Is the Ranger the Hilux we've been wanting?

[shade]

There are several reasons why an OEM either wouldn't, couldn't or won't design a smaller chassis to do that.

Do you really think a midsize truck couldn't be produced with a better suspension and a heavier rear axle? I understand that there are reasons why it isn't being sold in NA, but I don't believe it's a technical impossibility.

Based on the fact that the Ranger has been deducted points in head to head comparisons vs the Tacoma for having a stiff ride (it does) is an indication the US market wouldn't settle for something even stiffer, like the Hilux.

As @Dalko points out when he gives props to the Tacoma for flex and dings the Ranger, things like "flex" are important and a lot of folks care about RTI more than payload.....can't have them both, at least when unloaded....unless you have a Unimog, then nothing is off limits, unless you wanna go the speed limit.

I have no doubt that the Ranger can be made to ride quite nicely with aftermarket parts, with or without a load.

Good articulation while providing increased load capacity is possible with better-than-OEM springs. Use a leaf pack with more individual leaves, reduce friction between the leaves, and replace the typical OEM bump stop with something more progressive than a hockey puck. It's not that difficult, and many people have done it at home. OEMs could do it, but they'd rather save money with 3-leaf packs, cheap shocks, and junk bump stops.

 

[DorB]

There are several reasons why an OEM either wouldn't, couldn't or won't design a smaller chassis to do that.

As a fact there are more then several mid-sized trucks that can and handle this load.






Slowly..

 

[DorB]

As @Dalko points out when he gives props to the Tacoma for flex and dings the Ranger, things like "flex" are important and a lot of folks care about RTI more than payload.....can't have them both, at least when unloaded....

I think this is considered descent “flex” (the counter rear wheel drops about the same).
these are HD OME springs rated for constant 600lb load and max 1800lb, mounted in Original suspension brackets.
Pictured with only 1/2 the load capacity on the truck when the picture was taken.

Yes, when fully empty it is a bit stiff, but still better then the OEM suspension.
But when loaded for off-road trip, it’s ride better then a lot of OEM soft suspension.

when you build a truck for “overland” and not for RC, then you need the weight carrying ability.

You can also opt for MD springs and air support and get very supple ride and still able to carry load.

It’s about priorities and money.




Slowly..

 

[DaveInDenver]

Yeah @Doron, I don't understand the too rigid complaints either.

This was with old style OME HD packs and (full metal twin tube) Nitrocharger shocks. We in the U.S. never got a '89+ with solid front axle though. Front was running 25mm diameter torsion springs. It was heavily loaded here for a two week trip.





I think my Tacoma rides so soft compared to my old Hilux. You can see the frame twist with the misalignment of the body and bed even on a mild trail. I have sliders that envelope the frame rail, too, so this is somewhat less twist than a completely stock truck. I have almost nothing for cargo here being a day trip. I'm running OME Dakar CS047R and have since added a leaf to compensate now that I have my old camper mounted from the old truck.

 

[nickw]

Do you really think a midsize truck couldn't be produced with a better suspension and a heavier rear axle? I understand that there are reasons why it isn't being sold in NA, but I don't believe it's a technical impossibility.



I have no doubt that the Ranger can be made to ride quite nicely with aftermarket parts, with or without a load.

Good articulation while providing increased load capacity is possible with better-than-OEM springs. Use a leaf pack with more individual leaves, reduce friction between the leaves, and replace the typical OEM bump stop with something more progressive than a hockey puck. It's not that difficult, and many people have done it at home. OEMs could do it, but they'd rather save money with 3-leaf packs, cheap shocks, and junk bump stops.

My point was more nuanced than that - it's not just the rear axle that needs upgrading and probably wouldn't be the first thing an OEM would upgrade. The nuances are competing vehicles (Tundra / F150), component strength (besides the axle), NVH, ride comfort, offroad ability (decreased flex), price point (not using expensive leafs) and host of other issues. Its technically possible within certain limitations, but vehicles with longer wheelbases and heavier weight will tow better, but there a host of reason an OEM wouldn't, couldn't or can't make it work.

With custom fabbed suspension, lots of possibilities for better compromises (but it's all still a compromise), but in the context of OEM's, I haven't seen it. Powerwagon vs 2500/3500, F150 vs Raptor, ZR1 vs ZR2, etc.

 

[nickw]

Yeah @Doron, I don't understand the too rigid complaints either.

This was with old style OME HD packs and (full metal twin tube) Nitrocharger shocks. We in the U.S. never got a '89+ with solid front axle though. Front was running 25mm diameter torsion springs. It was heavily loaded here for a two week trip.

View attachment 532364

View attachment 532365

I think my Tacoma rides so soft compared to my old Hilux. You can see the frame twist with the misalignment of the body and bed even on a mild trail. I have sliders that envelope the frame rail, too, so this is somewhat less twist than a completely stock truck. I have almost nothing for cargo here being a day trip. I'm running OME Dakar CS047R and have since added a leaf to compensate now that I have my old camper mounted from the old truck.

