Theory - Why some 4 door 2.7 and Sasquatch builds may get delayed to MY22 (and it’s not entirely due to high demand)

[mds5917]

"A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do" That said, I want to keep him focused on getting those Badlands optional wheels on an OBX...though I will say that this GVWR issue does deserve attention if I am going to have to watch how much I eat at Thanksgiving before getting back in the car...

Sponsored

 

[Opossum]

I was skeptical but the part about the First Edition 4dr won me over. The only trim that is not allowed to have towing is the only trim that they said will all be MY21. We'll see how it all pans out, but at least your theory is a very logical one. Good job.

 

[Lab00Rat]

I was skeptical but the part about the First Edition 4dr won me over. The only trim that is not allowed to have towing is the only trim that they said will all be MY21. We'll see how it all pans out, but at least your theory is a very logical one. Good job.

I just added the tow package to the FE 2-Door in the B&P...
but it was NOT available for the 4-door.


I think we have a winner.

 

[Compta38]

The potential for delay is there because of presumptive high demand of the 2.7 and Sasquatch. The 2 door model will also have potential delays and we all know that it meets GVWR easily. Keep in mind that the 2.7 is sold in the highest selling truck in the world as well as Bronco.

 

[jaruss01]

Spent a few minutes messing around with B&P, it looks like there are more protections in place, which is good, and hopefully will help avoid potential delays. I wonder if this slightly changes during the next B&P revision, such as the removal of towing on Tier 1, similar to FE.

But I think I am on the right path here. The armored BD/BL trims have more lockouts (this is on the 4 dr)

Tier 1 (near max curb weight issued by Ford)
2.7L BL sas (rack, headliner locked out) ~5,300 lbs
2.7L BD sas (rack, headliner locked out) ~5,300 lbs
2.7L BL non sas (rack, headliner locked out) ~5,200 lbs

Tier 2 (Tier 1 less ~200 of steel parts / add 2.3 BL sas to the list at 150 lbs less given the engine)
2.7L Wildtrak/OBX/BB w sas (only rack locked out, but headliner) ~5,100 lbs
2.3L BL sas (only rack locked out, but headliner does go through) ~5,050 lbs
2.3 BD sas, same as above

What we know from two payload stickers (this is for the 2 door), a 2 dr BL 2.7 sas allows for rack and headliner, and has a payload sticker of 816. A 2 dr FE doesnt even offer a rack, but does have a headliner, and that has a payload sticker of 765. The GVWR on the 2 dr is around 5900-5950, given max curb weights from Ford. So for whatever reason it is also capped around there on the 4 door, then the Tier 1 4 doors would have a 600-650 payload, the the rack and headliner are locked out. And the Tier 2 4 dr would have 800-850 payload, yes on headliner, no on rack.

So it seems like I probably corralled the problem children accurately.

 

[jaruss01]

Leaving this here.

...so real question

Have we seen a 4 door BL or BD Sasquatch yet at MAP?

 

[Mattwings]

Thats okay i worry about the price of lumber and ammo.

Me too, I was thinking about reloading supplies as I laid awake last night and which Bronco to older.?

 

[shoelessjoe]

It is not a weight issue, it is a Sasquatch issue.

 

[Catmandu]

Leaving this here.

...so real question

Have we seen a 4 door BL or BD Sasquatch yet at MAP?

Funny in ready through this yesterday, I started looking for pics of SASed BL/BD....I was specifically looking for ones with hard tops.....no joy. I did find at least on BL with a soft top.

 

[Catmandu]

It is not a weight issue, it is a Sasquatch issue.

I am starting to think otherwise. It may also be the reason why the Overlander concept was not SASed.

 

[jaruss01]

...and about 90% of the 4 door sasquatches we've seen are Wildtrak or OBX (the trims with the least lock outs, and likely lowest weight since no steel parts). And guess what? We've seen plenty of 2 door BL 2.7L sasquatches. And we've also seen plenty of 2 door OBX and Wildtrak sasquatches WITH steel bumpers, but not so much on the 4 door. The 2 doors have more payload cushion because of the GVWR cap....Although, we will not fully know when we see the 4 door if it's the 2.3 or 2.7L.

