the yj guys picked at the (superior) coil springs of the tj, and how the cj guys picked at the yj's square headlights and plastic dash.

Oh, . That seems a bit childish, but I guess if a person is bored, then things like that will happen.