Towing with Ford Ranger 4 cylinder

Adrienne

RangerTom said:

Life is meant to be enjoyed and not stressed out over worrying about "specs."  The truck is meant to be able to tow 2240#  (The 2.3l engine tow capacity is only 2240#).  The T@B is under 2000#.  If you are not doing a lot of high mountain driving, and you don't drive aggressively or at much over 60 mph, I think you will be fine.  Sounds like you look after the truck with regular oil changes and maintenance and I think it will do fine pulling a T@B.  I would not downgrade to a T@G for any reason if it is not the kind of recreational vehicle that you really want.

If it was me I would get the T@B and start enjoying it.  Having owned a similar sized RV for a half year before buying the T@B OutBack, I can tell you that the T@B pulls much easier than the other of same weight.  (It was the Rockwood GeoPro 14.) I would not hesitate to get the T@B and when you decide to get a new TV, you will have had experience with the Ranger and a better idea of what you think you will want at that time.  Unless you are on the road a lot throughout the year I wouldn't hesitate to tow a T@B with a small pickup.  The only caveat is that I am a guy that tends to live life to the fullest, and I do tend to do many things others think are a bit crazy, but believe me, towing the T@B will not destroy your pickup truck.

I may be wrong, but it seems like the trailer weight might actually help to stabilize the rear of the truck, which has 

Adrienne

@RangerTom thank you for your Insight. My truck actually only has a 2080 tow capacity because it's an extended cab. But, I'm not an aggressive driver. I plan on staying off the interstate and avoiding any mountainous ranges unless I have more experience and felt at that time I need a bigger vehicle. It would be doing more sitting than moving.

 I'm not discounting all the comments I have received, it is a lot to sift through. It might be an even bigger mistake to run out and buy a different vehicle just to tow the tab, and then realize it is totally the wrong vehicle for me. One thing I am finding is my little Ranger is worth quite a bit more than you would think, since they don't make them any more, and they have a great reputation for reliability in mine is relatively low mileage for its age. So, it would be worth more than I thought as a trade-in vehicle. See, I am actually looking at other options!

A lot of people thought I was out of my mind when I rode a motorcycle cross country solo, a decade ago. They thought as a single female, I would fall upon all kinds of unseen perils. It was a great trip, everybody was very friendly to me, and I never felt threatened. I'm not a risk-taker by any means but I guess I sometimes don't see things the way others do. It appears there are things I could do to minimize the weight, like emptying the water when traveling. There is also some of the seating that I really don't need and I could take it out if that is possible. Where there's a will there is a way!

Adrienne

Thank you!

MuttonChops

@Adrienne

I'm the kind of people that likes safety margin and always takes the lower risk path with machines when possible and personally would not operate this TV and trailer combination.  That said I understand the logic of @RangerTom and others.

If you fully understand the limitations you should adjust to while operating a Ranger + T@B, such as:

-   Installing helper springs  (for a bit of extra capacity)

-   Keeping truck and trailer cargo weights at a very minimum

-   Driving at 55 MPG or less  (does reduce stability risk and engine stress)

-  Not using overdrive  (recommended by Ford)

-  monitoring engine and transmission temperature closely

-  keeping truck tire pressure at or slightly above the door sticker value (due to heavy axle loads)

-  not using a weight distribution style hitch  (will overload front axle)

-  consider adding a basic sway control arm.  (might reduce some of stability risks)

Then I can see how operating the combination at the TV limits could achieve your goals.  Am not recommending it . . . do understand the logic.

The attached PDF compares the axle loading differences for your Ranger with a 320S trailer.  The different charts contain both 'standard' hitch and 'weight distribution' hitch data. 

The Front Axle Weight Rating (FGAWR) chart shows how that axle is overloaded if a weight distribution hitch were to be used.

Charts were generated for an Empty Truck and nearly empty T@B and for something slightly heavier so some gear can be accounted for . . . but cargo loading would still need to be very light compared to many of the T@B units you'll see on the road.

This is at best slightly informed information and not a formal 'go for it' suggestion.

Adrienne

@MuttonChops thank you very much. My brain is on overload with all of the information. Now to sift through it all!