Hopefully I am helping heed caution with this information...or instilling fear...one or the other. lol.

 

[jaruss01]

Personally, I am indifferent. I am 50/50 going with an OBX sas (with no steel parts added). With a Day 1 reservation and a lease that's expiring in August, I have little concerns of delays on my OBX (at least specific to Fords 'sasquatch' warning). I really do feel that they made that statement to protect themselves on the heavier trims. There are OBX and Wildtrak 4 door sasquatches scattered around MAP. I dont think this is any different a few months ago when we kept saying, where are the mod tops, where are the mod tops? Then Ford eventually had to say, yeahhh, so about those mod tops...Whether I am right or wrong, I feel safer ordering something that is visibly being produced.

 

[Mainerunr]

Seriously though, you are fixated on this weight thing. There is no 'fix' needed. There is no way to get to the bottom and solve the GVWR problem because there is no GVWR/cargo capacity problem. The problem that you have is that the carrying capacity is unsuitable for YOUR needs. Not that the vehicle is unsuitable for its designed purpose.

Not designed as a cargo hauler, but as a specialized tool to G.O.A.T. Not to G.O.A.T with family and two weeks of off the grid food, water, and gear. Just because it doesn't do what you want doesn't mean it is broken.

A payload of potentially 700lb for a 5 passenger vehicle IS a problem whether you want to admit it or not. It isn't about cargo. Heck when a family of 4 can't even take a road trip (or go to the beach for the day) in it without technically being overweight, they screwed up.

Family of 4, day 4-wheeling trip with recovery gear and you're over weight to/from the trail so that you can G.O.A.T. yep, problem.

Just because it works for you doesn't mean it isn't a problem. Take out the back seat from the factory, problem solved, now it's a 2 passenger vehicle and it's fine. But as a 5 passenger vehicle, it just isn't.

So your middle of the night theory (A) is that Ford will choose to delay a percentage of similar builds so that they can surprise random customers who (and knew the payload numbers when they ordered) they forced to wait, with higher carrying capacity that the purchase obviously wasn't concerned enough to stop them at order time? All vehicle customers love to be forced to wait another model year to get a slightly improved payload number! No downside there.


I like my conspiracy theory better, I just made it up in my head right now; (B)Ford underestimated what they could charge the people who wanted Sasquatch and the 2.7. They felt that raising prices on those options now would be a public relations nightmare, so they decided to delay profits by delaying production until next model year so they could raise the price for those two options and hiding the increase in a base price increase across the board. Thus getting more money at a later time.

Or, (C) they want to churn out trucks now, strike while the iron is hot and their suppliers cannot handle the short term demand for expensive options that nobody planned on being so popular in an atmosphere of unpredictable legal, governmental, and medical uncertainty?

Tough choice.... I think I'm going with that supplier thing though. (C) for me.

See, here's the thing, nobody does actually know the payloads. Those of us here have some idea thanks to jaruss' work but most people don't. It hasn't been published (now, the flipside to that is that most people are also blissfully ignorant and will never even consider what the number on that sticker actually means).

That said, I think you both may be right. I think there is a supplier issue and to overcome that they are pushing back certain models that they know they need to make improvements to...otherwise, it would simply be first come first served.

 

[Evolkidbell]

Or, (C) they want to churn out trucks now, strike while the iron is hot and their suppliers cannot handle the short term demand for expensive options that nobody planned on being so popular in an atmosphere of unpredictable legal, governmental, and medical uncertainty?

I agree with C. Supply should have been forecasted over a year ago. Throw a request to increase quantities in the middle of planned production and in the middle of a pandemic is a mess. I would guess that the current agreed quantities from suppliers was already going to be tough to meet.
Most companies have severely downsized in the last year due to less demand on products.

 

[MasonPaul]

I am starting to think otherwise. It may also be the reason why the Overlander concept was not SASed.

The overlander concept had 35's NIttos.

Sponsored