The only thing I’d be willing to compare the new Wrangler to is a 40 Series.
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.
I agree, two very different vehicles. I would say that both are high quality machines and, at least in my limited experience, both are very reliable and excel for the purpose they were built.
If I could have my cake and eat it, I would have both!
I resisted reading the article and commenting because this thread quickly devolved into fanboy-ism and Jeep bashing, but I finally read it and couldn't believe how clueless these authors were. They had absolutely no idea what they were doing and don't have any off road skills which became abundantly clear within the first statement saying the dude almost went over a cliff because he was (didn't admit but I'd bet money) driving too fast, didn't air down, didn't understand the driving dynamics of a front/rear solid axle vehicle and didn't understand how to drive off road. They also were reluctant to use things like 4 low, lockers, etc. likely because they didn't understand them, and they bashed the Lexus for not being refined enough LOL. "The LX made it up the trail, but it left us wanting for more refinement." That's cute.
As a JK owner (and an 80 owner), i can say the JK is an over-achiever being compared to a Land Cruiser and a G-wagon. I understand comparing it to a 4Runner, but an LC?! It's quite a compliment.
Mine has been proven reliable so far. But i have mechanical empathy which is somewhat a foreign concept to a lot of Jeep rock-crawler types, but hey to each their own. As much as I like to challenge myself and my truck, i prefer to be able to drive my family home.
Markuson
SILVER Star
Jeep’s are not crap.
I’m just not confident in their basic reliability when pushed hard as I am with the LC. The cliche about LCs being mechanically built like a tank...is true.
As for the land rover? My next-door neighbor paid $115,000 for a V-6 version several weeks ago. It’s already been to the shop three times. The first time was because they discovered that no one ever bothered to put refrigerant into the air conditioning system. I mean like… None! Zilch. How that could possibly escape a basic inspection is beyond me… And points to a pretty alarming portrait of basic roll-out quality control.
Edit:
Just found out that they leased it. But the new price would have been $115k. Whew!
I’m just not confident in their basic reliability when pushed hard as I am with the LC. The cliche about LCs being mechanically built like a tank...is true.
As for the land rover? My next-door neighbor paid $115,000 for a V-6 version several weeks ago. It’s already been to the shop three times. The first time was because they discovered that no one ever bothered to put refrigerant into the air conditioning system. I mean like… None! Zilch. How that could possibly escape a basic inspection is beyond me… And points to a pretty alarming portrait of basic roll-out quality control.
Edit:
Just found out that they leased it. But the new price would have been $115k. Whew!
Last edited:
FWIW, they do mention that the reviewers’ outdoor experience varies from none to fairly experienced. I take the article with a grain of salt as any “best” comparison is going to be subjective. I’ve driven 3 out of 4 of the vehicles compared and they are all great, just depends on intended use. I’ve had a few mechanical issues with my Land Cruiser so don’t buy into mythical reliability and not a fanboy blinded by loyalty, but for my use (mild off-road, light towing, and road tripping up and down the west coast), the LC is my favorite, and as you say, built like a tank. With minimal modification can become a powerful off-road beast.
Markuson
SILVER Star
To me, the difference isn’t between quality and poop. -More about differing levels of strength, quality control, and justified confidence in reliability.
After years of various levels wheeling as a passenger or driver, including anywheee from light stuff to heavy winter backpacking stuff in Jeeps...and multiple friends and family with Jeeps over a span of 35 years (since I was a teenager)...Jeeps have shown a consistent tendency for various failures on the trail when pushed hard. Also numerous times when NOT being pushed hard. Reliability data reflects a significant discrepancy that is not anyone’s bias or imagination. Again...Jeeps are capable wheelers and certainly not “crap,” but I think we’re really talking two different leagues.
As you say, LCs aren’t without known issues. But the routine, expected failures on the 100 and 200 series (radiator around 8 years, water pump & starter) are really predictable. What I don’t see in LCs are the kinds of steering, drive-train/engine failures on any significant scale beyond those three predictable ones above.
I do feel it’s enough to fairly develop a basis for separation between brands that has nothing to do with bashing or blind faith. Toyota’s reliability is widely known and statistically documented—and the LC is built to a strength standard that just isn’t matched. Does that mean it’s fair to trash the others? No. But I think it’s very fair to point out that you don’t have to be a fan-boy to appreciate that there is a significant difference.
Frankly, if the LC somehow lost its well-earned reputation for rugged strength on top of predictable reliability...most here wouldn’t drive one—because it wouldn’t make sense to drive one any more. I know it wouldn’t for me.
But at over 8000lbs (my rig) with massive tires and weight...plus a tendency to be VERY hard on my truck off road...it becomes amazingly clear how robust these trucks really are.
-No need for a huge axle upgrades...nor all sorts of steering after-market upgrades so common to the Jeep world. -Right out of the box, the LC handles heavy, straining weight mods and drive-line loads without really changing any major power components. That’s just impressive. I think it’s fair to say that asking the same abuse of the Jeep’s stock components & strength under similar load ratios would not be smart. But with the LC, there is strength to spare.
Hoping that sounds reasonable.
