JK Clearance Seems Deceptive - Page 2 - Jeep Wrangler Forum
Jeep Wrangler Forum

Go Back   Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK Jeep Wrangler Forum > JK General Discussion Forum

Join Wrangler Forum Today


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools

Please support our sponsors and let them know you heard about them on WranglerForum.com
Old 12-05-2011, 06:39 AM   #31
Jeeper
 
fireron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 228

fireron is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 06:51 AM   #32
The Bad Guy

WF Supporting Member
 
daggo66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ exile living in Baltimore
Posts: 22,087
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRubi2012 View Post
@ daggo - The clearance under the differential housing is a function of the tire diameter and the diameter of the housing itself. It has NOTHING to do with the relationship of the frame to the ground which is what I am talking about.

The axles as long as the tires are touching the ground have an obvious fixed distance from it based on the parameters I mentioned but the relationship of the frame to the ground is based on the length of the suspension springs. If you have a longer or shorter spring you will either move the frame further or closer to the ground respectively. Its the whole premise behind the idea of a "lift kit" as we are all so familiar with.

The JK is able to fit bigger tires under it in stock configuration because the shape of the body is different from the TJ....it is slightly taller with bigger wheel well openings...this fact has nothing to do with the relative position of the frame. In fact the manufacturers have used this "illusion" on many vehicles to give them the appearance of clearance when in fact they had actually lowered the frame with respect to the axles to give a lower center of gravity and better on road characteristics...take the new gen Ford F150 for example as compared to older ones. There is not as much frame clearance but it looks really tall due to the fact that the body was made higher and the "beltline" raised.

Since I can't seem to get measurements I am not sure whether or not the frame is actually lower with respect to the axles although from a glance this is what it seems like. I suspect that what happened was that the JK frame was made lower for twofold reasons...One of which to lower the angle of the control arms (the slightly longer wheelbase also helped with this) and the other to lower the center of gravity both of which gives it the better onroad handling characteristics along with the wider track.

The new body (and frame but the general shape didnt change much) which allowed for fitment of bigger tires (32" vs. 31") increased the "reported" min. clearance value to 10" or whatever it is but that doesnt tell the whole story because the fact is if I am going over most obstacles like a large rock or a log I will put my tire on the obstacle and the 10" min clearance wont come into play because as long as the tire is in contact with the rock/log (assuming its relatively evenly shaped and near the edge of the rock) the 10" will be maintained from it (This is obviously not the case with driving down a rutted trail where the axles will actually get hung up first). Now when I drop off that rock lets say from my pass. side tire the distance from the frame to the ground will come into play as to whether or not I will impact the frame rail or not.

So even though you might have gained .5" clearance from the 32" tire vs. the 31" tire the "belly" of the jeep might be lower and thats my concern.

I know that rubi tires are different sizes from JK to TJ...if someone can provide frame/skid measurements then its easy enough to take into account the different tire sizes (basically subtract .5" from the JK to get the same measurement on the TJ).

But again this doesnt have to be limited to rubicons....it could be X, Sport, Sahara whatever.

Thanks,
Shawn
Your thought process is flawed. Raising the body absolutely affects the COG. That is one of the reason people frown upon body lifts. If the springs were shorter, (they are most definitely not) you would not be able to have stock tires that are larger. The space between the axle and body would be smaller. That's why I compared the Rubicons because it compares the same axles. It's also a comparison that would favor the TJ since a TJ Rubicon is higher than a regular TJ.

If in fact the frame rail clearance of a JK was lower than a TJ, it would have been common knowledge by now. Trust me the TJ guys have been trying to find fault with the JK since mid-2006. All they can come up with is the 4.0 vs. 3,8 debate. If the frame rails where higher on a TJ, they would have been all over it.

You are confused as to what the "belly" of the Jeep is. The "belly" is not the frame rail.

Your 15 minutes are just about up.

__________________
Tom

"I've got two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one."
daggo66 is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 07:11 AM   #33
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by daggo66

Your thought process is flawed. Raising the body absolutely affects the COG. That is one of the reason people frown upon body lifts. If the springs were shorter, (they are most definitely not) you would not be able to have stock tires that are larger. The space between the axle and body would be smaller. That's why I compared the Rubicons because it compares the same axles. It's also a comparison that would favor the TJ since a TJ Rubicon is higher than a regular TJ.

