Towing capacity?

[Blmpkn]

This is what I'm throwing around in my mind too, like sarge mentioned too about the boost its really kind of one of those things is it really worth it. I don't do much towing....I do plan on getting a sub-compact tractor and some implements/attachments in the future, however it would push that new Ranger a lot to tow something like that, so I'd want a larger truck for that, but to take a camping trip once in a while within 150-200 miles of home with a 2-3k camp trailer it might be ok for that task, but if I were doing it daily I'd certainly want a different truck I'd think.

So many things to really think about deep down, and nobody rents them to be able to say rent one for a week and see if it would really be what I'd need/want.

My old 2010 2.3 manual got 26-27 mpg empty, but when I had my wheeler in the back that figure dropped quite a bit. I'd use a quarter of a tank just getting to and from wherever we would go riding.. a total of 1 hour driving at max, on backroads.

With the wheeler in the back at highway speeds, it got 12 mpg lol. The new truck definitely does better than that, even with more than twice the weight. It may not be MUCH better, but better none the less.

 

[don4331]

The power is certainly there. I personally wouldn't use any ecoboost engine to do any heavy towing on a regular basis. I just don't think the engines are designed to be in boost mode all the time. For occasional full weight duty or hauling a small or medium size utility trailer on a regular basis, I don't think there would be an issue. I also don't think it would be a great idea to do a tour across the country at the max tow rating. Again, this is just my opinion.

There are a lot of F-150s with Ecoboost engines doing heavy towing on a regular basis and the forums aren't lit up with owner's having engines blowing up like grenades. They aren't your grandpa's turbo engines.

So, while I personally wouldn't tour the country at max tow rating, the truck was designed to it.

Actually, I might need to take that back...my twice annual trips from Regina to Ottawa/Toronto through the '90s were close to GCWR (probably exceeding with snow/ice build up a couple times). A new Ranger would be sooo much more comfortable to do it.

 

[bobbywalter]

If you have e rated tires, that usually negates needing a load distribution hitch

Well that's total BS..... Load range has nothing to do with weight distribution. I take that back, it has a little to do with it but having load range E tires doesn't mean you don't need a weight distribution hitch. I'd recommend an E2 weight distribution hitch. They are easy to use, easy to install and do sway control too.
[/QUOTE]

Load distributing hitch and stock ranger should not be a thing.


I am speaking within the envelope of a normal ranger.


If you need a load distributing hitch you need e tires.

Because your load is out of hand.

 

[wildbill23c]

I'd say this was a bit much for my 87 Ranger's 2k towing capacity, yeah the Ranger pulled it but it wasn't loaded properly weight distribution wise, way too much weight behind the axle of the trailer to safely tow any distance, luckily it was only 5 miles home and on low speed 35mph roads....wouldn't do it again personally at least not without manually redistributing the weight for safety reasons. Not sure how much it weighed, but I'd guess 3-4k as it did put quite the load on the engine/transmission LOL. Flat ground pretty much except for the hill to get up on the bench where I live, truck did ok, I was doing about 30mph before I hit the hill, then slowed down due to the trailer weight to about 20mph going up the hill and in 2nd gear.

I could easily tell the load wasn't distributed properly in the trailer from the excavator because there wasn't hardly any squat on the truck, it was pretty much still level so I knew to take it easy on the way home. I had to drive clear out onto the back side of the gravel pit to get loaded, which is all gravel and sand...quite a bit of wheel spin to get moving due to the poor weight distribution but the truck was very stable considering there wasn't much tongue weight.

Used the Ranger only because its the only vehicle I've got right now. Bronco 2 is at the muffler shop getting a new muffler. Explorer is at another shop having blend door issues dealt with to get the AC blowing on the driver's side instead of warm air...so the Ranger was my only option, otherwise I would have used the Explorer. However, I am a bit curious as to how the Bronco 2 would have handled that, may have to try it next time I need a load of gravel like that.

I'd say that might be 1/4 of a yard, don't think its a 1/2 a yard...but it was $20. Day prior I paid $40 for 10 bags of "play" sand and thought why did I do that I could go out to the gravel pit and get the gravel for cheaper...dumb moment, yep I have a lot of those HAHA!!

 

[sgtsandman]

I’ve taken great pains to properly balance the load in my utility trailer when it comes to my camping equipment. Of course, gravel, firewood, or other loose loads will be a bit difficult to do that with.

I’ve also made sure to weigh everything as far as the camping equipment goes. The only variable is the coolers and what gets loaded in them. The estimated weight determines where they get loaded in the trailer.