After years of various levels wheeling as a passenger or driver, including anywheee from light stuff to heavy winter backpacking stuff in Jeeps...and multiple friends and family with Jeeps over a span of 35 years (since I was a teenager)...Jeeps have shown a consistent tendency for various failures on the trail when pushed hard. Also numerous times when NOT being pushed hard. Reliability data reflects a significant discrepancy that is not anyone’s bias or imagination. Again...Jeeps are capable wheelers and certainly not “crap,” but I think we’re really talking two different leagues.
As you say, LCs aren’t without known issues. But the routine, expected failures on the 100 and 200 series (radiator around 8 years, water pump & starter) are really predictable. What I don’t see in LCs are the kinds of steering, drive-train/engine failures on any significant scale beyond those three predictable ones above.
I do feel it’s enough to fairly develop a basis for separation between brands that has nothing to do with bashing or blind faith. Toyota’s reliability is widely known and statistically documented—and the LC is built to a strength standard that just isn’t matched. Does that mean it’s fair to trash the others? No. But I think it’s very fair to point out that you don’t have to be a fan-boy to appreciate that there is a significant difference.
Frankly, if the LC somehow lost its well-earned reputation for rugged strength on top of predictable reliability...most here wouldn’t drive one—because it wouldn’t make sense to drive one any more. I know it wouldn’t for me.
But at over 8000lbs (my rig) with massive tires and weight...plus a tendency to be VERY hard on my truck off road...it becomes amazingly clear how robust these trucks really are.
-No need for a huge axle upgrades...nor all sorts of steering after-market upgrades so common to the Jeep world. -Right out of the box, the LC handles heavy, straining weight mods and drive-line loads without really changing any major power components. That’s just impressive. I think it’s fair to say that asking the same abuse of the Jeep’s stock components & strength under similar load ratios would not be smart. But with the LC, there is strength to spare.
Hoping that sounds reasonable.
Last edited:
Jeep has a winning combo of price and rugged / macho image that has made them the new midlife crisis vehicle of my fellow suburban males. Off-road capability is not questioned. But I've ridden in the JK (4 Dr) a bunch and it's cramped, crude, and noisy as hell. Maybe the new JL (?) is a bit better but certain key design parameters seem the same.
Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep stays out of the bottom spot in most reliability rankings only because of Land Rover's puzzling decades-old inability to build a reliable vehicle.
Chrysler/Dodge/Jeep stays out of the bottom spot in most reliability rankings only because of Land Rover's puzzling decades-old inability to build a reliable vehicle.
You have to remember though that a jeep is about 30 to 40k cheaper than an LC. just not in the same league. like i said, it is quite a compliment for wranglers to be constantly compared with a new model land cruiser. (fair to compare with a 40 haha)
Jeep doesnt build anything close to a Land Cruiser and vice versa. They are king of their own markets.
Not that cost equates to reliability, aka rovers.
Jeep doesnt build anything close to a Land Cruiser and vice versa. They are king of their own markets.
Not that cost equates to reliability, aka rovers.
Like most automobile magazine reviews this one also doesn’t make any sense they don’t look at things and give you information that would be valuable based on the type of vehicle they are reviewing I don’t subscribe to them anymore. The Internet and groups like ours have replaced any need to read automobile magazines about specific vehicles
Same experience with Jeeps here. Rented and driven a few Wranglers. Macho image aside, everything else is crude: difficult ingress, uncomfortable seats, poor visibility, cramped intrusive interior, bumpy ride, minimal cargo space, etc.
What's odd to me is the Wrangler has fundamentally the same design for the past many years, yet it still has poor reliability.
Examples the jeep wrangler in that range rover land rover we’re all at the bottom of the three-year JD power and Associates reliability ratings Lexus is at the very top the jeep is about 4000 pounds the Lexus way 6000 pounds and the safety rating on a jeep?? You don’t want to definitely be in a side collision in the Jeep. But it is a cheap macho looking vehicle and when you’re young you don’t think anything will ever hurt you anyway I understand their popularity. I know the G wagon is about physically the same size as the jeep wrangler weighs 700lbs more. And the Range Rover sport weighs about 4700 pounds.
Last edited:
COYS
SILVER Star
Odd article, but I guess they do it to sell content and entertain their audience which completes the virtuous marketing/ad revenue circle. No harm, no foul.
If I had $150K to burn, I'd get the last gen G63 with solid front axle, no question.
If I had $100K "", I'd get the LC not the LX.
If I had $50K, I wouldn't get a JEEP, I'd buy an 80 and go nuts.
If I had Bezos money, I'd get none of the above. I'd dm Brabus and order up their 6x6, or if feeling a little poorer that very second, settle for the 4x4 and call it a day. Then maybe call my friends and ask if they want one too.
Oh, one more thing. Hit up Artic Trucks and commission an LA friendly version of one of these on 40s completely murdered out. It'd be the opus of my 4x4 collection.
If I had $150K to burn, I'd get the last gen G63 with solid front axle, no question.
If I had $100K "", I'd get the LC not the LX.
If I had $50K, I wouldn't get a JEEP, I'd buy an 80 and go nuts.
