CAUSE YOU DRIVE LIKE MY GRANDMA OUT FOR A SUNDAY DRIVE!!!
sevenslats Wrote:sure looks like it in that pic. maybe it's boxed, at least?
But, I ran stock control arms for 11 years on 0", 2", 4", and 6" lifts. twekaed the ears, but never bent/broke one at all. 
hrug:
So I'm gavitating to the 305/70R16 with S-bent front lower control arms and replacing all 8 with something that'll hold up to more abuse...but then again I drive like a grandma too.
Yes E rated tires are much stiffer than lower load ratings, it is because of the number of plys in the tire. E rated tires have like 10 plys alternating rubber and polyester. Also more plys in the sidewall. As you go down in load rating you have fewer plys. You can run up to 80 psi in E rated tires maximum load rating. Usually 35 or 44 is max on regular tires. Thats the difference between P and LT tires (passenger ie. car and LT light truck.) Regular car tire only have 3 plys. Now flexibility also depends on if they are Radial or Bias ply tires. You can run much lower pressure on Bias ply tires because they are more flexible and can handle the folding and crinklin at low pressure. Radial tires just fall apart internally usually so they look ok from the outside but are entirely disintigrated on the inside. So that is why your big super swampers are E rated because they are 10 ply, even though no one will ever run them anywhere near 80 psi, you could.
Don't go with the E's thats what i had. They were terrible on the jeep , rough, no flex when airing down.
C is plenty for a jeep. Why not just put a spacer behind the rim and leave the control arms the way they are? I ran mine like that for over 2 years without a problem.
I think spacers are a bit too wide with only 2"lift and smaller than 33" tires.
You can get spacers as wide as you want them. Most run from 3/4" to 1.5", either of which would work for your application.
I thought 1.25" was about the smallest possible because of the wheel stud length.
Mr Anderson Wrote:Yes E rated tires are much stiffer than lower load ratings, it is because of the number of plys in the tire. E rated tires have like 10 plys alternating rubber and polyester. Also more plys in the sidewall. As you go down in load rating you have fewer plys.
That's the way they were. Now it's ply ratings, not actual plys. You can have an E-rated with 2 ply sidewalls now. I'll post up an example or two when I get a chance. Right now I'm off to help a man of the cloth deal with DMV.
49's irocs will lightly rub on a stock height scout ..but only slightly ..
SHoppe715 Wrote:I thought 1.25" was about the smallest possible because of the wheel stud length.
I've seem custom made 5/8" spacers used with longer wheel studs pressed in.
(do the math. 8.8 is how much narrower than a d35?)
Goodyear says the 245/75R16 MTR is 9.8" wide. They clear my stock LCA at full cut (sitting flat) by about 1.5".
Cooper says the 305/70R16 S/T is 12.3" wide. Ignoring the rim width variable and just going with the given numbers, split the difference in width and that tire should be around .25" from the stock LCA at full cut sitting flat and rub like mad when flexing. Just a litle sideways bend, though, should give me plenty of clearance.
[edit] The MTR width is measured on a 7" wide rim and the Cooper S/T is on a 9" rim. I figure with my 8" rims the MTR will actually be a hair wider than 9.8 and the S/T would be a hair narrower than 12.3. I didn't even try accounting for those numbers and figure it just gives me a little margin of error.
So I figure those tires and a set of indestructable Olson Equipped control arms with that sideways bend in the front LCAs should do nicely. Simple, strong, no spacers, tires still under the flares.
Need to be careful with wheel spacers. You start putting longer studs on and you start increasing the leverage on those studs. I've seen a tire come off because of wheel spacers. You pound on them hard enough and those long studs will break. Its shear strength or something along those lines, I don't know can't remember anymore.
shear is the same no matter...you're dealing with the torque applied...and spacers apply more stress to the wheel bearings than the studs. longer studs offer a weak point, but when torqued down properly it's negligible compared to the added strain on the bearings.
Hope this isn't considered a hijack.
Does anybody know how big a tire will fit under an 04 Superduty without a lift? It's finally paid for and is about ready for some new rubber. I don't want to lift it because I load and unload it daily for work. High claerance bumpers and Bushwacker cut out flares will work for extra tire clearance if needed.
I put 285s on my 99 V-8 CC F250. still looked tiny. PLENTY of room in the rear (I didn't haul construction equipment). I don't recall clearances in the front. I had the stock alloys.
It looks like a 35x12.50 would fit without cutting by putting a tape on it. But that doesn't account for steering and suspension cycling. My stock F350 sits a little taller than most. It is rated at 9900GVW and has the snowplow and trailer towing packages. It seems to sit about 2" higher than other stock F350s I park next to.
Yeah torque on the bearings thats what I was thinking of, :doh: sorry no sleep for a couple weeks leads to forgetting things. :confused::knockout: Longer lever on same fulcrum = more leverage. Now it all makes sense.
78calico Wrote:Hope this isn't considered a hijack.
Not at all. All the comments back and forth helped me decide on a tire size and how to get away without spacers.
If'n people wanna keep this thread going to discuss tire fitments and how-to clearances and stuff, go fer it.
Back to the spacer debate. I don't see that a 5" backspaced rim with a 1.25" spacer would cause any more strain on the bearings than a 3.75" backspaced rim with the same tire. Think about it. The force is being applied to the bearing from the tire's center of gravity. (making the bearing the lever fulcrum) You have to move the force further away from the fulcrum (less backspacing/positive offset/whatever you wanna call it) to increase the force and it doesn't matter how you do it. That's why most OE rims are backspaced a bit more than 1/2 their width (negative offset). It puts the tire center closer to the bearing which obviously is a bit behind the wheel mounting surface.
The issue is having more hardware in a high stress area meaning more to possibly fail. As long as they're put on right, though, odds are nothing would ever go wrong.
Correct Steve...but we were talking about spacers period. :p You could also argue that lower backspace wheels put the same strain on the bearings but less on the studs. Either way, spacers are the least desireable option unless you just love your stock wheels. Which, with them being 7" wide, I wouldn't. That's just me though...wheels for offroad tires, unless you go skinnies, should be 8" or wider.
Joe, most of the newer jeeps are coming with a 8" rim. That started with the Canyon's in 03. That is the reason I spaced mine instead of buying rims right off the bat.
The big things with spacers is checking your torques forly regularly during the first couple 100 miles. The big pain is removing your rims to check them. With that said, mine have never come loose in the 2 years of having them.
Jeep "Moab" rims are 16"X8" with 5" backspacing.
I don't want to go wider since I'm only going up 2". Any more than 3" with the higher center of gravity I'd accept the tradeoff of added strain on the bearings from extra width for the rollover safety.