|
Post by muddblood on Mar 10, 2018 23:24:45 GMT -5
Just a couple of questions on the front diff. I have a 99 MS Limited with a factory rear air locker. With that engaged, I seriously think I could flip my MS in any direction. I can easily get it on any 2 wheels and still have enough traction to go. So question number one: did Mitsubishi ever put a limited slip in the front of the MS's? And two: would a factory rear air locker work in the front? If I need one and can find one. Question three: if a front locker is needed, would the factory air pump be enough to run front and rear lockers?
|
|
|
Post by muddblood on Mar 12, 2018 8:37:49 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ES_97Sport on Mar 12, 2018 17:59:32 GMT -5
Just a couple of questions on the front diff. I have a 99 MS Limited with a factory rear air locker. With that engaged, I seriously think I could flip my MS in any direction. I can easily get it on any 2 wheels and still have enough traction to go. So question number one: did Mitsubishi ever put a limited slip in the front of the MS's? And two: would a factory rear air locker work in the front? If I need one and can find one. Question three: if a front locker is needed, would the factory air pump be enough to run front and rear lockers? No, the '97-99 front was open only, and, no, the rear locker will not fit in the front. That sounds about right. If I remember discussions from 4x4Wire, the rear was the equivalent of the Ford 9", but I don't remember much of that discussion now. Yea, I was writing vr4 the same thing. Just a locker in the rear makes a HUGE difference. A little suspension lift, 1-2" body lift for more tire clearance, remove/disconnect the rear sway bar and put in adequate travel shocks. With good, sticky M/Ts that's enough for most of the terrain in CO and UT. I ran this exact setup (- the body lift) for 3 years in CO on 4 (1-5 scale) and the only trail I ever had a problem on had rocks bigger than my tires. Front locker wouldn't have helped anyway. If you want to really max things out, pull the front anti-roll bar when you hit the trail head. Just be careful - no bar = a lot of body roll. Edward
|
|
|
Post by muddblood on Mar 12, 2018 19:05:44 GMT -5
That's kind of what I'm thinking. Just keep hearing the Jeepsters touting front and rear lockers. I'll keep progressing with plan A...small lift, small body lift and sticky MT's. This Sport just seems to pull like it is locked front and rear.
|
|
|
Post by ES_97Sport on Mar 12, 2018 19:53:05 GMT -5
That's kind of what I'm thinking. Just keep hearing the Jeepsters touting front and rear lockers. I'll keep progressing with plan A...small lift, small body lift and sticky MT's. This Sport just seems to pull like it is locked front and rear. There's a LOT of variables involved and that makes it very difficult to compare vehicles and one of the big ones is wheel base. There are obstacles I can do in UT with open diffs fr/rear that the Jeep guys can't do without being locked front and rear. Also KIM that articulation and wheel travel are very critical. Keeping four tires in contact with the ground is always better than two with lockers. I've also noticed over the years - especially the Jeep crowd - that a lot of people hit the trail and don't disconnect/remove their anti-roll bars. That severely restricts articulation/travel. Rather than fix that problem, they just flip the locker switch. (oh, and they seem to not know how to air-down, either) The big black Sport has ARBs front and rear. The back had a ton of travel and articulates very well, but the front is vintage OEM Gen 1 Bronco radius arms. They are not known for providing massive wheel travel and on top of that I have limiting straps. I RARELY am required to use my lockers on the trail. Actually, if you're looking for something reasonable to compare against, the 4-Runner/Exploders would be closer. Edward
|
|
|
Post by muddblood on Mar 12, 2018 20:07:21 GMT -5
I had a 92 4Runner SR5 and I HAAAAATTTTEEDDDD it!!!! Worst 4x4 I've ever owned! The 4Runner just stopped running one day and and I was faced with throwing parts (that was seriously what the forums said to do) at it to fix it or buy a different vehicle. That's when I bought my MS (for a mear $400). Turns out the ECM was bad in the 4Runner and a $25 junk yard part fixed it. I listed both vehicles for sale and of course the Toyota name sold. Looking back, I am glad it did. A guy in my Meetup group runs a 4Runner and he does 4's as well...even did the Rubicon trail in it. Getting my MS to hang with him is my goal at this point (which won't take much).
|
|
|
Post by ES_97Sport on Mar 13, 2018 17:35:55 GMT -5
I like the '80s and '90s 4-Runners and the 70-90's Land Cruisers but they have their issues. If I ever, God forbid!, have to start driving something else, a late '90s Land Cruiser would probably be my choice. The problem with the post-'80s Runners is the same problem we have - IFS. I'm not knocking IFS/IRS as a concept, but OEM systems - ESPECIALLY since safety became more important than functionality - aren't designed for off road use where travel and articulation are more important than 'ride quality'. Working with what we have (rather than doing a SAS), the thing to focus on is maximizing travel and articulation. #1 thing NOT to do: DO NOT just crank the stock torsion bars up to 'lift' the vehicle. Doing this to raise the front back up when you install a bull bar and winch isn't the same thing. You want the a-arms to cycle up and down freely when off road. You DO NOT want the torsion bars cranked up so much that you loose upward travel because the front suspension won't fully compress to the bump stops without slamming the front end. Instead of just cranking up the torsion bars to fit bigger tires, install a body lift. 2" is reasonable and I wouldn't recommend going any more than that. Same goes for installing a bull bar and winch - don't just crank the torsion bars to compensate, install aftermarket torsion bars. Typically these are designed to support the added weight without sacrificing articulation. Follow the body lift with a suspension lift like the OME kit. You don't need much and 2" of body lift with 2" of suspension lift should fit most any 33x12.5". Tweaking the rims a little may also help. (in fact, after the body and suspension lift and after you've picked your tires, I strongly suggest working on the rim width and backspacing to widen the rim out to something close to 9" (not less, and not more than 10") and decrease backspacing 1/2" a rim. it may not sound like much, but widening the width an inch makes a big difference in stability.) #1 thing TO DO: Pull the end links on the rear sway bar at the trail head. Just this will probably be enough for most trails for most people. If you really need every fraction of travel in the front, pull the front sway bar at the trail head. This will allow the suspension to flex (assuming you followed #1 and have adequate shock travel) to its maximum, but will also allow a LOT of body movement. I STRONGLY suggest wheeling with the back bar disconnected for a while, getting familiar with the vehicle's behavior before pulling the front. DO NOT EVER - EVER - drive on the street with the back connected and the front removed/disconnected!#2 thing TO DO: I hate to suggest these 'cause I'm not all that impressed with the quality lately, but they're the only game in town, so... Install Rancho RS9000 adjustable shocks front and rear. You get three things out of this: #1 you can tune the shocks to the vehicle behavior with the anti-roll bars off/disconnected which is virtually a requirement, #2 you can tune the shocks to the specific trail which while not a requirement, really helps get the most out of the suspension, #3 and very important, it allows you to choose a shock length that allows for maximum travel in the back. The stock shocks are nowhere near long enough once the sway bar is disconnected and will greatly restrict travel. Note: wheeling with the rear bar disconnected on stock shocks, greatly risks breaking a shock - they really ARE that short. After you've gotten the suspension taken care of, its time to go after traction and control. #3 thing TO DO: Transfer case gears. 1.92:1 might be fine (not really) with 30" tires, but it most certainly IS NOT FINE with 33"+ tires. You're mileage varies somewhat here: M/T with 32/35"s will learn to hate the stupid high Mitsu ratio. A/T drivers won't notice as much as the M/T people. An automatic transmission helps here but that only goes so far. If you're regularly doing 3.5+ trails deeper gears are for you. #4 thing TO DO: Lower axle gears. If you're running the lower 4.xx axle gears 33/35" tires, you REALLY need to fix this. Big tires on 4.20/4.30:1 gears really exacerbates #3, and also puts a LOT of strain on the transmission. Both #3 and #4 kind of go together and interact with each other, but the idea with both is slowing down. Slowing down the vehicle and slowing down the wheel rotation. Slowing the vehicle down increases vehicle control, stability and safety. Slowing down the wheel rotation increases traction. #5 thing TO DO: If you have an open rear differential, either install a limited slip carrier or a locking carrier. Your budget will dictate which, most likely. For lite-medium trail running (1-3 rated), and for those of us driving on the street in snowy territory, a limited slip carrier probably benefits most people the most amount of time a year. If you will be doing a lot of wheeling on 3.5-4 rated trails and you've got the cash, consider install a locking differential in the rear axle. Even if you only go after #1 and #2, that'll put you a long way a head of a lot of wheelers. #3, #4 and #5 w/ a good set of sticky M/T tires will put you way past most wheelers. Just in case someone is wondering, yes, there's a reason #5 is at the very end. Edward
