NSG370 vs 42RLE

[mrblaine]

It's right there in multiple posts. Including the one you just quoted. Larger tires get worse mileage.they wear out other parts faster and said parts need to be stronger and more expensive for what those tires are capable of.they are less likely to have your wife,mother,kids or anyone important want to ride with you. Almost every metric that a vehicle that gets used often is judged by.

That's fine, I will concede almost every point with the caveat that while you're correct, the percentage increase by which there is more of those things inducing wear blah blah is very small. Your position is yet again secure, you pick some very small differences and make that molehill a mountain to die on.

The only one that you are blatantly wrong about is the family bullshit. Every 35" tire build I've ever done is a no buts build and that wouldn't change if it were 33's. The no but means I can, will, and have tossed the keys to anyone that is going to drive it and that's it, no buts, no warnings, no watch out for this, or watch out for that, nothing, just like any other car. I'm guessing you have been around some very shitty 35" builds or did one and went back to smaller tires.

33" or 35,36,37,42" tire builds don’t need to be on the same build level. That wouldn't make sense on mulitiple levels . it's just more misdirection.

Come on now, that's bullshit and you know it. There's no fucking misdirection there, if we don't apply similar build levels to the rigs being discussed, then there is no basis for comparison. The misdirection is coming from you. I made the point about a Zone lift build with stock control arms versus the rock eater, surely you are able to understand why that matters, or no?

As far as the compression braking discussion it was laid out quite clearly that without moving to an overdrive auto(which you've admitted isn't an easy task in a 97-02.and you haven't done to your standards) your suggestion of simply gearing down to compensate isn't useful unless you want to forego freeway speeds. The rpm numbers aren't hard to grasp.You did not acknowledge that the gear ratio spread in a non overdrive auto has compromises.

You did however go silent after resorting to name calling.

No, I went silent because I realized that you state a position, you stay there, and that's the end of it and I also realized that while the gearing could be done, you won't ever do it, so it became a waste of time. You become the tail that wags the dog with a single example out of 1000's to the contrary and that gets tedious.

 

[JMT]

Larger tires get worse mileage.

Larger than what? Do you mean incrementally larger? I’ve got mpg documentation for 7 years on 31’s, 33’s, and 35’s with different gearing and different transmissions. All three tire sizes with varying gear ratios averaged 12.5 mpg during use.

 

[mrblaine]

Larger than what? Do you mean incrementally larger? I’ve got mpg documentation for 7 years on 31’s, 33’s, and 35’s with different gearing and different transmissions. All three tire sizes with varying gear ratios averaged 12.5 mpg during use.

33's get better mileage than 35's. If that difference is .1 mpg, that's all it takes for him to be correct.

 

[freedom_in_4low]

Larger than what? Do you mean incrementally larger? I’ve got mpg documentation for 7 years on 31’s, 33’s, and 35’s with different gearing and different transmissions. All three tire sizes with varying gear ratios averaged 12.5 mpg during use.

That surprises me. I wish I had statistics across the same vehicle but I made the 32 to 35 jump at the same time as going from the 99 Sahara to the 06 LJ.

99 Sahara with 32, ax15, and 3.73 and 4.56 gears averaged 15.3mpg.

06 LJ with 35s, nsg370 and later ax15, and 4.88 gears averages 12.8. I did run the 32s briefly and was in the 14s but it wasn't enough fillups to be statistically significant.

 

[mrblaine]

99 Sahara with 32, ax15, and 3.73 and 4.56 gears averaged 15.3mpg.

Kat's 01, AW-4, 5.38, 35's averages about the same.
My 99 on 35's with the 32RH was a little over 13 until we went up to the Rubicon a few times. Up there with all the running around we did it almost got to 15 which I found to be very odd.

 

[freedom_in_4low]

I see that over and over. People build their ultimate 4x4 that's too big to be driven anymore economically or practically. They plan destinations that don't happen since their "wheeler" isn't suited for daily driving anymore.Then sell x amount of years after disuse.

I'm limiting mine to 33's so cost of maintenance and operation is under control. I drive it every chance i get.trips to the beach,fishing or just dates.

The modifications are fun,but daily driver is my priority

If my Jeep burned down and I was starting over from scratch with a fat check from State farm, I would buy an auto LJR for the 4.10s and the 241, I would get some OE Canyon 15s on marketplace and throw some 33x10.5s on them. Tuning the 3-4 shift points would be good enough for highway driving in Oklahoma. Do the same body lift and tuck but 3" springs instead of 4. The money I could have spent regearing could come close enough to a midarm and outboard, but I don't know if I wheel hard enough to justify the midarm. The outboard would be primarily for ride quality.

It might not cost much less in the end but it would daily better and probably even perform better off-road, for what I do with it, than what I have now simply due to the suspension upgrades and auto vs manual.

I tend to be more of a tinkerer than a wheeler. I like taking it apart and putting it back together better than it was even if I'm not the ideal driver to actually maximize the benefit. This has become more pronounced after moving from being 15 minutes from trails to being minimum 2 hours, as I'm in that phase of life where I have more money than time, and it's easier to go wrench for a couple hours on an evening or a Saturday than it is to set a whole day aside. The unfortunate side effect of this is that I've built a rig that calls for more technical trails to avoid boredom, and those trails carry higher risks of things like major breakage or rollovers which make me less prone to try them without another rig.

I've considered for about a year that I might enjoy my Jeep more if I dropped an inch out of the suspension, went to 33s, regeared to 4.56 or even 4.11, and installed a 241 and it would do everything I want from it off-road. I would have the better crawl gearing that I want, I think I would feel less tippy with 2" lower COG, and I could pick a gear ratio that allowed for a faster cruise speed before the driveline vibes kick in. But there's no way I would consider spending the coin to back up unless I was doing the gears myself.

 

[Rickyd]

Larger than what? Do you mean incrementally larger? I’ve got mpg documentation for 7 years on 31’s, 33’s, and 35’s with different gearing and different transmissions. All three tire sizes with varying gear ratios averaged 12.5 mpg during use.

Larger than anything smaller. As you increase tire size the weight and rolling resistance goes up. The lift height goes up which also doesn't help.

Damn. 12.5 mpg on 31's sucks. Did you have 3.07s?

 

[Rickyd]

That's fine, I will concede almost every point with the caveat that while you're correct, the percentage increase by which there is more of those things inducing wear blah blah is very small. Your position is yet again secure, you pick some very small differences and make that molehill a mountain to die on.

The only one that you are blatantly wrong about is the family bullshit. Every 35" tire build I've ever done is a no buts build and that wouldn't change if it were 33's. The no but means I can, will, and have tossed the keys to anyone that is going to drive it and that's it, no buts, no warnings, no watch out for this, or watch out for that, nothing, just like any other car. I'm guessing you have been around some very shitty 35" builds or did one and went back to smaller tires.

Come on now, that's bullshit and you know it. There's no fucking misdirection there, if we don't apply similar build levels to the rigs being discussed, then there is no basis for comparison. The misdirection is coming from you. I made the point about a Zone lift build with stock control arms versus the rock eater, surely you are able to understand why that matters, or no?

No, I went silent because I realized that you state a position, you stay there, and that's the end of it and I also realized that while the gearing could be done, you won't ever do it, so it became a waste of time. You become the tail that wags the dog with a single example out of 1000's to the contrary and that gets tedious.

You were asked what gear ratio for a 32rh would provide an acceptable rpm on the freeway and the same or better compression braking as a tall geared manual rig. You couldn't,because it doesn't exist. Instead you started insulting me and went silent. An adult would have admitted the the gear ratio spread in a transmission,whether auto or manual is going to place a cap on a vehicles ability to do both.

It is a small point,but it is the reason i won't have a 32rh. Again,an adult wouldn't slander someone for pointing out a scenario in which their manual is prefered.

It is indeed fact that many people don't want to drive or ride in taller vehicles. It makes them uneasy,or it hurts them trying to get in and out,and many other reasons.

I could go through your other statements again but it is just a battle of attrition. You ignore what I'm saying as a whole. Take individual sentences out of context and try to place them in rediculous scenarios to make me out to be a fool. Like i said,politics and relationships.

This is no different. Lifting a vehicle is a compromise. The bigger they get the more you give up for offroad ability. It isn't rocket science

 

[astjp2]

Kat's 01, AW-4, 5.38, 35's averages about the same.
My 99 on 35's with the 32RH was a little over 13 until we went up to the Rubicon a few times. Up there with all the running around we did it almost got to 15 which I found to be very odd.

Probably more more slippage at speed? Actually more likely just wind resistance taking it out of optimal efficiency.

 

[Rickyd]

If my Jeep burned down and I was starting over from scratch with a fat check from State farm, I would buy an auto LJR for the 4.10s and the 241, I would get some OE Canyon 15s on marketplace and throw some 33x10.5s on them. Tuning the 3-4 shift points would be good enough for highway driving in Oklahoma. Do the same body lift and tuck but 3" springs instead of 4. The money I could have spent regearing could come close enough to a midarm and outboard, but I don't know if I wheel hard enough to justify the midarm. The outboard would be primarily for ride quality.

It might not cost much less in the end but it would daily better and probably even perform better off-road, for what I do with it, than what I have now simply due to the suspension upgrades and auto vs manual.

I tend to be more of a tinkerer than a wheeler. I like taking it apart and putting it back together better than it was even if I'm not the ideal driver to actually maximize the benefit. This has become more pronounced after moving from being 15 minutes from trails to being minimum 2 hours, as I'm in that phase of life where I have more money than time, and it's easier to go wrench for a couple hours on an evening or a Saturday than it is to set a whole day aside. The unfortunate side effect of this is that I've built a rig that calls for more technical trails to avoid boredom, and those trails carry higher risks of things like major breakage or rollovers which make me less prone to try them without another rig.

I've considered for about a year that I might enjoy my Jeep more if I dropped an inch out of the suspension, went to 33s, regeared to 4.56 or even 4.11, and installed a 241 and it would do everything I want from it off-road. I would have the better crawl gearing that I want, I think I would feel less tippy with 2" lower COG, and I could pick a gear ratio that allowed for a faster cruise speed before the driveline vibes kick in. But there's no way I would consider spending the coin to back up unless I was doing the gears myself.

we just need to be honest with ourselves about what our jeeps will be used for.life changes can sabotage the best laid plans too.

There isn't a wrong answer. It would be great to have a dedicated wheeler some day and trailer it to destinations.

All I'm saying is i won't fall into the trap of overbuilding a daily driver and then abandoning it like so many others.

 

[freedom_in_4low]

Kat's 01, AW-4, 5.38, 35's averages about the same.
My 99 on 35's with the 32RH was a little over 13 until we went up to the Rubicon a few times. Up there with all the running around we did it almost got to 15 which I found to be very odd.

All my best mpg tanks were burned in the mountains. I don't know if it's the thinner air offering less drag, or the fuel saved on the downhills is more than the extra fuel burned on the uphills, or a combination of both, but I've recorded several 15+ tanks on my trips to SW Colorado. My record is 16.6 which was from Alamosa, CO at 7500', over 9400' La Veta pass and bottoming out in Trinidad at 6k, then over 7800' Raton Pass, then down to Raton at 6500'. I suspect the 75 ish miles of sustained downhill are basically free from a fuel consumption standpoint. I tried to beat it the next year but I pushed another 83 miles to Clayton and only averaged 14.5. that 83 miles does descend another 1000' but it's so gradual you (and the jeep) don't really even realize you're going downhill.