1 ton rated, but ranger size?

[dvdswan]

If you don't like the long trucks, buy a reg. cab 1T truck. They're probably 3' shorter. That's a SWAG.

 

[don4331]

Ahhh I like the discussion. Alotta fun here. I was trying to get some ecoboost advice on an f150 forum a while back. They’re pretty stuck up over there.

well I parked beside a ram 3500 the other day. It looked as if the differential and two tires would take up the full width of the ranger. It just seems that a tiny truck with a fifth wheel would be pretty handy in some situations.

Ranger with a 5th wheel is a cute little combination.

My daughter's truck with our trailer. Load is easily within GAWR/GVWR/GCWR of the truck.​

​

Aside: Gas mileage dropped a couple mpg over the 800km I have towed it to date.​

​

Just saying: The max payload Ranger was 1,660lbs for my '99; the difference between a max payload and regular F-150 currently is the thickness steel for the frame rails is 0.11 thick vs 0.087, uprated front and rear springs, 9.75 vs 8.8 rear axle and LT versus P tires. Ford could have built Ranger with Explorer rear axle, the 3,500lb rear springs the aftermarket sells, increased frame thickness by a 1/32" and increased payload to 1 ton, without missing a stride if competition had warranted it. (Ranger is so far below limits of tires upgrade would not be a requirement; but truck does feel better a GVWR with LT tires).

 

[Dirtman]

Rangers were made do deliver auto parts and haul bags of mulch from Home Depot. For Ford to "beef" them up to do more would have defeated the point of a small cheap truck and just cut into sales of the F series. One of the reasons I have no idea why the new Ranger exists since it's practically an F150 anyway. Especially when they recognize the desire for a small cheap truck when they introduced the Maverick. The Maverick should have been the new ranger and the new ranger should never have existed.

 

[Roert42]

Rangers were made do deliver auto parts and haul bags of mulch from Home Depot. For Ford to "beef" them up to do more would have defeated the point of a small cheap truck and just cut into sales of the F series. One of the reasons I have no idea why the new Ranger exists since it's practically an F150 anyway. Especially when they recognize the desire for a small cheap truck when they introduced the Maverick. The Maverick should have been the new ranger and the new ranger should never have existed.

I suspect the new ranger was designed to be more of an offroad/trail truck, to compete with the Tacoma and Gladiator in that aspect.
While maverick is designed to be the small commuter/delivery truck designed to compete with the Frontier/Colorado/original rangers.

They obviously didn't develop the two trucks completely independently, they made two trucks at the same time for two separate markets. Someone who wants a maverick is not going to look too hard at the new ranger, and vise versa.

 

[Dirtman]

I suspect the new ranger was designed to be more of an offroad/trail truck, to compete with the Tacoma and Gladiator in that aspect.
While maverick is designed to be the small commuter/delivery truck designed to compete with the Frontier/Colorado/original rangers.

They obviously didn't develop the two trucks completely independently, they made two trucks at the same time for two separate markets. Someone who wants a maverick is not going to look too hard at the new ranger, and vise versa.

If they wanted the ranger to compete with the Toyota or Jeep in the off-road department they need to offer it with a much more serious off-road package than the fx4 and at least the 2.7 V6. It's definitely a capable off-road vehicle but no where near TRD or Rubicon levels.

The new bronco is gonna be competitive for that but the ranger is meh when it comes to the serious off-road packages.

 

[Chapap]

If they wanted the ranger to compete with the Toyota or Jeep in the off-road department they need to offer it with a much more serious off-road package than the fx4 and at least the 2.7 V6. It's definitely a capable off-road vehicle but no where near TRD or Rubicon levels.

The new bronco is gonna be competitive for that but the ranger is meh when it comes to the serious off-road packages.

Haven’t done much research on the bronco, but the bronco sport I don’t understand. Looks to me to be an Escape with a different dress. Would hardly be comfortable on a graded dirt road.

 

[fastpakr]

Would hardly be comfortable on a graded dirt road.

What do you mean by that?

 

[Chapap]

What do you mean by that?

well it’s a unibody, FWD with a little engine. Seems to me to be just a rebranded escape. That’s a nice little car, but not worth the bronco name. Kinda like the Mustang Mach-E. Probably a good car, but shouldn’t have the Mustang title.

 

[fastpakr]

Okay, fair enough. It's certainly not as off road oriented as the larger vehicles with truck based frames. But that's an ocean of difference from being uncomfortable on a graded dirt road...

And I agree with regard to the choice of name (on both the Bronco Sport and the Mustang).

 

[Chapap]

Okay, fair enough. It's certainly not as off road oriented as the larger vehicles with truck based frames. But that's an ocean of difference from being uncomfortable on a graded dirt road...

And I agree with regard to the choice of name (on both the Bronco Sport and the Mustang).

Hah maybe that was a bit of hyperbole (I think that word belongs there). My wife has a newer Camaro and I can’t bring myself to get any kind of speed on anything but asphalt. I tend to want to creep thru every little bump. That’s one reason I love my little beater ranger. I can just plow through anything that won’t snap a linkage.

 

[sgtsandman]

They did make a Ranger that was rated for somewhere in 1 ton range. At least on paper. They made RVs with a dually rear end. If I remember correctly, the axle bearings didn’t have a long life.

As far as the current Ranger and it’s size. It was never intended for the North American market. It was intended for the rest of the world that typically do not buy F150 or larger class trucks for private use. Hell, even their semi trucks are small compared to ours. Of course, their countries aren’t the size of ours either, which the exception of say Australia or Brazil coming close in size as the continental U.S.

In any case, most places in Europe were built and designed with vehicles in mind outside of horse carts and carriages. Anything larger is a tight squeeze and the driver skills are down right impressive.

 

[Dirtman]

They did make a Ranger that was rated for somewhere in 1 ton range. At least on paper. They made RVs with a dually rear end. If I remember correctly, the axle bearings didn’t have a long life.

As far as the current Ranger and it’s size. It was never intended for the North American market. It was intended for the rest of the world that typically do not buy F150 or larger class trucks for private use. Hell, even their semi trucks are small compared to ours. Of course, their countries aren’t the size of ours either, which the exception of say Australia or Brazil coming close in size as the continental U.S.

In any case, most places in Europe were built and designed with vehicles in mind outside of horse carts and carriages. Anything larger is a tight squeeze and the driver skills are down right impressive.

I thought those ranger RV's were made by an aftermarket company?

 

[sgtsandman]

I thought those ranger RV's were made by an aftermarket company?

You could be correct. I don’t know a lot of detail on them other than that they exist/existed and there is a reason they still aren’t around.

I wouldn’t be surprised if it was just a chassis builder that tried to make an improper peg fit in the hole.

 

[Snoranger]

Haven’t done much research on the bronco, but the bronco sport I don’t understand. Looks to me to be an Escape with a different dress. Would hardly be comfortable on a graded dirt road.

Well, my Bronco Sport is 4 wheel drive (w/o low range)with an electronic locking rear diff. Show of hands... who here has an E-locker.

 

[Dirtman]

The bronco sport has a rear differential?

I thought it was that "intelligent" AWD system that is front wheel drive and gives power to the rear when it feels like it and not a actual rear wheel drive based 4x4 system.