PDA

View Full Version : Ford Ranger



33chinacars
30th January 2015, 01:12 PM
Hi guys . I'm looking at buying a Ford Ranger PX dual cab ute . 4x4 3.2 5 cylinder auto. What are the + / - on this.
Need a Dual cab ute for around the farm to replace my Overlander. Would love a VW Amarok but only 3000 kg towing and must be auto for SWMBO.
Need something with a towing capacity of 3500kg as a back up to my Range Rover.
Would also love a big Chev / GMC but way out of my price range as is Toyota Landcruiser dc ute.
Any way what's others ideas. Looking at good second hand.
Thanks Gary

discotwinturbo
30th January 2015, 01:23 PM
Just so you know the 3.5 tonne update was very recent and involved some strengthening.

I like the Amarok because I have a Touareg which has been sensational, but from research I would go with the 3.2 Ranger if a ute was needed. I have friends that have the updated Ranger and they are super impressed and tows the 3.5 tonne horse float as good as my D4 or Touareg.

Brett...

frantic
30th January 2015, 03:04 PM
If you like the ranger, consider a Mazda bt50, it's virtually the same with just a different nose and slightly stiffer springs at about 5-7,000 less. To improve its look fit a bullbar and some shocks/springs if the ride is not to your taste.

loanrangie
30th January 2015, 04:25 PM
If you like the ranger, consider a Mazda bt50, it's virtually the same with just a different nose and slightly stiffer springs at about 5-7,000 less. To improve its look fit a bullbar and some shocks/springs if the ride is not to your taste.

Only a close up with a mack truck could improve ghe bt50, cant believe one maker got it so right and the other so wrong.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using AULRO mobile app

Vern
30th January 2015, 04:42 PM
I was all for the ranger, then I drove one for a day, meh as they say, I'll be keeping my amarok and possibly buying a second one:).
A chipped auto one would be OK though.

Ean Austral
30th January 2015, 04:51 PM
I have a friend who is a Toyota fanatic, has almost a car yard full of Toyota's, he recently traded his 75(?) series ute on a 2014 wildtrak ranger, and he reckons its the best ute ever, leave his Toyota for dead.


Believe me for him to say that they must be ok. Sadly I drive a PJ ranger about 2007 model 2.5l diesel and its a piece of crap.


Take one for a drive and see what you think.


Cheers Ean

33chinacars
30th January 2015, 07:28 PM
Thanks for all your reply's

Yes Brett, early PX's were 3350 kg towing . As said I love the 'Rok just not heavy enough towing.

Yes BT50 ugly as all .......

Ean drove a PX the other day. Not as refined as the the 'Rok but more heavy duty.

The only other thing that appears to be close is the new model Holden Colorado. Being a Holden boy I still think the Ford is slightly better. Shame on me.

Gary

LandyAndy
30th January 2015, 08:52 PM
DO NOT consider a DMax.
Was driving the bosses new one for a couple of days this week.
All the boys rave about it,Im spoilt having a new D4 which I guess Im comparing it to,an unfair comparison.
DMax auto is harsh,only 5 speed,lots of engine noise,wind noise.Ride and handling isnt too bad for a dualcab.Not big on the HP front,not gutless just not willing to fly.Apparently its turning very good fuel numbers,less than 9.0/100km.I rekon the traded PJ Ranger was much better to drive/punish etc.Auto gearbox was much better suited to the motor too.
Enjoyed it so much its sitting in the workshop,still driving my ancient POS Rodeo.Boss is away in NZ hunting sheep so Im the boss at the moment,can have the ute if I see fit.Only sticking with mine as it has my grader fuel supply onboard,cant be bothered swapping anything around.
Andrew

Chucaro
30th January 2015, 08:54 PM
.................................................. ..
The only other thing that appears to be close is the new model Holden Colorado. Being a Holden boy I still think the Ford is slightly better. Shame on me.

Gary

The auto box in the Holden ute it is bullet proof, if I am not wrong it is the same as the one in the Lexus.

TerryO
30th January 2015, 09:33 PM
Before buying a Ranger for heavy towing duties have a read of the following information that is cut and pasted from the Statewide4x4.com.au website. It makes for interesting reading and shows that some times manufacturers claims don't always add up.



How Much Can I Really Tow?
What a lot of vehicle manufacturers will not tell you is that towing up to your maximum towing capability can sometimes (but not always) affect the amount of weight you can carry in your vehicle.

For Example:

Ford PX Ranger: GVM 3,200kg / GCM 6,000kg

Ford advertises that the vehicle has the ability to tow 3.5T which it does, however if you take a closer look at the vehicles specifications you will see that the GCM cannot exceed 6000kg. If you take 3500kg max towing capacity from the GCM that leaves you a maximum allowable vehicle weight of only 2,500kg.

GCM: 6000kg - 3500kg (max towing) = 2,500kg

To be able to tow, 3.5T with the PX Ranger you need to take 700kg out of your maximum allowed GVM figure of 3,200kg. If you then look even further into the vehicle specifications it is even more of an eye-opener. Lets assume that you are still towing the maximum amount of 3.5T with the PX Ranger which we will say is a Dual Cab XLT.

GVM (with max towing): 2,500kg - Vehicle Tare Weight: 2,159kg = 341kg

So you are now left with a payload of 341kg. Lets take out a couple more essential items from that figure.

Payload: 341kg - Tow Ball Down Force Approx: 280kg - Fuel approx 70kg = - 9kg

So on a Ford PX Ranger XLT towing 3.5T with a full tank of fuel and approx 280kg of ball weight you are already over your GCM. Now try to add a driver, additional passengers, any luggage, a fridge, bull bar, winch etc and you will be well over your allowable limit. This makes your vehicle unroadworthy and in the case of an accident you risk voiding your insurance payout. As you can understand it is important information that the consumer really should be made aware of.