If I had Bezos money, I'd get none of the above. I'd dm Brabus and order up their 6x6, or if feeling a little poorer that very second, settle for the 4x4 and call it a day. Then maybe call my friends and ask if they want one too.
Oh, one more thing. Hit up Artic Trucks and commission an LA friendly version of one of these on 40s completely murdered out. It'd be the opus of my 4x4 collection.
Last edited:
MOPAR reliability has sucked for years. People keep buying Jeeps in record numbers, as there really is no direct competitor, so maybe they don't have enough of an incentive to improve quality. We had two Chryslers when I was growing up. Two biggest pos vehicles I ever owned. I will never buy MOPAR.
I was curious at that bit from the article, too.
Just yesterday I absolutely hauled ass on the local highway, decimating what little traffic there was and the one sedan that attempted to "play," all while driving on worn out all season tires in 2C temperatures. Even though I kept the LX in "comfort" mode, it handled phenomenally (for a vehicle of its size) and every single body movement was predictable, smooth, and rather minimal. At no point did it surprise me or my passenger, or give any indication of losing traction, understeering, or excessive body roll/nose dive. I've owned sedans and coupes that handled considerably worse.
My .02 -
before my ‘13 LX I drove a 2003 g500 for 8 years and 2011 GC overland (off road II) for 2.5 years. And almost everyone I off road with has wranglers. The only non-wranglers - my 200, a built 80, built disco 2, and a TRD taco.
The g500 drove a lot like a wrangler. Harsh ride but felt much more solid. Sort of like I think if you crossed a 200 with a wrangler you’d get a G wagon. When I got the LX it felt huge and has much more room both in the searing area and cargo room (even with the 3 rd row).
As for reliability. My grand Cherokee was terrable. But it was all electronic (and poor RnD). My air suspension controller failed 3 times in 2 years, the viscous center diff would overheat In he sand on “sand mode”. As for wranglers the only time I’ve ever seen one break down while off road is when something bad happens or doing something stupid.
before my ‘13 LX I drove a 2003 g500 for 8 years and 2011 GC overland (off road II) for 2.5 years. And almost everyone I off road with has wranglers. The only non-wranglers - my 200, a built 80, built disco 2, and a TRD taco.
The g500 drove a lot like a wrangler. Harsh ride but felt much more solid. Sort of like I think if you crossed a 200 with a wrangler you’d get a G wagon. When I got the LX it felt huge and has much more room both in the searing area and cargo room (even with the 3 rd row).
As for reliability. My grand Cherokee was terrable. But it was all electronic (and poor RnD). My air suspension controller failed 3 times in 2 years, the viscous center diff would overheat In he sand on “sand mode”. As for wranglers the only time I’ve ever seen one break down while off road is when something bad happens or doing something stupid.
I could care less about the other platforms reviewed in the comparison. I just don't think they gave the LX a fair shake. As with most reviews, they miss the point.
Personally, my opinion is that the 200-series and all cruisers before it are just in a league of their own. Durability as already touched on yes, but it's more than that. The LC's have always been HD vehicles masquerading as everyday vehicles. Said another way, a 3/4 ton utility vehicle in 1/2 ton badging.
Consider the LX 570. Curb weight 6,000 lbs (some references quote it at 6,150 lbs). Then consider the Rolls-Royce Cullinan at 5,864 lbs, which is universally recognized as a huge, overindulgent, V12 behemoth. We know most of the weight in the 200-series is its structure rather than accouterments (well, we get some nice things too). Or compared to the F250, both LC and LX are firmly in the curb weight category of that vehicle which starts at 5,668 lbs.
Being over-built without advertising its core virtue also hurts it. Yet we enthusiasts know the truth.
Personally, my opinion is that the 200-series and all cruisers before it are just in a league of their own. Durability as already touched on yes, but it's more than that. The LC's have always been HD vehicles masquerading as everyday vehicles. Said another way, a 3/4 ton utility vehicle in 1/2 ton badging.
Consider the LX 570. Curb weight 6,000 lbs (some references quote it at 6,150 lbs). Then consider the Rolls-Royce Cullinan at 5,864 lbs, which is universally recognized as a huge, overindulgent, V12 behemoth. We know most of the weight in the 200-series is its structure rather than accouterments (well, we get some nice things too). Or compared to the F250, both LC and LX are firmly in the curb weight category of that vehicle which starts at 5,668 lbs.
Being over-built without advertising its core virtue also hurts it. Yet we enthusiasts know the truth.
Last edited:
I find it hard to believe they complained about an easy to use and handy rear hatch and folded the seats down in the jeep and not the LX, yet complained about cargo room in the LX. The article is bipolar. It is a reason why Motor Trend is a lower tier car magazine and not in the same league as Car and Driver and Autoweek.
Markuson
SILVER Star
Motor Trend really should be called Advert Trends: A Study in the Slow Death of Magazines
They pass out “Truck (or car) of the Year” awards like Halloween candy. Totally meaningless.
On the other hand, Motor Trend has always handed out rewards to the same folks with three-page, fold-out ads dating back to the pre-internet magazine death rattle.
Last edited:
