"Bob" <magicclaw@mac.com> wrote in message
news:47b769ae.0405190657.138a6196@posting.google.c om...
> Sorry, but I have to say I think you need to recheck the validity of
> this statement. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you
> could get the Dana44 rear option seperately from the upgraded diff
> gearing. And in 2001, the upgraded diff gearing would've been a 3.73:1
> ratio.
>
> So, I would venture to say either you do have 3.07:1 diff gearing as
> you said, but with a Dana35c rearend, or you have the Dana44 rear as
> you said, but actually have 3.73:1 diff gearing (which will definitely
> be nicer when you decide on which larger tires to go with).
>

Well, I am in New Zealand and TJs exported to our local market all had rear
Dana 44s. I have the build order and it confirms its a Dana 44. I have
matched the shape with photos on the net, its a Dana 44. Now for the
gearing, well I thought too that Dana 44s came with 3.73, but I have done
the tyre rotation test and it works out to 3.07. Also, the label on the
pumpkin says 3.07. So does the build order. Thus, I believe my statement
is correct. This may be a weird combination, but that is how they were
sent to the New Zealand market.

Thanks for your reply. It must be a Jeep thing....
TW

 

"Bob" <magicclaw@mac.com> wrote in message
news:47b769ae.0405190657.138a6196@posting.google.c om...
> Sorry, but I have to say I think you need to recheck the validity of
> this statement. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you
> could get the Dana44 rear option seperately from the upgraded diff
> gearing. And in 2001, the upgraded diff gearing would've been a 3.73:1
> ratio.
>
> So, I would venture to say either you do have 3.07:1 diff gearing as
> you said, but with a Dana35c rearend, or you have the Dana44 rear as
> you said, but actually have 3.73:1 diff gearing (which will definitely
> be nicer when you decide on which larger tires to go with).
>

Well, I am in New Zealand and TJs exported to our local market all had rear
Dana 44s. I have the build order and it confirms its a Dana 44. I have
matched the shape with photos on the net, its a Dana 44. Now for the
gearing, well I thought too that Dana 44s came with 3.73, but I have done
the tyre rotation test and it works out to 3.07. Also, the label on the
pumpkin says 3.07. So does the build order. Thus, I believe my statement
is correct. This may be a weird combination, but that is how they were
sent to the New Zealand market.

Thanks for your reply. It must be a Jeep thing....
TW

 

"Bob" <magicclaw@mac.com> wrote in message
news:47b769ae.0405190657.138a6196@posting.google.c om...
> Sorry, but I have to say I think you need to recheck the validity of
> this statement. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you
> could get the Dana44 rear option seperately from the upgraded diff
> gearing. And in 2001, the upgraded diff gearing would've been a 3.73:1
> ratio.
>
> So, I would venture to say either you do have 3.07:1 diff gearing as
> you said, but with a Dana35c rearend, or you have the Dana44 rear as
> you said, but actually have 3.73:1 diff gearing (which will definitely
> be nicer when you decide on which larger tires to go with).
>

Well, I am in New Zealand and TJs exported to our local market all had rear
Dana 44s. I have the build order and it confirms its a Dana 44. I have
matched the shape with photos on the net, its a Dana 44. Now for the
gearing, well I thought too that Dana 44s came with 3.73, but I have done
the tyre rotation test and it works out to 3.07. Also, the label on the
pumpkin says 3.07. So does the build order. Thus, I believe my statement
is correct. This may be a weird combination, but that is how they were
sent to the New Zealand market.

Thanks for your reply. It must be a Jeep thing....
TW

 

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10an9cija6gt492@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> The 265/75 is a 32" equivelent, but 32 x <what>.
>
> I guess it doesn't matter because you are going to run into other
> restrictions if you go too wide. I think the 32s are a great choice, they
> offer lots of ability for virtually everything, and the few times when
you
> actually need the larger tires, well you can get your strap out.
>
> I think you can use the 32s for a long time without doing other stuff,
like
> lift and gears.
>

I think it works out to 32x10.50 R16, if such a conversion could be done.
The other one I was looking at was 255/85 R16, which works out to 33x10 R16
equivalent. Because of it being narrower, I was thinking perhaps I can get
away with it for a while. I went and had a chat with the local ARB/OME
distributor, who happens to be a big fan of Jeeps, he was of the opinion
that 32, or even narrow 33, rubbing would be probably on the local control
arms with a hard turn (lock up) with full articulation. He suggested that
if I get the coil spacers and don't disconnect my sway bar, it should be
okay for now.

>
> That should work. I think you will find that you will end up with 50mm
> spacers, but the idea is the same.
>

The OME guy suggested doing a max of 20mm front and 15mm in the rear should
be okay. I know with the upgraded suspension I will end up with 50/60mm,
which is what the goal is. 50mm spacers might be too much for the current
shocks I think. The guy actually suggested I should try 33x9.50s are they
will be better in the mud because of narrower width. However, I can't find
that combination in 16 inch rims.

Do you think 32 inch tyres would be okay? I mean the ground clearance gain
between 32 and 33 would be a maximum of half an inch, more likely to be
less. I will go to the shop on Saturday and compare the two tyres side by
side and how it looks under the fender. If 33 is too cramped, I'll get the
32s.

Thanks.
TW

 

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10an9cija6gt492@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> The 265/75 is a 32" equivelent, but 32 x <what>.
>
> I guess it doesn't matter because you are going to run into other
> restrictions if you go too wide. I think the 32s are a great choice, they
> offer lots of ability for virtually everything, and the few times when
you
> actually need the larger tires, well you can get your strap out.
>
> I think you can use the 32s for a long time without doing other stuff,
like
> lift and gears.
>

I think it works out to 32x10.50 R16, if such a conversion could be done.
The other one I was looking at was 255/85 R16, which works out to 33x10 R16
equivalent. Because of it being narrower, I was thinking perhaps I can get
away with it for a while. I went and had a chat with the local ARB/OME
distributor, who happens to be a big fan of Jeeps, he was of the opinion
that 32, or even narrow 33, rubbing would be probably on the local control
arms with a hard turn (lock up) with full articulation. He suggested that
if I get the coil spacers and don't disconnect my sway bar, it should be
okay for now.

>
> That should work. I think you will find that you will end up with 50mm
> spacers, but the idea is the same.
>

The OME guy suggested doing a max of 20mm front and 15mm in the rear should
be okay. I know with the upgraded suspension I will end up with 50/60mm,
which is what the goal is. 50mm spacers might be too much for the current
shocks I think. The guy actually suggested I should try 33x9.50s are they
will be better in the mud because of narrower width. However, I can't find
that combination in 16 inch rims.

Do you think 32 inch tyres would be okay? I mean the ground clearance gain
between 32 and 33 would be a maximum of half an inch, more likely to be
less. I will go to the shop on Saturday and compare the two tyres side by
side and how it looks under the fender. If 33 is too cramped, I'll get the
32s.

Thanks.
TW

 

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10an9cija6gt492@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> The 265/75 is a 32" equivelent, but 32 x <what>.
>
> I guess it doesn't matter because you are going to run into other
> restrictions if you go too wide. I think the 32s are a great choice, they
> offer lots of ability for virtually everything, and the few times when
you
> actually need the larger tires, well you can get your strap out.
>
> I think you can use the 32s for a long time without doing other stuff,
like
> lift and gears.
>

I think it works out to 32x10.50 R16, if such a conversion could be done.
The other one I was looking at was 255/85 R16, which works out to 33x10 R16
equivalent. Because of it being narrower, I was thinking perhaps I can get
away with it for a while. I went and had a chat with the local ARB/OME
distributor, who happens to be a big fan of Jeeps, he was of the opinion
that 32, or even narrow 33, rubbing would be probably on the local control
arms with a hard turn (lock up) with full articulation. He suggested that
if I get the coil spacers and don't disconnect my sway bar, it should be
okay for now.

>
> That should work. I think you will find that you will end up with 50mm
> spacers, but the idea is the same.
>

The OME guy suggested doing a max of 20mm front and 15mm in the rear should
be okay. I know with the upgraded suspension I will end up with 50/60mm,
which is what the goal is. 50mm spacers might be too much for the current
shocks I think. The guy actually suggested I should try 33x9.50s are they
will be better in the mud because of narrower width. However, I can't find
that combination in 16 inch rims.

Do you think 32 inch tyres would be okay? I mean the ground clearance gain
between 32 and 33 would be a maximum of half an inch, more likely to be
less. I will go to the shop on Saturday and compare the two tyres side by
side and how it looks under the fender. If 33 is too cramped, I'll get the
32s.

Thanks.
TW

 

"CRWLR" <beerman@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:10an9cija6gt492@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> The 265/75 is a 32" equivelent, but 32 x <what>.
>
> I guess it doesn't matter because you are going to run into other
> restrictions if you go too wide. I think the 32s are a great choice, they
> offer lots of ability for virtually everything, and the few times when
you
> actually need the larger tires, well you can get your strap out.
>
> I think you can use the 32s for a long time without doing other stuff,
like
> lift and gears.
>

I think it works out to 32x10.50 R16, if such a conversion could be done.
The other one I was looking at was 255/85 R16, which works out to 33x10 R16
equivalent. Because of it being narrower, I was thinking perhaps I can get
away with it for a while. I went and had a chat with the local ARB/OME
distributor, who happens to be a big fan of Jeeps, he was of the opinion
that 32, or even narrow 33, rubbing would be probably on the local control
arms with a hard turn (lock up) with full articulation. He suggested that
if I get the coil spacers and don't disconnect my sway bar, it should be
okay for now.

>
> That should work. I think you will find that you will end up with 50mm
> spacers, but the idea is the same.
>

The OME guy suggested doing a max of 20mm front and 15mm in the rear should
be okay. I know with the upgraded suspension I will end up with 50/60mm,
which is what the goal is. 50mm spacers might be too much for the current
shocks I think. The guy actually suggested I should try 33x9.50s are they
will be better in the mud because of narrower width. However, I can't find
that combination in 16 inch rims.

Do you think 32 inch tyres would be okay? I mean the ground clearance gain
between 32 and 33 would be a maximum of half an inch, more likely to be
less. I will go to the shop on Saturday and compare the two tyres side by
side and how it looks under the fender. If 33 is too cramped, I'll get the
32s.

Thanks.
TW

 

Crazy New Zealanders! ;-)

Yeah, my knowledge of what is or isn't sold is strictly limited to the
U.S. market. If I'd known you were in a foreign market I would've just
kept my mouth shut about that.

Hey I learned something new!

At least you are able to get that 44 without the "upgrade". Kinda
nice, really. It's almost silly getting the 3.73 ratio with it here in
the U.S. for anyone who wants the 44 just because it's better but just
plans to build it with 33s or 35s. They're gonna have to regear
whether it's a 3.07 or 3.73 axle ratio. If they offered the 44 with
the crappier 3.07 ratio but for a few hundred cheaper, I'd jump all
over it (IF were I in the market for a brand new TJ).

Good luck with your tire upgrade man. You're gonna love it when you DO
regear...it's like a whole new jeep (I just recently went from 3.55:1
diff gears with 33s to 4.56:1 diff gears.)

/Bob


"TW" <a t t w @ w a v e . c o . n z> wrote in message news:<c8hohk$1mq$3@news.wave.co.nz>...
> "Bob" <magicclaw@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:47b769ae.0405190657.138a6196@posting.google.c om...
> > Sorry, but I have to say I think you need to recheck the validity of
> > this statement. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you
> > could get the Dana44 rear option seperately from the upgraded diff
> > gearing. And in 2001, the upgraded diff gearing would've been a 3.73:1
> > ratio.
> >
> > So, I would venture to say either you do have 3.07:1 diff gearing as
> > you said, but with a Dana35c rearend, or you have the Dana44 rear as
> > you said, but actually have 3.73:1 diff gearing (which will definitely
> > be nicer when you decide on which larger tires to go with).
> >
>
> Well, I am in New Zealand and TJs exported to our local market all had rear
> Dana 44s. I have the build order and it confirms its a Dana 44. I have
> matched the shape with photos on the net, its a Dana 44. Now for the
> gearing, well I thought too that Dana 44s came with 3.73, but I have done
> the tyre rotation test and it works out to 3.07. Also, the label on the
> pumpkin says 3.07. So does the build order. Thus, I believe my statement
> is correct. This may be a weird combination, but that is how they were
> sent to the New Zealand market.
>
> Thanks for your reply. It must be a Jeep thing....
> TW

 

Crazy New Zealanders! ;-)

Yeah, my knowledge of what is or isn't sold is strictly limited to the
U.S. market. If I'd known you were in a foreign market I would've just
kept my mouth shut about that.

Hey I learned something new!

At least you are able to get that 44 without the "upgrade". Kinda
nice, really. It's almost silly getting the 3.73 ratio with it here in
the U.S. for anyone who wants the 44 just because it's better but just
plans to build it with 33s or 35s. They're gonna have to regear
whether it's a 3.07 or 3.73 axle ratio. If they offered the 44 with
the crappier 3.07 ratio but for a few hundred cheaper, I'd jump all
over it (IF were I in the market for a brand new TJ).

Good luck with your tire upgrade man. You're gonna love it when you DO
regear...it's like a whole new jeep (I just recently went from 3.55:1
diff gears with 33s to 4.56:1 diff gears.)

/Bob


"TW" <a t t w @ w a v e . c o . n z> wrote in message news:<c8hohk$1mq$3@news.wave.co.nz>...
> "Bob" <magicclaw@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:47b769ae.0405190657.138a6196@posting.google.c om...
> > Sorry, but I have to say I think you need to recheck the validity of
> > this statement. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you
> > could get the Dana44 rear option seperately from the upgraded diff
> > gearing. And in 2001, the upgraded diff gearing would've been a 3.73:1
> > ratio.
> >
> > So, I would venture to say either you do have 3.07:1 diff gearing as
> > you said, but with a Dana35c rearend, or you have the Dana44 rear as
> > you said, but actually have 3.73:1 diff gearing (which will definitely
> > be nicer when you decide on which larger tires to go with).
> >
>
> Well, I am in New Zealand and TJs exported to our local market all had rear
> Dana 44s. I have the build order and it confirms its a Dana 44. I have
> matched the shape with photos on the net, its a Dana 44. Now for the
> gearing, well I thought too that Dana 44s came with 3.73, but I have done
> the tyre rotation test and it works out to 3.07. Also, the label on the
> pumpkin says 3.07. So does the build order. Thus, I believe my statement
> is correct. This may be a weird combination, but that is how they were
> sent to the New Zealand market.
>
> Thanks for your reply. It must be a Jeep thing....
> TW

 

Crazy New Zealanders! ;-)

Yeah, my knowledge of what is or isn't sold is strictly limited to the
U.S. market. If I'd known you were in a foreign market I would've just
kept my mouth shut about that.

Hey I learned something new!

At least you are able to get that 44 without the "upgrade". Kinda
nice, really. It's almost silly getting the 3.73 ratio with it here in
the U.S. for anyone who wants the 44 just because it's better but just
plans to build it with 33s or 35s. They're gonna have to regear
whether it's a 3.07 or 3.73 axle ratio. If they offered the 44 with
the crappier 3.07 ratio but for a few hundred cheaper, I'd jump all
over it (IF were I in the market for a brand new TJ).

Good luck with your tire upgrade man. You're gonna love it when you DO
regear...it's like a whole new jeep (I just recently went from 3.55:1
diff gears with 33s to 4.56:1 diff gears.)

/Bob


"TW" <a t t w @ w a v e . c o . n z> wrote in message news:<c8hohk$1mq$3@news.wave.co.nz>...
> "Bob" <magicclaw@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:47b769ae.0405190657.138a6196@posting.google.c om...
> > Sorry, but I have to say I think you need to recheck the validity of
> > this statement. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think you
> > could get the Dana44 rear option seperately from the upgraded diff
> > gearing. And in 2001, the upgraded diff gearing would've been a 3.73:1
> > ratio.
> >
> > So, I would venture to say either you do have 3.07:1 diff gearing as
> > you said, but with a Dana35c rearend, or you have the Dana44 rear as
> > you said, but actually have 3.73:1 diff gearing (which will definitely
> > be nicer when you decide on which larger tires to go with).
> >
>
> Well, I am in New Zealand and TJs exported to our local market all had rear
> Dana 44s. I have the build order and it confirms its a Dana 44. I have
> matched the shape with photos on the net, its a Dana 44. Now for the
> gearing, well I thought too that Dana 44s came with 3.73, but I have done
> the tyre rotation test and it works out to 3.07. Also, the label on the
> pumpkin says 3.07. So does the build order. Thus, I believe my statement
> is correct. This may be a weird combination, but that is how they were
> sent to the New Zealand market.
>
> Thanks for your reply. It must be a Jeep thing....
> TW