- Reply to Topic
Thread: Ride quality for lifted WK Reply to Thread

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

User Name:
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid e-mail address for yourself.

Email Address:


  Additional Options
Miscellaneous Options

  Topic Review (Newest First)
11-03-2019 09:33 AM
LouC that makes sense good explanation...
11-01-2019 12:01 PM
underscore Because of where the WK front strut attaches to the control arm the travel of the wheel is greater than the travel of the strut itself. It's roughly in the middle of the arm so for every 2 inches of wheel travel the strut only has to extend (or compress) about 1 inch.
11-01-2019 07:13 AM
LouC I think I recall seeing that somewhere too. I recall comparing the extended and compressed lengths for Bilstein & OME shocks for the WK and ZJ (we still have our old ‘98) and the shocks for the ZJ had a good bit more travel. In addition comparing both driving on the same trails on the beach you can feel the ZJ or even my son’s JK gently reaching the end of front axle travel whereas the WK it is more abrupt. Both the WK and ZJ have Bilsteins. The JK is only 2 years old so it still has the OE shocks.
10-31-2019 06:53 PM
2005JGC @LouC I have heard this suggested before so I did a quick sketch on fusion 360 that showed the control arm and basic suspension geometry. The WK while having a shock that had less travel actually had like an inch more travel than the WJ or ZJ that was being compared to.

I guess its worth noting, this was a long time ago and I looked through my old posts but gave up to find it. I dont have it on my computer any more.
10-31-2019 01:23 PM
LouC Part of the problem is that the front suspension design of the WK appears to give less travel than the live axle design of the older Grands so with the limited travel you get increased stiffness even though it may seem to ride better than the live axle, when it gets close to the end of travel you can feel the stiffness. Adding stiffer springs for lift, stiffer shocks and E rated tires is not going to give you a great ride....
10-29-2019 02:22 PM
2005JGC For what its worth (nothing)... I do like how the OME HD lift drives around town. Its stiff but not too stiff. Allows my tall SUV to corner well and feel sure footed. My only problem I have with the OME HD lift is off road where much larger obstacles than a speed bump may/will be encountered where you have occasionally have to use momentum to get up the nasty, slick, muddy trail. Then its stiff enough that it doesn't take much of a bump to throw the jeep front end in the air. I would love for it to absorb the blow a little better off road. I am already aired down from 8-18psi when I am off road dependent on what I am driving on and the time of year on a load range D tire (Hankook Dynapro MT). Absorbing an abrupt bump is not going to happen with these springs. Great spring. Great driver. Not the best off road in all situations.
10-28-2019 04:30 PM
underscore ^ depends on the diameter you want, but 255/75R17 KO2's are available in load range C.
10-27-2019 09:33 AM
LouC I agree 100% with the "C" rating vs an "E" rating but the reality is that very few off road tires will be found in 17"rim sizes in a "C" rating. I've been using General Grabber AT2s in a 245/70-17 in a P rating, another I might consider is the Goodyear Duratrac same size, which is also available in a P rating. I would prefer a "C" rating as we have used on our '98 ZJ (30"x9.5-15) as this is ideal for the weight of Jeeps. "E" rated tires are designed for much heavier vehicles hence the stiffness and harsh ride.
Even the Wrangler Rubicon comes from the factory with "C" tires on it, too bad more are not available in sizes that will fit WKs.
10-22-2019 02:38 PM
Originally Posted by Kolak View Post
Those appear to be load range E and would definitely make for a more harsh ride. I recommend load range C next time you need tires.
Thanks for the suggestion, I'm also looking at experimenting with a 16 inch rim (done some reading, it will be some work) but that would also give me some additional sidewall which always helps.
10-22-2019 03:23 AM
browningv308 I have the OME heavy duty lift and 4 ply tires on my 07, didn't really get a lot of drive time on the stock springs/struts before I lifted it. I think the ride quality is great, it eats our washboard gravel roads up and on pavement it rides great.

I think it's all in what your used to, my other 4 vehicles are either 1 ton or 3/4 tons with 10 ply tires so running over a stick in the road makes you bounce out of the seat.
10-22-2019 12:57 AM
Kolak Those appear to be load range E and would definitely make for a more harsh ride. I recommend load range C next time you need tires.
10-21-2019 03:52 PM
Windexer I've currently got 245/75/R17 BFG KM2 121/118Q tyres on it, unfortunately there arent a huge range of options in tyres over here in Oz for the Jeep.
10-21-2019 01:11 AM
Kolak What is the sidewall load range rating of your tires?
10-20-2019 01:59 PM
Windexer Yeah that has been hard to do so far as the manufacturer hasn't been able to share that information. Moving to the lighter spring should give me a baseline finally.
10-20-2019 12:23 AM
underscore First figure out the rates of the springs you currently have, it sounds like they're way too high for what you want but without knowing what you consider too harsh it's hard to suggest a better alternative. I've got the OME MD springs and the ride is superb.
This thread has more than 15 replies. Click here to review the whole thread.

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

For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome