4 cyl. mileage, lift & tire size
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4 cyl. mileage, lift & tire size
But the left wheel was still connected spinning the spiders and the
inner halfshaft. Manual hubs are the only way to get true
free-wheeling. My MJ got within an RCH of the same mileage on the
highway during a hectic 17,000 mile summer of running back and forth
to Texas. The vacuum disconnect motor got fouled up about halfway
thru the summer and I didn't have time to fix it until later in the
fall. Stuck in the locked position or unlocked, I got 22-23 on every
trip. Wind made a lot more difference than the axle did - every 5 kts
of wind cost me pretty close to 1.5 mpg (or added, it it was tail wind
- one trip got 28.2 mpg with a 25 kt tail wind).
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:02:06 UTC Steve <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote:
> Many factors governing wide variations in reported mpg (I suspect
> speedometer calibration is often the main one), but one not yet
> mentioned is extra drag from permanently locked hubs. The TJ and newer
> XJ front ends are always turning the carrier, ring gear, and front drive
> shaft. Vehicles with manually unlocked hubs or the old YJ/XJ vacuum
> disconnect passenger-side axle don't turn the carrier and drive shaft.
> In my own experience, this can account for 1-2 MPG(US) not to mention a
> much quieter ride.
>
> Steve
> http://xjeep.dyndns.org
>
>
> ElAlumbrado wrote:
> > "Old Crow" <walliscrow@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> >>I don't know, Nate. My '95 with a 2.5 regularly gets about 21.
> >
> > Are you guys talking about 4-cylinder Wranglers????? I have a 4-banger
> > 2000 Wrangler (manual) that has *never* done better than 17. Around
> > town, 12 is normal with 15 highway on a good day. Mileage has been
> > consistent since new (now 45K). 21 mpg??? You sure?
--
Will Honea
inner halfshaft. Manual hubs are the only way to get true
free-wheeling. My MJ got within an RCH of the same mileage on the
highway during a hectic 17,000 mile summer of running back and forth
to Texas. The vacuum disconnect motor got fouled up about halfway
thru the summer and I didn't have time to fix it until later in the
fall. Stuck in the locked position or unlocked, I got 22-23 on every
trip. Wind made a lot more difference than the axle did - every 5 kts
of wind cost me pretty close to 1.5 mpg (or added, it it was tail wind
- one trip got 28.2 mpg with a 25 kt tail wind).
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:02:06 UTC Steve <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote:
> Many factors governing wide variations in reported mpg (I suspect
> speedometer calibration is often the main one), but one not yet
> mentioned is extra drag from permanently locked hubs. The TJ and newer
> XJ front ends are always turning the carrier, ring gear, and front drive
> shaft. Vehicles with manually unlocked hubs or the old YJ/XJ vacuum
> disconnect passenger-side axle don't turn the carrier and drive shaft.
> In my own experience, this can account for 1-2 MPG(US) not to mention a
> much quieter ride.
>
> Steve
> http://xjeep.dyndns.org
>
>
> ElAlumbrado wrote:
> > "Old Crow" <walliscrow@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> >>I don't know, Nate. My '95 with a 2.5 regularly gets about 21.
> >
> > Are you guys talking about 4-cylinder Wranglers????? I have a 4-banger
> > 2000 Wrangler (manual) that has *never* done better than 17. Around
> > town, 12 is normal with 15 highway on a good day. Mileage has been
> > consistent since new (now 45K). 21 mpg??? You sure?
--
Will Honea
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4 cyl. mileage, lift & tire size
But the left wheel was still connected spinning the spiders and the
inner halfshaft. Manual hubs are the only way to get true
free-wheeling. My MJ got within an RCH of the same mileage on the
highway during a hectic 17,000 mile summer of running back and forth
to Texas. The vacuum disconnect motor got fouled up about halfway
thru the summer and I didn't have time to fix it until later in the
fall. Stuck in the locked position or unlocked, I got 22-23 on every
trip. Wind made a lot more difference than the axle did - every 5 kts
of wind cost me pretty close to 1.5 mpg (or added, it it was tail wind
- one trip got 28.2 mpg with a 25 kt tail wind).
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:02:06 UTC Steve <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote:
> Many factors governing wide variations in reported mpg (I suspect
> speedometer calibration is often the main one), but one not yet
> mentioned is extra drag from permanently locked hubs. The TJ and newer
> XJ front ends are always turning the carrier, ring gear, and front drive
> shaft. Vehicles with manually unlocked hubs or the old YJ/XJ vacuum
> disconnect passenger-side axle don't turn the carrier and drive shaft.