Adrienne

@MuttonChops Mine came with a tow package, so it already has the standard receiver for the hitch installed. At least I think that is what that is referring to. 😱

MuttonChops

Adrienne said:

Mine came with a tow package, so it already has the standard receiver for the hitch installed. At least I think that is what that is referring to. 😱

Yes, your truck has a standard receiver . . . it is bolted to the frame, not just a 1980's steel bump.

For towing you add a standard draw bar with tow ball.

WD Hitches also mount into the factory receiver, include a tow ball, but also have extra stuff that must be attached to the trailer.  WD hitches are rare in the T@B towing world and not possible for you due to the Ranger's low front axle rating.

Adrienne

Thank you!

rkj__

MuttonChops said:

@Adrienne

I'm the kind of people that likes safety margin and always takes the lower risk path with machines when possible and personally would not operate this TV and trailer combination.  That said I understand the logic of @RangerTom and others.

If you fully understand the limitations you should adjust to while operating a Ranger + T@B, such as:

-   Installing helper springs  (for a bit of extra capacity)

-   Keeping truck and trailer cargo weights at a very minimum

-   Driving at 55 MPG or less  (does reduce stability risk and engine stress)

-  Not using overdrive  (recommended by Ford)

-  monitoring engine and transmission temperature closely

-  keeping truck tire pressure at or slightly above the door sticker value (due to heavy axle loads)

-  not using a weight distribution style hitch  (will overload front axle)

-  consider adding a basic sway control arm.  (might reduce some of stability risks)

Then I can see how operating the combination at the TV limits could achieve your goals.  Am not recommending it . . . do understand the logic.

The attached PDF compares the axle loading differences for your Ranger with a 320S trailer.  The different charts contain both 'standard' hitch and 'weight distribution' hitch data. 

The Front Axle Weight Rating (FGAWR) chart shows how that axle is overloaded if a weight distribution hitch were to be used.

Charts were generated for an Empty Truck and nearly empty T@B and for something slightly heavier so some gear can be accounted for . . . but cargo loading would still need to be very light compared to many of the T@B units you'll see on the road.

This is at best slightly informed information and not a formal 'go for it' suggestion.

Helper springs?  Those should not be required to tow a T@b on a pickup with a 1200 lb payload capacity. They will obviously not increase the Capacity ratings on the door jam sticker. 

rcuomo

To build on MuttonChops comments, I may be mistaken but the 4.10 rear axle rating shown in the brochure to obtain the higher payload/towing capacity was only available with the factory towing package. I think the stock automatic ratio was 3.73. There should be a metal tag bolted on the differential cover with the ratio or you may be able to decode the VIN or door sticker to determine your trucks actual ratio. 

Adrienne

@rcuomo Yes, it is the 4.10, with the factory towing package.  I assume that is a good thing?  

rcuomo

Yes it is. But rkj and MuttonChops all make valid points about towing at the max capacity of your truck. All that being said, I would rather tow with a full frame vehicle like your Ranger than a unibody vehicle like a Subaru. And I am a Subaru long time owner. If you are firm on using your truck I would upgrade to a stronger brake pad to handle the increased braking temps. Maybe also upgrade the brake rotors. Transmission, engine cooling system and oil cooler maintenance would also be on my list. Keep the total weight down and you should be able to handle the T@B. 

Adrienne

@rcuomo thank you for the reply. I had already thought about the brakes, but is that still necessary with the brakes the trailer has? Also, if I know soneone who has a larger TV, who could pull it to a temporary home while I figure this all out, would the plugs they have for their vehicle, fit the T@B, or are there differences among manufacturers? The RV they tow is much larger, so I assume it has brakes. I will Trying to figure out how to pick one up if I find a good deal on a used one.

rkj__

Adrienne said:

@rcuomo thank you for the reply. I had already thought about the brakes, but is that still necessary with the brakes the trailer has? Also, if I know soneone who has a larger TV, who could pull it to a temporary home while I figure this all out, would the plugs they have for their vehicle, fit the T@B, or are there differences among manufacturers? The RV they tow is much larger, so I assume it has brakes. I will Trying to figure out how to pick one up if I find a good deal on a used one.

I find the trailer brakes on the T@b do a great job.  With my brake controller, if I turn the trailer brakes way up, it feels like the trailer is helping to brake the truck.  Normally, I have the trailer brakes dialed in very lightly though.

The electrical connections for RVs are pretty standard these days.  The biggest concern would be having the correct 2" ball size for connecting the trailer, and the appropriate drop for the T@b, so that it tows fairly level.  The receiver height on the T@b is lower than many larger RVs.

MuttonChops

To know the exact capabilities of this specific Ranger we would need the Door Sticker Information and VIN number + a shop manual to fully decode the VIN number.

We do know with Truck & T@B empty the GVWR(s) are not exceeded and the recommended towing weights are exceeded.  Once cargo is loaded the picture gets very gray.

Elsewhere on the Forum is a post on 'Why Europe Has Higher Tow Ratings'.  A key item in that article is to keep towing speed at or below 55 MPH in Europe . . . while North America tow ratings are based on 65-70 MPH towing speeds.

rkj__ said:

Helper springs?  Those should not be required to tow a T@b on a pickup with a 1200 lb payload capacity. They will obviously not increase the Capacity ratings on the door jam sticker. 

Based on the specifications for used Rangers;  Rear Axle Spring Rating is 2,550# and Rear Axle Load rating is 2,750#.  So adding helper springs is an aftermarket way to achieve some of the benefits of Ford's Payload Package (which increase rear spring rates) and should help as the total load reaches standard Spring Rating but is kept below Axle Rating.

rcuomo said:

. . . may be mistaken but the 4.10 rear axle rating shown in the brochure to obtain the higher payload/towing capacity was only available with the factory towing package. I think the stock automatic ratio was 3.73. 

Brochure states 3.73 is available on the Manual Gear Box, not on the Automatic.

@Adrienne statements about her Ranger having a Tow Package are I believe incorrect as the 2009 Ranger did not have a Tow Package Option.  Ford did offer a higher Payload Package . . . but it was only available for 2.3L SuperCab.

This Ranger is clearly pushing the limits as an acceptable TV.

I personally would not tow a T@B with it or recommend so.

. . . But can see how it would be possible . . .

Adrienne

When I say tow package, I mean it has a factory installed hitch and a plug for wiring. It was listed as a tow package on the sticker, but I did not assume it meant it was heavier duty in any other way. Thanks!

rkj__

MuttonChops said:

This Ranger is clearly pushing the limits as an acceptable TV.

I personally would not tow a T@B with it or recommend so.

. . . But can see how it would be possible . . .

Full disclosure, I'll admit I'm a little biassed, as a lover of small pickup trucks.  If somebody was asking the same question, about some ugly unibody crossover vehicle, with the same ratings, I would be discouraging them from towing a T@b. 

As I've mentioned earlier, I really feel that HP is the most significant issue here.  I like power.  I tow with 242 ponies under the hood.  But, I can recognize, you don't need to be crushing every hill at the speed limit.

When I was driving home yesterday, I ended up getting stuck behind a transport truck with a full load of hardwood, going up a grade at 40km/h, on a 100km/h highway.  He had his 4-way flashers on, got to the top of the hill safely, and carried on his way. 

Adrienne

LOL. I've never been too concerned about HP. I'm a poky little puppy type of driver. I get teased about it all the time. It's the reason I tend to stay off of the interstate.

rcuomo

Adrienne- are you assuming it has the 4.10 rear because you have the factory installed hitch or is it listed on the window sticker?  The Ranger 4 cylinder really doesn't have the guts to tow 2000# but the higher ratio makes it doable.  With a 3.73 ratio you would have no choice but to be a pokey driver and that's not necessarily a good thing if you need to get out of trouble.  HP and torque are key and that 2.3 liter has neither.  Staying off the interstate is a good idea.  My 2 cents.

Adrienne

I guess I assumed because a  chart I saw said automatic only had that. I will dig out sticker and look!

Adrienne

@rcuomo From the sticker, 4.10 ratio axle.    

Photomom

I won’t comment on your choice of tow vehicle, but I can recommend that you talk to a good horse/utility trailer shop in your area about costs to add towing equipment to a tow vehicle. You might ask your lawn service or a horse owner who they go to.

Adrienne

Good idea. Thanks!