5.0 towing with ford ranger

[Tom&Joan]

TJMac, My dimension from back of cab to centre of pin is 37.25. I hope this helps.

Tom

[TJMac]

Greatly, thanks Tom.
Terry

[Tom&Joan]

Originally Posted by pioneer500

Mine also! Thank You all for your insights and advice. I'm keeping my Tundra!

OK guys, Do you realize the vehicle manufacturers cannot fudge towing capacities as in last years? They must conform to SAE standards with regards to frame strength, braking capacity, cooling, suspension and I do not know what else. I am towing at about 60% of my Ranger's stated capacity of 7500#. The frame by the way is the same strength as the F150. I did tow the Escape briefly with our 2017 F450 while waiting for the Ranger to be built. I do not have any hard data, but the 450, while good, was no better overtaking slower vehicles on interstate grades pulling the Escape than the Ranger. Actually, the Ranger was definitely better in that regard pulling the Escape than the 450 pulling the 33' Reflection trailer. I wished for a bit more power in that combination. Now, does your theory of the Ranger being inadequate extend to the GMC Canyon/ Chevy Colorado (which many are happy with) or is this a bias against Ford?

[Tom&Joan]

I have to add a bit of my personal experience. I had a CDL for many years and trained drivers who already had CDL's to stay out of trouble and avoid accidents. Tipping over a dump trailer is no fun and loosing part of a load will spoil your day and someone elses as well. Load securement was and is my hot button. I have done a little accident reconstruction as well. Also worked with a group getting accident data with the goal of getting affordable insurance coverage for a certain class of trucks, which resulted in the formation of a new arm of an insurance company. Another fun job was evaluating hybrid trucks (diesel electric) that were test beds for buses. I have been around the block more than once but have never stopped learning as that curve never levels out. Thanks for reading, all comments/opinions are welcome. Facts even more so.

[ColoradoSwany]

Tom, do you have the SuperCab with 6’ bed or the SuperCrew with the 5’ bed?

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by Tom&Joan

... Now, does your theory of the Ranger being inadequate extend to the GMC Canyon/ Chevy Colorado (which many are happy with) or is this a bias against Ford?

I doubt it's a bias against Ford, given the comments in many threads by many members.

It is to some extent a bias against smaller trucks, regardless of brand - there have been similar comments about the Colorado/Canyon, and even about full-sized trucks any less than the 250/2500 class. That can be valid, although all Escapes seem well within the Ranger's capability. The biggest real issue for towing the 5.0TA in smaller pickups is usually clearance to the cab, which may require a hitch point which is further back than desirable.

I suspect it is largely a bias against gasoline engines with four cylinders. It doesn't matter that the EcoBoost 2.3 can put out more power than the 2.8 L Duramax diesel in a Colorado/Canyon, or that the 2.8 is also a four-cylinder... "real trucks don't have a gas four". The EcoBoost V6 faced the same objections (because it's not a V8), and still does to some extent, which I always found hilarious because the heaviest trucks on the road (hauling tens of tons of trailer) have six-cylinder turbodiesel engines. Cylinder count is not the most important characteristic of an engine.

[Tim Proffitt]

We plan on purchasing a TA5.0 very soon (at least get on the wait list). We also plan on purchasing a new truck to tow it with, but I am totally confused on payload capacity. For the TA5.0, isn't it the same thing as the pin weight (630 lbs) that is being applied to the bed? Most trucks can handle that amount of payload from what I have seen. Of course, if you have other stuff in the bed you need to account for that weight, but just conceptually, am I right?

[TTMartin]

Originally Posted by brroberts

1860lbs payload depending on how equipped and 310 ft lbs of torque at 3000 RPM for the 2019+ Rangers. I don’t see why not. The hard part will be finding a hitch you like for your nerds.

and the GCWR is 12,500 lbs, and curb weight ranges from 4,145 to 4,441 lbs.

Yes, the Ranger can tow a 5.0 with a good margin of safety.

[Chris R]

Originally Posted by Tim Proffitt

We plan on purchasing a TA5.0 very soon (at least get on the wait list). We also plan on purchasing a new truck to tow it with, but I am totally confused on payload capacity. For the TA5.0, isn't it the same thing as the pin weight (630 lbs) that is being applied to the bed? Most trucks can handle that amount of payload from what I have seen. Of course, if you have other stuff in the bed you need to account for that weight, but just conceptually, am I right?

