Anyone towing 5.0 with Ford Ranger Supercab? - Page 2 - Escape Trailer Owners Community
Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×

Go Back   Escape Trailer Owners Community > Escape Tech > Towing and Hitching
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 11-09-2021, 12:29 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Trailer: 1979 Boler B1700
Posts: 14,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by BritCanuck View Post
Just had a quick look at the Ford configurator and the 2x4 option isn’t available now. Or at least in Canada is isn’t.
In Canada we can't get the 4X2, but in the U.S. they can; this has been true since the introduction of this generation of the Ranger.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2021, 12:40 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Trailer: 1979 Boler B1700
Posts: 14,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B-P View Post
The current online specs show 1650 lb (748 kg) as the maximum possible, and that would only be for a SuperCab with no options. It's possible that Ford's website payload specs are for the 4X4 (although they don't say that) and the 4X2 has higher payload due to lower weight and the same GVWR.
I checked this again on my laptop, and apparently Ford was showing me only partial information when I first posted, using my phone. They may have redirected me to Ford Canada, which would explain the omission of the 4X2.

According to what I'm seeing today at Ford.com...
  • the SuperCrew costs 87 pounds in payload (because it weighs 87 pound more) compared to the SuperCab
  • since GVWR is the same (6,050 pounds) for all versions, the payload of the 4X4 is reduced by 209 pounds compared to the 4X2
  • the Tremor is another 131 pounds heavier than the regular 4X4, so the payload is further reduced by that amount

Ford shows the same payload specs regardless of trim level, so they're all for the XL; a higher trim level will actually have a lower payload due to additional equipment.

The resulting payload range is from 1,478 pounds (minus options) for the Tremor SuperCrew to 1,905 pounds (minus options) for the 4X2 SuperCab.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2021, 12:42 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Trailer: 1979 Boler B1700
Posts: 14,935
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug2000 View Post
I don't wish to debate manufactures, but being a forum member since 2016, I have noticed many members starting out with midsize trucks and SUV's and end up with F150's.
I agree, that happens... but generally not because the midsize truck breaks.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2021, 01:28 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
brroberts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Overbrook, Kansas
Trailer: 2021 E19 (Padawan)
Posts: 1,905
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian B-P View Post
Ford shows the same payload specs regardless of trim level, so they're all for the XL; a higher trim level will actually have a lower payload due to additional equipment.

The resulting payload range is from 1,478 pounds (minus options) for the Tremor SuperCrew to 1,905 pounds (minus options) for the 4X2 SuperCab.
If I remember correctly, and I may not, the 1905 was with a bed delete. Also the XL, at least it used to, allowed a rear seat delete.
__________________
Randy & Barb
1998 C 2500 (Cruncher) and 2021 Ranger (Yoda)
brroberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2021, 04:22 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Doug2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: London, Ontario
Trailer: 2020 Escape 19
Posts: 1,117
I’m not discounting the Ranger or full size trucks. I’m sure a Ranger will do a good job. EcoBoost, I love turbos.

Midsize? I wish I hadn’t sold my 2008 Tacoma but the back seats were too small for my boys. I have the Tundra now, it’s thirsty but whatever, I don’t drive it everyday.

Numbers? Numbers don’t tell the story. In 2019 I bought a 2019 Tundra 4.6L DC 4x4 SR5, 310hp, 325ft/lbs, from memory, rated to tow 6500lbs with a payload of 1650lbs, more payload than the 5.7L. The 4.6L revved too high in 4th gear and wouldn’t hold 5th so I was either driving 98 km/h or 118km/h when towing. The gearing just wasn’t right for the Escape19. The truck was a score, with incentives, I only paid $34k CAD or about $25k USD (exchange at the time). Yes Brand new. Well I made money on the truck and ultimately I bought the big boy rated to tow 10,000lbs.

Looking forward I may consider the next generation of Tacoma which will be similar to the Ranger. I’ll probably stick to Toyota only because I have had 7 and they haven’t caused me any grief.
Doug2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2021, 05:10 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
gbaglo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: North Vancouver, British Columbia
Trailer: 2009 Escape 17B 2020 Toyota Highlander XLE
Posts: 17,136
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug2000 View Post
The 4.6L revved too high in 4th gear and wouldn’t hold 5th
I don't get it. What is too high? In the red, or just bothering you? I'd just put it in four if it won't stay in 5.
__________________
What happens to the hole when the cheese is gone?
- Bertolt Brecht
gbaglo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2021, 06:51 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
brroberts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2020
Location: Overbrook, Kansas
Trailer: 2021 E19 (Padawan)
Posts: 1,905
That’s one of the things I like about the Ranger. Torque made at 3000RPM. My 3/4 ton is at 2800RPM. The Ranger is quieter at 3K than the Chevy at 2.8K. Part of that is the same 10 speed in the F150 is in the Ranger. The old Chevy is a 4 speed.

