Sasquatch, to do or not to do? That is the question!

[BuckeyeinNV]

The advantage of the Sasquatch is it's a factory package with factory tuning and factory warranty. If you don't care about that or take satisfaction is building it yourself, have at it.

I do think your estimate is a bit low. Remember the Bronco has 4 coilovers, a Ranger kit is much cheaper. So $3000+ for suspension, $1000-$1500 for wheels, another $1000-$1500 for tires. So $5000-$6000, assuming you install the suspension yourself.

Sponsored

 

[Garbone]

Where did you hear that the Base comes with Auto standard? All info i have seen states it comes standard with the Manual? Interested to know for sure though.

Look under Base specs.

In another thread it was speculated that Jeep sells almost no 4 doors with a stick at the entry level so Ford decided to juice their numbers by tossing in Auto.

 

[Dads_bronze_bronco]

So for the $500-1000 difference in your case, I would go with the Squatch. May drop down to 34” or 33” tires over time.

Remember the spy photos with the wimpy stamped steel a-arms in front and 30 or 32” tires or the beefier cast ones with 35”? My understanding is Squatch (or Badlands) gets you the beefier ones that are designed to be up one inch.

Besides getting a front locker too and beadlock ready wheels, you get a beefier suspension designed to be up one inch.

Put the Kings on later when the Bilsteins wear out. By then King will have time to come out with versions tuned for the Bronco.

 

[JT58Bronc]

Most important thing if you want to run the 35's is gearing. The Sasquatch comes with the proper gearing for the 35's. I test drove a Jeep Gladiator Rubicon. It had the proper gearing, 4.11's I think. I was surprised how much performance it had with the larger 33" tires on it. The price was mid 50's and I balked. I priced a cheaper one and looked into a lift and equivalent tires to the Rubicon at a local shop. They said it would be better and cheaper to get the Rubicon- mainly for the gearing. By the time you install the lift, larger tires and wheels and change the gearing it costs more than the Rubicon.

Gearing is so key. My 97 Wrangler has 31's on it and it had the factory very small (27 or 28" tires) with 3.08 gearing I think. It is so slow with those 31's on it.

I'm still on the fence if I am going to get Sasquatch. I am leaning on it- mainly to get the gearing for those 35's.

 

[lsustang05]

I am planning to order a Big Bend 4 door (have a family, so 2 door was not an option for me ), mainly to keep costs down and keep it similarly optioned to my 2017 f-150 302A, and I don't need a bunch of fancy shit on it lol. I will be adding the Mid package, Auto trans, Hard top, and Up fitter switches per my requirements. Though I am going back and forth on the Sasquatch package.

Let me explain my situation. My family and I plan to take this bad boy to the beach, overlanding/camping, and trailing. We will NOT be doing any crazy rock crawling or anything that will bring damage to my vehicle. Yes, I do plan on protecting my paint with PPF so I avoid scratches from tree branches.

the Sasquatch package is supposed to be $5000 and I feel that's good a deal for what you get in the package and I want my bronco to look bad ass as well. Go ahead call me a pavement princess, because it will be just that 80-90% of the time. However I have considered forgoing the Sasquatch package and adding the optional rear locker. If I do this I would plan on doing a set of King front a rear dual reservoir shocks, setting the front to 1" to match the lift you get from the Sasquatch, and a 1" rear block, and adding my own 17" wheels and Ridgegrapplers.

If I go this route I expect the price to be about $4000-$4500, so not much less than the Sasquatch option. However my thinking on this is I would have MUCH better shocks and ride quality, the same look, and really only lose the front locker and 4.7 gears. Saving me from stopping at the pump as often, and lets be honest for what I plan to do with the vehicle, I don't need the front locker I would lose going his route.

What are ya'll thinking? Anyone feeling the same way, or planning a similar setup? Would like to see what others are doing or your reasoning for going Sasquatch?

This is the only thread I’ve seen that lays out good reasons to forgo the Sasquatch package.

The biggest reason to get it, IMO, is upgraded axles and lockers. It will depend on if those pieces will be available as standalone options. It will not make sense if you plan on changing out the suspension as anything King/Icon/Fox will offer as bolt on will be better than the stock setup, especially if King and Fox offer their internal bypass technology.

The concern for you is the final drive ratio is 3.73 or 4.27. As long as you opt for the 4.27 final drive ratio I highly doubt you’ll ever need for more gear. The Raptor’s have a 4.10 rear gear ratio and they turn 37’s just fine. The ratios on the Bronco are all pretty decent. 4.27 is the lowest I would go but that looks like an option on all models except Base. And 4.46 is standard on Badlands and Black Diamond.

On the big bend it is a more difficult decision and I don’t think it can be answered until B&P comes out.

 

[DonM]

To Squatch or not......mine is actually to Squatch with 2.3 or not! Still on the fence with BaseSquatch or BB with 4.27 Locker and the 32's? It'll be almost entirely a street vehicle, Squatch would be mostly for the looks and strength for maybe eventual off-road use.

 

[BroncoTPA]

I am right there with you, family of 5, my Bronco will primarily be utilized for weekly trips to the beach and some fire road driving. Currently I drive a 2017 F150 with 3.31 gearing that is on 35s and the thing still rips with the 2.7L. I always told myself that I would continue to build if necessary however at this point I do not see any need for my use.

For someone like myself, is the 4.46 or 4.7 overkill or is it really a necessity?

 

[BroncoDude8604]

Whenever you have questions like this, your first action should be to check Ford.com. Cause it's right there in big black lettering. Remember he said 4 door, not 2 door.

Yep, Right there lol! Never really looked at any info on the Base, so I'm surprised to hear that. May make me change my mind and go with the Base over the Big Bend. The real decision for me will be what interior changes are missing from the Big bend besides a leather steering wheel and leather shift boot? WE may not know until the Build and Price. But, if anyone has any insight on other differences, please let me know as this can help my decision making.

 

[BroncoDude8604]

I am right there with you, family of 5, my Bronco will primarily be utilized for weekly trips to the beach and some fire road driving. Currently I drive a 2017 F150 with 3.31 gearing that is on 35s and the thing still rips with the 2.7L. I always told myself that I would continue to build if necessary however at this point I do not see any need for my use.

For someone like myself, is the 4.46 or 4.7 overkill or is it really a necessity?

I am running the same set up on my truck and the 2.7 is a lil ripper, even with the big ass tires and lower gearing.

 

[BroncoDude8604]

So for the $500-1000 difference in your case, I would go with the Squatch. May drop down to 34” or 33” tires over time.

Remember the spy photos with the wimpy stamped steel a-arms in front and 30 or 32” tires or the beefier cast ones with 35”? My understanding is Squatch (or Badlands) gets you the beefier ones that are designed to be up one inch.

Besides getting a front locker too and beadlock ready wheels, you get a beefier suspension designed to be up one inch.

Put the Kings on later when the Bilsteins wear out. By the King will have time to come out with versions tuned for the Bronco.

Well, if the non Sasquatch has wimpy UCAs and were talking bumping up the UCAs for a possible $800, this could definitely steer me back towards the Sasquatch. On any literature I have seen, i don't see anywhere that the Sasquatch comes with different UCAs. Has anyone confirmed the control arms are different on the non Sasquatch versions?

 

[Ajfetterman]

After the teaser prices came out, the Big Bend that I originally wanted with squatch and other options was over $45k.

I have now changed to a Badlands with a 7spd so I can shift gears. It pretty much has all of the squatchy goodness but with 33's which I will change to 35's. I know it is not exactly but I can live with it and it was a few thousand cheaper than the BB. Also, fingers crossed that the whole 2" lift and 37's thing is true because that will change everything again.

 

[Dads_bronze_bronco]

Well, if the non Sasquatch has wimpy UCAs and were talking bumping up the UCAs for a possible $800, this could definitely steer me back towards the Sasquatch. On any literature I have seen, i don't see anywhere that the Sasquatch comes with different UCAs. Has anyone confirmed the control arms are different on the non Sasquatch versions?

I would really like to be able to peel into the parts catalog and detail the exact front suspension differences between BD, BL and Squatch. That is the only way to know.

One difference on the BB that is in the specs:
No Squatch: M190 Dana AdvanTEK
Squatch: M210 Dana AdvanTEK

That may be something to consider if you're putting bigger tires on later.

 

[Denney78]

Honestly the issue with the Sasquatch is the price, not cause it’s to expensive but because it’s not a big enough difference from aftermarket options. Which will include stronger upper and lower control arms, rebuildable shocks (not just some fancy bypass ones), heim joints and so on. Plus a locker is around what 600$ or so? It’s just to close to make it a wise decision.

 

[cursed_hemi]

Most important thing if you want to run the 35's is gearing. The Sasquatch comes with the proper gearing for the 35's. I test drove a Jeep Gladiator Rubicon. It had the proper gearing, 4.11's I think. I was surprised how much performance it had with the larger 33" tires on it. The price was mid 50's and I balked. I priced a cheaper one and looked into a lift and equivalent tires to the Rubicon at a local shop. They said it would be better and cheaper to get the Rubicon- mainly for the gearing. By the time you install the lift, larger tires and wheels and change the gearing it costs more than the Rubicon.

Gearing is so key. My 97 Wrangler has 31's on it and it had the factory very small (27 or 28" tires) with 3.08 gearing I think. It is so slow with those 31's on it.

I'm still on the fence if I am going to get Sasquatch. I am leaning on it- mainly to get the gearing for those 35's.

My TJ has the 3.08's with 5 speed manual and even with the 4.0 going up to a 30" on that thing made it a dog.

 

[Used2jeep]

As a Jeep guy, I can definitely tell you that if you are even slightly considering the next tire size up, GET the next size up.
OR buy tires twice.
No amount of logic after buying the smaller size will kill off the feelings of regret for not buying the up size.

I talked myself into 33"s after driving a new '17 Wrangler off the lot.
My Jeep now has 35"s.

My father and mother in laws keep saying the same thing "You keep your cars a LONG time. Get what you want.". Hard to think that with a very expensive vehicle. The thing that comes with keeping cars for a long time is that the "normal" price escalates while you are enjoying the rides for quite a while. My build started at BD, then to OBX but is now resting solidly at BB for the same reasons as the OP. Like you suggest, that "go up in tire size when you by" is the most economical thing to do.

Sponsored