Larger Tires vs. More Wheel Uptravel

[JT1]

With the Badlands trim you can remove the part of the bumper near the tires, perhaps that's to accommodate more wheel travel from the 35" Sasquatch package.

The removable bumper ends are to increase your approach angle (think sand dune or rock face) With the IFS on the bronco you won't have as much fore/aft movement of your tire in the wheel well like you would on a jeep 4 link SFA, so getting into the front bumper isn't going to be as big of an issue. When the jeep flexes, though, the tire that is stuffed into the wheel well doesn't travel straight up and down, the top tips in. The bronco won't have that benefit.

Sponsored

 

[hum-vee4us]

The removable bumper ends are to increase your approach angle (think sand dune or rock face) With the IFS on the bronco you won't have as much fore/aft movement of your tire in the wheel well like you would on a jeep 4 link SFA, so getting into the front bumper isn't going to be as big of an issue. When the jeep flexes, though, the tire that is stuffed into the wheel well doesn't travel straight up and down, the top tips in. The bronco won't have that benefit.

Because of design, because it's IFS, or because of the larger 35" tire?
P.S. What makes you so sure that Ford didn't copy Jeep in this sense?

 

[BuckeyeinNV]

Does the 33" tire maybe tuck inside the fender where as the 35s would hit the fender? Thus giving you more than 10mm more up travel with 33s?

I can guarantee you they designed the wheelwells with the intention to offer 35s and there's no way they would make it possible for the tire to hit the fender on turn in. 10mm is 10mm.

 

[JT1]

Because of design, because it's IFS, or because of the larger 35" tire?
P.S. What makes you so sure that Ford didn't copy Jeep in this sense?

Not sure exactly what you are asking here. Are you asking about the IFS vs SFA and the arc the tire moves through as it articulates or are we talking about bumpers?

 

[hum-vee4us]

Not sure exactly what you are asking here. Are you asking about the IFS vs SFA and the arc the tire moves through as it articulates or are we talking about bumpers?

The arc the tires move through as it articulates. Why don't the Bronco tires tuck in like with the Jeep?

 

[Clark]

The arc the tires move through as it articulates. Why don't the Bronco tires tuck in like with the Jeep?

IFS A-arms allow more the tire/wheel to travel up and down and remain more upright. Ball joints

SFAs cause the tire/wheel to travel in an arc, think spinning a pencil with mini donuts on the end in a circle, with the center in a relatively fixed position.

 

[JT1]

The arc the tires move through as it articulates. Why don't the Bronco tires tuck in like with the Jeep?

Ahhh, ok. Bronco is IFS. As the tire moves through its wheel travel, the tire stays essentially perpendicular to the ground. The Jeep being SFA, as it flexes (one tire up, the other down) the top of the high tire angles in. I attached a couple pics to help visualize. There is another vector of wheel travel too, the fore/aft movement in the wheel well as the suspension cycles..

 

[MaverickMan]

Yeah a centimeter of travel vs an inch of ground clearance isnt even a debate. You can probably put a couple washers on top of the strut to make the tires clear and not need the bumpstops. One of my favorite things about the old bronco suspension is you can flip the shackles and put washers under the coils to clear the next size up tires. All for the price of a quick trip to Ace Hardware.

 

[Felix808]

Exactly, although I'd bet that 4.70 gears are still ok for 37's with the torque profile of the turbo engines and the available transmissions. 37's on a 2 door would be a nice setup.

While the gearing should be fine (a lot more forgiveness in an auto) It is the strength of the axles & the gears themselves that I would be worried about. You get a big tire like that bound up, locked and give it some gas, something is going to give. That orange 2-door with 37's has a trussed up rear end that does not look like a 44 to me. I wish I could find the picture I'm talking about.

 

[jtzako]

ok, so if you swapped out those 35s for 33s, still on a Badlands with Squatch lift, you'd be lowering the truck essentially 2inch because of the tire size. but the wheels would have more clearance in the wheel well to move around.

You'd be lowering it by 1 inch not 2. The 10mm (less than half an inch) of movement up into the wheel well would be far less useful than the extra inch of lift.

 

[JT1]

While the gearing should be fine (a lot more forgiveness in an auto) It is the strength of the axles & the gears themselves that I would be worried about. You get a big tire like that bound up, locked and give it some gas, something is going to give. That orange 2-door with 37's has a trussed up rear end that does not look like a 44 to me. I wish I could find the picture I'm talking about.

Yes, the orange one on 37s is running something other than stock Bronco stuff. The JL Rubicons and Gladiators are running 37s and 38s on the M220 already, so I'm not too worried about the rear. The front is the scary one.

A 2 door on 35s will get me most places I go, so I'm not terribly worried, and the aftermarket will fix the weak spots we find

 

[Clark]

While the gearing should be fine (a lot more forgiveness in an auto) It is the strength of the axles & the gears themselves that I would be worried about. You get a big tire like that bound up, locked and give it some gas, something is going to give. That orange 2-door with 37's has a trussed up rear end that does not look like a 44 to me. I wish I could find the picture I'm talking about.

Exactly. A Dana 44 candle a 35” easy enough as long as it isn’t overly abused under lock off road. 37s are a different story. Should jump to a Dana 60 or keep a very light right foot off road for rubber that size.

 

[MaverickMan]

While the gearing should be fine (a lot more forgiveness in an auto) It is the strength of the axles & the gears themselves that I would be worried about. You get a big tire like that bound up, locked and give it some gas, something is going to give. That orange 2-door with 37's has a trussed up rear end that does not look like a 44 to me. I wish I could find the picture I'm talking about.

I have this feeling that ford, who still sells 9" axle stuff, just might do a "warthog" version that maybe has an SFA with 9" front and rear like the gods intended. From the pics from out infront of the factory, that yellow one had a trussed 9". With piles of new 8.8s and D44s laying around the factory there was absolutly no reason to put a 9" under there unless they had a plan.

 

[Clark]

I have this feeling that ford, who still sells 9" axle stuff, just might do a "warthog" version that maybe has an SFA with 9" front and rear like the gods intended. From the pics from out infront of the factory, that yellow one had a trussed 9". With piles of new 8.8s and D44s laying around the factory there was absolutly no reason to put a 9" under there unless they had a plan.

That would be ?

 

[Felix808]

I have this feeling that ford, who still sells 9" axle stuff, just might do a "warthog" version that maybe has an SFA with 9" front and rear like the gods intended. From the pics from out infront of the factory, that yellow one had a trussed 9". With piles of new 8.8s and D44s laying around the factory there was absolutly no reason to put a 9" under there unless they had a plan.

Now your talking. Casey Currie is already planning SFA swap to run 40's.
My plan is to roll out on 35's & wait for the beta testers a few years to see what's working & what kits come to market. If the kit has blocks, & or does not offer more travel I will keep waiting. I'm going to have this truck for the long haul so there is plenty of time to see who develops the best option.

Sponsored