[Xtremjeepn]

Originally Posted by JeeperSC

With comparable modifications a JK could perform just as well, mabey better then a TJ.

Maybe? Now thats funny. The JK was designed to out perform the TJ. What good would it do to redesign a vehicle to perform worse than it's predesessor on it's number one selling feature?

[JeeperSC]

Originally Posted by Xtremjeepn

Maybe? Now thats funny. The JK was designed to out perform the TJ. What good would it do to redesign a vehicle to perform worse than it's predesessor on it's number one selling feature?

Ok, then what about it makes a JK out peform the TJ off road? Is a stock 2009 Ruby going to hands down run circles around a 2006 Ruby?

btw, automakers have redesigned vehicles to perform worse then the previous models and it not hurt sales. in 1992 ford stopped making the 5.0L foxbody mustangs. By 2006, the mustang had a heavier body and a 4.6L modular motor which made the poor muscle car a complete turd. That didnt hurt mustang sales, infact mustang still out sold the camaro and firebird which were the two other cars in the mustangs class.

[JeeperSC]

Originally Posted by Xtremjeepn

Maybe? Now thats funny. The JK was designed to out perform the TJ. What good would it do to redesign a vehicle to perform worse than it's predesessor on it's number one selling feature?

Ok, then what about it makes a JK out peform the TJ off road? Is a stock 2009 Ruby going to hands down run circles around a 2006 Ruby?

btw, automakers have redesigned vehicles to perform worse then the previous models and it not hurt sales. in 1992 ford stopped making the 5.0L foxbody mustangs. By 2006, the mustang had a heavier body and a 4.6L modular motor which made the poor muscle car a complete turd. That didnt hurt mustang sales, infact mustang still out sold the camaro and firebird which were the two other cars in the mustangs class.

[JeeperSC]

Originally Posted by Xtremjeepn

Maybe? Now thats funny. The JK was designed to out perform the TJ. What good would it do to redesign a vehicle to perform worse than it's predesessor on it's number one selling feature?

Ok, then what about it makes a JK out peform the TJ off road? Is a stock 2009 Ruby going to hands down run circles around a 2006 Ruby?

btw, automakers have redesigned vehicles to perform worse then the previous models and it not hurt sales. in 1992 ford stopped making the 5.0L foxbody mustangs. By 2006, the mustang had a heavier body and a 4.6L modular motor which made the poor muscle car a complete turd. That didnt hurt mustang sales, infact mustang still out sold the camaro and firebird which were the two other cars in the mustangs class.

[JeeperSC]

Originally Posted by Xtremjeepn

Maybe? Now thats funny. The JK was designed to out perform the TJ. What good would it do to redesign a vehicle to perform worse than it's predesessor on it's number one selling feature?

Ok, then what about it makes a JK out peform the TJ off road? Is a stock 2009 Ruby going to hands down run circles around a 2006 Ruby?

btw, automakers have redesigned vehicles to perform worse then the previous models and it not hurt sales. in 1992 ford stopped making the 5.0L foxbody mustangs. By 2006, the mustang had a heavier body and a 4.6L modular motor which made the poor muscle car a complete turd. That didnt hurt mustang sales, infact mustang still out sold the camaro and firebird which were the two other cars in the mustangs class.

[JeeperSC]

Originally Posted by Xtremjeepn

Maybe? Now thats funny. The JK was designed to out perform the TJ. What good would it do to redesign a vehicle to perform worse than it's predesessor on it's number one selling feature?

Ok, then what about it makes a JK out peform the TJ off road? Is a stock 2009 Ruby going to hands down run circles around a 2006 Ruby?

btw, automakers have redesigned vehicles to perform worse then the previous models and it not hurt sales. in 1992 ford stopped making the 5.0L foxbody mustangs. By 2006, the mustang had a heavier body and a 4.6L modular motor which made the poor muscle car a complete turd. That didnt hurt mustang sales, infact mustang still out sold the camaro and firebird which were the two other cars in the mustangs class.

[JeeperSC]

Originally Posted by Xtremjeepn

Maybe? Now thats funny. The JK was designed to out perform the TJ. What good would it do to redesign a vehicle to perform worse than it's predesessor on it's number one selling feature?

Ok, then what about it makes a JK out peform the TJ off road? Is a stock 2009 Ruby going to hands down run circles around a 2006 Ruby?

btw, automakers have redesigned vehicles to perform worse then the previous models and it not hurt sales. in 1992 ford stopped making the 5.0L foxbody mustangs. By 2006, the mustang had a heavier body and a 4.6L modular motor which made the poor muscle car a complete turd. That didnt hurt mustang sales, infact mustang still out sold the camaro and firebird which were the two other cars in the mustangs class.

