Increased payload capacity for camper.

[mjamesreuter]

This sounds like a good candidate for a rear sway bar. I know that Hellwig makes one, but have no personal experience to contribute.

'

Thanks for bringing the sway bar up! Makes sound sense to me in this case, especially in that in reality the main thing I am fighting is camper sway. This might be step 1 and see where it goes from there.

Sponsored

 

[mjamesreuter]

Hi Folks,

Back in the day when Campers were all the rage, Ford Light Truck Engineering developed a Camper package. We owned several huge camper inserts into the pickup box bed and used them to test for ride and handling. Also outrigger brackets to chain the camper to the pickup box. Camper handling required a substantial revision of rear springs, bushings etc. Then there was the durability testing of the equivalent of 150,000 miles of usage...

So today as I know it....Ranger does not offer Camper Option. So if you do the Helwig rout or OME springs etc.... You are on your own...

When Ford develops something there is a ton of testing and analysis...not so when you embark on bolt on stuff.

A rear bar, in my estimation will be a good add to rear weight stability of some thing that raises the CG of the rear of the vehicle...but...you are on your own and if you experience an incident that requires evasive action....you are along for the Ride and hopefully it ends well, but....?????

Off the soap box and retreating to the flameproof bunker for shitting in your punch bowl.

Best,
Phil

Thanks Phil. I can certainly appreciate the design and testing that goes into a vehicle as a whole especially when such a large company like Ford is involved. No disrespect to the engineers but I am open to seeing how certain aftermarket parts perform on the truck for my very specific use case, if I don't like it I'll always have the OEM parts to throw back on/aftermarket to remove. I know I am not the only one looking to improve the handling characteristics of this truck. Generally though (especially in terms of longevity and sometimes performance) stock can be best. My brothers E39 wagon being a prime example, by far the stock suspension turned out to be the best blend of performance and comfort against aftermarket.... but he wasn't carrying a camper around the country.

 

[P. A. Schilke]

Thanks Phil. I can certainly appreciate the design and testing that goes into a vehicle as a whole especially when such a large company like Ford is involved. No disrespect to the engineers but I am open to seeing how certain aftermarket parts perform on the truck for my very specific use case, if I don't like it I'll always have the OEM parts to throw back on/aftermarket to remove. I know I am not the only one looking to improve the handling characteristics of this truck. Generally though (especially in terms of longevity and sometimes performance) stock can be best. My brothers E39 wagon being a prime example, by far the stock suspension turned out to be the best blend of performance and comfort against aftermarket.... but he wasn't carrying a camper around the country.

Hi Michael,

This was not directed to you but to present a snap shot into what Ford Light Truck Engineering does to deliver a vehicle to market...not many folks are aware of the huge task and testing that goes into a product that sits on the dealer's showroom.. One of my goals with these forums is to give this snapshot of the development and testing that goes into a new product.

In your case....Ford does not own the truck anymore...so you are free to do what you wish.. Just do so prudently... There is so much crap out there in the aftermarket and it is buyer beware, but so often things go South and the folks blame Ford....

How many people own Ferrari? Not many... so Ferrari owners put up with the fact a Ferrari is a POS mechanically for the most part... Ever change the oil of a Bugatti Verone? $25,000??? So Fords are owned by many and so we experience many harpoons..

Best of luck to you to search for your improved handling...Ranger was never intended for handling a camper where we offered a specific package to ensure the best result. That does not mean you can't do it...just, please do not blame Ford if something goes wrong

I see this all the time with Ford dealer performance...Dealers are private companies but unfortunately folks do not understand that they are not part of Ford Motor Company...

Best,
Phil

 

[9zero1790]

a set of these may be worth looking at. however i wouldnt use my ranger for a truck slide in / on camper. a topper or shell sure .
https://www.stage3motorsports.com/aalranger-19-22-ranger-auto-spring-rear-add-a-leaf-kit.html

 

[erty176]

I found a picture of your truck without the camper.

 

[Wes Siler]

Another vote for OME from me.

Ran icon on the first Ranger, just since it was the only thing available at launch. One of the front shocks started weeping almost immediately, and the UCAs fouled the shock towers, causing damage to both components and limiting down travel.

As other have suggested, OME has been in the business of supporting higher weights for 50 years. They're very good at it. Just run the numbers and buy the appropriate rear springs for your weight.

For front coilovers and shocks, the budget option is to go OME Nitrocharger. Options are available that will adequately damp your weight without ever overheating. They're very affordable.

Their performance setup, Bp-51, is up there with the fanciest stuff from king, fox, etc. It costs a lot less since they mass manufacture to only certain specs, but it's still pretty expensive.

I'd also go with the hellwig sway bar. I think you'll be amazed at how much confidence that item adds. Install is easy, and it'll work fine with whatever suspension you go with.

If skip the hellwig helper springs. Tried them before and they just add preload, not spring rate. So you ruin your ride without creating handling advantages.

I'd also make sure you're running LT tires, at appropriate pressures on road and off.

 

[Yama_Ranger]

Without a doubt, the best way to approach this problem is to load your truck completely, then weigh it on a CAT scale. Provide those weights to Deaver and they will build you a spring pack custom to your specs. With the specifications from Deaver you can then have Kings, Fox, etc (I agree with Wes to that Icon's tend to be needy) configured to match the spring rate and your desired ride characteristics.

Every other approach described above is just shot-in-the-dark suspension tuning. What many don't understand is that a custom setup can often be had for for not that much more than off-the shelf parts. Just because you go custom tuned, does not need you need to go all out with double-bypass, remote-resi 3.0's. Deaver's will typically run. $1000-1300 and then decide on how much you want to spend on dampers.

Without getting all long winded, technology employed in King, Fox, and Icon is rather different than what OME and lower-end Bilstein offer. An IFP bypass damper chock full of low friction high oil volume parts has little in common with a basic Bilstein. For better or worse. Off the shelf OME or Bilstein will often go longer with less maintenance but are not rebuildable or tunable.

IF OME spring rates happen to align to your weight, then by all means go that route. But, blindly installing off the shelf parts to hold the unqualified weight of a camper in a Ranger is setting yourself up for heartache.

Do it once, do it right, be stoked.

 

[Frenchy]

Without a doubt, the best way to approach this problem is to load your truck completely, then weigh it on a CAT scale. Provide those weights to Deaver and they will build you a spring pack custom to your specs. With the specifications from Deaver you can then have Kings, Fox, etc (I agree with Wes to that Icon's tend to be needy) configured to match the spring rate and your desired ride characteristics.

Every other approach described above is just shot-in-the-dark suspension tuning. What many don't understand is that a custom setup can often be had for for not that much more than off-the shelf parts. Just because you go custom tuned, does not need you need to go all out with double-bypass, remote-resi 3.0's. Deaver's will typically run. $1000-1300 and then decide on how much you want to spend on dampers.

Without getting all long winded, technology employed in King, Fox, and Icon is rather different than what OME and lower-end Bilstein offer. An IFP bypass damper chock full of low friction high oil volume parts has little in common with a basic Bilstein. For better or worse. Off the shelf OME or Bilstein will often go longer with less maintenance but are not rebuildable or tunable.

IF OME spring rates happen to align to your weight, then by all means go that route. But, blindly installing off the shelf parts to hold the unqualified weight of a camper in a Ranger is setting yourself up for heartache.

Do it once, do it right, be stoked.

Just so you are aware(and for others as well) with Old Man EMU you can simply contact ARB and they can and will help you select the right components for your truck(or suv) depending on what you have and what you plan to add to the vehicle. That helps not throwing parts on blindly.

 

[Mustang2Ranger]

AirLift or Firestone Airbags

With any of the aftermarket 2.0 options

 

[mjamesreuter]

I found a picture of your truck without the camper.

Haha! I don't mind having some rake still... I use my truck as a truck not a show piece and having some rake is a necessity to keep it level when loaded... Not to mention when the camper is not in the truck I generally have 300-400 lbs of tools in the bed until I get my new dedicated work truck/van. Personally I wouldn't have bothered buying a truck if I was running around unloaded all the time... I would have bought a wagon.

 

[mjamesreuter]

Another vote for OME from me.

Ran icon on the first Ranger, just since it was the only thing available at launch. One of the front shocks started weeping almost immediately, and the UCAs fouled the shock towers, causing damage to both components and limiting down travel.

As other have suggested, OME has been in the business of supporting higher weights for 50 years. They're very good at it. Just run the numbers and buy the appropriate rear springs for your weight.

For front coilovers and shocks, the budget option is to go OME Nitrocharger. Options are available that will adequately damp your weight without ever overheating. They're very affordable.

Their performance setup, Bp-51, is up there with the fanciest stuff from king, fox, etc. It costs a lot less since they mass manufacture to only certain specs, but it's still pretty expensive.

I'd also go with the hellwig sway bar. I think you'll be amazed at how much confidence that item adds. Install is easy, and it'll work fine with whatever suspension you go with.

If skip the hellwig helper springs. Tried them before and they just add preload, not spring rate. So you ruin your ride without creating handling advantages.

I'd also make sure you're running LT tires, at appropriate pressures on road and off.

Thanks for the great input. The hellwig sway bar is on order and tires will be sorted after the suspension upgrades are finalized.

 

[mjamesreuter]

Without a doubt, the best way to approach this problem is to load your truck completely, then weigh it on a CAT scale. Provide those weights to Deaver and they will build you a spring pack custom to your specs. With the specifications from Deaver you can then have Kings, Fox, etc (I agree with Wes to that Icon's tend to be needy) configured to match the spring rate and your desired ride characteristics.

Every other approach described above is just shot-in-the-dark suspension tuning. What many don't understand is that a custom setup can often be had for for not that much more than off-the shelf parts. Just because you go custom tuned, does not need you need to go all out with double-bypass, remote-resi 3.0's. Deaver's will typically run. $1000-1300 and then decide on how much you want to spend on dampers.