33chinacars
30th January 2015, 10:46 PM
Thanks Terry , I think. :censored:;)

Something I hadn't thought about. This just about rules out every dual cab ute on the market except the big Chev's , GMC's & Ford's .

Gary

loneranger
30th January 2015, 10:58 PM
DO NOT consider a DMax.
Was driving the bosses new one for a couple of days this week.
All the boys rave about it,Im spoilt having a new D4 which I guess Im comparing it to,an unfair comparison.
DMax auto is harsh,only 5 speed,lots of engine noise,wind noise.Ride and handling isnt too bad for a dualcab.Not big on the HP front,not gutless just not willing to fly.Apparently its turning very good fuel numbers,less than 9.0/100km.I rekon the traded PJ Ranger was much better to drive/punish etc.Auto gearbox was much better suited to the motor too.
Enjoyed it so much its sitting in the workshop,still driving my ancient POS Rodeo.Boss is away in NZ hunting sheep so Im the boss at the moment,can have the ute if I see fit.Only sticking with mine as it has my grader fuel supply onboard,cant be bothered swapping anything around.
Andrew

Isuzu's big marketing point is fuel consumption so they focus on this and sacrifice power.


Before buying a Ranger for heavy towing duties have a read of the following information that is cut and pasted from the Statewide4x4.com.au website. It makes for interesting reading and shows that some times manufacturers claims don't always add up.



How Much Can I Really Tow?
What a lot of vehicle manufacturers will not tell you is that towing up to your maximum towing capability can sometimes (but not always) affect the amount of weight you can carry in your vehicle.

For Example:

Ford PX Ranger: GVM 3,200kg / GCM 6,000kg

Ford advertises that the vehicle has the ability to tow 3.5T which it does, however if you take a closer look at the vehicles specifications you will see that the GCM cannot exceed 6000kg. If you take 3500kg max towing capacity from the GCM that leaves you a maximum allowable vehicle weight of only 2,500kg.

GCM: 6000kg - 3500kg (max towing) = 2,500kg

To be able to tow, 3.5T with the PX Ranger you need to take 700kg out of your maximum allowed GVM figure of 3,200kg. If you then look even further into the vehicle specifications it is even more of an eye-opener. Lets assume that you are still towing the maximum amount of 3.5T with the PX Ranger which we will say is a Dual Cab XLT.

GVM (with max towing): 2,500kg - Vehicle Tare Weight: 2,159kg = 341kg

So you are now left with a payload of 341kg. Lets take out a couple more essential items from that figure.

Payload: 341kg - Tow Ball Down Force Approx: 280kg - Fuel approx 70kg = - 9kg

So on a Ford PX Ranger XLT towing 3.5T with a full tank of fuel and approx 280kg of ball weight you are already over your GCM. Now try to add a driver, additional passengers, any luggage, a fridge, bull bar, winch etc and you will be well over your allowable limit. This makes your vehicle unroadworthy and in the case of an accident you risk voiding your insurance payout. As you can understand it is important information that the consumer really should be made aware of.

Not sure about the current model Isuzu Dmax but the old one was the only one on the market that the GCM was the GVM plus towing. I'd hazard a guess that since they upgraded the towing capacity on the new one that you lose 500kg in the tray if your towing a full load.

frantic
30th January 2015, 11:15 PM
Terry, the maths is incorrect.;)

sjane
30th January 2015, 11:18 PM
You're double counting if ball weight is part of GCM, so this article is flawed. 3500kg trailer can't add 280kg to the car and still be 3500kg.

If you have a 2500kg car, and hook it up to a 3500kg trailer, you don't need to toss out 280kg of payload. That would equal 5720kg.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using AULRO mobile app

33chinacars
30th January 2015, 11:32 PM
Now I'm confused :wasntme:

CraigE
30th January 2015, 11:56 PM
Would not touch a Ranger. Big history of popping engines sub 40,000 kms. We had a small module ambulance popped the engine at 19,000kms. Was a shocking ride and while nice new became very uncomfortable to drive very quickly. The Hilux was only marginally better.
My pick would be Colorado, Nissan wide body version (actually very nice my FIL has one and much better than the narrow body version my BIL has), The DMax and then the VW Amorak (mainly due to price). Then maybe the BT50, Hilux and Ranger last.
Just my thoughts.

TerryO
31st January 2015, 07:39 AM
Even if the formula used in that article is incorrect which I don't know if it is or not, let's say it is and they shouldn't have counted the ball weight as part of the vehicle the 280 kg they counted as the ball weight starts to disappear real quick when you put in a average weight Australian driver and passenger.

The Ford Rangers GCM is 6 ton which is low for a vehicle with a 3.5 ton towing capacity and weighs over 2 ton itself. How does the Rangers GCM compare to the other crew cabs?

Anyway here is another article on the Ranger and its new increased tow limit. http://www.l2sfbc.com/rmp/blog/Ford-Ranger-towing-capacity-upgrade-3500kg

In this article there is an actual comparison of the Rangers GCM to a D4's.

Chucaro
31st January 2015, 07:58 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, the ball weight should not be added to the weight of the towing trailer but it should be deducted of the payload capacity of the vehicle.
I think that the fuel weight on the factory installed tank should not be deducted from the payload capacity.
Is that correct?

350RRC
31st January 2015, 08:02 AM
Just for interest............ 74 RRC, from original owner's handbook.

Kerb weight inc 22.5l fuel 1724 kg

Max payload 680 kg

Max towing weight (braked trailer) 4000 kg

Trailer plus max loaded vehicle 6504 kg

cheers, DL

mick88
31st January 2015, 08:20 AM
Another factor that reduces payload capacity is when the tub is removed and a steel drop side tray is added!


Cheers, Mick.

