'94 LS Wheel/Tire Questions

[razor541]

Hello all!

I think it's time for me to move from the current wheel/tire setup (235x75x15 Les Schwab Open Country) to something a bit more capable for offroad (or at least handle terrain harsher than puddles at the mall).

I've been eyeing the BFG KO2's, but had some concerns about the sizing for them.
With my 1994 LS 3.0L, can I fit 33x12.5x15 with no lift? How would the performance engine-wise compare to the current tires?
Looking around it seems that the 10.5 width fits with zero problems, but some cases where the 12.5's cause rubbing on either the bumper or mudflaps...

What about 35's? I don't know if I can really justify them if I need to regear or do extensive suspension/lift work, but I wanted to put it out there anyways.

I need to get new wheels as well, and I think I've settled on steel 15x8, but am unfamiliar even after research how the backspacing affects tire rub etc.

Even after looking at threads on here for a good few days I'm not coming up with anything very conclusive, so I'd love some feedback!

Thanks!!

 

[Toasty]

33x12.5's on 8" wheels and a set of 4.90 gears and your truck will be perfect, reliable, strong and capable. Having said that, i personally would run 35's on 10" wheels but my trucks have 3.5L engines. As long as your cruise RPM is over 3200 or so things will be pretty alright.

 

[JohnnyBfromPeoria]

I'd go with 33x10.5-15's on stock SR 7" wide wheels or aftermarket 8" aluminum wheels. 12.5 width is overkill, in my opinion, and decreases mileage as well as ground pressure/traction in most situations. You'd probably not enjoy 35's. My 95 SR with the 3.5l engine hauls them around, but climbing in elevation on the freeway means a lot of gear hunting for the transmission, dropping out of lock-up, down into third, back up to fourth, etc.

My friend Jorge has the 33" BFG KO2's and they are an absolutely fantastic tire.

John B.

 

[JohnnyBfromPeoria]

And I suggest the aluminum wheels to decrease unsprung weight. Some folks will tell you that a decrease there is most significant, with sources making a comparison range of 3-10 lbs of equivalent weight savings (per pound of lost unsprung weight) above the springs. The vehicle will have an easier time braking, accelerating and turning, all other things being equal. Keep in mind the new, larger tires are already going to weigh a LOT more.

John B.

 

[Toasty]

JBFP is hella correct, also 35's are just bad ***.

 

[jeep-N-montero]

Although the topic has been discussed at length numerous times I will add that the great thing about running 33x10's is you get the added height if the 33x12 but less weight and rubbing, not to mention your 94 LS has the 3.0 gutless wonder and less weight is a bit more critical.

 

[Toasty]

He might have the 24v 3.0, in which case it wouldn't be too horrible but not grear either.

 

[razor541]

It looks like I have a 12v according to the pictures at the end of this thread.

The gearing of the 4LL of the transfer case is 2:1, so are the issues with power somewhat remedied when you use that? I'm mostly doing rougher trails rather than deep mud and the like, so I mostly in 4H.

According to my engine bay label, my gears are 4.625, so I guess that's pretty standard.
Seeing as I'm already close to 4.9, would it make more sense to try to source something that's around 5.2?

I do think JohnnyB has a good point the weight reduction from steel to alloys/Al wheels.

My rationale for the 33's is it's the largest I can fit without suspension/body lifts beyond a tbar crank, and I don't think 35's+ would be much use for me: not really into rock crawling or mudding.

Thanks again for the responses!

 

[plh]

It looks like I have a 12v according to the pictures at the end of this thread.

The gearing of the 4LL of the transfer case is 2:1, so are the issues with power somewhat remedied when you use that? I'm mostly doing rougher trails rather than deep mud and the like, so I mostly in 4H.

According to my engine bay label, my gears are 4.625, so I guess that's pretty standard.
Seeing as I'm already close to 4.9, would it make more sense to try to source something that's around 5.2?

I do think JohnnyB has a good point the weight reduction from steel to alloys/Al wheels.

My rationale for the 33's is it's the largest I can fit without suspension/body lifts beyond a tbar crank, and I don't think 35's+ would be much use for me: not really into rock crawling or mudding.

Thanks again for the responses!

5.29 is the Mitsubishi gear, very difficult to find in the USA, 4.90 or 4.88 are very possible.

Not to mention your 94 LS has the 3.0 gutless wonder and less weight is a bit more critical.

LoL - I don't know what you are talking about - gutless... or do I.

 

[raysobi]

I am wearing 33" AT KO2, and I love it. With your 4.6 gear ratio you should be just fine.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk

 

[razor541]

5.29 is the Mitsubishi gear, very difficult to find in the USA, 4.90 or 4.88 are very possible.

Alrighty, I'll run with my stock gearing and the 33's until I determine I need to go to a 4.9

I am wearing 33" AT KO2, and I love it. With your 4.6 gear ratio you should be just fine.

Are you running 33x12.5? I couldn't find a build thread from your posts...

Next I guess the question is what sort of offset/backspacing I should be looking at. There was a video floating around that had a guy with 33x12.5's rolling down from a lift on 15x8 -19, but I can't determine what sort of rubbing with full lock/articulation he may or may not have.

Cheers!

EDIT: it was this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv8x2IP3dY8

 

[jeep-N-montero]

Alrighty, I'll run with my stock gearing and the 33's until I determine I need to go to a 4.9


Are you running 33x12.5? I couldn't find a build thread from your posts...

Next I guess the question is what sort of offset/backspacing I should be looking at. There was a video floating around that had a guy with 33x12.5's rolling down from a lift on 15x8 -19, but I can't determine what sort of rubbing with full lock/articulation he may or may not have.

Cheers!

EDIT: it was this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv8x2IP3dY8

The stock wheels....

 

[JohnnyBfromPeoria]

The gearing of the 4LL of the transfer case is 2:1, so are the issues with power somewhat remedied when you use that? I'm mostly doing rougher trails rather than deep mud and the like, so I mostly in 4H.

Use 4LLc off road unless you can't stand it. More revs = better for the most part, except for the fuel consumption. Your transmission will stay cooler, your engine will stay cooler, you'll have more control with the use of engine braking. If I recall correctly, I can get around 40 mph out of my 95 without feeling like I'm stressing anything while in low range. Plus it blasts you out of slow speed sections when you step on the gas...which I like.

John B.

 

[razor541]

Use 4LLc off road unless you can't stand it. More revs = better for the most part, except for the fuel consumption. Your transmission will stay cooler, your engine will stay cooler, you'll have more control with the use of engine braking. If I recall correctly, I can get around 40 mph out of my 95 without feeling like I'm stressing anything while in low range. Plus it blasts you out of slow speed sections when you step on the gas...which I like.

John B.

I'll have to give that a shot! Between actually using 4LLc and new tires, the rig should feel a heck of a lot different. Thanks for your input!

 

[Dereksd]

I vouch for 33X10.5r15 BFG KO2 on stock steelies. Hell of a tire.