TJ vs. JK question. - Jeep Wrangler Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > TJ Jeep Wrangler Forum > TJ General Discussion Forum

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Reply
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 09-05-2012, 10:50 PM   #1
Jeeper
 
05silver_sport's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 220
TJ vs. JK question.

On the JK you can put bigger tires with less lift due to fender clearance which leads me to my question. Does being able to put bigger tires with less lift on a JK make it more capable than a TJ? Is a TJ with a 4" lift and 33s more or less capable than a JK with the same size lift and 35" tires?

05silver_sport is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 12:20 AM   #2
Jeeper
 
fourty4magjr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Erie
Posts: 1,730
I would say that it all depends on drivers skill but if you eliminate that factor technically the jk would be more capable because it would have 2 more inches of ground clarance over the tj with the same lift and 33s. That and the jks have a bit more clarance on the under belly anyway( diffs and skid plates don't hang low like on tj. But with all that said a tj with a skilled driver would have no problem keeping up with the jk with 35s. I'm no expert by the way so if anyone would like to correct me please do

__________________
/I ,[_____], Goodyear duratrac 33x12.5r15s
I---I_ -olllllllo- 4" currie lift, savvy arms.
()_) ()_)—o-)_) Cragar or Procomp soft 8s pioneer deck with polk db series speakers
fourty4magjr is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 12:36 AM   #3
Jeeper
 
NickDanger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 340
I'm sure a lot of new JK owners also run out and throw on some 33's or even 35's right off the bat because they fit. But, they don't think to beef up any of their other suspension or steering components or nothin like that. So, I'd say in the long run that doesn't necessarily make them more capable just because they have bigger tires.
NickDanger is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 05:08 AM   #4
Jeeper
 
MNTNGOAT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Fullerton CA
Posts: 838
Quote:
Originally Posted by fourty4magjr
I would say that it all depends on drivers skill but if you eliminate that factor technically the jk would be more capable because it would have 2 more inches of ground clarance over the tj with the same lift and 33s. That and the jks have a bit more clarance on the under belly anyway( diffs and skid plates don't hang low like on tj. But with all that said a tj with a skilled driver would have no problem keeping up with the jk with 35s. I'm no expert by the way so if anyone would like to correct me please do
1 inch clearance differance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickDanger
I'm sure a lot of new JK owners also run out and throw on some 33's or even 35's right off the bat because they fit. But, they don't think to beef up any of their other suspension or steering components or nothin like that. So, I'd say in the long run that doesn't necessarily make them more capable just because they have bigger tires.
The stock tj steering is nothing to brag about either.
IMO just based on what you have said, wheel size and lift hight the jk would be the same as a tj. I see it as any tj with 4 inches of lift and 33 will undoubtably keep up with a 4inch lifted jk on 35s (lets susposed there both rubis) because the jk still wont be able to do anything overly hard core enough that the tj wouldnt be able to go or keep up
__________________
all my friends call me COOP a LOOP! Feel free to do the same.
MNTNGOAT is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 09:15 AM   #5
Jeeper
 
jrussblues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: se la
Posts: 3,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by NickDanger
I'm sure a lot of new JK owners also run out and throw on some 33's or even 35's right off the bat because they fit. But, they don't think to beef up any of their other suspension or steering components or nothin like that. So, I'd say in the long run that doesn't necessarily make them more capable just because they have bigger tires.
Stock jk steering uses a beefier cross over steering similar to cj's so no need to correct that. Jk Dana 30's axles are also much beefier than tj Dana 30's. They also come with a beefier transfer case. In many ways jk's are much better built than tj's. On the flip side, having owned one, the throttle response is crap and the engine was lack luster. These issues may be fixed now but I had an 09'.
__________________
06 LJ
78? CJ-7
jrussblues is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 09:20 AM   #6
Knows a couple things...

