Ford Ranger

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 33chinacars

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TerryO

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
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frantic

proof? RACQ should do.


Caravanning Queensland: Towing
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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TerryO

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frantic

.................................................. ..................
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.

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pjw

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vern

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.