> In my own experience, this can account for 1-2 MPG(US) not to mention a
> much quieter ride.
>
> Steve
> http://xjeep.dyndns.org
>
>
> ElAlumbrado wrote:
> > "Old Crow" <walliscrow@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> >>I don't know, Nate. My '95 with a 2.5 regularly gets about 21.
> >
> > Are you guys talking about 4-cylinder Wranglers????? I have a 4-banger
> > 2000 Wrangler (manual) that has *never* done better than 17. Around
> > town, 12 is normal with 15 highway on a good day. Mileage has been
> > consistent since new (now 45K). 21 mpg??? You sure?
--
Will Honea
inner halfshaft. Manual hubs are the only way to get true
free-wheeling. My MJ got within an RCH of the same mileage on the
highway during a hectic 17,000 mile summer of running back and forth
to Texas. The vacuum disconnect motor got fouled up about halfway
thru the summer and I didn't have time to fix it until later in the
fall. Stuck in the locked position or unlocked, I got 22-23 on every
trip. Wind made a lot more difference than the axle did - every 5 kts
of wind cost me pretty close to 1.5 mpg (or added, it it was tail wind
- one trip got 28.2 mpg with a 25 kt tail wind).
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:02:06 UTC Steve <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote:
> Many factors governing wide variations in reported mpg (I suspect
> speedometer calibration is often the main one), but one not yet
> mentioned is extra drag from permanently locked hubs. The TJ and newer
> XJ front ends are always turning the carrier, ring gear, and front drive
> shaft. Vehicles with manually unlocked hubs or the old YJ/XJ vacuum
> disconnect passenger-side axle don't turn the carrier and drive shaft.
> In my own experience, this can account for 1-2 MPG(US) not to mention a
> much quieter ride.
>
> Steve
> http://xjeep.dyndns.org
>
>
> ElAlumbrado wrote:
> > "Old Crow" <walliscrow@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> >>I don't know, Nate. My '95 with a 2.5 regularly gets about 21.
> >
> > Are you guys talking about 4-cylinder Wranglers????? I have a 4-banger
> > 2000 Wrangler (manual) that has *never* done better than 17. Around
> > town, 12 is normal with 15 highway on a good day. Mileage has been
> > consistent since new (now 45K). 21 mpg??? You sure?
--
Will Honea
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4 cyl. mileage, lift & tire size
But the left wheel was still connected spinning the spiders and the
inner halfshaft. Manual hubs are the only way to get true
free-wheeling. My MJ got within an RCH of the same mileage on the
highway during a hectic 17,000 mile summer of running back and forth
to Texas. The vacuum disconnect motor got fouled up about halfway
thru the summer and I didn't have time to fix it until later in the
fall. Stuck in the locked position or unlocked, I got 22-23 on every
trip. Wind made a lot more difference than the axle did - every 5 kts
of wind cost me pretty close to 1.5 mpg (or added, it it was tail wind
- one trip got 28.2 mpg with a 25 kt tail wind).
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:02:06 UTC Steve <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote:
> Many factors governing wide variations in reported mpg (I suspect
> speedometer calibration is often the main one), but one not yet
> mentioned is extra drag from permanently locked hubs. The TJ and newer
> XJ front ends are always turning the carrier, ring gear, and front drive
> shaft. Vehicles with manually unlocked hubs or the old YJ/XJ vacuum
> disconnect passenger-side axle don't turn the carrier and drive shaft.
> In my own experience, this can account for 1-2 MPG(US) not to mention a
> much quieter ride.
>
> Steve
> http://xjeep.dyndns.org
>
>
> ElAlumbrado wrote:
> > "Old Crow" <walliscrow@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> >>I don't know, Nate. My '95 with a 2.5 regularly gets about 21.
> >
> > Are you guys talking about 4-cylinder Wranglers????? I have a 4-banger
> > 2000 Wrangler (manual) that has *never* done better than 17. Around
> > town, 12 is normal with 15 highway on a good day. Mileage has been
> > consistent since new (now 45K). 21 mpg??? You sure?
--
Will Honea
inner halfshaft. Manual hubs are the only way to get true
free-wheeling. My MJ got within an RCH of the same mileage on the
highway during a hectic 17,000 mile summer of running back and forth
to Texas. The vacuum disconnect motor got fouled up about halfway
thru the summer and I didn't have time to fix it until later in the
fall. Stuck in the locked position or unlocked, I got 22-23 on every
trip. Wind made a lot more difference than the axle did - every 5 kts
of wind cost me pretty close to 1.5 mpg (or added, it it was tail wind
- one trip got 28.2 mpg with a 25 kt tail wind).
