Been considering going back to 33" tires lately

connor grimes

connor grimes

TJ Enthusiast
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 24, 2018
Messages
367
Location
Los Angeles
Hey guys,

Considering going back to running 33" tires instead of the 35's I'm running currently. Mainly because of the gearing I have currently 4.56 and the fact that I'm not hitting as many rock crawling trails as I used too and these days find myself more looking to just do nice scenic trails with mild off-roading, stuff I used to do just fine when i was running 33's. Also plan on towing a small tear drop trailer (1200lbs) and figured smaller tires would be better as well. Re-geared from 3.73 to 4.56 awhile back when I thought I'd never run 35's...anyways. I know I should be at 5.13 gears but don't feel like paying the added cost. I felt the TJ was more behaved on 33's, had almost the same offroading performance, and got a little bit better MPG. I'm really just talking out loud hear looking for opinions. Im in SoCal, and the only rock trails I've done are Gold Mountain and John Bull. Has anyone done these trails on 33's? I'm pretty armored underneath at the moment.

Current set up:
TJ 4.0 5-Speed 4.56 gears
Skid row oil/tranny skid
Currie steering
Currie adjustable control arms
3.5" suspension lift 1.25" BL 1"MML
Dana 30 stock no locker
Dana 35 w/Revolution 1541H shafts and eaton e-locker
 
I just ran Gold Mountain a few weeks back in my TJ. I'm currently on 33s, 3.73 gears and open diffs and was able to get thru all the obstacles without assistance. The first waterfall obstacle I tried but couldn't get up the most difficult line on the far right, but I think that was not because of tire size as much as it was having open diffs.

I haven't run John Bull yet, and don't plan to until I install lockers front and rear...
 
I think 33s are a great size for a TJ. I only have 35s because of the LJ.

Going to 33x10.5 with a ~5" backspacing would maximize the handling benefit you get from going back to 33s. Not mandatory, but I would probably want to drop the lift as low as I could while maintaining clearance to take advantage with the CoG. If you don't have any mods that require a body lift, I'd probably pull that so you maintain your suspension travel and belly clearance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Irun
Old age shrinkage I guess but I to downsized from 35’s on my TJ to 33’s and also run 33’s on the LJ.
both Jeeps have all Currie short arms and just changed the springs out on the TJ to some shorter RE ones I had lying around.
Enjoying now taking it a bit easier and going more for the scenic trails.
It’s not the size of the meats its the motion….
TJ AX15 and new 4.56 gears ARB front and rear
LJ NSG-370 with stock Rubicon 4.10’s
 
  • Like
Reactions: connor grimes and freedom_in_4low
what benefits did you see going back to 33's? one of the few things holding me back from going back to 33's is snow wheeling. I do alot of it in Big Bear and found the little extra ground clearance helps. I suppose I could always run chains for deep days
 
  • Like
Reactions: srimes
Benefits:
1)wife‘s knees aren’t getting better so a bit easier for her to jump in.
2)Crosswinds on highways don’t blow you over as many lanes.
3) tires appear to be easier for me to take on and off.
4) Quite a few Jeepers with angry grills will make fun of you and under estimate your rig’s capabilities and your driving skills.

We salt our roads here so LJ will never see snow and the Tj has a rust free frame that will be transplanting on it.
 
  • Like
  • Wow
Reactions: RINC and connor grimes
Cons to 33's
1) Rear bumper hits more
2) Rear frame control arm mounts hit more
3) Everything hits more
4) Smaller tires less capable off-road

Pros to 33's
1) Better geometry with short arms
2) Easier to climb in
 
  • Like
Reactions: BC Moto, srimes, Plumber1 and 2 others
I've ran 33s on a CJ and TJ, and felt that they were a great size for off-road, on-road and still make your rig look aggressive enough. Now I do 'some' off roading, and keep it realistic...if I were doing major mudding or rock crawling, I may opt for larger.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: connor grimes
I ran John Bull a few times this summer. I've had a Jeep since 2012 and feel like it's the easiest it's ever been. I don't see 33's being a problem. Same with Gold Mtn.

Now I feel like Holcomb is the hardest in Big Bear followed by Dishpan. You might have trouble on those two. Though 33's seem to be enough for a TJ.

I like to think 33's on a TJ is similar to 35's on a JK.

Also my wheeling rig (LJ) is on 37's. I also have a DD TJ on 31's at stock height. The handling on road is much better on the stock Jeep. Handles more like a normal car. Then I get in the LJ and it handles a bit mushy. So any step down in size should show an improvement. Also going from MT to AT will also handle better on road.
 
  • Like
Reactions: srimes, JMT and connor grimes
LONGJP2 said:
Why?
Click to expand...

I think he is comparing to having a higher lift with short arms. The geometry will be better with a bit lower lift and short arms than higher. Ideally you want your control arms as straight ahead as possible and not pointing down. So decreasing the lift helps decrease that angle.
 
RocknLJ said:
I think he is comparing to having a higher lift with short arms. The geometry will be better with a bit lower lift and short arms than higher. Ideally you want your control arms as straight ahead as possible and not pointing down. So decreasing the lift helps decrease that angle.
Click to expand...

Btw nice LJ!
 
RocknLJ said:
I think he is comparing to having a higher lift with short arms. The geometry will be better with a bit lower lift and short arms than higher. Ideally you want your control arms as straight ahead as possible and not pointing down. So decreasing the lift helps decrease that angle.
Click to expand...

I assumed the OPs lift is not changing, just the tires.
 
  • Like
Reactions: srimes
LONGJP2 said:
I assumed the OPs lift is not changing, just the tires.
Click to expand...

RocknLJ said:
Got it.
Incorrect assumption on my part that spring height would be changed.
Click to expand...

One end of the 100% antisquat line is determined by the rear tire contact patch, so if you lower the entire chassis closer to the ground by going to a smaller tire, you decrease the anti squat, which lifted short arms already have too much of. So there's a (probably slight) improvement even if you don't touch the springs.

1699063179389.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tob
I did a 2.5" spring lift on my '05' TJR thinking that I would run 32s. Also been rolling around in my mind about adding a 1.25" body lift to run 33s. Now I'm thinking 31s because it's hard enough to get in with the 245/65/16's with just the 2.5" lift. Being retired and limited funds I think brings me back to reality. I'm pretty surprised where the 254/65/16 Walmart AT's take me down here in South East Arizona. I'm thinking if I ever make it to Moab, I will go wherever the 31's or 32's will take me. My jeep as it sets now.

20230709_120758.jpg
 
  • Like
Reactions: Squatch, JMT, MountaineerTom and 1 other person
DavidBT said:
I did a 2.5" spring lift on my '05' TJR thinking that I would run 32s. Also been rolling around in my mind about adding a 1.25" body lift to run 33s. Now I'm thinking 31s because it's hard enough to get in with the 245/65/16's with just the 2.5" lift. Being retired and limited funds I think brings me back to reality. I'm pretty surprised where the 254/65/16 Walmart AT's take me down here in South East Arizona. I'm thinking if I ever make it to Moab, I will go wherever the 31's or 32's will take me. My jeep as it sets now.

View attachment 471127
Click to expand...

My 31’s have taken me a lot of surprising places. I keep thinking I want 33’s when the time comes to replace them. I keep going back and forth. 😂
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: RMETeeJay, srimes, 97' 4 Popper and 2 others
Top Bottom
Back