NFRs2000NYC
Adventurer
Basically the JKU is now (sort of) what the landcruiser USED to be. The landcruiser is still an excellent vehicle, but at nearly 90K, it's a bit steep IMHO.
Land Cruiser 100 to Jeep Rubicon Unlimited: Capability? Comfort?
- Thread starter KlausVanWinkle
- Start date
Basically the JKU is now (sort of) what the landcruiser USED to be. The landcruiser is still an excellent vehicle, but at nearly 90K, it's a bit steep IMHO.
KlausVanWinkle
Explorer
Agreed.
But I write for Toyota's ad agency. We help perpetuate that marketing tool....
Thanks for the ideas, everyone. I think the thread has run its course.
Last edited:
Flagster
Expedition Leader
Metcalf for the win!!
I would say this applies to over half the trucks on this site...not just the jeeps...Hey, I want the card table that sits under your roof top rack...sure don't want that card table taking up precious room where your 5 boxes of recovery equipment, 50 gallons of water, fuel, fridge, beer, lamb chops, charcoal, goal zero nuclear reactor...with camp lights...
Best remedy I have found.
One bag for all adventures...what I take backbacking/bikepacking also is what I take in the truck...so much simpler...
And a weekend long trip now takes all of 5 minutes to pack for...
Metcalf
Expedition Leader
Yup. This was how my flat fender was set up for 2000 miles of solo highway and another 300 miles in the back country spring snow over 13 days total....
It was full, but not brimming or stuffed. I could get at everything fairly quickly and efficiently. I was carrying 15 gallons of spare fuel in addition to my tool bag, recovery bag, electric compressor, kitchen box, food box with 5 days of provisions, spare fluids, ham and cb radio, 4+ gallons of water, and a personal gear bag in the front seat. Remember, this was a 13 day trip in a FLAT FENDER! If your complaining about space in anything larger your doing it wrong
Metcalf
Expedition Leader
I was able to get a total weight on everything too. The vehicle fully loaded with me in it, wet, was approx 3550-3600lbs. The vehicle without much of anything in it is approx 2930 ( some misc stuff and a half tank of fuel ). I am just about 200lbs with boots and clothes. So 'cargo' weight was about 350-400lbs including 15 gallons of spare fuel (105lbs), the fuel cans, 30+lbs in water, my tool bag isn't light, etc.
Justincredible
Adventurer
I love my JK, but for expedition travel It's tough to think of anything better than a Land Cruiser.
If I already had one, I'd keep it.
If I already had one, I'd keep it.
Dan Grec
Expedition Leader
I couldn't agree more. I heard of Overlanders that had snapped the frame in their 70's series Troopy, and I traveled with a couple that had blown out multiple shocks on their 110.
I had less stuff in my TJ than quite a few of the motorbike guys I met along the way.
I honestly think one of the major reasons I had zero mechanical problems was because the Jeep was so light.
I won't have a roof rack on any future vehicle, as I think the temptation to "throw (more) stuff up there" is too great.
-Dan
KlausVanWinkle
Explorer
You're welcome? It wasn't my intention for it to become a "What should I buy thread?" But I think I gave too many purchasing decision details for it not to become that.
mikeprince
Member
Consider two kinds of travel:
1) Rubicon, Fordyce, etc.
2) All the other dirt forestry roads, mild 4x4 trails, unmaintained foreign roads, etc. plus all the freeways you'll take to get "there".
For #1 the trails are artificially difficult and should really be run in a rig designed for rock-crawling if you don't want body damage or the opportunity to practice trail-repairs. I've run Fordyce in a mildly lifted and completely locked TJ and the only battle scars were the underarmored portions of my vehicle (gas tank skid was pretty beat up, and my engine oil pan took a hit directly in the drain plug!)
For #2 even a stock Landcruiser will probably be fine, and you will have a much more comfortable ride and have a lot more cargo space.
I have a rock-crawling ready TJ, a 2013 JKUR, and a series-80 landcruiser (LX-450). For a long trip the Landcruiser has my vote for these reasons:
- interior space
- interior comfort; seats, etc.
- build quality/reliability/durability
- fold-down rear gate!
