Best tire and lift combo for expedition JK

[JPK]

One advantage of the AEV suspensions is that they are designed to carry weight while still retaining better than oem ride. They achieve this through really well designed progressive rate springs. Good ride while lightly loaded, the ability to carry a lot od weight and still handle well.

BTW, a JKU with a 3.5" AEV suspension and mud terrain tires will out perform an oem Rubicon four door on the slolom course and skid pad, so the handling is there, the cornering... and the ride is excellent.

Unlike many other lift kit makers, AEV went and redisigned the JK suspension, and it shows when you drive a JK with an AEV suspension. It isn't just lift. For example, the rear track bar and mounting tower are designed to reduce the distance between COG and roll center, with the result of reduced body lean and bump steer, the front control arm relocation brackets restore factory caster while reducing arm angle, improving ride, but also change the relationship between upper and lower arm mounts, reducing brake dive and reducing drive shaft verticle movement during articulation. Pinion angle issues are resolved and pinion angle actually decreases as the suspension droops, opposite of oem or other suspensions.

Really, for overlanding, exploring, cruising the back country, and the associated highway miles, nobody come close to AEV.

If you insist on going another route keep in mind that once a lift exceeds about 2" you really need to correct caster for a rig that will see lots of highway miles. The wander a rig with insufficient caster exhibits is tiring as hell on the road. Lower front control arms will do it, but expensive... The AEV brackets will do it if your lift is tall enough, about 3" or so, and they improve ride, reduce brake dive and correct pinion angle issues too. They're $100 the pair.

On the Rubicon vs. Sahara or Sport... imo, for overlanding or exploring, back country cruising the Rubicon is the way to go if you can spring the $'s. Optional now on the auto, 4.10 gears in the 2012's will mean no re-gearing for up to 35" tires, lockers front and rear, D44 front and a stronger D44 in the rear, 4:1 transfer case all make it worth the $'s. But if the $'s are a challenge, a Sport or a Sahara are very capable and can be upgraded over time as $'s allow. You can get a limited slip rear on the Sport or Sahara, which will help a lot until a locker can be installed.

JPK

 

[Busarider]

I'll add a few more things into the above post. While the AEV is a great out of the box solution, there are a couple points which I consider to be a trade off. The front brackets do what AEV intended but do hang down 2". There also isn't much adjustment with the AEV set up.

That said, with the OME HD kit, in addition to needed in the lower arms, upper rear arms to correct caster, you will need adjustable track bars to center your axles. If you have an automatic transmission you will also need a new front drive shaft if you plan on ever disconnecting your sways....

I would also recommend the Rubicon. My Jeep was one of the few 2007 X's that came thru with 4.10's and limited slip (rear only). I haven't driven a 12 yet, and know there is more power, but the 4.10's are pretty lacking in my Jeep. The limited slip works pretty well but is IMO not a substitute for a locker. You definitely get some tire spin before both tires grab. Last weekend was a perfect example of this. I was climbing a snow/and ice covered hill and the Jeep started loosing traction. The rear slid quite a bit as the limited slip did its job, unfortunately too late. It put me sideways on the path and I ended up winching... Lockers moved up my mod list very quickly when this happened....

 

[Hilldweller]

You'll still go sideways with a locker on ice...

 

[HTE]

Adding to the previous posts...the JKU's are surprisingly capable in their stock trim options. With the introduction of the new engine and transmission for the 2012 model year Jeep has created an excellent platform for an expedition/overland vehicle. That being said, there are nearly endless options on what can be done to modify a JKU.

Creating a list of goals for the end result will help steer you in the right direction of building the ideal expedition vehicle. For example: my goals, so far, for my current build project (2012 JKU Rubicon) include having the vehicle easily handle highway speeds (~75mph), suspension capable of holding 7-10 days of gear (for 2 people) and full underbelly protection plus bumpers, 35" tires with proper gearing and a modular interior storage system. My goals are directed towards having a vehicle than can do a variety of difficult "Jeep trails", jump on the highway and cruise across country, or load up for a couple weeks off-the-grid (often all in the same trip). I achieved similar goals with building a D90 and hopefully a Jeep as well. Keep in mind your goals and read up as much as you can. This is a great place to discuss with like minded people.