On Thu, 31 Mar 2005 17:02:06 UTC Steve <xjlifter@bogus.com> wrote:
> Many factors governing wide variations in reported mpg (I suspect
> speedometer calibration is often the main one), but one not yet
> mentioned is extra drag from permanently locked hubs. The TJ and newer
> XJ front ends are always turning the carrier, ring gear, and front drive
> shaft. Vehicles with manually unlocked hubs or the old YJ/XJ vacuum
> disconnect passenger-side axle don't turn the carrier and drive shaft.
> In my own experience, this can account for 1-2 MPG(US) not to mention a
> much quieter ride.
>
> Steve
> http://xjeep.dyndns.org
>
>
> ElAlumbrado wrote:
> > "Old Crow" <walliscrow@yahoo.com> wrote
> >
> >>I don't know, Nate. My '95 with a 2.5 regularly gets about 21.
> >
> > Are you guys talking about 4-cylinder Wranglers????? I have a 4-banger
> > 2000 Wrangler (manual) that has *never* done better than 17. Around
> > town, 12 is normal with 15 highway on a good day. Mileage has been
> > consistent since new (now 45K). 21 mpg??? You sure?
--
Will Honea
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4 cyl. mileage, lift & tire size
Well, I hope you're right Bill!
Eric
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:424B6C6D.9498C91@***.net...
> Your four doesn't have enough power to break the puny Dana 35c. Do
> you see any four cylinders, here: http://www.----------.com/dana35c/
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Eric wrote:
>>
>> 31's, 4cyl's, and hills just don't go together. I've had my 99 TJ SE for
>> about 2.5 years now. I've done multi-day road trips, hills, rocks,
>> mud...
>> just about everything. I've had stock tires, 31s, and now 33s.
>>
>> Leave the stock size on there if you want stock performance. When I went
>> from 31s to stock (came with 31s used -- got free stockers) I noticed a
>> HUGE
>> difference. When I went from 31s to 33s, again, a HUGE difference. That
>> said, I have enough little tweaks to make my 33s liveable. I still use
>> 5th
>> gear all the time (just not on hills) and get 18mpg on average in the
>> city.
>> I haven't done any major road trips since putting on the 33s to say what
>> my
>> highway mileage is (but I think it's worse -- have to continuously
>> downshift
>> if there's a headwind or hills -- causes much higher RPMs). I also have
>> a
>> 4" lift, so that may affect my mileage negatively.
>>
>> By the way Bill -- plenty of rock crawling and no broken D35 yet. I just
>> air down to about 10 psi for maximum traction and take it easy over the
>> obstacles. :-) Of course when my locker gets here, I may be sending you
>> pics to post. We'll see...
>>
>> Eric
>> 99 TJ SE
Eric
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:424B6C6D.9498C91@***.net...
> Your four doesn't have enough power to break the puny Dana 35c. Do
> you see any four cylinders, here: http://www.----------.com/dana35c/
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Eric wrote:
>>
>> 31's, 4cyl's, and hills just don't go together. I've had my 99 TJ SE for
>> about 2.5 years now. I've done multi-day road trips, hills, rocks,
>> mud...
>> just about everything. I've had stock tires, 31s, and now 33s.
>>
>> Leave the stock size on there if you want stock performance. When I went
>> from 31s to stock (came with 31s used -- got free stockers) I noticed a
>> HUGE
>> difference. When I went from 31s to 33s, again, a HUGE difference. That
>> said, I have enough little tweaks to make my 33s liveable. I still use
>> 5th
>> gear all the time (just not on hills) and get 18mpg on average in the
>> city.
>> I haven't done any major road trips since putting on the 33s to say what
>> my
>> highway mileage is (but I think it's worse -- have to continuously
>> downshift
>> if there's a headwind or hills -- causes much higher RPMs). I also have
>> a
>> 4" lift, so that may affect my mileage negatively.
>>
>> By the way Bill -- plenty of rock crawling and no broken D35 yet. I just
>> air down to about 10 psi for maximum traction and take it easy over the
>> obstacles. :-) Of course when my locker gets here, I may be sending you
>> pics to post. We'll see...
>>
>> Eric
>> 99 TJ SE
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4 cyl. mileage, lift & tire size
Well, I hope you're right Bill!
Eric
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:424B6C6D.9498C91@***.net...
> Your four doesn't have enough power to break the puny Dana 35c. Do
> you see any four cylinders, here: http://www.----------.com/dana35c/
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Eric wrote:
>>
>> 31's, 4cyl's, and hills just don't go together. I've had my 99 TJ SE for
>> about 2.5 years now. I've done multi-day road trips, hills, rocks,
>> mud...
>> just about everything. I've had stock tires, 31s, and now 33s.
>>
>> Leave the stock size on there if you want stock performance. When I went
>> from 31s to stock (came with 31s used -- got free stockers) I noticed a
>> HUGE
>> difference. When I went from 31s to 33s, again, a HUGE difference. That
>> said, I have enough little tweaks to make my 33s liveable. I still use
>> 5th
>> gear all the time (just not on hills) and get 18mpg on average in the
>> city.
>> I haven't done any major road trips since putting on the 33s to say what
>> my
>> highway mileage is (but I think it's worse -- have to continuously
>> downshift
>> if there's a headwind or hills -- causes much higher RPMs). I also have
>> a
>> 4" lift, so that may affect my mileage negatively.
>>
>> By the way Bill -- plenty of rock crawling and no broken D35 yet. I just
>> air down to about 10 psi for maximum traction and take it easy over the
>> obstacles. :-) Of course when my locker gets here, I may be sending you
>> pics to post. We'll see...
>>
>> Eric
>> 99 TJ SE
Eric
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:424B6C6D.9498C91@***.net...
> Your four doesn't have enough power to break the puny Dana 35c. Do
> you see any four cylinders, here: http://www.----------.com/dana35c/
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Eric wrote:
>>
>> 31's, 4cyl's, and hills just don't go together. I've had my 99 TJ SE for
>> about 2.5 years now. I've done multi-day road trips, hills, rocks,
>> mud...
>> just about everything. I've had stock tires, 31s, and now 33s.
>>
>> Leave the stock size on there if you want stock performance. When I went
>> from 31s to stock (came with 31s used -- got free stockers) I noticed a
>> HUGE
>> difference. When I went from 31s to 33s, again, a HUGE difference. That
>> said, I have enough little tweaks to make my 33s liveable. I still use
>> 5th
>> gear all the time (just not on hills) and get 18mpg on average in the
>> city.
>> I haven't done any major road trips since putting on the 33s to say what
>> my
>> highway mileage is (but I think it's worse -- have to continuously
>> downshift
>> if there's a headwind or hills -- causes much higher RPMs). I also have
>> a
>> 4" lift, so that may affect my mileage negatively.
>>
>> By the way Bill -- plenty of rock crawling and no broken D35 yet. I just
>> air down to about 10 psi for maximum traction and take it easy over the
>> obstacles. :-) Of course when my locker gets here, I may be sending you
>> pics to post. We'll see...
>>
>> Eric
>> 99 TJ SE
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4 cyl. mileage, lift & tire size
Well, I hope you're right Bill!
Eric
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:424B6C6D.9498C91@***.net...
> Your four doesn't have enough power to break the puny Dana 35c. Do
> you see any four cylinders, here: http://www.----------.com/dana35c/
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Eric wrote:
>>
>> 31's, 4cyl's, and hills just don't go together. I've had my 99 TJ SE for
>> about 2.5 years now. I've done multi-day road trips, hills, rocks,
>> mud...
>> just about everything. I've had stock tires, 31s, and now 33s.
>>
>> Leave the stock size on there if you want stock performance. When I went
>> from 31s to stock (came with 31s used -- got free stockers) I noticed a
>> HUGE
>> difference. When I went from 31s to 33s, again, a HUGE difference. That
>> said, I have enough little tweaks to make my 33s liveable. I still use
>> 5th
>> gear all the time (just not on hills) and get 18mpg on average in the
>> city.
>> I haven't done any major road trips since putting on the 33s to say what
>> my
>> highway mileage is (but I think it's worse -- have to continuously
>> downshift
>> if there's a headwind or hills -- causes much higher RPMs). I also have
>> a
>> 4" lift, so that may affect my mileage negatively.
>>
>> By the way Bill -- plenty of rock crawling and no broken D35 yet. I just
>> air down to about 10 psi for maximum traction and take it easy over the
>> obstacles. :-) Of course when my locker gets here, I may be sending you
>> pics to post. We'll see...
>>
>> Eric
>> 99 TJ SE
Eric
"L.W. ("ßill") ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:424B6C6D.9498C91@***.net...
