Is anybody running 32x11.50's on a 3.5" lift?

I put a RE 3.5" lift on my daughter's 2001 and also one on the other daughter's 1997. They both run 32x11.50. No trimming except for pulling the front bumper trim off where it wraps around to the side. This is on stock rims. You get a bit farther out with backspacing and then you need to trim. Both daughters go to Moab a couple of times a year so get in a lot of suspension flex. It works well. note the backspacing caveat.
 
Danna... #1 your family sounds amazing!!! 2 daughters that drive XJ"s.. and wheel them??? does it get any better?? how hottt


and tattoogod--- PICS.. i gotta see this. i got 32'sx11.50's on my XJ with about 3" in front and about 3.5" in rear.. i can stuff pretty well in the back? decent? i can stuff all day in the front .. i trimmed tons.. but with my aftermarkey steelies they stick out really far.. i du nno what bs is?
 
I ran stock(5.25 bs) rims with 32X11.5 tires on my 98 and would rub both the front of the front tires, and the rear of the front tires at full compression when turning. Also would hit rear of rear wheel flare. This was with stock height bump stops. Also because the tire sat "in" the wheel welll so far due to the backspacing I hit the control arm, the spring tower, and the rubber fender liner.

I had to trim a small amount of sheet metal under the front of the front flares(not visible with flare on) to make it better but only going up solved the total problem. Going to 4.5" with longer bump stops and 4.5bs wheels was how I solved the problem. May not be what you wanted to hear but at the time I was not interested in doing a tremendous amount of triming.
 
Bs=backspacing and mine stick out too.This is a very whipped daily driver that isn't very pretty (I just won a trophy for ugliest truck at a local poker run) but it is very functional
 
I'm running 32's on wheels with 4" BS. I ended up needing to add a couple inches to clear them, in addition to installing Bushwackers. I'm not a big fan of extended bump stops, but if you were to extend them, I would assume it would take less lift and less trimming. I think my biggest factor is the 4" BS, but the wheels were free, and weigh half as much as the AR 767's that all my friends run, so I was willing to work around them. I'm still running the stock 3.55 gears, but with the slushbox it's not too bad on the trail. Highway driving wasn't the best, but I lived with if for a year that way. I'll be installing gears this summer, but I won't be running the 32's then.
 
Well, I don't know, I am 5" at the front and 5.5" at the rear, and I still had to trim a lot. My wheels are 15x7, 4.5" backspacing and I still rub the lower control arms at full lock. At 3.5" I am not sure how you can do it.

Here are some pics:

This is how much I had to trim in the front
omemu.jpg


Here you can see how the front passenger tire rubbed the fender
18.jpg


Another view
13.jpg


At the rear, I just folded the lower lip of the fender.

I just do not get it how some of you can do it with 3.5" and no bumpstops change. Maybe my old Indian is ultra-flexing? LoL

Rgds
 
Thanks for posting pics.

It's my impression, though I can't say I know from experience, that fitting 32x11.50's on a 3.5" lift without serious rubbing or crappy articulation is possible with highly aggressive trimming. It's informative reading about everybody's rigs -- it appears there's a wide range of opinion about what's acceptable or problematic in a configuration. For instance, if the tire change is 80% cosmetic -- not common but I've read a few threads around here where that was the case -- you obviously will feel that you can get by with substantially less trimming and no bumpstops. A rockcrawler is going to have different standards from an average trail truck, and a mostly street vehicle entirely different standards, besides. Some of these folks think that it's possible with little-to-no trimming or no bumpstops and some think all of the above are required in order to make the configuration operate acceptably.

Thanks everybody for posting!

A question of mine own... My truck came stock with 3.73 gears. Is that going to suck horribly with 32x11.50's? Would 32x10.50's cut down on that substantially since there's a bit less surface contact? Keep in mind I'm pretty much a total novice, so it's not like I'm really experienced enough to judge trail performance. I'll know the difference from stock, though. I don't want to waste my time running an undergeared truck -- if I don't plan for it now, it's not like I'll be able to go get 4.56's when I get sick of it. But, beings as I'm just getting started in all this, it probably would be good if I could learn my first few years in stock gearing. ;)

;b
 
Regearing depends largely on what you want. I mean, if you have a 4 lt engine, with that torque you might be satisfied with the 32s and the gears you have, for the kind of trails you do.

I have an anemic 2.5 lt (1984 mind you, barely 100 hp nominal power) and it really sucks with the 32. I plan to regear to 4.56:1 as soon as I can afford the gears/lockers package, which means some time not too soon. For the time being, swift and intelligent driving is my only option.

But I still can't see how you can fit those 32x11.5R15s with only 3.5" of real lift. Admitedly, I could fit 33x12.15R15, with different wheels, but as I currently stand, I am satisfied with the 32s.

Rgds
 
I've seen 33s on a XJ with no lift so it is very possible with fender trimming. I have 3.54 gears, and ran 33x12.50 for a short while, on the street it was acceptable could still use OD even. This was on an auto though, when I went up to 36x12.50 on the same gearing If I used overdrive I could smell my tranny burning up, 33s were acceptable. As long as you have the 4.0 you should be good with 32x11.50 on stock gearing.
 
As was said before, there's a lot of opinion on this - so, the best I can do is pass along my experience. I'm running about 4" of lift and have 32x11.50 MTR's on 15x8 wheels w/ 4.5" backspacing (and a 4.0 w/4.10 gears). "Normal" driving was fine, but once I started to do some serious rockcrawling - I saw that I couldn't get away with it unless there was some trimming up front.

At full stuff and turning, my MTR's were grabbing the lower back side of the front wheel well fenders as well as pressing up against the sharp inner seam (not good for the treads). The tires also had the unfortunate effect of grabbing one of my brakelines and twisting it up a bit.

Can't say what the effect would have been on the lower front side of the wheel wells - since I had already trimmed that part away (everything below the turn signals) to fit on a custom front bumper - but it looks like that would have been an issue as well. Did some "field trimming" of the wheel well in the campground at Moab, shifted my flares up about a half inch or so, and repositioned the brakeline (should have done that earlier anyway).

The rear wheel whells (I have a 2 door) handled the tire/wheel/lift combination fine.

I don't think it requires massive trimming, but trimming is definitely required, and will depend strongly on what backspacing you use. At stock bs, there's probably less impact on the outside fender, but it will start to affect the control arms and inner walls more. Less bs will affect the fender and flare more. (for me 4.5" was a good compromise).

And for me, 4.10s w/32's is working OK. Good street performance and acceptable crawling performance (with a 5 speed).

Good luck.

Mike in NJ :patriot:
 
SV1CEC said:
But I still can't see how you can fit those 32x11.5R15s with only 3.5" of real lift.
Rgds
Click to expand...


Trim trim trim. My 98 as posted above, has the front sheet metal trimmed up higher than the entire flare on yours. Measured from the center of the hub straight up, the trimming is equivelant of almost 5" of lift.
You'll need to make room in the wheel wells, I yanked the fender liners and bent back the seam joining the fender to the body. With the right offset and 2" bumpstop extension, the tires tuck up perfectly without rubbing the coil tower or ripping out the washer bottle(1997+)

Ron
 
It's a 4.0 HO mated with the AW4 and an NP231. I'm taking seriously the physical proposition of keeping the COG lowered by applying the largest tires with the smallest lift. In a best-case scenario, I'd like to use tires friendly enough to the stock 3.73:1 gearing ratio to keep from making gearing changes until I'm ready to do something more dramatic. I'd also like to step up at least to 32x10.50's and hopefully to 32x11.50's. I'm still not quite sure if this is realistic with the somewhat minimalist lift I'm looking at, but I'm willing to be *very* liberal with the fender trimming. I would probably draw the line at the functionality of the back seat and having to shave the brake pedal.
 
When I was running 36s on 4.5" of lift I pounded the seem on the inner fenderwell down and that helped to save my tires a lot. I also had a lot of fender trimming also.
 
hhmm.... that sounds better and cheaper then a 4 or 5 inch lift. do u guys uses any spacers? i was thinking of 5 inch until i say this tread. i am new here too.. and just bought a 87 xj.
 
32x11.50 on 3.5 yes it works on my 88 laredo
I used TJ wheels for proper backspacing
only rubs on the spring tower, I did remove the inner fenderwells though.
no trimming otherwise

I regeared to 4.56's really fun
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

P
Notch Custom X-Max Slider Questions - or other recommendations
Replies
2
Views
197
Paradiddle
P
S
Heavy duty coil springs
Replies
3
Views
225
silverpearljku
S
P
Anyone running the RockJock 3.5" rear leaf?
Replies
8
Views
289
XJ_ranger
XJ_ranger
S
Jeep build finishing touch advice needed.
Replies
3
Views
214
75SV1
7
G
JB weld washer on track bar hole?
Replies
11
Views
596
Bent
Bent
Back
Top