WF Supporting Member
 
Jerry Bransford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Escondido, Calif.
Posts: 31,465
Images: 2
The V6 engine used in the JK is anemic and from my personal experience having worked on a friends, the JK is not as easily worked on or modified. Personally, I MUCH prefer the older TJ in all ways. I could care less that the JK can have bigger tires with less lift, its axles have their own issues.
__________________
When you have a choice, buy American.

Jerry Bransford is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 09:34 AM   #7
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
My experience is that in their stock forms--assuming everything is working properly--a JK is as a general rule more capable. Such is the march of technology.

However, once you start modding the vehicles all bets are off. You can mod a TJ into a trail eating machine that runs circles around stock JKs, and vice versa. Modding is the great equalizer. So the answer to both of your questions IMO is really, "It depends."

For example, in terms of performance mods, my JKU Sport has a 2.5" coil lift, a good set of 33s, a chopped bumper, and a front skid. No lockers. No LSDs. No long arms. No winch. No additional underbody skids. No axle reinforcement. Etc. So I'd have to be an idiot to think for a moment that it'll outwork Jerry's TJ on the trail. It plainly will not.
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 10:28 AM   #8
Jeeper
 
jgorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,905
The JK would be more capable for sure. More clearance and way more power.
__________________
my 06 LJ rubicon
2.5" SL, 1" BL, DIY highline, 35s with double beadlocks.
jgorm is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 01:38 PM   #9
Jeeper
 
Overthink's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Talladega,AL
Posts: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgorm
The JK would be more capable for sure. More clearance and way more power.
The JK V6 has way more power than my I6? Hmmm Someone should chain their rear hitches together for a tug-of-war..
Overthink is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 01:42 PM   #10
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Overthink View Post
The JK V6 has way more power than my I6? Hmmm Someone should chain their rear hitches together for a tug-of-war..
He's talking about the new 3.6 that's in the 2012s going forward. Yes, it has far more power.
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 01:49 PM   #11
ESP
Jeeper
 
ESP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: NC
Posts: 11,477
Stock to stock the JK is more capable.
The differences between drivers and experience become the great equalizer.
Mods complicate everything but we love them.
__________________
98 XJ 02 TJ 10 JK 13 JK

2013 JK - Lifted w/ 35s - Bilstein 5100s - Monster TB - Chopped Flares - Can't Keep It Clean
ESP is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 02:02 PM   #12
Jeeper
 
Rolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: South Africa
Posts: 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH

He's talking about the new 3.6 that's in the 2012s going forward. Yes, it has far more power.
Yes it does have far more power but the power delivery is still more like that of a sports car than the I6. I know my I6 will lose to the 3.6 in a drag race but the power delivery is fantastic especially offroad.
__________________
2003 Wrangler Sahara 4.0 42rle D30/D44
Front: 2" BDS coils + JKU shocks
Rear: 2" BB + Zone Nitro shocks
Zone 1.25" BL + 1" MML, UCF LoPro
32" BFG AT on 16" Racing Hart
Ramsey Pro Plus 6000, IPF 900s 130W
Rolf is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 02:11 PM   #13
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: NW burbs IL
Posts: 1,075
Quote:
Originally Posted by ESP View Post
Stock to stock the JK is more capable.
The differences between drivers and experience become the great equalizer.
Mods complicate everything but we love them.
I disagree.. stock to stock TJ is more capable. The TJ is 2ish feet narrower and at least 2,000lbs lighter. plus I've never seen a JK squeeze into a tight trail with no body damage.
__________________
My Low Budget LCG Build
97flexy is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 02:15 PM   #14
Jeeper
 
