Last post on Jul 05, 2013 at 9:31 AM
You are in the Toyota FJ Cruiser
What is this discussion about?
Toyota FJ Cruiser, Jeep Wrangler
#464 of 542 Re: Wrangler sales double the FJ Cruiser [makaser13]
Oct 10, 2007 (9:29 am)
Do you even know what the point in having better articulation is??? Its to keep ALL the tires on the ground with the most contact patch. This also means you are not going to tip over. When you have wheels in the air is when you are in danger of tipping over!
Keep in mind you can tip a Ferrari over if you try hard enough. And of course youíre going to see move videos of Jeeps rolled over since there about 50 times more Jeeps on the trails than FJCs. BTW I have seen pics of a rolled over FJC too.
I also happen to know that when I have driven FJCís that they donít corner better than the old TJ Wranger, so I would really hesitate to say they have a lower CG to track ratio.
Come to the mountains in the trees and Iíll show you trails where your FJ will not be able to follow a TJ or the new Wrangler simply because it canít turn sharp enough or fit. The old Jeep CJ-5 is one of the best trail rigs ever since itís got an 83Ē wheel base and is about 5 inches narrower than the old TJ Wrangler (much less the new wrangler). When I took that CJ-5 out to the trails I could follow most quad trails where the TJ (rubi or not) would not even fit. There were times when I was on an incline and where there were two trees so close that putting the windshield down allowed me to pass. There is no way on earth your FJC would follow a Wrangler never mind a CJ-5 in that area unless you brought a chan saw.
ĎAnd I make it a point to go forward, so I don't need to see behind me much.í This right here tells me the kind of wheeling you mostly do. If you never use reverse gear you never go into tight spots. And when youíre in tight spots you take all the visibility you can get. Maybe you are, but most off-roaders arenít Jedi nights that can drive the trail blindfolded. Being able to see ground closer to the front of the vehicle over the hood and front corners is a big asset. Taking the doors off and even folding the windshield down further helps the situation. Hell, having the top off helps! Donít worry bud, when Four Wheeler magazine tested the FJC their comment about visibility was ĎI would be nice to see the trail;
The new Wangler has been around for 1 year (keep in mind it shares no components with the 2006 Ė itís an all new design) and it has more aftermarket stuff than the FJC which has been out longer. Not to say there isnít stuff for the FJC, there is, and it desperately needs these goodies to do the tougher trails.
#465 of 542 Re: Wrangler sales double the FJ Cruiser [fourx4ever]
Oct 10, 2007 (10:30 am)
Do you even know ... ???
I do know that illumination is preferable to confrontation.
SUVs and Smart Shopper
#466 of 542 Re: Wrangler sales double the FJ Cruiser [fourx4ever]
Oct 10, 2007 (11:44 am)
Yes, I know what the point of better articulation is. Do you know what the point of stabilizer bars is? Because the Wrangler only get that RTI with the stabilizers disconected. With them connected it's 652 for the '07. The FJ gets 515 with stock height and WITH sway bars to keep it from landing on it's head. With 3" lift you can get 704 and with the solid axle swap you get 1100! But RTI isn't everything now is it? I've seen Rubis roll with seemingly no effort. They go from all four wheels on the ground to rolling in no time. Seems like it doesn't matter if all four wheels on the ground. The point of articulation is to keep all four on the ground not just to keep from tipping over but to get traction. But with the atrac engaged, you don't need all four on the ground to get traction. The Rubi can only do that if it has a front locker. But then you're stuck with having your front end locked. Not the best way to do things in all situations.
Look, the whole point of this thing is that you seem to think that the FJ is only marginally capable and yet the FJ has proven to be FAR more than just marginal. Not, it's not perfect and has it's drawbacks, just like the Rubi does. You prefer the Jepp, I prefer the FJ. We obviously do different things with our vehicles and you have chosen the one that works best for you. I've chosen the one that works best for me. If I were trying to make my way through the woods between tight narrow paths, I would take the Wrangler. But I don't really do that kind of wheeling. I do take it up into some of the forrests here in Oregon and have no problems with the trails here.
So far the FJ has been more than satisfactory for what I want to do. I guess maybe you're more hard core than me. Maybe not. But who cares? I'm having fun with it. I don't think anyone who buys an FJ expects it to do anything it's not capable of doing unless they plan on doing some major mods. I'm really strugling with what the point of this thread is to begin with. Why bother comparing the two when they are very different vehicles meant to aproach off roading in different way? Makes no sense really. But you've been trying to say that the FJ isn't anygood for any of it, and I'm sorry but you're very wrong. The FJ continues to prove that it's very good at what it does and far better than most will give it credit for. But hey, why do I even care what you think of MY truck? YOU don't have to drive it if you don't want. Keep your Jeep in the trees where it belongs so you don't clog the places I like with your wrecked and overturned and stuck Jeeps.
