Wrangler Tire Size - Overland, Trail, and Other

[JIMBO]

:sombrero: For a 2dr, load range E is a little stiff. although you get very strong sidewalls/w a little more difficulty if you airdown very low(below 12psi), however-

One thing that has not been touched on within this topic is no matter what tire one decides on getting, did anyone bother checking the tires load rating.. In the last two post.. Craigwhitton seems to be wanting the 275/70/17 KO's but after checking tirerack.. these tires (at that size) are load rated E. I thought there was a concern dealing with the amount of flex one can or can not get out specific tires.. or would this not matter for an overland vehicle.

For the 4dr, which usually will endup over 5000lbs/w load-people-the load range E is fine, you just will be running somewhere between 28/33psi for tread wear/comfort-

They make the ride more stable/trackability/and lateral strength is supreme-

For an off-road ONLY jeep, they are an individuals preference !

I'm happy with the 305/70x17 KM2s E's on my JKUR-

Good luck

:costumed-smiley-007:wings: JIMBO

 

[AngryRedBird]

Agreed Jimbo.. this is why we'll be focusing on the Goodyear Duratraxs as replacements for these Goodyear SR-A's but I doubt we'd go the 33's but we'll try to measure up to 32.1 or so..

 

[nyrikki]

One thing that has not been touched on within this topic is no matter what tire one decides on getting, did anyone bother checking the tires load rating.. In the last two post.. Craigwhitton seems to be wanting the 275/70/17 KO's but after checking tirerack.. these tires (at that size) are load rated E. I thought there was a concern dealing with the amount of flex one can or can not get out specific tires.. or would this not matter for an overland vehicle.

Yes I checked the load range, I am currently running the tires at around 31 PSI for the street and they are a bit rough at 35. The main difference is weight and sidewall thickness. Note that in the KO2 you have to be in an E rated tire to have a 3-ply polyester carcass, the same number of plies that are in the stock M/T tires.

The E is really a "Ply Rating" and is really more of an indicator of max pressure, the letter based load range was designed when cotton ply/biased tires were the norm. The "load index" (121) is higher and combined with the ply rating does mean that this will be a heavier and stiffer tire. For me that means the sidewalls are stronger and that I will just air down more and that you can air down more. If maximum road comfort is your primary goal looking for a C ply rating or load range may be better but if ride was my main concern I would personally be looking at P metric tires.

I personally don't see the E load range as an issue in an overland use case outside of a reduction in MPG caused by increased weight. That said there are probably use cases where max flex and minimum weight is a primary concern.

 

[Kmrtnsn]

We're running 33" tires on out JKUS. Why? We have 3.73 gears and we travel a lot of highway between CA, AZ, UT, and CO to get to the places we wheel. The 33" give us the best compromise between on-road/off-road performance within the powerband of our gear-set.



The tires are Hankook Dynapro RE03 M/T's in a D rated LT285/70R17. They're surprisingly quiet on the highway and give great traction off-road.

 

[Comanche Scott]

We're running 33" tires on out JKUS. Why? We have 3.73 gears and we travel a lot of highway between CA, AZ, UT, and CO to get to the places we wheel. The 33" give us the best compromise between on-road/off-road performance within the powerband of our gear-set.

View attachment 272933

The tires are Hankook Dynapro RE03 M/T's in a D rated LT285/70R17. They're surprisingly quiet on the highway and give great traction off-road.

Great looking rig! :beer:
What height is it lifted?

 

[Deleted member 48574]

One thing that has not been touched on within this topic is no matter what tire one decides on getting, did anyone bother checking the tires load rating.. In the last two post.. Craigwhitton seems to be wanting the 275/70/17 KO's but after checking tirerack.. these tires (at that size) are load rated E. I thought there was a concern dealing with the amount of flex one can or can not get out specific tires.. or would this not matter for an overland vehicle.

You are way ahead of me on that one, Redbird -- I hadn't even thought about load ratings.

One thing I do know from motorcycle tires though, is that ratings are often far higher than the realistic use of the tires. For instance, my tires on my Tiger are not the recommended rating for the bike -- the bike needs class *whatever* that is rated to go 200 KM/hr. My tires are rated only to 180 km/hr -- but I will never go that fast in real-world conditions.

I may be wrong but I think with our jeeps paltry 1000lbs payload -- which I can nearly guarantee, we've all exceeded regularly if you have more than 2 adults with gear for a camping trip -- is more of a determining factor of performance than any load rating on the tires? Again, I'm just guessing here and that may not be the case at all. Either way, it's a $1500 upgrade so I'll be waiting until the beer tokens reach that amount which gives me plenty of time for more research

 

[AngryRedBird]

Craig.. I've asked and said this because when we drove the late 99.. we had everything in the back of the jeep including the kitchen sink.. the trouble.. the tires "grabbers" load rating C tended to bulge a bit more than I would have liked it.. Then I see reports of jeepers (in general) taking the load rated E's off road and the tires not giving or in the case forgiving.. I'm not saying that i'll never off road again.. but driving mainline and a few back roads.. I was considering Load E's.. but after seeing the Duratraxs Load D and have a 50K warranty.. I just need to find a good balance and the "D's" seem to be fitting the bill at this point.

 

[Kmrtnsn]

Great looking rig! :beer:
What height is it lifted?

2.5" OME kit with heavyload springs.

 

[KlausVanWinkle]

My rubicon has the stock M/Ts but they are nearing the end of their life. And they are NOISY. I've been contemplating going with the KO2s but I am a bit mystified with the sizes -- they don't make one for the stock Rubi, near as I can tell.

Anyone have them and can comment on what sizes fit the stock Rubicon/opinions of this tire?

The other option was the Coopers that this very website reviewed a little while back, but I KNOW BFGs are solid as can be. The Coopers would be an unknown, and with sinking over a grand into it either way I want to be sure!

Check out what size the 10th anniversary edition came with. They ran km2s.

Another option would be a 255/80r17 which is about an inch taller but also works without spacers and is a similar weight.

 

[KlausVanWinkle]

Why do you all think between a 285/75r17 BGF MT KM2 rated D hopefully and a 315/70r17 BFG AT KO2? I've read that they're essentially the same size and the same weight. The 315/70 is slightly wider. But which do you all think would yield better fuel economy and highway manners?

I'm wondering if the tread pattern of the AT would out weigh the smaller diameter (theoretically) mt.

The 285/75 would probably fit for n the tire carrier better. But I've read that they're both actually 34" and weigh 62lbs.

 

[AngryRedBird]

BFGoodrich Mud-Terrain T/A KM2 285/75R17 Tire Specs

Size Diameter Width Tread Depth Tread Width Rim Range Max Load Max psi Weight
LT285/75R17 33.9" 11.3" 20/32" 8.7" 7.5-9.5" 3195 lbs 80 psi 62 lb

BFGoodrich All-Terrain T/A KO 315/70R17 Tire Specs

Size Diameter Width Tread Depth Tread Width Rim Range Max Load Max psi Weight
LT315/70R17 34.5" 12" 17/32" 10.2" 8.5-10" 3195 lbs 50 psi 62 lbs

 

[Kmrtnsn]

Check out what size the 10th anniversary edition came with. They ran km2s.

Another option would be a 255/80r17 which is about an inch taller but also works without spacers and is a similar weight.

That would be KM2 LT265/70R17E's. Too small, IMO. I bought a set of these take-offs for our JKUS when we bought it. They served us well until I up-sized.

 

[Kmrtnsn]

Why do you all think between a 285/75r17 BGF MT KM2 rated D hopefully and a 315/70r17 BFG AT KO2? I've read that they're essentially the same size and the same weight. The 315/70 is slightly wider. But which do you all think would yield better fuel economy and highway manners?

I'm wondering if the tread pattern of the AT would out weigh the smaller diameter (theoretically) mt.

The 285/75 would probably fit for n the tire carrier better. But I've read that they're both actually 34" and weigh 62lbs.

A 315 is not "slightly" wider than a 285, it is significantly wider.

 

[kojackJKU]

I would not go wide if you are using it for an all around rig. 285/70/17 is the widest I would go. Any wider and the wandering on roads get nasty.

 

[ZMagic97]

I run Toyo MTs in a 35. I'm happy with them, they are often more than I need, but I still like them. I left my Rubicon Dana 44s stock.