Hedgehog

A while back my wife had a 1998 Wrangler Sahara with all the toys including the Dana 44 rear with LSD. We only had it for a couple of years but was forced to sell it because it wasn't practical for her job. Well, we are now currently looking at a new 2008 Sahara with tow package, 6speed, dual tops, etc. My questions are:
1) Does the JK retain its value as good as the TJ's do?
2) Are the JK's built as good and rugged as the TJ's?
3) I know on paper the 3.8 V6 looks better, but in the real world, how does it compare to the TJ?
4) I know this is a JK forum but I'm sure most have owned previous Jeeps so, did you like the TJ or the JK better?

glick

I'm not sure there is any really definitive answer as to whether or not the jk's will retain their value as jeeps in the past have, they haven't been on the market that long. I too am curious to see how they do in 5 or 10 years.

As for everything else, this is my first Jeep so I have no opinion one way or the other


Steve

bigwrm

The JK had the highest resale value of ALL vehicles in 2007.

Once you break in the 3.8 its great. You have to rev it higher than the 4.0 but its nice to do 120 kmh on the hwy and not feel like the engine is ready to explode.

I sold my 03 TJ for my JK and think that it is 100 percent better.

CIJeep

I disagree about the diff between the 4L and the 3.8L According to Chrysler Dyno test the 3.8 => depending on the RPM. Might want to checkout the gear packages to see the difference.

CJK

I've only had my JK for a few weeks, still have my CJ, and sold an '05 TJ a few months ago. The 3.8 might show better numbers on paper but where it comes up short by the seat-of-your-pants test is on the highway. It can't hold speed on any hill without kicking down a gear and then it's still struggling. City driving I can't really tell much of a difference between the JK and TJ as far as power etc. Where the JK wins hands down is comfort. The seats are far better and the extra 5" in width means you're not tight up against the doors anymore. The wheelbase of the 4-door really tames the road.

2K's comment on the sheet metal - unfortunate but true. If they make it any thinner you could use it to wrap potatoes.

Now if I want stump-pulling power I climb in the old CJ. You can't beat the old 258 motor especially with a 4.0 head and fuel injection. But the seats suck, it's loud, hot in summer, cold in winter, leaf spring suspension... it's a Jeep in the old-school definition.

magnumbob

Well, I've owned both.
To me the JK generally feels like an under powered slug compared to my '98 TJ 4.0, BUT, the JK will cruise effortlessly at 75+ where the TJ felt like it was working hard at 70.
The difference is that while the TJ had tons of low end, low RPM power, the JK is pretty weak in that department. When I used to find myself chugging along in deep sand with my TJ, I could just mash the pedal and grunt my way out. The JK better be spinning good when you hit the sand or it just poops out. Once you get the rpm's up, it feels pretty close to the 4.0's power output, probably more when you consider the JK's extra weight, but I question the wisdom of putting an engine with these power characteristics in a Jeep. Maybe I just want to have my cake and eat it too. (Low end grunt AND power for the highway.)
Also on the possible negative side for the JK off road is the extra width. I am positive that there are a couple of places that I went with my TJ that I could not have gotten through with my JK, (following 4 wheeler (the little ones) paths through tight Florida pine forest) but since this is primarily my wife's new ride, I can't hardly picture pushing that perfect, new paint through the underbrush, at least for a few years anyway. On the plus side the extra width gives you some appreciated extra shoulder room inside and no doubt adds to cornering stability. Other than the width and power characteristics, I believe the JK to be just as capable off road as the TJ. Note that both of my Jeeps are/were equipped with manual transmissions. I bet I wouldn't feel as strongly about the JK's lack of low end grunt if they were both automatics.
In the end, The 3.8's lack of low end power is about the only real bitch I have.
On the street the JK rides smoother and handles better. Over all the whole Jeep has a tighter feel to it. As I said earlier, it cruises effortlessly at 75mph+ and I would have no problem taking it on a cross country trip where I doubt I would have even considered it with my TJ. It is much quieter both as far as interior noise and engine noise. (the 3.8 is one of the quietest engines I have ever heard. The 4.0 sounded like it was full of marbles).
For an everyday driver there is no comparison, the JK is a much more refined vehicle to drive and much easier to live with. I really wouldn't ever consider going back to a TJ.
Bob Merrill

T Mac

The JK's engine seems smoother, the TJ was better at lower RPM on the trail. JK's bigger, so its smoother on the road but sometimes takes more thought on a trail. My JK is still new and shiny, while I prefer proven. Fortunately, the JK is moving toward proven.

pearl-drum-man

My .02:

1. I think the JK will actually hold value better, especially the Unlimiteds

2. The JK may not look as rugged, but I agree it is definitely stronger underneath, but the thin sheet metal is an annoyance. The JK axles are stronger.

3. Power to weight ratio for the JK and TJ is similar. My TJ definitely felt like it had more pull at lower RPMs, but the 3.8 is more willing to rev. I have 4.10 gears, you will have 3.73's in the options you want. I think 4.10s should be the absolute min, especially in an Unlimited.

4. Much happier with the JK, especially as a DD. And despite being bigger and heavier, with much bigger tires, my fuel economy is 2-3 MPG better than it ever was in my TJ. Off-road I definitely prefer the JK in stock form.

pearl-drum-man

You should notice some improvement after a few thousand miles in the 3.8L, mine doesn't feel as anemic now . If you have the auto then you will learn to use the OD shutoff button frequently, I use it all the time on hills or when getting on the freeway.

saltman

I have owned a 2004 TJ rubicon and currently own a 2007 JK Rubicon due to the TJ getting totaled. I feel like the TJ is a much more sturdy vehicle. The 4.0 is FAR superior to the 3.8 in every way. esp. when mated to the gearing of the 5 speed.

The build quality went down dramatically with the JK. It has numerous fit and finish problems that the TJ did not have. It feels like all the improvements of the JK were geared to on-road ability. The JK is a much better on-road vehicle. All the improvements off-road wise the JK has, such as slightly better axles, were a necessity of the vehicle getting so big and are negated by this fact. I prefer the TJ.

I bet the fact the lifetime warranty is not transferable will hurt the resale value to some degree. Many will steer towards the new vehicle market that previously would have bought used.