My Chevy 2500 and Toyota Corolla have been very reliable. My Subaru was very unreliable. Other stuff has been in between.

Toyota’s have a good reputation. It is a bit weird I have gad to put 2 $500 EVAP canisters on it, and it needs front end alignment fairly often. That’s it other than low cost maintenance. It’s 112,000 miles 2016.

I think the hard part about a 5.0 with the Ranger is limited hitch choices.
__________________
Randy & Barb
1998 C 2500 (Cruncher) and 2021 Ranger (Yoda)
brroberts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2021, 07:04 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Doug2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: London, Ontario
Trailer: 2020 Escape 19
Posts: 1,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by gbaglo View Post
I don't get it. What is too high? In the red, or just bothering you? I'd just put it in four if it won't stay in 5.
So I was used to towing the 17B with the Tacoma 4.0L and then the 4Runner 4.0L. Both excellent drivetrains. Towed comfortably at 110km/h revving at 2200rpm. A good experience. No strain on the truck.

The 19 Tundra with the 6 speed and 4.6L seemed like it would be an improvement, the numbers said so. It was not. To tow at 105km/h, the 4.6L revved at 2500 rpms, sounds not so bad right? My fuel economy in fourth at 2500rpm was about 25L/100km which is horrible. The Tundra 5.7L revves at 2200rpm in fifth and gets about 20L/100 and doesn’t drop a gear on mild hills. Sure, the 4.6L could do it but wasn’t practical on a trip where I tow for 6 hours to get up to Algonquin Park.

All I’m saying is the numbers don’t always tell all. Sorry, I didn’t mean to highjack the thread.
Doug2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2021, 11:02 AM   #29
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Port Charlotte, Florida
Trailer: shopping
Posts: 12
Imho

I don't own a small truck and wouldn't be a choice for towing, but the increased size they are all now would make them a good to own small truck.

Towing big items over long distance there is no substitute for longer and wider wheel bases to handle the forces from trailers being towed.

From a young age my opinion was the difference in fuel savings of small vehicles was the worst insurance money I ever would have saved. I feel much safer on the road being one of the largest vehicles rather than smaller. Very few people tow enough miles to save $1000 a year on fuel and for most the difference in 10mpg or 16mpg is going to be a few hundred, the last thing I want to do is be spending more at the hospital because I didn't have way more than enough truck.
PatrickTXFL is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-17-2021, 12:28 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
JeffreyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Farmington Hills, Michigan
Trailer: 2021 Escape 19
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickTXFL View Post
I don't own a small truck and wouldn't be a choice for towing, but the increased size they are all now would make them a good to own small truck.
The current mid-size trucks are all as big as a mid-1990's full size. There really are no small trucks on the market. Even the new Ford Maverick isn't all that small, still bigger than a mid-1990's Ranger. My Colorado weighs 4900 lbs empty, which is hardly a small vehicle. It's not even really a mid-size vehicle.

Quote:
Towing big items over long distance there is no substitute for longer and wider wheel bases to handle the forces from trailers being towed.
But on this forum, we're towing Escape trailers which are quite small.

Quote:
From a young age my opinion was the difference in fuel savings of small vehicles was the worst insurance money I ever would have saved. I feel much safer on the road being one of the largest vehicles rather than smaller. Very few people tow enough miles to save $1000 a year on fuel and for most the difference in 10mpg or 16mpg is going to be a few hundred, the last thing I want to do is be spending more at the hospital because I didn't have way more than enough truck.
This feels a bit like a strawman. For starters, as I mentioned, there are no small trucks on the market today. And there is no guarantee at all that any specific large vehicle is safer than some other specific mid-size. Sure, in generally a bigger car has the capacity to be safer if all else is equal, but all else is generally not equal. And we are not talking about a full-size pickup compared to a Nissan Fit here.

As to the strawman part, I didn't choose a Colorado mid-size diesel specifically to save fuel over a full size. My first consideration is that no full-size will fit in my garage easily. That was my number one consideration. My second consideration is that all full-size trucks are 5" taller than my Colorado and my wife cannot lift her end of a kayak that high. I have to be able to bring my boats when traveling. My third consideration is that huge vehicles (and all modern full-size are huge) are inconvenient vehicles in town, in parking lots, and in parallel parking.

My mid-size Colorado is easily more than adequate for towing an Escape 19, and the diesel makes it do so very comfortably. It gets on the highway and sits in 6th gear for the most part. No hunting, no revving. Quite nice.

I should mention that I would not have bought the Colorado with the GM 3.6L V6, and I likewise am not of a fan of towing with any of the mid-size market naturally aspirated V6 engines like the Toyota Tacoma. It's not that these engines can't do it, but they downshift frequently and are kind of annoying to tow with. The Ford 2.3 is pretty nice, and the GM 2.8 diesel is even better.

Oh, and it is efficient too, but that's more of a bonus.
JeffreyG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2021, 03:17 PM   #31
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Reno, Nevada
Trailer: 2021 21c
Posts: 45
Just finished a 5 week 8000 mile east coast adventure with my 2020 Ranger towing my new 21c loaded for bear. Loved the way the truck handled it. Plenty of power more payload in the bed than the f150
And at 65mph gas mileage was about 13-1/2 mpg. At 55mph it was between 14-1/2 and 16 mpg depending on wind etc. the 10 speed tranny did a great job, and with the 4 cyl turbo engine acceleration was pretty decent as well. Got into some pretty windy conditions and with the anti sway hitch I got from ETI the trailer handled it well with no appreciable sway. Overall the Ranger is a great option for the 21c at about 4500 lbs loaded.
Akfishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-18-2021, 04:21 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Kent, Ohio
Trailer: 2017 21c Sold, 2023 Bigfoot 25RQ
Posts: 1,382
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffreyG View Post
The current mid-size trucks are all as big as a mid-1990's full size. There really are no small trucks on the market. Even the new Ford Maverick isn't all that small, still bigger than a mid-1990's Ranger. My Colorado weighs 4900 lbs empty, which is hardly a small vehicle. It's not even really a mid-size vehicle.



But on this forum, we're towing Escape trailers which are quite small.



This feels a bit like a strawman. For starters, as I mentioned, there are no small trucks on the market today. And there is no guarantee at all that any specific large vehicle is safer than some other specific mid-size. Sure, in generally a bigger car has the capacity to be safer if all else is equal, but all else is generally not equal. And we are not talking about a full-size pickup compared to a Nissan Fit here.

As to the strawman part, I didn't choose a Colorado mid-size diesel specifically to save fuel over a full size. My first consideration is that no full-size will fit in my garage easily. That was my number one consideration. My second consideration is that all full-size trucks are 5" taller than my Colorado and my wife cannot lift her end of a kayak that high. I have to be able to bring my boats when traveling. My third consideration is that huge vehicles (and all modern full-size are huge) are inconvenient vehicles in town, in parking lots, and in parallel parking.

My mid-size Colorado is easily more than adequate for towing an Escape 19, and the diesel makes it do so very comfortably. It gets on the highway and sits in 6th gear for the most part. No hunting, no revving. Quite nice.

I should mention that I would not have bought the Colorado with the GM 3.6L V6, and I likewise am not of a fan of towing with any of the mid-size market naturally aspirated V6 engines like the Toyota Tacoma. It's not that these engines can't do it, but they downshift frequently and are kind of annoying to tow with. The Ford 2.3 is pretty nice, and the GM 2.8 diesel is even better.

Oh, and it is efficient too, but that's more of a bonus.
I sold my 21 c to a couple who picked it up with a Colorado v6 gas . On the way home they called me and were very happy how it towed. Granted it wasn’t across Vail pass!
oldwave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2021, 12:55 AM   #33
Site Team
 
John in Santa Cruz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Mid Left Coast, California
Trailer: 2014 Escape 21
Posts: 5,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug2000 View Post
Midsize? I wish I hadn’t sold my 2008 Tacoma but the back seats were too small for my boys. I.
we sold our 2008 tacoma accesscab 4x4 6-speed TRD offroad because its payload wasn't adequate. 1250 lbs. - 100 for the fiberglass shell. - 500 for the E21 tongue weight. - 500 for us+dog+minimal personal stuff. not sure where we could put the telescope or the chairs and awnings and stuff, or the cooler or water or food.

otherwise? I loved that truck, it was great fun to drive! With KO2 tires and better bilsteins, it was very competent on dirt roads, it was comfortable on the highway, and on mountain roads. sure, towing a heavy trailer up a grade might mean 4th gear to hold adequate speed and torque, but so what?

but, 1200 lbs just wasn't enough for us.

edit: PS, its back seats were not seats, they were grocery bag shelfs.