> Your four doesn't have enough power to break the puny Dana 35c. Do
> you see any four cylinders, here: http://www.----------.com/dana35c/
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:--------------------
>
> Eric wrote:
>>
>> 31's, 4cyl's, and hills just don't go together. I've had my 99 TJ SE for
>> about 2.5 years now. I've done multi-day road trips, hills, rocks,
>> mud...
>> just about everything. I've had stock tires, 31s, and now 33s.
>>
>> Leave the stock size on there if you want stock performance. When I went
>> from 31s to stock (came with 31s used -- got free stockers) I noticed a
>> HUGE
>> difference. When I went from 31s to 33s, again, a HUGE difference. That
>> said, I have enough little tweaks to make my 33s liveable. I still use
>> 5th
>> gear all the time (just not on hills) and get 18mpg on average in the
>> city.
>> I haven't done any major road trips since putting on the 33s to say what
>> my
>> highway mileage is (but I think it's worse -- have to continuously
>> downshift
>> if there's a headwind or hills -- causes much higher RPMs). I also have
>> a
>> 4" lift, so that may affect my mileage negatively.
>>
>> By the way Bill -- plenty of rock crawling and no broken D35 yet. I just
>> air down to about 10 psi for maximum traction and take it easy over the
>> obstacles. :-) Of course when my locker gets here, I may be sending you
>> pics to post. We'll see...
>>
>> Eric
>> 99 TJ SE
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4 cyl. mileage, lift & tire size
Just make sure you get the extended bump stops with the spacers. If you
use the stock ones, the springs can over compress which can damage them
or the shocks.
Mike
Bryan wrote:
>
> Sounds great. All I really want is get just that little extra clearance I
> need to stop dragging my receiver hitch on the way to my favorite fishing
> hole.
>
> I have seen spacers for as little at $60.00 on the 'net somewhere. Got a
> friend who is a suspension guru to do the work and get it right, but he is
> not a jeep guy and cannot tell me what experiences people have had with coil
> spacers.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Bryan
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:424C0157.1CDD7A05@sympatico.ca...
> >I have helped folks do that and it works just fine for an inch or two.
> > Super easy to install too.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > Bryan wrote:
> >>
> >> With all the discussion of gas mileage, the emphasis on the lift got only
> >> a
> >> few, but good responses.
> >>
> >> Has anyone tried going the cheap route, using coil spacers?
> >>
> >> What were the results?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Bryan
use the stock ones, the springs can over compress which can damage them
or the shocks.
Mike
Bryan wrote:
>
> Sounds great. All I really want is get just that little extra clearance I
> need to stop dragging my receiver hitch on the way to my favorite fishing
> hole.
>
> I have seen spacers for as little at $60.00 on the 'net somewhere. Got a
> friend who is a suspension guru to do the work and get it right, but he is
> not a jeep guy and cannot tell me what experiences people have had with coil
> spacers.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Bryan
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:424C0157.1CDD7A05@sympatico.ca...
> >I have helped folks do that and it works just fine for an inch or two.
> > Super easy to install too.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > Bryan wrote:
> >>
> >> With all the discussion of gas mileage, the emphasis on the lift got only
> >> a
> >> few, but good responses.
> >>
> >> Has anyone tried going the cheap route, using coil spacers?
> >>
> >> What were the results?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Bryan
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4 cyl. mileage, lift & tire size
Just make sure you get the extended bump stops with the spacers. If you
use the stock ones, the springs can over compress which can damage them
or the shocks.
Mike
Bryan wrote:
>
> Sounds great. All I really want is get just that little extra clearance I
> need to stop dragging my receiver hitch on the way to my favorite fishing
> hole.
>
> I have seen spacers for as little at $60.00 on the 'net somewhere. Got a
> friend who is a suspension guru to do the work and get it right, but he is
> not a jeep guy and cannot tell me what experiences people have had with coil
> spacers.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Bryan
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:424C0157.1CDD7A05@sympatico.ca...
> >I have helped folks do that and it works just fine for an inch or two.
> > Super easy to install too.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > Bryan wrote:
> >>
> >> With all the discussion of gas mileage, the emphasis on the lift got only
> >> a
> >> few, but good responses.
> >>
> >> Has anyone tried going the cheap route, using coil spacers?
> >>
> >> What were the results?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Bryan
use the stock ones, the springs can over compress which can damage them
or the shocks.
