Bucking the Sasquatch Fever

[BigLig]

Like the jeans of an 80’s hair band fan, I’m torn.
I go back and forth on 3 possibilities:

Badlands w/Sasquatch
Badlands w/o Sasquatch
Wildtrak

The WT is set up for how I want to use the Bronco...but I want the 2.7 and 7M. Can’t have it... so do I go BL, no Squatch?

I want the 35s, but can’t get it with manual.

I want the washout inter of the Badlands.

So it seems the answer is easy, go BL/nonSquatch right?

Nope. Seeing all the discussion on the WT, I’m curious if it’s more like a Baja truck with longer travel suspension. Might explain the “odd” differences between the 2....

So, I’m waiting for the B/P tool and some more hands on experience (mostly all of you to get yours). I have time anyway, I’m about 2 yrs from another vehicle. Unless something happens to my F150 (hope not).

Sponsored

 

[chipbutty]

More on the tire discussion...
Pulled this from another thread, but though it would add to this discussion.

Why does he keep saying “bigger footprint, more traction”?

 

[Lab00Rat]

Why does he keep saying “bigger footprint, more traction”?

Less psi with the bigger footprint, but more grip area?

Adhesion coefficient is higher in larger tires and increased when reducing tire pressure.

 

[chipbutty]

Less psi with the bigger footprint, but more grip area?

Adhesion coefficient is higher in larger tires and increased when reducing tire pressure.

Large footprint doesn’t equal more traction. I could see how lowering psi allows more deformation and grab.

 

[Lab00Rat]

Large footprint doesn’t equal more traction. I could see how lowering psi allows more deformation and grab.

larger footprint increases the coefficient of adhesion.
https://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/tire_traction_force_14721.htm

 

[chipbutty]

larger footprint increases the coefficient of adhesion.
https://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/tire_traction_force_14721.htm

Traction is a function of coeff of friction and vehicle weight so yeah bigger tires slightly more weight but saying bigger tire, more contact, more traction is incorrect isn’t it? Airing down just allows deformation and larger area gives any part of the tire a greater chance of making contact with the ground to transfer available traction. Adhesion would be based on the tire compound not contact patch.

 

[Lab00Rat]

Traction is a function of coeff of friction and vehicle weight so yeah bigger tires slightly more weight but saying bigger tire, more contact, more traction is incorrect isn’t it? Airing down just allows deformation and larger area gives any part of the tire a greater chance of making contact with the ground to transfer available traction. Adhesion would be based on the tire compound not contact patch.

It's based on the tire grip contact geometry and area. More grip nodules from the tire tread making contact, more coefficient of adhesion.

 

[Parker]

Fairly certain your 17 inch steel wheel choice will weigh more than the 17 inch aluminum wheel from the Squatch package...

It takes a lot of material to allow tapping for bolts - a lot of material on the outside only. If you look at race vehicles they have a full circle of bolts, not just pairs at the spokes like Bronco and current Raptor. Most also have two bead channels on outside (I have never seen Ford rim without tire)- lots of material on one side. Check out Ford Performance for price of bead lock rings for the old Raptors that actually had the full pattern of bolts ($200 each on close-out sale). Proper bead lock wheels have no SAE or DOT approvals, no one who is going to use bead lock wheels would bother jumping through Ford Corporate hoops, they will just get race wheels. If you get in a lawer-involved acident on road with Ford wheels upgraded to true bead lock (think hours in a machine shop) you will still be way behind the eight ball.
Steel doesn't need to be as thick, and can be beaten back in shape with a hammer on the trail (heat helps, but banging on it heats it up). Steel is just a contrary look for me, but the weight is very even - I think NASCAR still uses steel.

 

[SkullsWalk]

Can someone tell me about the final drive? Total noob here and I thought in order to put bigger tires on the truck you'd need the 4.7 final drive. So if I go with the badlands stock and decide I want to lift and add bigger tires down the road will I have to mess with the transmission anyways? Would it just be dumb to get the sasquach package and a set of 33s to use the majority of the time and when it comes time to go overlanding and such to switch to the 35s?

 

[DonsBronc]

larger footprint increases the coefficient of adhesion.
https://www.engineersedge.com/calculators/tire_traction_force_14721.htm

Also takes more power to overcome the extra weight, drag, and friction

 

[Lab00Rat]

I found this very helpful towards practicality of smaller tires.

[media]

 

[sjp]

These videos REALLY make me wish Ford would make 33" all-terrain tires standard (or at least an option) with the Sasquatch package. Braking, maneuverability, mileage...and you'd still get a good look and plenty of function for most off-roading. I am not going to be crawling over rocks.

 

[edgeflyer]

Go ahead and give it a try, there are several assumptions you have to make. If you measure from the outer edge of the wheels you have to estimate the inset to the bead seat. Or, if you measure from the bead seat, you have to guess where the mold/milled seam lines up with it. Last, the difference is only .190 between the two bolt patterns so it is very prone to errors.

So, in all seriousness, backspacing is not so realistic to get off of a mule found in the wild, but if someone sees one and has a tape (and knows how measure a lug pattern), they could easily get it for us. Those ponies still at the Michigan plant?

 

[indio22]

These videos REALLY make me wish Ford would make 33" all-terrain tires standard (or at least an option) with the Sasquatch package. Braking, maneuverability, mileage...and you'd still get a good look and plenty of function for most off-roading. I am not going to be crawling over rocks.

And even rock crawling you might not need/want 35s. I used to live in your neck of the woods - farther north Fort Collins area. Did most of my off-roading in the Rockies and Moab with 31" tires. Sometimes you don't even want to be high up, on a side hill or with risk of tipping over. 35"s give some additional clearance, but you pay some penalties as well.

Personally, I'm looking at 33"s for the Bronco - at least for the 2 door model. I will have to see the vehicle in person though. In the strictly looks department, an inch or two up/down can make a big difference in how the tires look in terms of the vehicle and wheel wells. I had 31's on my short wheelbase CJ5, but people were often asking if the tires were 33s. Because I had the height setup nicely to match the tire diameter. If instead I had the vehicle raised up another inch or two, then those 31s would have appeared a tad small.

 

[TommyTwoTone]

These videos REALLY make me wish Ford would make 33" all-terrain tires standard (or at least an option) with the Sasquatch package. Braking, maneuverability, mileage...and you'd still get a good look and plenty of function for most off-roading. I am not going to be crawling over rocks.

Just get a Badlands. 33 is standard and you get 90% of what Sasquatch offers in other trims. You won't miss the difference in gearing and ground clearance.

Sponsored