Jeep Wrangler Forum banner
  • Hey everyone! Enter your ride HERE to be a part of JUNE's Ride of the Month Challenge!

1 - 20 of 49 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
106 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Bought my first JKU in 2008, my second in 2015. Both were highly optioned Sports (or "X" for the 08) that I added Rubi wheels/tires/rockrails/shocks. Why not go full Rubi? Never go full Rubi- although I spend a LOT of time outdoors hunting, hiking, etc. I never felt the need for the 4-1 or the lockers, and in fact I prefer limited slip as it makes sense for the sloppy conditions I'm more likely to encounter in Oregon compared to Moab slick rock.

I'm now ready for a JLU, and based on the options I want it's not necessarily cheaper to get a loaded Sport. I've always preferred the black fenders, but the select trac transfer case / limited slip has me considering a Sahara for the first time. That said- the Rubi high line fenders are pretty sweet, and 4.10 > 3.45. As cheap as I am, I can see adding textured black ones to a Sahara to go with the Rubi take off wheels/tires that I'll add within the first month.
I guess I have 2 questions:
1. Anyone add Mopar Rubi high line fenders to a Sahara/Sport? If so, what was the PITA factor?
2. How's the 3.45 gear ratio with Rubi take off wheels/tires? I'm leaning towards the 2.0 engine, if that matters.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
23,754 Posts
I agree the sport and Sahara fenders just look wrong
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
625 Posts
I thought you could get them as a factory option in any trim (obviously standard on Rubis). Could be wrong though.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,637 Posts
Personally, I prefer the Sahara over the Rubicon fenders. The high fenders on Rubicon look weird to me.

Looks aside, you should be able to fit Rubicon wheels and tires on a Sahara without issue: Rubicon tires are 285/70-17, which works out to be 32.7 x 11.2 inches; I mounted 275/70-18 tires on my Sahara, which works to be 33.2 x 10.8 inches, without lift or rubbing —see below.

Good luck.

My Sahara with 33.2 x 10.8 KO2s, no lift and no rubbing
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
323 Posts
I agree the sport and Sahara fenders just look wrong
The higher fenders are far more aggressive looking not to mention you can fit 35’s on without a lift as everyone knows. Rubicon takeoffs are the post popular mod on the other trim levels.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
23,754 Posts
The higher fenders are far more aggressive looking not to mention you can fit 35’s on without a lift as everyone knows. Rubicon takeoffs are the post popular mod on the other trim levels.
yup.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,281 Posts
Personally, I prefer the Sahara over the Rubicon fenders. The high fenders on Rubicon look weird to me.

Looks aside, you should be able to fit Rubicon wheels and tires on a Sahara without issue: Rubicon tires are 285/70-17, which works out to be 32.7 x 11.2 inches; I mounted 275/70-18 tires on my Sahara, which works to be 33.2 x 10.8 inches, without lift or rubbing —see below.

Good luck.

My Sahara with 33.2 x 10.8 KO2s, no lift and no rubbing
Jesus now you have a JL? Didn't you just get a Tacoma??
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,637 Posts
Jesus now you have a JL? Didn't you just get a Tacoma??
Dude, that’s so 2019...! Yer behind the times... :D

Yes, I had a Tacoma TRD Off-Road for six months. Hated it: sh*tty driver seat, sh*tty automatic transmission, weak engine, mysterious driveline shudders; hated the retarded electronics, the bulky exterior, the high hood, the cramped interior, the absence of an enclosed cargo space. Couldn’t wait to get rid of it.

Fortunately, the build quality felt like carved out of a solid ingot, and the truck held its value like gold. It cost me the equivalent of the sales tax to drive it for six months; that part was simply amazing. And the Toyota dealer experience, while not stellar, was way better than that from your normal Jeep dealer.

Wrangler feels like a well-worn pair of gloves, warts and all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
380 Posts
As said you can fit the standard Rubicon tires on a Sport or Sahara(285-70-17.) Personally I like the looks of the Sport/Sahara fenders more but think the Rubis look better with bigger tires(35+).
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,637 Posts
As said you can fit the standard Rubicon tires on a Sport or Sahara(285-70-17.) Personally I like the looks of the Sport/Sahara fenders more but think the Rubis look better with bigger tires(35+).
Agreed: IMO the Sport/Sahara fenders better maintain that classic Jeep look and proportions.

