Sasquatch Suspension Travel

MoabRox

Black Diamond
Active Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
26
Reaction score
35
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
Two Jeep XJs, Dodge M880, Suburban 2500
Vehicle Showcase
1
Thirty years of off-roading (both IFS and SFA 4x4s) has taught me that one of the most important vehicle elements is suspension travel/articulation, regardless of whether or not you have lockers. My experience is that IFS vehicles tend to lift tires much more often and much higher than SFA vehicles. While a front tire 4 feet or more off the ground looks cool, it definitely increases the chances of something bad happening--not to mention the increased "pucker factor" felt by some passengers. More wheel travel means more stability and control (and a better ride when racing down a rocky, rutted road).

So, after searching the Bronco6g forums and the internet without finding a definitive answer, here's my question. Hopefully we have the answer but we might not yet.

Does the Sasquatch suspension have at least the same wheel travel (7.9" front/8.5" rear) as the Base suspension?





Advertisement

 

Apples

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
414
Reaction score
1,279
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
Nothing. Come On Bronco!!
It should have more. Where did you get those wheel travel numbers from?
 

tshaw2009

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Tony
Joined
Jul 21, 2020
Messages
765
Reaction score
2,561
Location
Lebanon, MO
Vehicle(s)
2011 F150 Lariat, 2018 Ford Edge Titanium
Clubs
 
Howdy brother. I have not heard or seen any comparisons between the Sasquatch Package and the Base suspension but there have been comparisons between the Sasquatch Package articulation and the Badlands trim articulation. If my memory serves me correctly, the Sasquatch package has rough 10 millimeters less travel than the Badlands trim which is about 3/8ths of an inch. Not really much to write home about to be honest. I hope that helps!
 
OP
MoabRox

MoabRox

Black Diamond
Active Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
26
Reaction score
35
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
Two Jeep XJs, Dodge M880, Suburban 2500
Vehicle Showcase
1
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #5
Howdy brother. I have not heard or seen any comparisons between the Sasquatch Package and the Base suspension but there have been comparisons between the Sasquatch Package articulation and the Badlands trim articulation. If my memory serves me correctly, the Sasquatch package has rough 10 millimeters less travel than the Badlands trim which is about 3/8ths of an inch. Not really much to write home about to be honest. I hope that helps!
Hmmm... All the references I found between the SAS and BL suspensions were for static height (not travel), with 10mm commonly stated. I'm hoping for published specifications.
 

Apples

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Nick
Joined
Aug 6, 2020
Messages
414
Reaction score
1,279
Location
Colorado
Vehicle(s)
Nothing. Come On Bronco!!
Hmmm... All the references I found between the SAS and BL suspensions were for static height (not travel), with 10mm commonly stated. I'm hoping for published specifications.
Aren't we all. Except for the prelim doc you posted, we don't really have much else to go on.

I never noticed the wheel travel numbers there before. Thanks for pointing them out.
 

mdonathan56

Black Diamond
Well-Known Member
First Name
Michael
Joined
Jul 27, 2020
Messages
414
Reaction score
619
Location
Florida
Vehicle(s)
2016 Q5 TDI, 2015 A6 TDI, 1997 F250 Powerstroke
Clubs
 
From the Preliminary Specifications provided by Ford.
So that converts to 9.4 inches of travel on the BL. Interesting that they don't have the Sasquatch numbers.
 

Cheshire

Well-Known Member
First Name
Steven
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
701
Reaction score
1,397
Location
FL
Vehicle(s)
Focus ST
Thirty years of off-roading (both IFS and SFA 4x4s) has taught me that one of the most important vehicle elements is suspension travel/articulation, regardless of whether or not you have lockers. My experience is that IFS vehicles tend to lift tires much more often and much higher than SFA vehicles. While a front tire 4 feet or more off the ground looks cool, it definitely increases the chances of something bad happening--not to mention the increased "pucker factor" felt by some passengers. More wheel travel means more stability and control (and a better ride when racing down a rocky, rutted road).

So, after searching the Bronco6g forums and the internet without finding a definitive answer, here's my question. Hopefully we have the answer but we might not yet.

Does the Sasquatch suspension have at least the same wheel travel (7.9" front/8.5" rear) as the Base suspension?
Answer: Less than Badlands
Why doesn't anyone know: Ford isn't communicating this because it's less than the Rubicon and they don't want real data public. This is one of the big reasons I'm going Badlands 33s and not Squatch.
 
OP
MoabRox

MoabRox

Black Diamond
Active Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
26
Reaction score
35
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
Two Jeep XJs, Dodge M880, Suburban 2500
Vehicle Showcase
1
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #9
Answer: Less than Badlands
Why doesn't anyone know: Ford isn't communicating this because it's less than the Rubicon and they don't want real data public. This is one of the big reasons I'm going Badlands 33s and not Squatch.
I figured it would be less than the "Unique BL Suspension", but I'm worried that it will be less than the base suspension-which looks to be barely adequate for how I plan to use my Bronco. BL was my first choice (first day reservation), but after thinking it through, I'd be paying A LOT for things I either don't care about or plan to replace/customize. A Basesquatch makes sense for me, as I'd get the stronger front axle, 4.70 gears, a front locker and 35s, but not if it means sacrificing wheel travel or having to replace the suspension. The lack of information is making it really hard for me to finalize my build, and is starting to make me second guess getting a first year, new model Bronco--especially when my son sends me a link for really clean 1972 Chevy Blazer for only $19K!
 