View attachment 532367

Cool photos. For some reason the old mini-trucks with ARB's have always held a special place for me.

 

[shade]

My point was more nuanced than that - it's not just the rear axle that needs upgrading and probably wouldn't be the first thing an OEM would upgrade. The nuances are competing vehicles (Tundra / F150), component strength (besides the axle), NVH, ride comfort, offroad ability (decreased flex), price point (not using expensive leafs) and host of other issues. Its technically possible within certain limitations, but vehicles with longer wheelbases and heavier weight will tow better, but there a host of reason an OEM wouldn't, couldn't or can't make it work.

With custom fabbed suspension, lots of possibilities for better compromises (but it's all still a compromise), but in the context of OEM's, I haven't seen it. Powerwagon vs 2500/3500, F150 vs Raptor, ZR1 vs ZR2, etc.

I realize that more would be done than upgrading the axle and suspension, but I'm not sure why you keep using couldn't & can't when people have been accomplishing the goals of improving ride quality & load handling with a few parts and a day in their garage. As I said, if it's technically possible to implement a DIY solution, OEMs can surely do it, too. As for NVH, ride comfort, and offroad ability, DIY solutions vastly improve on all of those fronts. There's no magic involved in upgrading some parts, and designing a stronger frame isn't beyond OEM capabilities.

Otoh, perhaps you mean that OEMs can't make those improvements in a way that fits within the rest of their model line up, will make sense in a marketing context, or maintain the profit margins they deem acceptable. In that, I agree that those are reasons we may not see many midsize pickups released that approach a 2000 lb payload capacity in NA, but I don't have to be happy about it.

The Ranger can be configured to handle a 1860 lb payload, but Ford apparently chose to cheap out on springs & shocks, which hurt its ride quality and off-road articulation. I hope to see a competitor exploit that oversight, but I know that's unlikely. Still, I compliment Ford for pushing the payload envelope. There are some things I don't like about the truck, but the payload capacity makes it standout.

I agree that vehicles with longer wheelbases and heavier weight will tow better than a smaller, lighter vehicle. That's irrelevant to this discussion.

 

[nickw]

I realize that more would be done than upgrading the axle and suspension, but I'm not sure why you keep using couldn't & can't when people have been accomplishing the goals of improving ride quality & load handling with a few parts and a day in their garage. As I said, if it's technically possible to implement a DIY solution, OEMs can surely do it, too. As for NVH, ride comfort, and offroad ability, DIY solutions vastly improve on all of those fronts. There's no magic involved in upgrading some parts, and designing a stronger frame isn't beyond OEM capabilities.

Otoh, perhaps you mean that OEMs can't make those improvements in a way that fits within the rest of their model line up, will make sense in a marketing context, or maintain the profit margins they deem acceptable. In that, I agree that those are reasons we may not see many midsize pickups released that approach a 2000 lb payload capacity in NA, but I don't have to be happy about it.

The Ranger can be configured to handle a 1860 lb payload, but Ford apparently chose to cheap out on springs & shocks, which hurt its ride quality and off-road articulation. I hope to see a competitor exploit that oversight, but I know that's unlikely. Still, I compliment Ford for pushing the payload envelope. There are some things I don't like about the truck, but the payload capacity makes it standout.

I agree that vehicles with longer wheelbases and heavier weight will tow better than a smaller, lighter vehicle. That's irrelevant to this discussion.

Doron was comparing a Hilux to a full size truck, which it seemed like you agreed with? There are many reasons a full size truck will be able to handle more weight, it's overall length and weight being an important part of that. Throwing upgraded suspension on a midsize pickup doesn't turn it into something the OEM didn't design it for.

My point was it's not as simple as just upgrading a smaller chassis to carry more weight. There are a host of legal requirements, NVH requirements, offroad performance considerations, among many others along with the marketing or business decision as you point out. May be splitting hairs, but I suppose my point was, there are a lot of good reasons we don't see HD 1-ton mid-size pickup (like the Hilux) and likely won't from any OEM when we have full size ones to choose from.

I think we are talking past each other a bit. I liked how my Tacoma handled after the OME upgrade....the missus thought it was rough, horses for courses....

 

[DaveInDenver]

May be splitting hairs, but I suppose my point was, there are a lot of good reasons we don't see HD 1-ton mid-size pickup (like the Hilux) and likely won't from any OEM when we have full size ones to choose from.

We got the Hilux for a while (79-95) and there were 1 ton rated U.S. versions which were 2WD and dual rear wheels. There are anecdotes that suggest a Hilux/Truck was/is built to handle more weight than its rating however even if that is true I'm not sure it is safe for the speeds that we drive. It may not damage the truck itself, in fact I believe the Hilux (at least the older ones) could carry a ton (literally U.S. ton even). But handling and braking, yeah, not something I'd do much. It would add 50% to the weight the truck and how it's loaded would be absolutely critical to stability. My point would be I agree, that even if the chassis was capable even in the relatively lax regulatory period 20 years ago Toyota didn't rate them that high for the most part. These ratings are more than just based on a static frame, axle and suspension strength to be sure.

