Ultimatecarpage.com
> Cars by brand
> United States
> Jeep
> Wrangler Rubicon
 Comments
|
| Jeep Wrangler Rubicon |
| Article | Image gallery (6) | Specifications | User Comments (17) |
|
|
Add your comments on the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon
| Listen to an EXPERT |
| ozexige 7-5-2003 |
My credentials (at the moment) are as follows, '97 man. soft top Wrangler, '73 VW 'S', '69 Bolwell 'Mk 7', '02 Golf 2.0L, '01 Audi TT Roadster, '02 Cherokee 3.7L PLUS '02 Lotus EXIGE. Overweight Americans! - as of May 6th 2003 Australia has the same percentage of overweight people and for all the same reasons, our lives are less stressful physically and more stressful mentally. Australians love to drive and compare their cars for the very same reasons - we can! America has built and is building some of the most beautiful cars ever made, a claim that will never be made of Japanese cars or the Volvo. My Wrangler is stock and I have dragged-off every Japanese 4WD I've managed to stop alongside, including the V8 Lexus. 25% of the cars I've owned in the last 33 years have been 4WD's including 3 Land Rover Disco's (absolute P.O.S.), 5 Jeeps, and one International V8 wagon (another P.O.S.). The Wrangler wins hands down for fun on or off-road - I know - I'm an expert :) |
| Diesel |
| Nick_Off 20-4-2003 |
Black ? You live in a country that only car which have a diesel engine is made in Germany, I?m not counting the new Ford F250-350 diesel engine or the Volvo semi tracks!!! The fact that a tiny little ?Smart? is diesel I suppose speak by it self, but the ?Smart? is not for sale in US because of the ?redneck thinking? 50% of cars in Europe are diesel and is smaller then JEEP. About the off-road check the torture in European Rally Championship. American way of thinking ? ?the bigger ?the better? sucks? anyway personally I think you are far from automotive anything. |
| The Evergreen Off-Roader |
| IBrake4Rainbows 31-10-2002 |
This and the Land Rover Defender are two cars that will never likely be killed of, they both have a unique style that helps shape every soft-roader and yet still have the ability to kick it in the worst terrain. I don't think many of these cars are happy in their usual spots as either cars for designers to cruise in, or the caf�Estrip, eing parked next to the likes of the Audi TT, or the daihatsu Copen. But still, truly a unique automobile. |
| Offroad |
| Veneficus 29-10-2002 |
"The Unimog is an very good offroad truck I live in South Africa and here Diesel engine 4X4's are overall better in the field than Petrol engined. number one engine durability is high 2 diesel engine kan wade through water deeper than petrol ""if you use the correct air intake"" availibility of diesel is beter. power wise petrol has more BHP than diesel but less NM torgue by the way diesel is more economical than petrol i got the same KM per litre ratio on an petrol landrover and an ""Samil 20"" offroad army truck using diesel while the truck was loaded with 2 tons off camping gear and in offroad conditions ""Mozambique"" the Samil went were the Landrover never would. The jeeps are well designed and very funtional but if you use it were there is very little support diesel lasts better""" |
| unimog |
| henk4 16-8-2002 |
If you are really interested in travelling through the roughest terrain try the good old Mercedes Unimog. That will certainly get you anywhere. |
| the king |
| BlackSunshine 15-8-2002 |
Dude, with the exception of the OLD Land Rover's (I think it was called the defender?). There's not anything on the market that can compare to the off road ability of this baby. I'm sorry to hear about the lack of offroading over there. I actually find that rather depressing. The trail to the spot where me and my friend enjoy camping on his ranch is probably more difficult to traverse than most of these offroad schools. These cars arn't built to be economical, they are built to be functional. All the SUV's or what ever you wanna call them that McL99 listed are wanna-be's built for the suburban soccer mom who wants to sit high up and thinks it makes her look good. Most of those arn't ANYTHING I would everconsider actually taking off-road. All though they might do well in the snow. Othat than that... buy a mini-van or a station wagon or something. As for the Land Cruiser... the old one's were awesom... not as good as a jeep, but encreadably capable vehicles. As of right now though I feal that the new Land Cruiser is made more for looks and stature as aposed to ability and durability. Maybe I'm wrong though... but only time will tell. Or they could just give me some gas money and the keys and I'd go find out myself =) |
| economics |
| henk4 15-8-2002 |
In the American market you are fighting an uphill battle if you dare to talk about economics in relation to these type of cars, and as they are in the centre of gravity of the SUV/UV/FWD market this is likely to be the case for a while. |
| A soft roader? |
| McL 99 15-8-2002 |
It can beat the X-Trail, Freelander, Rav 4. But it, like any other 4x4, SUV & Softroader, it has a high center of gravity & it is not economical. |
| toyota |
| henk4 15-8-2002 |
I dont't know much about guarantee periods (I never was inclined to buy such type of car, the only spot you can use it here on special tracks where they provide training how to use it, sounds a bit ridiculous), but I suggest the Toyota Landcruiser might be supplied on generous terms as the Japanese are very convinced about its quality. (Which I can confirm from trips in Afrika and the former Soviet Union). From your statement about the eating attitude I get the impression that the Americans have not yet accepted and are frustrated by the fact that life is very dangerous in itself because it will inevitably allways end in death. The only thing one can do is take care that it does not happen prematurely but that is largely your own responsibility and one cannot allways blame outside factors. |