If in fact the frame rail clearance of a JK was lower than a TJ, it would have been common knowledge by now. Trust me the TJ guys have been trying to find fault with the JK since mid-2006. All they can come up with is the 4.0 vs. 3,8 debate. If the frame rails where higher on a TJ, they would have been all over it.

You are confused as to what the "belly" of the Jeep is. The "belly" is not the frame rail.

Your 15 minutes are just about up.
TJ Rubi is higher then a reg TJ?

Only difference (maybe) is the Spring rate. Same as the comparing the Jk

Tires size of coarse will make the Rubi higher.
__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler TR 2.5 coils/rear TB/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Teraflex monster TB/Synergy highsteer,tie rod, ball joints/Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/MC front SB links/Rancho geo brackets & shocks/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings=Frankinjeep from hell.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 07:26 AM   #34
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 72
Shawn, as a new '12 Rubi owner who just traded his '06 Rubi for the newer Jeep (both rigs 2-door soft-top half doors six speed, with stock tires) I can say that I am absolutely convinced that the new JK has more ground clearance than the TJ. The TJ had the transmission 'belly pan' which hung down underneath right in the middle of the frame rails halfway from front to rear axle and (to me) seemed like the most likely place a TJ would get hung up on a trail. My 'seat of the pants' opinion is that the JK rides higher than the TJ did, an opinion I developed in the first few miles of driving my Jeep home (my GF also agreed with that assessment). No, I have not made any 'measurements' and likely will not, but with all of the improvements Jeep has made to the JK's I believe that the JK's ARE a more trail-capable rig, with better drivetrain durability than previous Jeeps. When I was a TJ owner there was no way I was trading my straight-six for a minivan motored Jeep; I was certain that they were not 'improved' but just cheapened. Wow did I get a wake-up call when I finally sat down and did some research. I had a cherry '06 Rubi TJ that i thought I would never get rid of and now (1.5 months later) I'm so glad I made the jump to a JK. But, I still have to explain my madness to the straight-six crowd, some of whom even refuse to wave to a JK! :o
midnight is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 07:35 AM   #35
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34,188
Is this really a "Jk vs Tj" thread?

I don't see it that way. Just an observation. I think that is where all wet wrong

I'm going out now
__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler TR 2.5 coils/rear TB/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Teraflex monster TB/Synergy highsteer,tie rod, ball joints/Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/MC front SB links/Rancho geo brackets & shocks/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings=Frankinjeep from hell.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 07:45 AM   #36
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34,188
Tj Frame 13
Trans skid 9.5
Rear dif 8

Jk frame 14
Trans 103/4
Rear dif 93/4

Tire size Jk 31
Tj 28.5

Now figure the tire size and we seem pretty close.
__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler TR 2.5 coils/rear TB/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Teraflex monster TB/Synergy highsteer,tie rod, ball joints/Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/MC front SB links/Rancho geo brackets & shocks/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings=Frankinjeep from hell.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 08:22 AM   #37
Official WF thread de-railer
 
Mr. Sinister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Fair Hill, Maryland
Posts: 3,705
Who cares, because according to Back to the Future, hover conversions will be available soon and you can just fly over any obstacle. I just want to know where the clear ties and auto adjusting shoes are. You can offroad in your DeLorean, just clean the cocaine out of the glovebox. Take that, Pentastar!! Hummer Toyota FJ 93 Octane Synthetic Oil K&N.
__________________
SO MUCH EXCITE!
Mr. Sinister is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 04:21 PM   #38
Jeeper
 
RedRubi2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Puget Sound, Wa
Posts: 568
@ kjeeper - Thanks again for your help! The numbers don't lie and you proved my hunch that the frame is indeed lower on the JK as compared to the TJ although not by an astronomical amount. Just due to the extra diameter of the tires your JK is higher than the TJ by 1.25". If we take that out of the equation and compare the two on a level playing field assuming the JK had the same 28.5" diameter tires as the TJ then we would see that the numbers would be as such:

JK frame - 12.75"
TJ frame 13"

JK trans skid - 9.05"
TJ trans skid - 9.5"

We can see that the frame sits .25" lower and that the trans skid sits .45" lower on the JK. I'm quite pleased to see that they didn't lower it by a huge amount and it wouldn't be hard to make that up with a mild lift, but its lowered nonetheless for the benefits of onroad handling no doubt. As a side note I never intended this to be a "TJ vs. "JK" thread....just rather a simple comparison to take stock of reality. In fact it would be in my best interest to be in favor of the JK being higher since I am about to take delivery of one in short order, however, both machines are very capable nonetheless, and both are Jeeps so all is well.

