LOST JEEPS :: View topic - FJ Cruiser vs. KJ

Lets explore the pro’s and cons with a quick comparison and some of my opinions. I will start with what I believe to be the winner of each category and why.

Engine: FJC – Gas: more hp and torque
KJ - Diesel

I think the KJ wins hands down because of the turbo diesel option.

Transmission: FJC – 6 speed manual or 5 speed auto, and I hate the way the KJ tranny slows you down while coasting.

KJ wins...both offer a 6-speed manual but the KJs 5-speed auto is taken from the Ram 3500 truck line so it's got to be proven and tough as nails. That's yet to be seen with the Toyota stuff..

Tires: FJC – ability to fit 33” tires stock (285/70-17). I can’t even fit those with my lifted KJ after cutting the weld seam. Not to mention the unfortunate explosions of the KJ's al. diff.

Do 285/70-17s really fit on a stock FJ??? I had those on my Dodge Ram pickup and they were huge. Anyway...FJ wins here.

Diffs: FJC – available actuated locker and traction control, lower ratio

FJ wins here, although the KJ rear axle is pretty tough.

Ground Clearance: FJC – unless you believe what Jeep tells you. I think I had about 5 ½” under the front skid plate before the lift.

FJ wins here. KJ ground clearance is a joke.

Quality: FJC – no brainer here for anyone who has owned Jeeps. I have replaced two diffs, seals, and more on my KJ in 40k already. I have owned 3 Jeeps so I have been there.

From what I have seen...Toyota quality is a myth to me. I personally would take a DCX product over a Toyota product any day of the week. Winner: KJ.

Interior noise: FJC – it is like riding in a lux. car.

Can't comment here. Haven't been in a FJ yet. But my KJ is pretty darn quiet with the windows up.

Ride: Stock to Stock (FJC) but my Rusty’s lift makes the KJ more plush.

Can't comment here either.

Interior: KJ – I think the FJC is a little too retro for me.

FJ is UGLY.

Turning Radius: KJ - awesome

KJ wins.

Approach/departure angle: KJ – Unless you add 33” tires to the FJC

KJ wins.

Exterior: Toss up – At first I thought the FJC was ugly but it has really grown on me.

FJ is UGLY as ****

Offroad Ability: FJC stock to stock because of its advanced traction control, locker, lower x-fer case ratio, and ability to run taller tires.

FJ stock vs. stock.

I am not attacking the KJ here, just making a comparison. What do you think about my answers? Do you have categories of your own? If you were truly objective (non Jeep biased), which would you buy?

I believe it was Car & Driver that did a trail run with the FJ, H3, Xterra, and an off the street Grand Cherokee as a control. FJ and H3 came out on the bottom, Xterra on top. Here it is:

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons ... r-4wd.html

Cow, I love the avitar!

Yeah, I read that Car and Driver article and if you notice, they rated the FJC low because of reasons why we would probalby rate it high...because it dosen't drive like a car.....see "Car" and driver.

As far as Toyota quality? I had an '84 Toy PU 4x4 that ran for 140k and not a single problem, not even a clutch and I beat the living hell out of it (see teenage years, lol). My Mom has a Camery with 145K and hasn't even touched it besides fluids. A buddy has a Tundra with 125k and zero problems. I also know a couple of guys with the big LC's with over 160k on them and one finally did the wheel bearings.

I have had a CJ, 99' XJ and the KJ and have had major problems with all (OK, we can leave the POS CJ out of this one, lol).
XJ: both diffs, x-fer case (by 85K miles).
KJ: rear diff, x-fer case, front diff banging & rear diff noise now (40k miles).
My dad's Grand Cheorkee: rear diff, bearings (by 70k)
My buddy's 02 XJ: both diffs, x-fer case, tranny (by 60k miles)

Sorry, I didn't know thay a 5 speed auto was going in the KJ now.

Yeah, the 285's will fit a stock FJC. There is a fellow running the MTR's with zero rub so far and he has wheeled it.

I agree with the CRD victory.

Jeep: You can't just argue that yours is better becasue you say it is. Have you wheeled with an FJC and have a comparision? Come on now.

