Great Lakes 4x4. The largest offroad forum in the Midwest - View Single Post - XJ Rocker panel decision...
View Single Post
Old July 13th, 2011, 04:38 PM   #6
Senior Member
Paintballpsyco236's Avatar
Join Date: 09-20-09
Location: Memphis/ Michigan
Posts: 1,606
iTrader: (26)
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Send a message via AIM to Paintballpsyco236 Send a message via MSN to Paintballpsyco236 Send a message via Yahoo to Paintballpsyco236

Originally Posted by RDK_YJ88 View Post
These are something that are welded in and not very easy to replace. I'd go with 3/16 and I don't think you will even notice the weight difference.
I am thinking of just doing that. I had posted this on a couple other forums I am on and I got a number of very good reasons to just use the 3/16 tube I have, Also though, I thought they weighed more, they really don't weigh quite as much as I had thought lol.

Originally Posted by ScOoTeR View Post
I had 3/16" rock rails ( and they stood up to repeated abuse of having the full weight of the vehicle (on the related side) crash down on rocks. The result? Paint damage to the rockers and *zero* deflection of the rail at the impact area.

IMHO, 0.120 wall sounds fine for what you want to do. Think if it this way - if you ever find you need more beef down the road, you can plate the exterior of your rails with 1/4" stock that is easily available in 2" and 6" widths.
I like the idea of being able to plate them later (might do that with some other mounting points later on) but I think I may just stick with using the tube I have for now. The general consensus seems to be to use what I have. It will save me some time and money too so I think I will go that route for now...

Originally Posted by curbdog17 View Post
I think if you are worried about gas mileage you should get rid of your jeep and buy a prius.
All I will say to this is F Prisus's, F Toyota and F ALL FOREIGN CARS!!!! I will say nothing more as I don't want to turn this reply into a rather long rant...

Paintballpsyco236 is offline   Reply With Quote
Page generated in 0.41245 seconds with 22 queries