Without getting all long winded, technology employed in King, Fox, and Icon is rather different than what OME and lower-end Bilstein offer. An IFP bypass damper chock full of low friction high oil volume parts has little in common with a basic Bilstein. For better or worse. Off the shelf OME or Bilstein will often go longer with less maintenance but are not rebuildable or tunable.

IF OME spring rates happen to align to your weight, then by all means go that route. But, blindly installing off the shelf parts to hold the unqualified weight of a camper in a Ranger is setting yourself up for heartache.

Do it once, do it right, be stoked.

I didn't realize you could get Fox, King etc to custom match to the spring rate. For those that decide on a leaf spring upgrade it seems like Deaver is highly regarded but that people have issues with the spring rate not matching up with the damping on aftermarket shocks. I'll reach out to Fox and King and see what they say/can do for a custom setup and how much that will set me back.

If I decide on something off the shelf it seems like the general consensus is an OME kit (which is relatively inexpensive) is probably the way to go. Last time I scaled the truck with the camper it was empty so I'll have to run and do it again with all my gear in there. Right now it is feeling like I am leaning toward OME... it might not be as nice but if it is truly more reliable/requires less maintenance I can keep my focus on my other hobbies assuming the weights pan out. Either way I need to weigh the truck again.

 

[Frenchy]

I didn't realize you could get Fox, King etc to custom match to the spring rate. For those that decide on a leaf spring upgrade it seems like Deaver is highly regarded but that people have issues with the spring rate not matching up with the damping on aftermarket shocks. I'll reach out to Fox and King and see what they say/can do for a custom setup and how much that will set me back.

If I decide on something off the shelf it seems like the general consensus is an OME kit (which is relatively inexpensive) is probably the way to go. Last time I scaled the truck with the camper it was empty so I'll have to run and do it again with all my gear in there. Right now it is feeling like I am leaning toward OME... it might not be as nice but if it is truly more reliable/requires less maintenance I can keep my focus on my other hobbies assuming the weights pan out. Either way I need to weigh the truck again.

One problem I noticed with Foc is with the spring rate they offer. I asked them before about the 2.5 shocks and how much weight they can handle since I plan to replace the bumper amd possibly add a winch. Their response was simple. Our springs are not designed for that. For a custom spring rate you need to go through your dealer. A little silly if you ask me.

Old Man EMU on tue other hand performs just fine with the Nitrocharger shocks and the springs can be changed out as needed according to load. Yes it is an off the shelf type thing but Old Man EMU had been doing ir since 1970 so I'm confident they know what they are doing.

I should add a few people that have ridden in my truck have stated its a noce balanced ride both on and OffRoad.

I wonder what they will say when I go BP-51?

 

[THLONE]

When I started down the camper adventure (love them) in 1968 I listened to experienced people. They said get at a minimum a 3/4 ton truck. Also got a sway bar on the front. Many people in those days used 1/2 ton overloaded trucks. Therefore the term "get enough truck" was expressed by experts. Now days people are putting high profile campers and pulling high profile trailers on mini trucks. I think that Ford marketing people have over rated the weight capacity of these Ranger trucks. There is more to carrying capacity than springs, tires, and shocks. Gear ratios and torque of the engine should also be in consideration. Personally I think that to haul a travel trailer or a camper requires a diesel engine and a truck that can handle much more than the weight of the RV. Part of the weight carrying capacity of a truck formula should be the profile of said RV. All vehicle manufactures should put a note on their weight capacity numbers saying numbers should be reduced when high profile equipment is used.

 

[Frenchy]

When I started down the camper adventure (love them) in 1968 I listened to experienced people. They said get at a minimum a 3/4 ton truck. Also got a sway bar on the front. Many people in those days used 1/2 ton overloaded trucks. Therefore the term "get enough truck" was expressed by experts. Now days people are putting high profile campers and pulling high profile trailers on mini trucks. I think that Ford marketing people have over rated the weight capacity of these Ranger trucks. There is more to carrying capacity than springs, tires, and shocks. Gear ratios and torque of the engine should also be in consideration. Personally I think that to haul a travel trailer or a camper requires a diesel engine and a truck that can handle much more than the weight of the RV. Part of the weight carrying capacity of a truck formula should be the profile of said RV. All vehicle manufactures should put a note on their weight capacity numbers saying numbers should be reduced when high profile equipment is used.

As much as you are not wrong Ford also states in the owners manual to not go over a certain speed when towing(55 I think). Does that mean people are going to do such? Not necessarily since common sense isnt so common anymore. Also with Ford already doing their testing and certifying the Ranger for the payload and towing capacity I think I can trust it just fine. Yes its still crazy for a little 4 cylinder truck but with the gearing, suspension brakes I feel the Ranger is more than up to the task. It just comes out to being smart and not doing crazy maneuvers and such when able.

Sponsored