2019 Ford Ranger Taking Orders

[Buddha.]

The European and Australia versions of the Subaru Forrester are rated to tow roughly twice and three times as much(respectively) as the U.S. Forrester. It's the same exact car. I bet there's something similar going on with the ranger aside from the springs.

 

[Clutch]

IOW, seeing soft springs intended just to carry golf stick on Interstates would not shock me in the least.

Or some bicycles or telemark skis...

 

[DaveInDenver]

Or some bicycles or telemark skis...

Indeed, not many of us run a side hustle concrete finishing businesses from our recreational trucks. I don't anyway. It was mildly irritating when they sagged hanging 135 lbs of 1UP and two bikes from the hitch, though.

 

[Clutch]

Indeed, not many of us run a side hustle concrete finishing businesses from our recreational trucks. I don't anyway. It was mildly irritating when they sagged hanging 135 lbs of 1UP and two bikes from the hitch, though.

I have from time to time...I hear ya though, my stock springs were horrid, why I upgraded to OME Dakar Heavies.


Used it yesterday to haul my Nordics. ❄️?❄️ Though between the camper shell, sand bags, and various BS... have about 700lbs+ in the bed right now.

 

[Clutch]

Yeah, but those stats are misleading.
The 2wd short cab Ranger gets ~ 1800lbs. Once you add 4wd and a double cab, the Ranger's payload is somewhere around 1400-1500lbs, which is still good for a midsized truck.

So "technically" darn near a 1 ton...and with most other configurations a 3/4 ton. Pretty good for a midsize!

Kinda crazy a 1/2, 3/4, 1 ton doesn't really mean that anymore.

 

[Buliwyf]

Nope. It was slang for as long as I've been alive.

3/4 is 3100#, 1 ton is 4500# cargo capacity. Subtract 1000#, or more, for diesels.

 

[Dalko43]

Nope. It was slang for as long as I've been alive.

3/4 is 3100#, 1 ton is 4500# cargo capacity.

I think at one point a "3/4 ton" did in fact indicate the approximate payload capability of the truck.

Subtract 1000#, or more, for diesels.

Maybe for the Fords. The Rams don't see as much of a payload discrepancy between gas and diesel.

 

[Clutch]

I think at one point a "3/4 ton" did in fact indicate the approximate payload capability of the truck.

When did that change? Anyone know? 60's? 70's?

 

[Wallygator]

So if they(US and world) are the same vehicles or roughly the same it must be the suspension setups. I understand we here in America are fat and lazy and like to sit on the couch, hence the comfort suspension, etc., but I would love to have the world Ranger instead of the dumbed down Ranger we are getting here. I don't mind a stiff riding vehicle that can basically handle anything I throw at it. I still think the new Ranger and Colorado are better than the current Tacoma. An the Ranger has major upside in that a few modifications and that truck will be a beast. I hope the aftermarket goes crazy on that thing.

 

[Wallygator]

When did that change? Anyone know? 60's? 70's?

https://www.topspeed.com/trucks/truck-news/what-does-1-2-3-4-and-one-ton-mean-ar170528.html

F150 got it's name from being able to haul 1500 pounds, F250, 2500 pounds and so on and so forth. Now the midsize trucks haul that much but the name of the bigger trucks stuck.

 

[DaveInDenver]

When did that change? Anyone know? 60's? 70's?

I don't know that it really ever meant anything more than marketing. What matters is the truck's classification and ultimately the GVWR it carries. IOW, a 1 ton doesn't immediately tell you anything but being class 3 per FHWA does, it will have a legal GVWR of 10,001 to 14,000 lbs. Regardless, you have to do the math between complete curb weight to determine the maximum cargo for its laden weight.

 

[Clutch]

https://www.topspeed.com/trucks/truck-news/what-does-1-2-3-4-and-one-ton-mean-ar170528.html

F150 got it's name from being able to haul 1500 pounds, F250, 2500 pounds and so on and so forth. Now the midsize trucks haul that much but the name of the bigger trucks stuck.

Thanks, was looking back at the F-series on wiki to see exactly when it changed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_F-Series

I don't know that it really ever meant anything more than marketing. What matters is the truck's classification and ultimately the GVWR it carries. IOW, a 1 ton doesn't immediately tell you anything but being class 3 per FHWA does, it will have a legal GVWR of 10,001 to 14,000 lbs. Regardless, you have to do the math between complete curb weight to determine the maximum cargo for its laden weight.

Thanks

As Wallygator was saying thought there was a time where it was literal. You may be right though, it was just marketing. Was only curious.

 

[Clutch]

So if they(US and world) are the same vehicles or roughly the same it must be the suspension setups. I understand we here in America are fat and lazy and like to sit on the couch, hence the comfort suspension, etc., but I would love to have the world Ranger instead of the dumbed down Ranger we are getting here. I don't mind a stiff riding vehicle that can basically handle anything I throw at it. I still think the new Ranger and Colorado are better than the current Tacoma. An the Ranger has major upside in that a few modifications and that truck will be a beast. I hope the aftermarket goes crazy on that thing.

Doesn't appear to be too dumbed down, decent hp/tq even if it is a turbo 4, trans out of the F150, good payload. May need new rear springs, would assume the stock would fatigue fairly quick. Appears they are relying on Timbren style bump stops to handle a load.

Would be nice with some other engine options, but in all reality. It will be fine for majority of their target market. Be more than enough for my needs that is for sure. Couple nit picky things would make me choose a Tacoma over it. Really would come down to splitting hairs. Price may sway some buyers to the Ford, if you could spec the Ranger $5'000 less or so than a Taco, and get better mpg, and capacities.

When I build a SCLB Ranger on the Ford site, it is under $30K...a Tacoma Sport ACLB (manny) is $33-36K here at the local dealers.

 

[Buliwyf]

Fords used those big yellow bumps for a decade at least. If that's what you saw. They're just squishy bumps, the first inch or so is hardly noticeable, you'll be dragging tail bad before they kick in on a Super Duty. I haven't decided if King bumps would help big hits better.

Our GM fleet trucks actually rest on the front bump stops. So much for that smooth ifs ride.

 

[Clutch]

Fords used those big yellow bumps for a decade at least. If that's what you saw. They're just squishy bumps, the first inch or so is hardly noticeable, you'll be dragging tail bad before they kick in on a Super Duty. I haven't decided if King bumps would help big hits better.

Our GM fleet trucks actually rest on the front bump stops. So much for that smooth ifs ride.

Yep that is it, was on one of the videos. Looked like Timbrens to me. Goes to show how much I pay attention to Fords, didn't know they were using them for the past 10 years.