2012 Wrangler...IT'S OFFICIAL!
- Thread starter Thai
- Start date
Thai
Elite Member
BucknutBob
New member
When it comes to Jeeps, I'm definitely old-school--I like the CJ-7 with factory hardtop. Never worried about massive power--I thought the 258 inline 6 was a great little engine for what I asked of it (I've had two, back in the 90's). I definitely agree with the auto tranny when wheeling, particularly on rocks--with a manual, it's either keep moving forward, push in clutch (not good), or stall. With an auto, you can stop, roll backward some, and pop the gas a little harder to hop over ledges and rocks, all with one foot in one smooth motion. I absolutely prefer stick on the pavement, though--I drive much smoother when I'm in charge of the gears, without all the lurching and hunting of an auto.
I also agree that I drive smoother when in a Jeep manual. However, the Jeep is not really my daily driver and when off-road, I'd rather enjoy the scenery and focus on obstacles and insane switchbacks instead of worrying about my gears. It is certainly more purist and fun, but sucks in traffic (we sometimes have bad traffic going/coming from the ski slopes) and I prefer auto when off-road.
So I have not had a chance gun it or really test it that way. Here are my initial thoughts.
Noise- it is NOT a quiet vehicle like the 4R. It is not designed to be, unfortunately. The 4Runner is much quieter and composed on the road. However, the Jeep comes into its own on the trails (two hrs on trails). Its short wheelbase and higher stance will help it get through stuff easier. The Rubi has lockers and an electronic swaybar disconnect too.
Power- it is a lot faster than the 2011 Rubi and has a lot of HP (~285) but I have not truly tested the power on the highway. It moves quickly enough and I suspect is a bit slower than the V8 4R. This thing feels like it will go anywhere offroad. It can also ford 30 inches of water. It probably compares more to the FJ and the XTerra but is even more basic and crude in how it drives on pavement. I personally feel it compares more to real Jeep-type vehicles like the Defender, old Toyotas, etc….but more refined and powerful.
Lastly, it turns heads, and the Jeep community is KrAzy fun, from what I hear...lots of trips and wkn events, especially where I live.
Noise- it is NOT a quiet vehicle like the 4R. It is not designed to be, unfortunately. The 4Runner is much quieter and composed on the road. However, the Jeep comes into its own on the trails (two hrs on trails). Its short wheelbase and higher stance will help it get through stuff easier. The Rubi has lockers and an electronic swaybar disconnect too.
Power- it is a lot faster than the 2011 Rubi and has a lot of HP (~285) but I have not truly tested the power on the highway. It moves quickly enough and I suspect is a bit slower than the V8 4R. This thing feels like it will go anywhere offroad. It can also ford 30 inches of water. It probably compares more to the FJ and the XTerra but is even more basic and crude in how it drives on pavement. I personally feel it compares more to real Jeep-type vehicles like the Defender, old Toyotas, etc….but more refined and powerful.
Lastly, it turns heads, and the Jeep community is KrAzy fun, from what I hear...lots of trips and wkn events, especially where I live.
this. i have always been amazed that they can sell something with so little room and get such low milage. go with a suzuki sidekick if you have to have a brick with a tent. the fact that you cant even comfortably fit two people and their gear inside of the thing, much less 4, or god forbid want a -real- woofer in there. dont get me wrong, ive had cars like that, but they either got over 50mpg or were fast as **** and still got 30mpg.
where i used to work a guy moved out from georgia, and drove out cross country in his wrangler on 35's. he told me he could barely fit his essentials in there for the long term move, and that he got *8MPG* on the trip out!!!! thats insane.
sorry to any wrangler owners, but all is ee is the worst of all worlds with that thing. no room, some of the worst milage in the industry, piss poor reliability, and they take less risks styling wise than even porsche does. an H2 gets 9-11mpg even, how the hell can something so much lighter and smaller get pretty much the same milage???? mind bogglingly bad engineering. and as you said Thai, expensive at that too!!! just cause it gets 21mpg rolling downhill in neutral doesnt mean it gets the same as the 4runner. ill take the milage, and room for several other people, and their gear, and my dog and a woofer, and reliability, and looks of the 4runner thanks. lol!
