- Joined
- Feb 9, 2018
Fino's 58 Wagon
- Thread starter FinoCJ
- Start date
colojeepguy
Colorado Springs
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2010
Most of the 235/85R16 tires available are load range E.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
that would be ideal....I'd be looking at the RT instead of the MT, but often things would be similar for the same manufacturer (and if anything, with less aggressive tread blocks on the RT, it might be a smidge shorter). I know your busy prepping for the Rubicon....if you are out there staring at your jeep wondering was else you need to do, maybe a true measurement of the diameter and width of those Kenda 33x9.5s. I didn't get as much lift out of the springs as I thought might be possible (and is totally fine - this isn't a hardcore wheeling build), just playing the game of figuring out the right tire now. Again, don't go out of your way....Drive it over here and we can try the Kenda 9.50x33s to see how they fit.
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2018
These are on 7" rims and currently at 18 psi.
Total width is about 9 7/8". It would probably be right at 9.5 without the aggressive sidewall treadblocks:
Total diameter falls well short of the advertised size at just under 31 1/2":
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
Forgot one of the small 'upgrades' that happened when I was swapping out the leaf springs - I used the original spring plates from the eCJ5 in place of the the original wagon plates. I really don't like dealing with getting the shock on and rubber bushing compressed in enough to get the washer and cotter pin in - a threaded shock mount is so nice! Also, the 2-piece shock mount/spring plate on the fronts is also kind of annoying. I believe the early CJs (flatfenders) used the same style with cotter pins, although not sure if the separate shock mount was standard on flatfenders or just a wagon/PU thing? Not sure when things went to threaded mounts? The top mounts are still the OEM style, but they don't come on and off all that often - but seems the bottom mount has to come on and off quite a bit when I am futzing with things.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
just to get a feel for tire fit, I threw some 33s on the back....the one on the passenger side is is an old 1st gen BFG AT 33x10.5 (CJ spare).....
The driver side is a 33x10.5 General Grabber XT3 from the CJ. The aggressive mud terrain General is kind of ridiculous looking, but this is about size fitting more than anything else.
I measured both tires on and off the vehicle....and both are surprisingly similar in size (I always thought the Generals were a bit bigger - maybe its only the newer BFG ATs that seem to be a bit small). Anyway, both tires measure just over 32" in true diameter (unloaded), but loaded, they drop down to just under 31.5 . The width of the BFG is also a true 10.5 - compare that to the 30x9.5 Hankook that normally runs on it, with true dimensions of 29x10. In other words, I was worried about getting too wide a tire as those rear fenders are sort of designed for the a skinny tire to tuck up inside of them - a skinny 10.5 could actually fit (does that bring in the common 31x10.5 size as an option?) Anyway, the short of it looks like a 235/85/16 is probably the right size, if one can live with the high load rating, and I might browse the true size of some 31x10.5 to see if there is an option (a lot of 31s run a bit short these days).
The driver side is a 33x10.5 General Grabber XT3 from the CJ. The aggressive mud terrain General is kind of ridiculous looking, but this is about size fitting more than anything else.
I measured both tires on and off the vehicle....and both are surprisingly similar in size (I always thought the Generals were a bit bigger - maybe its only the newer BFG ATs that seem to be a bit small). Anyway, both tires measure just over 32" in true diameter (unloaded), but loaded, they drop down to just under 31.5 . The width of the BFG is also a true 10.5 - compare that to the 30x9.5 Hankook that normally runs on it, with true dimensions of 29x10. In other words, I was worried about getting too wide a tire as those rear fenders are sort of designed for the a skinny tire to tuck up inside of them - a skinny 10.5 could actually fit (does that bring in the common 31x10.5 size as an option?) Anyway, the short of it looks like a 235/85/16 is probably the right size, if one can live with the high load rating, and I might browse the true size of some 31x10.5 to see if there is an option (a lot of 31s run a bit short these days).