| 88 |
| BlackSunshine 14-8-2002 |
I didn't realize you were talking about the diesel '88. I was bairly half awake when I read your posting. To be honest I don't know much about it but I am rather enteresting. For the weight thing, yeah, we need to loose weight. I think it has to do with just living in a far too stressful society. Everything gives you cancer, and they you find out they were wrong and it keeps switching back and forth, and the biggest problem (unhealthy diets) get overlooked. $50 sais that we'd have longer life spans inspite of all the cancer causing crap if we'd just eat healthier. As to the diesel coments about not judging it till you try it. I agree with you %100, but a large segment of the Jeep Wranglers customer will still have a stigma about diesels. I like I said before... .that doesn't mean I think it's right, it just means it's a fact of life. And we can scream, argue, and back up any arguments we have... but sadly there's always some one who just doesn't like change. Personally, if you prove to me beyond the shadow of doubt that they can make a deisel as simple (MAJOR ADVANTAGE to this engine), as light, as powerful, as reliable, and as durable (MAJOR ADVANTAGE #2), and hell... I'll be one of the first to get in line. But your still ganna have to proove it to me first... and the best way to do that. Unconditional 75,000 drivetrain waranty with a standard drive train waranty kicking in from 75k to 125k miles. It's extreme, I know, but when you buy a Jeep extreme becomes the ordinary. |
| weight of the Americans |
| henk4 14-8-2002 |
"I was not talking about the weight of American cars, but of Americans. I was again trying to fathom your sense of humour, but obviously it is not very deep. You may have noticed some statistics about the percentage of the population suffering from overweight. Sueing MacDonalds or KFC does not help very much, living in a more healthy way might. Having lighter drivers might compensate for the additional weight of the engine. The way you describe the american attitude about developments on other markets does not sound very receptive to me. Typically the farmer approach ""if we don't know it, we will not try it, certainly if it is not American"" Anyway, I do not think that you can judge on diesel engines before you have actually tried one. I started driving a diesel car in 1985 and I can tell you that developments have taken a quantum leap forward, and it will ultimately be the only alternative left once oil has become unaffordable, as it will run on bio-diesel as well. So better get used to it now. By the way, if the Olds diesel was a huge success as you say, why did they stop making them? I remember the European automotive press being rather positive about it as well. I am aware of some efforts in the USA to reduce fuel consumption, but shutting off part of the engine is as far as I know only available on the Cadillac, which is not your bread and butter car. Mercedes is looking at similar things. """ |
| still the weight |
| BlackSunshine 13-8-2002 |
Your still missing the point, first off. You can't do much slimming on a jeep, it's about as stripped down as it comes, no doors, no roof, no windows except for the front windsheild, it's short, it's narrow, and it has a back seat that fits 1 small adult, or two children. But for off roading, that deisel is still ganna weight down that front end, not good in mud or climbing. Second, stop complaining about the size of american cars, we like things big, we have space. We have a large portion of the north american contenent all to our selves and we like to drive it. We drive long distances at a time and we like lots of room for the trip, unlike many of the roads and streets in europe or towns and Roads were designed with cars and trucks in mind, so they are wider, and longer. You don't like big cars, we don't like small cars, get over it... we're differant. You can conserve just as much gas by using lighter materials, as you can making vehicles smaller. Second, new gas saving technologies are being developed here, like variable displacement engines that shut down certain cylinders at cruising speeds untill required. We're developing several possible alternative fuel sources. Your also forgetting much of the (american) offroading cominuties stigma over deisel engines, I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it's an economic hurtel that's hard to over come, and TO THOSE BUYERS your deisel technology is just as expeiremental as anything else. I speak about the american market so often because that's where over 75% of these vehicles are sold. Hell, the U.S. alone is the single largest car market in the world. and just so ya know, the Olds 88 debuted before the 1980's and was encreadably successful over here. Probably not over there because who cares if we sell many over there when we were selling tons here. |
| no experiments |
| henk4 13-8-2002 |
