If my memory is correct C.R. has always rated the wrangler as being low. They hated the TJ I believe. Look how awesome the TJ is/was. C.R. should stick to appliances and what not. Leave the cars to magazines who know about them and what the target demographic is.

 

I have to disagree. Alot of their complaints are things alot of people (current JK owners) can live with, or don't find it as a downfall (ex. visibility IMO is great, fuel economy is average to the competition). When a person first drives the JK, then they can come up with their own opinions/critics for it, but I don't think it's rigth that this magazine is making their own assumptions thinking everybody feels the same. They have to realize that there's different target audiences for different vehicles and not throw them all in the same category. If you want a smooth, painfully dull ride with great fuel economy, go buy yourself a 4cyl camry, but don't even try to go through even a foot of snow. I'm just saying, the wrangler is a vehicle built for those who can live with it and appreciate what it's capable of. It's not meant to do the same as your grandma's cady (btw, my grandma drives a TJ )

 

Are you serious?

Really? This isn't a joke?

This just PROVES the saying... "Its a Jeep Think, you wouldn't understand!"

 

Are you serious????

 

I see where they are coming from. But CR needs to make a point that while you give up comfort, handling and what have you, the JK is still a great vehicle. It bugs me that they don't even mention things like it being the only 4 door convertible, and they don't take poor weather performance into the equation at all. In context the score doesn't bother me. It should make us all feel supiriour because we can live with a vehicle that scored 17!

I think the reason why reliablity is mentioned for the FJ, but not included in the score is because of the very reason that they don't know for sure that issues the the body rip mentioned earlier would happen. They tell you it's going to be reliable because it's Toyota, but they arn't evil enough to put it in the score. I think that would be a bigger insult.

 

Although I think the article is irrelevant, there are some key notes on engineering issues. I would've thrown leaks into the equation, but Im just biased.

 

Hey those cup holders are the only reason I bought my Rubicon.

 

Same here

 

I'm glad the JK got such a poor rating. The majority of people that use consumer reports as their bible for buying a vehicle shouldn't be in a JK anyway. Maybe keeping a lot of the soccer moms away will keep Chrysler from dumbing down the Wrangler in future years to fit a larger population. Keep in mind, for being rated a "17" it's still one of the best selling vehicles you can buy, as well as one of the highest rated vehicles for re-sale value.
The main gripe I have is the catagory they placed it in. It's a joke. Hell, my refrigerator can't make a decent piece of toast, but that doesn't mean it's not good at DOING WHAT IT WAS BUILT TO DO!

 

This is the problem with not only Consumer Reports but the automotive media as a whole. They have some very unrealistic expectations. They want every vehicle on the road to be as fast as a Corvette, handle like a Porsche, off road like an Abrams Tank, have an interior akin to Rolls Royce, ride like a Caddy and be as reliable as a Honda. It's just not realistic.

I could see complaining about a Jeep Wrangler if it had serious reliability issues. If your Wrangler refuses to start or just has mechanical failures under normal conditions then ok, let's complain about it. But complaining about the ride in a vehicle with solid axles that is designed to traverse rugged terrain and does so quite well is just moronic, I don't care if you're looking at it from the "everyday joe" point of view. If the everyday joe gets into a Jeep and doesn't understand that the ride is the way it is because of what the vehicle is designed to do than everyday joe has no business buying the Jeep. It is not a fault or a shortcoming of the Jeep!! The fault and shortcoming lies with the idiot that apparently doesn't understand he's not buying a Yukon Denali.

Complaining about the gas mileage that a Wrangler gets is also moronic. First of all it's not getting any worse mileage than anything else in this segment, and better than some. I personally think this just demonstrates the ant-domestic vehicle mind set that seems to permeate the industry. You don't see them bitching about about the Tacoma or the Land Crusier for getting dismal fuel economy. A Jeep is a heavy vehicle with very little in the way of aerodynamics. Basically it's shaped like a square block. You aren't going to get good mileage out of that with a gas burning engine. If you don't understand that going in, again, it's not the Jeeps fault.

Complaining about the noise in a vehicle with a removeable soft top has to be the king daddy of moronic. Gee I wonder why a vehicle with a cloth top and big beefy off road tires has a lot of noise?

Front seat comfort is a matter of personal opinion. I personally found the front seats to be just fine in the comfort category. Maybe they had some 400 pound tub-a-lard testing the Wrangler I don't know.

Fit and finish? Hello? It's not a Bentley. The fit and finish of a JK compared to jeeps from just 10 or 12 years ago is quite good. Again, it's an interior that is designed to get wet, muddy, nasty or otherwise be exposed to things that would destroy a normal car interior. For that you need basic rugged materials, not soft leather and fine fabrics. Get a clue.

They need to learn how to rate a vehicle for what it is and what it's designed to do. Not so that it meets the least common denominator parameters. That's when we end up with some sissified Jeep that won't be worth a crap.