3%!! thats rough. What does that equate to? Im curious how that is calculated? Is it both width and height? Do they measure with a tape or simply go off of manufacturer claims? There are certainly tires that are actually a little larger then others with the same exact claimed size.
3% is for the total height, but there's also a limit for the width.
The equivalents for the original tires are: 255/60 R 17 (C), 255/65 R 17 (C), 265/60 R 17 (C), 275/55 R 17 (C), 275/60 R 17 (C). Not many options...
Looks good btw. What is your measurement from the axle centerline to the fenderlip?
I haven't measured it, but I'll let you know when I do.
looks great, thanks for the pics. Question tho...why would one choose Bilsteins shocks/struts vs. OME shocks/struts?
Bilsteins are very common in Europe, easier to find and they keep their price quite tamed. OME are imports for me.
did you go to this setup straight from stock? I have the OME struts and they seem super floaty. Was hoping maybe you could compare, but probably not...
Yes, I went from stock to this lift. If you still have the original springs that's probably what makes the most difference.
I have the OME springs with Bilstein 5100's as well. I used the OME heavy duty springs and on my lift the vehicle sat about an inch or more higher in the front than the back. I ended up using a 3/4 inch spacer under the rear springs to even things up. I run 255/75/17 tires. The ride is very good.
That's interesting. I have a pic I took this last weekend with the Jeep fully loaded and 3 adults inside, and the rear was quite lower than the front, even with the HD back there, but empty it sits level.
I don't have the third row in there anymore, so that's some weight difference over the rear axle...