It is obvious that with a petrol engine you need all these tricks to keep going. Diesel engines have the same reduction gears etc, and if you need to keep it in high HP band, than revs are still mouch lower than for the petrol engine. I guess the popularity of diesel engines here is also a matter of economy. Gas prices are so high that (compared to the USA) that we have been actively looking for alternatives, and as it has turned out, modern diesel technology (direct injection, common rail etc, )has developed so rapidly that the majority of all cars sold in Europe is now fitted with diesel engines. There is nothing experimental about this any more, and may be American technology has stuck since the introduction of a big Oldsmobile passenger car(88?) somewhere in the eighties that was not a huge success, although it was seen occasionally over here. Even your beloved SUV like the M-class and the X-5 have a large share of diesel clients. Just ccheck their specs if you can find them. Have you seen the S-class 400CDI? Real offroaders like the Landcruiser hardly come with gas engines any more, as these cars in a lot of cases have to operate in areas where gas quality is so poor and changeable that diesel becomes mandatory. So prepare yourself for the arrival of the diesel, eventually this is going to be the all conquering engine, even taking into account that it adds some weight to the car. In America this may be compensated by a nation wide slimming campaign, which would certainly more than compensate for this. |
| offroading |
| BlackSunshine 12-8-2002 |
"The problem with high wheel spin is that yes it digs in more. But my put the gear box in 4L you keep the your power band up where you need it while keeping your wheels from spinning too much. I'm not sure about europian offroaders and all. But being from Texas, with a high redneck population (keep in mind that I generally loath rednecks), I have a certain amount of knowledge about ""mudding"" (going apesh-- in a muddy feild in truck or SUV). And while yes... that torque may help you get unstuck... an epeirienced or entelligent off roader can tell you that by using 4Low with higher RPM's up where your power band is (HP not FtLbs) can keep you from getting stuck in the first place. The weight of a deisel wont help that. I've taken all kinds of vehicles all kinds of place, and while I may only be 19 years of age, I started learning how to drive at 6 and could drive well on my own by 12. Most of the expeirience was on ranches (texas remember) where sometimes the mud will kick your @$$. I'm not sure about the reliability of the deisels offered over there nor have I had much expeirience working on deisels of any kind. But I can't you right now, that with some duct-tape, and coat hanger, some chicken wire, and a few tools... you can fix just about anything that goes wrong on this engine at least long enough to get you a place where you can properly repair it. Maybe with the new deisel technology some of this could be remidied... I don't know to be honest. But the cost of changing it just wouldn't be worth it to DaimlerChryzler. One more cost problem is that being such a niche market vehicle, you really have to conform to what your customer base demands. Many of these buyers would be encreadably timid to try a new (and for all entensive purposses expeiramental) engine over the tried and true gas engines. The mental stigma of diesels not being good for offroading is just hard to over come for many people. The thing is that the reasons why go beyond strictly the technology and ability, the cost of the change just isn't worthe the possible benifets to the company.""" |
| high revs? |
| henk4 12-8-2002 |
"I am bit surprised about the high rev remark. Getting caught in the mud or whatever is mostly caused by ""digging in"" through overrevving the engine. A diesel engine, although heavier may give you the low rev torque that you need to prevent that. When I was serving in the army (over 30 years ago) a used to drive an 8 wheel armoured personal carrier, which at that time was the only vehicle fitted with a diesel engine in the army, obviously for a reason. Looking at the figures for the Jeep, developing its maximum torque well over 3000 revs, I think a modern diesel (and the USA indeed is very much lagging behind in disel technolgy) would give about 50% more torque at half the revs. If I had to go into heavy terrain then such an engine would give me much more confidence. That the jeep engine is easy to work on is a bonus, however, this is also said about the Lada engine, which everybody in Russia is able to repair, but that does make it a nice running engine.""" |
| weight |
| BlackSunshine 10-8-2002 |
this thing is built for off roading and a deisel is just too heavy for that. Besides, a deisel can't take the higher RPM's that are sometimes nessacarry when goin off road, ecspecially if you get caught in the mudd or a harsh step. That's why. I know there are a lot of new deisel technologies out right now that MIGHT help, but right now this is a tried and true ingine, in a prooven platform. The price of switching might be too high. The other factor is that the 4.0L in line six that their using might not be the most powerful thing out out there or the most efficient, but I'll tell you this... that thing is one of the most reliable and durrable engine's ever made. A jeep that me and a friend own (we went halfs) has over 220,000 miles. And we have used and abused that thing to measures that no vehicle should be subjected to. One of my favorite things about this engine is how easy to fix it is out on the trail or where ever you are. That's why their not changing it. It's just one of those things that's got so many advatages... and it's such a niche market that it's not really worthe it. |
| OFF-ROAD EATER! |
| Steven 10-8-2002 |
The Wrangler needs the Liberty's engine and transmission. Then maybe the mpg would be better than 15 to 18 mpg. How about a turbo 2 liter diesel. Then the mpg would double. One could tread lightly even farther. With a diesel, the Wrangler could burn Bio-diesel and not pollute the off-road enviroment as much. Bio-diesel is enviromentally friendly too. Bio-diesel is biodegradable. |
| Article | Image gallery (6) | Specifications | User Comments (17) |
| All Cars - Contact us - Privacy Statement - Top | © 1998 - 2026 Ultimatecarpage.com |