Sahara The Luxury Model?....Almost

[i64X]

Exactly, you'll never get the same ride in a Rubicon that you do in the Sahara. Suspension and gearing make sure of that.

Given they're both solid axles, they both ride like crap when compared to any other modern vehicle. Neither one is remotely close to a "luxury" experience.

Sponsored

 

[Bswen]

Given they're both solid axles, they both ride like crap when compared to any other modern vehicle. Neither one is remotely close to a "luxury" experience.

I'm not one that has ever stated a jeep is a luxury vehicle. Only replying to the fact that the Sahara rides better and that is the reason some people prefer it to the Rubicon. I'm sure that the gas mileage is slightly better in sahara as well. Although noone is buying a jeep for the mileage.

 

[Sean L]

So the Sahara is "luxury" why? Because of some pleather on the dash?

Loaded Rubicons and Saharas on the lots around me are all between $52-$55K. And "more powerful" is more than just gears. It's a completely different transfer case than the Sahara's, with its "auto 4WD" and smaller internals. I'd rather have something with stronger internals vs one that makes sacrifices for space for "grips when it slips" 4WD, like a Honda CRV.

Sahara is just a middle model, more niceties than the sport. Rubicon adds on the aforementioned off-roading goodies.
Select-Track has been around for decades and is actually an upgrade to the standard transfer case. The CJ-7 even had it as on option and definitely not a Honda system.

 

[Sean L]

I'm sure that the gas mileage is slightly better in sahara as well. Although noone is buying a jeep for the mileage.

Actually mine is quite a fuel economy upgrade from my old truck. I was averaging 15-16 around town in my Ram, now I'm averaging 20-21.

 

[i64X]

Sahara is just a middle model, more niceties than the sport. Rubicon adds on the aforementioned off-roading goodies.
Select-Track has been around for decades and is actually an upgrade to the standard transfer case. The CJ-7 even had it as on option and definitely not a Honda system.

I didn't say it was a Honda system, but logically it works in the same way a lot of the FWD-bias, auto-engaging, part-time "4WD/AWD" systems work, including VW's 4Motion, Honda's RT-4WD, Ford's, Toyota's, etc.

Anyway, that's semantics.

My point is that I don't think either the Rubicon or the Sahara are in a "higher trim" or "lower trim" scenario vs each other. Sport is the base, Sport S is above that, and I think Rubicon and Sahara are forks at that point. They're nearly identical in price.

I opened both out using the configurator, with the 3.6L engine, 8 speed auto, better rear-end and SelecTrac option in the Sahara, both with painted tops, both with black leather, neither with optional "upgraded" wheels, and both with every other package available except smokers package and dual-top group... the Sahara came out to $51,440 and the Rubicon came to $51,805. The difference is only $365 between the two.

My point is this - can you make that Sahara do what the Rubicon can do for $365? Not even close. It would literally be more than 10x the cost difference, and it would still all be aftermarket and not as good as stock.

Could you regear a Rubicon to "drive like" a Sahara for $365? Nope, but you could do it for around $1,100 for tires and a re-gear. That's only 3x the cost difference.

Does any of this matter to someone who is going to buy a Sahara and drive it as it is? Nope, sure doesn't.

What I don't understand is the person who saves $365 buying that Sahara, and then tries to put 35s on it, realizes that their gearing is way off, then has to pay for a re-gear, then has to pay for a lift to avoid rubbing and clearance issues, etc.

If you're going to buy a Sahara and drive it, awesome. If you're going to buy a Sahara and lift it and put bigger tires on it, why not just spend the extra $365 after putting the options you want on it and getting a Rubicon? You'll be that much further ahead when it comes time to turn those big tires because of the gearing, and you'll have more clearance without modification too. I have 35s on my Rubicon, and even with the 4.10 gears, 8th gear is basically gone over 60 mph. You'd be revving the hell out of a 3.45 trying to turn those heavy things at highway speeds.

 

[Sean L]

I didn't say it was a Honda system, but logically it works in the same way a lot of the FWD-bias, auto-engaging, part-time "4WD/AWD" systems work, including VW's 4Motion, Honda's RT-4WD, Ford's, Toyota's, etc.