@daggo - Again I hate to get roped into a dead end discussion with someone who obviously doesn't know what they are talking about, but I will try to explain. I never said that raising the body on a vehicle doesn't "affect" the center of gravity because you are very correct that it would, although the effect would be negligible compared to the position of the chassis. The reason for this is because the mass of the body is a fraction of the total vehicle mass as compared to the mass of the chassis (including the frame, engine, transmission, transfer case, and fuel tank). Lowering the frame and chassis just .25" with respect to the axles will have a much greater affect on handling than say raising the body by 1" even though the raised body will contribute to more frontal area and additional aero drag.

That said you completely misunderstood what I was talking about in my post. I did NOT say that the body was "raised" but rather it was redesigned to be "taller" with a higher "beltline". This is what allows for the fitment of larger tires even though the springs are shorter and the axles are closer to the body. If you look at the body design of the JK as compared to previous jeeps you will see that the wheelwells were not only made longer and wider but the hood was made thinner to accomodate the the wheelwell extending upward more into the engine bay. In addition, in the rear you can see that the sheet metal was made higher thus accomodating the higher wheelwells. If you don't believe me then put a tape measure to both you will see what I am talking about...its well known that this method has been used recently by designers to make many vehicles appear to have a more aggressive stance but at the expense of true ground clearance. Again the numbers don't lie.

"It's also a comparison that would favor the TJ since a TJ Rubicon is higher than a regular TJ" - Ok that makes no sense because comparing a JK rubicon which obviously has longer springs than a regular TJ will not favor the TJ but rather the JK because right from the getgo the JK Rubicon should have more distance between the frame and axles. Even with this comparison giving all of these edges to the JK we still see that the JK has less frame clearance by .25" compared to a regular TJ.

"If in fact the frame rail clearance of a JK was lower than a TJ, it would have been common knowledge by now. Trust me the TJ guys have been trying to find fault with the JK since mid-2006." - The measurements show that the TJ has more frame clearance than the JK, but after extensive online research I found nothing on the topic, nor did I find past threads on any of the Jeep forums pertaining to this. I'm not sure why this hasn't surfaced until now, but that fact is quite intriguing indeed.

"You are confused as to what the "belly" of the Jeep is. The "belly" is not the frame rail" - You are confusing yourself with my posts. The "belly" of the Jeep is typically the lowest hanging member near the center of the wheelbase which is usually the transfer case skid. The position of the transfer case skid is directly dictated by the frame because it is solidly mounted to the frame, so the location of the frame plays a huge part in where the belly of the Jeep is with respect to the ground.

Thanks,
Shawn
RedRubi2012 is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 04:29 PM   #39
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Edit: Nevermind, I saw kjeeper measured the TJ tires too.

Regardless though, I dunno man. The differences in those numbers seem almost too small to really consider (a quarter inch difference in frame height?) valuable information. Minor changes in the pavement, the viewing angle on the tape measure, or more gas in one of the tanks could all individually account for that kind of difference.

Wasn't your original concern that when you drive over a log you wanted to know if the JK was more likely to get caught? These numbers don't seem to suggest a relevant difference.
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 04:34 PM   #40
Supporting Member Commercial Member

WF Supporting Member
 
Daniel_M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Arizoner
Posts: 2,350
__________________
-Dan, Owner
RockRaider4x4 - PM me for a quote
Free shipping on most items
Suspension package deals available
Daniel_M is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 04:36 PM   #41
Jeeper
 
billytheyj's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Elko, NV
Posts: 1,320
Bahahaha best post on this thread!
__________________
OHHHH BOOOO!!!!!!!!
billytheyj is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 05:05 PM   #42
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by RedRubi2012
@ kjeeper - Thanks again for your help! The numbers don't lie and you proved my hunch that the frame is indeed lower on the JK as compared to the TJ although not by an astronomical amount. Just due to the extra diameter of the tires your JK is higher than the TJ by 1.25". If we take that out of the equation and compare the two on a level playing field assuming the JK had the same 28.5" diameter tires as the TJ then we would see that the numbers would be as such:

JK frame - 12.75"
TJ frame 13"

JK trans skid - 9.05"
TJ trans skid - 9.5"

We can see that the frame sits .25" lower and that the trans skid sits .45" lower on the JK. I'm quite pleased to see that they didn't lower it by a huge amount and it wouldn't be hard to make that up with a mild lift, but its lowered nonetheless for the benefits of onroad handling no doubt. As a side note I never intended this to be a "TJ vs. "JK" thread....just rather a simple comparison to take stock of reality. In fact it would be in my best interest to be in favor of the JK being higher since I am about to take delivery of one in short order, however, both machines are very capable nonetheless, and both are Jeeps so all is well.

@daggo - Again I hate to get roped into a dead end discussion with someone who obviously doesn't know what they are talking about, but I will try to explain. I never said that raising the body on a vehicle doesn't "affect" the center of gravity because you are very correct that it would, although the effect would be negligible compared to the position of the chassis. The reason for this is because the mass of the body is a fraction of the total vehicle mass as compared to the mass of the chassis (including the frame, engine, transmission, transfer case, and fuel tank). Lowering the frame and chassis just .25" with respect to the axles will have a much greater affect on handling than say raising the body by 1" even though the raised body will contribute to more frontal area and additional aero drag.

That said you completely misunderstood what I was talking about in my post. I did NOT say that the body was "raised" but rather it was redesigned to be "taller" with a higher "beltline". This is what allows for the fitment of larger tires even though the springs are shorter and the axles are closer to the body. If you look at the body design of the JK as compared to previous jeeps you will see that the wheelwells were not only made longer and wider but the hood was made thinner to accomodate the the wheelwell extending upward more into the engine bay. In addition, in the rear you can see that the sheet metal was made higher thus accomodating the higher wheelwells. If you don't believe me then put a tape measure to both you will see what I am talking about...its well known that this method has been used recently by designers to make many vehicles appear to have a more aggressive stance but at the expense of true ground clearance. Again the numbers don't lie.

"It's also a comparison that would favor the TJ since a TJ Rubicon is higher than a regular TJ" - Ok that makes no sense because comparing a JK rubicon which obviously has longer springs than a regular TJ will not favor the TJ but rather the JK because right from the getgo the JK Rubicon should have more distance between the frame and axles. Even with this comparison giving all of these edges to the JK we still see that the JK has less frame clearance by .25" compared to a regular TJ.

"If in fact the frame rail clearance of a JK was lower than a TJ, it would have been common knowledge by now. Trust me the TJ guys have been trying to find fault with the JK since mid-2006." - The measurements show that the TJ has more frame clearance than the JK, but after extensive online research I found nothing on the topic, nor did I find past threads on any of the Jeep forums pertaining to this. I'm not sure why this hasn't surfaced until now, but that fact is quite intriguing indeed.

"You are confused as to what the "belly" of the Jeep is. The "belly" is not the frame rail" - You are confusing yourself with my posts. The "belly" of the Jeep is typically the lowest hanging member near the center of the wheelbase which is usually the transfer case skid. The position of the transfer case skid is directly dictated by the frame because it is solidly mounted to the frame, so the location of the frame plays a huge part in where the belly of the Jeep is with respect to the ground.

Thanks,
Shawn
Though you hit the hills haha


I agreed with your original post. Ef those other posters. I drove a Tj for 11 yrs. got to look at it enough to still remember its stance. I did have 2" bb.
So the Jk is higher but appears lower or similar to a Tj because of what the side frame?
The axles and skids are up higher giving you better clearance.
__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler TR 2.5 coils/rear TB/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Teraflex monster TB/Synergy highsteer,tie rod, ball joints/Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/MC front SB links/Rancho geo brackets & shocks/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings=Frankinjeep from hell.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 05:05 PM   #43
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH View Post
Edit: Nevermind, I saw kjeeper measured the TJ tires too.

Regardless though, I dunno man. The differences in those numbers seem almost too small to really consider (a quarter inch difference in frame height?) valuable information. Minor changes in the pavement, the viewing angle on the tape measure, or more gas in one of the tanks could all individually account for that kind of difference.

Wasn't your original concern that when you drive over a log you wanted to know if the JK was more likely to get caught? These numbers don't seem to suggest a relevant difference.
And further, if the real concern is crawling over obstacles in the stock form, is it really appropriate to "factor out" tire size? The JK in fact has bigger tires and those in fact lift the frame, trans, and differentials higher--according to kjeeper's numbers, by an inch or more.

So nothing would "catch" a stock JK's belly that wouldn't also "catch" a stock TJ's belly.

This does mean that your eyes were in fact deceiving you, correct?
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 05:10 PM   #44
Jeeper
 
RedRubi2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Puget Sound, Wa
Posts: 568
@Mike - Yes I acknowledge the fact that the difference is small but nearly .5" less on the transfer case skid is still a notable difference and I think worthy of discussion. Although in my case with my new JK Rubi, the tires will make up the distance lost in frame height from what I had before with my 2001 TJ sport and give me .8" more clearance, so I'm pretty pleased about that.

Thanks,
Shawn
RedRubi2012 is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 05:12 PM   #45
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34,188
Nm I did not read the post fully.
So the body must sit up to allow for the bigger tires. That's what makes the difference between the two??

MTH Is correct. Factor in 1/4 error. That's pushing it but still the numbers are close when you factor in the tire size.

Still confused
__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler TR 2.5 coils/rear TB/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Teraflex monster TB/Synergy highsteer,tie rod, ball joints/Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/MC front SB links/Rancho geo brackets & shocks/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings=Frankinjeep from hell.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 08:59 PM   #46
Jeeper
 
RedRubi2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Puget Sound, Wa
Posts: 568
Its not that the body sits any further off the frame on a JK but rather that the body is designed to be taller. Lets put it this way...if you took a JK body and TJ body off their respective jeeps and placed them both on level ground the JK body would probably measure out to be higher at the top of the rear quarter panels and to the top of the hood. I am not 100% sure if the distance from the ground to the top of the hood would be higher on the JK but I suspect that it is because the height of the 3.8L engine that the JK platform was designed around is greater than that of the old 4.0L so they would not have been able to reduce the height of the engine bay much. What I am pretty sure of though is that the distance you would measure from the ground to the bottom of the fenderwells would be higher on the JK body...and you can actually see this by looking at a JK hood vs a TJ hood. The TJ hood is much thicker....so assuming that the distance between the ground and top of the hood has increased then you can see that in order to use the thinner JK hood which makes the distance between the hood and fender smaller that the fenderwell would have indeed gotten taller also and able to accept those bigger 32" meats.

You can compare the sizes of the fenderwell openings yourself if you are so inclined, and I certainly wouldn't question it. In fact this is now starting to make me wonder what these numbers actually measure out to.

Thanks,
Shawn
RedRubi2012 is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 09:00 PM   #47
Jeeper
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: north jersey
Posts: 508
red rubi, just for the record, daggo knows a good amount about jeeps and has helped out quite a few members over the last couple of years.
also it was a little difficult figuring out exactly what numbers you were talking about from your original post. also i am amazed that you were able to pick up those slight differences by "eyeing " underneath the jeep. it is interesting that this has not been picked up since the jk models were introduced in 07.
blackforestgreen is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 09:03 PM   #48
The Bad Guy

WF Supporting Member
 
daggo66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ exile living in Baltimore
Posts: 22,087
Your entire thought process is still flawed. One measurement by one person with zero control, is hardly the basis for a factual statement. Were those actual tire sizes or the number on the side wall? Where both sets of tires properly inflated?

.25" is well within the parameters or error. You found no historical data on the subject because it doesn't exist and neither do your facts.
__________________
Tom

"I've got two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one."
daggo66 is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 09:33 PM   #49
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34,188
Dag you are Absolutely correct.

I'm trying to figure out why his simple question has stirred some up.

Even with a margin of error from me crawling under two jeeps during my 10 min break with a tape measure, while
raining

The numbers are close. I will admit looking at my Jk- I had the same thoughts. The body is up taller to allow for the bigger tires but the frame/diff/skids are pretty darn close to the Tj Is this supposed to be a bad thing?
Overall the Jk is taller. More so because of the tires it seems. If I understood the op. it seems the body/frame was designed to except larger tires. If that's where the clearance is gained so be it.
Tj max tire size is 31"
Jk 33"
I'm probably not making any sense but..
__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler TR 2.5 coils/rear TB/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Teraflex monster TB/Synergy highsteer,tie rod, ball joints/Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/MC front SB links/Rancho geo brackets & shocks/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings=Frankinjeep from hell.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 09:38 PM   #50
Jeeper
 
RedRubi2012's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Puget Sound, Wa
Posts: 568
My intention has never been to insult Daggo or question his knowledge on the topic of Jeeps, but I am certaintly going to defend my position in the face of flippantly incorrect responses that serve more to confuse other readers of this thread. The same goes with the rest of the people on here that have just been heckling on this thread...the fact is that you are going to need to come to terms with reality, its no secret that the JK Wrangler was designed for the masses and to appeal to a wider range of people that are more concerned with onroading than offroading. I hate this fact just as much as the next enthusiast...but all I was trying to do here was obtain some objective numbers to satisfy my hunch and provide me with a comparison to what I can expect with my new JK as compared to my old TJ.

@ daggo - please just give it up...you have not even been on the correct wavelength during this entire thread. "one measurement by one person with zero control is hardly the basis for a factual statement". Perhaps not, but maybe this will serve to motivate the other people on this forum with access to stock jeeps both TJ and JK to get out in their garage, take measurements, and report back. Then we can create a statistical sample and provide a confidence level for our numbers.

"Were those actual tire sizes or the number on the side wall? Where both sets of tires properly inflated?" I can't answer that because kjeeper took the measurements but if you actually read my posts you would see that I requested actual measurements because we all know that when inflated and loaded the tires won't measure out to nominal. Since he reported 31" for a 32" JK Rubi tire and 28.5" for a 30" TJ tire I can say with reasonable certainty that they are indeed accurate.

"Neither do your facts" - Well then naysayer I wecome you to prove me wrong and provide better data that can debunk mine.

Thanks,
Shawn
RedRubi2012 is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 09:50 PM   #51
The Bad Guy

WF Supporting Member
 
daggo66's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: NJ exile living in Baltimore
Posts: 22,087
Your very statements are contradictory. There is nothing for me to prove wrong because nothing has been proven. You are a very odd person. You make a claim and then expect other people to do all the work to back your claim. Very odd indeed.

You are completely wrong about the JK. While it does have the most creature comforts of any Wrangler to date, it is also by far the most capable off road Wrangler ever made. The 2012 JK just won Peterson's 4 Wheel and Off Road Magazine's 4 X 4 of the year. The JK also won in 2007, making it the first Wrangler model to win twice.

You say, "I welcome you to prove me wrong and provide better data that can debunk mine." You have no data.
__________________
Tom

"I've got two things in this world, my balls and my word and I don't break them for no one."
daggo66 is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 10:09 PM   #52
Jeeper

WF Supporting Member
 
kbwwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 12,128
Gotta come down on Daggo's side here. He is making empirical arguments; yours are theoretical.

The man knows Jeeps.
__________________


"What we see depends mainly on what we look for."
—John Lubbock
kbwwolf is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 10:24 PM   #53
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34,188
Great.. I wasted my hard earned 10min break to help prove out a argument that should have never been one

Was this supposed to be a stealth attack on the Jk?

Just an observation/question
__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler TR 2.5 coils/rear TB/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Teraflex monster TB/Synergy highsteer,tie rod, ball joints/Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/MC front SB links/Rancho geo brackets & shocks/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings=Frankinjeep from hell.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 10:27 PM   #54
Jeeper
 
NMRubicon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Alamogordo, NM
Posts: 239
Bottom line, a stock JK still has more ground clearance than a stock TJ, big deal, how many who do any serious offroading leave them stock?
__________________
2010 2dr Rubicon, Freedom Top, Auto, RR XHD w/Recon 10,500# recovery system, 2" Rancho Lift with Rancho 9000XL Shocks, and a stubby antenna.
NMRubicon is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 10:28 PM   #55
Jeeper

WF Supporting Member
 
kbwwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 12,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjeeper10 View Post
Great.. I wasted my hard earned 10min break to help prove out a argument that should have never been one

Was this supposed to be a stealth attack on the Jk?

Just an observation/question
You added to the knowledge base...ten mins well spent. Otherwise you'd have been surfing WF.

Am I wrong?
__________________


"What we see depends mainly on what we look for."
—John Lubbock
kbwwolf is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 10:29 PM   #56
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by kbwwolf

You added to the knowledge base...ten mins well spent. Otherwise you'd have been surfing WF.

Am I wrong?
Nope
__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler TR 2.5 coils/rear TB/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Teraflex monster TB/Synergy highsteer,tie rod, ball joints/Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/MC front SB links/Rancho geo brackets & shocks/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings=Frankinjeep from hell.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 10:30 PM   #57
MTH
Jeeper
 
MTH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 8,553
Good lord folks. The OP thought his TJ frame looked higher than his JK frame. He requested some help from somebody with access to both to check. Kjeeper obliged, and it turned out they're closer than I thought they'd be but favoring the JK, and likewise closer than the OP thought they'd be albeit in the other direction. Why is there even an argument here? For that matter, what is the argument?
__________________
Mike
2010 JKU "Mountain" Edition
TeraFlex 2.5" Coil Lift : Old Man Emu Nitrocharger Shocks : 33x12.5R15 Goodyear DuraTracs : 15x8 Black Rock 909s : Other Stuff . . .
MTH is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 10:33 PM   #58
Jeeper

WF Supporting Member
 
kbwwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 12,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTH View Post
Good lord folks. The OP thought his TJ frame looked higher than his JK frame. He requested some help from somebody with access to both to check. Kjeeper obliged, and it turned out they're closer than I thought they'd be but favoring the JK, and likewise closer than the OP thought they'd be albeit in the other direction. Why is there even an argument here? For that matter, what is the argument?
Coming from a lawyer?
__________________


"What we see depends mainly on what we look for."
—John Lubbock
kbwwolf is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 10:34 PM   #59
Jeeper

WF Supporting Member
 
kbwwolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 12,128
Quote:
Originally Posted by kjeeper10 View Post
Nope
Not judging. Just saying. I'm the same way...
__________________


"What we see depends mainly on what we look for."
—John Lubbock
kbwwolf is offline   Quick Reply
Old 12-05-2011, 10:37 PM   #60
MallCrawler

WF Supporting Member
::WF Moderator::
 
kjeeper10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 34,188
Jk wins

Hahaha the Tj used was yellow though
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	image-1116577185.jpg
Views:	35
Size:	30.8 KB
ID:	81675  

__________________
2007 Rubicon/Rock Krawler TR 2.5 coils/rear TB/Rancho 9000 31/32XL shocks/Teraflex monster TB/Synergy highsteer,tie rod, ball joints/Hankook MT 315-75-16 on Level 8 ZX's/MC front SB links/Rancho geo brackets & shocks/Fox ATS stabilizer/Adams front DS/Artec front armor w/ Currie upper bushings=Frankinjeep from hell.

Lifting your JK? Read this!!



Click HERE to become a WranglerForum Supporting Member!
kjeeper10 is online now   Quick Reply
Closed Thread

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Jeep Wrangler Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Front Bump stop Clearance kik YJ General Discussion Forum 0 04-19-2011 04:39 PM
Looking for more clearance... catITguy TJ General Discussion Forum 10 06-04-2010 11:02 AM
Up Armor(TM) High Clearance Skid Plates - IN STOCK! dave@rokmen Classifieds Archive 2 07-01-2009 12:19 AM
Up Armor(TM) High Clearance Skid Plates - Now In Stock! dave@rokmen Classifieds Archive 0 10-14-2008 11:28 AM
Rokmen High Clearance TT - Pre-order Sale! dave@rokmen Classifieds Archive 25 07-29-2008 08:59 PM


logo carid shop wrangler parts carid fender flares custom wheels store avs deflectors at carid

» Network Links
»Jeep Parts
» Featured Product

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:54 AM.



Jeep®, Wrangler, Liberty, Wagoneer, Cherokee, and Grand Cherokee are copyrighted and trademarked to Chrysler Motors LLC.
Wranglerforum.com is not in any way associated with the Chrysler Motors LLC