I think 630lb would be close to dry pin weight, no options, no fluids/propane, no camping stuff, average is closer to 700 - 800+lb. Subtract the approx. 750 pin weight, any truck options, hitch, driver and passenger(s), stuff in the truck, tools from the payload listed on the yellow label in the driver's door and that will tell you how much payload you have left. Trucks with payloads 1200 to 1350 (plus or minus) could be maxed out. Others here may have more detailed information.

[Tom&Joan]

Originally Posted by ColoradoSwany

Tom, do you have the SuperCab with 6’ bed or the SuperCrew with the 5’ bed?

ColoradoSwaney, I should have stated earlier my truck is a supercab with the 6" box.
Tom

[Tom&Joan]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

I doubt it's a bias against Ford, given the comments in many threads by many members.

It is to some extent a bias against smaller trucks, regardless of brand - there have been similar comments about the Colorado/Canyon, and even about full-sized trucks any less than the 250/2500 class. That can be valid, although all Escapes seem well within the Ranger's capability. The biggest real issue for towing the 5.0TA in smaller pickups is usually clearance to the cab, which may require a hitch point which is further back than desirable.

I suspect it is largely a bias against gasoline engines with four cylinders. It doesn't matter that the EcoBoost 2.3 can put out more power than the 2.8 L Duramax diesel in a Colorado/Canyon, or that the 2.8 is also a four-cylinder... "real trucks don't have a gas four". The EcoBoost V6 faced the same objections (because it's not a V8), and still does to some extent, which I always found hilarious because the heaviest trucks on the road (hauling tens of tons of trailer) have six-cylinder turbodiesel engines. Cylinder count is not the most important characteristic of an engine.

Brian, As usual, points well made and plainly stated. I will say we have plenty of cab clearance, but also the hitch is further back than I have traditionally advocated, however, the pin weight barely sets the truck down (I will have to measure it) and handling is just superb, no bad habits at all.

Tom

[Tom&Joan]

Originally Posted by Tim Proffitt

We plan on purchasing a TA5.0 very soon (at least get on the wait list). We also plan on purchasing a new truck to tow it with, but I am totally confused on payload capacity. For the TA5.0, isn't it the same thing as the pin weight (630 lbs) that is being applied to the bed? Most trucks can handle that amount of payload from what I have seen. Of course, if you have other stuff in the bed you need to account for that weight, but just conceptually, am I right?

I think a good part of your decision will center around how much room you need in both the cab and the truck bed, as well as how much stuff (weight) you carry. We happen to travel rather light and the rear passenger space only has to accommodate the 45# dog. We all have our favorite brands, there are 4 or 5 good choices out there, (trucks, not dogs!)

[Tom&Joan]

We are leaving tomorrow on another trip (no cell or computer signal) to the mountains of Virginia. Will check fuel mileage again and report on anything else we think is pertinent.

Tom

Knowledge is acquired through experience and reason

[Brian B-P]

One difference between the Ranger and Colorado/Canyon that might explain some of the difference in opinions about them: wheelbase. They have about the same standard wheelbase, and so the buyer can make the same tradeoff of cab length for box length, such choosing the shorter SuperCab to get the longer box for cab-to-axle space as Tom mentioned. The difference is that the Colorado/Canyon is also available with a longer wheelbase allowing for the longer (crew) cab and longer (~6') box at the same time... and longer wheelbase is also better for towing stability.

[DWM3]

Originally Posted by brroberts

Actually the 3.3L in the F150 does have more hp than the Ranger, but less torque. There is also less weight and windage to move in the Ranger. I personally don’t call them adequate, I call them a good fit. My 3/4 ton Chevy has less hp than either, only 20ft lbs more torque than the Ranger, but up to 5000lbs I never feel a trailer, and could run 80 miles an hour with that 5000lb trailer if I wanted. There are other deciding factors between truck size, but the Ranger clearly has plenty of torque, payload, and horsepower to more than adequately pull any trailer ETI makes. The 2.7 has 325hp and 400ft lbs of torque which is way beyond adequate to me. I can already run 80 easily and get moving quickly even uphill, so I just don’t see needing more. I might want 900hp and 900ft lbs of torque, but I certainly don’t need it. I think this is some kind of preference thing rather than anything less than the 3.5 is only adequate.

