spyther

(Not sure if this is in the right section, if not, mods please feel free to move accordingly)

Hey guys,

To start things off, I just want to say I am a huge "Overland" rig fan. That is to say, a rig that is not so much concerned with rock-climbing as it is going across great expanses of undeveloped land. (Think a pan-African expedition, snorkel and all). Generally on such trips, there WILL be set paths to follow, but they will be unpaved, bumpy if not down-right treacherous, and often flooded or swamped.


What's my point? Well, from a JK perspective, my question is -- does the JK stock suspension offer a decent-enough height for something like say an African expedition? Now of course, I am factoring in allowed protection like differential covers and skid plates and the like, but when I browse the web and see the plethora of expedition rigs in many parts of the world (generally Africa and South America) it looks like the Landcruisers and Defenders of the world get by just fine with tires that appear to be no larger than a stock Wrangler 32" tire. And yet, these vehicles (generally with bullet-proof diesels) conquer pretty terrible terrain while maintaining a pretty unimpressive-sized tire. The Jeep engineers allow up to a 33" tire to fit within the wheel-wells with a stock suspension, well higher than many other vehicle brands, including the Jeeps of yesteryear. Is it capable enough, or not quite? This is the basis of my question.



Now of course, lifts do offer advantages in ground clearance and to many, an aesthetically pleasing effect, but how necessary is it from a utilitarian perspective of this very specific context? Do the cons of less fuel economy and more stress on the engine (well I guess gearing does help alleviate these issues) potentially outweigh the benefits of a stock-sized aggressive AT tire for an Overland-capable rig? At what point is good-enough found, from a practical standpoint? Sure Dave from Alpha Expedition's rig is absolutely incredible as an expedition overland vehicle, but are 37" tires really a must? Do they place stress on other components that generally would have been more reliable if not in these given circumstances? Please, tell me what you think, my technical knowledge could always use improving. (Feel free to jump in Dave!)



(Jeeps tend to go big, or go home as we all know).

So as for the discussion, in the context of an Overland vehicle, should a suspension lift take a backseat to other potentially more important expedition-needed equipment, such as snorkels, lighting, equipment storage, recovery and armor?

The bigger the better? Your opinions?? Discuss!

Mark Doiron

I've been wrestling with this issue, as well, for the very same reasons. I've been running 2.5" of lift and 33" AT tires. And overlanding is much more of interest to me than is rock crawling--but I do some rock crawling. I've decided that 2.5" of lift is plenty because it will allow me to install 35" tires.

The huge downside to the 35" tires is gas consumption. It's one thing to play in a small park about two miles from the nearest service station--it's quite another to be a hundred or more miles of four wheel drive trail away from the nearest station. I currently carry an extra ten gallons of gas, and found while driving the White Rim Trail that I could get about 175-200 miles, mostly in the slow gears of 4WD-LO.

As for tires, I'm preparing to upgrade to 35 ATs. My thinking is the AT will have best overall performance for the varied conditions, including wet and winter-weather streets. MTs are just too poor in too many conditions. And, I've done a fair amount of crawling in my current ATs with good performance. But, I've also decided to upgrade to 35s. This will give me a smidgen (a technical term meaning "a little bit") more clearance. That will be very useful for the occasional rock crawl, and during overlanding when I come across rock ledges, etc, it will make it easier to surmount the obstacle.

As for using stock tires--the stock Wrangler SRAs are pretty poor in the mud and on the rocks. Regardless, I've used them. But, I think that a 33 AT is a great compromise if you don't want to improve crawling performance. But, you will suffer some loss of gas mileage--mine went from about 20 highway in stock trim, to about 15.5 with the mods you see listed below.

BTW: Let me put in a plug for Overland Journal magazine. Great read each quarter, wonderful photography, and they are running a long-term test JK.

SAJeep

Having done a few long distance trips into remote parts of Africa, let me add my 2 cents worth. You can choose a route that is not too extreme, meaning you don't really need huge tyres and an extreme lift. Here is my list of priorities, again depending on what you plan to do:
Additional fuel carrying capacity, at least another 120 litres, an extra spare tyre, water carrying capacity, secure storage for your stuff & cash, a gps and so on.

if you plan to travel through remote locations, prolly a satellite phone, otherwise you will have cellphone reception in most areas.

Anyway, lots to think about before you venture out. Others will have different ideas, but do good planning and bring LOTS of patience. Africa has it's own clock and you may need a whole day just for a border crossing

Omar Brannstrom

Hi

An interesting comparison.

The Suzuki Jimny that weighs about half of a JK and only have a 1.3 liter engine and have about little more than 2 inches less ground clearance than the JK have been popular among South africans to do African "expeditions"

The popularity is probably because it cost half of a JK and need less petrol.

It is like a baby wrangler





Lots of Jimny here

http://www.4x4community.co.za/forum/...151&order=desc

http://www.4x4community.co.za/forum/...ad.php?t=45437


Best regards from Sweden

Omar Brännström

SAJeep

This true, the Jimny is very capable, but limted space is a problem.

Out of interest, you may want to take a look at this blog: http://due-africa.com/
A good friend of mine is travelling up the East Coast of Africa and this will give you an idea of what it is like.

taher2.1

I want my JK more for overland than rock crawling but I like the clearance I get with my 3" FTP lift lift and 35. I lost only 3 miles per gallon from stock so I am not worried about the fuel.

tw!sted

IMO - If you plan on running alot of armor, such as bumpers, winches, etc, then I would consider adding on a good 2" HD coil lift. You will want that additional lift to accommodate for the increased weight. Its not always about clearance, but gaining increased articulation and wheel travel.

With full front and rear bumpers and a winch - I would probably run a good 33"x 12.50 MT tire and a 2" coil lift with good shocks.

dstock

Regardless of lift, the stock springs are too weak to support any heavy weight like bumpers, winches, extra fuel, etc. Even loaded up with camping gear, a cooler, and a couple of bikes for a long weekend trip I found I was instantly a member of "sag".

I'm looking to go with OME 2" lift with heavy duty coils. I will be sticking with my 33" tires.

westchester

Good picture. I can't remeber the last time I saw these sandladders / traction boards / waffle boards on a Jeep foum.....probably cos it takes all the fun out of getting stuck:.........

spyther

So the consensus seems to be thus far -- a 2.5" lift is plenty, with 33-35" AT tires. More than ground clearance, the active concern is sagging from weight. Pretty interesting I'd say.

I'm assuming that other 4x4 overland vehicles have stiffer stock springs than a Wrangler, or perhaps they have the same sized lifts and are loaded down as well. That'd make the most sense to me.