Mild or wild, that is the question (including price break). More and more aftermarket companies are taking part in the growing overland scene. By staying realistic it is hard to go wrong with which companies to use. Consider your budget and timeline for modifications. The Rubicon model includes lockers and 4:1 ratio transfer case. For slow technical off-road trails those two items are beneficial for you and your vehicle. AEV and OME are popular names for JKU suspensions (several other good companies out there too). Tires: any mud or all-terrain with 3-ply sidewalls is a good place to start. Tire sizing is a personal choice with what you want to do with the vehicle and how much you want to spend on modifications (taller suspension for bigger tires/gearing the diffs/reduced fuel mileage, etc...). Bumpers are important to the extent that they provide proper airbag deployment, vehicle protection and strong recovery/lifting points. A winch is a consideration if solo trips are of interest. Differential protection is never a bad thing to think about.

Each modification changes the vehicle. Have goals on performance, capabilities, comfort, simplification for field repairs, safety, and budget. In the end, build a vehicle that works for you and that you know inside and out.

Paul

 

[m(a)ce]

A lot of good info above. ^^^

After building up my 08 Rubicon, I'm now of the philosophy of less is more.

Definitely spend some time with stock rig. The Rubi out of the box is super capable.

You can use some initial $ to pay down your loan or get the gear for traveling (recovery, rack, etc)

If you can try and drive or ride in any of the lifts you're contemplating.

If you decide to lift it I'd say wait & see what the upcoming AEV 2.5" lift is like based on reviews of their other setups. Should be capable for expo while retaining on road manners (& clear up to a 35").

For tires my KM2s have done everything I've asked from rocks to mud to DD duty. Their ATs worked well on my TJ and I have a buddy that swears by the Falken ATs (& he's a hardcore rock crawler guy).

Good luck and enjoy!

 

[Timgco]

One thing that has not been talked about the by the OP is $$$$$$. All of these mods add up quickly. Intended use of the truck has been determined as not a hardcore rock rig and will be used as his adventure rig. That can mean diferent trails for different people though. Some owners will need a truck on 35's, some will use 33's and go where they need to. I think the type inteded terrain (locations) should be clarified. Tire size and budgett will help determine what mods the OP can use too.

IMHO, the AEV is a great way to go whether you run the stock tires to 37's. Performance can be kept/ over-achieved by gearing, engine/trans/ gears mods. anything larger that stock tires will decrease your fuel econ. but can be salvaged by a gear swap.

If you are ordering a 2012, there are some things I would order along with it.
1st, I would order the Rubicon with 410 gearing. You can run up to 35's with this setup "ok." You may choose to re-gear down the road, but it's still good on road and 4Lo offroad doesn;t even notice the 35's. 488's for a fully loaded JKU with 35's would be a little better balance on/off road. higher 70mph plus will hurt the fuel eco a little.

Things that have come up on the 2012's include the front driveshaft will hit the crossover exhaust. The AFE Y pipe solves this issue. The exhaust loop on the drsd needs a skid as well. EVO MFG makes a great skid package for this that protects the oil pan, transmission line, and exhaust loop. The AEV rear diff slider with protect the U Ujoint driveshaft as well.

Depending on budgett, you can mod this truck to fit your needs perfectly. Don't feel you "have to" build the JK to enjoy the back country. A stock Rubicon will take many places. If you are not going to lift it, I would look into protection for the underbody of the JK 1st. Than start your mods as $$$ allows you too.

