Truck bed liner over spray-on liner

[91stranger]

Here is a pic of my bed liner in my truck. I will have to get a picture of my trailer when I get home. Don't mind the mess in the truck. I actually just cleaned it out the other day to get the shingles in place. Anyone know what the part circled is for? It's only on the driver side and my 96 had it too b/c I originally cut this liner for the 96 and I notched it just for that piece.

 

[19Walt93]

I've seen spray in liners in landscaper trucks that were worn through from having gravel and crushed stone in them. I've also seen them sprayed over the bed bolts so you have to dig them out to remove the box, a local guy removes the bolts, sprays the bed, then puts the bolts back in. I've had drop in liners in my Rangers and I use the built in notches to hold partitions in place so items I want to stay near the gate stay put. The corrugated drop in liners are rough on the knees when you're crawling around in the bed, though. Nothing's perfect.

 

[sgtsandman]

Here is a pic of my bed liner in my truck. I will have to get a picture of my trailer when I get home. Don't mind the mess in the truck. I actually just cleaned it out the other day to get the shingles in place. Anyone know what the part circled is for? It's only on the driver side and my 96 had it too b/c I originally cut this liner for the 96 and I notched it just for that piece.

It’s a legacy from when there was an option for an auxiliary fuel tank. It wasn’t around long from what I gather. The tank was installed where the spare hangs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[91stranger]

It’s a legacy from when there was an option for an auxiliary fuel tank. It wasn’t around long from what I gather. The tank was installed where the spare hangs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I thought the dual fuel tanks were from the 80's? This is a 1999 so why would they still have a "mold" for a non existent fuel tank? I bet there is a better explanation for this because I don't see that as being a correct answer. The front of the bed doesn't have that notch where the fuel tank is. Anyone else have an answer for this?

 

[sgtsandman]

I thought the dual fuel tanks were from the 80's? This is a 1999 so why would they still have a "mold" for a non existent fuel tank? I bet there is a better explanation for this because I don't see that as being a correct answer. The front of the bed doesn't have that notch where the fuel tank is. Anyone else have an answer for this?

Ford changed as little as possible on the Ranger over the years and used a lot of already existing, off the shelf components. Both my old ‘98 and my current ‘11 have a hump for the main tank as well as the shortly available, way back when, aux tank. But what do I know? Since there has to be a more logical answer, I’ll leave to others to explain what I’m obviously wrong about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hank857]

Ranger850, no I am not, just read a lot on the subject as it regards loads on stuff, ie dual wheels and small load bearing pads in recent article on blocking rv wheels for parking on soft surfaces etc. Yes thats why the M1 abrams has such large tracks, spreads loads over greater area thus reducing high loads due to narrow tracks. Saw another article on CH47's with skies on the landing gear. Goes from something like 5-600 lbs/inch to less than 5 lbs/inch or something like that on snow due to the skies installed. Used fly a UH-1 land on snow settled onto the belly of the aircraft. another aircraft has skis never even settled into the snow, of course he could not fly as fast as I could due to the new drag factors. Dont need to be a math wizard if ya think about things unless you are trying to prove a specific point of view.

 

[alwaysFlOoReD]

I agree with sgtsandman, it's a left over from dual fuel tank rangers.

 

[91stranger]

Ford changed as little as possible on the Ranger over the years and used a lot of already existing, off the shelf components. Both my old ‘98 and my current ‘11 have a hump for the main tank as well as the shortly available, way back when, aux tank. But what do I know? Since there has to be a more logical answer, I’ll leave to others to explain what I’m obviously wrong about.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I never said you were wrong. I just thinks its an odd design. They did away with the dual tanks like what 30 years ago? They got rid of the 2nd fuel door so why wouldn't they get rid of the 2nd hump? The ranger body style has changed numerous times since the 80's so why keep a design that wastes material for 30 years? that little amount of metal doesn't seem like much but you multiply it by millions of trucks over how many years now? I saw pictures and yes the 2nd fuel tank door is right where that hump is but it has grooves on the top side of the hump that look like they have a purpose other than providing a rigid piece of metal rather than a flat piece of metal.... Not trying to be difficult. Just doesn't seem right.

 

[Ranger850]

I agree with Always Floored, and SGTsandman. it is the "appendix" of a Ford Ranger. Useless but still there.

 

[Shran]

Just doesn't seem right.

It's not right, it's bizarre that it's there at all after '88 when the dual tanks were abandoned. I imagine they left it in case dual tanks ever became an option again? Perhaps they actually reused the pattern for the inner box side? I don't know. Very weird.

I also park my trailers and stuff on something... usually it's pieces of plywood. I think it does have an affect on tire lifespan and it also keeps them from sinking into the mud in my gravel driveway.

 

[sgtsandman]

I never said you were wrong. I just thinks its an odd design. They did away with the dual tanks like what 30 years ago? They got rid of the 2nd fuel door so why wouldn't they get rid of the 2nd hump? The ranger body style has changed numerous times since the 80's so why keep a design that wastes material for 30 years? that little amount of metal doesn't seem like much but you multiply it by millions of trucks over how many years now? I saw pictures and yes the 2nd fuel tank door is right where that hump is but it has grooves on the top side of the hump that look like they have a purpose other than providing a rigid piece of metal rather than a flat piece of metal.... Not trying to be difficult. Just doesn't seem right.

Why they never redesigned the bed when they did the body is beyond me. Perhaps after they crunched the numbers, they felt the added expense of changing machinery to eliminate the hump was more than just leaving it.

The Ranger has always been kinda the "red headed step-child" in the Ford line, at least in the U.S. As evidenced by the off the shelf parts they tended to use even though they might not be the best match for the design, the minimization of chassis upgrades compared to other models, and the 8 year hiatus of the Ranger from the product line.

Ford has maintained that the Ranger was not a real money maker for them. They might be right on that. I don't have access to their numbers, so I can't say more on that since I only have what they tell us. It certainly doesn't project the same image that a full size truck does, many here could care less about that, myself included. It does the job I need it to do without costing a mortgage payment to finance it. That is good enough for me.

 

[Snoranger]

Ford used the same inner bed structure for the F-series from 73-96. If they didn't change the design on their "important" truck, why would they change it on the Ranger?

 

[RangerDanger2]

So, a follow up to my original post. I purchased a rugged bed liner and just installed over my very thick but worn out spray-on bed liner and it worked fabulously. No problem with just putting the liner in the bed and securing it with the provided locks.

Concerning the hump in the back of the bed. I have no idea, but my bed has a hump both in the front of the bed where the fuel fill is located as well as the hump in the rear. Although I don't know for certain, I assumed the fill and the tank was located in the rear at some point during the product life cycle and they just left it. Again, is just my assumption.

 

[sgtsandman]

So, a follow up to my original post. I purchased a rugged bed liner and just installed over my very thick but worn out spray-on bed liner and it worked fabulously. No problem with just putting the liner in the bed and securing it with the provided locks.



Concerning the hump in the back of the bed. I have no idea, but my bed has a hump both in the front of the bed where the fuel fill is located as well as the hump in the rear. Although I don't know for certain, I assumed the fill and the tank was located in the rear at some point during the product life cycle and they just left it. Again, is just my assumption.

It was for an optional auxiliary tank that was only available for a short while. Ford never redid the bed profile since. Only the exterior sheetmetal changed over time.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk