Hmmm....

I just realized that I have a trifecta of trouble in front yard.

1. 1990 Jeep YJ 4cyl, Stock except for 3/4" shackle lift.  31" mud tire.
2.  1990 Geo Tracker, Stock except for 2" body lift.  31" mud tire.
3.  1987 Suzuki Samurai, Stock except for carb, and OME springs.  (Stockish tires but I think that I could throw the Tracker's 31's on it.)

Should I do a comparison?  How to do it....?  Oh.  I live in SE AZ so it'll have to be a desert test in my area.

I'm not certain about the jeep, but I'd say the other two are far from stock at this point.

They might not be in your mind, but, going from a 27" tire to a 31 is about a 15% difference in tire size, and without an adjustment in gearing to compensate , the Suzukis are probably going to be at a disadvantage - what sort of comparison would that be?

apples to apples?

The jeep factory tire size is a 215/75-15.  It's less than an inch taller.

No sweat.  If the interest isn't there then there's no reason for me to record or post.  Makes it easier for me.

215/75R15 is 27.7" - you're starting with a larger tire, so less of an impact on the gearing increase there.

I would love to see a stock/stock/stock comparison, especially since I think the primary advantage to owning a Jeep is it's popularity - you can buy pretty much anything you want "off the shelf".

I would also love to see an 'apples to apples' comparison - because I also think that a Suzuki is as capable as a comparably equipped Jeep - even though, for the reasons stated above it will probably cost you more to get your Suzuki to the same level - but - the only thing that is comparable in your trifecta is the tire size.

Now I know from experience that those Suzukis just don't have the torque to turn 33s unless the gearing has been addressed, but I have no clue what engine is in that Jeep, except that it's going to be larger and have more torque - so the 'apples to apples' modifications have stacked the odds in favor of the Jeep.

I would have to agree with Fordem.  Once you change from factory stock the only thing comparable is their badges. 

My Rubicon has 32" Toyo Open Countrys on it and my Tracker has 30" Coopers on it. 

The factory tires on the Rubicon were 31s with 4.10 gearing.  The factory tires on my Tracker were 205s but I increased my axle gearing from 4.62 to 4.88. 

The Rubicon has an LS rear diff and my Tracker has a Lock Right.  The Rubicon has a front locker and can also lock all four wheels in low gear.  The Rubicon has about a 4:1 low range transfer case.  My Tracker's transfer case isn't modified except for the increase from my diff gears.

The Rubicon has around 197 HP and weighs around #4,000, the Tracker has around 125 HP and weighs around #3,000.

The one thing my Rubicon has over my Tracker is ground clearance.  Lots more of it.  I'd be hard pressed to obtain that much clearance under my Tracker.

Out on the road, my Tracker has better acceleration, believe it or not.  I can pass vehicles easier in the Tracker.  Pulling similar loads on my trailer, again, I think my Tracker pulls the similar load easier.  The pulling ability I am comparing is driving in very steep, hilly road terrain.  This may simply be the difference in the increased diff gearing on my Tracker.  The Rubicon diff gearing hasn't been increased and remains stock.

My favorite truck to just hop in and go?  Oddly enough... it is still my Tracker.  If my engine on my Tracker blew tomorrow, I'd be buying a new engine for it, even with 205K miles on it.

I can't and won't put down either vehicle.  They are both great trucks.  Each has its strength and weakness.  They are both classics in their own right.
 

mprecon, I think that three of us are saying same principles, different words.  The only jeep I have driven was a rental this spring in Hawaii, and I didn't have much of a place to test it.  But I would have put a stock Tracker up against it most any place, except ground clearance.  My Tracker has many modifications, and will take me to the end of almost any road and turn around.  Will it beat a similar built jeep?  Possibly.
Look at the best built rigs out on the trails.  What most makes have in common is their Badges, or hoods & grills (modified)  Jeep,s Yotas, or Zuks.

mprecon, I think that three of us are saying same principles, different words.  The only jeep I have driven was a rental this spring in Hawaii, and I didn't have much of a place to test it.  But I would have put a stock Tracker up against it most any place, except ground clearance.  My Tracker has many modifications, and will take me to the end of almost any road and turn around.  Will it beat a similar built jeep?  Possibly.
Look at the best built rigs out on the trails.  What most makes have in common is their Badges, or hoods & grills (modified)  Jeep,s Yotas, or Zuks.

Agreed. 

Oh... and the Trackers/Kicks (Sammys) are a wee bit narrower too which allows them to fit between trees/obstacles that larger vehicles can't.  O.K.  That's it.  That's all the variables I can think of.

OK, I probably won't do the video.  For the record though IMHO the Suzuki/GEO are more off road capable with the 31's and the Tracker also does have more acceleration and better handling on the road than either the Samurai or Jeep (2.5 4 cyl).  It also gets better than half again the MPG of the Jeep even with the 31's.  Any loss of articulation by the Tracker isn't really a game changer as neither of the other two can articulate and put power on the ground anyway without aftermarket parts (lockers, LSD).

The goofy mall crawlin' Jeep people don't always wave at me in the Tracker either.

Have a good day.


back to lurking and reading

Thanks for the update - the Samurai's lack of acceleration doesn't exactly surprise me, but I did expect the Jeep to be better than you make it sound, at least in the acceleration & articulation departments.

Thanks for the update - the Samurai's lack of acceleration doesn't exactly surprise me, but I did expect the Jeep to be better than you make it sound, at least in the acceleration & articulation departments.

The old YJ 4 cylinders are anemic to the extreme and are an aerodynamic brick.  The articulation problem is more in the open differentials.  If it can't keep both tires of at least one axle down your pretty screwed even on what I would consider moderate terrain (eroded desert mountain roads especially).  While technically it has about 1/2 again the horsepower of the Tracker, it also weighs 1/2 again as much, is wider, and "feels" less stable.

Don't get me wrong, I like my YJ but I'll like it much more as I modify it.  So far I've started switching over to a CJ dash, got a locker to put in the front, and a few other light mods.  When I kill the 4 cyl though it's swap time.

When I go to town or for a light mountain run with the family I'm using the Tracker though.  It just does a better job with fewer mods.

The goofy mall crawlin' Jeep people don't always wave at me in the Tracker either.

LMAO!!!  Same here!  When I'm in my Wrangler everybody that passes me in their Wrangler gives the "Jeep wave" out on the road.  If I'm not driving the  Wrangler... I just don't rate the customary  "Jeep wave."  I laugh about that all the time. 

The articulation problem is more in the open differentials.  If it can't keep both tires of at least one axle down your pretty screwed even on what I would consider moderate terrain (eroded desert mountain roads especially).

Maybe we have different concepts of articulation - but in my mind, if you had better articulation, you would have both tires of the same axle down more often, making traction enhancement devices, such as lockers, less necessary.

One of the, at least theoretical, advantages of a live axled vehicle, such as a YJ or a Samurai, over an IFS vehicle, such as a Tracker, is that when one wheel on an axle lifts, if supposedly forces the wheel on the opposite end of that axle down, theoretically improving traction...

Quote from: eodjeep2000 on April 16, 2016, 03:07:32 PM

The articulation problem is more in the open differentials.  If it can't keep both tires of at least one axle down your pretty screwed even on what I would consider moderate terrain (eroded desert mountain roads especially).

Maybe we have different concepts of articulation - but in my mind, if you had better articulation, you would have both tires of the same axle down more often, making traction enhancement devices, such as lockers, less necessary.

One of the, at least theoretical, advantages of a live axled vehicle, such as a YJ or a Samurai, over an IFS vehicle, such as a Tracker, is that when one wheel on an axle lifts, if supposedly forces the wheel on the opposite end of that axle down, theoretically improving traction...

The problem is that it only works if you have a locker to use the planted power.  A low pressure wheel or a wheel in the air on any open diff axle is screwedsville for that axle.

The stock leaf sprung vehicles may droop a LITTLE more than the IFS but for whatever reason if I take the ones I have up the same track on the same trail using the same tires I have more problems keeping traction and climbing in both the Jeep and Samurai than the Tracker.  Don't really know why exactly.  Maybe the Tracker rear coil set-up flexes more and offsets any losses with the IFS?

Now once I install the locker in the front end of my jeep that'll change.  Hell, if the Tracker didn't have an aluminum diff I'd put one in the front of it as well.  (the front so that I can keep their road manners)