Ducky's Dad
Explorer
You probably don't need on-the-go programming. Just set it and forget it, once you figure out what works for your vehicle. Makes life a lot simpler.
To 32 or not to 32?
- Thread starter SilicaRich
- Start date
SilicaRich
Wandering Inverted
It's more of a personal preference. I like to see what's doing what, only problem is the premium you pay for it
Fargo
Adventurer
I think you've gotten some good advice here. But I'll throw in my 2cents. I think your biggest issue is likely the 4" lift. I have a 2005 LJ with 2" coils and 1" body lift. I also have the 6 speed and I am running 285/75R16. I really haven't had much for concerns about shift points. Its a manual, I shift it when it needs to be shifted. So I don't know if a programmer will do much for you other than correct the speedometer.
If you currently have 15" rims, I would continue to run the 33x10 in an all terrain tire. Something like the new BFG AT should be fairly light with a load range C tire. I think the 33x10 will only measure around 32.5" anyway. I love my Moab rims, but the 16" rims offer limited sizes. I think the 235/85R16 size would be the best size tire for what you are describing. However, because they are load range E, I don't think you will save any weight over the 33x10. They will be 1/2" to 3/4" shorter though.
After you decide what tire you size you want, I would get a different lift. If you stick with the 33x10 I would get a 2" lift with a 1" body lift. The less angle on the control arms will greatly improve your ride and handling characterstics. If yoiu go with the smaller 32" tire, I would really consider only the body lift. Or maybe the body lift along with a 1" spacer puck or something. I think H&R makes some progressive Jeeps springs as well that provide just under 2" of lift. There is a thread on them over at jeepforum.
I think your original plan of getting a stock jeep and stick with 32s is a good plan. There is no reason you can't go back to that plan. You really don't want a 4" lift.
I had often thought that if I had the shorter TJ I would stick with 32s as well. In fact, my dream setup for a TJ would be to find a good 17" rim and run the 255/75R17 take offs from a JK. That tire is a true 32" tire. Since its a OEM tire there are also lots of options available in a load range C tire. The problem is that I don't know of any hub centric 17" rims for the TJ. For shocks I would stick with Bilstein. I have the 5160s reservoir shocks and love them.
Thats my advice. Stick with a tall and skinny tire. Drop your lift a little.
If you currently have 15" rims, I would continue to run the 33x10 in an all terrain tire. Something like the new BFG AT should be fairly light with a load range C tire. I think the 33x10 will only measure around 32.5" anyway. I love my Moab rims, but the 16" rims offer limited sizes. I think the 235/85R16 size would be the best size tire for what you are describing. However, because they are load range E, I don't think you will save any weight over the 33x10. They will be 1/2" to 3/4" shorter though.
After you decide what tire you size you want, I would get a different lift. If you stick with the 33x10 I would get a 2" lift with a 1" body lift. The less angle on the control arms will greatly improve your ride and handling characterstics. If yoiu go with the smaller 32" tire, I would really consider only the body lift. Or maybe the body lift along with a 1" spacer puck or something. I think H&R makes some progressive Jeeps springs as well that provide just under 2" of lift. There is a thread on them over at jeepforum.
I think your original plan of getting a stock jeep and stick with 32s is a good plan. There is no reason you can't go back to that plan. You really don't want a 4" lift.
I had often thought that if I had the shorter TJ I would stick with 32s as well. In fact, my dream setup for a TJ would be to find a good 17" rim and run the 255/75R17 take offs from a JK. That tire is a true 32" tire. Since its a OEM tire there are also lots of options available in a load range C tire. The problem is that I don't know of any hub centric 17" rims for the TJ. For shocks I would stick with Bilstein. I have the 5160s reservoir shocks and love them.
Thats my advice. Stick with a tall and skinny tire. Drop your lift a little.
Ducky's Dad
Explorer
Programmers change the ECM parameters to modify the performance characteristics, even with a manual trans. Depending on the programmer, you can run tunes for economy or power. You can set to run on 87, 89, 91, 93 octane, depending on your preference for cost and power. You can set for max torque for towing if that is an issue. You can set alarms for things like low battery voltage or alternator amperage, high trans temp if you have an automatic, high oil or coolant temps. You can change tire diameters to either correct the speedo or to fool an auto trans into changing the shift points. If you want to get fancy with something like the Diablo, you can order custom canned tunes from certain vendors, and then tweak them on a dyno. If you are adventurous, you can play with your own ignition timing, air/fuel ratio, etc. Not all programmers do all things on all vehicles, so decide what's important to you and research the programmer before you buy.
Sounds like you want a real-time gauge pod rather than on-the-fly programming. My Edge displays up to eight parameters at a time, with about 75 parameters available in an ideal set of circumstances (I could not find that many on my Dodge, but I have set it to the eight things I feel the need to monitor). There must be something similar for Jeeps.
Bikemobile
Adventurer
265/75-16.... LT? Might be lighter than a "32"or "33"
SilicaRich
Wandering Inverted
Yeah the 4" lift just needs to go. Not to mention that it's a 8 year old lift and the springs have sagged horribly. The load E is definitely an irritation with the weight, I have to agree. Not to mention that 265/75/R16, which is basically a 32", weighs 2 lbs more per tire than my current 33"x10.5"s. Only problem I see with the 235/80 is the almost 10" tire width mounted on an 8" rim width, although these will be about 3 or 4 lbs lighter per tire than my current 33"x10.5"s. I'm almost 100% on my decision to go to OME HD springs, knowing their quality and reputation, and I don't intend to stray from Bilstein. I love my 5100s and would trade out OME nitrochargers in a heartbeat for them. Honestly, I will likely also try to find a used set of stock CAs.
