New Ranger / Scamp 19 - Page 2 - Fiberglass RV


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-06-2020, 04:42 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Radar1's Avatar
 
Name: Dave (and/or John)
Trailer: Scamp 16 SD std layout 6
Georgia
Posts: 970
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Al and Cindy K View Post
What's up with the bed height on the new domestic trucks? I parked my 2012 Tacoma (4WD, double cab, w/TRD Offroad pkg) next to a new Ranger yesterday (very nice looking truck by the way). The distance from the ground to the top of the tailgate on the Ford was at least 6" higher than that of my Toyota. A few months back, I test drove a Chevy Colorado and noticed roughly the same thing.
I don't like the trend of higher beds in trucks. I passed on a new Ram 2 years ago because it was just too much truck for my needs. I figured I better get a Ranger before they get so high I'll need a ladder to get in.
Just measured the difference between my other midsize truck (04 Dodge Dakota) and my new Ranger super crew.

Dakota tailgate 28", bed rail 45.5" (approx 17" sides)
Ranger tailgate 34", bed rail 54.5 " (approx 21" sides)

Had to go to a 3" drop hitch on the Ranger, the Dakota had a rise hitch. Once I get the recommended 1,000 miles on the Ranger I'll start hauling my 16' Scamp with it.

Tried to take a photo of the difference side by side (disregard the pizza pan I use to hold my Dutch oven coals).
Attached Thumbnails
Ranger Dakota bed height.jpg   Ranger Scamp.jpg  

__________________

__________________
John-Dave and Marilyn
Sharpsburg, GA
04 Dodge Dakota V-8, 17 Dodge Durango V-6, 19 Ford Ranger 2.3 Ecoboost
radar1-scamping.blogspot.com
Radar1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-06-2020, 09:27 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,442
Registry
Problem is that they don't really make a dedicated 2WD, so the Ranger has the same ground clearance for 2 or 4WD.
I wish it weren't so.
I may see if Forscan will allow the conversion to a lower profile tire even though it would lower the effective gear ratio.
More than likely I will just add running boards and live with the height.
I carry a plastic milk crate to stand on when I go camping to reach anything in the box.



Of course you likely have and wanted 4WD and should then be very happy with the ground clearance and the tucked-up drive train, even the two piece drive shaft.
__________________

floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2020, 08:19 AM   #23
Senior Member
 
Name: bill
Trailer: 2013 Escape 19; 1977 Trillium 1300
The Mountains of North Carolina
Posts: 2,607
Registry
All the truck makers have gone bonkers on bed rail height. 2WD, 4WD, they all are silly high. It's a design decision, and they are all marching in lock step. Huge jump in bed height between my 2002 F150 Lariat and my 2010 F150 Lariat (both 2WD), and the 2020 is higher yet.
thrifty bill is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2020, 08:24 AM   #24
Junior Member
 
Name: Adam
Trailer: Scamp
New Hampshire
Posts: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrifty bill View Post
All the truck makers have gone bonkers on bed rail height. 2WD, 4WD, they all are silly high. It's a design decision, and they are all marching in lock step. Huge jump in bed height between my 2002 F150 Lariat and my 2010 F150 Lariat (both 2WD), and the 2020 is higher yet.

I use my pickup to move firewood to my house and it drives me crazy. With my old Mazda B3000 I could reach right over the sides. With my 2005 Tundra DC, not so much. With the newer trucks, I can barely see over the sides let alone reach inside. Not great for a guy under 6' tall, but at least being a more compact person helps me fit nicely in the Scamp.
AdamNH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2020, 08:52 AM   #25
Senior Member
 
Name: Steve
Trailer: Currently Shopping
NW Wisconsin
Posts: 3,818
I am surprised that no one builds a small / midsized truck for the vertically
challenged male . I like the height of the newer pickups , much better visuals when driving and much easier to enter and exit with my arthritic hips and knees.
steve dunham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2020, 09:03 AM   #26
Senior Member
 
Jon in AZ's Avatar
 
Name: Jon
Trailer: 2008 Scamp 13 S1
Arizona
Posts: 8,525
Registry
I sense that safety testing and regulations killed the really small pickups. Handy as they were, they were never very safe.

Hmmm... small/midsized truck for the vertically challenged... There is one, though you would probably disdain it as a wannabe: the Honda Ridgeline. It is not the equal of modern mid-sized trucks of course, but you can at least reach into the bed without a step stool. It makes a good tow vehicle for small and mid-sized molded trailers. But not a Scamp 19, unless you want to engineer a custom hitch, as has been done.
Jon in AZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2020, 10:33 AM   #27
Senior Member
 
Name: Steve
Trailer: Currently Shopping
NW Wisconsin
Posts: 3,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon in AZ View Post
I sense that safety testing and regulations killed the really small pickups. Handy as they were, they were never very safe.

Hmmm... small/midsized truck for the vertically challenged... There is one, though you would probably disdain it as a wannabe: the Honda Ridgeline. It is not the equal of modern mid-sized trucks of course, but you can at least reach into the bed without a step stool. It makes a good tow vehicle for small and mid-sized molded trailers. But not a Scamp 19, unless you want to engineer a custom hitch, as has been done.
You are correct to a point . I have no disdain for a Honda Ridgeline nor do I consider it a midsize truck . It is more like a small SUV with half the roof missing
My BIL owned a new Ridgeline for 6 months before dumping it
It had neither the good attributes of a truck or an SUV and had the bad attributes of both .
He much prefers his Lincoln Navigator
steve dunham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2020, 10:54 AM   #28
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,442
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon in AZ View Post
I sense that safety testing and regulations killed the really small pickups. Handy as they were, they were never very safe.

Hmmm... small/midsized truck for the vertically challenged... There is one, though you would probably disdain it as a wannabe: the Honda Ridgeline. It is not the equal of modern mid-sized trucks of course, but you can at least reach into the bed without a step stool. It makes a good tow vehicle for small and mid-sized molded trailers. But not a Scamp 19, unless you want to engineer a custom hitch, as has been done.
Actually it was a combination of increased CAFE standards/fines and profit margins.
While the Ranger had the highest fuel mileage of any truck sold in the US at 29MPG, it also had a small profit margin and the price was already up against demand. Then along came 35MPG CAFE and increased fines to deliver the death blow.

Trends being toward larger trucks, the big three made the mistake of thinking that buyers would move up in size and maintain brand loyalty.
They soon discovered the error of their ways and had to play catch up.
They now have caught up with barely small enough offerings.


The new Ranger would not have too high bed rail height if they offered a dedicated 2WD truck,set about 3" lower than the 4WD chassis now offered.
floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2020, 11:17 AM   #29
Senior Member
 
Name: Steve
Trailer: Currently Shopping
NW Wisconsin
Posts: 3,818
Quote:
Originally Posted by floyd View Post
Actually it was a combination of increased CAFE standards/fines and profit margins.
While the Ranger had the highest fuel mileage of any truck sold in the US at 29MPG, it also had a small profit margin and the price was already up against demand. Then along came 35MPG CAFE and increased fines to deliver the death blow.

Trends being toward larger trucks, the big three made the mistake of thinking that buyers would move up in size and maintain brand loyalty.
They soon discovered the error of their ways and had to play catch up.
They now have caught up with barely small enough offerings.


The new Ranger would not have too high bed rail height if they offered a dedicated 2WD truck,set about 3" lower than the 4WD chassis now offered.
Based on the prices they are charging for midsized trucks ( Ranger , Colorado ,Canyon ) , the big three have solved the profit margin problem .
I bought my full size truck not because of a lack of choices but because I had a choice .
As far as ride height I think the Ford Ranger got it almost right , a little low but not too bad .
My wife’s 2019 Equinox is too small for my liking but it’s my wife’s vehicle and she gets to decide .
steve dunham is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2020, 11:23 AM   #30
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,442
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve dunham View Post
Based on the prices they are charging for midsized trucks ( Ranger , Colorado ,Canyon ) , the big three have solved the profit margin problem .
I bought my full size truck not because of a lack of choices but because I had a choice .
As far as ride height I think the Ford Ranger got it almost right , a little low but not too bad .
My wife’s 2019 Equinox is too small for my liking but it’s my wife’s vehicle and she gets to decide .
You forgot these...
floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2020, 11:44 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Jon in AZ's Avatar
 
Name: Jon
Trailer: 2008 Scamp 13 S1
Arizona
Posts: 8,525
Registry
New Ranger / Scamp 19

Quote:
Originally Posted by floyd View Post
...While the Ranger had the highest fuel mileage of any truck sold in the US at 29MPG...
I owned two Rangers, both 2.3L 2WD, a Toyota 2.4L 4WD, and a Nissan 2.4L 4WD. All had 5-speed manual transmissions with overdrive. I could never break 25 mpg in any of them; 23-24 mpg was typical in conservative highway driving.

I liked the Nissan best of the lot, but in 1998 it was a newer design, first of the Frontiers, last with manual transmission, manual transfer case, and manual locking hubs.
Jon in AZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2020, 11:55 AM   #32
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,442
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon in AZ View Post
I owned two Rangers, both 2.3L 2WD, a Toyota 2.4L 4WD, and a Nissan 2.4L 4WD. All had 5-speed manual transmissions with overdrive. I could never break 25 mpg in any of them; 23-24 mpg was typical in conservative highway driving. The Nissan was the best of the bunch.
I was of course referring to EPA highway mileage which was the basis for the statement and the CAFE fines.YMMV
floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2020, 12:15 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
Jon in AZ's Avatar
 
Name: Jon
Trailer: 2008 Scamp 13 S1
Arizona
Posts: 8,525
Registry
New Ranger / Scamp 19

Yes, in those early years, EPA mileage numbers were a joke. Nowadays they’re more in line with reality.
Jon in AZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2020, 12:29 PM   #34
Senior Member
 
Radar1's Avatar
 
Name: Dave (and/or John)
Trailer: Scamp 16 SD std layout 6
Georgia
Posts: 970
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by floyd View Post
Actually it was a combination of increased CAFE standards/fines and profit margins.
While the Ranger had the highest fuel mileage of any truck sold in the US at 29MPG, it also had a small profit margin and the price was already up against demand. Then along came 35MPG CAFE and increased fines to deliver the death blow.
Part of the switch by manufacturers to larger trucks while ignoring midsize trucks was the unusual way that the CAFE standards were created. A larger footprint had a lower required standard, so they had the choice of splitting development costs between mid and full sized, or just concentrating on the full size. It almost encourages manufacturers to drop small trucks from the lineup.
"CAFE footprint requirements are set up such that a vehicle with a larger footprint has a lower fuel economy requirement than a vehicle with a smaller footprint. For example, the fuel economy target for the 2012 Honda Fit with a footprint of 40 sq ft (3.7 m2) is 36 miles per US gallon (6.5 l/100 km), equivalent to a published fuel economy of 27 miles per US gallon (8.7 l/100 km), and a Ford F-150 with its footprint of 65–75 sq ft (6.0–7.0 m2) has a fuel economy target of 22 miles per US gallon (11 l/100 km), i.e., 17 miles per US gallon (14 l/100 km) published."

As for my Ranger, it's just a 2WD with e-locker. Finally filled the tank for the first time today! :-)
__________________
John-Dave and Marilyn
Sharpsburg, GA
04 Dodge Dakota V-8, 17 Dodge Durango V-6, 19 Ford Ranger 2.3 Ecoboost
radar1-scamping.blogspot.com
Radar1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-07-2020, 04:53 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
floyd's Avatar
 
Name: Floyd
Trailer: 2004 13 ft Scamp Custom Deluxe
IllAnnoy
Posts: 7,442
Registry
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radar1 View Post
Part of the switch by manufacturers to larger trucks while ignoring midsize trucks was the unusual way that the CAFE standards were created. A larger footprint had a lower required standard, so they had the choice of splitting development costs between mid and full sized, or just concentrating on the full size. It almost encourages manufacturers to drop small trucks from the lineup.
"CAFE footprint requirements are set up such that a vehicle with a larger footprint has a lower fuel economy requirement than a vehicle with a smaller footprint. For example, the fuel economy target for the 2012 Honda Fit with a footprint of 40 sq ft (3.7 m2) is 36 miles per US gallon (6.5 l/100 km), equivalent to a published fuel economy of 27 miles per US gallon (8.7 l/100 km), and a Ford F-150 with its footprint of 65–75 sq ft (6.0–7.0 m2) has a fuel economy target of 22 miles per US gallon (11 l/100 km), i.e., 17 miles per US gallon (14 l/100 km) published."

As for my Ranger, it's just a 2WD with e-locker. Finally filled the tank for the first time today! :-)
Good post!

We sometimes fail to realize how much regulation involves itself in every product and decision we make.


Time flies, I waited just about forever to get my Ranger, now suddenly I've had it for 8 months,
Just did my first oil change... 6 QTs and a cup (w/filter).
__________________

floyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
scamp


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
Floyd's New Ranger Civilguy General Chat 66 06-20-2019 09:14 PM
looking at new TV Ford 2019 Ranger Boe and Suzanne Towing, Hitching, Axles and Running Gear 88 02-05-2019 01:35 PM
New Ford Ranger the_fixer Towing, Hitching, Axles and Running Gear 90 10-29-2018 07:16 PM
New here w/ a 1954 Ranger and a U-Haul socalvintagetraile Hi, I am.... 18 03-20-2012 09:30 AM
NEW TOW VEHICLE Ford Ranger steve dunham Towing, Hitching, Axles and Running Gear 47 02-10-2012 02:46 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 03:22 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
×