Jeep Wrangler Forum banner

1 - 20 of 168 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just got back from having a few beers with some buddies and we got talking about which JKU we'd prefer to have. In the group was an Arctic owner, a Rubicon owner, and 2 who are deciding which JKU to get. After much heated debate, we came to a split decision on which we would get, and I thought it might be fun to pose the question to this forum...

Here's the situation. Let's say you'll use the Jeep as a daily driver for now, and down the road it might be a third vehicle. Let's assume both have very similar creature comforts (auto start, heated seats, navigation, tow package, side air bags, etc). You'll use the Jeep off road for some camping trips, participation in some local Jeep club events, etc. but again, it's mainly a daily driver.

That said, which would you take, the Arctic or the Rubicon? And to make the question a bit more clear, it seems (based on our conversation and recent purchases) both vehicles end up costing basically the same (i.e. +/- $1,500).

I'll go first... Rubicon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19 Posts
Just got back from having a few beers with some buddies and we got talking about which JKU we'd prefer to have. In the group was an Arctic owner, a Rubicon owner, and 2 who are deciding which JKU to get. After much heated debate, we came to a split decision on which we would get, and I thought it might be fun to pose the question to this forum...

Here's the situation. Let's say you'll use the Jeep as a daily driver for now, and down the road it might be a third vehicle. Let's assume both have very similar creature comforts (auto start, heated seats, navigation, tow package, side air bags, etc). You'll use the Jeep off road for some camping trips, participation in some local Jeep club events, etc. but again, it's mainly a daily driver.

That said, which would you take, the Arctic or the Rubicon? And to make the question a bit more clear, it seems (based on our conversation and recent purchases) both vehicles end up costing basically the same (i.e. +/- $1,500).

I'll go first... Rubicon.
The bolded part seals the deal. I'd get the Sahara and save some cash. No reason to pay for something you won't be using.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
696 Posts
Mainly street driven and bought for looks, Arctic.

Plan to actually use and abuse it, Rubicon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Arctic. Slightly smaller build quantity-and $1500 is no joke. It's $1500!
The Arctic will do everything you want it too-and as a DD-painted fenders look nicer (IMO)-
Besides-you can't REALLY off road with a 4 door :D
Zips the flame suit up.......
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
BTW, our conversation even included a guy at the next table who has a gorgeous Range Rover Sport HSE. He was considering dumping the Rover and getting either the Arctic or the Rubicon. To me, that's insane. I would keep the Rover hands down. You?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
498 Posts
rockjock1 said:
Arctic. Slightly smaller build quantity-and $1500 is no joke. It's $1500!
The Arctic will do everything you want it too-and as a DD-painted fenders look nicer (IMO)-
Besides-you can't REALLY off road with a 4 door :D
Zips the flame suit up.......
Agree with everything you said 100%.

+1
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,729 Posts
I'm not about looks but about wheeling. If the Artic looks cost 1500 more because it "looks good" then that is a waste. As you mod it that will change the appearance so at that point it doesnt matter. Adding lockers to make it more capable will not give it the great resale because all aftermarket additions do not resale for what you paid for them.

Personally I like the 4:1 low and lockers and that is why I have a Rubi (TJ with a lot of mods). Mine is a DD but the Rubi will run circles around the Artic all day. I even venture to say that the Rubi will have a higher resale value that the the Artic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
holyjeepers said:
BTW, our conversation even included a guy at the next table who has a gorgeous Range Rover Sport HSE. He was considering dumping the Rover and getting either the Arctic or the Rubicon. To me, that's insane. I would keep the Rover hands down. You?
Range Rovers have probably the WORST reliability of any vehicle on American roads. Not a single person who knows lux SUVs would rec a RRS. In any trim. Dump the Rover just because-a Land Cruiser is a better bet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Mortalis5509 said:
I'm not about looks but about wheeling. If the Artic looks cost 1500 more because it "looks good" then that is a waste. As you mod it that will change the appearance so at that point it doesnt matter. Adding lockers to make it more capable will not give it the great resale because all aftermarket additions do not resale for what you paid for them.

Personally I like the 4:1 low and lockers and that is why I have a Rubi (TJ with a lot of mods). Mine is a DD but the Rubi will run circles around the Artic all day. I even venture to say that the Rubi will have a higher resale value that the the Artic.
I'm pretty sure an Arctic is $1500 cheaper than a Rubi-at least mine was :shrug:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,768 Posts
The only reason you buy a sport over a rubi is the money you save, you can use to mod it the way you want. Arctic may be cool to a point but it really adds no real value or ability to the Jeep. Just some interesting stickers.

Rubicon beats interesting any day.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
53,779 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
187 Posts
Lockers...4:1...Dana 44 ->>> Rubicon. And I just hate those footprint decals and the snowman logo. Man. But to each his own; get what you like. I do like the black 16" rims though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Range Rovers have probably the WORST reliability of any vehicle on American roads. Not a single person who knows lux SUVs would rec a RRS. In any trim. Dump the Rover just because-a Land Cruiser is a better bet.
as a guy with two rovers and a new rubicon in the driveway, i am going to have to disagree with you on this one. yes, the older rovers, ie the discos and classics, have reliability issues. no doubt. however, the modern rovers circa 2005 forward, ie LR3/RRS, are significantly more reliable. that being said they have a ton of electronics and are not necessarily designed for hardcore offroading and field repairs.

i do know my luxury SUVS and would recommend a RRS. it serves a completely different purpose than a jeep, and in my opinion is a much nicer vehicle with a better ride and feel than the cruiser. while a RRS is very capable offroad compared to almost all SUVs, i would in no way recommend the RRS to one of my hardcore offroading buddies. i would however recommend it to my family and friends who want a comfortable, luxurious SUV that is fun to drive and capable when he needs it to be.

now to the subject at hand, i went with the rubicon for the built in offroad capabilities, but in no way will fault someone for choosing the arctic for its unique characteristics. they are pretty jeeps.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,554 Posts
Good lord, is this even a question??

The only two reasons not to get a rubi are (a) save money or (b) plan on modding and would be ripping out the fancy rubi upgrades anyway.

Are Arctics and similarly equipped Rubis really within $1500 of each other? Somebody's got to explain that to me--isn't the arctic a dressed up Sahara? Nice no doubt, but the lockers, discos, 4.10s, D44 front, and t-case are big parts of the rubi's cost that the Sahara is missing, so where is the cost coming from? . . . :confused:
 
1 - 20 of 168 Posts
Top