Toyota builds some great products, but the FJ is an insult to the Land Cruiser heritage. I had a '96 fj80 and that thing was built like an ox. That thing was so well built it didn't have a squeak or rattle and it was 10 years old. My KJ has been in the shop for squeaks and rattles atleast 5 times in the last year. It is absurd that anyone would consider a DCX product as being more well built than a Toyota product. The FJ80 was the last of the real Land Cruisers. With a ladder frame, solid axles with lockers and 3 and 4 link suspension this thing was unstopable. This thing was never in the shop. The new FJ Cruiser is just a 4 runner with an ugly body and terrible rear seat leg room. Sorry to rant but thats the way it really is. Would I take one if someone offered it for free, you better believe it, but I'm not going to pay 30K for one. Would I pay 30k for a KJ, sure but that's because it comes with that amazing diesel and all that offroad capability.

spencevans wrote:

yeah what he said. And on that note the new FJ only beats a KJ offroad because of lockers and full skids from the factory. Well for 30k you can get a KJ and have plenty extra to get lockers, lift, tires and skids... and probably even the CRD.

Author:	Spike6901 [ Tue May 02, 2006 1:28 pm ]
Post subject:	FJ Cruiser vs. KJ
Lets explore the pro’s and cons with a quick comparison and some of my opinions. I will start with what I believe to be the winner of each category and why. Engine: FJC – Gas: more hp and torque KJ - Diesel Transmission: FJC – 6 speed manual or 5 speed auto, and I hate the way the KJ tranny slows you down while coasting. Tires: FJC – ability to fit 33” tires stock (285/70-17). I can’t even fit those with my lifted KJ after cutting the weld seam. Not to mention the unfortunate explosions of the KJ's al. diff. Diffs: FJC – available actuated locker and traction control, lower ratio Ground Clearance: FJC – unless you believe what Jeep tells you. I think I had about 5 ½” under the front skid plate before the lift. Quality: FJC – no brainer here for anyone who has owned Jeeps. I have replaced two diffs, seals, and more on my KJ in 40k already. I have owned 3 Jeeps so I have been there. Interior noise: FJC – it is like riding in a lux. car. Ride: Stock to Stock (FJC) but my Rusty’s lift makes the KJ more plush. Interior: KJ – I think the FJC is a little too retro for me Turning Radius: KJ - awesome Approach/departure angle: KJ – Unless you add 33” tires to the FJC Exterior: Toss up – At first I thought the FJC was ugly but it has really grown on me. Offroad Ability: FJC stock to stock because of its advanced traction control, locker, lower x-fer case ratio, and ability to run taller tires. I am not attacking the KJ here, just making a comparison. What do you think about my answers? Do you have categories of your own? If you were truly objective (non Jeep biased), which would you buy?

Author:	white04kj [ Tue May 02, 2006 2:01 pm ]
Post subject:
Personally I think the FJ is pretty cool. If I had the funds I'd probably buy one. I haven't seen one in person though, but they look quite big compared to the KJ, about the size of an H3. If that's the case it'd almost be too big for most of the trails I've run here. Still, it definitely has lots of cool factor to it. I just hope they don't end up mostly street bound like the H3 and most KJ's, most SUV's in general for that matter.