Anyway, that's semantics.

My point is that I don't think either the Rubicon or the Sahara are in a "higher trim" or "lower trim" scenario vs each other. Sport is the base, Sport S is above that, and I think Rubicon and Sahara are forks at that point. They're nearly identical in price.

I opened both out using the configurator, with the 3.6L engine, 8 speed auto, better rear-end and SelecTrac option in the Sahara, both with painted tops, both with black leather, neither with optional "upgraded" wheels, and both with every other package available except smokers package and dual-top group... the Sahara came out to $51,440 and the Rubicon came to $51,805. The difference is only $365 between the two.

My point is this - can you make that Sahara do what the Rubicon can do for $365? Not even close. It would literally be more than 10x the cost difference, and it would still all be aftermarket and not as good as stock.

Could you regear a Rubicon to "drive like" a Sahara for $365? Nope, but you could do it for around $1,100 for tires and a re-gear. That's only 3x the cost difference.

Does any of this matter to someone who is going to buy a Sahara and drive it as it is? Nope, sure doesn't.

What I don't understand is the person who saves $365 buying that Sahara, and then tries to put 35s on it, realizes that their gearing is way off, then has to pay for a re-gear, then has to pay for a lift to avoid rubbing and clearance issues, etc.

If you're going to buy a Sahara and drive it, awesome. If you're going to buy a Sahara and lift it and put bigger tires on it, why not just spend the extra $365 after putting the options you want on it and getting a Rubicon? You'll be that much further ahead when it comes time to turn those big tires because of the gearing, and you'll have more clearance without modification too. I have 35s on my Rubicon, and even with the 4.10 gears, 8th gear is basically gone over 60 mph. You'd be revving the hell out of a 3.45 trying to turn those heavy things at highway speeds.

Its all on what you're going to do with it as I've been saying. The Select-track option does add an additional $1200 to the Sahara because it forces you to also have the limited slip diff. It also requires the automatic transmission as well so another $2000 if you weren't already going for that. You take the select-trac out of that mix and the price difference becomes much more evident. It is still a better deal to just get the Rubicon if you want 4.10s and all the other goodies.

I agree, trying to put oversized tires on a Sahara is dumb and thats why I'm keeping my Wrangler A/Ts. It is my personal opinion that the 33s on the Rubicon are just the right size so even if I did spring for one, I'd keep those. Honestly the Rubicon with any option group was out of my price range to start with so getting new tires would make me go for broke. I'm not going to rock crawl, I got it for a daily driver with some moderate trail driving and overland driving and its performed splendidly so far. Also, I have Command-track on mine but I think Select-Track would be a cool upgrade.

 

[i64X]

To be clear I wasn't asking or commenting on anyone's specific case for one vs the other (ie your choice), just asking some questions and stating the opinion that I didn't think a Sahara and a Rubicon were really "one's better than the other" or "one's a step above the other" for either specific case, rather they were a fork above the Sport S for two different use cases. In my configuration I put the better rear end in the Sahara to make it a more apples to apples comparison since the Rubicon comes with beefier axles, and if you elect for the LSD in the Shara you get a rear axle upgrade.

If you're going to stay on road all the time a Sahara makes sense... even the stock 33" K02s on a Rubicon throw rocks all over the place, and they tend to follow cracks in the road due to the aggressive almost 90 degree sidewall cutoffs, so they're less than ideal for exclusive road use. Like you I agree though that if you're going to start lifting and doing big tires and whatnot, just start off with a Rubicon if you can spare the extra expense. It'll save you a lot of money and headache down the road.

 

[Sean L]

To be clear I wasn't asking or commenting on anyone's specific case for one vs the other (ie your choice), just asking some questions and stating the opinion that I didn't think a Sahara and a Rubicon were really "one's better than the other" or "one's a step above the other" for either specific case, rather they were a fork above the Sport S for two different use cases. In my configuration I put the better rear end in the Sahara to make it a more apples to apples comparison since the Rubicon comes with beefier axles, and if you elect for the LSD in the Shara you get a rear axle upgrade.