That last point has really started to annoy me. On the 80 series, you can lift up the rear glass while the back is filled with stuff, and even when a bike rack is plugged into the 2" receiver hitch. On the JK you have to open the lower tail gate first meaning you can't pack the back tight. You also dont have the fold down tailgate on the JK, which gives you nice place to sit while you gear up for adventure, or just wait for others.
1) Rubicon, Fordyce, etc.
2) All the other dirt forestry roads, mild 4x4 trails, unmaintained foreign roads, etc. plus all the freeways you'll take to get "there".
For #1 the trails are artificially difficult and should really be run in a rig designed for rock-crawling if you don't want body damage or the opportunity to practice trail-repairs. I've run Fordyce in a mildly lifted and completely locked TJ and the only battle scars were the underarmored portions of my vehicle (gas tank skid was pretty beat up, and my engine oil pan took a hit directly in the drain plug!)
For #2 even a stock Landcruiser will probably be fine, and you will have a much more comfortable ride and have a lot more cargo space.
I have a rock-crawling ready TJ, a 2013 JKUR, and a series-80 landcruiser (LX-450). For a long trip the Landcruiser has my vote for these reasons:
- interior space
- interior comfort; seats, etc.
- build quality/reliability/durability
- fold-down rear gate!
That last point has really started to annoy me. On the 80 series, you can lift up the rear glass while the back is filled with stuff, and even when a bike rack is plugged into the 2" receiver hitch. On the JK you have to open the lower tail gate first meaning you can't pack the back tight. You also dont have the fold down tailgate on the JK, which gives you nice place to sit while you gear up for adventure, or just wait for others.
KlausVanWinkle
Explorer
I test drove a hardtop Sport this weekend (no one had rubicons in stock). Some things I was pleasantly surprised about; exterior size, noise, comfort, power, transmission, steering, etc. Somethings left me missing the 100; cargo room, interior quality, engine refinement. So it's really going to come down to is the unique appeal of a Jeep (stock capability, doorless, topless, aftermarket support) going to be enough to compensate for it's short comings. Cost is a concern but not one I want to discuss. My wife is on board with replacing the 100. And we both agree that the cost will probably be worth the advantages: less time/money spent repairing, increased peace of mind, warranty, better fuel economy, easier to park, fits in most parking decks, less prone to trail damage, improved capability, lighter, improved traction options (sway bar, traction control, LSD, triple lockers), Doorless/topless options, cheaper aftermarket parts, better stock gear ratios, etc.
Details:
It had street tires but, the road noise even at highway speed didn't seem any worse than my 100 with AT tires.
I was surprised at the ride quality. I've only ever driven 2dr Wranglers. The longer wheelbase of the Unlimited really smooths out the bumps. The steering felt way more precise than on other solid front axled trucks I've driven (40, 60, 80 series). There is considerable nose dive and the ride isn't as composed as the 100 was stock. My wife didn't notice a difference, but she never does.
It was hard to judge build quality because it wasn't the nicer Rubicon trim level. But we looked at some Saharas for a comparison. The 100's interior quality is obviously higher even considering it's age. There couldn't possibly be any more black plastic inside the Jeep. I can excuse some of the materials, like the arm rests, door panels, and seat fabrics because they're purposely designed to be water resistant. But the carpeting, door handles and switches are needlessly crappy. I guess this is where they skimp to keep the price down.
The power delivery is a lot different than in the 100. The 100's somewhat underpowered V8 doesn't ever really surge. Power comes on slowly, smoothly and predictably. The Wranglers engine seemed a lot more peaky. Almost reminding me of a VTEC engine. The power seemed adequate and then really gets up and goes when you stomp on it. I wish there was a little more useable torque lower in the rev range.
Front seat room seems about the same. The wrangler was just skinnier on the inside, which I don't mind. The Wrangler dash is much more vertical and the center console much lower, which might be giving the illusion of more space. The belt line on the Wrangler is much higher, which I didn't like. But unlike the 100, there's headroom to spare and you still have a commanding view of the hood and road. The general vibility wasn't as good as the 100 but it's liveable. It is a smaller vehicle so that makes it slightly more excusable.
I drove the test car to my condo to see if it'd fit in the really low subterranean garage door opening. It fit, but just barely. The saleswoman got nervous. The Rubicon is slightly taller and probably wouldn't fit. So I guess my wife gets to keep the garage spot and I'm still stuck out on the street. Which isn't too bad since the bumpers are all flat black plastic and the doors are so far in from the fenders than parallel parking and parking lot dings will probably be far less prevalent than on the 100 that seems to develop a new rear door ding every other day.
Obviously the rear seat and door openings of the wrangler are far less comfortable and smaller. But there still seems like there's plenty of room for a fridge on the folded down 40% section. And enough room for our dog on the 60% section.
Rear cargo room is obviously way less. Currently we try to pack the 100 so that the cargo doesn't come above the middle seat back, as to not block the view out of the rear. This won't be possible in the wrangler. The spare tire and wiper motor block most of the rear view already. This is a concern but we already bring way to much crap and need a better storage solution anyway. We've never dealt with it because the inside of the 100 is enormous. With a shelf, sliding cargo tray and maybe a tailgate basket or small roof rack, the wrangler should be fine even for 5 day trips. That will change when we have kids. We'd probably have to resort to a full roof rack or a Ruger trailer.
Details:
It had street tires but, the road noise even at highway speed didn't seem any worse than my 100 with AT tires.
I was surprised at the ride quality. I've only ever driven 2dr Wranglers. The longer wheelbase of the Unlimited really smooths out the bumps. The steering felt way more precise than on other solid front axled trucks I've driven (40, 60, 80 series). There is considerable nose dive and the ride isn't as composed as the 100 was stock. My wife didn't notice a difference, but she never does.
It was hard to judge build quality because it wasn't the nicer Rubicon trim level. But we looked at some Saharas for a comparison. The 100's interior quality is obviously higher even considering it's age. There couldn't possibly be any more black plastic inside the Jeep. I can excuse some of the materials, like the arm rests, door panels, and seat fabrics because they're purposely designed to be water resistant. But the carpeting, door handles and switches are needlessly crappy. I guess this is where they skimp to keep the price down.
The power delivery is a lot different than in the 100. The 100's somewhat underpowered V8 doesn't ever really surge. Power comes on slowly, smoothly and predictably. The Wranglers engine seemed a lot more peaky. Almost reminding me of a VTEC engine. The power seemed adequate and then really gets up and goes when you stomp on it. I wish there was a little more useable torque lower in the rev range.
Front seat room seems about the same. The wrangler was just skinnier on the inside, which I don't mind. The Wrangler dash is much more vertical and the center console much lower, which might be giving the illusion of more space. The belt line on the Wrangler is much higher, which I didn't like. But unlike the 100, there's headroom to spare and you still have a commanding view of the hood and road. The general vibility wasn't as good as the 100 but it's liveable. It is a smaller vehicle so that makes it slightly more excusable.
I drove the test car to my condo to see if it'd fit in the really low subterranean garage door opening. It fit, but just barely. The saleswoman got nervous. The Rubicon is slightly taller and probably wouldn't fit. So I guess my wife gets to keep the garage spot and I'm still stuck out on the street. Which isn't too bad since the bumpers are all flat black plastic and the doors are so far in from the fenders than parallel parking and parking lot dings will probably be far less prevalent than on the 100 that seems to develop a new rear door ding every other day.
Obviously the rear seat and door openings of the wrangler are far less comfortable and smaller. But there still seems like there's plenty of room for a fridge on the folded down 40% section. And enough room for our dog on the 60% section.
Rear cargo room is obviously way less. Currently we try to pack the 100 so that the cargo doesn't come above the middle seat back, as to not block the view out of the rear. This won't be possible in the wrangler. The spare tire and wiper motor block most of the rear view already. This is a concern but we already bring way to much crap and need a better storage solution anyway. We've never dealt with it because the inside of the 100 is enormous. With a shelf, sliding cargo tray and maybe a tailgate basket or small roof rack, the wrangler should be fine even for 5 day trips. That will change when we have kids. We'd probably have to resort to a full roof rack or a Ruger trailer.