Author:	LibertyCRD [ Tue May 02, 2006 2:50 pm ]
Post subject:	Re: FJ Cruiser vs. KJ
Spike6901 wrote: Lets explore the pro’s and cons with a quick comparison and some of my opinions. I will start with what I believe to be the winner of each category and why. Engine: FJC – Gas: more hp and torque KJ - Diesel I think the KJ wins hands down because of the turbo diesel option. Transmission: FJC – 6 speed manual or 5 speed auto, and I hate the way the KJ tranny slows you down while coasting. KJ wins...both offer a 6-speed manual but the KJs 5-speed auto is taken from the Ram 3500 truck line so it's got to be proven and tough as nails. That's yet to be seen with the Toyota stuff.. Tires: FJC – ability to fit 33” tires stock (285/70-17). I can’t even fit those with my lifted KJ after cutting the weld seam. Not to mention the unfortunate explosions of the KJ's al. diff. Do 285/70-17s really fit on a stock FJ??? I had those on my Dodge Ram pickup and they were huge. Anyway...FJ wins here. Diffs: FJC – available actuated locker and traction control, lower ratio FJ wins here, although the KJ rear axle is pretty tough. Ground Clearance: FJC – unless you believe what Jeep tells you. I think I had about 5 ½” under the front skid plate before the lift. FJ wins here. KJ ground clearance is a joke. Quality: FJC – no brainer here for anyone who has owned Jeeps. I have replaced two diffs, seals, and more on my KJ in 40k already. I have owned 3 Jeeps so I have been there. From what I have seen...Toyota quality is a myth to me. I personally would take a DCX product over a Toyota product any day of the week. Winner: KJ. Interior noise: FJC – it is like riding in a lux. car. Can't comment here. Haven't been in a FJ yet. But my KJ is pretty darn quiet with the windows up. Ride: Stock to Stock (FJC) but my Rusty’s lift makes the KJ more plush. Can't comment here either. Interior: KJ – I think the FJC is a little too retro for me. FJ is UGLY. Turning Radius: KJ - awesome KJ wins. Approach/departure angle: KJ – Unless you add 33” tires to the FJC KJ wins. Exterior: Toss up – At first I thought the FJC was ugly but it has really grown on me. FJ is UGLY as ** Offroad Ability: FJC stock to stock because of its advanced traction control, locker, lower x-fer case ratio, and ability to run taller tires. FJ stock vs. stock.** I am not attacking the KJ here, just making a comparison. What do you think about my answers? Do you have categories of your own? If you were truly objective (non Jeep biased), which would you buy?

Author:	Cowcatcher [ Tue May 02, 2006 2:58 pm ]
Post subject:
I believe it was Car & Driver that did a trail run with the FJ, H3, Xterra, and an off the street Grand Cherokee as a control. FJ and H3 came out on the bottom, Xterra on top. Here it is: http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons ... r-4wd.html

Author:	krazz1e [ Tue May 02, 2006 3:36 pm ]
Post subject:
wait for the wrangler 4 door and buy that, rubicon edition. seriosually, FJ is a nice rig, but I agree with you, the looks aren't my style. I would not buy the FJ just because it's so ugly, if only it was more like the older cruisers.... oh well.

LOST JEEPS http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/

FJ Cruiser vs. KJ http://www.lostjeeps.com/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8134	Page 1 of 3

Author:	Jeepjeepster [ Tue May 02, 2006 3:37 pm ]
Post subject:
My Jeep would beat the FJ any day of the week. The only thing I have is a locker and a lift(gosh I need tires). My jeep is smaller, turns better, shorter, has an awsome heritage, stronger rear axle although the front one sucks. Hopefully Jeepin al will fix that for us with the dana 44. MY kj wins handsdown.

Author:	Spike6901 [ Tue May 02, 2006 3:37 pm ]
Post subject:
Cow, I love the avitar! Yeah, I read that Car and Driver article and if you notice, they rated the FJC low because of reasons why we would probalby rate it high...because it dosen't drive like a car.....see "Car" and driver. As far as Toyota quality? I had an '84 Toy PU 4x4 that ran for 140k and not a single problem, not even a clutch and I beat the living hell out of it (see teenage years, lol). My Mom has a Camery with 145K and hasn't even touched it besides fluids. A buddy has a Tundra with 125k and zero problems. I also know a couple of guys with the big LC's with over 160k on them and one finally did the wheel bearings. I have had a CJ, 99' XJ and the KJ and have had major problems with all (OK, we can leave the POS CJ out of this one, lol). XJ: both diffs, x-fer case (by 85K miles). KJ: rear diff, x-fer case, front diff banging & rear diff noise now (40k miles). My dad's Grand Cheorkee: rear diff, bearings (by 70k) My buddy's 02 XJ: both diffs, x-fer case, tranny (by 60k miles) Sorry, I didn't know thay a 5 speed auto was going in the KJ now. Yeah, the 285's will fit a stock FJC. There is a fellow running the MTR's with zero rub so far and he has wheeled it. I agree with the CRD victory. Jeep: You can't just argue that yours is better becasue you say it is. Have you wheeled with an FJC and have a comparision? Come on now.

Author:	Se7enLC [ Tue May 02, 2006 3:39 pm ]
Post subject:
Cowcatcher wrote: I believe it was Car & Driver that did a trail run with the FJ, H3, Xterra, and an off the street Grand Cherokee as a control. FJ and H3 came out on the bottom, Xterra on top. Here it is: http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons ... r-4wd.html Car and driver did a similar comparison of the FJ, H3, XTerra and KJ (in their print magazine only). KJ got served. All three other models come with 265mm or wider tires stock and can fit larger, the H3 and the FJ came with lockers, they ridiculed the KJ ground clearance.

Author:	JJsTJ [ Tue May 02, 2006 3:47 pm ]
Post subject:
I dig the FJ and think it has great capability out of the box and I am sure it will work great w/ minor mods but I still Love my KJ's and will keep them forever. (of course one will have a SFA soon though)

Author:	Guest [ Tue May 02, 2006 3:57 pm ]
Post subject:
Interior: KJ - the FJ has no sunroof option, and once you have one you won't go back. Power/Torque/Mileage: KJ CRD - the FJ is going to suck gas like it's going out of style. Worse than the window sticker indicates.

Author:	Jeepjeepster [ Tue May 02, 2006 4:08 pm ]
Post subject:
Spike6901 wrote: Cow, I love the avitar! Yeah, I read that Car and Driver article and if you notice, they rated the FJC low because of reasons why we would probalby rate it high...because it dosen't drive like a car.....see "Car" and driver. As far as Toyota quality? I had an '84 Toy PU 4x4 that ran for 140k and not a single problem, not even a clutch and I beat the living hell out of it (see teenage years, lol). My Mom has a Camery with 145K and hasn't even touched it besides fluids. A buddy has a Tundra with 125k and zero problems. I also know a couple of guys with the big LC's with over 160k on them and one finally did the wheel bearings. I have had a CJ, 99' XJ and the KJ and have had major problems with all (OK, we can leave the POS CJ out of this one, lol). XJ: both diffs, x-fer case (by 85K miles). KJ: rear diff, x-fer case, front diff banging & rear diff noise now (40k miles). My dad's Grand Cheorkee: rear diff, bearings (by 70k) My buddy's 02 XJ: both diffs, x-fer case, tranny (by 60k miles) Sorry, I didn't know thay a 5 speed auto was going in the KJ now. Yeah, the 285's will fit a stock FJC. There is a fellow running the MTR's with zero rub so far and he has wheeled it. I agree with the CRD victory. Jeep: You can't just argue that yours is better becasue you say it is. Have you wheeled with an FJC and have a comparision? Come on now. Dude, what the heck are you all doing to those Jeeps? We have over 13 jeeps in our family and none of them have had any problems. We also have a corolla and it doesnt even have as many miles as some of the jeeps and its already burning oil like crazy, new wheel bearing, exhaust sucks, muffler feel off once, new starter, and a long list of other poo. I hate toyota. Also, you do not need huge tires to be good off roading. 31-32in tires are just fine.

Author:	spencevans [ Tue May 02, 2006 5:51 pm ]
Post subject:
Toyota builds some great products, but the FJ is an insult to the Land Cruiser heritage. I had a '96 fj80 and that thing was built like an ox. That thing was so well built it didn't have a squeak or rattle and it was 10 years old. My KJ has been in the shop for squeaks and rattles atleast 5 times in the last year. It is absurd that anyone would consider a DCX product as being more well built than a Toyota product. The FJ80 was the last of the real Land Cruisers. With a ladder frame, solid axles with lockers and 3 and 4 link suspension this thing was unstopable. This thing was never in the shop. The new FJ Cruiser is just a 4 runner with an ugly body and terrible rear seat leg room. Sorry to rant but thats the way it really is. Would I take one if someone offered it for free, you better believe it, but I'm not going to pay 30K for one. Would I pay 30k for a KJ, sure but that's because it comes with that amazing diesel and all that offroad capability.