|
|
|
Post by muddblood on Mar 14, 2018 13:08:04 GMT -5
Thanks Edward! That is a TON of information! Goes right along with what everyone else is saying. My MS has a factory air locker, which is absolutely AMAZING!! As far as I know, the only option for the axle gears would to to go up to the 4.9 from another Montero (sport or regular) Tires? I hope to get on a set of 17" with some mud tires. I want 17" wheels to help accommodate for the lack of suspension travel the IFS has. My line of thinking...and correct me of I'm wrong...upgrading to a 17" wheel should produce at least 1.5" of ground clearance, even though the tire sidewall will be shorter. I know, there is a lot of controversy over bigger wheels, but the way I see it is that Jeep is doing this and they are the "leader" so to speak. Transfer case gears....I've only briefly heard of this. Where would I get the parts to lower the transfer case gear ratio? I already know it's gear too high as it doesn't seem to do much to slow the vehicle down. Know about the sway bars. Once it's up and running again, I'm going to look at a way to make quick disconnects for them. The OME lift kit doesn't actually lift the front, does it? Just provides beefier torsion bars for vehicles with bull bars and winches, correct? Body lift is already on the list My 4Runner was a complete dog!! On the road and on the trail. Glad to see it gone!! Question: If I disconnect the rear sway bar and add longer shocks, will that max out the brake line?
|
|
|
Post by nugget on Mar 15, 2018 4:23:27 GMT -5
I’m so going to regret chiming in, bc before I know it, I will be doing a freakin SAS swap in no time
We have discussed this topic a bit in the past and I’m on my way there already.
As you know mine is a 97 M/T with factory LSD which I like for Colorado, but I have a donor 01 I bought with 4.9 (f/r open) and wondering if they will fit fine in my gen 1 diffs? Also, if I change to the 4.9 can I reuse my LSD in the rear and just add front locker? I would bc I’m already changing gears so do it when it’s open.
I took many parts off your friends MS that was sold, you and him made the aluminum skid plate, well I dissected as much as I could off his when it hit the pull and pay after whoever bought it took the arb off of it. I installed the skid plate on mine, his rear extended brackets, his rear rs9000 shocks(were his long enough?), his front rs9000’s were shot, his rear custom bumper minus swing carrier bc was missing(I have factory one already was going to make it work with it) and his rock rails. Having his steel rails welded on mine. Going to custom adapt a Ramsey bumper with 12k lb winch off a 1990 Ford F-350 onto my sport.
Have BF Goodrich Krawlers 33x10.5R15 to put on 15x7 black rims off your friends. And full roof rack from my donor.
Now I very interested in regearing or replacing my transfer case. Is there an adapter kit or transfer case from another vehicle that would work on my 97 manual tranny ms?
I Cranked stock tbars but getting OME after bumper install. Were his front rs9000’s long enough. I measured the piston full extension, so was going to get same length. And planning 1in body lift eventually as you suggested before. When I get ready for new leaf springs I was going to still use the extended brackets I got from your friends, but with OME may need a SAS to match height. Also, how could I do a quick disconnect on my front sway bar. Why would I need the link kit, and what would I be asking from them such as a larger link kit for a lifted MS?
I’m already planning on synthetic line for my winch, which do you suggest? Also, since super winch hubs were discontinued, which do you suggest?
Also, what flow master muffler configuration did you get to work best for off-road application? Is it the slim design with a center 2.25 inlet and 2.25 ctr outlet? The metal mesh part before muffler on mine has a big hole, is that the cat? and or before or after the cat if not. No one makes headers for ours do they?
I am also in need of a lot of sand blasting and powder coating. Any suggestions?