BigJon
31st January 2015, 08:37 AM
If you get one and self service it make sure you follow the oil drain time allowed. From memory it is about 10 - 15 minutes total between dropping the sump plug and restarting the engine full of new oil. Any longer and the oil pump can drain out and not self prime.

frantic
31st January 2015, 08:51 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, the ball weight should not be added to the weight of the towing trailer but it should be deducted of the payload capacity of the vehicle.
I think that the fuel weight on the factory installed tank should not be deducted from the payload capacity.
Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct IMHO.
So terry's second article is also partially wrong, again, in that it neglects to take the 2-350kg out of the d4's load capacity. This means the D4 can carry 330kg if towing a 3.5t horse float/van. It's also the reason why several aftermarket companies have engineered load increase options for new landcruisers, as they are in some cases over 100kg less than a D4.
And look they do it for the ranger as well.;)
Gross Vehicle Mass (GVM) Upgrades | ARB 4x4 Accessories (http://www.arb.com.au/products/old-man-emu-4x4-suspension/gvm-upgrades/)

P.s if your considering serious towing, get this kit fitted BEFORE registering the new ute/wagon as to do it after you must pay an engineer $$$$ to Re-approve an already engineered item.

TerryO
31st January 2015, 09:51 AM
I guess the thing to take into account in all of this discussion is the people who wrote the original document I cut and pasted are qualified certifying engineers who specialise in exactly this kind of vehicle certification work and who know the law backwards and exactly what these kind of commercial vehicles can carry and tow legally as they come from the factory.

So yes they could be wrong but if they are then the engineers who certify more makes and models of vehicles then any other engineering company in Australia must have no idea about what they are talking about, which is pretty unlikely.

But I'm no expert on this so I can only quote what the so called experts are saying is correct, more then happy to hear the other side of the argument so if anyone can show where they are wrong then please provide actual written proof.

By the way not all vehicle manufacturers measure apples with apples, Ford measure their Ranger with 10 litres of fuel in it. Land Rover on the other hand quote the weight of a Discovery 3/4 with a full tank of fuel and all fluids and from memory a person of 76 kg or something like that.

33chinacars
31st January 2015, 11:23 AM
Still a little confused but one thing for sure the budget wont stretch to buying new . Will be S/H. Time will tell. Have to sell my Overlander first.

frantic
31st January 2015, 11:45 AM
I guess the thing to take into account in all of this discussion is the people who wrote the original document I cut and pasted are qualified certifying engineers who specialise in exactly this kind of vehicle certification work and who know the law backwards and exactly what these kind of commercial vehicles can carry and tow legally as they come from the factory.

So yes they could be wrong but if they are then the engineers who certify more makes and models of vehicles then any other engineering company in Australia must have no idea about what they are talking about, which is pretty unlikely.

But I'm no expert on this so I can only quote what the so called experts are saying is correct, more then happy to hear the other side of the argument so if anyone can show where they are wrong then please provide actual written proof.

By the way not all vehicle manufacturers measure apples with apples, Ford measure their Ranger with 10 litres of fuel in it. Land Rover on the other hand quote the weight of a Discovery 3/4 with a full tank of fuel and all fluids and from memory a person of 76 kg or something like that.
Terry to restate it simply for you, as was already pointed out in the first article they used the towbars weight twice, whoops. A:If you reduce trailer weight by 350 on towball yes you reduce car carrying capacity, now here's the BUT, the gross mass stays the same, so now the trailer is 3150kg which still allows 300kg+ for the rangers load
Second article they did not subtract the towball weight off the D4 load carrying limit. Your first "engineers" article contradicted the second in that it while doubling load at least reduced the rangers carrying capacity, the second did cut it for the ranger but not for the D4.
But then again maybe ARB are selling a scam and the load on the towall has zero effect on your cars load.;)

justinc
31st January 2015, 12:56 PM
Compare apples with apples,the current 2012 on Dmax is not lacking power at all. Drive a colorado back to back and you'll wonder where those supposed extra 90nm are...and the woeful shift pattern and flaring of the underwhelming 6 spd commodore trans is no improvement over the isuzus 5sp aisin trans which is the same box as the v8 petrol lc200. The torque spread of the 3litre 4jj1tcx engine is earlier and flatter than the 2.8 vm in the Colorado too. You will have to fit some decent suspension though. ...

Pretty happy with ours but work budget wouldn't stretch to a amarok bt50 or ranger so only compared dmax and Colorado.

I get 8.1 as a low and 16 odd as a high towing 2.9t full height 21.6ft dirt road van around tas...

Jc

Vern
31st January 2015, 01:48 PM
for 3.2l (ranger), an extra cylinder, a heap more Nm and Kw on paper, it definitely didn't pull any harder than our 2l vw. And that short shift 6 speed is yucky. But as I said an auto with the ecu done would be pretty good I think.


As for the Isuzu jc, me being just slightly taller than you, found the steering wheel to low, I guess it all comes down to what you find comfortable, must be why I'm not a defender fan:D

frantic
31st January 2015, 02:22 PM
The ranger is about 52,000 new, bt50 same species is around 45k.
The cheapest good dual cab is the Triton at the moment as they are bringing out a new model next month so you can get a DC for about 30k for a 14 model year. 2 of my workmates just got a dcab and a space cab. Not sure if they are 3tons or 3.5 towing.

PAT303
31st January 2015, 02:25 PM
^^ Land Rover cops plenty of flak over not fitting the 3.2 but in reality they are like the D4D V8,paper values don't match actual on road performance. Pat

TerryO
31st January 2015, 02:38 PM
Frantic, no need to be condescending. As I said if you or anyone can show / prove what your saying is correct and what the certifying engineers have said is wrong then I am all ears, but stating your opinion as fact doesn't change anything.

