Dude, just go buy a Kia already. Your disdain for Jeep is getting old.35s would also make a JL handle like sh*t. Going from 33 to 35 would add at least 25 lbs of unstrung weight to each corner. That is significant.
One thing is to buy a new JL with 33” tires, go to Discount Tire, and after spending $2,500 on new 35s and wheels, be in denial about the fact that it handles like a tractor.
Another, entirely, is to test drive a brand-new JL with 35s and realize then and there, before buying it, that it handles like tractor.
Also, 35s might have resulted in a Monroney showing an estimated EPA MPG of 13/18...making it a pill even harder to swallow.
Add to that a $70,000 MSRP, expected dealer markups, crummy salespeople, etc., etc., and one could see why FCA wouldn’t want to take so many chances.
If you went with 315 KO2s, you'd have actually a 34.5 inch tire that doesn't weigh much more than the 285s. Some 285s, like the Fakens, might weigh as much or more than the 315 KO2s, which are at about 64lbs. So on stock wheels, it wouldn't be a huge difference. I'm a little surprised they didn't go for that.OP, you're not alone in being puzzled by the 33's. It just feels unfinished and incomplete. 35's would have been a nice compromise. Sure, tires are easy to swap...but the warranty concerns on such an expensive, and powerful, rig would give me pause to do so.
I wasn't worried about anything holding up. There would be less stress on the drivetrain with the 4.10 due to it being a lower ratio. I was asking how much quicker the 0-60 times would be with the 4.10s would be over the 3.73s.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.