I think you are quoting the specs for the wrong engine. The Ranger has the 2.3L EcoBoost, rated at 270 HP @ 5500 rpm and 310 lb-ft of torque @ 3000 rpm. We looked at the Ranger but decided to pass. It did not inspire confidence when we drove it.

[brroberts]

I was replying to another post. I listed the Ranger specs previously. I have a 3/4 ton and a Ranger and tow with both, but I don’t have a 5.0.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by brroberts

Actually the 3.3L in the F150 does have more hp than the Ranger, but less torque.

Originally Posted by DWM3

I think you are quoting the specs for the wrong engine. The Ranger has the 2.3L EcoBoost, rated at 270 HP @ 5500 rpm and 310 lb-ft of torque @ 3000 rpm.

The comparison was correct, although the power difference is only a few percent. The base engine for the F-150 is a 3.3 L non-turbo V6 rated at 290 HP @ 6500 and 265 lb-ft @ 4000 RPM.

Not many people would choose the F-150 with the base engine for towing, although every F-150 (even with this engine) is rated for at least 5,000 pounds of trailer towing (if you have no passengers, cargo, or options) and with the 3.73:1 axle ratio the 3.3 L is rated for 8,200 pounds of trailer (leaving a good margin for realistic options, passengers, and cargo with any Escape).

The power band (range of engine speeds with substantial power available) is broader with the 2.3 EcoBoost than the 3.3 L, because of the EcoBoost's turbocharging. That's good for towing.

The 3.3 L in the F-150 is reasonably comparable to the gas engine offered in the Chevrolet Colorado and GMC Canyon. Ford went the smaller and turbocharged route for their equivalent truck, which is their current trend across their model range.

[TJMac]

This is a post from today on TFL Truck regarding towing with the Ranger.

https://youtu.be/sUlQFJiR2C4

[TJMac]

Originally Posted by Brian B-P

One difference between the Ranger and Colorado/Canyon that might explain some of the difference in opinions about them: wheelbase. They have about the same standard wheelbase, and so the buyer can make the same tradeoff of cab length for box length, such choosing the shorter SuperCab to get the longer box for cab-to-axle space as Tom mentioned. The difference is that the Colorado/Canyon is also available with a longer wheelbase allowing for the longer (crew) cab and longer (~6') box at the same time... and longer wheelbase is also better for towing stability.

All good points, but the bigger issue as I see it is the distance from cab to axle centerline. The Ranger is 31.3" on the Supercab vs the Colorado/Canyon at 36.2" for both configurations. This 5" difference also carries over in the axle centerline to back of truck. The Colorado/Canyon allows a better configuration for cab clearance relative to pin location, except for the width of the bed.

[Brian B-P]

Originally Posted by TJMac

All good points, but the bigger issue as I see it is the distance from cab to axle centerline. The Ranger is 31.3" on the Supercab vs the Colorado/Canyon at 36.2" for both configurations. This 5" difference also carries over in the axle centerline to back of truck. The Colorado/Canyon allows a better configuration for cab clearance relative to pin location, except for the width of the bed.

There are three configuration of the Colorado/Canyon; the 36.2" cab-to-axle would only be for the extended cab (128" wheelbase) and 140" wheelbase crew cab, not the 128" wheelbase wheelbase crew cab.

Yes, Colorado has slightly longer wheelbase in the comparable configuration (128.3" vs 126.8") and a corresponding couple more inches of overall length (212.7" vs 210.8"); a couple more inches of cab-to-axle space resulting from different proportions as well would be helpful.

The Colorado ~6' box is 1.2" longer than the Ranger's, the difference coming from the cab length (Colorado is 1.42" shorter), explaining some of the cab-to-axle difference; the Colorado also has 2" more overhang. These trucks are so close that it's literally a game of a inch or two here or there. For anyone wanting all of the data (for these models or the full-size pickups), upfitter/body builder guides are available for both (Ford and GM).