Why Wranglers get a bad rap?

[AxleIke]

130k? Should be BARELY broken in.

Read my post, he didn't do normal maint from 100K on
For no oil change, hell, barely any oil being in it, going 30K is pretty well I think...

Ah. That is pretty good. I was more referencing the 94k in the OP's post, but good point, I missed the no oil part.

[Skrillah]

130k? Should be BARELY broken in.

Read my post, he didn't do normal maint from 100K on
For no oil change, hell, barely any oil being in it, going 30K is pretty well I think...

Ah. That is pretty good. I was more referencing the 94k in the OP's post, but good point, I missed the no oil part.

Yeah I agree, 94k on a Toyota is nothing but on a Jeep thats a lot. I guess its just the shear notion that I thought Jeeps were total crap and I suppose they are compared to Toyotas but they aren't as crappy as I originally thought. The 4.0Ls have a good reputation for getting big miles though...well maybe not 300k but close to 200k.

[paddlenbike]

The biggest issue with Jeeps is their drivetrain strength, or lack thereof. The rear Dana 35 and to a lesser extent the front Dana 30 rear their ugly heads when you significantly increase tire size or wheel it on moderate trails. A stock Wrangler has very little ground clearance, so a lift and larger tires are mandatory, then you start uncovering the issues with the drivetrain. There are plenty of aftermarket parts to fix these issues, but they cost money. We are very fortunate to own vehicles that require very little in the form of modifications to run moderate to advanced trails.

[traben27]

The rear Dana 35 and to a lesser extent the front Dana 30 rear their ugly heads when you significantly increase tire size or wheel it on moderate trails.

Very good point, my friend with 35s decided to just put a 44 under the rear instead of dealing with the 35...Solves the problem but $$$