Why only 33" tires on the Wrangler Rubicon 392?

[Humvee4us]

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?

Sponsored

 

[GreenLantern]

When I get one, I'll definitely swap those out. Makes no sense.

 

[Goin2drt]

Awesome another thread about the 392. You couldn’t ask that question in one of the seven already.

 

[Brenden]

Gotta be a crash or roll over rating thing more than anything.

 

[wibornz]

Or a V8 with gobs' of torque and HP fucking up a dana 44 axle thing.

 

[aldo98229]

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.

 

[BrntWS6]

I agree, I am not a fan of big overstated tires but it looks like shit with those 33s. At least put 35s on or don't lift it the extra inch.

 

[Notorious]

Why only 33" tires on the Wrangler Rubicon 392?

Why not?

 

[Humvee4us]

Everyone's going with at least 35" including the Bronco and the new Hummer.

 

[RPS1030]

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.

 

[Humvee4us]

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]

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]

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]

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]

MPG’s. 35’s take a decent hit with the rotating mass.

Sponsored