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
Total diameter falls well short of the advertised size at just under 31 1/2":
If that is true, unloaded diameter, it might work. If its on the jeep and sitting normally loaded on the floor, then its pretty much the same size as what I am test fitting, and i am thinking it'd be a bit much (even in the RT model).
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2018
That's as mounted on the Jeep sitting on the ground.
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2009
I ran these on the 5 for years...ran 18 psi in the rear and 22 up front to cushion the ride. a load range e will hold the 5 up with 0 psi on the skinny 4.5-inch rim,dont think you could drive it that flat but the rim won't hit the ground while staionary.
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2004
And 235 85 16 is a very common size which is a plus in my book. Bob ran those on that orange cj on Chinamans' Gulch as I recall ( for whatever my memory is worth...I recall the tires but maybe not the location). I really like a 33 10.50 from any angle except common availability.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
Yup....those tires were so old they might have been a lower load range....these days you can only find them in load range e - maybe back in the day there were other options as that tire size was possibly more common?
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
The new stance is complete....16x7 rims with 235/85r16 (roughly short 32x9) Hankook AT tires.
There is a stress with getting new shoes as even with all the measuring and comparing etc, its a lot of money when it doesn't turn out quite how you want. In this case, I think its exactly what I was hoping for. These tires are a true to their size diameter of 31.7" which is reportedly the case with many of these 235/85/16s tires, and is a bit unlike many of the 31 or 33 inch tires that seem to have a true diameter a bit shorter than advertised. The 31.7 is as tall as the fender space can handle, even with the alcan springs. I specifically picked these Hankook AT tires as they are consistently reported with a true width that is skinnier than any other 235 tires (although my measurements show they might not be as skinny as reported), and they are 44-45lbs as compared to many which are more in the 48-50lbs range. I also have run these tires on quite a few different rigs (the taco, the f150, and the 30x9.5 coming off this rig), and they work well in hardpack snow on road (good for MT commuting), and I know they tend to have a pretty soft sidewall, which maybe makes them less off-road durable, but hoping that will help with the ride quality a bit.
The skinny tires are probably not the best off-road for traction, or even for some on road ride quality absorbing a bumpy ride, but the skinny tire combined with essentially a zero offset rim to keep it in tight gives both the look I want and allows the tire to tuck inside the rear fender (where clearance is difficult with wide tires).
The front tires also tuck inside the big front fender a bit tighter and maybe will throw less dirt and mud along the side of the rig:
To get the 235/85/16 tall skinny look, the only available tires these days are load range E (old school 10 ply). That will probably effect ride quality more than anything....With 28psi there is just a bit of pooch - so that is encouraging. Driving it around, its fine on pavement, but think it will pay the price on washboard and bumpy roads. Definitely will drop the pressure and continue to tweak - probably drop down to 22-24psi next.
There is a stress with getting new shoes as even with all the measuring and comparing etc, its a lot of money when it doesn't turn out quite how you want. In this case, I think its exactly what I was hoping for. These tires are a true to their size diameter of 31.7" which is reportedly the case with many of these 235/85/16s tires, and is a bit unlike many of the 31 or 33 inch tires that seem to have a true diameter a bit shorter than advertised. The 31.7 is as tall as the fender space can handle, even with the alcan springs. I specifically picked these Hankook AT tires as they are consistently reported with a true width that is skinnier than any other 235 tires (although my measurements show they might not be as skinny as reported), and they are 44-45lbs as compared to many which are more in the 48-50lbs range. I also have run these tires on quite a few different rigs (the taco, the f150, and the 30x9.5 coming off this rig), and they work well in hardpack snow on road (good for MT commuting), and I know they tend to have a pretty soft sidewall, which maybe makes them less off-road durable, but hoping that will help with the ride quality a bit.
The skinny tires are probably not the best off-road for traction, or even for some on road ride quality absorbing a bumpy ride, but the skinny tire combined with essentially a zero offset rim to keep it in tight gives both the look I want and allows the tire to tuck inside the rear fender (where clearance is difficult with wide tires).
