An observation....

[Dirtman]

 

[rusty ol ranger]

And they do all that while still having less ground clearance than the older ones.

My dad has a 16 F-150 4x4. I think the tire size works out to about 32 or 33 inches. My 87 Ranger 4x4 has 31s, my 88 B2 has 29.5 inch tires. All three of them sit at stock ride height, aside from the small amount of lift provided by the bigger than original tires on both of mine.

I can crawl under either of mine and fit, and have room to work. In fact I did just that today, on both of them.

When I try to crawl under the 16 my gut get stuck on the frame.

I did notice that ground clearence seems to be lacking hardcore.

I can park my 3/4 ton 2wd next to a FX4 1/2 ton and atleast at the rockers have more clearence.

 

[Dirtman]

Its doesn't take alot of ground clearance to tackle the hardcore terrain of a mall parking lot.

 

[Grumpaw]

Here ya go...
First one will never ever see a minute of off road use, or even a minute of "work" use.
Second one is for giggles...
Grumpaw

 

[fastpakr]

I rolled right under a 19 Ranger with no problem. At least as much clearance as any stock older Ranger if not more.

 

[Dirtman]

The second one actually looks functional, probably just using the tiny tires to move it around to work on it... it's got a 2.5 ton rear in it.

 

[4.0blue98]

The springs in the second one look like slinky's.

 

[Dirtman]

The springs in the second one look like slinky's.

Well, I mean... "technically" a slinky IS a spring... so.... yes...

 

[4.0blue98]

Well, I mean... "technically" a slinky IS a spring... so.... yes...

Point taken, but those couldn't walk down stairs alone or in pairs...

 

[bobbywalter]

Here ya go...
First one will never ever see a minute of off road use, or even a minute of "work" use.
Second one is for giggles...
Grumpaw

pretty sure i seen video of the ford thing getting the shit beat out of it with mxl's. and totally sure that particular ford platform would rip the guts out of that particular gm platform.


for sure the modern ford bedsides are ridiculous. i am over 6-3 and its at just the height it blows my t's out. and my ranger is the same way...i have to be careful loading the damn thing.

i call my ranger a low rider 4x4 in the sense it would fit into a 7 foot door with it rolling on 42's not an easy feat for something that is actually usable.

no matter what...i would not want to be without a custom bed. my shop truck has a reg bed and i had to adapt my cranes to it....pain in the ass.

working height is hard to nail down... on a stock truck it is easy to keep low though.

just today.... like i just got in from the store minutes ago... i had a guy offer me 1500 for the bed on my truck. i almost said yes...and still may...which is why i took his number.

i tried to explain it was not right due to the gap for planned cab expansion....dude didnt give a fawk...wanted it on the spot. like literally was going to the bank machine serious... he was in a 2004 ranger ext cab with a mint bed.

i have had a few people try to get me to sell this bed or build a bed like it. always people with newer trucks so i am curious to the draw. on my truck it may as well be a modern lifted 150. on a stock truck i would be pretty nice for working out of it.

 

[scotts90ranger]

I agree, my '97 F350 is bad enough, why they decided to lift it 4" to fit 35" tires is beyond me, and of course they did it right and did it with all springs so it was a pain to lower down some . I use an in bed camper so height is a problem, F250 lift blocks and taking the overload out of the front got it about where I want it... One of these days I need to find a front sway bar, kinda tippy with just a rear...

Using the bed on either my '90 Ranger or the F350 is kinda a pain, bed rails are both about armpit level and I'm 5' 11". One of these days the front axle will move forward a little bit and I can get it lower... the only clearance problem I have is the firewall.

 

[1990RangerinSK]

And they do all that while still having less ground clearance than the older ones.

My dad has a 16 F-150 4x4. I think the tire size works out to about 32 or 33 inches. My 87 Ranger 4x4 has 31s, my 88 B2 has 29.5 inch tires. All three of them sit at stock ride height, aside from the small amount of lift provided by the bigger than original tires on both of mine.

I can crawl under either of mine and fit, and have room to work. In fact I did just that today, on both of them.

When I try to crawl under the 16 my gut get stuck on the frame.

Sounds like somebody needs to go on a diet.

 

[Grumpaw]

I was out cleaning up leaves....

AGAIN....

and as i was dumping them in my 97 F250 HD something occured to me...

Im 6'1 and its a royal bitch to reach over the bedside and dump the leaf vac bag in over the bedside. Usually i use the ranger but i didnt feel like going down and unloading them tonight.

How in the royal shit do people do things like this with the massivley tall bedsides on modern trucks? Use a ladder? Why are the bedsides so tall anyways?

Not trying to debate old vs new...but just something i dont understand.

Just a matter of "styling progress" Back in them olden days all pickups were step-side, and they were work trucks. In the 50's Ford came out with the first styleside bed, but even then it was very accessible because it was designed that way.
The "belt line" was much lower than modern trucks. Later designs had higher belt lines and thus bed top rails got higher. Also, truck bodies were much lower on the frame because the engine assembly was much smaller and lower, so the body could sit "lower" on the frame rails. As engines got bigger it necessitated raising the body so the engine wouldn't stick up and hit the hood. Just place a stock Ford, Chevy, Dodge pick up from 1960 next to a modern truck and the difference will be obvious.
And, tires were much smaller in diameter, and they usually "filled" the wheel wells. No thought was ever given to using huge diameter tires. Look at pic's of 50's-60's trucks and you won't find the huge wheel well openings you see now,
A bit of research... I found that the stock 1960 Ford F-100 2 WD had a ground to top of bed rail height of around 47-48 inches. Can't find specs for a new F-150 or Ranger, but I'd bet it's much higher. But 47 inches is very easy to lift and lean over to access the bed from the side.
The designers could easily design a lower, easily accessible truck and bed, but then it wouldn't be "rugged" looking enough.
Grumpaw

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

The designers could easily design a lower, easily accessible truck and bed, but then it wouldn't be "rugged" looking enough.
Grumpaw

It can be done:

Actually while it takes a beating for not having as much "bed volume" as its competitors the Tacoma has a very nice bed rail height, just eyeballing it I would say it is similar to my '85 for depth and ease of access.

 

[fastpakr]

That makes me drool. Such a shame we never really got the pickup Landcruisers here.