- First Name
- Kenneth
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2020
- Threads
- 2
- Messages
- 739
- Reaction score
- 2,501
- Location
- Anaheim, CA
- Vehicle(s)
- Tacoma
- Your Bronco Model
- Badlands
Don't tell me what to do woman...Do NOT google "docking"
30 seconds later...
Sponsored
Don't tell me what to do woman...Do NOT google "docking"
Did either of the Bronco's you drove have the side steps? If so were they low enough for her to help?Great picture!! Thanks for sharing!
My wife is worried about the step in height of our Badlands. She is 5-4 and hates “climbing into” F150 on 34’s and is worried having the same issue with the Bronco (it is gonna be her daily). We have driven a Sasquatch Big Bend and sat in a Wildtrack...both were cumbersome for her to get into. I was worried a non-sas Badlands would still be too tall, but this really shows the difference!
Did either of the Bronco's you drove have the side steps? If so were they low enough for her to help?
Doesn't make sense though if the one is on 35" tires. Looking at the gap between the brake light and tire, I think Sas has a completely different mount which lowers the whole mount and gives more room between tire and brake light.
The CG, non-sasquatch, has no spacer to push the spare tire rearwards.The camera should be a little over an inch higher. +1 from the tires and +the extra lift from Sasquatch.
I'm in the same boat. The 35's look great, but I have 33's and locked f&r in my current trail XJ and it easily goes anywhere I want to go with it. I don't want dents or scratches in it so don't go for the real hardcore trails in it, just like I'll do with the Bronco. One option for tires is to go with actual 33x12.50 tires, which are close to the same width as the 35's (315/70) which should look better. It's a perspective thing, the 33x12.50/15 tires on my XJ look big, the 285/70/17's on the Bronco don't look big at all.35” are beefier, which is clear from the specs. I’m still going with 33” because it think it will be better for daily driving while still being more that sufficient off-road.
HOWEVER, the #1 factor in my decision is that I can easily upgrade to 35s. OEM rubber tends to wear out quickly and upgrading to 35s would be easy at that first replacement. By contrast, can’t upgrade to the 2.7L or 12” screen. So that’s where I’m spending my money.
even with that said, I’d spend the money if I knew the 33s would disappoint. Right now, I expect to be very happy with the blend of performance and driveability, slightly bummed at the reduction in looks.
That's all fine and well, but the fact is that the entire body, including the camera, has to be over an inch higher on Sasquatch, if the camera is mounted in the same place on every trim.The CG, non-sasquatch, has no spacer to push the spare tire rearwards.
The CO, has a spacer, shown with the green arrow, to push the larger 35" Sasquatch spare rearwards.
The blue diagonal lines show both spare tire mounts bolted to the same location on the tailgate.
The red arrows show the cutouts in the bumper that allow the 35" Sasquatch tire radius to sit lower, while still maintaining the same wheel centerbore mounting point.
Sasquatch uses a taller brake light riser bracket part number to clear the 35" tire radius.
Must be to try and maintain rear visibility.Nice catch! Yea, that does not make sense unless on the squatch they lower they tire mount for CoG?
That's all fine and well, but the fact is that the entire body, including the camera, has to be over an inch higher on Sasquatch, if the camera is mounted in the same place on every trim.
So what's missing here? Something isn't adding up.Yep. If they are both level, parked back to back, the squatch is taller and the camera should be taller as well.
I ordered the same part. Is being installed Tuesday. Will see how it works out.I ordered and just received 4WP's 3rd brake light bracket that raises it up a couple inches. Was only $49.
The only other thing I can think of is the tires on the SAS are aired down to make the picture lookSo what's missing here? Something isn't adding up.
Maybe. It sure looks like the entire body is higher but maybe that's an illusion.The only other thing I can think of is the tires on the SAS are aired down to make the picture look
cool with the cameras lining up and giving us all a crazy mind game.
My wife is 5-4 and complains too. I bolted a Go Rhino step onto my Jeep slider and she’s happy now. (The step can be removed for the trail.)Great picture!! Thanks for sharing!
My wife is worried about the step in height of our Badlands. She is 5-4 and hates “climbing into” F150 on 34’s and is worried having the same issue with the Bronco (it is gonna be her daily). We have driven a Sasquatch Big Bend and sat in a Wildtrack...both were cumbersome for her to get into. I was worried a non-sas Badlands would still be too tall, but this really shows the difference!
Alleged to be two Badlands backed up against each other and kissing cameras. Thought it was a great visual.
Source: Facebook
I actually took this picture at Irwin Automotive Group in Laconia, NH this past weekend. I realize that I took this picture at a really bad angle. Sorry! :-( With this angle it appears the rear cameras are at the same height. I can assure you, they're not. I wish I had backed up a bit and lowered the camera perspective to show both tires in full. It would have really helped. I can confirm that both were Badlands and one has Sas. These Broncos are on hold for an Off-Roadeo event that is expected to take place in the area.