clearblue

The Wranger won!! I suspected it would.

4wheeloffroad.com/featuredvehicles/131_1005_toyota_fj_cruiser_vs_jeep_jk_wrangler/index.html

Gravy Jones

It won based moslty on it's offroad performance. For the $8000 premium for the Ruby, it should have. I wonder how the comparison would have gone with a standard Unlimited Sport.

abock33

I agree. They should compare base models. I think the JK would still win but it would be a by a smaller margin. (the tops and doors are what would win it for it).

Offroadme

X 2 Fake Jeep

my friend got an FJ and i told him that he started laughing and said well at least i did not have to do my own floor lining. because the FJ comes with that sweet floor already done. pretty much the only good side to it.

TRAUMAhead

I browse the FJ forums every now and them, and that article came up. The things people say are pretty ridiculous. Then it goes to absolute bias because I own this vs. that. Makes for an interesting read.

JPSquad

Yeah, I really don't care too much for the FJ Cruisers.
The only Toyota I would ever consider owning would be the FJ40.

sm_rubi

Dude now that's just too damn funny!

mscedro2

Trauma...this post, in an FJ forum, is the most unbiased concerning the comparison: Read on

"Re: TOYOTA FJ vs JEEP JK. DEATHMATCH
Well, I must say this is an entertaining thread. I'll have to see if I can talk to Fred at EJS and get the inside scoop on the article. Magazines can be somewhat political sometimes and truth be told editors and writers do have there favorites, but in this case who knows. Fred is a good guy and to me seems to be pretty non-bias. that said I'm actually grateful they did this article becuase the FJ needs some more publicity, hopefully it will increase demand and keep it around longer.

As for the content of the article.... Expedition One has both an FJ and a JK. as far as cost differences. Our JK stickered at $32K with the rubicon package and a hard top. Our FJ stickered at $29K and really needs a sub woofer because the stereo sounds weird without it. so in our case a $3K difference. 4 to 1 low-range, electronic swaybar disconnect, solid front axle w front locker. All things the FJ doesn't have, and would cost a lot more than $3k to put in. Now of course a solid front axle isn't everything and definitely not preferable when it comes to high speed rally stuff, but for low range off-roading its definitely a bonus.

The motor in the JK is a dog. The FJ definitely has more pep to it, but fortunately the JK motor is consistent. weather you've got 32's or 38's you've got pretty much the same power. re-geared or not. Shift point may vary....

with comparable lifts (cost and height) I can squeeze 37's on a JK with minor trimming, and 35's on an FJ with Major trimming and rubbing. With an in expensive addition of spacers adding 1 more inch of lift you can squeeze 38's on a JK. On an FJ at 3.5" your kind of at a point were you lift options go from low cost to big cost. Other aftermarket equipment is relatively equal in cost for both vehicles.

I have personally been up trails with other jeeps, a heavily built FJ-40, and a buggy. Our FJ Cruiser stayed at the bottom. I think our FJ cruiser could have made it, but I've become to old to allow ego to damage one of our vehicles. I'm not into massive dents in the side of our show vehicles.



them are 44" tires. (He still had to winch it but he gave it a few shots).

I would however love to see someone do the trail we did in an FJ, I know it could do it, but I am about 90% sure it would come away dented or broken in some way shape or form. A winch is required.



NOT ME^



Thats pretty much the crux but its the tight spots before and after this part that would worry me with an FJ.

Personally I think they are not really a good vehicle to compare. The purposes in design between the 2 aren't that comparable. If the FJ would have been more like this:



EDIT: Or better yet this:



(anyone else wondering why they didn't just import these?)

I think you would have a more correct comparison. (Not to mention what would rule )

I know of people now that have switched from both FJ to JK and JK to FJ. most of them liking the newer one better. I enjoy driving the FJ better on road and around town, but for me the JK is were its at when it comes to off-roading (and I've decided that Tundra's are about the most comfortable trucks ever).

So in the end I say love your rigs for what they are and what you like about them, and what they do for you personally and don't get to cault up in this type of comparison stuff. Both rigs are great rigs, and both have there quirks and week points, but if its what you love its what you love... Enjoy it... "

James
__________________
www.exp-one.com

I have to agree with James, but one thing I've read about the comparison (in the FJ forum) that says it all, "They comparing apples to oranges again??"

Mark Doiron

I suspect they felt "forced" to use a Rubi so that they could get the 4.10 gears. Not being familiar with the FJ, let me ask: Is there an upgraded model with better off-road performance? Or is the model they selected the best for off-road (or equal to an upgraded model that provides creature comforts, not off-roading improvements)? IOW, does Toyota make a better FJ for off-roading?

JK-Tex

They've sold various "off-road" type packages that are generally just better shocks, tires, and some cosmetic stuff. To my knowledge there has never been an FR (Fake Rubicon).