The all-new 2019 Ford Ranger can carry serious gear

[Bird76Mojo]

Uh huh. Superduties that are not measured too?

I said one reason, not the only reason

Ford was never looking to increase the towing capacities of the vehicles in question. However, they WERE looking for various ways to meet very strict future fuel efficiency standards set by uncle Sam, and be ahead of the game. Their decision to switch to aluminum bodies never had anything to do with towing capacities. Ford's original problem was meeting these strict standard by 2020 or whatever the date was (can't recall the date for sure) and switching to aluminum bodies was their solution to this problem. Any increase in towing capacity was simply an added benefit, but it certainly wasn't part of their original quandary.



GB

 

[sgtsandman]

Ford was never looking to increase the towing capacities of the vehicles in question. However, they WERE looking for various ways to meet very strict future fuel efficiency standards set by uncle Sam, and be ahead of the game. Their decision to switch to aluminum bodies never had anything to do with towing capacities. Ford's original problem was meeting these strict standard by 2020 or whatever the date was (can't recall the date for sure) and switching to aluminum bodies was their solution to this problem. Any increase in towing capacity was simply an added benefit, but it certainly wasn't part of their original quandary.



GB

This, I agree, is the main reason for the switch to aluminum and the sudden hard focus on turbocharged engines in their product line.

 

[Big'Un]

Support legs or pins would create hot spots

Good point, but the WRX-STi has them at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions...


85 Ranger4x4--seems you have a quite a few conversations going on LOL

 

[85_Ranger4x4]

Ford was never looking to increase the towing capacities of the vehicles in question. However, they WERE looking for various ways to meet very strict future fuel efficiency standards set by uncle Sam, and be ahead of the game. Their decision to switch to aluminum bodies never had anything to do with towing capacities. Ford's original problem was meeting these strict standard by 2020 or whatever the date was (can't recall the date for sure) and switching to aluminum bodies was their solution to this problem. Any increase in towing capacity was simply an added benefit, but it certainly wasn't part of their original quandary.

GB

Not really leaps and bounds differences. Also considering the 3.5 underwent upgrades for '15 and the truck received a differently shaped body and the only carryover engine (5.0) is at a dead wash.

http://www.autonews.com/article/20141121/BLOG06/141129950/ford-f-150-mpg-for-2015-is-a-mixed-bag

And again, Superduty's also went aluminum and the EPA doesn't track their fuel economy.

Good point, but the WRX-STi has them at 12, 3, 6, and 9 o'clock positions...

Truck/SUV applications will run more heat too.

85 Ranger4x4--seems you have a quite a few conversations going on LOL

I don't know why I do it to myself...

 

[Ranger850]

I've read somewhere GM is going Carbon Fiber instead of aluminum. As stated be forever, a lighter truck can tow more with the same power plant. So it's a win win. They meet stricter EPA standards AND now can tow more.
Big Un, sir is the correct noun for me.
lol

 

[pjtoledo]

I've read somewhere GM is going Carbon Fiber instead of aluminum. As stated be forever, a lighter truck can tow more with the same power plant. So it's a win win. They meet stricter EPA standards AND now can tow more.
Big Un, sir is the correct noun for me.
lol

not necessarily, there is another thing to consider when determining the towing capacity: the weight ratio of what's doing the towing vs what's being towed. trailers do push the trucks around, and not always just forward.
as the towed weight increases it eventually gets to the point where the truck can no longer control the inputs from the trailer induced by drag, inertia, uneven road surfaces, curves, or cross winds etc. if you look at it from a leverage standpoint, the force is applied at the hitch several feet behind the pivot point which is the rear axle.
so the towing capacity depends on lots of variables, and the engineers with their computers and test tracks are very good at figuring it out.

 

[don4331]

The engineers with their computers and test tracks are very good at figuring it out.

In too many cases the engineers are just good at figuring out how to pass the test with the best marks (VM & RAM dieselgates, EPA fuel economy numbers, etc).

And I'm going to have to correct a couple of my previous statements as I have learned more.

F-150 Max Towing is achieved with the medium (6.5') SuperCrew 4x2. And it can probably be a Lariat trim model.

To get best "grade" on the SAE J2807, you need largest delta between GCWR and GVWR. Ford rates the 3.5EB SuperCrew 6' box 4x2 with the highest GCWR. Then they pick a GVWR which barely meets the payload requirement (10% of trailer, Driver and passenger, and WD hitch).

Given the SCrew weighs slightly <5k empty, payload at F-150s highest rating is ~1.7k & the min GVWR for the SCrew is 7k. Therefore, you have ~300lbs available for options. Might as well use a Lariat trim, otherwise you just have to ballast anyways.

As Ford rates the Regular cab Long box almost 1,500lbs less in GCWR, it tows less under the test. Even with lightest payload, RCLB Lariat needs ballast. And the F-150 with large payload package tows an even less due to additional ballast.

Bringing it back to Ranger's:

Based on the RoW Ranger's 13.2k lb GCWR & the announced 7.4k lb trailer max, you may very well be able to get a SCrew Lariat Ranger for the job. It is not guaranteed to be the highest GVWR truck though (Too high GVWR would hurt trailer tow numbers).

Again, which of SCab or SCrew Ranger XL has highest payload will depend on how the max GVWR for the 2 models is rated. Ford certainly plays with GVWR between the F-150 models to get the numbers they want.

 

[bobbywalter]

This, I agree, is the main reason for the switch to aluminum and the sudden hard focus on turbocharged engines in their product line.

Ford was never looking to increase the towing capacities of the vehicles in question. However, they WERE looking for various ways to meet very strict future fuel efficiency standards set by uncle Sam, and be ahead of the game. Their decision to switch to aluminum bodies never had anything to do with towing capacities. Ford's original problem was meeting these strict standard by 2020 or whatever the date was (can't recall the date for sure) and switching to aluminum bodies was their solution to this problem. Any increase in towing capacity was simply an added benefit, but it certainly wasn't part of their original quandary.



GB

lots of merit here. it is the reason we ended up with the 4.6...

I didn't realize the 3.5 had the same block design...interesting... Maybe 3 floating cylinders are stronger than 4. The idea of an area of such high stress just hanging there, with no connection to the head (pins or bolts), doesn't sound like a good idea. I also read the Ford GT uses the same 3.5 block as the F-150, and I haven't heard of any issues with those either, but I'm sure they aren't driven much.
I may be starting to see the light. It would be nice if they did add some type of support to the upper end of the block around the cylinder

Interesting video and counter point. I wonder if it's and issue with the amount of boost with the Focus? I don't know what the Mustang hp level is but the Explorer is less (285 hp vs 310hp - drawing from memory). I know engines not designed to be turbo boosted have head gasket problems if boosted so much. Perhaps an apples to apples comparison here?? I'm not an engineer, so just a basic auto mechanic and aircraft mechanic thinking here and might be off base.

I am betting they need all the coolant contact they can get to keep them cool. Support legs or pins would create hot spots

It sounds like the focus blocks were not made correctly, he says as much in your video saying that they are warped without being overheated. It doesn’t matter how you make a block, if it is warped you are going to have head gasket problems.

agreed on floating cylinders...not a big fan of them.

they/you can make girdles for the blocks to stabilize the bores. you machine the block and fit it. it is definitely something to consider with the 3.5 when wanting to exceed 600 whp. first seen it 2012-13 or so.. you needed to add fuel back then as there were no hpfp or high output d.i. injectors available yet. these were in taurus and flex vehicles


theres some seriously raging 4 door soccer fords prowling around out there.

i heard of some 4cyl, that had reported cylinder splitting with this mod over 800 hp while working on some data projects. no one knew if it was improperly done or just the limits..but those were mustang applications not the focus.

sleeving and girdles seem to be the thing for max power.. short blocks in the 6-10k range price me out of it...

when i first seen it i wanted to apply it to my current diesel. well..the navistar version of it.. those going for power with that platform usually fill the blocks with block cement.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

In too many cases the engineers are just good at figuring out how to pass the test with the best marks (VM & RAM dieselgates, EPA fuel economy numbers, etc).

And I'm going to have to correct a couple of my previous statements as I have learned more.

F-150 Max Towing is achieved with the medium (6.5') SuperCrew 4x2. And it can probably be a Lariat trim model.

To get best "grade" on the SAE J2807, you need largest delta between GCWR and GVWR. Ford rates the 3.5EB SuperCrew 6' box 4x2 with the highest GCWR. Then they pick a GVWR which barely meets the payload requirement (10% of trailer, Driver and passenger, and WD hitch).

Given the SCrew weighs slightly <5k empty, payload at F-150s highest rating is ~1.7k & the min GVWR for the SCrew is 7k. Therefore, you have ~300lbs available for options. Might as well use a Lariat trim, otherwise you just have to ballast anyways.

As Ford rates the Regular cab Long box almost 1,500lbs less in GCWR, it tows less under the test. Even with lightest payload, RCLB Lariat needs ballast. And the F-150 with large payload package tows an even less due to additional ballast.

Bringing it back to Ranger's:

Based on the RoW Ranger's 13.2k lb GCWR & the announced 7.4k lb trailer max, you may very well be able to get a SCrew Lariat Ranger for the job. It is not guaranteed to be the highest GVWR truck though (Too high GVWR would hurt trailer tow numbers).

Again, which of SCab or SCrew Ranger XL has highest payload will depend on how the max GVWR for the 2 models is rated. Ford certainly plays with GVWR between the F-150 models to get the numbers they want.

You really should do better real world research before you just throw things out there on the interwebs. I am not even going to begin correcting all your mistakes but one huge one is, "RCLB Lariat". It doesn't exist.

 

[fastpakr]

Really? Somebody does to great length to post detailed facts and specs, and the most useful thing you can accomplish is find one mistake and be an ass about it? Go take your trolling somewhere else.

 

[Ranger850]

not necessarily, there is another thing to consider when determining the towing capacity: the weight ratio of what's doing the towing vs what's being towed. trailers do push the trucks around, and not always just forward.
as the towed weight increases it eventually gets to the point where the truck can no longer control the inputs from the trailer induced by drag, inertia, uneven road surfaces, curves, or cross winds etc. if you look at it from a leverage standpoint, the force is applied at the hitch several feet behind the pivot point which is the rear axle.
so the towing capacity depends on lots of variables, and the engineers with their computers and test tracks are very good at figuring it out.

I know this. my statement was a vague assessment of the conversation. Of course there is a trade off with weight to power and vise versa. We are on the same page here. Sorry if I confused anybody, but I know the geniuses here at TRS will gladly correct ant wrong statement.

 

[2002edgeplussupercab]

Really? Somebody does to great length to post detailed facts and specs, and the most useful thing you can accomplish is find one mistake and be an ass about it? Go take your trolling somewhere else.

HAHA Really ? No. Like I said, too many non facts to waste my time on. You know, like you wasting your time calling names ?

 

[sgtsandman]

 

[pjtoledo]

I know this. my statement was a vague assessment of the conversation. Of course there is a trade off with weight to power and vise versa. We are on the same page here. Sorry if I confused anybody, but I know the geniuses here at TRS will gladly correct ant wrong statement.

it's all good here, so raise a beer to everybody dear.

 

[Ranger850]