It's just a lot of ideas to soak in and process
SilicaRich
Wandering Inverted
I believe that's a lot like how the Superchips one is set up
comptiger5000
Adventurer
If you want to run 16s, a 235/85R16 is basically a 32x9.25.
jeep-N-montero
Expedition Leader
Happy Joe
Apprentice Geezer
So if I have this straight you hare running 33s with 4.10 gearing (which possibly indicates a 4 cylinder and might explain the desire to go with 4.56s).
..and you want better fuel mileage...
giving us the engine and transmission might help.
In general I got poor highway mileage with 33s x12.50s (9.5 or 9.75 inch tread width) and 4.56 gearing with a manual transmissions and a 6 cylinder.
The highway mileage improved when I changed to 35 x 12.50s (9.75 inch tread width), (I don't try to track city mileage).
4.10s and 33s should be OK; if you have an automatic and a 6 cylinder or v-8, due to the low speed slippage in the transmission and better than 4 cylinder torque.
We (the guys I wheel and wrench with) have never tried to use 4 cylinder engines off road.
I would not expect significant differences between 32 and 33s (note; have you actually measured your tires? 33s often measure around 32" or lightly larger).
For best combined mileage and tire wear; optimize your tire pressure using the chalk test.
For slightly better mileage and certainly worse tire wear run increased tire pressure.
Reducing the width of the tire should improve the mileage slightly, as will changing to a lighter tire wheel combination (although it improvements might not be significant).
... for what its worth...
During extensive trials with several 6 and 8 cylinder, unloaded, light weight vehicles (Jeep flat fenders and CJs), with manual transmissions, we found 4.27 gearing to be the best match for all around performance on and off road using 33 and 32 inch (measured) tires 11.50 through 13" section width.
For tires in the 27 to 29 inch range 4.10/4.11 gearing worked well with 6 and 8 cylinder power, although we did not try for optimum (we just tried a couple of sizes before switching out the gears).
For 35 inch tires 4.56 gearing gave the best all around results; many find that 4.88 gearing is better if trying to use 4 cylinder engines with tires in this range. I found 4.88s a better match for tires in the 37 inch range with a 6 cylinder with 5 speed manual..
Many old school and internet experts recommend the lowest possible gears off road but this will compromise on road performance in most cases, IMO..
...hope it helps...
Enjoy!
..and you want better fuel mileage...
giving us the engine and transmission might help.
In general I got poor highway mileage with 33s x12.50s (9.5 or 9.75 inch tread width) and 4.56 gearing with a manual transmissions and a 6 cylinder.
The highway mileage improved when I changed to 35 x 12.50s (9.75 inch tread width), (I don't try to track city mileage).
4.10s and 33s should be OK; if you have an automatic and a 6 cylinder or v-8, due to the low speed slippage in the transmission and better than 4 cylinder torque.
We (the guys I wheel and wrench with) have never tried to use 4 cylinder engines off road.
I would not expect significant differences between 32 and 33s (note; have you actually measured your tires? 33s often measure around 32" or lightly larger).
For best combined mileage and tire wear; optimize your tire pressure using the chalk test.
For slightly better mileage and certainly worse tire wear run increased tire pressure.
Reducing the width of the tire should improve the mileage slightly, as will changing to a lighter tire wheel combination (although it improvements might not be significant).
... for what its worth...
During extensive trials with several 6 and 8 cylinder, unloaded, light weight vehicles (Jeep flat fenders and CJs), with manual transmissions, we found 4.27 gearing to be the best match for all around performance on and off road using 33 and 32 inch (measured) tires 11.50 through 13" section width.
For tires in the 27 to 29 inch range 4.10/4.11 gearing worked well with 6 and 8 cylinder power, although we did not try for optimum (we just tried a couple of sizes before switching out the gears).
For 35 inch tires 4.56 gearing gave the best all around results; many find that 4.88 gearing is better if trying to use 4 cylinder engines with tires in this range. I found 4.88s a better match for tires in the 37 inch range with a 6 cylinder with 5 speed manual..
Many old school and internet experts recommend the lowest possible gears off road but this will compromise on road performance in most cases, IMO..
...hope it helps...
Enjoy!
SilicaRich
Wandering Inverted
Nope, it's the good old 4.0 with 6 cylinders, but I have a Rubicon so 4.10 gearing is stock. It has the 6 speed NSG370, which from older research indicates 4.56 gearing is best with 33s, while 4.10 is best for 32s. Funny how a vehicle from factory can technically be overgeared, 31" was factory tire size on TJRs.
Ducky's Dad
Explorer
The 4.0 can develop a surprising amount of power with minimal modifications.
SilicaRich
Wandering Inverted
CAI and exhaust didn't honestly do much. Only other things I can think of could maybe add more power/efficiency with minor modification are headers and throttle body. Of coarse there's always the option to just do a 5.3 swap....if I had that kind of money to blow
Last edited:
jeep-N-montero
Expedition Leader
Gears will make a bigger difference than throwing money at 'performance' upgrades, gears will also benefit you more on the trail where gearing is needed far more than hp. The topic has been beat to death many times and in the end upgrading the gears always comes out ahead, a bit of reading and common sense goes a long way.