After your original comments I rang Statewide4x4 this morning and spoke to one of their certifying engineers and asked the question. He explained in detail how it is worked out, which most of the detail I don't actually remember to be honest because there was so much of it. However basically he said that your interpretation of how it is worked out was a common mistake that many make.

In part he also stated that he had been an expert witness in several trials where serious accidents had occurred and the drivers had been charged because their vehicles were found to be overloaded because they assumed wrongly how the GCM etc is worked out. He said the outcomes for the drivers was not good.

So as I said if you have actual proof that they are wrong then please provide it, if you can then I will be the first to go back to these experts and show them any documentation that proves them wrong.

TerryO
31st January 2015, 02:57 PM
Still a little confused but one thing for sure the budget wont stretch to buying new . Will be S/H. Time will tell. Have to sell my Overlander first.

Hi 33chinacars,

At the moment I am contemplating buying a ute for work, believe it or not this thread motivated me to go drive a new Ranger. Unfortunately I found it very disappointing, it drove well enough, very basic cabin which we can live with but the ride was jarring and horrible, it bumped and bounced all over the place and was quite noisy in the cabin.

Maybe a ton of weight in the tray might make it ride better, but empty the ride was very poor. I would hate to think how rough any Ranger would ride with one of the up rated GVM kits like what ARB sell and fit.

Maybe it's just a case that we are just spoilt with how the disco rides.

frantic
31st January 2015, 03:52 PM
Frantic, no need to be condescending. As I said if you or anyone can show / prove what your saying is correct and what the certifying engineers have said is wrong then I am all ears, but stating your opinion as fact doesn't change anything.

After your original comments I rang Statewide4x4 this morning and spoke to one of their certifying engineers and asked the question. He explained in detail how it is worked out, which most of the detail I don't actually remember to be honest because there was so much detail. However basically he said that your interpretation of how it is worked out was a common mistake that many make.

In part he also stated that he had been an expert witness in several trials where serious accidents had occurred and the drivers had been charged because their vehicles were found to be overloaded because they assumed wrongly how the GCM etc is worked out. He said the outcomes for the drivers was not good.

So as I said if you have actual proof that they are wrong then please provide it, if you can then I will be the first to go back to these experts and show them any documentation that proves them wrong.
proof? RACQ should do.


Caravanning Queensland: Towing (http://roadahead.com.au/travel/caravanning/towing-is-ball-weight-part-of-the-gvm/)
The racq link covers the mistake in your second link where they forget to subtract the ball weight from the carrying capacity of the D4.


I know you refuse to see any wrong but you cannot add and/or subtract the same number twice.
In your first example you have both the trailer and ranger at 6ton GCM.TICK
You then state "GVM (with max towing): 2,500kg - Vehicle Tare Weight: 2,159kg = 341kg" again correct.


Heres where you got it wrong;
To be able to tow, 3.5T with the PX Ranger you need to take 700kg(Buzz wrong its 700kg subtract towball weight transfer:eek: )out of your maximum allowed GVM figure of 3,200kg. If you then look even further into the vehicle specifications it is even more of an eye-opener. Lets assume that you are still towing the maximum amount of 3.5T with the PX Ranger which we will say is a Dual Cab XLT.
So you are now left with a payload of 341kg. Lets take out a couple more essential items from that figure.

Payload: 341kg - Tow Ball Down Force Approx: 280kg - Buzz-XXX, You have already added the total trailer mass into the GCM , you cannot again add it to the utes weight, that is a separate issue.
Why are you refusing to accept if you take 250-350kg out of the trailer and put it into the ute, via the towbar, your still having the same GCM?

Your second examples table CONTRADICTS your first giving,( actually proving myself and sjane ;) correct) the ranger 300kg load capacity with a fully loaded trailer, direct from your link. So which link is correct, factual?????


So using your own links, one at least is wrong , one says positive 300 kg the other is negative 9kg. take a pick :D
It is not my "opinion" it's YOUR stated fact, just pick a fact to back please its either 300kg+(positive) or -9(negative) it is a fair difference.

It then goes on to not take the towball load out from the D4 GVM? Whoops.


You've consulted an independent engineer, I've put up ARB engineering figures. along with RACQ, and google, pedders or tjm for the same info. Who does more in that field???


The only vehicle with a decent GVM after hooking up a 3.5 ton load is a defender110(or a f250 monster) which exceeds 650kg load after subtracting 350 kg for towball weight.

Mick_Marsh
31st January 2015, 06:10 PM
proof? RACQ should do.


Caravanning Queensland: Towing (http://roadahead.com.au/travel/caravanning/towing-is-ball-weight-part-of-the-gvm/)
The racq link covers the mistake in your second link where they forget to subtract the ball weight from the carrying capacity of the D4.


I know you refuse to see any wrong but you cannot add and/or subtract the same number twice.
In your first example you have both the trailer and ranger at 6ton GCM.TICK
You then state "GVM (with max towing): 2,500kg - Vehicle Tare Weight: 2,159kg = 341kg" again correct.


Heres where you got it wrong;
To be able to tow, 3.5T with the PX Ranger you need to take 700kg(Buzz wrong its 700kg subtract towball weight transfer:eek: )out of your maximum allowed GVM figure of 3,200kg. If you then look even further into the vehicle specifications it is even more of an eye-opener. Lets assume that you are still towing the maximum amount of 3.5T with the PX Ranger which we will say is a Dual Cab XLT.
So you are now left with a payload of 341kg. Lets take out a couple more essential items from that figure.

Payload: 341kg - Tow Ball Down Force Approx: 280kg - Buzz-XXX, You have already added the total trailer mass into the GCM , you cannot again add it to the utes weight, that is a separate issue.
Why are you refusing to accept if you take 250-350kg out of the trailer and put it into the ute, via the towbar, your still having the same GCM?

Your second examples table CONTRADICTS your first giving,( actually proving myself and sjane ;) correct) the ranger 300kg load capacity with a fully loaded trailer, direct from your link. So which link is correct, factual?????


So using your own links, one at least is wrong , one says positive 300 kg the other is negative 9kg. take a pick :D
It is not my "opinion" it's YOUR stated fact, just pick a fact to back please its either 300kg+(positive) or -9(negative) it is a fair difference.

It then goes on to not take the towball load out from the D4 GVM? Whoops.


You've consulted an independent engineer, I've put up ARB engineering figures. along with RACQ, and google, pedders or tjm for the same info. Who does more in that field???


The only vehicle with a decent GVM after hooking up a 3.5 ton load is a defender110(or a f250 monster) which exceeds 650kg load after subtracting 350 kg for towball weight.
Depends on your axle weights.

Vern
31st January 2015, 06:22 PM
Hi 33chinacars,

At the moment I am contemplating buying a ute for work, believe it or not this thread motivated me to go drive a new Ranger. Unfortunately I found it very disappointing, it drove well enough, very basic cabin which we can live with but the ride was jarring and horrible, it bumped and bounced all over the place and was quite noisy in the cabin.

Maybe a ton of weight in the tray might make it ride better, but empty the ride was very poor. I would hate to think how rough any Ranger would ride with one of the up rated GVM kits like what ARB sell and fit.

Maybe it's just a case that we are just spoilt with how the disco rides.

Plumber mate has one, he put an aluminium toolbox on one side, some tools and a couple of aluminium ladders on it and it sagged in the bum, had to get arb upgraded springs for it.

Not the case with our amarok.

Chucaro
31st January 2015, 06:41 PM
.................................................. ..................
The only vehicle with a decent GVM after hooking up a 3.5 ton load is a defender110(or a f250 monster) which exceeds 650kg load after subtracting 350 kg for towball weight.

Then again if you hook a 3.5 tons van behind a 110 Tdi300 I doubt if the vehicle will reach 60 KPA
A County with the Isuzu is a different proposition IMO.

Keithy P38
31st January 2015, 09:03 PM
I'm for the Dmax too... A bit biased being an Isuzu bloke, but I did the homework and took a few dual cabs for a drive and loaded the trays with sandbags before deciding.


The Dmax is "down on power" over pretty much the rest of the dual cabs on the market, on paper. In real life (and i'd put money on a chassis dyno proving this too) it was the best of the lot. The ranger/BT, Amarok, especially the Triton, and the Colorado were all gutless until you were above 2000rpm. The Triton was shocking! You had to put the boot into it to get it going strong. Didn't bother with Hilux or Navara as I dislike both of them strongly.


The Dmax didn't need any more than 1900rpm to get moving at more than average clip. All were auto's too (SWMBO can't do manuals - too complex or something...).


Plus! The Dmax rode level when the others had noticeable sag with 300kg in the tray. All were the pretty spec dual cabs.


For the sake of a bit extra engine noise, the odd diesel rattle, etc, the Dmax kicks all butts and IMHO is better value long term.


Cheers
Keithy

pjw
31st January 2015, 10:34 PM
The ATM is the total weight of the trailer UNHOOKED. Some of that weight will get transferred on to the tow ball (thus reducing the amount of weight you can load into the tow vehicle). The maths in all of the articles are identical in saying the tow ball weight comes out of the Vehicles GVM and when added together (GVM + ATM) must not exceed the GCM.

weeds
1st February 2015, 06:23 AM
I have a BT and just added a Hilux to my fleet at work..........I know the hilux only has 2500 towing capacity. If you don't actually need to tow more than 2500 I would by the hilux over the BT.

Not sure about the ranger but the BT has a rear locker standard which is handy.

frantic
1st February 2015, 07:19 AM
The ATM is the total weight of the trailer UNHOOKED. Some of that weight will get transferred on to the tow ball (thus reducing the amount of weight you can load into the tow vehicle). Yes The maths in all of the articles are identical in saying the tow ball weight comes out of the Vehicles GVM and when added together (GVM + ATM) must not exceed the GCM no they added weight together in the first then took out reduced payload and AGAIN added towball weight to vehicle.

Rofl:D, maths identical??? when one "engineer" gives a load figure of 300kg and another "engineer who does Xyzabc"gives negative 9kg on the same vehicle, obviously they are absolutely the same.
Put the maths in a row and prove it. Ford ranger load carry of 1000kg. GCM 6.
2.20+ 3.5=5.7
5.7 -6.0= 300kg carry capacity

Now out of the 6 ton you TRANSFER via tow ball 350 kg, and here's where the first "engineer" got lost it comes out of the Rangers total gvm, not the reduced one after GCM or to really make it easier gets TRANSFERED to the ranger ,so:
2.2+ .35 towball weight = 2.55
2.55 +3.15(350kg is being carried by towball)= 5.7:eek:
5.7 -6= 300 kg:twisted:

As for being " condescending terry o" play the ball, not the man. As a mod you really should practice this. You put up two links where no2 link proves no1 cut n paste wrong, not me. ;)
I agreed no2 was correct in regards to ranger, but it's second table on the D4 was wrong, as proven by RACQ article. Further shown by ARB, tjm, pedders GCM increase kits for numerous utes and wagons.

TerryO
1st February 2015, 08:18 AM
Plumber mate has one, he put an aluminium toolbox on one side, some tools and a couple of aluminium ladders on it and it sagged in the bum, had to get arb upgraded springs for it.

Not the case with our amarok.

Hi Vern,

The Amarok will be the next crew cab we look at, Redback swears by them as being an excellent all rounder that is great to drive.