The front tires also tuck inside the big front fender a bit tighter and maybe will throw less dirt and mud along the side of the rig:
To get the 235/85/16 tall skinny look, the only available tires these days are load range E (old school 10 ply). That will probably effect ride quality more than anything....With 28psi there is just a bit of pooch - so that is encouraging. Driving it around, its fine on pavement, but think it will pay the price on washboard and bumpy roads. Definitely will drop the pressure and continue to tweak - probably drop down to 22-24psi next.
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2015
Looks good!
- Joined
- Feb 9, 2018
The new stance is complete....16x7 rims with 235/85r16 (roughly short 32x9) Hankook AT tires.
There is a stress with getting new shoes as even with all the measuring and comparing etc, its a lot of money when it doesn't turn out quite how you want. In this case, I think its exactly what I was hoping for. These tires are a true to their size diameter of 31.7" which is reportedly the case with many of these 235/85/16s tires, and is a bit unlike many of the 31 or 33 inch tires that seem to have a true diameter a bit shorter than advertised. The 31.7 is as tall as the fender space can handle, even with the alcan springs. I specifically picked these Hankook AT tires as they are consistently reported with a true width that is skinnier than any other 235 tires (although my measurements show they might not be as skinny as reported), and they are 44-45lbs as compared to many which are more in the 48-50lbs range. I also have run these tires on quite a few different rigs (the taco, the f150, and the 30x9.5 coming off this rig), and they work well in hardpack snow on road (good for MT commuting), and I know they tend to have a pretty soft sidewall, which maybe makes them less off-road durable, but hoping that will help with the ride quality a bit.
The skinny tires are probably not the best off-road for traction, or even for some on road ride quality absorbing a bumpy ride, but the skinny tire combined with essentially a zero offset rim to keep it in tight gives both the look I want and allows the tire to tuck inside the rear fender (where clearance is difficult with wide tires).
The front tires also tuck inside the big front fender a bit tighter and maybe will throw less dirt and mud along the side of the rig:
To get the 235/85/16 tall skinny look, the only available tires these days are load range E (old school 10 ply). That will probably effect ride quality more than anything....With 28psi there is just a bit of pooch - so that is encouraging. Driving it around, its fine on pavement, but think it will pay the price on washboard and bumpy roads. Definitely will drop the pressure and continue to tweak - probably drop down to 22-24psi next.
I'm curious about the ride quality with the Alcan springs.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
Its a bit hard to discuss just the springs as I only drove it for a few miles with the old tires and new springs....Its a bit hard to differentiate the ride differences due to the new springs and the new load E range tires. In short, the new ride is much more 'jeep' like vs the old clapped out springs. IMO, the old springs rode soft and flexed well, but were too soft, especially highway use. I really like the handling when cruising around mountain roads, but you definitely feel a lot more of the road bumps and joints etc. Basically, I think you can feel the small 'harshness' of certain road features that are due to the tires at highway speed, but there is also a longer wavelength firmness that is the springs. I'll put it this way - its better than the CJ on BDS, but that feels more like a wheelbase difference than just a spring difference. The front springs on it are so short - same as a flatfender - it definitely has a bit of bounce up front (maybe a different shock would help). So, with that said, I like it. It feels jeep like to me which is fine, and it handles well enough on road that I no longer feel any need to add an anti-rock type swaybar. But I would guess the YJ conversion you are thinking about would be the preference for you - I am much more tolerant of firm ride than I think you are. I hope to get it off road this week and see how if flexes - I am a just a bit concerned that it might not flex all that well, but when you get the extra weight of the big steel body etc, I think it'll flex, just can't be baja driving.
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2013
With the new rims and tires, they would not fit on the OEM spare tire carrier without modification as basically any diameter larger than 30" won't fit between the fenderwell and the rear tailgate using the OEM mount position. So, I modified it by building a little hat to go on top - its still a bit rough - but it moves the tire up, forward and out away from the side a couple inches. Yea - its a biglt ugly - hopefully a bit more clean-up/grinding and some paint and it won't be too bad. Oh....and despite lots of test fitting, went for final bolt in before paint - yup, needs more work.
Last edited: