yeah I don't think I'll wait for the Mansquatch, I don't want to wait and the more I read the less of a good idea it seems to be. Is it known what mods would be necessary to upgrade to 35"s on a non squatched Badlands? (side note, really enjoying all the various parts of speech "Sasquatch" can be used for?)
I know we’re all working off of preliminary specs, but I wager that a Sasquatch with 285/75R17s, non-Sasquatch front bump stops and aftermarket sway bar disconnects will have Badlands travel and have no tire rub (but prob get close!).I've never seriously considered 35s. I don't crawl over boulders and Badlands with 33s is way overkill for what I'll do with it. I will drive 98% on road and 35s will be slower, brake worse, have worse gas mileage, be louder and handle worse than smaller tires. All the Badlands pictured here are 33's with the optional ($995) Badlands beadlock rims w/carbonized grey beauty rings. I think they're killer and match the carbonized grey Badlands grille perfectly. 33s are big, aggressive tires although reading this forum, you'll start believing they're tiny.
If I were considering Sasquatch w/35s, I'd really be concerned about suspension travel. Badlands w/33s have 4cm MORE travel than Squatch w 35s. Not much room for Squatch to move around! That's okay for slow rock crawling, but out running at high speeds in the desert, it doesn't seem like enough. I believe this is precisely why Ford is developing the Warthog. That beast is going to have big suspension and travel for 35s or 37s to move. Sasquatch simply doesn't cut it and Ford knows this. Maybe this is why they have so far refused to give us specifications on Badlands or Sasquatch suspensions. Once people see the specs, they will realize Squatch doesn't have enough travel.
I'm not sure where that number comes from (from reading other threads there is a bit of controversy on this topic) but I think 4mm is closer to 1/2 inch, which is probably visually noticeable
4mm is close to 5/32. A half inch is a little more than 12mm.
lol thanks, I"m American, I measure things in cheesburgers per freedoms, not the metric system
Man.... I work in construction in Canada. Nearly all materials are in inches and most drawings. Some projects the prints are all in metric. Which we have to covert back to ft/in on the field. A nightmare. I've gotten pretty good at the conversions. Something that is 18339 milimeters is a lot tougher to imagine than 60'2"
I've never seriously considered 35s. I don't crawl over boulders and Badlands with 33s is way overkill for what I'll do with it. I will drive 98% on road and 35s will be slower, brake worse, have worse gas mileage, be louder and handle worse than smaller tires. All the Badlands pictured here are 33's with the optional ($995) Badlands beadlock rims w/carbonized grey beauty rings. I think they're killer and match the carbonized grey Badlands grille perfectly. 33s are big, aggressive tires although reading this forum, you'll start believing they're tiny.
If I were considering Sasquatch w/35s, I'd really be concerned about suspension travel. Badlands w/33s have 4cm MORE travel than Squatch w 35s. Not much room for Squatch to move around! That's okay for slow rock crawling, but out running at high speeds in the desert, it doesn't seem like enough. I believe this is precisely why Ford is developing the Warthog. That beast is going to have big suspension and travel for 35s or 37s to move. Sasquatch simply doesn't cut it and Ford knows this. Maybe this is why they have so far refused to give us specifications on Badlands or Sasquatch suspensions. Once people see the specs, they will realize Squatch doesn't have enough travel.
I wouldn't count on that any time soon. It would require a big take rate on manuals for a few years and a lot of bitching by cutomers to get it. Even that may not be enough.
I'd bet heavily that there's not a lift..... it needs the wheel clearance for articulation.... hence the taller bump stop on the Squatch to keep the 35's out of the sheet metal. The open wheel wells are for function.These look good but this CO badlands looks like it has too much space in the wheel wells. Maybe it has a small lift:
you're right, but a man can dream. Honestly the output of the 2.3 appears to be pretty darned good, not to mention that Ford offers a tune for it as it appears in the Ranger, it's just frustrating to know that there's a 300hp 400tq motor available but not be able to have it with the stick. I'm sure I'll be more than satisfied with the 2.3 though
See page 2 of attached Prelim Tech Specs pdf. Suspension travel is listed under 'Off Road Capability' in the Chassis section.
