"Bruce" the 2014 Jeep JKUR Build Thread

MTSN

Explorer
Those mpg numbers seem unlikely... My Rubicon on 35s doesn't get anywhere close to that.

You're right - all of us who actually have experience with the setup are in collusion and actively attempting to deceive people about our gas mileage...

Like zig said, what matters most is how well matched the gear setup is with the tires. Smaller tires do not equal better gas mileage. The right size/weight tire with the right gearset driven in a manner that maximizes where the engine is most efficient increases gas mileage. By a lot of people's misguided train of thought, your gas mileage should go up if you put little 20" tires on the Jeep because it's clearly smaller than stock = wrong.

It's always funny to me when people without experience in something try to discount those with direct experience in something with no supporting evidence or logic.
 

GetOutThere

Adventurer
MTSN, you seem a bit sensitive.

By your logic, 35s should provide better fuel economy than the OEM 32s because it would bring my 4.10s closer to the stock 3.21 gear ratio.
 

GetOutThere

Adventurer
Nope, not trolling.

Worried about my mileage now though with 37s stomping me lol

Mainly I'm wondering how a lighter tire with less rolling resistance would not achieve better mpg.

EPA estimates for a 3.6 are 18mpg mixed driving. I assume that's done with 3.21s and sport tires.

Trying to figure out how 4.10 gears and 37s is hitting 17 mpg, when my Rubicon when stock only hit 17mpg on the highway.

Don't want to derail the thread any further, so would be happy to discuss in PMs.
 
Last edited:

zigsrig

Adventurer
not staring the pot, but showing out some numbers...
Rubicon Km tires = 46.9 lbs
ko2's in 37" = 69.9 lbs

i would suggest that even though the ko2's are bigger, because of their design they have better rolling resistance.

Really, the only way to put this to rest would be to wait for "bruce" to get his new shoes and see what the OP thinks :sombrero:

(no pressure)
 

MTSN

Explorer
MTSN, you seem a bit sensitive.

By your logic, 35s should provide better fuel economy than the OEM 32s because it would bring my 4.10s closer to the stock 3.21 gear ratio.

Nope not sensitive - just very annoyed you and other people refuse to listen or believe people with real world actual experience as opposed to conjecture.

Sorry Klaus for cluttering up your thread. You can tell lots of us are awaiting your tire choice :D
 

KlausVanWinkle

Explorer
At this rate I'll end up with 37s, 4.56 gearing, a prorock44 up front, 4.5" lift and a moose big brake kit. As long as we're still talking about emotional decisions, I could just go with my original desire and get the 35" KM2s. The proportions look about perfect IMHO. Who cares if they're loud, suck in the rain, have more rolling resistance and wear faster.

s-l1600.jpg
 
Last edited:

Rutdigger

Watch This!
Those mpg numbers seem unlikely... My Rubicon on 35s doesn't get anywhere close to that.

I can believe it...I just changed my gears to 4:56s (new gears) under 1000 miles so far and I am getting 16, and I expect that to go up once the gears break in a little more. My last JK was getting 18 on 37s. Those numbers are not suspect.
 

KlausVanWinkle

Explorer
I get about 18 highway with stock tires and 4.10 gears. Probably due to being slightly over geared and the KMs rolling resistance. But it's refreshing coming from the 6500lb 100-series on 33.5s with 4.3 gearing.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
188,386
Messages
2,903,982
Members
230,274
Latest member
mbauerus1
Top