Notices
Modified JK Tech Tech related bulletin board forum regarding subjects such as suspension, tires & wheels, steering, bumpers, skid plates, drive train, cages, on-board air and other useful modifications that will help improve the performance and protection of your Jeep JK Wrangler (Rubicon, Sahara, Unlimited and X) on the trail.

PLEASE DO NOT START SHOW & TELL TYPE THREADS IN THIS FORUM

8" vs 10" wheel width for 35x12.5s

Thread Tools
 
Old Sep 3, 2009 | 03:55 AM
  #11  
CJ7nvrstk's Avatar
JK Super Freak
Vet Army

 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,258
Likes: 1
From: Prosper, TX
Default

Originally Posted by JPop
A 2" wheel width difference is going to cause about an additional 3/4" of section width with the 10" wheel, exposing more of your sidewall to punctures. .
Sounds reasonable, but my real world 4 wheeling experiences have yielded 3 tire puntures. 2 of those were on the mickey trash 14.5 wide tire on a 10" wheel where I should have had better side wall protection. Keep in mind also, I only ran those 14.5 tires on the 10" wheel for a year before getting rid of them because of the problems I had popping a bead and punturing tires.
Reply
Old Sep 3, 2009 | 04:14 AM
  #12  
JPop's Avatar
JK Junkie
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 0
From: Lakewood, OH
Default

Originally Posted by CJ7nvrstk
Sounds reasonable, but my real world 4 wheeling experiences have yielded 3 tire puntures. 2 of those were on the mickey trash 14.5 wide tire on a 10" wheel where I should have had better side wall protection. Keep in mind also, I only ran those 14.5 tires on the 10" wheel for a year before getting rid of them because of the problems I had popping a bead and punturing tires.
That's a really small sample size and not statistically relevant, probably more an indictment of Mickey Thompson tires for your application. Thicker side walls and heavier load ratings are certainly a better protector of sidewall punctures. Load range C and I'd be more cognizant of sidewall punctures and definitely run narrow on the wheel width. Load range E, not as worrisome.
Reply
Old Sep 3, 2009 | 04:37 AM
  #13  
CJ7nvrstk's Avatar
JK Super Freak
Vet Army

 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,258
Likes: 1
From: Prosper, TX
Default

Enjoy your ride on those load range E tires

Seems as though the industry experts side with me though. Sorry if you are unable to comprehend that fact!
Reply
Old Sep 3, 2009 | 04:41 AM
  #14  
CJ7nvrstk's Avatar
JK Super Freak
Vet Army

 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,258
Likes: 1
From: Prosper, TX
Default

Almost forgot, not to mention with a wide tire on a narrower wheel you will get crowning and uneven tire wear. That is unless you chose to run at a lower psi to get a proper contact patch and if you do that, you're mileage will suffer.
Reply
Old Sep 3, 2009 | 05:06 AM
  #15  
JPop's Avatar
JK Junkie
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 3,017
Likes: 0
From: Lakewood, OH
Default

Originally Posted by CJ7nvrstk
Enjoy your ride on those load range E tires

Seems as though the industry experts side with me though. Sorry if you are unable to comprehend that fact!
Well, myself I went with something in between, 8.75" which is on the narrow side of the recommended width for my Toyo MTs. I don't have any ride quality issues because I run a lower inflation rate than I would with a wider wheel. I also have less sidewall flex than I did when I ran load range C tires, and the ass end didn't feel as loose when properly inflated.

There are plenty of merits to both and there are plenty of people who have responded that I would consider to be experts who wheel their stuff pretty hard that have replied to this post. It is largely a matter of personal preference, and for me I ended my trek with something in between with a tire that stands with any other MT out there.
Reply
Old Sep 3, 2009 | 05:09 AM
  #16  
JKBully's Avatar
JK Enthusiast
 
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 406
Likes: 0
From: Waldwick, NJ
Default

Originally Posted by CJ7nvrstk
Almost forgot, not to mention with a wide tire on a narrower wheel you will get crowning and uneven tire wear. That is unless you chose to run at a lower psi to get a proper contact patch and if you do that, you're mileage will suffer.
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly! I run mine at about 28psi on-road. My MPG, based on the on-board computer, went from about 15.5 average to about 13.8 average!
Reply
Old Sep 3, 2009 | 04:30 PM
  #17  
CJ7nvrstk's Avatar
JK Super Freak
Vet Army

 
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 1,258
Likes: 1
From: Prosper, TX
Default

Originally Posted by JKBully
I agree with this statement wholeheartedly! I run mine at about 28psi on-road. My MPG, based on the on-board computer, went from about 15.5 average to about 13.8 average!
Ouch! 13.8
Reply
Old Sep 3, 2009 | 05:33 PM
  #18  
JK Enthusiast
 
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
From: Va Beach, VA
Default

not sure if this helps, but I plan on moving to the 10" wide rim from my current 8" for a couple of reasons

1. it's the minimum recommended width for Toyo's 37/14.5/15
2. I like the deeper dish on the rims I'm going with

it is true that the wheels will be sticking out a couple inches further than what I currently have (same backspacing as my 8"), but I'm planning on strengthening up my axles very soon and if anything breaks that''s when I'll fix it
Reply
Old Sep 3, 2009 | 06:19 PM
  #19  
jkJason's Avatar
JK Freak
 
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 742
Likes: 0
From: Az
Default

I say 10, thats what manufacturers recommend for proper treadware. I know theirs a thread on this somewhere too... That said, if your doing mostly trails than 8 would be better for reasons already posted. If your mainly on the road I'd vote for 10's. All aside, I have 17x9's cause I feel it offers the best all around performance.
Reply
Old Sep 4, 2009 | 01:04 PM
  #20  
JK Super Freak
 
Joined: Aug 2009
Posts: 1,255
Likes: 2
From: GRANDE PRAIRIE, AB
Default

Originally Posted by JKBully
8"! It's the poor man's beadlock!
Originally Posted by mkjeep
Yeah, this is one case that 8" is better than 10.
GO WITH BEST OF BOTH WORLDS. 8'S UP FRONT AND 10'S OUT BACK
Reply



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 11:39 AM.