"Bruce" the 2014 Jeep JKUR Build Thread

[KlausVanWinkle]

I keep going back and forth as plans change.

I think I'm going to keep the hilift, shovel and axe mounted inside using the dominion off road roll bar mount. I'm adding on to it to be a long gun rack also. And I'm now using the overhead space in the second row for light camping stuff like sleeping pads and bags.

So that frees up the rear bumper for gas, trash and water.

And I've come to the conclusion that the wheel base requires at least a 34" tire. So I may need to raise the spare some.

So the I could do the TF hd carrier with the stock tire carrier and a DIY rotopax mount for there the hi lift would go. This keeps the set up light and the tire low and tight.

Or just bite the bullet with the height and cost of the AEV. Then I could use the gas caddy. But it blocks the rear view.


Speaking of tires, I'm weighing these options. Ideally I want the lightest 34x11.5 possible preferably in an AT. But that doesn't exist.

285/75/17 BFG MT KM2 or something else. Perfect size but the MT makes it heavier than ideal.

315/70r17 BFG AT KO2 since it's the lightest and only 34. But a bit too wide.

34x10.5x17 BFG AT KO2 but those are a bit small and awkwardly narrow. But they'd solve the weight and back spacing issues.

Then the next issue is wheels. Do you run the stock rubicon wheels with spacers? Cheap, but that makes it harder to sell the stock tires. And spacers are less than ideal. But I like the look and I retain my tpms.

With the 34x10.5 I wouldn't need them.

The other option is sell the stock wheels and tires as is. And get the quadratic Moab rims with 4.5" back spacing and add tpms. Which might

 

[kojackJKU]

I run spacers and I don't have any issues. Well, I am after changing out most of the studs as they seized on to the lugs. So, Now they are fine. Even with the 34 10.50s I would run the spacers. give the jeep a better planted feel on road and the look is always a bonus.

 

[Comanche Scott]

You had me at "long gun rack"... :elkgrin:

So many choices. With your trips into Mexico, added fuel would sure be nice. Where someone like me running around the U.S. can easily get by with 5 gallons of fuel, it may be better for you to have a full 10 gallons, and then maybe a bit more. Which brings up another thing. How much of the time do you run in soft dry sand? That would help "narrow down" (pun intended) the tire choice.
Not sure I'd get too hung up with a tire weight difference, unless it is in the extreme category.
Do you see a rack in your future? If you were going to install a full on roof rack, that would open some options as well.
I've not yet seen the Teraflex hinge mount come up used, so it may be a worthwhile investment that will get you past the 1 year mark, and could then be re-sold if you went a different direction.
Yeah, you sure have a lot of options... :beer:

 

[KlausVanWinkle]

You had me at "long gun rack"... :elkgrin:

So many choices. With your trips into Mexico, added fuel would sure be nice. Where someone like me running around the U.S. can easily get by with 5 gallons of fuel, it may be better for you to have a full 10 gallons, and then maybe a bit more. Which brings up another thing. How much of the time do you run in soft dry sand? That would help "narrow down" (pun intended) the tire choice.
Not sure I'd get too hung up with a tire weight difference, unless it is in the extreme category.
Do you see a rack in your future? If you were going to install a full on roof rack, that would open some options as well.
I've not yet seen the Teraflex hinge mount come up used, so it may be a worthwhile investment that will get you past the 1 year mark, and could then be re-sold if you went a different direction.
Yeah, you sure have a lot of options... :beer:

That's a good point about the Teraflex. Even with that I could easily carry 8 gallons in rotopax where the hi-lift would normally go. I'm not sure why no one else has tried that. You just need an L bracket that can bolt to he carrier. Plus I have the Vector Exo Rack which can hold another 4 gallons or so.

I don't go to Mexico that often. But even when you do, the gas is mostly for insurance. They have plenty of gas stations now. Same with out here in the West. You almost have to go out of your way to need to buy gas. The other guys on our latest Mojave Road trip were giving me a hard time about paying $6/gallon for gas in the middle of nowhere. But you'd need to buy a lot of $6 gasoline to justify the cost of a $1500 long ranger tank or AEV fuel caddy and mount. So gas isn't a huge concern. I like to have an extra 4-5 gallons with me, but I've never needed it.

Having readily available water for washing hands and filling up the dog bowl is more useful. I'd like to be able to run 2x 2 gal. water rotopax each connected to a 2 gal gas rotopax above them, in the hi-lift location on the Teraflex. That's only 52lbs. Still less than a Hi lift and shovel. I just don't know if they'll clear the tail light.

Like this but on the passenger side and with the bottom ones being water rotopax.

I'm hoping I can make something like this. Apologize for the sloppy Photoshopping. My art director would be ashamed. But based on my loose scaling, it looks like it should fit. I know the rotopax are abour 2" bigger than the diameter of the spare tire.

Might not clear the tailgate if this guys set up is any indication. The spacing on the rear is really non ideal. How does the AEV carrier manage to mount a hilift and a pulpal in that location while fitting a 37" tire off-centered to the passenger side?

I encounter a decent amount of sand out here. But way more rocks than sand. The 10.5" tire is just going to look goofy. Even the stock 10.5" wide tires look a little strange. But skinny tires are better for most things. I can also just keep the stock tires for awhile. So far, they've worked great and don't look totally ridiculous with a 2.5" lift. They just suck in the rain and I keep scratching my rims on rocks because they're so skinny.


I'm worried about tire weight because rotational mass really multiplies itself. In my experiences, the main things that kill gas mileage are aero dynamics (rack) and rotational mass/ rolling resistance / changing the shift points. So the closer I can keep the tire weight to stock, the better. But the 48lb BFG MT KMs make that really difficult. The only thing close is a 255/80/17 or a 34x10.5R17.

It's hard to get a realistic estimate of how much switching to 35s hurts fuel economy. It seems like most guys on forums forget to mention their other MPG-killing mods like roof racks. Or they don't use a ProCal to reset their shift points. Or they run some super heavy 35s like the Nittos or Toyos. The BFGs are among the lightest option. And switching from an MT to AT might help ease the transition some. But there's no getting around adding 14lbs of rotational mass at each wheel.

 

[dstock]

Just a reminder at 11:16 with regard to mounting Rotopax in this manner...you must depart ledges carefully!

 

[KlausVanWinkle]

Just a reminder at 11:16 with regard to mounting Rotopax in this manner...you must depart ledges carefully!

Yeah I've seen that before. Not sure why that guy needs 8 gal of gas in moab anyway. But his sticks out farther since it's on a swing out and I rarely encounter angles that extreme. I think mounting them up a bit higher would also help solve that.

 

[Comanche Scott]

The pivot point of the AEV is further out on the bumper, so it has more room around the tail light.
Quarter panel armor with flush mounted tail lights would also get you more clearance, and help support the rear corner with the added weight hanging off of it.
That's got to be worth another 2".

 

[KlausVanWinkle]

I think the Teraflex Hinge limits how far the tailgate opens. But we'll see. It's not really a deal breaker.

 

[KlausVanWinkle]

Apologies for the mostly hypothetical build at this point. Thank you to those playing along. I promise the build will go a lot faster once we buy our house (April hopefully), my one-year no lift limit is up (July) and I get my promotion at work (June). In the mean time, I'll continue to do small mods here and there to make things more useable. Long Arm arm rack and OBA are next on the agenda. Then, aux lighting and maybe some new headlights.

I finally decided on a future tire yesterday, only to find out BFG discontinued that size. The 285/75R17 MT KM2 seemed like the perfect size for the 2.5 lift and the stock wheels w/ spacers. And a 62lb mt tire would keep the Rubicon looking like a Rubicon. But it seems like that size is no more. The 315/70r17 AT KO2 is the next contender but I'm leery about mounting a 12.5" tire on a 7.5" rim. And I'd like to not have to replace the wheels and tpms.

In tire carrier world, I had a revelation. I thought of running a spare tire extension bracket upside down to lower the spare tire for better visibility while daily driving. But someone on the AEV forum took it one step further by creating a replacement wheel mount that centers the tire on the back of the Jeep. This doesn't sound like a huge deal, but for those running the stock rear bumper, the AEV's offset is really noticeable.

Modified wheel mount

Centered

Non Centered

My plan is to have a fab shop make a second wheel mount that moves the spare tire 2 inches to the driverside and 2 inches down (if it'll clear the carrier linkage). This would improve the look and visibility for daily driving, parallel parking etc. And it wouldn't be too much work to swap the original wheel mount and fuel caddy back on for 4x4 trips.

When I crunched the numbers, running the Teraflex hinge, rotopax, oem wheel mount and vector rack is just as expensive as the AEV carrier and fuel caddy. And that doesn't even include the actual Teraflex tire mount. Now that I'm looking at 35s, an adjustable tire mount is more of a mandatory. As others have said, it seems like Teraflex gave up after the hinged carrier. The rotopax mount, hi-lift mount and wheel mount seem like after thoughts. Plus you'd need to modify the third brake light. I'd rather just sell the entire OEM carrier and my vector rack to offset the price of the AEV. Plus the AEV is a stronger design. I also like the AEV accessory mast for mounting my reverse light and an ambulance LED light as a third brake light.

 

[DEFENDERBEAM]

Not a bad idea. Looks easy enough to fab.

my carrier is just sitting, waiting to be installed, and I am waiting for some of your reason above. I don't NEED it with my stock size tires. and I don't want to block my rear view until I need to with a larger tire.

maybe add a back up camera for safe measure?

 

[rickgrob]

Sorry to jump into this conversation on the 22nd page, I have just stumbled upon the thread and have really enjoyed reading it. In general, I am definitely in the "less is more" crowd and understand your approach of careful additions instead of a buying frenzy of all sorts of parts. However, when it comes to the back bumper/tire carrier question, I might make a suggestion. AEV is well liked and respected, but I am surprised no one here has mentioned Metalcloak (and if they did I apologize for missing it). If you travel to other Jeep forums, you will find that MC gets mentioned as generously as AEV for design and quality (lifts, bumpers, etc.). In particular, I am fond of their rear bumper/carrier design that I think does have some inherent advantages: http://www.metalcloak.com/JK-Wrangler-Rear-Bumper-Tire-Carrier-p/3942.htm

Most swing away carriers might be called a "vertical cantilever" as the bearing (well a dual bearing normally) is at the bottom of a hinge pin. This puts tremendous force on bearings as the pin acts as a lever. The MC design has the pin supported at the top and bottom with bearings top and bottom distributing the force in a more favorable way. No to be completly honest, I don't own the MC, but it would be my choice if starting from scratch again. I have seen too many cantilever swingaways develop "droop" just through normal use and time. Not saying this one would be immune, but should be more robust.

They also have a good rep for lifts, though most would say that compared to AEV they are more offroad centric where AEV is more expedition centric. Again I can't vouch personally for either as my experience is with Rubicon Express (and quite happy with it) but would make different choices if starting over with a JK (have a TJ now).

Hope you don't mind the comments, they are just that and not some absolute truth. You certainly have great experience and instincts as evidenced by all the work you have done to date.

Take care,
R

 

[DEFENDERBEAM]

the mounting point for the AEV carrier is direct to the chassis frame rail, and then you drill extra holes to secure that mount in place.

The carrier arm itself does not appear to be able to droop. if you installed the mount bracket correct, I don't think it would be able to droop.

AEV seems to be the only manufacture making a product that looks impossible to build at home.

Most others to me (in theory) could be copied and fabricated at home.

 

[KlausVanWinkle]

the mounting point for the AEV carrier is direct to the chassis frame rail, and then you drill extra holes to secure that mount in place.

The carrier arm itself does not appear to be able to droop. if you installed the mount bracket correct, I don't think it would be able to droop.

AEV seems to be the only manufacture making a product that looks impossible to build at home.

Most others to me (in theory) could be copied and fabricated at home.

That is kind of my thinking. The AEV uses solid brass instead of bearings and spread the load out over about a 10" stem. I saw the droop problem on the land cruiser swing outs. But those only use a 3" long spindle and ball bearings.

My main attraction to the AEV gear is that they seem to make what I was missing in the land cruiser world: OEM levels of engineering, fit and finish. I'm trying to avoid DIY, welded steel plate style armor. Mostly because it doesn't look as OEM and is overly heavy for such a light duty vehicle.

Even my top of the line Slee Bumpers were glorified home fabrication jobs. And my old man emu suspension was constantly squeaking and pulling left or right, etc. AEVs promise of OEM style handling and design is pretty tempting.

I also didn't realize this thread is 22 pages long. Yikes. And 99% of that is hypothesizing. I feel like I'll need to make a more succinct duplicate thread when the flashier modifications takes place. Right now I have all the boring stuff like organization, communications and electrical mods.

 

[kojackJKU]

AEV really does design for us who are not rock crawling unlike 99 percent of other companies. It seems Rock crawlers are the ones to spend ungodly amounts of money on parts to look good. For those of us who tend to travel using our rigs Are more willing to spend on parts that work, look factory instead of like something from star wars, and last. I am one who thinks AEV as the premier parts maker for the JK wrangler. I keep trying to talk myself out of buying their bumpers, etc. And I am going to order my new AEV wheels next month. I have been trying to save some money going with another brand, but AEV just has the look, and they Totally have the customer service down. I will be getting their two bumpers, wheels, and 2.5xt lift over this summer. I will be going with their wheels first, then bumpers and last the suspension.

I do believe their bumpers are lighter than most as well. They are used on stock jeeps and I do not see sag from the suspension, So I am guessing that mine would still be fine with them on there, until I can upgrade to the 2.5. I have been going around in circles and keep coming back to AEV.

I think you would be best served with AEV too KVW!

 

[Comanche Scott]

Really wish the AEV bumper had a rack option. If you've ever had one with a soft top vehicle, it is so handy and useful. It's the only reason I've chosen to get the LoD over the AEV.