Wonder what 0-60 is if they would have left the 4:10s.Keeping 0-60 under 5 seconds.
Simply a fuel economy helper, having 33x11.5 vs 35x12.5 and up.
I also think its a smarter play. After all, larger tires and less offset wheels are the first things switched out by most owners, so minimizing the initial item value getting tossed into the second hand market is nice. Less spent is less lost.
2.8 seconds. It looks much like a C8, but trust me.Wonder what 0-60 is if they would have left the 4:10s.
Don’t forget 8. So when YOU put 35s or 37s they can void your warranty.It can be one out of a million reasons.
Here are a few:
Take your pick.
- FCA is so cheap it will save two cents wherever it can
- That’s what FCA does all the time: get us drooling with the concept only to drop the ball with the final product
- FCA can’t afford to pay any more CAFE fines
- They can’t get JLs with 37” tires to fit on trucks/rail cars
- Jeep plans to charge $1,000 extra for a 37” tire option
- OE suspension components won’t last past 5,000 miles due to constantly battling the weight of 37” tires
- The risk of a factory-lifted, 500HP, 6,000-lb beast on 37” tires rolling over and killing everyone onboard doesn’t make for good advertising.
I’m sure there are tons more.
That’s exactly what FCA wants. Then they can deny warranty and blame the bigger tires for snapping the axle not the 392.I'm fine with the 392 having 33's as I'll be like many others and switch them out quickly.
That is why this set of 33s will sit in my garage.That’s exactly what FCA wants. Then they can deny warranty and blame the bigger tires for snapping the axle not the 392.
It was a joke...What. 2.8 with a Wranglers 470 hp? If I had a C8, I’d bet pink slips the JL couldn’t do 3.5 with 4.10’s
It would have been fine, but there would be more stress on the drivetrain, which will be pretty maxed out with the power coming from that V8 through the 33's, as is.Wonder what 0-60 is if they would have left the 4:10s.
Fuel economy, drivetrain(axle, steering) warranty, high speed handling are my guess also
You're definitely right. There's a large following for 35's. And most of those are also wanting a certain amount of tire poke, which helps side stability both on and off road to offset added lift heights. To clear the varying laws of the land, the factory needs the tires tucked. 35's and 315's on stock wheels fit fine on Rubis, but easily rub on the other models. If they only offered 35's on this one model, there would be outcry from the Sport and Sahara owners, who make up the majority of sold wranglers. They'd be complaining about 35's being available on all trims of the bronco, so why not jeep. I think fca is looking to avoid that altogether. That brings me back to my previous post about how most owners switch out wheels and tires anyway.I get these points, and I'm not saying making 35's standard, but I'm surprised they aren't at least an option. I "think" there are plenty of people that would like 35's, but don't want to necessarily deal with changing them or the wheels.
Is this official or unofficial?35s will be an option