Feel free to send me to some of your guys who do your work. Happy to give them some extra work.
|
|
|
Post by ES_97Sport on Mar 15, 2018 19:20:21 GMT -5
... As far as I know, the only option for the axle gears would to to go up to the 4.9 from another Montero (sport or regular) Mitsu made 4.90, 5.13 and 5.29 gears. The trick is finding them and the axle they will fit in. The 5.13 and 5.29 gears only came in the Montero, and then only the 90s Monteros. The good part is the carriers are the same most of the time so if one can find a matched set and one has a 97-99 Sport, they're probably in good shape. After 99, I really can't say what wold work. Hating to be a SAS snob, but for the most part I quit paying attention after I went to Dana axles. Ruling out the 5.xx series for argument's sake, I would fight tooth and nail to get 4.90s if all I had was the 4.2x/4.6x gears. I drove 33"s on 4.63s for years and cosport ran 33"s and 35"s on the 4.2xx (the ones in the A/T Sport) for a few years and it sucked. A LOT. Those gear beat the crap out of Eric's transmission both on the street and on the trail. It speaks pretty highly of the durability of the AW3 (the Jeep AW4) that the trans didn't just melt into a pile of slag. In hindsight, if I were driving a '97-98 A/T with the Mitsu V4AW3 with the stock axle gears and 33"s+, the first thing I'd do is have a trans shop install the TransGo shift kit ('Truck' setting). THEN I'd start looking for a set of 4.90s. Diameter is diameter. Rim diameter doesn't make much difference. Overall, all I see is maybe .25-.6". So, if the diameter with 15"s is 34.2", with 17"s its closer to 34.8". .6" and then divided by 2 is about .25". 'Negligible' isn't even close. What you want to look at is the actual (mounted) diameter with whatever width and diameter rim the manufacturer tested with. Using 'advertised' diameter like '37x12.5x17' or '33x10.5x15' isn't terribly accurate as tires aren't exactly the advertised diameter. Just for example, however: 33/2=16.5", 35x2=17.5". So, simply, your truck would sit apx 1" higher. And you are correct in your thinking: bigger tires are the 'easiest' way to overall increase ground clearance. In fact its the ONLY way to increase ground clearance under a solid axle so there is a BIG point to running bigger tires if you don't have IFS&IRS. 'Jeep' aka Chrysler, and all the rest of the manufacturers are running larger diameter rims because they 'increase safety'. NOT because they work better off road. Its not smoke - 35x17s are a lot more stable on the highway and with heavy loads than 35x15s. Which is definitely a good thing! Off road is a different matter. It largely depends on what type of terrain you wheel, what type of tire you have and how heavy a vehicle. There isn't a boiler plate - "Use this..." - answer to what size rim. IMHO, I would NEVER run a 17" rim with 31" or smaller tires no matter what I was doing. You will have zero sidewall flex which will beat the crap out of everything and kill your contact patch. Again, this is just my opinion, but I wouldn't run 17s on anything less than a 33". I get pretty decent performance off road with 17s and 35"s, but there is a noticeable - negative - difference. On the street, I also wouldn't run 17"s on anything larger than 37/38"s - I'd bump up the rim diameter a couple inches. Running 20"+ rims on 32/33/35/37" tires on an actual off road vehicle is just poser stupidity. That will break rims and suspension parts and kill traction. The only thing missing would be gold spinners. Also KIM that sidewall flex plays a huge part in selection. Very stiff sidewalls need a smaller diameter rim to get ANY sidewall flex. Much softer sidewalls (like my Geolandar M/T+'s) don't require much sidewall to flex A LOT so a little more rim diameter has less impact. Marks 4WD Adapters in Australia. The rear end-links are removable with a boxed end wrench and socket wrench in about 10 minutes. About the time it takes to air down/up. Honestly, I wouldn't bother. You'll need to change these if/as you lift the body and suspension anyway. Link kits are dirt cheap at Napa. The torsion bars are beefier but you can tighten them up without (as much) the adverse effects of doing the same thing to the OEM bars. Yes, if you REALLY cranked the aftermarket bars, you'd end up in the same boat but that's the deal - they're designed to support weight without drastically increasing the rate. I'm still not a huge body lift fan, but based on experience I think its a better option than trying to do the same thing with just a suspension lift. I'm going to find out because that's the theory I'm about to test out with the green '99 Sport build. The big black Sport is entirely suspension lift and the chassis sits at 26". The green Sport will be partial body lift and partial suspension lift and the target is 23" without loosing any travel. That depends on your springs. On a stock '97-'99 leaf sprung Sport (with good leaf springs & bushings) - No. Don't know on the gen 2 Sports. On trashed, worn out springs and reamed out bushings - Possibly. I never did have to change the OEM brake hose even after the SAS, but cosport did on his '98. The only thing there is to take everything appart and measure. Which is what I'd do anyway even if someone told me it'd work. Loosing a brake line is way too dangerous. I'm sure there are shops around you that can custom make hoses. Most diesel semi places can. I had a new one made last year to replace the 20 year old OEM hose and it cost me about $20. Edward
|
|
|
Post by muddblood on Mar 15, 2018 20:11:20 GMT -5
I see your point on tires with sidewall flex. My goal/desire is to run 33x17. I heard a couple people talking about 15's versus 17's or 18's and they both agreed that a larger wheel/tire will roll easier. I'm also borrowing some from the mountain bike world...a larger wheel/tire (29" vs 26") rolls over obstacles better. But, in looking at doing the same thing to my Jeep Cherokee, it's advised to run 17/18" wheels if you plan on running 40"+ tires...same thing you mention. So I guess the 18" wheels with 40" tires would produce the same sidewall flex as 15" wheels and 33" tires? I am I correct in that line of thinking?
So based on everything you said so far, I should work on a body lift first? Then work towards the OME lift kit? I probably won't go any bigger than 33's on this. Just sucks that this truck is much more capable in stock form than my Cherokee in stock form (more horsepower, smaller engine, more interior room, locker) but I am extremely limited in what I can do with it to improve off-road prowess.
Well, technically, first thing is to get it running again...t-belt and crank pulley stuff (which I am slowly working on).
|
|
|
Post by ES_97Sport on Mar 19, 2018 18:01:10 GMT -5
I see your point on tires with sidewall flex. My goal/desire is to run 33x17. I heard a couple people talking about 15's versus 17's or 18's and they both agreed that a larger wheel/tire will roll easier. I'm also borrowing some from the mountain bike world...a larger wheel/tire (29" vs 26") rolls over obstacles better. But, in looking at doing the same thing to my Jeep Cherokee, it's advised to run 17/18" wheels if you plan on running 40"+ tires...same thing you mention. So I guess the 18" wheels with 40" tires would produce the same sidewall flex as 15" wheels and 33" tires? I am I correct in that line of thinking? ... Larger if only in diameter, yes. If the width increases as well, that's not exactly correct. Rolling resistance - even on the street - goes up (considerably) as width increases (I don't remember where I saw this, but I think the increase is not linear, either). Ok. Very simply, yes, you are correct. Unfortunately, in real life its not as simple as that. Rim diameter is very dependent on the tire used. A 37/38" bias-ply TSL on a 15" rim will behave very much like a 35" Geolandar M/T+ on a 17/18" rim. It isn't the height of the sidewall, its the composition of the sidewall that makes the difference in this case. A 3-ply radial sidewall will flex like crazy, where a 6/8-ply bias ply sidewall won't flex hardly at all. So, if you're talking about the EXACT same tire on different rim diameters, you're good, but if the tire changes ... well, YMMV. I did a photo shoot at a rock crawling event a LONG time ago that was very educational. Back then virtually everyone was running 15/16.5"s (it was a very LONG time ago ) with 40-44s. These guys were running zero to maybe 6/8 psi. As they crawled over the uneven rock surfaces, there was so little flex in the tread and sidewalls it was impossible to tell if they were running 0 psi or 40 psi. In UT I see some guys running 40"+s with 0-3/4 psi tooling down the trails doing 30-40 MPH and the tires look like they're at 30 psi. The sidewalls never exhibit any serious amount of flex even at that speed. Vehicle weight, terrain, speed, handling, etc. - there's a LOT that goes into picking a good tire/rim combination. I said 'good', not 'correct' or 'right', because there IS no 'correct' selection. There are so many variables - all of which are different for every vehicle - that its pushing it to even quote generalities as we've been doing. My personal recommendation is to take what most people say about tire and rim diameter with a grain of salt. All tires are not made the same and that's where selecting a good rim size starts - AFTER you pick the tire, not before. Yea, there is that! Yes, I would do the body lift first. 