DanW
Well-Known Member
Nope. For $everal rea$ons. But no regrets, at all.Got a Rubicon Recon, really like it but thinking with the amount of driving I do perhaps I should have gotten a diesel? Anybody else?
Sponsored
Nope. For $everal rea$ons. But no regrets, at all.Got a Rubicon Recon, really like it but thinking with the amount of driving I do perhaps I should have gotten a diesel? Anybody else?
P207fMy biggest fear is emissions-not the motor. I owned several diesel vehicles and have seen " The Vehicle will not start in 200 miles" message on the dashboard multiple times. Emission systems are expensive to repair. Still considering getting one though.
Watch the TRL and the trailrecon test drive the new 392 hands down the best Wrangler out there with one exception 10 miles a gallon is what they were claiming while off-roading on stock 33 tires. Anyone that could afford a 72 $80,000 392 Wrangler will definitely put 35 if not 37's which you'll probably equate to 5 to 8 miles a gallon this will be a factor unless they squeezed a 30-gallon tank under the Beast. The stock Rubicon comes one inch higher than all other rubicon'sokay...I need a re-rack on the ābadā mpg. Iām a child of the 70ās and no stranger to 12-15 mpg in our station wagon on family vacations. Also, recall the ā90ās in 27-30ās in my Honda. Iām getting 20-ish, mostly city, mpgās with the 3.6 manual transmission. Is that bad? please tell me if I should be outraged. Because as of now, Iām not...except that Iām no longer sitting ātail gunnerā on family vacations.