Vern
1st February 2015, 08:21 AM
So do I, I find it very comfy. I will probably get the ecu done sometime this year, they get great results from a bit of a tweak:)

Mick_Marsh
1st February 2015, 08:43 AM
Rofl:D, maths identical??? when one "engineer" gives a load figure of 300kg and another "engineer who does Xyzabc"gives negative 9kg on the same vehicle, obviously they are absolutely the same.
Put the maths in a row and prove it. Ford ranger load carry of 1000kg. GCM 6.
2.20+ 3.5=5.7
5.7 -6.0= 300kg carry capacity

Now out of the 6 ton you TRANSFER via tow ball 350 kg, and here's where the first "engineer" got lost it comes out of the Rangers total gvm, not the reduced one after GCM or to really make it easier gets TRANSFERED to the ranger ,so:
2.2+ .35 towball weight = 2.55
2.55 +3.15(350kg is being carried by towball)= 5.7:eek:
5.7 -6= 300 kg:twisted:

As for being " condescending terry o" play the ball, not the man. As a mod you really should practice this. You put up two links where no2 link proves no1 cut n paste wrong, not me. ;)
I agreed no2 was correct in regards to ranger, but it's second table on the D4 was wrong, as proven by RACQ article. Further shown by ARB, tjm, pedders GCM increase kits for numerous utes and wagons.
The load transferred by the tow ball is a weight, not a mass. It's a little more complicated than you make it out to be.
As I said before Look at your axle weights.

loneranger
1st February 2015, 09:29 AM
Before buying a Ranger for heavy towing duties have a read of the following information that is cut and pasted from the Statewide4x4.com.au website. It makes for interesting reading and shows that some times manufacturers claims don't always add up.



How Much Can I Really Tow?
What a lot of vehicle manufacturers will not tell you is that towing up to your maximum towing capability can sometimes (but not always) affect the amount of weight you can carry in your vehicle.

For Example:

Ford PX Ranger: GVM 3,200kg / GCM 6,000kg

Ford advertises that the vehicle has the ability to tow 3.5T which it does, however if you take a closer look at the vehicles specifications you will see that the GCM cannot exceed 6000kg. If you take 3500kg max towing capacity from the GCM that leaves you a maximum allowable vehicle weight of only 2,500kg.

GCM: 6000kg - 3500kg (max towing) = 2,500kg

To be able to tow, 3.5T with the PX Ranger you need to take 700kg out of your maximum allowed GVM figure of 3,200kg. If you then look even further into the vehicle specifications it is even more of an eye-opener. Lets assume that you are still towing the maximum amount of 3.5T with the PX Ranger which we will say is a Dual Cab XLT.

GVM (with max towing): 2,500kg - Vehicle Tare Weight: 2,159kg = 341kg

So you are now left with a payload of 341kg. Lets take out a couple more essential items from that figure.

Payload: 341kg - Tow Ball Down Force Approx: 280kg - Fuel approx 70kg = - 9kg

So on a Ford PX Ranger XLT towing 3.5T with a full tank of fuel and approx 280kg of ball weight you are already over your GCM. Now try to add a driver, additional passengers, any luggage, a fridge, bull bar, winch etc and you will be well over your allowable limit. This makes your vehicle unroadworthy and in the case of an accident you risk voiding your insurance payout. As you can understand it is important information that the consumer really should be made aware of.

Don't forget that when you weigh a trailer on its own that the contact points are the wheels plus the jockey wheel, ie a single axle trailer has 3 contact points, a dual axle trailer has 5 contact points.

Those contact points distribute the weight of the trailer. So if you weigh a dual axle trailer for example and it weighs 3.5T that is distributed over 4 wheels and a jockey wheel. So if you have a GCM of 6T and the trailer weighs 3.5T then you have 2.5T left for the vehicle.

If for example, you just weigh the jockey wheel on the weighbridge and it weighs 250kg then the rest of the weight of the trailer is 3,250kg (3,500kg- 250kg). So you now have a trailer connected to a vehicle distributing 3,250kg through the trailer wheels and 250kg through the ball. The total weight is still 3.5T and you still have 2.5T available for the vehicle.

However, if you put the car on the weighbridge with the trailer hooked up but the trailer wheels are not on the weighbridge the car will show 2,750kg but if you weigh the car and the trailer together you will end up with 6T.

TerryO
1st February 2015, 09:45 AM
Not 100% sure where you are coming from Loneranger, but if its a case of minimising the ball weight, which would affect the GCM, then the only real way that I can think off would be with a dog trailer and I have never seen a lite weight purpose built dog trailer for a domestic or light commercial vehicle. Nor do I know if a dog type trailer can be legally towed by one.

loneranger
1st February 2015, 10:08 AM
Not 100% sure where you are coming from Loneranger, but if its a case of minimising the ball weight, which would affect the GCM, then the only real way that I can think off would be with a dog trailer and I have never seen a lite weight purpose built dog trailer for a domestic or light commercial vehicle. Nor do I know if a dog type trailer can be legally towed by one.

I was trying to illustrate that in your example the ball weight of the trailer is included in both your vehicle calculations and your trailer calculations but it should only be counted once.

I don't have a need to tow anything over 2T so its not an issue but yes the only way to minimise your trailer ball weight and maximise your towing and load capacity would be a dog trailer.

TerryO
1st February 2015, 04:16 PM
Yes in that example the ball weight is added to the vehicles weight when working out the GCM, but as has been explained in earlier posts that is the way to work out the GCM according to the certifying engineers that wrote the extract that was taken from the Statewide4x4 website whose business it is to reengineer and certify vehicles.

Here is a link to the page that explains most everything about GVM's, GCM's etc.

