Damn 35s are big

[stampede1]

the guy who does mine never complains....?‍

How often and what price do they require rotation?

Sponsored

 

[Googz13]

The 2021 bronco without the Sasquatch package looks like a body builder who skipped leg day. It just looks ugly and the wheel options for all the trim packages look ugly. Also the resale value for a bronco without the Sasquatch package will probably be very limited. Ford knows what they are doing and made the Sasquatch package a must. If I see a bronco without the Sasquatch package I will probably think it’s a soccer mom taking her kids to school. It is what it is. I know people want to get the best price but the Sasquatch package is a must even if you intend on swapping out the wheels. If you talk yourself out of the Sasquatch package you’ll regret it when you drive your little foot bronco next to a big foot bronco. I’m sure most people would rather buy a used bronco with a Sasquatch package over one that got aftermarket suspension and wheels.

Agreed with the resale point,except for the BL. Add the OJ white and a non Sasquatched Bronco becomes a difficult sell in the future.

 

[Zero_chance]

A bunch of people are going to be surprised and possibly not happy with 35"s. I have them on my F-150 and they do require a certain commitment.

Edit: By commitment I mean committed to lower fuel mileage, lower perceived power, increased braking distance and increased road noise.

No, I’m sure people will get them because “bigger must be better” and “they look cool” and will then inundate the service department because “they’re noisy, something must be wrong.” Then they’ll be back on here posting about how much they hate their Bronco and it must somehow be Ford’s fault.

 

[Cheshire]

Do you mean Warthog? The Wilktrak and a Sasquatch have the same lift, suspension, travel brakes.

Yes, I meant Warthog, thx!

 

[Weister]

I just can’t bring myself to put the SAS on a 2 door Badlands from the factory. I don’t like the Goodyear tires nor the SAS wheels. From what I’ve read, there is almost no difference in the Badlands suspension being on 33’s or the 35” SAS tires from the factory. I think the Badlands is one of 3 models like this and the Wildtrack and First Edition come with 35’s standard. I have probably had 6 or 7 sets of Goodyear tires in the past, and have had poor results. The Duratracs were okay, but “wondered” a lot on my F150. I’ll just do the 33” BFG KO2 from the factory and upgrade tires and wheels after I get it home and do some serious measuring for aftermarket tires and wheels. Maybe even a small lift if I do go with 35’s. I’ll order with the 4.7 gears, and see how they perform with the 2.7 and 10 speed before changing tire size. Vehicle manufacturers are notorious for under-gearing to meet strict fuel mileage requirements. I think 33’s with the 2.7, 10-speed, and 4.7 gears on the Badlands will be extremely capable on and off road.

 

[Gamecock]

Disagree. I'd say Badlands is what Bronco was designed around as it's the middle of Bronco tire sizes. Badlands suspension has greater travel than Sasquatch, which is presumably limited with stops. Everyone overlooks the cool looking big Sas tires don't have adequate articulation. Ford won't even tell us the real numbers because they know the Rubicon beats Sas in that respect!

This is half the reason I'm getting Badlands in 33s. When the Warthog comes out, I'll be interested. That will have suspension, travel, brakes and power one needs for 35s.

“Don’t have adequate articulation”? What the heck are you talking about? It is 10mm less than Badlands in up travel. The 35s will make a MUCH bigger difference off road over 33s than losing 10mm in uptravel.

 

[Cheshire]

My son and I went and looked at the 33 vs 35s on Jeeps today to get an idea. Think we've settled on 33's upgraded M/T with manual Badlands. Just wondering if the 2.3 L will work for towing out Jet Boat. He's learning to drive and really wants us to get a manual.

I'm getting 4Dr Badlands on 33s. I think they'll be perfect. I'm getting the 2.7L, but keep thinking I may give it to my 5 y.o. daughter some day and I want her to have the stick shift. Problem is I drive be like a maniac on the highway and want the power. You can't go wrong with a manual Badlands on 33s.

 

[Drex]

A whole bunch of people went out and bought .44 Magnum handguns in the early 1970's after seeing Clint Eastwood wave one around. Everyone wanted to say they owned one for bragging rights, you know...manly. After they bought a rather expensive (comparatively) hand gun and went to go shoot it, they found that it sucks to shoot. Felt recoil was very unpleasant and the ammunition was (again, relatively) expensive. The prices cratered and there were ten of them in every pawn shop across the Country for cheap in short order.

I think it might be similar for the SQ package if 20% or more of buyers opt for it. The proof either way will be to see if they turn up in used car lots in higher percentages than are sold. I further suspect that they might show a disproportionately higher percentage loss in trade-in if people decided the look wasn't worth the trade-offs.

 

[BD1]

The 33 vs 35 debate has been one issue that has haunted me since the reveal. I currently am getting a 4 door Badlands but have been tempted to go with the 4 door Sasquatched Black Diamond.

1. 33s are more practical for my lifestyle.
2. 33s are cheaper upfront and will be cheaper in the long run (MPG, cost of tire etc)
3. 35s look amazing on a 4 door from far away. Getting up close to it shows just how big they actually are.
4. My significant other will likely already have a hard time getting in and out of my ride with 33s... 35s in my tight garage might be a bit much
5. I work in construction and I am always pulling things in and out of my ride. The shorter ride height will make this slightly easier..
6. Sasquatch looks badass and you can just tell people... yeah those are 35s.

Yes, just tell them they are 35s.

The white 2dr has 33s and the red 4dr has 35s. If you have not seen a Jeep with 33s or 35s in person, do your self a favor and do it before your order your Bronco.

 

[rghoosier]

SAS or 33" BL.. that is the question of the year. I've been looking for Wranglers with 35"s lately. Still keep going back and forth given it will be my DD with maybe 5% of usage being off road. Here are some examples:

 

[Gamecock]

A whole bunch of people went out and bought .44 Magnum handguns in the early 1970's after seeing Clint Eastwood wave one around. Everyone wanted to say they owned one for bragging rights, you know...manly. After they bought a rather expensive (comparatively) hand gun and went to go shoot it, they found that it sucks to shoot. Felt recoil was very unpleasant and the ammunition was (again, relatively) expensive. The prices cratered and there were ten of them in every pawn shop across the Country for cheap in short order.

I think it might be similar for the SQ package if 20% or more of buyers opt for it. The proof either way will be to see if they turn up in used car lots in higher percentages than are sold. I further suspect that they might show a disproportionately higher percentage loss in trade-in if people decided the look wasn't worth the trade-offs.

Does that happen with Jeeps? Do they lose value when bigger tires are slapped on? There is a dealer near me that buys new Jeep’s, lifts them and slaps 35-37s+ On them and tacks on at least $10k and had people lining up to buy them. Good luck thinking Sasquatch will hurt resale on this vehicle that people buy to look a certain way...that’s fantasy land stuff.

 

[stampede1]

If you go with bigger tires than you need, it will affect on-road performance. It is not only a matter of correcting gearing, the moment of inertia increases with the square of the diameter and proportionally to the mass of the tire. Looking at the weight and diameter of only ‘33’s vs 32’s shows a significant increase, much less ‘35’s. Even geared equivalently the larger tires will cost braking and some combination of acceleration and mileage. As an engineer, with my intended use, 32’s will get me where I want to go, give better performance on-road and outside of highway driving with the same axle ratios, deliver better fuel economy.

If you need or desire to optimize off-road performance the bigger tires will be better, acceleration and braking don’t matter as much there.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moment_of_inertia

That all makes sense. Now, through engineering calculations can it be determined if the losses of desired metrics such as acceleration, braking and mpg can be quantified? That is to say specifically how much do we lose with 35s vs 33s? Either literally or by percentage?

 

[OX1]

Even my car trailer has 31's, LOL!!! (235/80R16 = 30.8 dia)

 

[dnvrBronco]

I’m going out on a line here, but I suspect that for 90 percent of the folks who order sas, it will be the first 35” tire they ever had. I’ll set a reminder to come back to the forum in 18 months after deliveries start to see how their experience was. Threads will likely start with “looks great, but...”

 

[OX1]

I’m going out on a line here, but I suspect that for 90 percent of the folks who order sas, it will be the first 35” tire they ever had. I’ll set a reminder to come back to the forum in 18 months after deliveries start to see how their experience was. Threads will likely start with “looks great, but...”

Hope so, I need some new 35's for my 79..........

Sponsored