Stock tire sizes
03-23-2011, 07:55 AM
#31
Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: chicago
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Year: 96
Model: Cherokee
Engine: I6 4.0L
jeep springs are supose to be flat even ask the dealership, ive went through this for several weeks looking for an answer and the best one i found was to park on flat ground and measure from the ground up to the rocker panels on the front and back should be level. like i said mine looks the same as yours, but when measured its a 1/4" lower in the back, but only cuz i have stuff back there, and even another thing to look at is that the w.heel wells are different sizes and different hieghts
04-12-2012, 03:50 AM
#32
Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee (XJ)
Engine: 4.0 XJ
The tallest years are the 94 thru 2001 4wd models "64 inches". Mine is a 90 and I had the same saggy rear leaf springs. Mine sagged in the back really bad. Our Jeeps were 63.3 inches stock. And with 150k miles or more that will measure even less.
I am not sure, but I have seen a lot of the newer XJ's with less rear sag than the older years. So I think the rear springs got a little better in the later years. Because at the Jyard I see a lot of the newer Jeeps that have more miles than mine with rear leaf that are not as flat as mine.
Also a lot of people will put the 235 series tires on a stock height XJ because that is the biggest recommended tire that you can put on a stock height XJ.
I am not sure, but I have seen a lot of the newer XJ's with less rear sag than the older years. So I think the rear springs got a little better in the later years. Because at the Jyard I see a lot of the newer Jeeps that have more miles than mine with rear leaf that are not as flat as mine.
Also a lot of people will put the 235 series tires on a stock height XJ because that is the biggest recommended tire that you can put on a stock height XJ.
I've had my 1991 Jeep Cherokee for 4 years now and always kept the size tires on it, I'll type my tire size on here later. But I got 4 new tires of the same size last year so I'll do a change to the next size the next time that comes around. I was parked next to "Im going to guess a 97 Cherokee Sport" and it sat way up higher than mine, probably the roof was high as my roof rack crossbars. It was a stock. What size tires did they install on 97-01 Cherokees?
Heres mine Cherokee as you can see, Looks short and low. There 15" tires but will give the tire numbers later.
Heres a stock Jeep Cherokee 1999
http://www.dragtimes.com/images/2006...p-Cherokee.jpg
Mine sits level with the metal strip that runs above the doors to the very back.
Heres mine Cherokee as you can see, Looks short and low. There 15" tires but will give the tire numbers later.
Heres a stock Jeep Cherokee 1999
http://www.dragtimes.com/images/2006...p-Cherokee.jpg
Mine sits level with the metal strip that runs above the doors to the very back.
Last edited by Modrod; 04-12-2012 at 10:45 PM. Reason: I stated wrong year.
04-12-2012, 04:12 AM
#33
Member
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Year: 1990
Model: Cherokee (XJ)
Engine: 4.0 XJ
I don't think flat rear leaf springs came stock on the new production Jeep Cherokees.
Leaf springs are not efficient when they are flat. They are supposed to have an arch to them for load handling and ride.
If you look at the brochure photos of the 1991 and 1997 you will see the 1991 has about the same rear wheel arch gap as the front. In the 1997 photo you will see that the rear arch gap is bigger than the front which means the newer models had more of a rake than the older models. And I have noticed that most of the newer models sag less than the older ones. My 91 was sagging really bad and it only has 180k on it. Some of the 250k newer 97+ models I have seen driving around and at the Jyard are noticeably less sagged in the back than mine was. And even with my sagged rear leafs, they were not completely flat. They had a slight arch to them. The bushing eyes were higher than the middle of the leaf springs.
Leaf springs are not efficient when they are flat. They are supposed to have an arch to them for load handling and ride.
If you look at the brochure photos of the 1991 and 1997 you will see the 1991 has about the same rear wheel arch gap as the front. In the 1997 photo you will see that the rear arch gap is bigger than the front which means the newer models had more of a rake than the older models. And I have noticed that most of the newer models sag less than the older ones. My 91 was sagging really bad and it only has 180k on it. Some of the 250k newer 97+ models I have seen driving around and at the Jyard are noticeably less sagged in the back than mine was. And even with my sagged rear leafs, they were not completely flat. They had a slight arch to them. The bushing eyes were higher than the middle of the leaf springs.
Last edited by Modrod; 04-12-2012 at 04:30 AM.
03-20-2013, 03:00 PM
#34
Junior Member
@Cheroklee Laredo: Will those alloy rims on your 1999 fit my 94 Cherokee?
I'm looking to replace the rusted steel rims.
Thanks, BMH
I'm looking to replace the rusted steel rims.
Thanks, BMH
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)