America's own Defender 130 Hi-Cap (minus the high capacity)

The first Defender 130 Hi-Cap (“High-Capacity”) pickup I ever saw in person was in Namibia in 1999, at a camp outside Sossusvlei. I was instantly smitten with the massive, dusty white beast. A Superwinch Husky worm-drive winch (my first in-person look at one of those, too) rode on a stout front bumper, atop which were two Cibie Super Oscar driving lamps. Over the bed arced a tube canopy frame, and the canvas cover was rolled up so the husband and wife owners could unload a shipshape configuration of battered Zarges cases (yet another first in-person look) and Pelicans. From the lot they quickly assembled a spacious, comfortable camp, retrieved beers from the Engel fridge mounted on a frame installed in place of the back seat, and set out chairs to relax. At that moment the 130 Hi-Cap became for me the ne plus ultra of safari vehicles. Its only competition would be an equally awesome and well-sorted Toyota Land Cruiser Troop Carrier I pored over two weeks later.

Flash forward 20 years. I now have my very own Troop Carrier, but a 130 will still turn my head—and in the training area at the 2019 West Expo we had the use of a really nice one, courtesy of the folks at Land Rover Las Vegas, who have supported Expos for a decade. (The LRLV 130, a 2003 model, is a special dealer import and not licensed for street use. Earlier 130s are just now legal for importation under the 25-year exemption.) 

We also had, courtesy Scott Brown at FCA, a brand-new Jeep gladiator pickup, which I had just driven on a media introduction run.

It was an impossible comparison to ignore.

Aside from the identical configuration (four doors plus cargo bed), the two are pretty close in dimensions.

Gladiator

Length: 218”

Width: 74”

Wheelbase: 137”

130 Hi-Cap

Length: 207”

Width: 70”

Wheelbase: 127”

Additionally, they each ride on an increasingly anachronistic separate, fully boxed chassis, and solid front and rear axles supported on coil springs. Even the UK ex-Camel Trophy contingent of our training team agreed that the Gladiator looks the business.

Could it be a worthy successor to the 130?

The 130, of course, has been out of production for four years, and the Gladiator has just entered production. So any comparisons in terms of ergonomics and technology would be unfair to the Defender. Besides that, “our” 2003 130 did not even have the benefit of the latest interior. No matter: I was more interested in the basic integrity of each vehicle, and the potential for the Gladiator to step into the giant shoes of the 130 in terms of its backcountry ability and utility. (I will note here, however, that despite the 130’s traditionally cramped driving position, I found its well-formed bucket seats more comfortable than the Gladiator’s, which are flattened to suit current, more . . . generous . . . body shapes.)

As a firm fan of Jeep’s Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited, I was particularly interested to see what effects the longer wheelbase and chassis had on the Gladiator’s torsional rigidity. So the first thing I did was to take it out to our cross-axle transition hill and get it completely twisted, two diagonal tires stuffed into the wheel wells, a third hanging in the air and the fourth barely in contact with the ground. Then I got out and visually lined up the bed and cab to note the degree of chassis twist.

The Gladiator—a convertible version at that—showing off its rigid chassis.

And . . . there was none. Or, I should say, virtually none. The bed was perhaps a half-inch out of alignment with the cab. On a 137-inch wheelbase, body-on-frame truck, that is beyond impressive. I’d been told that Jeep had not simply lengthened the Wrangler Unlimited’s frame to create the Gladiator but had gone to the expense of engineering a new frame. It showed. Sadly, I never got a chance to put the 130 in the same spot, but I seriously doubt it could have matched that performance. (The 130 chassis has exactly the same dimensions as a 110 chassis except for the 17-inch extension in the middle, and an extra crossmember.)

I found the ride of the two vehicles remarkably close. I’d still give the nod to the Defender for compliance on the road, but the Jeep’s extra tautness lent it better handling, especially in sharp transient maneuvers. How about suspension travel on difficult 4x4 sections? The 130 also had the edge there—that is, until you locked the Gladiator in low range and disconnected the front anti-roll bar, at which point it stepped decisively beyond the Land Rover.

Looking at the rest of each vehicle’s four-wheel-drive capability, there is really no comparison between a “full-time” 4x4 with a locking center diff, no cross-axle diff locks, and a 43:1 crawl ratio, versus a vehicle with part-time four-wheel-drive (and thus an automatically locked transfer case when 4x4 is selected), cross-axle diff locks front and rear, a 77:1 crawl ratio, plus that disconnectible anti-roll bar (the switch for which is still incorrectly and maddeningly labelled “sway bar”). The Rubicon wins this hands down. One could argue that a non-Rubicon Gladiator—that is, minus the anti-roll-bar disconnect, diff locks, and ultra-low crawl ratio, might not be so superior, and that’s a valid point. However, I wanted to compare each in its optimal configuration, and even a last-of-production 130 with electronic traction control would be left behind by the Gladiator in Rubicon form. Easy win to Jeep. 

Approach and departure angles are very similar on both vehicles; however, since the Gladiator is 11 inches longer than the 130, it needs a 10-inch-longer wheelbase to maintain those angles—and that hurts the breakover angle. This was apparent on our “elephant footsteps” track—a diagonally alternating series of deep holes. The Jeep ground out here where the 130 did not, and when I crawled underneath the Gladiator I was stunningly unimpressed with the factory “skid plate” covering the transfer case. It has all the appearance of re-purposed lawn-chair components. I’m sure the aftermarket will address this quickly, but FCA should have done it themselves. So, nod to Land Rover here.

Hmm . . .

Maneuverability? If you think the Jeep’s 44-foot turning circle feels vaguely ocean-linerish, wait ’til you crank the wheel on the 130, which needs a full 50 feet to complete a 180-degree turn, even with its shorter wheelbase. Win to Jeep.

Visibility out of both vehicles is very good and feels like a wash, although in the critical forward direction few competitors can match the Defender’s squared-off corners, which allow confident placement mere inches from boulders or building corners.

So, how about practicality for long-distance travel—for example cargo space in the bed? The Gladiator’s bed is 60 inches long; the 130’s is five inches longer, and almost 10 inches wider, so there is notably more volume; however, they are both fairly compact—Sleeping in either bed is a no-go unless done diagonally and solo. But the square shapes lend themselves to efficient packing.

It’s when calculating just how much one can pack that a stark difference arises.

The Gladiator has a listed curb weight of 5,050 pounds, and a gross vehicle weight rating of 6,250 pounds, giving it a weight-carrying capacity of 1,200 pounds including driver, passengers, and fluids, plus any of those overlandy accessories you want to add, like a roof tent, winch bumper and winch, etc.

The Defender 130 Hi-Cap has a listed curb weight of 4,750 pounds and a GVWR of 7,450 pounds, for an actual capacity of 2,700 pounds—well over twice that of the Jeep. Even factoring in some hyperbole on the part of Land Rover (I’ve always found their claims for towing ability to be laughable in real-world terms, for example), that’s a remarkable disparity. 

Again, one might point out the non-Rubicon spec Gladiator, which ups the capacity to 1,600 pounds (chiefly because its curb weight is roughly that much lower), but there’s still a big difference, and brings to mind one of my only big reservations about the Wrangler Rubicon Unlimited with its paltry 950-pound payload.

However. Consider the following to be under the heading of I DO NOT RECOMMEND THIS; YOU COULD DIE, IT MAY VOID YOUR WARRANTY, AND IT WILL INCREASE THE CHANCES OF A DEVASTATING ASTEROID STRIKE ON OUR PLANET.

Nevertheless . . .

The braking system on the Gladiator is far superior to that on the Defender. The Gladiator’s petrol V6 has significantly more horsepower and torque than the 130’s four-cylinder turbodiesel. The Gladiator’s chassis, as we have seen, is at least as rigid as the 130’s and almost certainly more so. Therefore, if I owned a Gladiator (which I wish I did), and I had no concerns about DYING, VOIDING MY WARRANTY, OR PRECIPITATING A DEVASTATING ASTEROID STRIKE, I would have no hesitation installing an uprated set of rear springs and shocks on it, and calculating a reasonable increase in usable GVWR.

Back to my initial question—with the benefit of hindsight now that I’ve seen and sat in the new Defender.

It’s clear there will be no Land Rover descendant of the 130. The Defender is now an entirely different vehicle—it’s highly unlikely there will be a pickup version at all, much less a quad-cab high-capacity version. That means that whether we agree or not, the Gladiator is the successor to the 130. There is no other quad-cab pickup available in the U.S. with a separate, boxed chassis, front and rear solid axles, and all-coil suspension.

Is it worthy? I say absolutely.

The JL Wrangler Part 2: Rubicon

Scuffing tires on the demo course. Matt Scott photo.