#467 of 542 Re: Wrangler sales double the FJ Cruiser [makaser13]
Oct 10, 2007 (1:54 pm)
Ok First off Ė Four Wheeler tested the FJC at 491 RTI Ė I trust their tests since they have been doing it for about 20 years. 652 (with stock ride height) on the wrangler is noticeably different than 491. Second the OPTION to disc
onnect the sway bar with the push of a button is a HUGE advantage. Sway bars are mainly for cornering and keeping the contact patch of all four wheels on the ground on a SMOOTH surface for best cornering traction.
A-track is nothing new and nothing special, its simply an active limited slip system for the front and back axle that uses the brakes to redirect the torque. GM has been doing this on vehicle for almost 20 years. It does in NO WAY come close to comparing to a locker. Neither A-track or the Lockers will replace a Good RTI. Good RTI means you have more rubber on the ground and you can apply MORE torque if you have more rubber on the ground Ė PERIOD. So it certainly does matter if all four wheels are on the ground Ė to think otherwise is folly!
Any dolt can roll any vehicle just about anywhere, regardless of make or model. And we know that there is no shortage of dolts on the trails!
Second, are we talking about an FJ here or an FJC??? They are not even remotely the same thing!
More than one year ago (before the 2007 Wrangler was out) I said the FJC had an advantage in soft sand because of the torque profile. The Jeepís 4.0L engine, while superior in just about every other off-road situation, did not make the power at the right RPM for soft sand. Now the new Wrangler does well in the soft sand also with the new engine. Plus its superior in many other areas to either the old Wrangler or the FJC. AND you can get it in a more roomie 4 door with decent back seat access and more cargo room than either the 2 dr Wrangler or the FJC. So as far as I can see, unless you love the way the sheet metal is folded on the FJC there it has nothing on the Jeep.
#468 of 542 Re: Wrangler sales double the FJ Cruiser [makaser13]
Oct 10, 2007 (3:59 pm)
Very well put, and I agree with you 100%, however this is pointless. fourx4ever will not accept that the FJC is a solid performer on and off road. In his mind if it is not a rubicon it is not suitable for anything other than a fire road. He will not change his mind.
The rest of us know that both machines will likely cover the same ground with no problems.
#469 of 542 Re: Wrangler sales double the FJ Cruiser [murphydog]
Oct 10, 2007 (4:59 pm)
Yeh, I agree. Oh well. fourx4ever. we'll agree to disagree. At least that's what i've been trying to do. In the end, the proof is in the pudding. I'm sure that even that won't be enough for you. You'll come up with any number of reasons to think that the FJ that just passed you on a trail can't possably be what it is. And I'm sure you'll refuse my assistance when I (or any other FJer) offers to yank you out of some hole somewhere. I personally think the whole rivalry between all the various brands of rigs is pretty stupid and childish. I'm not sure where I read it, but on one of the forums recently, someone made a very good point about this. Why is it that we are infighting when we should be spending the enery we put towards this and put it towards an effort to preserve the access we enjoy to public lands. While we are fighting over IFS vs. solid axles, the Green Party is going behind our backs and legislating our sport away.
Oct 11, 2007 (5:22 am)
You guys are smoking some seriously bad stuff. To say that a vehicle without Lockers, Without, (real) skidplates, without solid axles, and a lame 42:1.0 CR can keep up on any trail with a vehicle that has those things with a 72:1 CR that's also physically smaller: that's being stupid. Get real. You guys are deluded. Bring your knife to a gun fight!
I'm not saying the FJC is totally useless, I'm just saying out of the box it's not even close to being in the same league as a Rubicon. Moreover, a 4Runner has pretty much the same potential as the FJC and it's more practical.
Oct 11, 2007 (5:32 am)
It's not rivalry between brands, its the triumph of reality. The two vehicles don't have the same off-road potential off the show room floor - not even close. The same driver can take the Rubicon places the Toyota would only see hanging from a helicopter.
Regardless of what Toyota's propaganda department (marketing) has told you doesn't change the fact that their design department didn't equip the FJC to do the same things as a Rubicon. Plain and simple! For the future FJCs who knows what they will do.
And yes, I could pour about $15K into an FJC and be close to a stock rubicon, but the physical size wont be any smaller and the visibility won't be any better.
#472 of 542 Re: Wrangler sales double the FJ Cruiser [fourx4ever]
Oct 11, 2007 (8:05 am)
Youíve never Ďdone the rubicon trail, but from what you know itís a pretty good testí????
And what does 'doing' a trail really mean?
I've seen vehicles 'do' a trail. They get stuck half way through an obstacle and get pulled/winched through the rest of the obstacle!
#473 of 542 Re: Wrangler sales double the FJ Cruiser [m6vx]
Oct 11, 2007 (9:34 am)
My point well made. Just because it made it over some trail does not make the FJC or the Jeep Liberty amazing off-roaders. I could probably get a deepfreeze over the Rubcon trail too, does that make it a good off-road machine???