How to build an overlander knowing the weight?

[jaruss01]

Let’s put aside the hysteria. If we are in for bad news how do we go about solving it?

im thinking a trim with standard duty suspension. Beefy aftermarket tires that actually have some weight. 50 lbs 33 tires on a 17 inch wheel. Maybe 55 lb E load tires on an 18” OBX wheel isn’t such a horrible idea. Steel front bumper. Save weight on no rear steel bumper like a BL.

Adding weight to the lower half of vehicle. BnP still allows for the rack with say a 2.7L OBX with higher gearing and steel front bumper. Should counteract weight on the roof.

Given 55 offset wheels, if we go 35 offset (basically max offset in aftermarket world) it will protrude an inch. I presume Sasquatch flares will be readily available which are 1.5 inches wider on each side. More stability there with wider stance. Also found some non offensive black rhino stadium wheels that come in 17x8, same bolt pattern with a 35 offset. No lift since that raises height of car with roof rack or tent. Maybe we swap out front springs with coils to level the front a 1-1.5”.

If we hear bad news, we still have options. What works here?

Sponsored

 

[North7]

Bronco has coilovers front and back so you may need to upgrade to beefier springs on all four.

 

[WuNgUn]

Fuel range is also a concern... The smaller tank on the 2D kinda makes the V6 a no-go. And, I'm going 2D, which is lighter/opens up GVWR a bit more. Manual tranny would save weight as well.
I decided on Badlands with the 33's as my ride. WT can be had in the same price range, which obviously has Squatch and V6 standard, which is still in the back of my mind.... ?

 

[Dads_bronze_bronco]

Let’s put aside the hysteria. If we are in for bad news how do we go about solving it?

im thinking a trim with standard duty suspension. Beefy aftermarket tires that actually have some weight. 50 lbs 33 tires on a 17 inch wheel. Maybe 55 lb E load tires on an 18” OBX wheel isn’t such a horrible idea. Steel front bumper. Save weight on no rear steel bumper like a BL.

Adding weight to the lower half of vehicle. BnP still allows for the rack with say a 2.7L OBX with higher gearing and steel front bumper. Should counteract weight on the roof.

Given 55 offset wheels, if we go 35 offset (basically max offset in aftermarket world) it will protrude an inch. I presume Sasquatch flares will be readily available which are 1.5 inches wider on each side. More stability there with wider stance. Also found some non offensive black rhino stadium wheels that come in 17x8, same bolt pattern with a 35 offset. No lift since that raises height of car with roof rack or tent. Maybe we swap out front springs with coils to level the front a 1-1.5”.

If we hear bad news, we still have options. What works here?

Heavier springs for sure. Make sure to get a rear locker. Several of the overland build YouTube channels I’ve watch recommend aftermarket aluminum bumpers, armor, and sliders to keep the weight down since they tend not to do the rockiest, most difficult trails / obstacles with all the gear on them anyway. A tent on top is fine, but you’ll want to organize your gear for the heavier stuff at the bottom and most of the stuff in the back vs on top.

 

[Al Cowlings]

I've been overlanding for 12 years now. My $0.02 is that overlanders need to chill out with the weight, for starters. I see guys running all sorts of drawer systems, heavy RTTs, and unnecessary armor, all of which absolutely murders your vehicle's weight.

Let's call it the "Overland Journal aesthetic." I'm not sure it has been good for overlanding in general. There are some things -- like passengers, water, fuel, and recovery gear -- that are necessarily heavy. Not much you can do about that, except plan carefully. But a whole lot of overlanding "gear" is needlessly heavy, complicated, overbuilt, and overpriced.

I came to this hobby from a backpacking background, so maybe I'm used to considering every ounce. But I'd guess that 70% of overlanding rigs are way over their GVWR, and about 95% of those don't need to be.

OK, I'll stop ranting now. Sorry I didn't help with your original question.

 

[BeerForMyHorses]

I've been overlanding for 12 years now. My $0.02 is that overlanders need to chill out with the weight, for starters. I see guys running all sorts of drawer systems, heavy RTTs, and unnecessary armor, all of which absolutely murders your vehicle's weight.

Let's call it the "Overland Journal aesthetic." I'm not sure it has been good for overlanding in general. There are some things -- like passengers, water, fuel, and recovery gear -- that are necessarily heavy. Not much you can do about that, except plan carefully. But a whole lot of overlanding "gear" is needlessly heavy, complicated, overbuilt, and overpriced.

I came to this hobby from a backpacking background, so maybe I'm used to considering every ounce. But I'd guess that 70% of overlanding rigs are way over their GVWR, and about 95% of those don't need to be.

OK, I'll stop ranting now. Sorry I didn't help with your original question.

Backpacking background, that makes sense! Ever cut your toothbrush down to aknub just to save 0.07 oz? ?

 

[Al Cowlings]

Backpacking background, that makes sense! Ever cut your toothbrush down to a knub just to save 0.07 oz? ?

Sir, I am not a masochist.

 

[Drex]

Changing the suspension is not the most practical idea, no data on what difference it might make. The easiest way if you need more carrying capacity is to get a vehicle designed for it, however if you are dead set on packing as much weight in a Bronco as you can (and you seem committed), let's start with how much weight do you estimate you will be adding (passengers/gear/provisions)? (if there are kids, assume they will be full size weight before you sell the truck in 5 years, unless they are like 5 now.)

The roof racks will hold (and roof tent will have) a maximum weight of 110lbs IIRC when the vehicle is in motion (dynamic load), I would not want to eat into whatever safety margin they have engineered into that. I would treat it as a strict 110lb limit IF it is evenly distributed. So I would not count on that being good for more than 2 suitcases worth of whatever.

The GVWR is a somewhat arbitrary number. It is possible the vehicle, had it been tested for Class 2, could have been rated for a higher cargo capacity, although due to liability reasons, no one, including me, will even imply that it falls into that case. Brakes, suspension (a soft, off road suspension would likely not be stellar at taking heavier loads), cooling, all sorts of factors might come into play as well. Not saying it is the same risk as walking your family onto a frozen lake without knowing how thick the ice is, but there is a tiny kernel of truth there. Don't forget the 6000lb GVWR number is just the Class 1 maximum limit, it does not mean the vehicle will even meet that rating.

For accuracy you might want to actually weigh your gear and kids (take the wife's word on whatever she claims she weighs) then figure out what you can do without. If it ends up you feel you need 1800lbs of carrying capacity, you can cross a bunch of vehicles off your list, but for a start, find out what you need to take with you and get an accurate weight and volume for it. Everything else will flow from there. Without knowing what you need to carry, trying to pick anything else is just a guess. (edit; don't forget provisions, including water in the weight estimate)

 

[Broncocito]

Changing the suspension is not the most practical idea, no data on what difference it might make. The easiest way if you need more carrying capacity is to get a vehicle designed for it, however if you are dead set on packing as much weight in a Bronco as you can (and you seem committed), let's start with how much weight do you estimate you will be adding (passengers/gear/provisions)? (if there are kids, assume they will be full size weight before you sell the truck in 5 years, unless they are like 5 now.)

The roof racks will hold (and roof tent will have) a maximum weight of 110lbs IIRC when the vehicle is in motion (dynamic load), I would not want to eat into whatever safety margin they have engineered into that. I would treat it as a strict 110lb limit IF it is evenly distributed. So I would not count on that being good for more than 2 suitcases worth of whatever.

The GVWR is a somewhat arbitrary number. It is possible the vehicle, had it been tested for Class 2, could have been rated for a higher cargo capacity, although due to liability reasons, no one, including me, will even imply that it falls into that case. Brakes, suspension (a soft, off road suspension would likely not be stellar at taking heavier loads), cooling, all sorts of factors might come into play as well. Not saying it is the same risk as walking your family onto a frozen lake without knowing how thick the ice is, but there is a tiny kernel of truth there. Don't forget the 6000lb GVWR number is just the Class 1 maximum limit, it does not mean the vehicle will even meet that rating.

For accuracy you might want to actually weigh your gear and kids (take the wife's word on whatever she claims she weighs) then figure out what you can do without. If it ends up you feel you need 1800lbs of carrying capacity, you can cross a bunch of vehicles off your list, but for a start, find out what you need to take with you and get an accurate weight and volume for it. Everything else will flow from there. Without knowing what you need to carry, trying to pick anything else is just a guess. (edit; don't forget provisions, including water in the weight estimate)

I agree with everything you say except for your first sentence. One of the first things "real" overlanders upgrade are their springs. This is a common practice. With that being said you clearly and accurately laid out everything an overlander should consider. I personally do not see the Bronco being a successful overlander and people should consider another purpose built option/vehicle.

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

Fuel range is also a concern... The smaller tank on the 2D kinda makes the V6 a no-go. And, I'm going 2D, which is lighter/opens up GVWR a bit more. Manual tranny would save weight as well.
I decided on Badlands with the 33's as my ride. WT can be had in the same price range, which obviously has Squatch and V6 standard, which is still in the back of my mind.... ?

Yet to be known if the 2.3 will get notably better MPG than the 2.7. My guess is the 2.3 will be 1-2 MPG better cruising, and dead even under load and/or off road.

 

[WuNgUn]

Yet to be known if the 2.3 will get notably better MPG than the 2.7. My guess is the 2.3 will be 1-2 MPG better cruising, and dead even under load and/or off road.

1 to 2 MPH is probably on the conservative side... Still, that's and extra 40 miles range. Could be as much as 70 or 80...?
The biggest thing that separates the difference in mileage is friction (apart from displacement). With 50% more pistons, more crank bearings, loading more pressure, twice as many cams/journals and cam drives, etc...
Even under the same HP load (as in a brake dyno) between the 2 engines, the V6 will require more fuel for the same HP as the I4.
But I'm sure the aftermarket will eventually have long range fuel tanks... And there are always RotoPax

 

[Dick_Castlesmurff]

Way back in high school I did a lot of "overlanding" with a Bronco II, back then we just called it car camping though.

Anything can be an overlander, but there is a spectrum that goes from trail capability to livability. A 4x4 Sprinter van is going to skew heavy to the livability end while a 2D Bronco (or Wrangler) will skew heavy to the trail capability end. Something like a 4D Tacoma/Ranger/Colorado (or a million different late model custom builds) with a load of overlanding gadgetry added is probably going to get closest to the best of both worlds.

Plus overlanding is increasingly a club/group activity, I'm more inclined to travel with a support vehicle than overload mine.

Sponsored