So whoever said Jeep has trouble check this out

[Stan H]

Everyone says this, but I’ve had 4of them, jk’s, jl’s, and jt.

Over 450k between the 4 and never a trip to the shop, ever. 150 on 2, 120 on one, and 35 on my current one.

Same

Sponsored

 

[Stan H]

Somewhere on a GM forum is a thread about bubbling Jeep paint.

That has to be fake

 

[Dilly’S Willy]

Dude, we have an Acura MDX (my wife has driven 5 of them in a row) and we're having issues with Honda Corporate on the LKAS camera. The camera should be recalled as a ton of Hondas and Acuras are having problems. It's a non-warranty $1800 fix.

Every manufacturer has its problems. Yes some moreso than others, but the owners that are passionate about their vehicles tend to be more involved / louder. It's not like a sea of Honda Odyssey owners are grabbing their pitchforks over the LKAS issue

True every manufacturer has problems, but now those problems seem to be similar and more common across all brands/models than it was in the past.
- The fact Honda decided it was cheaper to add a blind spot camera to vehicles they designed with blind spots, than design the body with less blind spots should say enough. Or the fact they had to use the camera when the turn signal is on (disabling the radio screen/controls) to overcome the blind spot, just sad.

I was ,I hate toyotas there I said it .

I used to love Toyotas, before 2008. Between 08-15 they just said "f*&$ it" and stopped engineering things to be reliable as they were known to be. 470k miles on the 3.7L v6 in a 96 Taco with zero issues in the rust belt. Now it's either a shitty built toyota, or a shitty owner (Toyota owners are fucking weird people, I have buddies that sell them still and to this day will agree).

Somewhere on a GM forum is a thread about bubbling Jeep paint.

Excuse me, my JT took offense to this PERSONALLY! The dealer replaced the hood/doors/tailgate due to corrosion for the previous owner. The paint DID bubble, and orange peel on the hood pretty bad in a year or so. I had them "fix this" recently, and all they did was wet sand the bubble (barely) and half-ass a smoothing job. You can STILL see the bubble and it looks worse now! The orange peel is still there too.

The 2.7 Bronco with the Sasquatch package get's down. Thing absolutely moves, stone stock, no passing, hauling, uphill problems with that one.

Until the ecoboost turbos fail between 80-110k miles and aren't covered under the 100k powertrain warranty, which they're known for BY DESIGN (not ford's fault, for once). Carbon buildup in the turbine side seizes the blade in place either choking (worst case) or becoming essentially a huge A/R turbo (best case). And you better hope you only have one, because they're about 1800 a piece.


A huge factor is they're using more recycled materials than ever before (including more aluminum) and you cannot 100% clean them before processing to make new parts. They're also cutting costs where they THINK they can to keep profit margins going up and not stalling, and when for every action, there's an equal and opposite reaction...EVERY TIME. Yes these issues can be managed, but they don't want to until it eats into their profits again.

 

[rubicon4wheeler]

Just got the consumers report in the mail today, jeep is the worst vehicle over all again. My first jeep was a new cj7 in 1985, my Gladiator is my 6th jeep. Only problem I ever had was the gas cap issue on my 07 rubi jk. The only problem I see for the most part is a lose nut behind the wheel.

Consumer Reports is absolutely notorious for their sensationalism and bias. Ask anyone who's into cars & trucks how accurate their reports are. Ask anyone who's into computers how accurate their reports are. Ask anyone who's into stereo systems how accurate their reports are. I'm not a washing machine or toaster enthusiast so I can't speak to how accurate their ratings are on those appliances, but when it comes to anything I care about, Consumer Reports is only useful to me when I run out of toilet paper.

 

[Bandit’s Lair]

When I purchased my 2001 Ford Ranger new, I got a $1500 discount for taking the 4 litre engine instead of the 3. The 4.0 was not Ford's finest V6, but 25 years and 405,000 miles later I'm still on the original engine. So if I can get 400,000 plus from a Ford V6, I'm feeling pretty good about my Jeep 3.6.

Does the transmission still work?

 

[sharpsicle]

But the 3.6L is one of Chryslers worst motors to date. The 3.8L was far worse but the 3.6l isn't much better.

Just an FYI, sarcasm doesn't come across well on internet forums.

 

[KIWelder]

Does the transmission still work?

Well, funny you should ask. My transfer case gave out at 325,000 miles, so I had my shop do the transmission at the same time since they were partially there already. Nothing was slipping at that time though, so it may have gone just as long. But I'll never know for sure.

 

[NC_Overland]

Yep. When I call my 3.6 a gutless turd, it’s trying to push a heavy and tall gladiator at high altitude. When I’ve driven it at sea level, it’s been a different Jeep.

Yeah. Not too long ago, 285 hp out a NA 3.6l on 87 octane would be sorcery.

 

[Stan H]

Yeah. Not too long ago, 285 hp out a NA 3.6l on 87 octane would be sorcery.

Most of my elevations are between 1100-4,400 does well. I never had it over 4800ft so can't testify beyond that daily work elevation is 1100-1600ft.

 

[NC_Overland]

Most of my elevations are between 1100-4,400 does well. I never had it over 4800ft so can't testify beyond that daily work elevation is 1100-1600ft.

I’m not sure where you’re going with that, but my 3.6l has been fine till 14k ft. I was saying NA= naturally aspirated. Non turbo/supercharged. And 87= regular gas, which is 85 at high altitude.

 

[Stan H]

I’m not sure where you’re going with that, but my 3.6l has been fine till 14k ft. I was saying NA= naturally aspirated. Non turbo/supercharged. And 87= regular gas, which is 85 at high altitude.

Yeah I imagine your correct, with it being NA it stands to reason that at some point as air begins to thin it will not run as strong. Thats why I said I can't attest to it running poorly or sluggish as I have never had mine above 4800

 

[WILDHOBO]

Yeah. Not too long ago, 285 hp out a NA 3.6l on 87 octane would be sorcery.

At my altitude, I’m getting well under 200hp with a 6,000+lb jeep. Gutless. But it just keeps going.

 

[NC_Overland]

At my altitude, I’m getting well under 200hp with a 6,000+lb jeep. Gutless. But it just keeps going.

You’re completely missing my point.

 

[NC_Overland]

Yeah I imagine your correct, with it being NA it stands to reason that at some point as air begins to thin it will not run as strong. Thats why I said I can't attest to it running poorly or sluggish as I have never had mine above 4800

Modern vehicles adjust. I couldn't tell much of a difference in Denver or Colorado Springs, but it’s noticeable above the treeline, roughly 12k. They do fine though. Except my 3.8l JKU. Even with a 6 speed and 4.10s and only 32s, it hated it. I’d use 4low sometimes when not needed just to have more power. My 4.0l in my Xterra was fine and so is my 3.6l. My ex wife was still in grad school and had a new at the time Nissan Sentra. It was a pretty good little car till we moved to CO and it was absolutely gutless. We never took it to the mtns. I can’t imagine how bad it would be. NA 4 cylinders get hit hard.

 

[bleda2002]

I have a 3.8l JK on 4.10s and a 3.6 jk on 3.21s and the 3.6 jk absolutely hauls ass compared to the 3.8 lol. That 3.8 with the shitty 4 speed is an absolute dog off the line but once you're going it does fine.

That said the 3.8 has 243k miles and runs like an absolute dream and is easy to work on. It even burns less oil than my gladiator does.

Sponsored