 

[MattScott]

I doent necessairly agree with part of this statement. I have a lifted X and a friend if mine has a Rubicon. I have personally towed him four times! I have better ground clearance that allowed me to go over obstacles without getting hung up where his stock Rubicon did.
Dont get me wrong, Rubicons have better components but dont always make them better. You can purchase a lot of usefull parts for overlanding/expeditions that dont add up to the $6000 differance between an X and a Rubicon.

That's I asked where he would be using the vehicle - in some areas break over angle is key.

Personally I would rather have twice the traction, with the locking differentials, rather than relying on ground clearance alone.

It allows you to move slowly through an obstacle; knowing you have the traction, and to play the opponent (i.e terrain obstacle) more technically.

Yes, the Rubicon is more money, but when you factor in the cost, and strength of the upgraded front axle, the locking differentials, the different gearing, and the factory sway bar disconnects; you'd quickly spend that $6,000 attempting to upgrade to the factory parts the Rubicon offers. That isn't even mentioning the addition of slightly larger mud terrain tires out of the box - that you'd have to add to a non-Rubicon.

 

[JPK]

I'll add a few more things into the above post. While the AEV is a great out of the box solution, there are a couple points which I consider to be a trade off. The front brackets do what AEV intended but do hang down 2". There also isn't much adjustment with the AEV set up.

That said, with the OME HD kit, in addition to needed in the lower arms, upper rear arms to correct caster, you will need adjustable track bars to center your axles. If you have an automatic transmission you will also need a new front drive shaft if you plan on ever disconnecting your sways....

I would also recommend the Rubicon. My Jeep was one of the few 2007 X's that came thru with 4.10's and limited slip (rear only). I haven't driven a 12 yet, and know there is more power, but the 4.10's are pretty lacking in my Jeep. The limited slip works pretty well but is IMO not a substitute for a locker. You definitely get some tire spin before both tires grab. Last weekend was a perfect example of this. I was climbing a snow/and ice covered hill and the Jeep started loosing traction. The rear slid quite a bit as the limited slip did its job, unfortunately too late. It put me sideways on the path and I ended up winching... Lockers moved up my mod list very quickly when this happened....

The brackets hang down about 1.5" or so; .5" might not seem significant, but it is 25% less than suggested. I have yet to really whack the brackets while rock crawling, but my Jeep has 37's and with the taller tires the brackets are more tucked up behind them. In any event, the brackets' lower clearence is only an issue when rock crawling. And should you whack one hard enough to damage it, its $100 the pair, a fraction of an adjustable lower control arm set up.

As far as AEV suspensions not being adjustable, well, that is one of the strongest attributes. AEV did the engineering before you bought the suspension, you don't need to do the engineering after you've installed it.

BTW, on tires, stick with nothing stiffer than D range. BFG's 33's through 37's for 17" wheels in D range are rated for 3195lbs/ea, more than enough.

JPK

 

[Busarider]

You'll still go sideways with a locker on ice...

I should have gone into more detail. I was with 9 other Jeep. The locker guys had no issue making the climb. There was a hill, ice snow and rock. About 1/2 way up was a change of camber and a steeper part of the hill. My intent was to reinforce that the LSD is not a replacement for a true locker... None of the locker guys slipped or slid. I did as well as the guys with open differentials....

 

[Hilldweller]

I should have gone into more detail. I was with 9 other Jeep. The locker guys had no issue making the climb. There was a hill, ice snow and rock. About 1/2 way up was a change of camber and a steeper part of the hill. My intent was to reinforce that the LSD is not a replacement for a true locker... None of the locker guys slipped or slid. I did as well as the guys with open differentials....

I get ya.

Careful with lockers on ice was my point. They can really walk you sideways; weird physics.

 

[jgolden]

Don't go with an "E" rated tire.

 

[Hilldweller]

Don't go with an "E" rated tire.

I ran E-rated 285/75-16 Wrangler MTR/kevlars just fine; they didn't come in a D.

 

[JPK]

I ran E-rated 285/75-16 Wrangler MTR/kevlars just fine; they didn't come in a D.