If it is indeed true that Rubicon fenders are the “most popular takeoff item”, I suspect it has more to do with they being an affordable means to mount 35” tires without a lift, than for aesthetic reasons.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,637 Posts
I envisioned something like this happening as my '05 Tundra 46K is my HD/Lowes truck and driving the Jeep is a totally different experience.
I sold that Tacoma with only 4,200 miles after owning it for six months. Or a mere 700 miles/month.

That’s how little I wanted to drive it.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
23,754 Posts
Agreed: IMO the Sport/Sahara fenders better maintain that classic Jeep look and proportions.

If it is indeed true that Rubicon fenders are the “most popular takeoff item”, I suspect it has more to do with they being an affordable means to mount 35” tires without a lift, than for aesthetic reasons.
for me it is 100% aesthetic. I don't like how soft (for lack of a better term) the sport/sahara fenders look sloping down the back of the wheel well tucked in tight. That area catches my eye every time I walk by a JL or JT sport. I have been looking hard at the JT Sport S with max tow (comes with the rubicon axles front and rear and 4.10) but flares just look right to me. One thing that is nice is we all have different tastes so what works for one certainly does not for another else it would be a pretty boring world.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,281 Posts
I sold that Tacoma with only 4,200 miles after owning it for six months. Or a mere 700 miles/month.

That’s how little I wanted to drive it.

I drove a Tacoma and 4 Runner a few weeks ago. I was less than impressed. I was surprised at how boring both of them were. Both also had a shimmy in the steering wheel on the highway. Made me want my Jeep even more. I’m still not sold on the JL and the JT doesn’t work because I need space for my dog. The 8 speed and fenders are the only things I would want from the JL. The rest i don’t need or don’t care about. Plus I still love the Recon package.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,637 Posts
for me it is 100% aesthetic. I don't like how soft (for lack of a better term) the sport/sahara fenders look sloping down the back of the wheel well tucked in tight. That area catches my eye every time I walk by a JL or JT sport. I have been looking hard at the JT Sport S with max tow (comes with the rubicon axles front and rear and 4.10) but flares just look right to me. One thing that is nice is we all have different tastes so what works for one certainly does not for another else it would be a pretty boring world.
The same way my eyes are drawn to the big black void between the Rubicon fenders and the top of the tire.

But like you say: different strokes for different folks is a good thing.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,637 Posts
I drove a Tacoma and 4 Runner a few weeks ago. I was less than impressed. I was surprised at how boring both of them were. Both also had a shimmy in the steering wheel on the highway. Made me want my Jeep even more. I’m still not sold on the JL and the JT doesn’t work because I need space for my dog. The 8 speed and fenders are the only things I would want from the JL. The rest i don’t need or don’t care about. Plus I still love the Recon package.
I agree with the 8-speed automatic: it is superb. In fact, it makes the 3.6 V6 feel liberated, compared to my JKs or my dad Dodge Journey with a 6-speed auto.

FWIW, I have learned to appreciate my JL in the four weeks I’ve owned it. The assembly quality is simply beyond anything JK offered, even in its best production years. My Recon came with a myriad of rattles, squeaks and misaligned panels that drove me nuts; this JL has none. Fit-and-finish, from the exterior paint to the interior materials is in another league altogether. The doors and tailgate open and close with a quality feel never experienced on a JK; where the JK fenders felt loose and flimsy, JL’s feel solid and well secured. The engine and transmission are much more refined and quieter. The wind noise, while still present, is much lower. And the comfort and convenience features, like the proximity door locks, the heated steering wheel and the backup camera with sensors are just awesome. JL cruises effortlessly at 80 MPH on the freeway, while averaging 20 MPG. And I like having Selec-Trac once again.

There are certain areas were JK is still better: the steering has more feel —an ongoing irritant for many JL owners; the front occupants enjoy greater interior space —JL front seats are higher off the floor, bringing your head closer to the roof and restricting visibility of traffic lights. JL’s myriad of electronics represent a real concern in the long-term —the new 2.0T only adds more concern in the long-term, IMHO.

Ultimately, the areas where JL brings added improvement are primarily in city and freeway driving. Hardly any of them make JL a better off-roader than JK. Add to that those hefty prices and it is hard to justify spending $55,000 to have that pretty paint and multitude of sensors get bashed on the trail.

It’s clearly not an easy choice.
 
1 - 20 of 49 Posts
Top