Why only 33" tires on the Wrangler Rubicon 392?

Humvee4us

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
14
Location
California
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 2 Door
I was pretty thrilled about the new 392 Wrangler Rubicon, but the prototype had 37" tires and I see that the official release version only has 33" tires. What's the reason behind going with significantly smaller tires?
Advertisement

 

GreenLantern

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
12
Reaction score
36
Location
USA
Vehicle(s)
Hellcat
When I get one, I'll definitely swap those out. Makes no sense.
 

Brenden

Well-Known Member
First Name
Brenden
Joined
Aug 27, 2020
Messages
49
Reaction score
57
Location
Il
Vehicle(s)
2021 rubicon unlimited manual, 2021 Ram 1500 ecodiesel crew
Gotta be a crash or roll over rating thing more than anything.
 

aldo98229

Well-Known Member
First Name
Aldo
Joined
Nov 16, 2019
Messages
5,234
Reaction score
11,353
Location
Bellingham, WA
Vehicle(s)
2018 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited Sahara, 2018 Fiat 124 Spider Abarth
Occupation
Market Research
Vehicle Showcase
2
It can be one out of a million reasons.

Here are a few:
  1. FCA is so cheap it will save two cents wherever it can
  2. That’s what FCA does all the time: get us drooling with the concept only to drop the ball with the final product
  3. FCA can’t afford to pay any more CAFE fines
  4. They can’t get JLs with 37” tires to fit on trucks/rail cars
  5. Jeep plans to charge $1,000 extra for a 37” tire option
  6. OE suspension components won’t last past 5,000 miles due to constantly battling the weight of 37” tires
  7. 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.
Take your pick.

I’m sure there are tons more.
 
OP
OP

Humvee4us

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
14
Location
California
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 2 Door
Everyone's going with at least 35" including the Bronco and the new Hummer.
 

RPS1030

Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2020
Messages
23
Reaction score
21
Location
PHX
Vehicle(s)
TJ
When the Power Wagon still comes with 33s which are actually smaller than the rest of the 2500s stock, I don’t expect much else.
 
OP
OP

Humvee4us

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 23, 2020
Messages
59
Reaction score
14
Location
California
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Wrangler Rubicon 2 Door
I thought that perhaps it has to do with wheel travel and flexing, but the 392 has a lift for better wheel travel and flexing but still has 33s, so now I'm thinking perhaps this isn't the reason?
 

Notorious

Well-Known Member
First Name
Kevin
Joined
Feb 11, 2020
Messages
2,198
Reaction score
4,491
Location
North Texas
Vehicle(s)
2000 TJ Sahara
Here are a few:

  1. OE suspension components won’t last past 5,000 miles due to constantly battling the weight of 37” tires
  2. The risk of a factory-lifted, 500HP, 6,000-lb beast on 37” tires rolling over.
What @aldo98229 said.

The Bronco was designed and engineered to meet all government safety requirements and regulations. With 35’s.

The Jeep was designed to do the same with 33’s. Changing something as small as the tire size would be VERY expensive for Jeep to have to prove the vehicle can meet or exceed government safety requirements and regulations.

The 37’s on it are a silent nod by the engineers, not the bean counters, that it can be done. Just like all the rest of their other close-to-production concepts, prototypes and one off’s.
 

TowDawg

Well-Known Member
First Name
Scott
Joined
Feb 23, 2019
Messages
57
Reaction score
49
Location
Ooltewah, TN
Vehicle(s)
JL Rubicon Unlimited, BMW 535M, Dodge Viper, Hummer H1, race cars, motorhome, general toys.
I'm surprised that 35"s aren't an option on ALL Rubicons. They'll easily fit, and the 33"s just look small. I get that not everyone would want 35"s, but at least make it an option.
 

Headbarcode

Well-Known Member
First Name
Mike
Joined
Aug 16, 2018
Messages
4,566
Reaction score
8,713
Location
LI, New York
Vehicle(s)
2019 JLUR Stingray 2.0 turbo
Vehicle Showcase
1
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.
 

sanman357

Well-Known Member
First Name
Carl
Joined
Oct 5, 2017
Messages
284
Reaction score
411
Location
L.I. New York
Vehicle(s)
-*|||||||*- 19' Mojito! Rubicon 6-speed, 09' Ram TRX4, 67 Chevelle 300 Deluxe
MPG’s. 35’s take a decent hit with the rotating mass.
 
Advertisement

Clayton Offroad
 
Advertisement
Top