What?! No tire chains?!!!?? [Archive] - JKowners.com : Jeep Wrangler JK Forum

: What?! No tire chains?!!!??


toadontheroad
12-07-2007, 11:19 PM
What the deal with the "no chains" clause in the manual? Wouldn't one with a 4x4 be prone to drive in snowy conditions eventually? Wouldn't icy or slippery conditions that prevent any rubber from having traction (yes, even the mighty JK) eventually be encountered? Do they actually think that since I have a Rubicon, I'll just wait for the snowy season to end?

It doesn't say anything about cables. What ARE they trying to say? :bawling:

gcg
12-08-2007, 09:46 AM
I think the issue is that the chains may chew up the flares or interfere with other stuff when the axle goes into compression.

toadontheroad
12-10-2007, 08:32 AM
Isn't that true with just about ANY OEM application chains would be used on? I went ahead and bought some low profile chains anyway. These have a cable on the inside that draws the chain in toward the tire and then you mega tighten the chain on the outside. I'm going to buy some extra tensioners.

I put the on and they are close to the drag link, shock mounts and the brake line assembly. But if I keep them tight and avoid spinning the tires... should be fine. :shaking:

gcg
12-10-2007, 03:14 PM
Isn't that true with just about ANY OEM application chains would be used on? I went ahead and bout sone low profile chains anyway. These have a cable on the inside that draws the chain in toward the tire and then you mega tighten the chain on the outside. I'm going to buy some extra tensioners.

I put the on and they are close to the drag link, shock mounts and the brake line assembly. But if I keep them tight and avoid spinning the tires... should be fine. :shaking:
The Rubicons have 32" tires and the other models have smaller tires, which makes the interference problem worse on the Rubicons. I think this is why they make a specific warning for them and not the other models. It does seem sort of strange, though, doesn't it.

1TallJKer
12-11-2007, 08:22 PM
Its especially strange considering that in some areas, if you're not running 'snow' tires, the law requires you to use chains, regardless of whether or not you have 4WD

igofshn
12-12-2007, 05:50 AM
If you look at the tread of any all terrain tire, it wil say M+S, that means mud and snow and constitutes a snow tire in most places.

gcg
12-12-2007, 09:19 AM
My understanding of the California law is that you are required to "carry" chains. Generally if there is active chain control they will flag a 4 wheel drive vehicle through. But, they can check to see if you are carrying chains. If not, they may prevent you from proceeding.

Coming over I80 during a bad storm about a year ago we talked with a guy in a 4 wheel drive pickup. He said that they had stopped him, asked him if he had chains. He didn't and had to buy some and "carry" them before he could proceed.

I guess there is some logic to this. The enforcement of all the chain laws is extremely spotty, though. We just carry a set of cables to satisfy the law though I doubt they would really add much traction on a set of MT tires.

toadontheroad
12-12-2007, 12:05 PM
That is indeed true. In CA if there are chain requirements you must have chains in your possession regardless of your vehicle capabilities.

I bought my Excursion in 2000, lifted it 6" and put 36" Xterrains on. I've blasted through 6" of fresh snow on HWY 26 in Oregon at 50 MPH. I've been through everything from 4" of leftover plow crumble to 3' of fresh powder and I NEVER had to put on chains. CHP even let me thru on HWY 50 Dec 23, 2005, when it was actually closed because he said the setup on the truck was perfect for it. In every instance (except Oregon) they asked me if I had chains in my possession before I was allowed thru.

At least if they ask with the Toad, I'll have them :grinpimp:

Jrgunn5150
12-23-2007, 09:17 AM
That's funny, I never noticed it. A major complaint about the Mustang is that it sit's high like a 4x4, we do that because it has to be capable of wearing tire chains...