2-door non-Sasquatch Black Diamond, dune-only use, what should I prioritize for a smoother ride and less risk of damage?

[murrman]

I’ve been out to Silver Lake a handful of times now and realized dune running is what I actually enjoy most, more than rock trails or general overlanding. I want to start building around that specifically going forward. My rig is a 2024 Bronco Black Diamond, 2-door, 2.3L, non-Sasquatch.

I’ve already got recovery boards and tire deflators sorted, and I’m in the process of upgrading from a small compressor to a proper onboard air compressor. I’m comfortable running the dunes at a slow pace, around 25 mph, so I’m not chasing speed. I’m not planning on upsizing my wheels or tires right off the bat, but I’m open to it if that’s clearly the upgrade that makes the most sense for what I’m after, I just don’t want to do it just for the sake of doing it. What I really care about is smoothing out the ride over whoops and washboard, and minimizing the odds of damaging something underneath, given how much repetitive pounding the suspension and undercarriage take on dune terrain specifically as opposed to rocks.

So I’m hoping to get some input from people who actually run dunes regularly. Is a shock upgrade, whether performance off-road shocks or coilovers, worth it on its own for dune whoops even without a lift or bigger tires? Has anyone run upgraded shocks at stock ride height for this exact use case? Are there any weak points in the stock suspension, like control arms or bushings, that tend to take a beating from repetitive high-frequency dune impacts specifically, as opposed to single big hits? I’m also curious about skid plates and armor. Since I’m sand-only and not hitting rocks, is that actually a lower priority than I’d assumed, or is there still a specific dune vulnerability worth armoring for, like getting high-centered or hitting buried debris? And has anyone dealt with heat soak or transmission temps from sustained low-range or high-RPM passes in soft sand?

Sponsored

 

[Oldhippie]

Bilstein 8112 coilovers would be my suggestion for best ride/handing for your use (sand running with 35” or smaller tires)…enjoy!

 

[EruptionBronco]

Bilstein 8112s would be ideal although I believe minimum ride height is about Sasquatch and they are very pricy. You could also take a look at Icon 2.5 EXPs and Bilstein 6112s if you are looking for more budget friendly options at the Sasquatch height. They are both 2.5" shock bodies without reservoirs, so more fluid than stock, but not as much as an 8112, King, or Icon 2.5 (non-EXP) for heat dissipation.

 

[jofer]

Honestly, you're going to be hard-pressed to find upgraded shock options that are still stock height for your vehicle. Most are going to assume "stock height" means relative to sasquatch or non-sasquatch badlands.

I'm not sure you'll be able to find off-the-shelf larger diameter shock body options (e.g. 2.5") that are still around stock height for your build. Someone please prove me wrong!

6112s and Icon 2.5 options are both great, but IIRC, will be even higher than what's listed for 8112s. (I could be wrong about that...) You could look into larger shock bodies that re-use your factory springs (e.g. Bilstein 6100 instead of 6112). I'm not sure 6100's can go low enough for your use case, but 5100s (same idea - shock only, re-use spring, but 2.0" body instead of 2.5") can I think, and might still be an upgrade for you.

The 8112s are certainly not budget, but they are _very_ good for what you have in mind, speaking from personal experience. The downside is that they'll be a touch over-sprung for your build (not enough to make it a huge ride issue, but certainly tall). If you're going from non-sasquatch to the 8112s on a relatively lightweight (i.e. non-badlands and 2.3 instead of 2.7) 2-door vehicle, their minimum ride height is going to be a rather large lift, especially in the back. It will be a bit above sasquatch height for your vehicle. You have a very lightweight vehicle (good for the dunes!), so it will be potentially even a tiny touch more than what the tables list:

Front:

Rear:

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but you might actually wind up needing different UCAs, which is a significant additional expense (and a substantial amount of additional shop hours if you're not doing it yourself). You don't when going from sasquatch or badlands to 8112s, but you're going to be right at the point at which it's recommended even for the minimum ride height on 8112s for your vehicle.

At any rate, you may find that large diameter shocks are going to mean a significant lift and will have a lot of follow-on upgrades that need to be made to correct geometry.

Non-sasquatch badlands takeoffs might be a good budget option here? (same ~2.0" shock body as sasquatch, basically bilstein 5100-ish, but configured for 33" tires and not 35"s) Or, if you're willing to take on the expense of aftermarket UCAs in addition to the coilovers, go for something big (e.g. 8112, Icon 2.5, etc).

I'd argue that suspension upgrades are going to be well worth it overall, even if you want to stay with 33's for performance.

 

[murrman]

Honestly, you're going to be hard-pressed to find upgraded shock options that are still stock height for your vehicle. Most are going to assume "stock height" means relative to sasquatch or non-sasquatch badlands.

I'm not sure you'll be able to find off-the-shelf larger diameter shock body options (e.g. 2.5") that are still around stock height for your build. Someone please prove me wrong!

6112s and Icon 2.5 options are both great, but IIRC, will be even higher than what's listed for 8112s. (I could be wrong about that...) You could look into larger shock bodies that re-use your factory springs (e.g. Bilstein 6100 instead of 6112). I'm not sure 6100's can go low enough for your use case, but 5100s (same idea - shock only, re-use spring, but 2.0" body instead of 2.5") can I think, and might still be an upgrade for you.

The 8112s are certainly not budget, but they are _very_ good for what you have in mind, speaking from personal experience. The downside is that they'll be a touch over-sprung for your build (not enough to make it a huge ride issue, but certainly tall). If you're going from non-sasquatch to the 8112s on a relatively lightweight (i.e. non-badlands and 2.3 instead of 2.7) 2-door vehicle, their minimum ride height is going to be a rather large lift, especially in the back. It will be a bit above sasquatch height for your vehicle. You have a very lightweight vehicle (good for the dunes!), so it will be potentially even a tiny touch more than what the tables list:

Front:

Rear:

That's not necessarily a bad thing, but you might actually wind up needing different UCAs, which is a significant additional expense (and a substantial amount of additional shop hours if you're not doing it yourself). You don't when going from sasquatch or badlands to 8112s, but you're going to be right at the point at which it's recommended even for the minimum ride height on 8112s for your vehicle.

At any rate, you may find that large diameter shocks are going to mean a significant lift and will have a lot of follow-on upgrades that need to be made to correct geometry.

Non-sasquatch badlands takeoffs might be a good budget option here? (same ~2.0" shock body as sasquatch, basically bilstein 5100-ish, but configured for 33" tires and not 35"s) Or, if you're willing to take on the expense of aftermarket UCAs in addition to the coilovers, go for something big (e.g. 8112, Icon 2.5, etc).

I'd argue that suspension upgrades are going to be well worth it overall, even if you want to stay with 33's for performance.

Thank you for this incredibly detailed response! I'll admit, I had to go do some additional research to understand some of what you were talking about, but I really appreciate the info. I didn't know that upgrading suspension also meant increasing ride height by its nature. I appreciate the tip about looking for a non-sas Badlands takeoff as a budget option; I think that's the route I'm going to go down for now. It seems like the simplest upgrade for my use case. Thanks again!

Sponsored