GVM Upgrade & GCM FAQ's / Have A Question About Your GVM Or GCM? (http://www.statewide4x4.com.au/gvm-products/faqs.aspx)

As I said to Frantic if he can provide actual written proof, not just opinion on what he believes it means and how the GCM is worked out, then I'm more than happy to forward it to them with a please explain.

pjw
1st February 2015, 04:52 PM
Rofl:D, maths identical??? when one "engineer" gives a load figure of 300kg and another "engineer who does Xyzabc"gives negative 9kg on the same vehicle, obviously they are absolutely the same.
Put the maths in a row and prove it. Ford ranger load carry of 1000kg. GCM 6.
2.20+ 3.5=5.7
5.7 -6.0= 300kg carry capacity

Now out of the 6 ton you TRANSFER via tow ball 350 kg, and here's where the first "engineer" got lost it comes out of the Rangers total gvm, not the reduced one after GCM or to really make it easier gets TRANSFERED to the ranger ,so:
2.2+ .35 towball weight = 2.55
2.55 +3.15(350kg is being carried by towball)= 5.7:eek:
5.7 -6= 300 kg:twisted:

As for being " condescending terry o" play the ball, not the man. As a mod you really should practice this. You put up two links where no2 link proves no1 cut n paste wrong, not me. ;)
I agreed no2 was correct in regards to ranger, but it's second table on the D4 was wrong, as proven by RACQ article. Further shown by ARB, tjm, pedders GCM increase kits for numerous utes and wagons.

I went back and read the first one again to see what I missed the first time and you are correct, they do use the same weight twice. My bad, sorry.:angel:

More to the point I never realized that to get the maximum GCM both the vehicle and trailer have to be under their maximum weights and with my 130 I can only get to the GCM with a zero weight transfer:o

I was once considering if I could ever part with the defender:eek: I would replace it with the 3.2 Ranger.

loneranger
1st February 2015, 04:55 PM
Yes in that example the ball weight is added to the vehicles weight when working out the GCM, but as has been explained in earlier posts that is the way to work out the GCM according to the certifying engineers that wrote the extract that was taken from the Statewide4x4 website whose business is to reengineer and certify vehicles.

Here is a link to the page that explains most everything about GVM's, GCM's etc.

GVM Upgrade & GCM FAQ's / Have A Question About Your GVM Or GCM? (http://www.statewide4x4.com.au/gvm-products/faqs.aspx)

As I said to Frantic if he can provide actual written proof, not just opinion on what he believes it means and how the GCM is worked out, then I'm more than happy to forward it to them with a please explain.

The only way that example works is if the trailer is actually 3,780kg calculated as 3,500kg on the trailer axles and 280kg on the ball. Otherwise you have to subtract the ball weight from the 3,500kg trailer weight. Its basic maths if you have a vehicle weighing 2.5T and a trailer weighing 3.5T and you connect them you have a GCM of 6T.

frantic
2nd February 2015, 04:32 PM
Definitions;)
http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012C00326/bd4a0736-6d1a-4009-8a47-0acd0a84c69a

GROSS AXLE LOAD RATING (GALR) - the ?Manufacturer?s? specified maximum ?Axle Load? for each ?Axle? for which compliance with applicable Australian Design Rules has been or can be established.
GROSS COMBINATION MASS - value specified for the vehicle by the ?Manufacturer? as being the maximum of the sum of the ?Gross Vehicle Mass? of the drawing vehicle plus the sum of the ?Axle Loads? of any vehicle capable of being drawn as a trailer.
GROSS ROAD TRAIN MASS - the sum of the laden masses of each of the vehicle units of a ?Road Train?.
GROSS TRAILER MASS (GTM) - the mass transmitted to the ground by the ?Axle? or ?Axles? of the trailer when coupled to a drawing vehicle and carrying its maximum load approximately uniformly distributed over the load bearing area, and at which compliance with the appropriate Australian Design Rules has been or can be established.
GROSS VEHICLE MASS (GVM) - the maximum laden mass of a motor vehicle as specified by the ?Manufacturer?.
Your " engineer " has used atm, which is trailers total weight alone. Now this will help generate more clients. All others use GTM. Go to any boat or van site along with racq link I put up as well as ARB ETC,
so he has gone towball load 350 kg onto Rangers payload then for Gvm used ATM NOT GTM.

frantic
2nd February 2015, 06:42 PM
Yes in that example the ball weight is added to the vehicles weight when working out the GCM, but as has been explained in earlier posts that is the way to work out the GCM according to the certifying engineers that wrote the extract that was taken from the Statewide4x4 website whose business it is to reengineer and certify vehicles.

Here is a link to the page that explains most everything about GVM's, GCM's etc.

GVM Upgrade & GCM FAQ's / Have A Question About Your GVM Or GCM? (http://www.statewide4x4.com.au/gvm-products/faqs.aspx)

As I said to Frantic if he can provide actual written proof, not just opinion on what he believes it means and how the GCM is worked out, then I'm more than happy to forward it to them with a please explain.


Your second link is not actual written proof?????
Ford Ranger upgrade to 3500kg towing capacity: UPDATED 08/01/2013 | L2SFBC (http://www.l2sfbc.com/rmp/blog/Ford-Ranger-towing-capacity-upgrade-3500kg)
In this article it states the ranger can carry 300kg. by using the formula :
GCM = GVM + GTM
View image: GCM Explanation (http://postimg.org/image/507xglu95/)


Could you please show how statewide do not deduct twice? they drop the payload by 700kg, same as your second, then drop it again by 350kg, when that figure has already been included as part of the ATM.
Yes mick axle loads do have a factor , but state wide make the same mistake in another example of a 200 series landcruiser, one which ARB, TJM, pedders, lovells and RACQ do not make in their load increase kits.


GROSS COMBINATION MASS - value specified for the vehicle by the ?Manufacturer? as being the maximum of the sum of the ?Gross Vehicle Mass? of the drawing vehicle plus the sum of the ?Axle Loads#? of any vehicle capable of being drawn as a trailer.


#This means the weight on each axle with the trailer hooked up. Straight from the law book in my previous post.

