What's the limiting factor?

[dla]

I own a 2007 2wd Ranger, 2.3L 5spd - nothing fancy, just a simple little truck that gets great gas mileage. I see that Ford limits the towing to a 1580lb load. Now that doesn't seem like much to me. What is the limiting factor? Is it the 5spd transmission? The clutch? Ultimately I would like to tow a 17' Casita travel trailer that will weigh ~2800lbs full loaded.

[midget]

More than likely its the clutch that cant take it... that being said you could throw on bigger springs,brakes,shocks and a better to clutch to try and tow it but with a 2.3 dont expect to get there very quick and your still running the risk of gettin an overweight ticket with the right DOT Officer on a bad day.

[Beanmachine7000]

It's the fact that most people can't tow with a clutch, and Ford didn't want to replace clutches in vehicles people towed alot with and burnt them up prematurely... Ultimately, I'd say what really limits your towing ability is your brake setup...

[jobar]

It's the fact that most people can't tow with a clutch, and Ford didn't want to replace clutches in vehicles people towed alot with and burnt them up prematurely... Ultimately, I'd say what really limits your towing ability is your brake setup...

+1 I've never pulled a travel trailer with mine (mosly boats and utility trailers) but, 15' sounds like alot for a 2.3 to handle.

[Beanmachine7000]

Although, I think it would handle 3,000 lbs alright, it would be the large cross sectional area (aka drag) that would kill the 2.3 pulling that trailer... If you really want to tow it, I'd look into a 4.0 Ranger...

[07rangersport]

The limiting factor is the clutch, as has been said. But honestly, you have the worst possible combo for towing: 3.73, 4 cyl, 5 speed. I would be willing to bet that your truck will be over it's GCWR (which is what really matters, not max trailer weight) by probably 1500# or more. Best piece of advice, get a smaller lighter trailer, or a bigger ranger/truck

[fastpakr]

3.73's really aren't bad - 4.10 would obviously be slightly better. The 4 cylinder/5 speed combo has no effect on reliability or safety, just power. He's got plenty available to get a 2800 lb load rolling. As long as he isn't planning to run 75mph up a mountain, the 2.3 will be fine.

[Beanmachine7000]

The limiting factor is the clutch, as has been said. But honestly, you have the worst possible combo for towing: 3.73, 4 cyl, 5 speed. I would be willing to bet that your truck will be over it's GCWR (which is what really matters, not max trailer weight) by probably 1500# or more. Best piece of advice, get a smaller lighter trailer, or a bigger ranger/truck

So, you're saying every trailer rig that is rated for 80K lbs is limited by the clutch? I don't think so... The limiting factor is NOT the clutch, Ford derates them as to not have to replace them under warranty to people that cannot tow with a manual... The limiting factor of most light duty pickups are the brakes... It is much more dangerous to not be able to stop a rig, than start it... I have no doubt you wouldn't have any trouble getting it up to 35mph or so if you know how to properly drive a manual equipped truck... I do agree that you need a larger truck though, above 35mph you would be killing the 2.3, it just doesn't have the power to pull something that heavy against that kind of drag...

[fastpakr]

Power - not torque. Once you've hit peak torque RPM in 1st gear, the only thing that matters is power (above that engine speed you can always put it in the correct gear to generate the most possible torque at the driveshaft). A Duratec 2.3 is barely 10% off the power ratings of the latest 3.0 and the OHV 4.0.

[Beanmachine7000]

Power - not torque. Once you've hit peak torque RPM in 1st gear, the only thing that matters is power (above that engine speed you can always put it in the correct gear to generate the most possible torque at the driveshaft). A Duratec 2.3 is barely 10% off the power ratings of the latest 3.0 and the OHV 4.0.

Better? :icon_thumby:

[fastpakr]

Terminology, absolutely. I just don't follow your logic about it not having the power. Are you saying the OHV 4.0 couldn't pull this trailer either?

[Beanmachine7000]

Yeah, I think a 4.0 OHV could... I forget that the Duratec is that close in power to the OHV... I think as long as he stays below 55mph he should be fine... I think the drag would kill it after that, if it's the kind of trailer I'm thinking about...

