Rubicon: What do you think?

If your definition of a Jeep is a rock buggy, then I agree. It _would_ be a waste to start with the setup/cost of a Rubicon. My definition of a Jeep is much different from yours and the Rubicon is a highly capable Jeep right out of the box. I've owned 2 CJ7s, 1 YJ, 2 XJs and the Rubicon is BY FAR the most capable in stock form. Anyone who argues differently has never driven one, or just has sour grapes and believe me there are plenty with the latter. Put a lift and some 33s on and you can do all but the most technical trails, including many in Moab.

Personally, I put hardcore rock climbing, where the Jeep has nothing stock left on it or is a buggy, akin to monster truck pulls. Like you said, to each his own. I might be taking a few bypasses, but I'll be there taking pics.

My reason for repying was the bipolar nature of your statement. Either a mall cruiser or a rock buggy. You are a crawling extremist (or at least consider yourself one) with no tolerance for the bulk of the Jeeping population where the Rubicon shines. As far as 'feeling bad' for owning a Rubicon...what a joke!

Remember E.L., no matter how much money you sink into your rig, there is always going to be a better rig and better driver than you. See you on the trails!

E.L. Lambert wrote:

Have you thought of getting a small utility trailer for the camping gear or (Horrors!) a motor home and a flat bed trailer for the Jeep?

Glad you liked it up here. I love it.

Earle

I've been looking at M100s and M416s since I bought my Sahara in '99. I almost bought a Canadian version recently. The main issue is storage when not in use and, of course, finding one without rust. I'm not ready for a motorhome, but I've considered a flatbed trailer, though my pickup is only rated at 5000# towing cap. :(

Now, my brother has this diesel F250 extra cab......

Earle Hort> Have you thought of getting a small utility trailer for the camping gear or

That's not correct. Heck, my 3.07-geared Sport with 30's and a Trak-lok will go places, easily, that my Nissan 4x4 pickup would never go. Much less a Honda. You are grossly understating the capabilities of even a stock TJ, much less a Rubi.

I think it IS possible to have a dual-purpose Jeep and many people do. They may not be rigs capable of the toughest trails, but that's not really the point. Point is, they are both a fun vehicle to drive on-road AND arguable the most capable vehicle available, stock for stock. Plus most of us don't live where there's that kind of wheeling anyway.

My TJ is going to evolve, funds willing, into a 4.10 geared Jeep with

-jeff

I've had my Rubicon for about 1.5 months now. I love it. I should also say this is my first Wrangler, but I do own a 96 XJ.

I drive it with the doors off, softtop on, and windows out. I drive it daily to work, about 9 miles. Also, I have 2 child car seats in the back for the crumb snatchers. This always gets grins from others at stop lights!

I live in Reno, Nevada and have taken it: Hunter Lake trail, Hensely Pass, over Peavine, Carson-Spooner Lake OHV USFS trail, Pyramid Lake beach sands, Keystone, and various other random local mountains that called us.

The Rubicon is probably not for everyone. It's good for me because:

1. I'm not the best mechanic to do the mods/upgrades myself. It would probably never get done becasue I have project ADD, they never get finished.
2. I can finance it at a very low rate
3. I get a warranty (with mods the engine and tranny should still be honored, fingers crossed)
4. All I need further is a 0 WARN winch and a RE 0-00 lift (depends which I get).

I'm sure someone will point out flaws in my rationalization but it's done. I should also add the Mrs. likes it as well. It is the weekend family car.

Terry

Stock 4cyl Wranglers are _very_ capable off-roaders. Hell, they'll kick the pants off of 98% of all SUV's on the market off-road. I had a link where a stock Wrangler Sport was compared to a Tacoma, Hummer H1 (the big dog), and a Land Rover Discovery. The Sport tied for first with the Tacoma, only because the limited slip didn't grab in time to prevent it from getting stuck once. Far back in 3rd place was the H1 and even further back was the Land Rover. People see images of seriously built rigs and think that's what it takes to go off-road or they believe the hype behind the names like Hummer and Land Rover. My Wrangler has no lift at all, 30" BFG All-Terrain KO's, Dana 30 and 35 axles, limited slip rear and 3.07 gears. It off-roads pretty good for the places I take it. I don't live in the Rocky's and have to crawl over boulders. I live in Cincinnati and mostly see dirt.

Your rig only has to be capable of the terrain you drive on. If that's pavement, then any Wrangler will suffice. If it sees mostly dirt and few obstacles, again, any Wrangler will suffice. If you do hills and need some power, an X or Sport will work well for you. If you want to crawl over rocks and they aren't stupid big, a stock Rubi will work. Now, if you want to crawl up waterfalls, go over huge boulders and really seek out the most serious off-road adventures, you'll need to build to suit. That's not saying that there aren't occasions that on lesser stuff a rig with a lift and 33's wouldn't help out quite a bit, but if you don't need them, don't waste your money.

Or just too uneducated. Most magazines publish the insane rock crawlers because they make for interesting reading. This is less than 5% of off-roading.

I don't think I'd want lockers that aren't selectable for the street. Slippery driving on the street works better with limited slip, IMO, as the Wrangler is already tail-happy enough as-is and don't think I'd like to lose my steering on a slippery surface on the street. Since my Wrangler sees more pavement duty, by far, I opted to run just a limited slip in the back. Yeah, it could use lockers, at times, off-road, but it doesn't see enough of that to justify it.

Stock is indeed quite capable. I seem to remember something about an expedition across the Americas - from North, down Central to South America - that was completed with CJs that had only minor mods.

A stock Volkswagen Beetle went the other way a few years ago. This was on roads rather than trails, but the definition of "road" in certain parts of South America is about the same as our "trail." I read about a guy on a mountain bike going the length of South America too.

Earle

Saw an H2 for the first time on Saturday. Boy is that a strange vehicle. I especially "liked" the plastic bumper with the plastic fold at the corners. I knew it looked like a Tonka toy, but that bumper wasn't up to the Tonka toy standard ! It also looks like the control arms are cast. Anyhow, I cant see many people shelling out $94,800 bucks for one when they could have a Range Rover for less...

Dave Milne, Scotland '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

Must less than 94000.. aren't they? I thought they were like.. $55k

Sorry..

I didn't realize where you were.. :)

Billy

From what I've seen of the adverts, that's the whole idea.

This one was 59,999 quid.. List price is allegedly 65,000 quid, which at todays exchange rate of 1.6073 would make it 104,474 !

-- Dave Milne, Scotland '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

: > Dave Milne, Scotland : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara : >

: >

: :

No Lon, they are so completely different I couldn't imagine anyone making that mistake.. Although I know of only 1 H1 in private hands in the UK, you can see them on the tv every 5 minutes.

Dave Milne, Scotland '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

: >

: >> Dave Milne, Scotland : >> '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara : >>

: >>

: >

: >

Dont think they are sold over here now. The most expensive I could find was

-- Dave Milne, Scotland '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara

: > Dave Milne, Scotland : > '99 TJ 4.0 Sahara : >

: :