 

[DorB]

Doron was comparing a Hilux to a full size truck, which it seemed like you agreed with?...

No..
I was referring that in NA you’re limited to full-size trucks if you want real world load capabilities.





Slowly..

 

[DorB]

We got the Hilux for a while (79-95) and there were 1 ton rated U.S. versions which were 2WD and dual rear wheels. There are anecdotes that suggest a Hilux/Truck was/is built to handle more weight than its rating however even if that is true I'm not sure it is safe for the speeds that we drive. It may not damage the truck itself, in fact I believe the Hilux (at least the older ones) could carry a ton (literally U.S. ton even). But handling and braking, yeah, not something I'd do much..

The international Hilux is different then what was sold in NA.
Brakes are different, and no problem stoping (useless handbrake though..).

HD springs handle the weight so the truck don’t wander around.

I’ve drove Hilux and equivalent size trucks fully loaded many times, and it’s a non issue.

Actually, it’s common practice where they’re sold, that’s why people buy them.

The new ones are even better handling in all aspects+modern cabin, and the competitors (and probably the ranger if slightly modified) are not that different.

 

[nickw]

We got the Hilux for a while (79-95) and there were 1 ton rated U.S. versions which were 2WD and dual rear wheels. There are anecdotes that suggest a Hilux/Truck was/is built to handle more weight than its rating however even if that is true I'm not sure it is safe for the speeds that we drive. It may not damage the truck itself, in fact I believe the Hilux (at least the older ones) could carry a ton (literally U.S. ton even). But handling and braking, yeah, not something I'd do much. It would add 50% to the weight the truck and how it's loaded would be absolutely critical to stability. My point would be I agree, that even if the chassis was capable even in the relatively lax regulatory period 20 years ago Toyota didn't rate them that high for the most part. These ratings are more than just based on a static frame, axle and suspension strength to be sure.

How about those old Toyota RV's!? Always thought those dually's were cool with the full floater axles.....

 

[nickw]

The international Hilux is different then what was sold in NA.
Brakes are different, and no problem stoping (useless handbrake though..).

HD springs handle the weight so the truck don’t wander around.

I’ve drove Hilux and equivalent size trucks fully loaded many times, and it’s a non issue.

Actually, it’s common practice where they’re sold, that’s why people buy them.

The new ones are even better handling in all aspects+modern cabin, and the competitors (and probably the ranger if slightly modified) are not that different.

What was the difference between the old minitrucks pre 85' (SFA) and 85'-94' and the hiluxes then? I thought they were the same except some minor interior things and engine options?

 

[shade]

Doron was comparing a Hilux to a full size truck, which it seemed like you agreed with? There are many reasons a full size truck will be able to handle more weight, it's overall length and weight being an important part of that. Throwing upgraded suspension on a midsize pickup doesn't turn it into something the OEM didn't design it for.

My point was it's not as simple as just upgrading a smaller chassis to carry more weight. There are a host of legal requirements, NVH requirements, offroad performance considerations, among many others along with the marketing or business decision as you point out. May be splitting hairs, but I suppose my point was, there are a lot of good reasons we don't see HD 1-ton mid-size pickup (like the Hilux) and likely won't from any OEM when we have full size ones to choose from.

I think we are talking past each other a bit. I liked how my Tacoma handled after the OME upgrade....the missus thought it was rough, horses for courses....

We're on the same page.

When I look at the Ranger's 1860 lb payload, combined with reports of a rough ride and low articulation, I see an example of my point about a cheap suspension being the limiting factor. Better springs, shocks, and possibly tyres can solve a lot of that, and it wouldn't cost Ford much more to include those parts.

I'll be surprised if Toyota tries to stretch the 3rd gen Tacoma production run out to ten years. I haven't seen a clear winner in this class, but the competitors have many qualities lacking in the 3rd gen. Frankly, I think Toyota would've been better off adding another refresh to the 2nd gen to gain time to develop a class leading 3rd gen.

 

[DaveInDenver]

What was the difference between the old minitrucks pre 85' (SFA) and 85'-94' and the hiluxes then? I thought they were the same except some minor interior things and engine options?

I'd be curious too. My '91 (10/90 production) Truck/Pickup had a VIN that started with JT4xxxx and in the EPC was called "RN110L-CRMDEA" and "DLX JPP USA XTR T1 22RE EFI MTM 5F CBU" while a left hand drive Hilux in Europe was called "RN110L-CRMDEW" and the EPC called it "DLX JPP EUR LHD XTR T1 22RE EFI MTM 5F CBU".

Just spot checking in the EPC some parts share the same part number. For example the brake master listed for my 1991 was 47201-35720 and that appears to be used in several markets.



The complete frame part numbers are not the same but many of the component cross members and such are. Just a few I spot checked listed for both NA and European trucks: 51047-35070, 51201-35200, 51209-35120, 51502-35070.