Author:	PitViper [ Tue May 02, 2006 6:05 pm ]
Post subject:
Yeah it's sad but true the FJ has the KJ beat offroad in just about everything but looks. On road I would take the KJ anyday despite it's falts.

Author:	krazz1e [ Tue May 02, 2006 6:26 pm ]
Post subject:
spencevans wrote: Toyota builds some great products, but the FJ is an insult to the Land Cruiser heritage. I had a '96 fj80 and that thing was built like an ox. That thing was so well built it didn't have a squeak or rattle and it was 10 years old. My KJ has been in the shop for squeaks and rattles atleast 5 times in the last year. It is absurd that anyone would consider a DCX product as being more well built than a Toyota product. The FJ80 was the last of the real Land Cruisers. With a ladder frame, solid axles with lockers and 3 and 4 link suspension this thing was unstopable. This thing was never in the shop. The new FJ Cruiser is just a 4 runner with an ugly body and terrible rear seat leg room. Sorry to rant but thats the way it really is. Would I take one if someone offered it for free, you better believe it, but I'm not going to pay 30K for one. Would I pay 30k for a KJ, sure but that's because it comes with that amazing diesel and all that offroad capability. yeah what he said. And on that note the new FJ only beats a KJ offroad because of lockers and full skids from the factory. Well for 30k you can get a KJ and have plenty extra to get lockers, lift, tires and skids... and probably even the CRD.

Author:	InCommando [ Tue May 02, 2006 8:13 pm ]
Post subject:
Random wonderings from the heartland... -Man, I wonder why Toyota dealerships have service departments seeings as a Toyota has never in the history of the company needed any repairs under warranty? I'll bet the guy next door who had to have a tranny put in his T100 when it was two years old is going to feel really stupid upon finding out that he must have imagined the whole thing.... -Toy & Honda's reputations remind me of Prius drivers and their MPG blinders: Independent testing cannot get the Prius to meet Toy's claims in the real world, especially on the highway, but the owners never, ever admit that. -Remember when the car mags claimed the Camry & Accord were the greatest family cars ever, even when they were smaller than today's Civic and Corolla? I'd take a beating before I would ride 500 miles in the back seat of a '97 Camry again. -Lincoln, Buick, and Caddy all score higher than Toyota in JD Power Rankings: http://money.cnn.com/2006/01/23/Autos/a ... /index.htm -I had a '93 D350 with a Cummins and an auto. 170,000 miles and nothing but routine maintenance. Sure, the motor was outsourced, but the rest of the truck wasn't. Dad's '87 b350: 318/auto & 125,000 miles- still going strong. Does this mean that either one is a great car? At least they still have their bodies, a claim very few Toy' s of similar age can make in the Rust Belt. Surely the fact that '80's vintage Toy p.ups (along with all of their other models) had the body integrity of swiss cheese has to count against them somewhere. Wasn't that body seam down the bedside an engineering marvel? But, their axles do stand up great....mostly behind a 4cyl lucky to put 100hp to the ground. -I love the original FJ....right down to the inline six design stolen from Chevy. The L/C and the early Land Rovers are the best compliment anyone ever paid jeep: imitation. -Did anyone else see where the wheelbase on the JK 4dr is 116"? The Commander is 109", IIRC.... -I wonder what the new FJC V6 puts out on regular fuel instead of premium? -Now that Toy is going to actually produce a full-size truck, are they going to buy back all of those 7/8ths scale Tundras they claimed were full size? And does that make the t100 3/4's scale? -Remember the first Toy attempts at a minivan? Boy, those were awesome vehicles! I especially liked the mid-ship mounted, laid-on-its-side, 4cyl models..were those called Previas? Luckily, most people have forgotten them. At least Toyota finally got the right idea from Honda and went ahead with cloning the Caravan. Okay, I'll go take my meds now.

Author:	Kjoy [ Tue May 02, 2006 10:01 pm ]
Post subject:
I think it's a myth about Toyota and reliability. Now, dont get me wrong I have heard stories about Toys lasting FOREVER, but if you take care of a car the way you should any car can do that. Plus, nowadays I think most car companies are up to par on reliability. Im 17 years old and drive the *&^% out of my Kj, its got 81K miles on it, plus ive smashed into countless snowbanks I never should have hit, taken it offroad in places it wasn't designed for.... wait a sec... yeah it was. Point is, Toyota, overated, seriously.

Page 1 of 3	All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/

Author:	Spike6901 [ Tue May 02, 2006 7:01 pm ]
Post subject:
Spence: Agreed. I have an '80 FJ40 and it is unbelievably tough. You could say that the FJC really isn't a Land Cruiser but it is more of the "Land Cruiser" style than a FJ40 was so it is a tough call. People often shy away becasue it is an IFS rig but that is like saying our IFS KJ's arn't really Jeeps and we know that isn't true. As far as those Jeeps...all stock when the problems happend except my buddy's XJ and now my KJ (but its problems happened when it was stock). I have never had tires larger than 31" on any Jeeps I have owned and I agree Jeepster. My FJ40 has 35's and I got owned on a climb by XJ with 31's because he was locked and my 40 has open diffs. Personally, 33's are as big as I would want to go on anything except a full size truck. I wonder if the FJC is tough enough to turn 33's without breaking something. I guess we will find out. I am not getting rid of the KJ, that's for sure. I just wish it wouldn't squeek, rattle, and break so often. The fit and finish is good but mechanically, it leaves something to be desired. Although, I only paid $19k for it new and that is a far shot from the cost of a FJC.

Author:	Guest [ Tue May 02, 2006 8:07 pm ]
Post subject:
krazz1e wrote: spencevans wrote: Toyota builds some great products, but the FJ is an insult to the Land Cruiser heritage. I had a '96 fj80 and that thing was built like an ox. That thing was so well built it didn't have a squeak or rattle and it was 10 years old. My KJ has been in the shop for squeaks and rattles atleast 5 times in the last year. It is absurd that anyone would consider a DCX product as being more well built than a Toyota product. The FJ80 was the last of the real Land Cruisers. With a ladder frame, solid axles with lockers and 3 and 4 link suspension this thing was unstopable. This thing was never in the shop. The new FJ Cruiser is just a 4 runner with an ugly body and terrible rear seat leg room. Sorry to rant but thats the way it really is. Would I take one if someone offered it for free, you better believe it, but I'm not going to pay 30K for one. Would I pay 30k for a KJ, sure but that's because it comes with that amazing diesel and all that offroad capability. yeah what he said. And on that note the new FJ only beats a KJ offroad because of lockers and full skids from the factory. Well for 30k you can get a KJ and have plenty extra to get lockers, lift, tires and skids... and probably even the CRD. Actually, you can get a new 2005 model CRD for over $8000 off MSRP now. Jeep has offered the dealerships an undeclared $4500 rebate in addition to the $2000 consumer cash going on for left over 2005 CRDs. Some folks negotiate down to invoice plus the above reductions and are killing us folks that bought a CRD last year.

Author:	desertkj [ Tue May 02, 2006 9:17 pm ]
Post subject:
I stopped by the Toyota dealer to look at the FJ. There is so much plastic on the front that it is unbelievable. I understand there's a lot on the KJ, but the Toyota had like a metal skidplate surrounded by four different fascia pieces. Seriously, where's the thinking in that? If an ARB comes out for it, that might be a different story though.

Author:	Tokyojoe [ Tue May 02, 2006 10:34 pm ]
Post subject:
I have owned three Toyotas (pickup, Celica, Camry) and they all worked great. American cars stunk in the 70's and 80's. Crap quality back then (Ford Mustang for example. Those early 80's models really were bad). America has made a great turn around but I would still stick with the Japanese cars. Unless I could get a M-Benz SL model or Ferrari ($$$). Jeep Liberty's have their own niche in the market while the FJ will have its own also. The cost for an FJ is just too much and it is just too ugly. You shouldn't just compare the FJ and the KJ. Include the H3. See what the answers come out to then.