[JeeperSC]

Originally Posted by Xtremjeepn

Maybe? Now thats funny. The JK was designed to out perform the TJ. What good would it do to redesign a vehicle to perform worse than it's predesessor on it's number one selling feature?

Ok, then what about it makes a JK out peform the TJ off road? Is a stock 2009 Ruby going to hands down run circles around a 2006 Ruby?

btw, automakers have redesigned vehicles to perform worse then the previous models and it not hurt sales. in 1992 ford stopped making the 5.0L foxbody mustangs. By 2006, the mustang had a heavier body and a 4.6L modular motor which made the poor muscle car a complete turd. That didnt hurt mustang sales, infact mustang still out sold the camaro and firebird which were the two other cars in the mustangs class.

[Xtremjeepn]

Engine performance and vehicle weight have plauged all of the auto industry with tighter emmisions and safety standards. Those are what hurt the Mustang.


A stock 2007+ Rub should hands down perform better off road than a stock 2006 Rubi in 99% of situations and here is why......

-Scroll up and look at the pictures again and you will see.
-Better approach & departure angles
-More under chassis ground clearance
-Longer wheelbase, but shorter total chassis.
-Wider track width. (which is the first thing 99% of Jeepers do by adding offset wheels on older Jeeps


-Things you can't see in the picture.
-Bigger stronger axles(total redesign that only share the name and cover.
-High pinion front, not only stronger but keeps the front drive shaft out of the rocks
-More 50/50 weight distribution
-Larger tires stock
-Bigger fender openings stock
-Larger rim size stock will side hill better
-Bigger stock driveshafts
-Longer control arms equal more flex stock
-Auto sway bar stock (since disconnecting would be considered a mod on a TJ if we are comparing stock)
-Stronger frame
-Computer controlled throttle and engine management in 4 low to prevent bounce


The only situation where I see the TJ having any advantage would be trying to fit through a body width rock squeeze. In the real world I have yet to find one that is exactly the width of a TJ. My TJ had rockers with rail/steps on them that would end up being wider than my JK is now in total.



Once you start changing things the JK should be easier to get to a higher level of performance. If you toss enough money at anything you can make it great off road. But things as simple as removing the stock JK bumpers and flares make it drasticly differnent than a stock TJ with the same items removed. (almost a buggy profile on the JK right out of the box with the semi comp cut rear and narrowed front. )

[N2rock]

Here's some good reading on the subject

http://www.jpmagazine.com/roadtests/154_0611_2007_wrangler_jk_pros_and_cons/index.html

[Xtremjeepn]

Good stuff.

[odwaud]

stock for stock you can debate that a JK is better offroad than a TJ, but most of us here don't have stock jeeps. if you are going to build a rock crawler you are going to start with a TJ not a JK, why? because JK's cost more to upgrade and are harder to work on.

[N2rock]

Originally Posted by odwaud

stock for stock you can debate that a JK is better offroad than a TJ, but most of us here don't have stock jeeps. if you are going to build a rock crawler you are going to start with a TJ not a JK, why? because JK's cost more to upgrade and are harder to work on.

I say its because the stock JK just plain costs more to buy, than an old TJ... But I know 2 guys that are in the process of building rock crawler JK's.

[terrahawk]

Originally Posted by odwaud

stock for stock you can debate that a JK is better offroad than a TJ, but most of us here don't have stock jeeps. if you are going to build a rock crawler you are going to start with a TJ not a JK, why? because JK's cost more to upgrade and are harder to work on.

A. If I am going to build a dedicated rock crawler, I'm not going to use a Jeep at all. I'll build a tube chassis and go from there.

B. Other than bumpers, which aren't necessaay anyway, modding a JK isn't really more expensive than modding a TJ.

C. Define harder to work on.... My wrenches work the same on my JK as they did my TJ.

[CDNBEAR2009JEEP]

Originally Posted by JeeperSC

Ok, then what about it makes a JK out peform the TJ off road? Is a stock 2009 Ruby going to hands down run circles around a 2006 Ruby?

btw, automakers have redesigned vehicles to perform worse then the previous models and it not hurt sales. in 1992 ford stopped making the 5.0L foxbody mustangs. By 2006, the mustang had a heavier body and a 4.6L modular motor which made the poor muscle car a complete turd. That didnt hurt mustang sales, infact mustang still out sold the camaro and firebird which were the two other cars in the mustangs class.

Crikey, . I got the point the 1st time you posted, but 7 times in total is really make a point, .