Last edited:
Thai
Elite Member
Remember, with the Wrangler, it comes in two flavors...short wheelbase and long wheelbase. The LWB version can carry TONS of stuff! In fact, it probably rivals that of the 4runner in terms of cargo hold!! Go see for yourself! The LWB can easily hold 4 people...rear legroom is around 35 or so. Sure, it is not as comfortable as the 4runner...but the Wrangler is not advertised as a cross-country SUV, even tho some use it as such. It is primarily an off-roader that is streetable. Think Porsche GT3 or something like that...a racecar that is streetable. The good thing is that the Wrangler is more affordable than GT3!
The SWB, my favorite, is for the more hardcore off-roaders who want clearances and compactness in an off-roader/weekend car. The LWB is for those with other priorities in life.
As for mileage, lets use EPA since it is something that we can compare across the board scientifically. The current Wrangler EPA is no worst than the 4runner. It weighs almost as much as the 4runner too because of its thick frame and solid axles. It has poor aerodynamics because it is such a classic design AND the design itself serves a purpose off-road. Until this year, you could not get a decent automatic tranny.
Now, do you need 35" tires to make it capable? Hell no. A stock Wrangler Rubicon (LWB or SWB) will run circles around a Hummer H2/3!! In fact, there was a video of a Rubicon driving BACKWARDS up a hill while the H2 was scrambling for traction (going forward of course)! A stock Rubicon will molest any stock 4runner off-road...even if the 4runner has proper tires. IMO, a stock Rubicon is the MOST capable stock production vehicle on the planet, bar none (including Defender). (Unimog etc. don't count.) Remind me, is the Hummer still in production? Is the Wrangler still? Despite the flaws, the Wrangler is still selling well.
Rubicon buys you: Dana 44 hybrid axles, super strong lockers (top even among aftermarket stuff), 4:1 transfer case, 32" BFG MT tires, sway bar disco's, etc.. I am sure that i am forgetting something but you get the picture.
So, isn't it nice to have THIS much off-road capability AND still get 21 mpg on the highway with regular gas?? I think so. It just depends on your point of view. If you're used to a grocery getter, then yeah, the Rubicon makes no sense. But, if you're into off-roading, then the Rubicon can be very delicious...dare i say efficient!!
But yeah, like ANY vehicle, if you modify it OUTSIDE factory specs, then expect to get penalized for it. If you put 35" tires on any SUV, then your mileage will suck, esp. if you don't fix the gearing! (I am pretty sure your cross-country friend didn't adjust the gearing etc. for his 8 mpg Jeep!)
Lets talk about reliability. Sure, it is no Toyota, but it ain't a typical Chrysler either. Jeep Wrangler has always had half decent reliability. But, since it is so popular, it can also be fix at numerous independent shops...and the parts of it are relatively cheap. What sets the Wrangler from any other Jeep products is its RESALE VALUE. I would bet that it rivals (or even beat) that of the 4runner! You won't have trouble selling it at a decent price.
Call me a fanboy if you want to...but, yeah, i like Wranglers!
Last edited:
I am thinking of differentiating my Rubi even more than the 4runner by putting small lift on it and running 33s or 34s. It is fun to drive and get a lot of looks (esp from women, I am noticing). Mine is a 2-door, so it has little overlap with the 4runner, in my opinion.
I also realized that my tires being at 37 psi made it ride too rough. That is a ridiculous recommendation by Chrysler...for mpg purposes. I aired it down to 32s and it is very comfortable now. Being M/T tires, they are louder than my 4R with the RF10s. But with the tires now at 32, it rides very similarly (in how it takes bumps/cracks/etc.) to my 4R with the FJ TRD suspension on. However, the stock Rubi has a pretty compliant ride, I have heard. Some find it too soft even. It was the 37 psi that was just too high. Eventually, I will probably put Duratracs on (33s at least). It does climb stuff like a monkey and with the electronic swaybar disconnects, it will crawl up things with excellent traction.
The one downside of live axles and a super-short wheelbase....watch out for twisty washboard mountain roads. Ask me how I know.:jaw drop:
Not getting rid of my 4Runner though- love it too much. However, I will be taking the Rubicon offroading this Sunday. Some local 4x4 club guys are making a run this Sun, and have asked me to tag along.
I also realized that my tires being at 37 psi made it ride too rough. That is a ridiculous recommendation by Chrysler...for mpg purposes. I aired it down to 32s and it is very comfortable now. Being M/T tires, they are louder than my 4R with the RF10s. But with the tires now at 32, it rides very similarly (in how it takes bumps/cracks/etc.) to my 4R with the FJ TRD suspension on. However, the stock Rubi has a pretty compliant ride, I have heard. Some find it too soft even. It was the 37 psi that was just too high. Eventually, I will probably put Duratracs on (33s at least). It does climb stuff like a monkey and with the electronic swaybar disconnects, it will crawl up things with excellent traction.
The one downside of live axles and a super-short wheelbase....watch out for twisty washboard mountain roads. Ask me how I know.:jaw drop:
Not getting rid of my 4Runner though- love it too much. However, I will be taking the Rubicon offroading this Sunday. Some local 4x4 club guys are making a run this Sun, and have asked me to tag along.
Remember, with the Wrangler, it comes in two flavors...short wheelbase and long wheelbase. The LWB version can carry TONS of stuff! In fact, it probably rivals that of the 4runner in terms of cargo hold!! Go see for yourself! The LWB can easily hold 4 people...rear legroom is around 35 or so. Sure, it is not as comfortable as the 4runner...but the Wrangler is not advertised as a cross-country SUV, even tho some use it as such. It is primarily an off-roader that is streetable. Think Porsche GT3 or something like that...a racecar that is streetable. The good thing is that the Wrangler is more affordable than GT3!
The SWB, my favorite, is for the more hardcore off-roaders who want clearances and compactness in an off-roader/weekend car. The LWB is for those with other priorities in life.
As for mileage, lets use EPA since it is something that we can compare across the board scientifically. The current Wrangler EPA is no worst than the 4runner. It weighs almost as much as the 4runner too because of its thick frame and solid axles. It has poor aerodynamics because it is such a classic design AND the design itself serves a purpose off-road. Until this year, you could not get a decent automatic tranny.
Now, do you need 35" tires to make it capable? Hell no. A stock Wrangler Rubicon (LWB or SWB) will run circles around a Hummer H2/3!! In fact, there was a video of a Rubicon driving BACKWARDS up a hill while the H2 was scrambling for traction (going forward of course)! A stock Rubicon will molest any stock 4runner off-road...even if the 4runner has proper tires. IMO, a stock Rubicon is the MOST capable stock production vehicle on the planet, bar none (including Defender). (Unimog etc. don't count.) Remind me, is the Hummer still in production? Is the Wrangler still? Despite the flaws, the Wrangler is still selling well.
Rubicon buys you: Dana 44 hybrid axles, super strong lockers (top even among aftermarket stuff), 4:1 transfer case, 32" BFG MT tires, sway bar disco's, etc.. I am sure that i am forgetting something but you get the picture.
So, isn't it nice to have THIS much off-road capability AND still get 21 mpg on the highway with regular gas?? I think so. It just depends on your point of view. If you're used to a grocery getter, then yeah, the Rubicon makes no sense. But, if you're into off-roading, then the Rubicon can be very delicious...dare i say efficient!!
But yeah, like ANY vehicle, if you modify it OUTSIDE factory specs, then expect to get penalized for it. If you put 35" tires on any SUV, then your mileage will suck, esp. if you don't fix the gearing! (I am pretty sure your cross-country friend didn't adjust the gearing etc. for his 8 mpg Jeep!)
Lets talk about reliability. Sure, it is no Toyota, but it ain't a typical Chrysler either. Jeep Wrangler has always had half decent reliability. But, since it is so popular, it can also be fix at numerous independent shops...and the parts of it are relatively cheap. What sets the Wrangler from any other Jeep products is its RESALE VALUE. I would bet that it rivals (or even beat) that of the 4runner! You won't have trouble selling it at a decent price.
Call me a fanboy if you want to...but, yeah, i like Wranglers!
you have some good points, and i agree jeep is getting a little bit better. a little bit.
but keep in mind, the lwb version is a new thing, and so is any type of efficiency. its taken them -decades- to finally do that. all the other wranglers of the past, swb only and 14mpg if you are lucky and dont mod anything is the norm. if we compare say a 96 wrangler with a 96 4runner, well there is no comparison in 9 out of 10 categories. it -might- win in the tenth, if it can make it there without some issue, and if the owner can afford to gas up 50% more often. which is another problem with space being at a premium in them; when actually taking a real wheeling trip in old wranglers, you need twice as many gas cans!
the main thing that really gets me about jeep is the price. jeep was supposed to be a reliable and cheap vehicle to get the job done. its grown quite distant from that i feel. i used to have an 84 comanche truck, i loved it, and it actually got 25mpg with the old school 4 banger. it was simple inside and out like it should be. i think people wanna have their cake and eat it to nowadays.
also, i have to say, wth is up with the huge 3-4 inch gap between the front bumper and the body that comes stock on all the new wranglers???? seriously though. they look like someone did a 4 inch body lift with out adapting the bumper to match. wind hitting tires=crap milage. they might be able to get more mpg if they resolved some of the glaring defects like this i would think. theres so just many logistical problems even when you look at it not moving that i just cant get past personally to even worry about the off roady-ness of it. if im gonna pay $40k for something i still want it to at least look halfway decent, regardless of how capable it is. i dont want to see design flaws that i could have fixed with 10 seconds of forethought. theres enough tech and brains out there today that sacrificing form for function on that level is really not helpful anymore.
Last edited:
Thai
Elite Member
Well, this thread IS about the 2012 Wranglers, not past generations.
Jeep never felt needed to update the design for fuel efficiency when gas was cheap and people were buying Wranglers left and right. In addition, back then, safety requirements were much more lax. Again, you're comparing a Wrangler to a 4runner-type vehicle. Jeep never claimed that the Wrangler is a family SUV nor a cross-country car. AC used to be a plug-in option!I wonder if the gap is for safety reasons (frontal crash)?? In addition, don't forget, the Wrangler crowd loves to modify...and those fenders etc. come off. So, the gap could give owners room to modify or change the body. In addition, why change an iconic design??? Why do you want the Wrangler to become a soccer mom SUV?? Next thing, i see that you you will ask Jeep to use IFS or unibody to be even better on-road and better on efficiency.
In other words, you want Jeep to sissify the Wrangler like what Land Rover is doing to the Defender!! 
And even with all the "design flaws", the 2012 Wranglers achieve same fuel economy as the 4runner and multitudes of other body-on-frame SUVs (FJ, Xterra, etc.).
Last edited:
Thai
Elite Member
Why?!! The BFG MT on the Rubicon is specially made for the Rubicon to be better on-road than the BFG MT that you buy at Discount Tires. They are very good tires! It is like a MT tire with some AT design in it for all-season travels. It will kill the Duratracs off-road...and much more durable too!
Well, the lift I'm going to put on will require new and bigger tires. The good ones I am hearing about are the KM2 (that I have) and the GY MT Kevlar, among a few others. However, they don't do very well in the packed snow that we get if wheeling in the winter. Most of the trails have packed snow or poweder. The KM2s have received pretty poor reviews in that type of terrain and it freaks me out a bit since we will be alone sometimes out there in the backcountry this winter. The Duratracs do much better in the packed snow. Maybe what I will do is switch to the Duratracs on some steelies in the winter and use the KM2 or GY MT Kevlars the rest of the year.
I agree that the Duratracs cannot keep up with the MTs offroad and have weaker sidewalls as well. The KM2s I have on now have excellent traction. You do make an excellent point.
I agree that the Duratracs cannot keep up with the MTs offroad and have weaker sidewalls as well. The KM2s I have on now have excellent traction. You do make an excellent point.
Well, this thread IS about the 2012 Wranglers, not past generations.
I wonder if the gap is for safety reasons (frontal crash)?? In addition, don't forget, the Wrangler crowd loves to modify...and those fenders etc. come off. So, the gap could give owners room to modify or change the body. In addition, why change an iconic design??? Why do you want the Wrangler to become a soccer mom SUV?? Next thing, i see that you you will ask Jeep to use IFS or unibody to be even better on-road and better on efficiency.
And even with all the "design flaws", the 2012 Wranglers achieve same fuel economy as the 4runner and multitudes of other body-on-frame SUVs (FJ, Xterra, etc.).
true, it is just a different beast altogether. and i do honestly like the rubicon since it is such a real machine. in the way that i also like the ford raptor. which isnt a bad way at all.
but no argument will change my mind that it looks bad to have a 4 inch gap. thing is, its a gap under the front grill too, not just the fenders. i like that theres so many fenders readily available. and trust me, it did cross my mind that they didnt want to put a tube bumper from the factory, so they just made the stock one look so terrible that people will likely upgrade to an off road bumper, even if only for aesthetic value, lol!
I am not sure what 4" gap is causing you heartburn but the bumpers are pretty useless from an impact perspective. Most JK buyers will never use them offroad and Chrysler (or Toyota) cannot design them better that the aftermarket so true offroaders will replace them anyway. They are mostly plastic and weigh ~40 lbs. Some guys simply attach a winch through a cut-out and call it a day but both bumpers are mostly flimsy plastic. If it was a decent-enough one, I'd have kept it but the ROI would be too low for Chrysler when there is a huge aftermarket out there. Given how just Jeeps are selling, I assume Chyrsler is starting to do well.
They have tried to make this new JK more palatable to soccer moms and dads. I don't have a lot of fancy stuff (though I have bluetooth and a nice 7-speaker stereo and pwr locks/windows) but they try to pack it in as much as they can. It is typical Chrysler stuff- some hard plastic, some fake chrome, etc.
I do wish it came in a lighter interior- tan, for example. All I'd ask for was a lighter interior and an inch more clearance to begin with. Oh, thicker paint too. That way, I could pop on 33s/34s and never even lift it. I have been driving it more and more, just to break it in well. The FJ was my other choice but the Rubi won out due to how it is set up stock. If the FJ had front and rear lockers and electronic sway disconnects and for what I paid, I may have bought it instead.
These sell incredibly well for Chrysler (12,000-14,500 units per month) so they can get away with not doing too much to them, I guess. I am not sure how many FJs are sold but back in 2010 and maybe even 2011, they were moving around 2,000 a month...sometimes barely hitting 1,500.
They have tried to make this new JK more palatable to soccer moms and dads. I don't have a lot of fancy stuff (though I have bluetooth and a nice 7-speaker stereo and pwr locks/windows) but they try to pack it in as much as they can. It is typical Chrysler stuff- some hard plastic, some fake chrome, etc.
I do wish it came in a lighter interior- tan, for example. All I'd ask for was a lighter interior and an inch more clearance to begin with. Oh, thicker paint too. That way, I could pop on 33s/34s and never even lift it. I have been driving it more and more, just to break it in well. The FJ was my other choice but the Rubi won out due to how it is set up stock. If the FJ had front and rear lockers and electronic sway disconnects and for what I paid, I may have bought it instead.
These sell incredibly well for Chrysler (12,000-14,500 units per month) so they can get away with not doing too much to them, I guess. I am not sure how many FJs are sold but back in 2010 and maybe even 2011, they were moving around 2,000 a month...sometimes barely hitting 1,500.