Wench's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Lincolnton, NC
Posts: 475
Send a message via AIM to Wench
I'd like to see the new 3.6 last 300k miles before needing a rebuild.. A 4.0L as more torque and will out last ANY new POS JK hands down. You keep the oil changed and the air filter clean...the 4.0 and 2.5s will last you 2-3 generations. My 95 YJ has amost 204k miles on it...my dad bought it new for me back when I was in high school and the ONLY major rebuilds we've done was a tranny rebuild and swapped out the water pump. I gave the jeep back to him when I finished college and I drive a 06 rubicon now...but he drives that little 4 banger to this day...
__________________
You can lock it..even put a different t/c in it..but its still not a RUBICON!
Wench is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 02:50 PM   #15
Jeeper
 
Imped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Indy
Posts: 3,270
Quote:
Originally Posted by 97flexy View Post
I disagree.. stock to stock TJ is more capable. The TJ is 2ish feet narrower and at least 2,000lbs lighter. plus I've never seen a JK squeeze into a tight trail with no body damage.
TJ is 66.7" wide and weighs about 3500 lb give or take. A 2 door JK weighs about 3900 lb and is 73" wide........

That's a difference of 6" and 400 lb.

I've seen plenty of JK's wheel tight trails with no body damage.

I'll take the JK as a DD and light wheeler. I'll take my TJ over just about anything else you could possibly give me for anything else and would probably still DD it more often. As for the power output, on paper the 3.6 is definitely healthier, as was the 3.8. Go drive them side by side and tell me the 4.0 doesn't feel more powerful (with much better throttle response) than either of them, especially when paired to a manual trans.
__________________
Daily Driver Rock Rig
IndyORV
Imped is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 03:02 PM   #16
Jeeper
 
BigGreenMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgorm
The JK would be more capable for sure. More clearance and way more power.
TJ vs JK is the thread, not 2011 vs 2012
BigGreenMachine is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 03:15 PM   #17
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Really fellas?

Look, admittedly, I own a 2010 JKU that I love. But if you told me I could get one new jeep tomorrow, it would be a 4.0 LJ. My brother has a 2001 TJ (has all kinds of problems, btw) that I've told him he can't sell--when he wants to get rid of it, I'll buy it.

So I'm a TJ fan. I repeat: I'm a TJ fan.

So let's look at some of these comments . . . .

Quote:
Originally Posted by 97flexy View Post
I disagree.. stock to stock TJ is more capable. The TJ is 2ish feet narrower and at least 2,000lbs lighter. plus I've never seen a JK squeeze into a tight trail with no body damage.
Do you really believe this? According to Q-tec, the curb weight of a TJ Rubi is 3832 and it is 68.3" wide, the curb weight on a JK Rubi is 4104 and it is 73.7" wide. So a JK is 272 lbs heavier and 5.5" wider. Even if there's some flex in these numbers, it's not as if the difference is in feet and thousands of pounds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolf View Post
Yes it does have far more power but the power delivery is still more like that of a sports car than the I6. I know my I6 will lose to the 3.6 in a drag race but the power delivery is fantastic especially offroad.
Have you ever driven a 2012? Or at least seen a dyno? While the dynos I've seen do show big numbers for the 3.6 on the high end, the difference on the low end against the 4.0 and the 3.8 is pretty marginal. Performance should be similar, though the throttle-by-wire gives the TJ more *pop* off the line in my experience.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wench View Post
I'd like to see the new 3.6 last 300k miles before needing a rebuild.. A 4.0L as more torque and will out last ANY new POS JK hands down. You keep the oil changed and the air filter clean...the 4.0 and 2.5s will last you 2-3 generations. My 95 YJ has amost 204k miles on it...my dad bought it new for me back when I was in high school and the ONLY major rebuilds we've done was a tranny rebuild and swapped out the water pump. I gave the jeep back to him when I finished college and I drive a 06 rubicon now...but he drives that little 4 banger to this day...
This is all well and good, but it's not really addressed to the question. At least . . . I don't think it is. You may be right or your may be wrong about performance of various engines after 300k miles, but whatever the case, I know that when someone asks about "capability" I think about capability right now, with everything in operational order. If you're hypothesizing about capability after a 300k road trip, then that may be a different matter. Although as I noted above, my brother's 2001 TJ has been nothing but problems recently, and he's only got 60k miles.
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-06-2012, 11:43 PM   #18
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 34
Have driven CJ7, YJ, TJ, JK, and "penta-star" JK:

Currently own a TJ, love it.
JKs are better (more capable offroad yet still livable vehicle) in just about every measurable way but somehow less "jeep" to me. I suspect people are looking for quantifiable justifications for intangibles.
dontpanic is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-07-2012, 12:47 AM   #19
Jeeper
 
TJspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 3,432
Idk... I think a TJ is way more capable then a new JK...

Attachment 157891
__________________
2000 solar yellow 4.0 sport 3" BDS, 1.25" JKS body lift, 1" Zone motor lift, JKS quicker disconnects, 33x10.5 BFG KM2 on black american racing wheels. D44 rear.

TJspeed is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-07-2012, 01:37 AM   #20
Jeeper
 
Rolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: South Africa
Posts: 941
MTH yes I have driven the 3.8 as well as the 3.6. The auto box on the 3.6 is a peach but the power delivery is still more car-like. Very fun though and I really would not mind having one, but not in the place of my TJ. I am actually considering buying my wife one.
__________________
2003 Wrangler Sahara 4.0 42rle D30/D44
Front: 2" BDS coils + JKU shocks
Rear: 2" BB + Zone Nitro shocks
Zone 1.25" BL + 1" MML, UCF LoPro
32" BFG AT on 16" Racing Hart
Ramsey Pro Plus 6000, IPF 900s 130W
Rolf is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-07-2012, 09:40 AM   #21
Jeeper
 
jgorm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wench View Post
I'd like to see the new 3.6 last 300k miles before needing a rebuild.. A 4.0L as more torque and will out last ANY new POS JK hands down.
The 4.0 has 235ftlbs @ 3200, the 3.6 has 260 @ 4800, so it has more tq, but its at a much higher rpms so its not as good for offroad use. The reality is that peak TQ doesn't mean anything when you are idling over stuff. The JK will really shine here because it is DBW so it can add as much air as needed vs the 4.0 where the IAC will max out. The other advantage of DBW is the throttle becomes way less touchy in 4L.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Imped View Post
As for the power output, on paper the 3.6 is definitely healthier, as was the 3.8. Go drive them side by side and tell me the 4.0 doesn't feel more powerful (with much better throttle response) than either of them, especially when paired to a manual trans.
I haven't driven a 3.6, but the 3.8 felt faster to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigGreenMachine View Post
TJ vs JK is the thread, not 2011 vs 2012
I'm just saying that the new JKs are bad ass and it would be a wise decision to get a 2012+ than an older JK. Better MPG, 26% faster 0-60 (you know TJs and JKs suck here), smoother ride, electronic sway bar disconnect, bigger tires with less lift, better stock approach and departure angles, hill assist, electronic stability control, 5 seats, heated seats etc.
How many people here wouldn't trade their TJ for a equally equipped JK if not money was involved? I'd trade mine in a second and 06 LJ rubicons are hard to find. Factor in $15000+ extra and I'm plenty happy with my jeep
__________________
my 06 LJ rubicon
2.5" SL, 1" BL, DIY highline, 35s with double beadlocks.
jgorm is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-07-2012, 11:00 AM   #22
Jeeper
 
BigGreenMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgorm
The 4.0 has 235ftlbs @ 3200, the 3.6 has 260 @ 4800, so it has more tq, but its at a much higher rpms so its not as good for offroad use. The reality is that peak TQ doesn't mean anything when you are idling over stuff. The JK will really shine here because it is DBW so it can add as much air as needed vs the 4.0 where the IAC will max out. The other advantage of DBW is the throttle becomes way less touchy in 4L.

I haven't driven a 3.6, but the 3.8 felt faster to me.

