2008 and newer 4 door Jeep wranglers.

[SwampSurvivor]

My parents had 3 TJS (Envious as they are my favorite Jeep after the XJ). 97, 01 and 04 Rubicon. All with manual trans. The NV transmission had way more gear noise than the AX-15

We had one of the first TJs around. The revolutionary coil sprung wrangler got a lot of attention. The 97 had 3.07 gears and was a dog on the highway with 4 people and luggage with the but never had a single problem with it.

The 2001 was very problematic. 3 radiators, the right rear wheel would always lock up, it had to go to the dealer to get the computer reprogrammed every month otherwise it would run so rich it wouldn't even start. That thing went through like 20 sets of spark plugs in the 3 years they had it. It wasn't too bad on the highway as they ordered it with the towing package and got 3.73 gears.

The first week they had the 04 it ended up getting a new transmission. They drove it home, saw ATF leaking out of it. The dealer told them to bring it back because there was NO atf in it. Turns out the manual trans leaked dry and burnt itself up. After that, it was completely problem free.

I think the worst thing that happened with the JK was we were going to see my grandmother in the hospital and the Sentry system kept messing up and shutting the Jeep off ... in the country in a snowstorm.

Other problems:
- Electronic axle locks NEVER worked except once ...(rubicon model)
- Rear axle lock decided to lock going 55 on some back roads in the rain. (20K miles)
- Electric swaybar disconnect NEVER worked
- Engine started drinking oil at 30K (ended up at 1 qt / 600 miles when they got rid of it)
- Engine started knocking at 50K miles
- Sentry system would shut the vehicle off while driving (replaced module under warranty)
- 3 sets of axle seals
- CV driveshaft blew up (they don't off road it)
- Rear Dana 44 had to be rebuilt at 60K miles (they don't off road or tow ...)
- Front left and right rear calipers decided to start hanging at 35K miles for no reason.
- Electronic throttle body would often become responsive
- Vehicle could NOT go 55 in 6th gear on the flat (stock unmodified rubicon)


To keep up with traffic in the TJ Rubicon, you'd only have to shift at 2500RPM ... and that was driving it hard. The JK would have to be wound up to 4500 in order to get out of it's own way. That's why I never understood why people say the 3.8 has the same low end torque as the 4.0

My Cherokee certainly has its problems. It has 120,000 miles. It was totaled in a head on collision when it was new. I offroad the thing stressing the unibody and suspension. It's been jumped. It's been in mud. I tow and haul stuff with it all the time. It also sits for weeks at a time.

 

[MCompact]

I bought my 1999 TJ(properly equipped with three pedals) in 2002 with 48K on the clock. It sees a bit of off-roading as we live on a small farm with a 1500' gravel driveway and @100 wooded acres. It now has 110k on it and so far it has needed:

1 radiator (replaced with all-metal Modine unit)
1 exhaust manifold (replaced with Banks Torque Tube)
1 set of brake pads/shoes
1 set of front sway bar end links
1 set of shocks (replaced with Bilstein HDs)
1 steering stabilizer

I've also added Hella H4 E-Codes with Osram Night Breaker Plus bulbs and MB Quart speakers.

I'll probably never sell it.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
To keep up with traffic in the TJ Rubicon, you'd only have to shift at 2500RPM ... and that was driving it hard. The JK would have to be wound up to 4500 in order to get out of it's own way. That's why I never understood why people say the 3.8 has the same low end torque as the 4.0.


I don't know if I've ever read that the 3.8L has the same low end torque as the 4.0.

Having driven both, I'll take a 3.8L Wrangler every time over a 4.0L model, but the 3.8L is certainly no torque monster.

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Miller88
To keep up with traffic in the TJ Rubicon, you'd only have to shift at 2500RPM ... and that was driving it hard. The JK would have to be wound up to 4500 in order to get out of it's own way. That's why I never understood why people say the 3.8 has the same low end torque as the 4.0.


I don't know if I've ever read that the 3.8L has the same low end torque as the 4.0.

Having driven both, I'll take a 3.8L Wrangler every time over a 4.0L model, but the 3.8L is certainly no torque monster.


Neither one is a torque "monster" in the sense that a 440 Magnum or an Olds 455 is a torque monster. They are small sixes, after all... But they both have a remarkably FLAT torque curve from idle to redline- not much peakiness at all, which makes the power delivery very flexible, controllable, and predictable- great for rock crawling. Despite the fact that people do use them for "mudding," they're really not good for that and a lot of 4.0's in particular have been blown apart trying to use them that way- they just do not tolerate sustained high revs well as they were never designed to do so.

Of the two, I'll take the 4.0 by a small margin just for its inline architecture and smoothness. The 3.8 is probably a little 'better' in terms of design, can at least reach high RPM and hold it if necessary, and is certainly much more fuel efficient (although neither one is exactly easy on fuel...). But the 4.0 is just cool.

As for Miller's comment about the 3.8 having to be wound up... you also have to consider the weight differences- even a 2-door JK is HEAVY, and the 4-door like I had as a rental is a real slug. The 3.8 had to work about like the 4.0 in my Cherokee to haul it, and its at least 700-800 pounds heavier so I give the the total power edge to 3.8 by a good margin. I'd really like to get a near back-to-back comparison to a 3.6 (Pentastar) JK soon. I know it will hand the 3.8 and 4.0 both their butt on a platter, but at the expense of a lot of complexity that I'm not sure belongs in an offroad vehicle.

And Miller- you're comment about how Ford might have turned it into a front-drive mall-crawler like they did the Explorer had they acquired Jeep is enough to make a guy's skin crawl! Actually I think almost any manufacturer who bought the Jeep brand would probably respect the brand enough to not do that. At least I'd hope so.

 

[SwampSurvivor]

Originally Posted By: 440Magnum
Originally Posted By: Hokiefyd
Originally Posted By: Miller88
To keep up with traffic in the TJ Rubicon, you'd only have to shift at 2500RPM ... and that was driving it hard. The JK would have to be wound up to 4500 in order to get out of it's own way. That's why I never understood why people say the 3.8 has the same low end torque as the 4.0.


I don't know if I've ever read that the 3.8L has the same low end torque as the 4.0.

Having driven both, I'll take a 3.8L Wrangler every time over a 4.0L model, but the 3.8L is certainly no torque monster.


Neither one is a torque "monster" in the sense that a 440 Magnum or an Olds 455 is a torque monster. They are small sixes, after all... But they both have a remarkably FLAT torque curve from idle to redline- not much peakiness at all, which makes the power delivery very flexible, controllable, and predictable- great for rock crawling. Despite the fact that people do use them for "mudding," they're really not good for that and a lot of 4.0's in particular have been blown apart trying to use them that way- they just do not tolerate sustained high revs well as they were never designed to do so.

Of the two, I'll take the 4.0 by a small margin just for its inline architecture and smoothness. The 3.8 is probably a little 'better' in terms of design, can at least reach high RPM and hold it if necessary, and is certainly much more fuel efficient (although neither one is exactly easy on fuel...). But the 4.0 is just cool.

As for Miller's comment about the 3.8 having to be wound up... you also have to consider the weight differences- even a 2-door JK is HEAVY, and the 4-door like I had as a rental is a real slug. The 3.8 had to work about like the 4.0 in my Cherokee to haul it, and its at least 700-800 pounds heavier so I give the the total power edge to 3.8 by a good margin. I'd really like to get a near back-to-back comparison to a 3.6 (Pentastar) JK soon. I know it will hand the 3.8 and 4.0 both their butt on a platter, but at the expense of a lot of complexity that I'm not sure belongs in an offroad vehicle.

And Miller- you're comment about how Ford might have turned it into a front-drive mall-crawler like they did the Explorer had they acquired Jeep is enough to make a guy's skin crawl! Actually I think almost any manufacturer who bought the Jeep brand would probably respect the brand enough to not do that. At least I'd hope so.




Good point on the complexity of the 3.6. I'm not sure that technology belongs on something that is (supposed to be) used and abused off road. All of the electronic gizmos and gadgets don't like that.

I know of a few people that have popped their AMC 2.5s off road in mud. The 2.5s and 4.0s will hold up with sustained full throttle
Two of Ford's best sellers (Crown vic and Explorer) have been turned into a front wheel drive vehicle based on the Taurus platform. The crown vic name is gone, but the Taurus grew to its size. They did well because they were body on frame, rear wheel drive, rugged vehicles. They also sold themselves ... even after the flipping incidents.

The wrangler is the same way. Rugged, simple, well selling design that sells itself.

I'm waiting for a Taurus based F150 ...

 

[Spazdog]

Originally Posted By: Miller88
...
If Ford had bought Jeep instead of Chrysler, the Wrangler would be based off of the Ford Taurus (like pretty much everything else in their lineup ...)


Maybe not.

Ford owned Land Rover for awhile. There is a chance that the "Jeep" could have been based off of a Disco or something. (Full circle: the original Land Rover was based off of a Jeep)

 

[440Magnum]

Originally Posted By: Miller88

Good point on the complexity of the 3.6. I'm not sure that technology belongs on something that is (supposed to be) used and abused off road. All of the electronic gizmos and gadgets don't like that.

I know of a few people that have popped their AMC 2.5s off road in mud. The 2.5s and 4.0s will hold up with sustained full throttle
Two of Ford's best sellers (Crown vic and Explorer) have been turned into a front wheel drive vehicle based on the Taurus platform. The crown vic name is gone, but the Taurus grew to its size. They did well because they were body on frame, rear wheel drive, rugged vehicles. They also sold themselves ... even after the flipping incidents.

The wrangler is the same way. Rugged, simple, well selling design that sells itself.

I'm waiting for a Taurus based F150 ...


My mind is open on the added complexity of the 3.6, despite my reflexive "keep rugged vehicles simple" thought process. The thing that may prove out the 3.6 as a step in the right direction is that the complexity is mostly encapsulated- either in solid blocks of urethane (electronics) or inside the crankcase itself (variable cam timing, variable displacement oil pump, etc.) When you really stop and look at what's "hanging out in the breeze" waiting to get rattled loose, banged, dirtied, drowned, or broken in rough use, it actually looks pretty darned good compared to a carbureted 258 or a pre-Chrysler Renix 4.0. I shake my head that those ran at all with all the sensors, vacuum lines, and tacked-on junk they had.

 

[Hokiefyd]

My parents 'wheel their '12 JK with the 3.6L on a weekly basis. The engine is very solid. The only odd thing is the exhaust pipe "donut" on the driver's side.