[vic777]

I will need to tow a trailer with an ATV.
I may have to haul building materials, in truck bed or behind rubicon in a trailer
I have to traverse trails thru the forest. (mud and rocks and branches)
Should I get auto or manual transmission.

I think I would like manual tranny, but the car lots have vehicles with automatic, I might be able to trade my vehicle (2000 Grand Cherokee) more advantageously against a vehicle "on the lot", therefore probably have to take automatic.

Which is better transmission?

What would you get Rubicon 4-Door or Ranger FX-4?
Manual or Automatic transmission?

thanks.

[JYogi]

Rubi 4 Door for sure..
You are gonna wait for one though so get your order in now.
Man. or auto... Personal pref.....
If you are going to be driving in city and rush hour traffic quite a bit get the auto for sure!!!! Which is better for wheeling, look at the posts here and its 50/50 as to the answer you will get. Its whats best for you.

You are in the wrong place if you expect people to push you toward the Ford haha

[cab76]

I recently traded in my Ford Ranger Edge 4x4 for a JK Rubi Unlimited. I love the JK and am willing to take the tradeoff of living without a truck in order to have the JK. I justified it by looking at the JK as a truck of sorts. I plan to take the carpet out and Rhino line the interior - I'd also like to fab a barrier of sorts that goes over the rear seats when down to essentially create a truck bed. But, ultimately it will never be as good a truck as the Ranger. But if it becomes too much of a hassle I can get a trailer. And the Ranger is nowhere near the trail vehicle that the JK is (and the roof doesn't come off).

That was my situation and for me the decision was easy. While the FX4 is a better trail vehicle than my standard 4x4, it still will not outwheel a JK (and is not nearly as fun to drive). I'm not sure how often you haul building materials, but the question you need to ask yourself is whether using a trailer often will get old and/or inconvenient - whether the hassle will be worth having a more fun/capable vehicle to drive on the trails (and of course whether you have a place to store the trailer when not in use). I know what the answer would be for me (I think I'll always find a way to keep a Jeep in my vehicle family from here on out), but only you can make that decision for yourself.

As for auto vs. manual, I have the auto and am happy with it. I haven't heard anything bad about either transmission - it's more of a matter of personal preference. If it were me and I wanted a manual I would not settle for an auto. There's got to be some manuals on the lots or you could always order. Good luck!

[Poor Boy]

go with the ford. the more JK's are out there, the more demand for aftermarket parts, which means i have to pay more for them, and wait forever to get them.

i'm a selfish little prick. i know. i don't care.

[JYogi]

hahahahaha

[N2rock]

while auto or manual is really a personal preference... I think an auto would be more in line with pulling a trailer in off-road conditions. Think about it, you never have to worry about clutching while trying to traverse a rough area. Never have to worry about braking & clutching while trying to go uphill with a load. Stick the auto into 4wd and sit back & relax. The jeep will do all the work for you

[LarsTJ]

I dont know if this helps you or not, but I traded my 97 TJ for an FX4 level 2 Ranger. because I needed a pickup. That was a great truck and went everywhere my stock jeep did in So. MN. It had BFG's and a Torsen limited slip. However I missed the jeep so bad I saved up and bought another 97 4cyl jeep cheap and have both. Definitely the best of both worlds if that is an option.

[naplesrubicon]

get both and get the stick i think the center console looks better with a stick
also you get an extra pedel for free with the stick

[tricked919]

I know this wasn't in your list of concerns, but I recently read an article about leasing and residual values on a major news site (either msnbc.com or cnn.com). The Ford Ranger pick-up line was the lowest resale value vehicle in the country. It had lower residuals than all the Korean import cars. I think I remember seeing numbers in the 30% range after just a couple years. That is VERY bad and I know that would sway my decision - especially when comparing against one of the best value holders.

[cab76]

Originally Posted by tricked919

I know this wasn't in your list of concerns, but I recently read an article about leasing and residual values on a major news site (either msnbc.com or cnn.com). The Ford Ranger pick-up line was the lowest resale value vehicle in the country. It had lower residuals than all the Korean import cars. I think I remember seeing numbers in the 30% range after just a couple years. That is VERY bad and I know that would sway my decision - especially when comparing against one of the best value holders.

I would agree that resale value and general interest in used Rangers is low - I had a tough time getting anyone to even look at my Ranger, even though I had taken very good care of it and was asking mid-blue book numbers. I ended up giving in and just traded it in to the dealer. I don't know about the 30% number, though - that sounds too low. I paid around $19K for mine (after substantial rebates, which maybe the study cited doesn't take into account - you will not have to pay anywhere close to msrp for a new Ranger) and traded it in 4 years later for $10.5K - not too bad for trade in and much better than 30% after 4 years.

[jonzer12]

Resale is terrible with any vehicle that was in the numbers the ranger was. You can find anywhere. I will have to say that the FX4 level 2 is pretty capable truck.
I love jeeps but if you truly are going to be moving matierals around often you can't beat having a pickup. Trailers are great but can get old if you are running around a lot and moving stuff that you could have easily tossed in your pickup.

[jeff@zina.com]

Got rid of a '99 Ranger for the JK, and yes it does cause a bit of grief occasionally. My two door JK holds like 3 bags of mulch with the seats out versus 20 in the Ranger. Plywood/2x4/etc. can tie on top of the roll cage with top down, but that's a pain too. JK gets half the gas mileage and is noiser than the Ranger. My Ranger's top never soaked me, and nobody ever slashed it to rip off my Barry Manilow CD's.

Oh, wait. Nobody's slashed my JK open for Barry Manilow either...

Glad I traded up.

Jeff

[cab76]

Originally Posted by jeff@zina.com

Got rid of a '99 Ranger for the JK, and yes it does cause a bit of grief occasionally. My two door JK holds like 3 bags of mulch with the seats out versus 20 in the Ranger. Plywood/2x4/etc. can tie on top of the roll cage with top down, but that's a pain too. JK gets half the gas mileage and is noiser than the Ranger. My Ranger's top never soaked me, and nobody ever slashed it to rip off my Barry Manilow CD's.

Oh, wait. Nobody's slashed my JK open for Barry Manilow either...

Glad I traded up.

Jeff

LOL - maybe instead of upgrading the security system I should start carrying around Barry Manilow CDs in plain sight!

More food for thought - I measured at one point and with the seats down the JK Unlimited cargo area is not that much smaller than the standard size Ranger bed.

[Prot]

Get the 4 door JK and pull the back seat out when you don't need it. Problem solved. I have always disliked rangers because when you need a truck, the ranger isn't enough truck. I had one for a time and it seems like it didn't take much of a load in the bed to make it squat like a woman using the facilities. Now if you were deciding between a JK and a full size truck, then I'd say get the truck.

[jca1]

I thought I couldn't live without a truck had one for so long. I miss it sometimes but it's never major, so far I have not really needed it for anything, and I love the jeep whereas I liked my truck. Get the jeep, buy a small trailer later.