FJ Cruiser (or Jeep TJ)

[Skrilla]

Anyone know much about the (07) FJ Cruiser, for a camping/year round toy, would these be a better option than a (04-06) Jeep TJ Rubicon? I know the 4.0L is pretty rock solid, and the Rubicon seems like a great platform, but don't know much about the FJ Cruiser.

thoughts?

[Kardon]

I owned a X-runner w/ the 4.0L and I test drove a FJC, I thought the FJC was a really nice truck. It does have its blindspots, but it also has 3 wiper blades (freaking cool). W/ the 4.0L just watch the TOB squeak on standard ones, and check to see if the engine has leaks, as there can be an issue with the timing chain gasket.
Might just be a tacoma issue: http://www.empirepao.com/tsb/T-EG051-07.pdf

I'd think unless you're really in the bush the IFS on the FJC would do fine. FJC feels refined and tight when driving it around town, I think they're nice, it's just a shame that some of the interior is painted to match the exterior :barf:

[KrisYYC]

Isn't there a huge price difference? Especially with the bullshit "It's a Toyota" mark-up?

[Twin_Cam_Turbo]

I have driven both a bit and they both have pluses and minuses. Not a fan of the blindspots and how big the FJ feels, also hate seeing one without a roof rack, it looks dumb. I like the 4.0L in the Rubicon, the manual trans thats available, the compactness, and the locking diffs.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[HuMz]

I would say go with the rubicon....milage sucks on both and you may have a bit more cargo room in the fj, but the rubicon is definetly more capable offroad.

[CanmoreOrLess]

I was watching a video on the weekend, the reviewers were comparing the Jeep YJ (cannot recall the model) and Nissan xTerra (mid level model), the word was the Jeep is better for off road, terrible on the highway and the xTerra was good off road and livable on the highway. Any reason to not consider the Nissan?

I will search around, certain to find the videos in my browser history.

[Kloubek]

MORE capable than a Rubi? Wow... that's some pretty high praise. I knew they were good, but didn't think anything touched a Rubicon. (Except maybe a H1)

The Pentastar engine is a jem and would put the decision over the top for me if we're talking about brand new vehicles... along with the fact the interior of the Wrangler is in a different class than it used to be. However, for the years he is looking at, I'd probably pick a FJ as well.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by CanmoreOrLess
I was watching a video on the weekend, the reviewers were comparing the Jeep YJ (cannot recall the model) and Nissan xTerra (mid level model), the word was the Jeep is better for off road, terrible on the highway and the xTerra was good off road and livable on the highway. Any reason to not consider the Nissan?

I will search around, certain to find the videos in my browser history.

This is exactly how I would sum it up having driven all of the above on and off road. Fj and xterra both have better road manners and are very similar offroad. I may be biased but i like the look of the x terra better and the comfort level.

The rubicon isn't as nice on the highway but its 100% more capable offroad than the other two given the front and rear locking diffs and SA in the front.

[CanmoreOrLess]

Found it, cannot use SHARE on youTube for some reason:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okh3LJgDjMU&feature=plcp&context=C4f51ef4VDvjVQa1PpcFOs8ctaQOqXfa5CMSexoMw1fnYQcL3fXcc%3D

[CanmoreOrLess]

Edmunds had a 2007 Wrangler fro 20,000 miles, their longterm results:

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/PastVehicles/2007JeepWranglerSaharaUnlimited/

Currently they have a 2012, bought bone stock and slowly altering it into a rather interesting off road project.

http://blogs.insideline.com/roadtests/Vehicles/2012-jeep-wrangler/

[tch7]

Unless you're doing serious off-roading and not much normal driving with it, FJ is the more livable option of the two.

FJ: The performance is pretty good on and off road. Definitely better on the highway and for normal everyday driving. Visibility is poor, feels big, and the interior is pretty blah.

TJ: Fun off road with better visibility. Gutless (the 2011 I rented a few months ago maxed out at 120km/h on the highway...) with horrendous fuel efficiency. Cheap uncomfortable interior. Brand new ones with the Pentastar are the only ones I'd even begin to consider.

[Unknown303]

You guys are missing that he's talking about a TJ Rubicon here.

For me I'd say go for the FJ, overall it's probably going to suit your needs better. YJs TJs JKs they are all offroad first, then oh right people will want to drive these on the road.

The TJ (As in Wrangler from 1997-2006) interiors are just terrible, they could be the worst interior ever in a vehicle, they are loud, and uncomfortable on the road, but get them on a trail and they are virtually unstoppable (in Rubicon form). JKs now are a little heavier, probably more comparable to a FJ really. They have nicer interiors than a TJ (See what I did there) and comparable power?!? While people shit talk the 3.8 it still had just as much power as the 4L, and there are a million dynos to prove that.

I just got rid of my 2007 Rubicon (AKA a JK) and it was because as I built it up it just became a horrible vehicle to drive around the city, You feel every crack in the road like your jumping a curb. If you are looking for a year round vehicle that you'll enjoy on the road as much as off the road then your probably looking at the FJ. Blind spots are manageable with proverly setup mirrors in my opinion so if that's the only bad thing they have going for them I'd pick one up.

Mind you if you want to spend more money you can go to a new Jeep still called JKs that have the new pentastar, and it's supposed to just be the best damn little engine to ever go in a Jeep from factory.