John in Santa Cruz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2021, 06:58 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
JeffreyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Farmington Hills, Michigan
Trailer: 2021 Escape 19
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by John in Santa Cruz View Post
but, 1200 lbs just wasn't enough for us.
Yeah, the Tacoma is a popular mid-size pickup, but they have a low cargo capacity and we're off my list for that reason (along with having a naturally aspirated V6 which is another reason).

The Honda Ridgeline is also known for having low cargo capacity.

OTOH, just buying a 'full-size' does not always fix this. A number of Ram 1500 owners on this forum have noted that they have cargo capacities below 1000 lbs.
JeffreyG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2021, 07:25 AM   #35
Senior Member
 
cpaharley2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Central, Pennsylvania
Trailer: Escape#5 2022 E19
Posts: 26,268
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffreyG View Post
Yeah, the Tacoma is a popular mid-size pickup, but they have a low cargo capacity and we're off my list for that reason (along with having a naturally aspirated V6 which is another reason).

The Honda Ridgeline is also known for having low cargo capacity.

OTOH, just buying a 'full-size' does not always fix this. A number of Ram 1500 owners on this forum have noted that they have cargo capacities below 1000 lbs.
This explains why these vehicles are called 1/2 ton trucks......
__________________
Jim
Sometime life gets in the way of living.......
cpaharley2008 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2021, 09:01 AM   #36
Senior Member
 
JeffreyG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2020
Location: Farmington Hills, Michigan
Trailer: 2021 Escape 19
Posts: 649
Quote:
Originally Posted by cpaharley2008 View Post
This explains why these vehicles are called 1/2 ton trucks......
Colloquially they are half-tons, but over the past 20 years they have grown 6 inches taller, 6 inches wider, and 20 inches longer. And most of them can carry a lot more than 1/2 ton.

The Colorado/Canyon mid-size is close to a 3/4 ton, and the Ford Ranger is even better than that.

Speaking practically anything with a cargo capacity below 1000 lbs is difficult for a tow vehicle unless it is carrying just one or perhaps two people. RV'ers who have hobbies with heavy stuff (astronomy, kayaking, biking.......) or children / large pets will want to look at trucks with quite a bit more than 1000 lbs capacity.

I guess my point here is don't just assume a 'full-size' truck is more capable than a mid-size. Equally equipped, a Ford Ranger will have a better cargo capacity than a Ram 1500 from what I've seen.
JeffreyG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2021, 01:54 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2021
Location: Canada's East Coast, New Brunswick
Trailer: 2022 E19
Posts: 385
I'm curious to hear how Ranger owners feel about the auto start/stop feature. I like what I hear about the truck but I'm worried that would drive me crazy!
Fender is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2021, 02:03 PM   #38
Site Team
 
John in Santa Cruz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Mid Left Coast, California
Trailer: 2014 Escape 21
Posts: 5,122
quad cabs add a LOT of weight to a 'half ton' class truck. so does fancy trim packages like Limited/Lariat/whatever (things like power leather seats weigh a lot!)
John in Santa Cruz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-19-2021, 02:04 PM   #39
Site Team
 
John in Santa Cruz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Mid Left Coast, California
Trailer: 2014 Escape 21
Posts: 5,122
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fender View Post
I'm curious to hear how Ranger owners feel about the auto start/stop feature. I like what I hear about the truck but I'm worried that would drive me crazy!
my 2016 Mercedes E350 4matic wagon has that. there's a button to disable it, but each time you start the car it defaults to enabled. Its good when you're stopped at a long light. its somewhat annoying in stop-n-crawl traffic, so I often disable it then.
John in Santa Cruz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2021, 06:56 AM   #40
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Location: Tahoe, California
Trailer: 2020 17b, 2020 Ford Ranger XLT
Posts: 16
Auto Stop/Start: We have no issue with this feature. The engine will start when I reduce the pressure on the brake pedal even when not my intent. The restart is quick enough for me, gives me a better chance to look both ways before starting into an intersection. The feature is disabled automatically while in tow mode.
saguarocat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off




» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Disclaimer:

This website is not affiliated with or endorsed by Escape Trailer Industries or any of its affiliates. This is an independent, unofficial site.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2023 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.