I wonder if any of the corporate liability attorneys who signed off on the Jeep Wrangler Rubicon’s front and rear diff locks, anti-roll-bar disconnect, 4:1 transfer case, and 77:1 crawl ratio were ever given a demonstration of the vehicle’s capabilities.

Probably not. “Oh, those modifications? They, um, just help traction. You know, to enhance safety,” the engineers told them, winking broadly at each other. 

And in a very real sense the engineers were telling the truth—it’s just that they were referring to traction on, say, a 30-degree hillclimb studded with boulders the size of engine blocks. Which is where I found myself, with FCA’s Scott Brown in the passenger seat, in an arrest-me-if-you-can-follow-me-red two-door Rubicon, top removed and windshield folded down. The eight-speed auto box was manually selected to first in low range, anti-roll bar disconnected, and both diffs locked. I noted with approval that (along with the anti-roll bar switch) the JL’s diff-lock selector has been moved to the center of the dash for easy access (in a bright red escutcheon to boot), and hugely simplified from the JK’s: Push down for rear lock, up for front and rear. Amazingly, the new electrohydraulic power steering gave me zero indication that the front wheels were rigidly joined; normally a locked front diff firms up even power steering noticeably.

Much-simplified diff-lock control. "Sway bar" button disconects front anti-roll-bar.

Through the windshield there was a lot of blue Arizona sky, and spotter Jim Horne’s arms motioning me straight up, and up, and then left across the boulders. Scott and I transitioned from being pressed into our seats to being pressed, respectively, against the center console and driver’s door. The side/down slope was enough to make Scott give a little whoop of excitement, and for me to appreciate the integrated roll cage surrounding us. The Jeep, of course, was loafing, idling in that 77:1 crawl ratio at half walking speed, each BFG All-Terrain tenaciously gripping granite (the techs hadn’t even bothered to air them down). A turn right back towards the sky, a pause while Jim wedged an extra rock under the left rear tire, then we were over, and being waved on to the next obstacle by the next spotter. (That particular hill would shortly be closed down for rebuilding after another journalist repeatedly applying too much throttle while ignoring instructions managed to send a bunch of those engine blocks tumbling down the slope.)

Jim Horne guides a Rubicon Unlimited up the hill.

The JL Sahara Matt Scott and I had driven to get to the staging area had impressed me with its capability, and driver-independent traction-control systems are getting better with each generation. But the Rubicon is in a different universe. Even the best ABS-based traction control can’t match the ability to manually lock one or both axle differentials in advance of a limited-traction situation. Flip that center toggle switch upward in the Rubicon and you have Four. Wheel. Drive. Period. Combine that with the disconnectable front anti-roll bar, which hugely increases compliance—and comfort—on a rough trail, and a crawl ratio slow enough to let you watch cactus grow on your way past, plus excellent approach and departure angles (44º and 37º), standard BFG All-Terrains, etc. etc., and you have a vehicle unmatched by anything in its class in terms of backcountry capability—either in the U.S. or the rest of the world.

That much capability necessitates a strong foundation to withstand the stresses involved in powering a 4,300-pound vehicle up a torturous slope. While the JK Rubicon was more than up to the task, the JL raises the bar. The fully boxed chassis now employs 80 percent high-strength steel, with five boxed crossmembers. Torsional rigidity is up by 18 percent, yet, the factory claims, weight is down by 100 pounds. The next-generation Dana 44 axles have been improved as well: The front axle tubes are 10 percent larger in diameter, 14 percent thicker, and twice as strong as the previous versions. End forgings on the Rubicon are 11 percent stronger. Components no driver could ever notice have been studied, critiqued, and tweaked.

FCA's Scott Brown rides along. Matt Scott photo.

FCA’s introduction and their excellent driving course left little doubt that the JL Rubicon is everything the JK Rubicon was, and more. (Some might see the move from BFG Mud-Terrains to All-Terrains as a retrograde step, but it’s not. In a majority of situations not involving mud, ATs are the equal of if not superior to MTs. And the new tires certainly help reduce road noise, and definitely bump fuel economy.) So the Rubicon’s bona fides for competency in extremely rugged terrain remain unmatched by anything in its class. If you’re looking for a vehicle that can serve as a perfectly comfortable daily driver, then be nearly invincible for weekend explorations of any trail you have the skill to drive, it remains the icon.

The question is: If I were considering a Wrangler as an overlanding vehicle—that is, for long-distance, self-sufficient travel on a mixture of paved and dirt roads, with four-wheel drive sections definitely in the mix but little emphasis on difficult passages unless they were unavoidable due to route or weather—and if my funds were not bottomless, which way would I go? I evaluated two approaches, both of them the Unlimited (four-door) body style:

1. Go basic and order a Wrangler Sport with suitable options. On FCA’s new Wrangler build site I specced a Sport with the same Pentastar V6 and excellent ZF eight-speed automatic transmission as the Rubicon, the standard black hardtop, Anti-Spin rear diff, all-terrain tires, and a few other relevant bits such as heavy duty electrics (240-amp alternator, 700-amp battery), etc., for $36,305. It would have the simple Command-Trac part-time four-wheel-drive transfer case with ABS-based traction control (which Jeep refers to as a differential brake). To be honest, this system is capable of handling 99 percent of the terrain I have experienced on extended journeys in South America, Australia, and Africa, even completely off-tracks forays into Egypt’s sand seas. (The Anti-Spin diff is designed to seamlessly handle slight differences in cross-axle traction; the more intrusive ABS- based traction control kicks in for more extreme variations.) Jeep lists the cargo capacity if the Sport at a middling 1,000 pounds, not including the driver. (One of the few disappointments of the JL redesign is the lack of a heavier GVWR option. I wonder if the upcoming pickup version will raise this.)
2. Finance a bigger chunk and go for the Rubicon. In addition to the drivetrain and suspension features—4:1 transfer case, electric locking differentials front and rear, driver disconnectable front anti-roll bar, 4:11 diff ratios—the Rubicon boasts other standard features not available on the Sport: premium seats, an AC power outlet, a seven-inch touch screen, power heated mirrors, remote keyless entry, plus several premium options. I went through its build list, not going crazy with leather upholstery or any similar spurious extras, but nevertheless equipping it more upscale than the Sport, and came to $48,090. (I could easily have added another $4,000-$5,000 in bling.) Cargo capacity of the Rubicon is even less than the Sport—890 pounds.

Despite the slightly higher GVWR of the Sport, I’m pretty sure that for either vehicle I’d want heavier-duty rear springs and shocks if I planned on traveling with a passenger and a full load of equipment, food, and water. Even a load nearing but not surpassing the factory limit would depress the stock rear springs enough to upset the ride height and headlamp alignment. So that modification would cost about the same for either vehicle. Otherwise, what does one get for the extra $12,000 of the Rubicon besides—let’s not diminish this—the knowledge that anywhere in the world you traveled you would be able to tackle the toughest routes passable by any stock vehicle? 

One answer worth considering lies in those next-generation Dana 44 axles, a significant step up in strength and durability from those fitted to the Sport. Note: I absolutely do not think the Sport is under-equipped in that category (as long as you don’t try to cram stupidly oversized tires on it), but the overwhelming priority for an overland vehicle is reliability and durability, and there is no doubt that the Dana 44s would optimize that in a Wrangler. 

On the other hand, the higher (i.e. numerically lower) final drive ratio of the Sport—3.45 vs. 4.10—might make for slightly more relaxed freeway cruising at the expense of low-range crawling. However, with the eight-speed auto transmission on each, and taller tires of the Rubicon, I’m not sure how noticeable this will be, and I did not have a chance to directly compare the two, as I only had access to the Rubicon in the dirt. 

Of course the extra comfort (I wouldn’t classify them as “luxury”) items standard or available on the Rubicon would make traveling a bit more relaxing.

In the end—and I hope this doesn’t sound like a copout—I would buy the Rubicon if I had the funds, and be completely happy with the Sport if I did not. In fact, I’d leave for a trans-Africa trip in either with no hesitation.

Remembering to pack carefully, of course. 

Thanks for the photos, Matt!

How to balance overland / street performance on a Jeep JK?

What are your thoughts on a two-inch suspension lift with 33-inch tires (not 35s) on a Jeep JK to achieve balanced overland and street performance?

— @overlandchron (via Twitter)

What are the best options for safely mounting a Hi-Lift Jack in a Wrangler?

A lot of people I see driving Wranglers around Denver have a Hi-Lift bolted on somewhere, bumper, back door hinges, etc.

 

What's the best option for a properly and safely secured Hi-Lift? I don't want to be drilling holes. And by properly secured, I assume not just thrown in the back of the Jeep, either.

 

I think the best I've seen so far is this http://www.quadratec.com/products/92200_9001.htm mounting on the back of the roll cage, where the jack is actually inside and so won't get dirty/rusty, driven into or fall off.

- David Mallinson, Denver, CO, USA (via email)