Cheshire

Well-Known Member
First Name
Steven
Joined
Jul 13, 2020
Messages
701
Reaction score
1,397
Location
FL
Vehicle(s)
Focus ST
I figured it would be less than the "Unique BL Suspension", but I'm worried that it will be less than the base suspension-which looks to be barely adequate for how I plan to use my Bronco. BL was my first choice (first day reservation), but after thinking it through, I'd be paying A LOT for things I either don't care about or plan to replace/customize. A Basesquatch makes sense for me, as I'd get the stronger front axle, 4.70 gears, a front locker and 35s, but not if it means sacrificing wheel travel or having to replace the suspension. The lack of information is making it really hard for me to finalize my build, and is starting to make me second guess getting a first year, new model Bronco--especially when my son sends me a link for really clean 1972 Chevy Blazer for only $19K!
Your concerns are justified. Base Squatch is great value though. Depends how hard you plan to push it. I'm interested in the Warthog because that should have the suspension, articulation, brakes and power to complement big tires. Regular Squatch will have compromises as you've articulated. Hoping Base Hog isn't too out of reach price wise.
 
OP
MoabRox

MoabRox

Black Diamond
Active Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
26
Reaction score
35
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
Two Jeep XJs, Dodge M880, Suburban 2500
Vehicle Showcase
1
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #11
And now the accessory guide lists a M201 (probably M210) FDU and FPP Off-Road Suspension Kit. More freaking options and no details! Ugg!
 

tlubull

Base
Well-Known Member
First Name
Tyler
Joined
Oct 5, 2020
Messages
170
Reaction score
518
Location
Texas
Vehicle(s)
Jeep Renegade
Isn't the basesquatch a set of 33s from being equivalent to the badlands in this arena? Or is the badlands specific suspension expected to be that different?
 

Cappy

Badlands
Well-Known Member
First Name
Cappy
Joined
Aug 26, 2020
Messages
320
Reaction score
996
Location
Dallas, Texas
Vehicle(s)
2017 Kia Soul ! Turbo
Clubs
 
Thirty years of off-roading (both IFS and SFA 4x4s) has taught me that one of the most important vehicle elements is suspension travel/articulation, regardless of whether or not you have lockers. My experience is that IFS vehicles tend to lift tires much more often and much higher than SFA vehicles. While a front tire 4 feet or more off the ground looks cool, it definitely increases the chances of something bad happening--not to mention the increased "pucker factor" felt by some passengers. More wheel travel means more stability and control (and a better ride when racing down a rocky, rutted road).

So, after searching the Bronco6g forums and the internet without finding a definitive answer, here's my question. Hopefully we have the answer but we might not yet.

Does the Sasquatch suspension have at least the same wheel travel (7.9" front/8.5" rear) as the Base suspension?
I believe the suspension travel, ergo the wheel travel on a Badlands is 9.45 inches on the front axle and 10.25 for the rear axle.

Base is 7.88 inches front and rear is 8.46 inches.

Sasquatch package travel is 9.05 inches for the front axle and 9.88 inches for the rear axel.

I think, repeat THINK the disconnect in the Badlands provides an additional 4.3 inches of suspension travel and creates and RTI of 700, but don't quote me on that. I've heard 550 or 560 with the bar engaged and a calculated gain of 140. But, take this last paragraph with a grain of salt, it's been a hot minute since I got that info.

Edit: Whoops, 4 and 7 are next to each other on the number pad. Fixed that. Haha, how awesome would THAT be if it were the case. Carry on.
 
Last edited:
OP
MoabRox

MoabRox

Black Diamond
Active Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
26
Reaction score
35
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
Two Jeep XJs, Dodge M880, Suburban 2500
Vehicle Showcase
1
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #14
Isn't the basesquatch a set of 33s from being equivalent to the badlands in this arena? Or is the badlands specific suspension expected to be that different?
That’s what I’m trying to figure out. What is the wheel travel for the “high clearance suspension” (Sasquatch)? There’s plenty of speculation but nothing definitive. I want technical details and specifications—please Help me Ford!
 
OP
MoabRox

MoabRox

Black Diamond
Active Member
First Name
Dave
Joined
Oct 23, 2020
Messages
26
Reaction score
35
Location
Utah
Vehicle(s)
Two Jeep XJs, Dodge M880, Suburban 2500
Vehicle Showcase
1
  • Thread starter
  • Thread Starter
  • #15
I believe the suspension travel, ergo the wheel travel on a Badlands is 9.45 inches on the front axle and 10.25 for the rear axle.

Base is 7.88 inches front and rear is 8.46 inches.

Sasquatch package travel is 9.05 inches for the front axle and 9.88 inches for the rear axel.

I think, repeat THINK the disconnect in the Badlands provides an additional 4.3 inches of suspension travel and creates and RTI of 700, but don't quote me on that. I've heard 550 or 560 with the bar engaged and a calculated gain of 140. But, take this last paragraph with a grain of salt, it's been a hot minute since I got that info.

Edit: Whoops, 4 and 7 are next to each other on the number pad. Fixed that. Haha, how awesome would THAT be if it were the case. Carry on.
Where did you find the number for the Sasquatch wheel travel?
 

Advertisement





 


Advertisement
Top