Too stiff and not required. D's are more than sufficient and ride much better. In addition, they bulge better and at higher pressure when aired down. C's would do it, but they are hard to find.

Why would you go with a 16" tire when the factory wheels are 17" or 18"? The same tie size (11"x33") is available in 17" with a D rating.

For "overland" or exploring, or back country or back road cruising and camping, an A/T tire is a better choice than an M/T, imo. To me those uses conote lots of road miles, and lots of road miles mean that trade offs inherrant in the choice between A/T's v.s M/T's will favor A/T's. A/T's will pay lots of dividends and not too much penalty vs. M/T's if the road mileage piles up.

JPK

 

[Hilldweller]

Too stiff and not required. D's are more than sufficient and ride much better. In addition, they bulge better and at higher pressure when aired down. C's would do it, but they are hard to find.

Why would you go with a 16" tire when the factory wheels are 17" or 18"? The same tie size (11"x33") is available in 17" with a D rating.

For "overland" or exploring, or back country or back road cruising and camping, an A/T tire is a better choice than an M/T, imo. To me those uses conote lots of road miles, and lots of road miles mean that trade offs inherrant in the choice between A/T's v.s M/T's will favor A/T's. A/T's will pay lots of dividends and not too much penalty vs. M/T's if the road mileage piles up.

JPK

16" tires are lots less expensive than 17s and especially my stock 18s; they also allowed me to air-down more and better. Couldn't air-down the 18s without hitting the rims on rocks. Also, none of the factory wheels let you run a 285 tire without spacers. And I would never recommend spacers...

I found the MTR/K's sidewalls to be perfect in that size on the e-rated tire. Remember that it's a fairly unique tire --- it's an AT not an MT --- the "MT" stands for maximum traction not mud terrain.
And it didn't work out for arround here anyhow; I did need a mud terrain. There's more mud more times of the year so Cooper Discoverer STTs are my tire of choice now.

You can't make blanket statements about tire ratings, tread, etc without considering the particular tire in question and the terrain that the "overland" will be seeing.

 

[JPK]

18" oem Jeep wheels would be better for larger tire sizes. BFG makes 37's for 18" wheels and they would be fine. But I agree, too much wheel for 33's.

IMO, hub centric spacers, properly installed, used with hub centric wheels, like the oem wheels, are a fine and safe combination. Better than non-hub centric aftermarket wheels, imo.

Any D rated tire compared to an E rated tire of the same make and model (and wheel diameter) will flex more, ride better and every D rated tire provides more than sufficient weight rating for any JKU, that is simple fact. Imo, E ratings are a mistake, they ride too harsh and are unessecary. 16" wheels might ameliorate some of the E rated issues, but not enough, imo and experience.

M/T vs. A/T, well that debate could last forever, but, as I wrote, the greater the use on roads the greater the benfits of A/T's. Is that really debatable? Not really, eh?

Perhaps worth debating is at what % use on or off road the benefits of one outweight the other.

Clearly lesser the % of on road use the greater the advantageof M/T's...

"Overlanding", as I understand the term, implies many miles, and of those a great protion over the road. Historically the overland tires of choice have been more A/T than M/T. Mud, sand, rock are universal but uneven in distribution. As I understand "overlanding," any trip meeting the rather loose definition is going to see all three and more, along with plenty of road too. So I favor the historical leaning in tire choice. Right now I've chosen A/T's, despite living in an area with a preponderance of mud myself, because of the benefits of A/T's on the road vs. what I find are the substantial penelties of M/T's.

BTW, some advocate A/T's or even "street" tires for sand, but my experience points to M/T's having a slight advantage over A/T's and both having a great advantage over "street" tires.

Goodyear MT/R's are indeed mud terrain tires, as advertised by Goodyear: "Hardworking Wraparound Tread Helps to Deliver Sidewall Traction in Deep Mud, Sand, and Rocks." Goodyear advertises their A/T's as all terrain tires.

JPK