Mike
Bryan wrote:
>
> Sounds great. All I really want is get just that little extra clearance I
> need to stop dragging my receiver hitch on the way to my favorite fishing
> hole.
>
> I have seen spacers for as little at $60.00 on the 'net somewhere. Got a
> friend who is a suspension guru to do the work and get it right, but he is
> not a jeep guy and cannot tell me what experiences people have had with coil
> spacers.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Bryan
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:424C0157.1CDD7A05@sympatico.ca...
> >I have helped folks do that and it works just fine for an inch or two.
> > Super easy to install too.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > Bryan wrote:
> >>
> >> With all the discussion of gas mileage, the emphasis on the lift got only
> >> a
> >> few, but good responses.
> >>
> >> Has anyone tried going the cheap route, using coil spacers?
> >>
> >> What were the results?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Bryan
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4 cyl. mileage, lift & tire size
Just make sure you get the extended bump stops with the spacers. If you
use the stock ones, the springs can over compress which can damage them
or the shocks.
Mike
Bryan wrote:
>
> Sounds great. All I really want is get just that little extra clearance I
> need to stop dragging my receiver hitch on the way to my favorite fishing
> hole.
>
> I have seen spacers for as little at $60.00 on the 'net somewhere. Got a
> friend who is a suspension guru to do the work and get it right, but he is
> not a jeep guy and cannot tell me what experiences people have had with coil
> spacers.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Bryan
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:424C0157.1CDD7A05@sympatico.ca...
> >I have helped folks do that and it works just fine for an inch or two.
> > Super easy to install too.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > Bryan wrote:
> >>
> >> With all the discussion of gas mileage, the emphasis on the lift got only
> >> a
> >> few, but good responses.
> >>
> >> Has anyone tried going the cheap route, using coil spacers?
> >>
> >> What were the results?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Bryan
use the stock ones, the springs can over compress which can damage them
or the shocks.
Mike
Bryan wrote:
>
> Sounds great. All I really want is get just that little extra clearance I
> need to stop dragging my receiver hitch on the way to my favorite fishing
> hole.
>
> I have seen spacers for as little at $60.00 on the 'net somewhere. Got a
> friend who is a suspension guru to do the work and get it right, but he is
> not a jeep guy and cannot tell me what experiences people have had with coil
> spacers.
>
> Thanks for the help.
>
> Bryan
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:424C0157.1CDD7A05@sympatico.ca...
> >I have helped folks do that and it works just fine for an inch or two.
> > Super easy to install too.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > Bryan wrote:
> >>
> >> With all the discussion of gas mileage, the emphasis on the lift got only
> >> a
> >> few, but good responses.
> >>
> >> Has anyone tried going the cheap route, using coil spacers?
> >>
> >> What were the results?
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >>
> >> Bryan
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: 4 cyl. mileage, lift & tire size
Well colour me skeptical.
Teraflex has never been known for great handling with their long arm
kits.....their original long arm kit was promoted as handling well, but
the poor folks who shelled out the cash for it soon discovered that it
squat like a cat under acceleration, and nose dived like crazy under
braking, due to the unequal length upper and lower control arms.
Seems they got around that problem by calling it a "LCG" kit.....in
other words, if you keep the lift to a minimum, the arms will be closer
to parallel and the symptoms won't be as bad.
Looks like they've got the same problem with this kit, and added in the
triangulated front end.....do some searching on pirate4x4.
*shrug* Keep an eye out, but I'm betting it won't be a big seller.
Paul
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> http://rockcrawler.com/features/news...raflex_lcg.asp im
> waiting on it to prove itself in the field a little before spending the
> money, but its said to handle awesome on the highway. i guess only time
> will tell.
>
Teraflex has never been known for great handling with their long arm
kits.....their original long arm kit was promoted as handling well, but
the poor folks who shelled out the cash for it soon discovered that it
squat like a cat under acceleration, and nose dived like crazy under
braking, due to the unequal length upper and lower control arms.
Seems they got around that problem by calling it a "LCG" kit.....in
other words, if you keep the lift to a minimum, the arms will be closer
to parallel and the symptoms won't be as bad.
Looks like they've got the same problem with this kit, and added in the
triangulated front end.....do some searching on pirate4x4.
*shrug* Keep an eye out, but I'm betting it won't be a big seller.
Paul
Nathan W. Collier wrote:
> http://rockcrawler.com/features/news...raflex_lcg.asp im
> waiting on it to prove itself in the field a little before spending the
> money, but its said to handle awesome on the highway. i guess only time
> will tell.
>