2". That's a generic thing you can do without anything else being affected. Especially if you do it before anything else. THEN you pick your tire design and size. Getting the right tire is not all about size. Different tread designs (shapes) fit better than others in different circumstances. For example, my 35" Geolandars fit good on cosports '98, where the same size 35" MT/r's required wheel well work - just a different tread shape. After that, you pick the rim diameter/width. (based on everything above ) THEN you figure out how much suspension lift you need. Just enough and no more. Lots of lift may look cool, but it doesn't get you anything but a PITA. In your case, since you already have the tires, you're kinda starting out in the middle. Any 33"s will make a big difference. 33"s chosen specifically for the type of terrain you wheel and your vehicle capabilities will make a HUGE difference. You don't have to spend a gazillion $$$s on tires to get ones that do what you need, either. I think your limited budget will do you more good than you might realize. Unlimited cash doesn't mean you'll end up with the best build. No money enforces the 'biggest bang for the buck' method. You focus your cash on what will have the biggest positive impact. That is definitely NOT spending $2000 on lockers. Edward
|
|
|
Post by muddblood on Mar 20, 2018 8:48:02 GMT -5
In choosing a tire, Do I want a higher ply count tire? I am really looking at the Centennial Dirt Commander tires seen here: www.ebay.com/itm/4-NEW-265-75R16-Centennial-Dirt-Commander-M-T-Mud-Tires-MT-265-75-16-R16-2657516/262594740869?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l26492nd choice looks like a Kenda Klever MT in the same size...265/75/16. 16's for now so I don't have to buy wheels as that will be another challenge (6 lug, huge center hole and 4.5" backspacing). My Sport needs tires like, last year, so this will most likely be first. If I stick with a 265/75/16 for now, they should fit, even a mud tire. Terrain will be dry, dusty, rocky, Colorado trails, and probably nothing more than 3's at this point. Heck, did some damage on Bill Moore Lake (took an aggressive shortcut)!
|
|
|
Post by ES_97Sport on Mar 20, 2018 19:51:19 GMT -5
In choosing a tire, Do I want a higher ply count tire? I am really looking at the Centennial Dirt Commander tires seen here: www.ebay.com/itm/4-NEW-265-75R16-Centennial-Dirt-Commander-M-T-Mud-Tires-MT-265-75-16-R16-2657516/262594740869?ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&_trksid=p2055119.m1438.l26492nd choice looks like a Kenda Klever MT in the same size...265/75/16. 16's for now so I don't have to buy wheels as that will be another challenge (6 lug, huge center hole and 4.5" backspacing). My Sport needs tires like, last year, so this will most likely be first. If I stick with a 265/75/16 for now, they should fit, even a mud tire. Terrain will be dry, dusty, rocky, Colorado trails, and probably nothing more than 3's at this point. Heck, did some damage on Bill Moore Lake (took an aggressive shortcut)! It depends on what you want to do with them. More plies = more weight, stiffer sidewalls/tread area, harsher ride. Basically less flexibility and traction. AFAIKT tire companies compensate by using a super sticky (soft) compound which usually results in a pronounced decrease in tire life. Fewer plies = less weight, more flexible sidewalls/tread area, 'softer' ride. Better flexibility = better traction. Coupled with a very sticky (soft) compound and you have a racing slick. Unfortunately, fewer plies - both the sidewall and/or tread area - also means they're more prone to damage. Slices, punctures, pinches, whatever that result in flats. You need to strike a balance between durability and capability/design in making your choice. You can choose some completely insane 12 ply monster that will NEVER get a flat EVER, but has the traction of a steel train car wheel on the rocks, or a 6 ply lightweight that flexes like crazy and will superglue itself to anything if comes in contact with but comes with a significant risk of flats. You also need to consider aspects of the the design. The heavier a tire gets and the less shock the carcass absorbs, the more stress is put the drive train and suspension. Everything from wheel bearings and ball joints to the torsion bars and chassis. Heavier wheels have the benefit of somewhat increasing stability by increasing un-sprung weight, but that has to be balanced with the potential for breakage and much increased wear and tear. On a street/trail rig, you also have to consider what that extra weight will do to your fuel mileage. Big, heavy, aggressive tires (and bias plies are even worse) will suck gas like its going out of style. That may be acceptable if your vehicle is 90% trail and 10% street, but if its the other way around, you better have deep pockets for gas. Always keep in mine, too, that if you plan to do 'expedition' style trips - 300-500+ miles between fuel stations - its practically impossible to carry enough fuel. You'd be surprised how fast 20 gallons disappears when you're getting 8-10 MPG. Fuel efficiency is then a major consideration.Airing down increases the chance(s) of a flat. The lower you air down the higher the chance of a puncture of some kind. Keeping all this in mind, consider in what type(s) of terrain the tires will be used and how 'roughly' you will use them. 1) Lots of sharp edged and/or pointy rocks? Sticks? Roots? Buried trash (nails, wire, metal, etc.)? More plies. 2) Lots of sand with little or no trash? Few rocks? All or mostly rounded without sharp edges/points? Fewer plies. 3) Long distances? No support vehicle(s)? High chance(s) of multiple tires punctured? More plies. 4) Maximum traction with little chance of punctures? Fewer plies. Now, if you're 'style' is to bonzii everything and not pay any attention to what's happening with your tires, then more plies. If you're very careful about your driving you may be able to get away with fewer ply tires. Again, there isn't a boilerplate answer because every vehicle and everybody is different. I'm pushing 20 years and 400,000+ miles on my Geolandar M/Ts and I've had maybe half a dozen flats. Two of which where from debris here in the middle of Denver. That out of a 6-ply tread/3-ply sidewall tire. If I were driving Iron Chest here in CO on a regular basis, I'd want more sidewall plies, but for the wheeling I do in CO and UT, I've never seen a reason to change. Centennial Dirt Commander M/T - Those are 10 ply tires. I didn't find the sidewall, but I suspect 6 or maybe even 8 on the sides. IMHO, those tires are going to beat the crap out of you and your vehicle. You are going to have to really air down to get them to flex - ESPECIALLY if they're 8 ply. I'm sure they are durable, though. Dirt Commander M/T'Tread Life' Best makes me wonder what the compound is like. It had better be scary good, 'cause if you can't air down a good bit and the carcass doesn't flex real well, that's all you're going to have. I dislike the narrow tread, but I've already made my feelings clear on that with my G003's. They're reasonably aggressive - not too crazy and not an A/T. Whether they self-evacuate well is a giant '?'. Probably not a big deal in CO with our lack of real mud. Klever M/T KR29 - I don't know what the tread ply is, and they're vague about sidewall plies. Some sizes available in '3 ply sidewall'. Uh, instead of what?? I DO like the nice wide tread patch. They're not terribly aggressive which can be a good thing or a bad thing. If you have a lot of terrain like UT slick rock, you don't need aggressive - just a LOT of rubber in contact with the rock. If you're in a lot of loose crud (yes, I recognize the 'short cut' you noted ), more void area is required. The tread area on these remind me more of my Geolandar M/Ts which did insanely good on large rocks, but not so good on loose, chunky rock/gravel. Like the shortcut on Bill Moore. This is only my opinion, but I think you're hitting both extremes with these two choices. I think a 10 ply tire is way overkill ESPECIALLY considering where you're at and what you drive. I wouldn't go more than 8 and I think that's 2 more than necessary. If you're really worried about plies, the sidewall is where you need to worry. 3 is a bit light. 4 is better and I wouldn't go any further than 6. Remember, the more plies in the sidewall you have, the less they flex and you don't have a lot of sidewall to work with. For me, I'd look for something between the two tread-wise. A little more aggressive than the Klever but not quite the Centennial. Edward
|
|
|
Post by muddblood on Mar 20, 2018 20:17:54 GMT -5
Wow! Thanks for the ALL the input!! Maybe 2 sets of wheels/tires is needed? Due to life's circumstances, I don't get out on the trail very often. I'll keep looking for reasonably priced 4-6 ply, not so aggressive tire. It's just sitting right now anyway and would seem I have plenty of time find something.
|
|
|