What's the limiting factor?

[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

 

[rusty ol ranger]

I bet a 2.9 could though, right? Haha

I bet she'd pull her guts out trying.

MOre so then the lazy 4.0

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.

 

[Ozwynn]

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 @ 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]

Bad idea

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