Page 2 of 2

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:15 pm
by Damo
greg wrote:
Damo wrote:Once again we see a modification not elegant enough to been seen on MY rig. :D


That's true mate - a pretty car like yours demands those Jeep flares ;)


I'll let that one go through to the keeper...

but any comments about chrome tube bumpers and i'm comin outta tha BOOTH!!! :x

:D :finger:

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 12:39 pm
by robbie
moose wrote:p.s = how did a thread about firewall mods turn to lawn edging ?????? :?


cause its a darn zook thread :finger:

Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2003 10:44 pm
by bigsteve
Sorry Greg Your Tyres are history.

You have no option but to fit the Q78's

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 6:08 am
by redzook
what size do the measure they dont look much bigger then your 32mtr's :?:

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 7:51 am
by bigsteve
I'd say they are at least another 2 inches on the 32's but they dont look like hitting on much stuff ATM.

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 10:35 am
by greg
bigsteve wrote:Sorry Greg Your Tyres are history.

You have no option but to fit the Q78's


Hahaha - i thought you were picking them up saturday morning...

Now you get to go through the hassle of pumping them up whenever you want to drive on them :)

It looks to me like there is ample room in your wheel well for another few inches of rubber too big steve - perhaps a Q78 sized piece of rubber even :)

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 11:20 am
by N*A*M
so your beadlocks leak too eh?

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 11:36 am
by greg
N*A*M wrote:so your beadlocks leak too eh?


Just around the bead - one day i'll chase it down and fit it :)

There's also some mud in one of the valve stems that makes it leak too i think...

The car normally only gets driven to and from trips so i don't mind pumping up the tyres before every outing, then pumping them up again when the day is finished to get back home again...

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 11:37 am
by greg
redzook wrote:what size do the measure they dont look much bigger then your 32mtr's :?:


The 34" swampers are smaller than a 32" Centipede... and i think they are also smaller than a 33" Mongrel too :cry: :oops: :cry:

Posted: Thu Sep 18, 2003 11:15 pm
by moose
wats really scary is
my very , very worn 33 swampers are still bigger than a brand new 33 MTR !! :shock: :shock:

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2003 2:59 am
by MaddHatter
Have you guys down under found an inexspensive source for some Jeep Bushwacker Fender Flares? That is basically what I have. They are the Trail Tough pre cut flares. They are GREAT! I run a 33x13.5 Swampers.

If you notice the rear tyre stuffed up in the fender well, this flare works really well. The rims I use are 2" Back spaced rims.

Hope this info helps those of you that are thinking about going Bushwacker style.

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:55 pm
by greg
redzook wrote:what size do the measure they dont look much bigger then your 32mtr's :?:


Side by side the 34 swamper was the complete depth of the tread and a bit taller than the 32 mtr... Approximately 2" taller. :D

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 5:56 pm
by greg
N*A*M wrote:so your beadlocks leak too eh?


Apparently they leeked even more than usual when big steve had them - in fact he popped them off the inside bead twice... I would suggest that it had something to do with the extra mass of the vehicle... you know - with the hard top and all the gear in the back ;)

Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 7:47 pm
by johnboy
[quote="Damo"]Yeah the width is the killer IMO. Bwaaaaahahahaha just ask the girls, thats what makes their eyes water!!!

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 10:38 am
by greg
johnboy wrote:
Damo wrote:Yeah the width is the killer IMO. Bwaaaaahahahaha just ask the girls, thats what makes their eyes water!!!


:?: :?

This is even worse then my lame attempt at a mum joke a few weeks ago. ;)

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 12:19 pm
by robbie
greg wrote:I would suggest that it had something to do with the extra mass of the vehicle... you know - with the hard top and all the gear in the back ;)


not to forget, big steve!

met him once, bloody giant hehe

Posted: Wed Sep 24, 2003 12:20 pm
by greg
robbie wrote:
greg wrote:I would suggest that it had something to do with the extra mass of the vehicle... you know - with the hard top and all the gear in the back ;)


not to forget, big steve!

met him once, bloody giant hehe


Yes Robbie, that's right. Infact, it's exactly what i was insinuating. That's what the little ' ;) ' meant... It was a joke.

' ;) '

:D