Thread: Ford Ranger

Originally Posted by Chucaro

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

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.

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TerryO

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.

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

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

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.

^^ 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