I'm just saying that the new JKs are bad ass and it would be a wise decision to get a 2012+ than an older JK. Better MPG, 26% faster 0-60 (you know TJs and JKs suck here), smoother ride, electronic sway bar disconnect, bigger tires with less lift, better stock approach and departure angles, hill assist, electronic stability control, 5 seats, heated seats etc.
How many people here wouldn't trade their TJ for a equally equipped JK if not money was involved? I'd trade mine in a second and 06 LJ rubicons are hard to find. Factor in $15000+ extra and I'm plenty happy with my jeep
I would take your LJ before a JK.
BigGreenMachine is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-07-2012, 11:10 AM   #23
Jeeper
 
jrussblues's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: se la
Posts: 3,066
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigGreenMachine

I would take your LJ before a JK.
I got rid of my jk for my lj
__________________
06 LJ
78? CJ-7
jrussblues is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-07-2012, 11:23 AM   #24
Jeeper
 
BigGreenMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrussblues

I got rid of my jk for my lj
BigGreenMachine is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-07-2012, 02:48 PM   #25
Jeeper
 
Rolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: South Africa
Posts: 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigGreenMachine

I would take your LJ before a JK.
So would I.
__________________
2003 Wrangler Sahara 4.0 42rle D30/D44
Front: 2" BDS coils + JKU shocks
Rear: 2" BB + Zone Nitro shocks
Zone 1.25" BL + 1" MML, UCF LoPro
32" BFG AT on 16" Racing Hart
Ramsey Pro Plus 6000, IPF 900s 130W
Rolf is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-07-2012, 03:16 PM   #26
Jeeper
 
SeVeReDiStOrTiOn's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: CA
Posts: 768
I personally hate drive-by-wire except for how easy it is to take the throttle body off and less cluttered engine bay when you have CC. I had DBW on my ram and mustang...both needed a tune to get rid of the throttle lag especially at WOT. Plus you can't rev them while under the hood so they're more of a PITA to work on alone.
SeVeReDiStOrTiOn is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-07-2012, 05:05 PM   #27
Jeeper
 
UnlimitedRubicon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: behind enemy lines fighting the Caliban
Posts: 1,150
Quote:
Originally Posted by jgorm View Post
How many people here wouldn't trade their TJ for a equally equipped JK if not money was involved?

UnlimitedRubicon is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-07-2012, 05:49 PM   #28
Jeeper
 
The Ugly Jeep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Mountain Top, PA
Posts: 279
I have both. Each has it's pluses and minuses.
Does that make me a bad person ?
My JK has 32"s stock
My TJ has 32"s and I had to lift it 2 1/2" to fit
My TJ gets 13 MPG JK gets 19
__________________
97 Wrangler - 4 Angry Hamsters; 2 1/2 " Rough Country Suspension, 33x12.5x15 Firestone Destination MT's.
2011 JK "Mojave".
2012 MW3 Rubicon
Recognize the same mistakes, every time you make them !
The Ugly Jeep is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-07-2012, 06:45 PM   #29
Jeeper
 
BigGreenMachine's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Parker, CO
Posts: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ugly Jeep
I have both. Each has it's pluses and minuses.
Does that make me a bad person ?
My JK has 32"s stock
My TJ has 32"s and I had to lift it 2 1/2" to fit
My TJ gets 13 MPG JK gets 19
And even though your TJ gets worse gas mileage I bet you drive it more
BigGreenMachine is online now   Quote Quick Reply
Old 09-07-2012, 07:03 PM   #30
Jeeper
 
BamaRolln's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Oak Mtn Area (Bham, AL)
Posts: 200
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Ugly Jeep View Post
My TJ has 32"s and I had to lift it 2 1/2" to fit
Why did you have to lift your TJ 2.5 inches to fit? My last TJ, a 97 Sport, had 32's with no lift.

BamaRolln is offline   Quote Quick Reply
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




» Network Links
»Jeep Parts
» Featured Product

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:34 AM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC