island, the question isn't one of whether or not Jeep owners DO use their vehicles off road. The question is whether or not they CAN. The Rubicon is named after the famous trail, which you can run with.........a bone stock Rubicon. I've seen several articles where they have done it, so it's not just clever marketing. I couldn't find any such information on the Cayenne after a quick Google search, maybe you can have better luck?

Belittle the hobby all you want, but some people really get into it. And for those that do it often, there's no arguments that solid axles and locking differentials are absolutely the way to go. Your understanding of articulation is flawed, because while you are correct about friction being a function of normal force you ignore one important point - you don't get any friction from one wheel spinning in the air. Look at the pictures of stogie's Jeep in extreme off camber situations, a Cayenne would be up on the high wheel on compressed suspension with the other side hanging in the breeze. You simply can't get the same amount of suspension droop and overall articulation with an independent suspension. There's a reason why every vehicle that is seriously built for this sort of work has solid axles front and rear.

Just be happy with what you have, because let's face facts - Cayenne owners spend way more time on the pavement than Jeep owners spend in the rocks.

island911,
You are right, Cayenne's are the ultimate offroader. Porsche was able to not only create the best, most robust offroad vehicle while still being the best handling SUV on the road. All those expeditions using simple solid axle vehicles (Toyota LandCruiser 70, Discovery, Defender 90, MB G-class - the actuall offroad one not the US model, and Wrangler) are mistaken.

I don't even really know why we are talking about the Cayenne though. It doesn't feel or drive like a Wrangler. They are not comparable unless your only goal is to go from A to B and nothing else. Its like comparing a Mini to a 911. Is the 911 a better road car, yeah. Are Mini extremely fun - yes. And for 1/4 - 1/3 price, they make an attractive form of transportation.

Actually, a non-Rubicon Wrangler with a few factory options can run the Rubicon while completely stock. For that matter, the Cherokee can conquer the Rubicon trail, and as a final test before being released for sale, the original Grand Cherokee was tested on the Rubicon. Until the Patriot, every Jeep model was tested on the Rubicon Trail.

Jeep did a great thing to market the Rubi. A large percentage of Jeep owners swap out the transfer case for a lower low range, and add lockers, either in the rear, or both axles. Of course, with larger tires, the gearing needs to be changed, so even though the Rubicon sits no higher than other Wranglers, it comes with 4:10 gears. With lesser Wranglers, there is an optional 3:73- Pretty doggy with 33" or larger tires.

Since so many are buying Jeeps and tossing out so much of the running gear, why not sell them all set up and ready to go?

The big changes:
-4:1 Low range transfer case
-Dana 44 Axles front and rear (Dana 44 is an option for the rear only for other Wranglers)
-Air lockers, front and rear, controlled from the dash
-Larger wheels and tires.


Though the Rubicon costs more than other Wranglers, it was far cheaper for me to start with a Rubi than to start ordering all kinds of aftermarket stuff.

For my wife, I admit it (and so will she...) The Jeep's big advantage is it looks cool in the Starbucks parking lot. She loves it.

For me? I love the idea that I need not worry about getting back home when out goofing off.

As far as durability when far from civilization- A friend keeps welding rods & spare u-joints in his glove box. He has repaired cracked frames and steering bits while miles from nowhere. His is a highly modified early jeep, before the much stronger boxed frames of the newer Jeeps. He has a gang of guys that caravan with several Jeeps, camping for days at a time in the wilderness. Still not sure I want to go some of the places he goes....

yup, and that makes me wonder if a Cayenne might not make it on the Rube also

I agree there is no way it can perform with a solid axle off roader on big rocks, humps, etc.

thx for that info

I agree with this, tho it isn't exactly germane to the original discussion - pretty much every poster on this thread has noted that the Cayenne is the better all-around vehicle "horse for courses" & etc.

DoD has done studies of what can get where and no wheeled vehicles can match tracked ones, which in turn cannot perform as well as something with legs...

now let's hear it for the Bultaco...

Just picked up a 2012 Arctic Edition 4 door Wrangler in the last month after driving a civic for 5 years (first child prompted the need for a 4 door with more cargo room). The new engine and transmission (in addition to the upgraded 2011 interior) make a huge difference. I had 3 Wranglers in high school and college. This is head and shoulders above them as far as comfort and daily driving goes. It has several USB ports, 120 volt outlet, navigation, heated seats, etc. The 4 door really improves the ride, and I can fold the seats down for a nice amount of cargo room. The new Arctic Edition basically has the wheel and tire package of the Rubicon on a Sahara. Taking the top off in the summer is a huge plus that makes the poor gas mileage and mild complaints melt away pretty quickly :)
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/c...7/79fa23d8.jpg
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/c...7/129da07f.jpg
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/c...7/46278fc9.jpg
http://i215.photobucket.com/albums/c...7/cf7ebdc1.jpg

I had a 97 Jeep and my wife had an 06 CS.

I would buy another Jeep but not another Cayenne but that sounds like I like Jeeps, which I don't.

Go figure.

Oye. :rolleyes:

I'm not saying that at all. What I am saying is that one has to split some pretty fine hairs to say the Jeep is a better off-road vehicle than a Cayenne OR EVEN A LEXUS (Toyota). --they all are pretty close in metrics. Even on the Rubicon trail. An image search shows even the "mighty / modified / "Rubicon trail ready" Jeeps . .. turtled on some rocks. You will also see places where boulders have rocks stacked against a face to Just allow a short wheel base to pass.

So my point is the driver skill will have much more to with the go/no-go of these vehicles than whether the thing has a "trail ready" badge.


you don't get any friction from one wheel spinning in the air. . . uhm, but when all the wheels are locked, the only way one is spinning in the air is if the others are spinning on the ground. (the ones with massive load/friction/grip)

btw, is this design all wrong too?

http://www.utvguide.net/images/Rubicon-July2011-038.jpg

the fineness of the hair one is splitting is a power function of where one wants to go, and how likely one feels they can survive a hike back out

with enuff travel you can do as well as a beam axle - there are comments about how good the new Lan Drovers, etc. are in that respect

in contrast, the VW Suncro Vanagon was known for having very poor suspension articulation

I suppose the best techno fix for all conditions would be to have an actuator on the suspension that could lock it up at certain times, and let it

I intend to design one (If PAG doesn't beat me to it) right after I install my fuel cell & solar panel motivated off-road camper with the wheel hub motors

Crockey

I just picked up a sahara that looks very similar. This is my first Jeep. I swapped cars with a buddy because he needed my van. He has a 2010 rubicon. I had a blast and thought well.......to hell with it.


http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1329862826.jpg

I've been daily-driving Jeeps since 1994 or so and love them. One YJ and 4 TJ's later, here's number 5:

http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6140/6...e3f264a7_z.jpg

Been thinking about moving up to a JK Unlimited now that we have a child on the way. The rear doors would make a big difference on my ailing lower back trying to load/unload the baby from the back seat. The reality is that I'm waiting for the Pentastar-powered 2012's to start coming off of lease with the initial depreciation taken care of, so it might be another year until I pull the trigger.

Until then, I'm waving out of my TJ. SmileWavy

Iv got a 46 2a and a 67 cj5 v6 . And no either one would not be better than a wrx :) but iv been using the cj5 amost as often as my porsche and 87 blazer daily driver the last year or two
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...e/IMG_2935.jpg
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...ep/1234567.jpg

that is FREAKIN' BEAUTIFUL!

A couple of days ago, I drove a JK with the new Pentastar 3.6 and while it's much, much quieter and smoother than the old 3.8, I certainly didn't notice the extra 50hp. I figured it would be much livelier, but I think they put taller gears in or something to further improve the EPA consumption figures.

It's the mpg I'm after, the extra hp would just be icing on the cake. :)

thanks hugo I bought it as a 200$ rust bucket a couple years ago and restored it. Iv won a few car shows with it already and even got in a calender. its been fun

island,
1. Nobody is saying that independent suspension can't work. But for a given price and size constraint, solid axles offer more reliability and articulation than independent suspension at low speeds. Plus they tend to be much cheaper and easier to repair, which is inevitable when offroading. (BTW - your picture is of a small buggy - that isn't really relevant as size is a major factor in offroading.)

2. As to locked axles and "spinning in the air". You are somewhat correct. The problem is that you will not always be on a surface that will provide linear load based friction grip such as provided by clean rock. People in wet areas such as the east coast will often be at extreme angles with the heavily weighted tire in slippery clay/mud. This is when that lightly loaded tire sitting on drier ground can provide that wee bit o friction required to keep moving. You won't get this is with most independent setups regardless of differential tech. No matter how much one load a tire in slippery mud, the coefficient of friction stays pretty much the same. This phenomenon is why Wranglers with lockers tend to be very good at pulling people out of muddy situations.

Anyway, a 2DR Jeep Wrangler can't really be compared to a normal SUV. They don't feel the same. I've asked my wife whether a used base Cayenne would be better for us and she flat out said "NO! That test drive was boring. I am not a mom yet." Cars are a lot more than numbers, although I'll say for new car MSRP, the Wrangler has the off-road numbers in its favor. Cars should be about feel. Once could easily say that a Panamera S is a better road car than a Mazda MX-5. Technically it is. By the numbers it is quieter, faster, handles better, and seats more. But is it a funner car if you only need space for 2 and like the convertible top? I think this same comparison applies to something like a Cayenne (or any SUV) v. Wrangler 2DR. Now the 4DR, that is a different story. I can see why people like them but they do not feel like a Wrangler in ride/handling - something I actually like about the 2DR.

Granted I could probably sway her into the new Cayenne Turbo we tested. Too bad I would need to sway the dealer into giving me about 60% off. Even then, I'd be scared to leave that thing at the trailhead for 5 days.