If you're going to stay on road all the time a Sahara makes sense... even the stock 33" K02s on a Rubicon throw rocks all over the place, and they tend to follow cracks in the road due to the aggressive almost 90 degree sidewall cutoffs, so they're less than ideal for exclusive road use. Like you I agree though that if you're going to start lifting and doing big tires and whatnot, just start off with a Rubicon if you can spare the extra expense. It'll save you a lot of money and headache down the road.

Well you did come across as pretty hostile at first, but its good we agree on a few things.

 

[Threxx]

Exactly, you'll never get the same ride in a Rubicon that you do in the Sahara. Suspension and gearing make sure of that.

Just curious, has anyone compared a JL Sahara and JL Rubicon (with the same # of doors) and compared ride quality?

I imagine the shocks and springs on the Rubi are stiffer, which would hurt the ride quality some. But the Sahara has larger wheels and narrower side wall rubber, which hurt ride quality.

I would guess the Rubi rides a little stiffer but I would also guess the difference isn't likely very apparent unless you're driving them both side by side and paying close attention to how they ride.

 

[Ruby Jack]

Guys, if you want a luxury SUV, look into Range Rover, Lexus, Porsche, Mercedes, or BMW. Heck, even the Grand Cherokee could suit your needs.

The Wrangler was made with several things in mind, luxury is probably not even in their top 10 concerns when designing them.

Crying about how your Sahara isn't luxurious enough because it doesn't have automatic windshield sensors is like buying a Ferrari and crying that it scrapes on the ground when you drive it around your farm.

Just end this thread already.

 

[ThirtyOne]

Guys, if you want a luxury SUV, look into Range Rover, Lexus, Porsche, Mercedes, or BMW. Heck, even the Grand Cherokee could suit your needs.

The Wrangler was made with several things in mind, luxury is probably not even in their top 10 concerns when designing them.

Crying about how your Sahara isn't luxurious enough because it doesn't have automatic windshield sensors is like buying a Ferrari and crying that it scrapes on the ground when you drive it around your farm.

Just end this thread already.

I have started to feel the same way. Why is having a luxury Wrangler even the goal? It is pretty amazing that they have gotten as close as they have but they can never really close the gap.

Should they just make a different vehicle that is like a boxy Grand Cherokee with a moon roof and all the luxury features?

 

[Sean L]

I have started to feel the same way. Why is having a luxury Wrangler even the goal? It is pretty amazing that they have gotten as close as they have but they can never really close the gap.

Should they just make a different vehicle that is like a boxy Grand Cherokee with a moon roof and all the luxury features?

Boxy Grand Cherokee you say?

Honestly I did consider one of these before I got my Ram 1500 5 years ago.

 

[COBoarder]

I'm going from a 2014 Rubicon to an Ocean Blue 2018 Sahara because for 4 years I had all the intentions of leaving the suburbs to hit the trails with my Rubi but could never find the time to add a new hobby to life. Almost went with a Rubi again but the Select-trac pushed me to the Sahara. I realized I spent more time in snow - slushy mix in DC than on the trails. Looking forward to delivery in a few weeks. Thanks to all for the content on this forum, really helped my decision making.

 

[Sean L]

I'm going from a 2014 Rubicon to an Ocean Blue 2018 Sahara because for 4 years I had all the intentions of leaving the suburbs to hit the trails with my Rubi but could never find the time to add a new hobby to life. Almost went with a Rubi again but the Select-trac pushed me to the Sahara. I realized I spent more time in snow - slushy mix in DC than on the trails. Looking forward to delivery in a few weeks. Thanks to all for the content on this forum, really helped my decision making.

Glad you're getting your JL soon, Its a good daily driver, but DC Traffic?!?! How do you not go insane there?

 

[COBoarder]

Glad you're getting your JL soon, Its a good daily driver, but DC Traffic?!?! How do you not go insane there?

DC traffic is optional, get in early enough and leave late enough....no traffic. How else can anyone afford a $50K Jeep?

And . . . it's so much fun plowing through potholes and street construction with the Jeep as all the BMW & Tesla's risk denting their rims on those thin wall tires. The Jeep is the perfect commuter car as far as I'm concerned.

Sponsored