Big Blue's Transformation

[Nothing Special]

.... So maybe BB isn't quite as big as I thought he is?

... or the Gladiator (and Wrangler) isn't as small as you think they are. The Jeep CJs (1946 - 1986) and then the YJ _'87 - '95) and TJ ('96 - '06) Wranglers were small vehicles. My '71 Bronco looks big next to any of them.

But the JK Wranglers ('07 - '17) and now the JL Wrangler ('18 - present) are not small vehicles. They are every bit as big as an early Bronco, and bigger in some dimensions.

And the Gladiator is a stretched JL (well, technically it's a lot more than that, but size-wise that's not inaccurate). What I'm seeing on YouTube is that the Gladiator is too big to be a serious off-roader without some seriously big tires added so it can drive over the things it can't drive around. It's viewed as a good overlander that can still do OK on technical trails, but it is a bit of a moose.

And speaking of moose, one YouTuber I follow used to 'wheel and overland in a 4 door JK Wrangler. He ran it over a scale and found that it weighed in at about 6600 lbs! GVWR is something like 5700 lbs. (I said "used to". He's had a Gladiator but traded that in. Now he has a JL Wrangler 4 door with a diesel and a Ram Power Wagon pickup. For what that's worth.)

[Nothing Special]

I saw a pimped out Gladiator yesterday on the highway.

Definitely not a short wheelbase on those, and the approach/departure angles must be good too.

By 'wheeling standards the breakover angle and departure angle of the Gladiator are a bit limiting. But by pickup standards they aren't bad, especially with a lift and bigger tires (33s are standard on the Rubicon, '37s are kind of the starting point for serious 'wheelers in both the Wrangler and the Gladiator)

[Gary Lewis]

I saw a pimped out Gladiator yesterday on the highway.

Definitely not a short wheelbase on those, and the approach/departure angles must be good too.

By 'wheeling standards the breakover angle and departure angle of the Gladiator are a bit limiting. But by pickup standards they aren't bad, especially with a lift and bigger tires (33s are standard on the Rubicon, '37s are kind of the starting point for serious 'wheelers in both the Wrangler and the Gladiator)

I think I'll stay with my 33's on BB as the 2nd gear on the ZF is already a stretch. So I don't think 35's would be any fun.

And, I'm not into serious 'wheeling. Nor, for that matter, serious overlanding. But I do want to do some of both.

[Nothing Special]

I think I'll stay with my 33's on BB as the 2nd gear on the ZF is already a stretch. So I don't think 35's would be any fun.

And, I'm not into serious 'wheeling. Nor, for that matter, serious overlanding. But I do want to do some of both.

I think understand your goals, and I fully support them. I wasn't trying to change your plans, Just give you a little perspective on the Gladiator. It's basically a full-size truck, but without as much room for people and cargo. So Big Blue is still Big.

[Gary Lewis]

I think understand your goals, and I fully support them. I wasn't trying to change your plans, Just give you a little perspective on the Gladiator. It's basically a full-size truck, but without as much room for people and cargo. So Big Blue is still Big.

Sorry, didn't think you were trying to change my goals. Was just lamenting that the change from a 3.03 to a 2.94 second gear makes starts from a stop slightly tenuous. You don't let out on the clutch and then rev it as was the case with the old engine and the T-19. You rev it a bit first, like with a smaller engine.

Having said that, it may well not be the gear ratio, although that didn't help. It may be the engine. The old one, in spite of its horrible loss of compression past the rings pulled like a tractor from idle. This one, in spite of being new, doesn't want to pull from less than maybe 1200.

And I'm saying "engine" as it is probably a combo of the cam and the intake. Using the EFI lower plenum as a "wet" intake isn't what it was designed to do, so perhaps when I get the injectors on there it'll be better?

[ArdWrknTrk]

Sorry, didn't think you were trying to change my goals. Was just lamenting that the change from a 3.03 to a 2.94 second gear makes starts from a stop slightly tenuous. You don't let out on the clutch and then rev it as was the case with the old engine and the T-19. You rev it a bit first, like with a smaller engine.

Having said that, it may well not be the gear ratio, although that didn't help. It may be the engine. The old one, in spite of its horrible loss of compression past the rings pulled like a tractor from idle. This one, in spite of being new, doesn't want to pull from less than maybe 1200.

And I'm saying "engine" as it is probably a combo of the cam and the intake. Using the EFI lower plenum as a "wet" intake isn't what it was designed to do, so perhaps when I get the injectors on there it'll be better?

It's a function of wanting that truck to be everything at once.

If you had a serious 'wheeling rig' you would have much taller geared axles.

Probably 4.56 or even into the 5's if you were crawling.

[Gary Lewis]

It's a function of wanting that truck to be everything at once.

If you had a serious 'wheeling rig' you would have much taller geared axles.

Probably 4.56 or even into the 5's if you were crawling.

That's a very valid point. Instead of having the front changed to 3.55 to match the rear I've often wondered if I should have had the rear changed to 4.10 to match the front. Currently at 65 MPH the RPM is 1800 and it would have changed to 2100. Not as good as today, but better than the 2400 with the T-19.

Then, when the tires wear out, I could have gone to 35's and been at 1900 @ 65.

[ArdWrknTrk]

That's a very valid point. Instead of having the front changed to 3.55 to match the rear I've often wondered if I should have had the rear changed to 4.10 to match the front. Currently at 65 MPH the RPM is 1800 and it would have changed to 2100. Not as good as today, but better than the 2400 with the T-19.

Then, when the tires wear out, I could have gone to 35's and been at 1900 @ 65.

I'm on stock 235/85 R-16's and my tach reads 3,000 at 80.

Since GPS says my speedo is right on I have to assume my tach is off....

4.10's make for a strong truck with reasonable highway RPM's but they certainly aren't miserly.

[Nothing Special]

That's a very valid point. Instead of having the front changed to 3.55 to match the rear I've often wondered if I should have had the rear changed to 4.10 to match the front. Currently at 65 MPH the RPM is 1800 and it would have changed to 2100. Not as good as today, but better than the 2400 with the T-19.

Then, when the tires wear out, I could have gone to 35's and been at 1900 @ 65.

Gary, I know you're just "bench racing" and (hopefully) enjoying thinking through the "what ifs". But to (hopefully) help you feel better about the choices you've made...

If you wanted to make Big Blue into a serious 'wheeling rig you'd go with 40" tires, 5.38 gears and you'd change out the rear Dana 60 / TrueTrac for a 14 bolt with a locker. You'd also put a link suspension on both ends with coil-overs and would probably shorten the wheelbase a bit.

But your sheet metal would still be limiting, so you'd do one of three things: 1) put some SERIOUS body armor on it (sliders and bumpers that wrap around to protect the sides) AND expect to do a lot of body work. 2) dove-tail at least the bed and probably the front clip (and still go with serious body armor). 3) just trash the body over the course of a few 'wheeling trips.

But you don't want to do that. You want Big Blue to be a nice truck that you and Janey can get into and take a nice drive in the country, or a drive cross-country, and that you and your kids / grandkids can take camping and drive on some mountain trails that no one would drive their Mercedes SUV on.

Would 4.10s have been a better choice for that than 3.55s? Maybe. But 35s would be worse than 33s for the "you and Janey getting into" part (Lesley told me I couldn't put 35s on my Bronco, and it's been years since I felt like I could invite my dad to go for a ride in it). And you'll have fun with it the way it is. Remember, I've told you before that I have a friend who spent a fun week with his brother camping and "six-wheeling" on mountain roads in Colorado in a stock crew cab dually!

The more capable you build the truck the harder trails you need to find to have fun. I think Big Blue is going to be in a pretty sweet spot where you can have fun on a lot of trails that might get boring in a more heavily built rig, but you'll still be able to go 'most anywhere you want.

This is all stuff I need to keep reminding myself of too. Don't worry about keeping up with the Jones's. Even if they're your friends and traveling companions, you'll catch up with them in camp and can still enjoy each other's stores around the fire!

 

[Nothing Special]

I'm on stock 235/85 R-16's .... 4.10's make for a strong truck with reasonable highway RPM's but they certainly aren't miserly.

For what it's worth, I'm also running 235/85-16 and 4.10s on my '97 F-250 with 460 and E4OD. I don't drive like Jim so I will have different ideals. But I'm pretty sure I would prefer 3.55s in my truck. No where near enough to justify regearing 2 axles. But I really don't think I need 4.10s and would really like a little better mileage.