When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Yes they are load range E and frankly I didn't pay any attention to the load range when I was selecting my tire choice. The problem I tend to have is any new tires rides great compared to the worn out ones that I'm replacing. So, no, I did not notice any degraded ride-quality by going to E. However, I have found hitting surface cracks or bumps on the pavement does hit harder than I'd like. I can't really say that it's worse than with the KM2 since it's been so long, but I think it's a combo of running short arms (I want long arms), RC shocks (I want Bilsteins), and perhaps the tires now that you've brought it up. A quick search though shows that most (if not all) AT or MT tires in my 265/75R16 all have a load rating of E.
Another note is I put Cooper Discoverer AT3 XLT tires on the Land Loser and they have a load rating of E as well. They were super quiet and were not harsh in my opinion.
Ever since I learned about the factory high idle capability with the automatic, I've been searching for a way to get electronically controlled high idle with the manual. It seems most people just use a thumb throttle with a lock. This just wasn't good enough for me.
I looked at tapping an unused vacuum port on the intake manifold which did raise the throttle just about right, but that didn't work because air was getting in unmetered so the computer would idle it back down after a second or two. After thinking about it some more, I realized I'll have to come up with a compromise -- mechanically open the throttle valve using electronics.
First, I bought an Arduino Nano Every and soldered some pins on it.
Then I wrote the small program that simply moves a servo arm to a defined position when there is a voltage detected on one of the pins and moves the servo arm back to the predefined starting point if there is no voltage detected on the pin.
Next, I built some wiring harnesses (used a buck converter to step down the 12V to 5V to power the Arduino and servo), bought a bicycle brake cable and high torque servo, and 3D-printed a box and small part. The wiring harness to the box contains power and ground for the Arduino and servo when the ignition is ON and power from the high idle switch.
I took the gas pedal lever off and drilled a hole and then slid the brake cable and 3D printed part through it.
The gas pedal got remounted and the servo box was mounted to a factory bracket using factory holes. The brake cable was cut to length and secured to the servo arm.
After some tests, I needed to print a new box that was taller and had an extra leg. Here's the final outcome:
So, when the switch is is turned on, the Arduino moves the servo arm which pulls the throttle lever a bit just like if your foot pushed on the pedal. Now I can idle around 1,200 RPM whenever necessary (winching, jump starting another vehicle, charging my discharged battery, etc.). I think v2 will contain a GPS module so the Arduino will only move the servo arm if the vehicle is stationary.
Is there any chance you would be interested in making and selling this Arduino set-up to a fellow XJ'er? I am interested in buying one for my 1991 XJ. I was envisioning a similar rocker switch setup like your as I add a new bumper and winch to my XJ this year.
Is there any chance you would be interested in making and selling this Arduino set-up to a fellow XJ'er? I am interested in buying one for my 1991 XJ. I was envisioning a similar rocker switch setup like your as I add a new bumper and winch to my XJ this year.
I am not interested in producing additional copies at this time. It's mostly because I'd have to buy parts in bulk to make the whole product somewhat affordable and then I'd have to make sure all of the stock gets used up. It's just not a product in high demand so it's not worth the effort. Sorry. Thanks for the interest though!
When I did the ZJ seat conversion, it was because I've read on this forum that it's easy and the front seats are much more comfortable than the XJ seats. Since install five years ago, I've been trying to find the comfort in the ZJ seats that "everybody" talks about. Maybe I got a bad pair or maybe my definition of "comfortable" is different that other folks'. My wife and I think the seats in our Saabaru are quite comfy and offer good bolster support, so I picked up a pair of 2005 Subaru WRX seats from a salvage yard.
They even came with the seat warmers from the factory. As I was testing the warmers to see how I might be able to use my aftermarket switches from the Chinese warmers I've had, I accidentally let the smoke out of one WRX warmer. So, I decided to move the warmers from the ZJ seats.
The first step was to remove the covers so they can be washed.
After removing the Subaru rails, I realized an adapter bracket will take a bit more work to make as the Subaru seats attach to the rails horizontally and the XJ seat mounts to the rails vertically. I started out by using 1/8-inch flat bar, made some holes and then welded some spacers for more support.
Here's a rail inverted to show the spacers:
Then while setting the new seat on the rails, taking careful measurements and building supports for leveling, I ended up building an adapter bracket. I had to tach-weld in awkward positions while the seat was in the vehicle so I put down plenty of cotton shirts to cover the carpet and such. The bracket was made from 1/8-inch flat bar, 3/16-inch flat bar, 1/8x1-3/4-inch angle iron, and 1/8x3/4-inch angle iron.
The seatbelt buckle had to be bent differently to clear the bracket (not shown). The driver side followed the same process, but it was a bit trickier because it has a height adjustment mechanism that I wanted to retain.
I also spent $100 on ZJ seats recently and they seemed just as bad as the standard cherokee seat. I've never done fab work before, but this seems like a good first project. You've inspired me! The problem is the area is very narrow, and can't accommodate a wide seat.
I also spent $100 on ZJ seats recently and they seemed just as bad as the standard cherokee seat. I've never done fab work before, but this seems like a good first project. You've inspired me! The problem is the area is very narrow, and can't accommodate a wide seat.
Take your time getting the alignment right. It's definitely tight with the WRX seats, but they can fit without any rubbing.
I've been curious how much weight I've added to the XJ so I went down to the sand and gravel business to see if I could just use their scale. I know it's not as accurate as one would be for a certificated weight, but I wanted a ballpark number. With me and a full tank of gas it came in at 4,560 lbs! That's more than I expected which also means I'm at or exceeding GVWR when loaded for multi-day trips. No wonder it feels underpowered. I don't see where I can lose much weight so I may have to start thinking about about strengthening my current axles (or do axle swaps) and supercharging the motor.
I'm surprised you feel underpowered with 4.10's and 32's. I was considering 4.10's and 35's on my manual XJ as I do a lot of highway driving.
Though, I notice you have a basket on top. Whenever I had a roof rack with a bunch of skis, it felt it made a substantial difference in power. I'd remove that and see how you like it. Maybe you could get a collapsible and lighter shovel if you really want to keep it. I also ran a tire carrier with a full size spare, and the weight was too much. I now just run a tire repair kit, and removed the swing out arm. +- 100lbs gone.
The power is fine until it's loaded with family, dogs, and camping gear....and when towing 2,000 lbs....and when going over 11,000 ft passes. I also live at high altitude so I'm nowhere near sea level power...always. A supercharger would fix a lot of that for me.
I had to get the scale out and put a spreadsheet together to see where all the weight comes from and if anything can be shed. It looks like when loaded for camping, I'm a bit over 5,000 lbs. Given GVWR is 4,900 I'm not too far out of line, but it does make consider a few things as the weight needs to be respected lest somebody gets hurt or something breaks (I still have some future build items to add which will invariably add more weight). Yes, I have a rack, but it gets used to carry some camping gear, awning, lights, and axe/shovel as you've pointed out so I can't really get rid of it. In fact, everything in this build has been added for a purpose and gets used so there's just not much to remove. The axe and shovel weight 9 lbs combined so going smaller won't save a bunch of weight, but it's still something to consider. One area I'm seriously considering changing is the rock sliders since they weigh about 100 lbs. I don't always need the sliders and when I have used them I wasn't landing on them hard so I'm considering Rusty's Rocker Covers (or fabricating my own version) which will offer the same protection I need and shed significant weight (and give me some clearance back!). I like JCR's Crusader sliders, but they've discontinued them.
I've also considered a small trailer to offload some gear to (maybe something like an M416) which could eliminate the rack that weighs ~100 lbs with the current attachments and empty basket. We'll see where this build ends up going.
Yep, well I'm excited to see what you end up doing! It's hard when I come to the realization that the Jeep's strength is also it's weakness (so small). Sliders may be a good idea, and aluminum armor vs steel.
My plan is to be as light as I can, and I don't have a family, dog, and drive at sea level. I'll keep stock rear bumper, nothing on top, and not tow anything. Maybe i'll be fine with 4.10's and 35's. Good luck man!
Yes they are load range E and frankly I didn't pay any attention to the load range when I was selecting my tire choice. The problem I tend to have is any new tires rides great compared to the worn out ones that I'm replacing. So, no, I did not notice any degraded ride-quality by going to E. However, I have found hitting surface cracks or bumps on the pavement does hit harder than I'd like. I can't really say that it's worse than with the KM2 since it's been so long, but I think it's a combo of running short arms (I want long arms), RC shocks (I want Bilsteins), and perhaps the tires now that you've brought it up. A quick search though shows that most (if not all) AT or MT tires in my 265/75R16 all have a load rating of E.
Another note is I put Cooper Discoverer AT3 XLT tires on the Land Loser and they have a load rating of E as well. They were super quiet and were not harsh in my opinion.
To follow-up on this, I think by the time I was ready to replace the KM2s, the compound was already hard by then so I did not notice much difference going to load range E as the KM2s progressively worsened (as most/all tires do). I'm pretty certain putting new load range C tires on would have been a night/day difference. I'm at the point now where I do not like my ride quality and will be changing tires again.
I'm running load range D tires on my rig and it's surprisingly smooth - I was really worried as I've always ran load range Cs. They're brand-new though, so I'm sure they'll get worse over time. As I'm sure you're realizing, finding a "lighter weight" big tire for a 16" wheel is pretty tough - they're really aren't that many out there. Any thoughts on what your next setup will be?
You nailed it. I didn't do enough homework before bumping up to 16" wheels and I'm seeing options are slimmer than if I had 15" wheels. The goal was to bump up to 32" tires and keep the 10.5" width which meant a metric size with a 16" wheel. I had missed the load range selections at that size. I haven't fully decided on the next setup, but I'm thinking either General Grabber X3 in the same tire size or downsize to a 15" wheel with 31" KO2s. I like the idea of 33s for a touch more clearance, but 31s are lighter, cheaper, and don't create more load on the engine. Pros and cons will have to be weighed...
Always haha! If you're thinking of K02s and a 15" wheel, I'd suggest looking at a 33x10.5x15 instead. I had a set and they measure less than advertised - they're really just 32.5" when new. Plus, like you said, they're still relatively light given they're on a 15" wheel and they're load range C. I had 4.11s when I ran those tires and it was really manageable with a stick.
Thanks for the conversion chart as I have not used that one before. It makes it easier to find which sizes tires aren't made in! Thanks also for the 33x10.5x15 size. It's in my spreadsheet under consideration.
Here is a section of my spreadsheet with the dark orange line being my current configuration and the blue ones being my current top choices I'm considering. I'm looking for a tire that performs well in all categories, quiet, and light (like everybody wants) and then I'll have to choose where to compromise at. Now that this has been put together, it's interesting to see how much dead weight a tire/wheel combo can be (without air as I'm not sure how to calculate that one). I may opt for more weight savings over ground clearance to get a bit more power since towing at altitude is not much fun. I've been on 31s before and didn't have too many clearance issues.
08-12-2020 | 02:12 PM
Thanks also for the 33x10.5x15 size. It's in my spreadsheet under consideration.