TerryO
2nd February 2015, 09:00 PM
You know what Frantic I could spend more time reading your latest posts on this but I can kind of guess where your going with it and if it makes you feel better then I'm happy to say you could be right and those certifying engineers who wrote the article that I cut and pasted the information from might be wrong.

Really there is no point trying to prove anything to me, because as you know I was only quoting their document, I'm not the engineer who wrote that document on GCM. So how about instead of wasting your breath why not just go straight to the source and ring / email those vehicle modification certifying engineers at Statewide4x4 and then you can tell them directly they have no idea about what they are talking about.

I look forward to reading all about your conversation with them. I'm sure it will be interesting.

Would you like me to find their phone number and email for you?

33chinacars
4th February 2015, 06:24 PM
Thanks everybody for their informative and interesting replies. A lot of food for thought. Certainly didn't set out to cause any arguments let a loan the heated discussion that my question has generated.

Might just buy a big Chev instead :D:D

Gary

frantic
11th February 2015, 06:02 PM
This should be the Final post on this subject about payload.


The "engineers" in your first link where wrong terry-O, whether by accident or on purpose to generate more business, I don't know or speculate;). But as an insurance company, having an "expert" get up and double the weight of a towball load making the vehicle illegal in the "experts" opinion could possibly be beneficial in reducing payouts, but that's just speculation.
You have had several point this out including your own second link with who you've chosen to argue with or ignore.
Now I have it from the RMS directly. Or are they not qualified enough ?
now with a rear axle load max of 1850, even with 300-350 ball mass, and a, at worst, 50:50 ute weight split(most are more nose heavy so around 60:40 front to rear) it leaves over 350kg for that axle and a payload of 300kg.


Technical Enquiries (Technical.Enquiries@rms.nsw.gov.au)
Add to contacts (https://blu173.mail.live.com/ol/#)


3:11 AM


https://www.aulro.com/afvb/images/imported/2015/02/589.jpg (https://blu173.mail.live.com/ol/#)


(https://blu173.mail.live.com/ol/#)




From: MCINTYRE Mark W (Mark.MCINTYRE@rms.nsw.gov.au) on behalf of Technical Enquiries (Technical.Enquiries@rms.nsw.gov.au) Sent: Wednesday, 11 February 2015 3:11:09 AM To: Matthew XXXXXXXX






.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P {PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;MARGIN:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;}.ExternalClass BODY.ecxhmmessage {FONT-FAMILY:Calibri;FONT-SIZE:12pt;}
That's correct, it's all on the axle weights.


Mark McIntyre
Team Leader Technical Enquiries
Accreditation | Safety & Compliance
T 02 8849 2530 M 0412 250 550
www.rms.nsw.gov.au (http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/)
Every journey matters


Roads and Maritime Services





To: Technical Enquiries
Subject: RE: Payload on a ranger wildtrack with a 3.5ton trailer.



Thanks for the quick reply.
I just want to confirm in basic terms.
If the 2.2 ton ranger plus the 3.5 ton trailer (ATM )with a total combined weigh of 5.7ton , then given the Rangers GCM of 6 tons would leave a 300kg capacity in the Rangers payload with the trailer attached , as long as the individual axle weights where not exceeded.
Is this correct?

Thanks again, Matthew.

From: Technical.Enquiries@rms.nsw.gov.au
XXXXXXXXXX
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 08:55:48 +1100
Subject: RE: Payload on a ranger wildtrack with a 3.5ton trailer.


Matthew,

The RMS do not enforce ball weight, this is a towbar manufacturers recommendation.

We would weigh the mass transmitted through the axles of the vehicle and trailer when joined together, if the trailer ATM or vehicle GVM is in excess of the manufacturers stated requirements the vehicle would be in breach and not legal.

Regards


Mark McIntyre
Team Leader Technical Enquiries
Accreditation | Safety & Compliance
T 02 8849 2530 M 0412 250 550
www.rms.nsw.gov.au (http://www.rms.nsw.gov.au/)
Every journey matters


Roads and Maritime Services





From: Matthew XXXXXX
Sent: Tuesday, 10 February 2015 4:59 PM
To: Technical Enquiries
Subject: Payload on a ranger wildtrack with a 3.5ton trailer.



.ExternalClass .ecxhmmessage P {PADDING-BOTTOM:0px;MARGIN:0px;PADDING-LEFT:0px;PADDING-RIGHT:0px;PADDING-TOP:0px;}.ExternalClass BODY.ecxhmmessage {FONT-FAMILY:Calibri;FONT-SIZE:12pt;} Just a Question on payload as I am getting differing answers depending who I talk to.
I am Currently having a discussion on payload of a current model ranger wildtrack after attaching a 3.5ton trailer. I believe that as gcm is 6ton and trailer, 3150kg ( subtract the 350kg on towball) plus 2550kg ranger(2200+350towball) gives 5700 leaving 300kg payload. Another person is deducting ball weight twice.
Could you please help with a written reply.
Thanks, Matthew.

ramblingboy42
11th February 2015, 06:33 PM
Actually I'm finding it terribly boring......yawn....

I thought we were discussing Ford Rangers.

frantic
11th February 2015, 10:10 PM
So did I but I guess some people like to bury a mistake rather than admit it.:D
Look there's an entire new section just for rangers due to the flood of posts and threads in general chat:D
Oops one thread, a few weeks old with written proof asked for and delivered.;)
One further mistake, Thailand, the place of the rangers manufacturing plant is in Asia not Oceania, or maybe the world map is also wrong? :)

Redback
12th February 2015, 11:30 AM
Something that may help:D

http://youtu.be/0J0KcLrOjzk

AND for laughs

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=10152534169916229

Baz.

Vern
12th February 2015, 01:28 PM
Well I was right, I did think the ranger was a slug compared to the amarok.