daspes wrote:
JasonK: That is an LJ (the official designation for a TJ Unlimited). Most TJ parts will bolt straight up, with the exception of rock rails and such. @nd question is yes you can drive with the rear windows removed. Congrats on the purchase, looks good, great price too!
JeepBumm68: The NextGen Axles have been proven to be stronger than the previous counterparts. The axle tubes, shafts, spline count, R&P are all beefier on the JK than the TJ and before. The 3.8 also makes as much or more power in the same areas as the 4.0 did. It is just hampered by the extra couple of thousand pounds of the JK. The much loved 4.0 would seem underpowered in the JK too.
I also said that the JK was better in NEARLY every way. Axles, T-case, lockers (or BLD), interior size, MPG, bigger tires for lower COG. The plastic and thin sheet metal could be better, but armor will protect that.
But whatever, to each there own. Personally I loved my YJ more than my TJ.
Great looking LJ there buddy
you really can't compare the JK and TJ to older models btw. Also yes the axles are stronger but i still and still see guys running longer on the stock 44's that came in TJ's and not have any problems. I already know of two or three guys that have blown their JK axles ( stupidty was the cause),but since they are stronger they ran tires that even those couldn't handle. I have seen JK axles fold under 35's and 37's the same as the TJ dana 44's have on those. Ya of course MPG is better. Your running a mini-van engine that has been tuned for it. The 4.0L has been moderately unchanged since it first came out. The t-case is not different. The Rubicon models still use the same t-case. No strength difference from i have been told. Lockers even factory are still weak. They are not much stronger than the old TJ's stocker lockers. Beat it bro can't compare the interior size either with the TJ's. Two and four door models compared to stretched two doors in TJ's. Ya the room in the JK feels more the old YJ that i had. I love the room of them. But As is i love the TJ than the JK. ( i have driven and wheeled both btw) Too me the TJ seems more rugged for off-road use that the JK. The jk was too modernized for my taste. The lower COG is because and only because Jeep finally did something right by doing High line fenders from the factory as well. That is also the only reason you can run bigger tires with smaller lift. As for COG on a TJ you can get the same results and do everything the same as a JK and still have the same COG or lower. Lifts/ tires, everyone setup is different. And ya i do have to agree i love the TJ steel body compared to the flimsy whatever metal the JK uses. Found out my TJ body well take more of a beaten that my buddy's Jk haha.
I have to agree with you also. To each his own. I did love my old YJ. It was a 1992 4.0L hoss, that had a dana 44 rear with dana 35 up front and we ran 35's for almost 6 years on them. That thing got me throught stuff that my TJ has trouble in. Those older 4.0L's ran alot harder and stronger than the newer ones. Mainly from different parts that more or less added top in to the new 4.0's but closed it up some on the grunt.
Dont mean to seem like a booty or anything. Just voicing how i have seen the JK and TJ perform since i have been wheeling. So far i have seen more JK's break stuff than the TJ's.