[midget]

When it comes to power my Xterra with a whopping 120hp V6 pulls my Ranger just fine down the highway on a 1200lbs car trailer.... you can tow with a low power engine just dont get in a hurry and avoid windy days... like I said though I was guessing at the clutch but since that has been corrected your brakes are going to be an issue UNLESS the travel trail has brakes on the axles.. then dont get in a hurry to get rollin or stopped and avoid slipping the clutch as much as possible and you should be cool.

[Beanmachine7000]

When it comes to power my Xterra with a whopping 120hp V6 pulls my Ranger just fine down the highway on a 1200lbs car trailer.... you can tow with a low power engine just dont get in a hurry and avoid windy days... like I said though I was guessing at the clutch but since that has been corrected your brakes are going to be an issue UNLESS the travel trail has brakes on the axles.. then dont get in a hurry to get rollin or stopped and avoid slipping the clutch as much as possible and you should be cool.

Your rig together also has way less cross sectional area, therefore less drag... I'm not saying it couldn't do it, I just think above 45/50mph it would start to struggle, due to wind resistance... I don't know what the trailer looks like though...

[GMWIGGS]

The limiting factor like most have mentioned is brakes, brakes and more brakes. With the weight you are looking at towing around, you should be able to get that up to speed within reason (55mph or under). However, I wouldn't tow that much weight that fast in my ranger simply because of braking and handling issues. I tow a 3000+ lb boat with my 3.0 auto all the time. I can get it over 55mph no problem, its just that with all that weight all the bumps you hit and what not makes the truck sway in ways I'm not comfortable with. Stopping is the most important though, I can feel my boat pushing my truck when brakeing.

[rusty ol ranger]

Um...

Some argue that HP is more important then torque when moving a load.

Not so.

Torque, espically low end torque, is whats needed to get the load moving. Whats the load is moving it doesnt take much to keep it going.

School busses make 185-190hp. Thats less then a 4.0L SOHC. Do you really think a 4.0SOHC would move a school bus like a 5.9L Cummins?

later,
Dustin

[Beanmachine7000]

Um...

Some argue that HP is more important then torque when moving a load.

Not so.

Torque, espically low end torque, is whats needed to get the load moving. Whats the load is moving it doesnt take much to keep it going.

School busses make 185-190hp. Thats less then a 4.0L SOHC. Do you really think a 4.0SOHC would move a school bus like a 5.9L Cummins?

later,
Dustin



I bet a 2.9 could though, right? Haha :D

[rusty ol ranger]

I bet a 2.9 could though, right? Haha :D

I bet she'd pull her guts out trying.

MOre so then the lazy 4.0 :P

later,
Dustin

[Beanmachine7000]

Lol... I wouldn't wanna see either in a school bus, haha...

[fastpakr]

Um...

Some argue that HP is more important then torque when moving a load.

Not so.

Torque, espically low end torque, is whats needed to get the load moving. Whats the load is moving it doesnt take much to keep it going.

School busses make 185-190hp. Thats less then a 4.0L SOHC. Do you really think a 4.0SOHC would move a school bus like a 5.9L Cummins?

later,
Dustin

Dustin,
Nobody argued that. If you want to argue, at least look at what was really being said.

The question was about towing a specific size load - one that was well within the limits of any RBV. If you have the right combination of torque and gearing, you can get it rolling. Once it's rolling, power (not torque) becomes the limiting factor.

If your argument is about how much weight you can get moving, then you've moved to a different subject entirely. Obviously an engine with several times the displacement has some advantages (that are irrelevant in this context).

[racsan]

brakes.but frontal area of the trailer is your 2nd worst enemy. my 6x10 cargo trailer is 8' high overall and even with a "V" nose the wind drag is something else. id go with a 4.0 over the 4 cyl. the 4 just doesnt have the torque. sure you could gear it to 4.56, but then you would use just as much fuel as a 4.0 with 3.73's. the most ive evr pulled with my '88 2.3 was a 1,600 pound starcraft boat. it was all it wanted. i tried moving a 3,000 pound camper with it. never took it down the road just moved it within a campground. below 1,500 rpm it spiked like crazy. my 4.0 does what i need it to do most of the time. ive had about 4,000 pounds behind it. i wouldnt worry about the D.O.T. they go after commercial vehicles, couldnt care less about us "small stuff" ive made a decent side bussiness hauling stuff with non-commercial plates. doesnt look overloaded and keeps up with traffic, i look like any other weekend warroir with motorcross bikes. if you look overloaded the state troopers might question it, but it doesnt take much to balance the load so the tounge weight isnt so much. a f/s bronco or 1/2 ton might be a better route for you, if for no other reasoning than being bigger to offset trailer wind resistance, bigger vehicle brakes, wider to see around your trailer, and more tourque to keep thigs moving. a stock 302 and a 4.0 V6 have rougly the same hp, but the 302 has more torque. yes it will use more fuel, but it wont be working things as hard as the smaller motor. as good as the 4 cyl is, i wouldnt tow much more than 2,000 for any distance, expecially a camper/utility box trailer that would give you wind resistance.

[dla]

Folks, I'm not trying to be a smarta$$, but I've towed a heck of lot more with less. I used to tow a 4500lb travel trailer behind a 1969 Toyota Landcruiser (135hp/180ftlbs). Even had a 14ft aluminum boat on top of the FJ. My point is that 140hp is plenty to pull a 3200lb trailer. Those of you who talk about wind resistance are right - but you learn real fast to use the slow lane and take it easy. Those of you who advocate a big engine so you can do 70mph are wasting my time.

Thanks to all who responded. I can see that learning to use the clutch correctly is probably the limiting factor.

[BDAB]

towing that weight with a ranger is different than an FJ. the FJ (even the FJ40) was rated as a 1 ton with bigger axles than the Ranger. you can do what your talking about just do it slow and no sudden stops.

[racsan]

and what was the diff gearing with the fj vs your current ranger? im not saying you need to go 70 mph, but you do need to maintain a reasonable speed, a bigger motor wouldnt be working as hard as a smaller one to maintain speed. if youve got 3.08's with the 4cyl its going to have quite a difficult time. even with 3.73's and the same motor, you'll be going for 3rd and holding to the floor on upgrades. if you dont have that to worry about you may be o.k. id still want trailer brakes though. you never know when you have to get stopped quickly, and with 3,000 behind you the stock truck brakes will only give you flat-spotted tires. mine does fine until i encounter wet pavement, then its slide-city. not fun.

[85_Ranger4x4]

Folks, I'm not trying to be a smarta$$, but I've towed a heck of lot more with less.

Yeah, but if something ever happens when you are way overloaded... it doesn't matter whose fault it is, it is going to be yours. The rating on the manual trucks is bogus from Ford, but that is what the DOT/lawyers will go by.

Granted if they wanted to they could dig something up on a properly loaded rig, but overloading is a very obvious negligant mistake that is hard to argue about in court.

[dla]

Yeah, but if something ever happens when you are way overloaded... it doesn't matter whose fault it is, it is going to be yours. The rating on the manual trucks is bogus from Ford, but that is what the DOT/lawyers will go by.

Granted if they wanted to they could dig something up on a properly loaded rig, but overloading is a very obvious negligant mistake that is hard to argue about in court.

Yea, I'll wear my tinfoil hat. Never know, the DOT might scan my brain.

Seriously, a 3200lb trailer is "overloading"? How did you determine that? The basic ranger has the same brakes whether it's got a 2.3 or 3.0 in it - but the tow rating is different. Not sure about 4.0 equip rangers - but Ford is so cheap that I would imagine the front brakes are the same.

[dla]

and what was the diff gearing with the fj vs your current ranger? im not saying you need to go 70 mph, but you do need to maintain a reasonable speed, a bigger motor wouldnt be working as hard as a smaller one to maintain speed. if youve got 3.08's with the 4cyl its going to have quite a difficult time. even with 3.73's and the same motor, you'll be going for 3rd and holding to the floor on upgrades. if you dont have that to worry about you may be o.k. id still want trailer brakes though. you never know when you have to get stopped quickly, and with 3,000 behind you the stock truck brakes will only give you flat-spotted tires. mine does fine until i encounter wet pavement, then its slide-city. not fun.

Ran down the road doing 50-60 - never much more. The little 6 (mechanical fan) would really roar at 60. No tach so I don't know what the RPMs were. 3sp, column shift by the way. Huge drum brakes with dual pistons all the way around - totally worthless when they got wet. Got about 10mpg. 15gal tank and carried two 5gal Jerries on the sides. Always had electric trailer brakes - the old style where you plumbed the controller into the brake line. Used a level-ride hitch that was strong enough to pick the rear wheels of the Landcruiser off the ground (I did it once to see). Learned to back that hitch off when covering rough ground otherwise I'd lose traction.

[85_Ranger4x4]

Yea, I'll wear my tinfoil hat. Never know, the DOT might scan my brain.

Seriously, a 3200lb trailer is "overloading"? How did you determine that? The basic ranger has the same brakes whether it's got a 2.3 or 3.0 in it - but the tow rating is different. Not sure about 4.0 equip rangers - but Ford is so cheap that I would imagine the front brakes are the same.

Nobody will know until you are in a wreck, and then they will take you for everything you are worth if someone got hurt. They will go by the trucks rating.

Like I said in my previous post, they are underrated from the factory, but that won't do you a lot of good if something happens. You would be legally overloaded but not practically.

[racsan]

some 4.0 & supercabs did have 10" drums instead of the stock 9". mine has 10"s and is also a 5040 gvwr (dont know what the reg payload pkg would be) i think all front brakes are the same (4wd vs 2wd may have some differences) as long as you have working trailer brakes, if the motor is able to handle the load and you know how to drive a stick properly you shouldnt have much problem. one thing to consider with horsepower ratings though, its (x) hp @ (y) rpm. in otherwords your 4cyl may not be at peak power until its around 4,000 rpm where a different motor may be a similar hp # but at a much lower rpm. i had a 6 cyl jeep once than had such a low powerband the it was useless below 2,000 and was spent by 3,000. with a 4cyl, the lower gears would be best. 4.10 preferably. if nothing else you could always try it out and make whatever changes needed, weather it be truck upgrades or a smaller camper. good luck!

[Rob06]

That trailer is WAY to heavy for the 2.3

I had a 1990 2.3 Ranger 4x4 and I pulled my sons 4.3L Chevey on a car carrier 60 miles on back roads doing no more than 50mph - It took all it had on even the smallest hills....

I pulled a 2 stall horse trailer with (1) 1100 pound horse with my 84 Bronco II and it pulled it but stopping was a real problem - way to much weight for a 2.8

I rented a single axle U-haul trailer and loaded it and the back of my 06 Ranger 4.0 4x4 xcab 5 speed with 410`s - it was fine untill I ran into some head winds and the wind drag was so bad I couldnt get it to do the speed limit.....Cargo load and trailer 2500 lbs. Mileage on the highway was 11 mpg.

Rob

[Will]

Wind is the kicker. That's when you need horsepower. I had the same experience when I picked up a 14' x 7'wide enclosed motorcycle trailer for my dad. It has 7' of standing room inside and the front is just flat across. It isn't that heavy and my 4.0 Ranger did great in town--this was in Detroit and I was bringing it back an hour south of Indy. Anyway, fine in town. But when I started up the ramp and got to about 50 it just ran out of power. I drove it at 3,000rpm in 4th for 350 miles and it got about 12mpg. It's a lot more revs than I feel comfortable with and the semis going past have a low pressure area beside them that sucks the trailer toward them, which is fun. Sure you can do it.

Power is power. But let's compare a schoolbus with a Ranger. My 18,000 bus can pull a 6% grade at 45mph with the engine at 2,500rpm in 5th gear. It's 185hp with an engine that weighs 1,300# and a massive cooling system with like 3" radiator hoses.

A 4.0 SOHC Ranger pulling a 14,000# trailer will need 4,500rpm to make 185hp. You've only got 2 gears though. You take off in first (which might not be possible with a 14,000# trailer), shift it a redline and then it will be at 39mph and 3600rpm. If you hit the bottom of the hill at 4,500rpm it should be keeping up with the bus on the way up.

The main problem is that the 4.0 doesn't have enough gears if you are going to use it for that much weight. It has 2 gears to use on the hill and the bus has 5 with the first being 9.04-1 and a 4.78-axle. A 3.40 first and a 3.55-axle means your clutch is probably going to be on fire, and in reality, the bus will be long gone if they start together at the bottom. Next, both engines have to get rid of the waste of 185hp heat. The Ranger was in no way meant for that with it's little plastic radiator and tiny cooling system. You keep it at maximum torque for that long and the heads will wrinkle up and spit the gaskets out right before the pistons start swapping holes.

Old school buses did use passenger car engines. But they had upgraded cooling systems, very low and slow gearboxes and the engines were derated. Even the modern bus engines are derated. The 200hp 5.9 Cummins in a medium-duty truck/bus makes 300+hp in the Dodge pickup passenger car rating. If you wanted 300hp in a medium-duty truck you would put in a 10 liter engine.

[downzero]

That's absolutely ridiculous. The same 5.9 in a marine application makes an ungodly amount of horsepower (more than in any pickup truck).

The reason school buses are detuned is for fuel economy, not because the cooling system cannot keep up.

I have a Dodge and even with a chip and 10,000 lbs behind it, you can bury it to the floor in overdrive up a steep grade and it will never overheat.

You are nuts if you think the factory would warranty a vehicle that cannot cool itself at maximum load and output.

The reason his truck is rated for such a low amount of weight is that it has no power. It is just not safe to try moving a heavy trailer in traffic with a 4 cylinder truck.

My Ranger won't even pull a small open trailer without struggling, and it has a 3.0!

[Will]

A marine rating....hmmm. Is that Continous, Intermittent or Pleasure?

Then, you should know that a marine engine is connected to a propeller. The propeller is designed to absorb maximum horsepower--it cannot see maximum torque at a lower rpm--or anywhere. You know torque=heat--it's the maximum amount of fuel you can burn in one engine cycle that matters. With a wheeled vehicle the operator can use maximum torque whenever he feels like it.

Next, show me a commercial application of a 5.9 Cummins in anything approaching 300hp, or even 250, in a wheeled vehicle, besides a Dodge pickup.

Then I will admit to being ridiculous.

Fuel economy my ass. Why use an L10 for 300hp why the 5.9 can do it? For fuel economy?

Of course.

Motorhomes and firetrucks are also intermittent applications that get higher hp ratings because they don't see continous high outputs. And pickup trucks.

[85_Ranger4x4]

Next, show me a commercial application of a 5.9 Cummins in anything approaching 300hp, or even 250, in a wheeled vehicle, besides a Dodge pickup.

Then I will admit to being ridiculous.

Case used the 5.9 in tractors for awhile (they still might) I don't think they were ever rated over 150hp at the PTO. I don't know what the driveline drag is but I can't see it losing 100hp between the flywheel and PTO shaft to put it over your 250hp. Tractor engines get tortured probably more than in most other applications, so that says something.

[Korrie]

A Casita is a relatively small trailer that is narrow with reduced frontal area than a typical travel trailer. I passed up a similar truck like yours because of the low tow rating. However if you are willing to take the risk of a void warrenty, tow what you want. I would try and keep the weight down by only taking what you need, don't haul water, etc. Be sure and use a weight distrubution hitch with a "light duty" torsion bar systems. Add a friction sway to the setup as well. And purchase a smart brake controller for the electic brakes it will do wonders to prevent trailer wheel lockup.

I serioulsy doubt a DOT officer on a bad day will ticket you for towing a Casita with a Ranger P/U. Most states require brakes on a 2000 lb trailer, towing mirrors, and working lights. That's about it.

Oh, and if the above setup feels unstable, some "cheap" upgrades would bigger sway bars, higher load range tires, stiffer shocks, and an extra rear leaf or helper springs.

Good Luck!

[Will]

A DOT officer is paid to enforce commercial vehicle regulations. He's not going to fool with anything pulling an RV. I sold my Casita to a 90 year-old man with a Honda Accord--and I drove it to fill it up (at his insistance) before he would take the wheel. It was just fine.