Towing with a 2000 Ford Ranger 3.0 Auto - Page 2 - Fiberglass RV
Journey with Confidence RV GPS App RV Trip Planner RV LIFE Campground Reviews RV Maintenance Take a Speed Test Free 7 Day Trial ×


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-25-2015, 05:18 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Name: Peter
Trailer: Trillium Jubilee 15'-0
British Columbia
Posts: 126
Hi Bob ..... I have a 2005 3.0L Supercab Ranger that I pull a 1980 Trillium Jubilee ( approx 2000 lbs loaded ) with.
In 2013 my wife and I made the trip from Vancouver BC across to the east coast. We travelled the states until crossing back into Canada at Windsor to visit friends near Toronto. We carried on through Quebec, New Brunswick and PEI to Nova Scotia. Our return was via the US east coast, through New York and then east to finally angle back up into Canada at Saskatchewan and home to BC.
The trip was 18,000 kilometres of very mixed driving with lots of long climbs. There was never a hiccup from the Ranger the whole trip and our fuel consumption was approx 17 mlles per US gallon ( approx 21 mpg Imp ) for combined travel, with and without the Jubilee.
I hope this gives you another bit of info to base your decision on. I would imagine that most of the 15 -16ft Fibreglass units would weigh approx the same as the Jubilee loaded.
My Ranger manual quotes 2300 lbs max trailer weight for my 3.0 L ( Edge ) with a 6000 lb gross weight for combined truck and trailer.
I do have some weights from when I took the combo over a local scale but can't put my hands on them at the moment. If I find them I will post here.
Good luck in your search for a trailer and many happy miles on the road.
peatle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2015, 06:37 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
rbryan's Avatar
 
Name: Robert
Trailer: 2015 Escape 19 "Past Tents" 2018 F150 Lariat 2.7L EB SuperCrew
Arkansas
Posts: 1,298
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by honda03842 View Post
Smaller vehicles like the Ford Ranger can do the job and do it more economically.
Not always. I think you might be surprised. I just sold my 2002 Ranger 4x4 which was a PIG on gas, and bought a much larger 2015 F150 Crew Cab with an Ecoboost v6. I expect that the F150 will get almost DOUBLE the gas mileage of the Ranger, and it has a much higher towing capacity while doing it.

The hard and fast rule used to be that smaller was always cheaper to operate than larger, but with the advancements in materials and powerplants, that is changing fast.
__________________
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy an RV. And that is pretty close."
rbryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2015, 07:39 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
Paul O.'s Avatar
 
Name: Paul
Trailer: '04 Scamp 19D, TV:Tacoma 3.5L 4door, SB
Colorado
Posts: 1,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryan View Post
The hard and fast rule used to be that smaller was always cheaper to operate than larger, but with the advancements in materials and powerplants, that is changing fast.
It does seem that the choices are harder these days. The OP mentioned Scamp 19 and if he gets the "straight" (not deluxe), it is lighter and he should be able to tow it quite well with that 3.0 Ranger. I am towing my 19 Deluxe with the 4.0 liter Tacoma and towing package and it feels I have good performance margin. Also, I am quite happy with the 5th wheel setup. When Bob needs to replace the 15 y. o. Ranger, there are a few more "small" or medium size trucks to choose from, again. For a couple of years it was Frontier or Tacoma only.
Paul O. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2015, 08:01 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
honda03842's Avatar
 
Name: Norm and Ginny
Trailer: Scamp 16
Florida
Posts: 7,517
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryan View Post
Not always. I think you might be surprised. I just sold my 2002 Ranger 4x4 which was a PIG on gas, and bought a much larger 2015 F150 Crew Cab with an Ecoboost v6. I expect that the F150 will get almost DOUBLE the gas mileage of the Ranger, and it has a much higher towing capacity while doing it.

The hard and fast rule used to be that smaller was always cheaper to operate than larger, but with the advancements in materials and powerplants, that is changing fast.
I certainly agree. Each generation of vehicles are getting more efficient. We just replaced a 10 year old vehicle with a new one and 10 years of new technology amazes us on a daily basis.

Our new vehicle is much larger and heavier with a 3-6 cylinder engine, compared to our previous 4 cylinder but gets better overall mileage.

The new vehicles are amazing. Maybe the next generation of Rangers will have the same level of technology.
__________________
Norm and Ginny

2014 Honda Odyssey
1991 Scamp 16
honda03842 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2015, 08:34 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
rbryan's Avatar
 
Name: Robert
Trailer: 2015 Escape 19 "Past Tents" 2018 F150 Lariat 2.7L EB SuperCrew
Arkansas
Posts: 1,298
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by honda03842 View Post
Maybe the next generation of Rangers will have the same level of technology.
They probably would, if Ford still made them. They stopped making the Ranger a couple years ago and have abandoned the smaller truck market (at least in North America) mainly because of lower sales and the fact that their larger trucks are now more efficient.
__________________
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy an RV. And that is pretty close."
rbryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-25-2015, 08:39 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
rbryan's Avatar
 
Name: Robert
Trailer: 2015 Escape 19 "Past Tents" 2018 F150 Lariat 2.7L EB SuperCrew
Arkansas
Posts: 1,298
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by J Mac View Post
The down size of the larger truck is that it won't fit in my garage and the Ranger does.
That is SO true. I don't like the idea of parking my new F150 outside, but unless I'm willing to move or remodel, that's the only place for it.
__________________
"You can't buy happiness, but you can buy an RV. And that is pretty close."
rbryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-28-2015, 06:32 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
Posts: 8,520
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by larryf View Post
I had a 1996 Ranger with a 3.0 and a 5 speed manual and it was underpowered in the mountains trying to tow a 1000 lb teardrop trailer. My CRV Honda towed it much better and it is a 4 cyl and auto. I found the 3.0 a very poor towing engine on steep hills it was not unusual to drop down to 2nd or 3rd gear to get up a grade. When I got the 17 ft Casita I went with a Jeep Cherokee with a 4.7 V-8 and and have had no problems maintaining a proper speed up hills and most of the time there is a little extra power to get out of trouble. I'm not any kind of a speeder I just want to keep at least a 55 mph speed on the road and not hold up traffic, I could never do this with the Ranger, especially if I was towing 3000+ lbs.
We climb over Monteagle with our 13D scamp at the speed limit pulled by our 2.3L Ford Escape(5spd manual). What do you suppose was wrong with your Ranger?
floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2015, 04:33 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Mike Magee's Avatar
 
Name: Mike
Trailer: 2012 Escape 19
Oklahoma
Posts: 6,021
Regarding what type of trailer to buy, I think your Ranger would struggle significantly harder with a stick built trailer. It should handle a Scamp or Casita all right, but a stickie will be taller, wider, and have un-rounded edges... all resulting in much more wind drag at highway speed. And let me tell you, wind resistance is the big factor when you're towing something.

I have had both. With a Burro (molded fiberglass) I got 14.3 mpg on a long trip through the Rockies. With a KZ Escape 14RB I got 12.3 mpg on a similar trip. I didn't have a problem towing the Burro up any long grades, but with the KZ I was making my transmission temperature warning light come on sometimes even though I was slowing and shifting down. Going up the San Rafael Swell (I-70, Utah) with the KZ in a headwind was not fun, running 38 mph in 2nd gear while cars whizzed by me. With the Burro I bet I would have been able to stay in 3rd and 10 mph faster.

In general terms, towing is the great equalizer when it comes to fuel economy. Given the same trailer and speed, a big thirsty V8 will get nearly the same mpg as a little V6 or even a 4. I once took the mpg numbers reported on the Scampers' Yahoo group and IIRC the average difference between the 4's and the 8's was less than 3 mpg, with the 6's about halfway in between. I would guess that @ 60 mph you should get about 15 mpg with a FG trailer, whereas a larger vehicle with V8 might get you 14... not much difference.

My opinion: you can tow a FG 'egg' with your Ranger, but if you want some other travel trailer you'd better shop for a bigger truck.
Mike Magee is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Ford Ranger I-4 2.3 liter towing MarkyVasquez Towing, Hitching, Axles and Running Gear 32 05-30-2014 10:47 AM
Casita 17' Deluxe and towing with Toyota Tacoma or Ford Ranger? JaneM. Towing, Hitching, Axles and Running Gear 47 04-25-2011 12:52 PM
Towing with a Ford Ranger 4X4 4.0L Tom H. Towing, Hitching, Axles and Running Gear 4 06-10-2009 06:03 AM
towing options w/ ford ranger Justin, M Towing, Hitching, Axles and Running Gear 18 04-18-2008 12:30 AM

» Upcoming Events
No events scheduled in
the next 465 days.
» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.