Rear Ride height a Design defect caught tooo late?

[Cabose-1]

Yeah...........
I agree with the op.
Thats why I traded in my 2020 Ranger xlt 4x2. Got rid of it quick! After driving 38000 miles of towing and work! Good riddance.
Now i drive a 2022 Ranger xlt fx2. With bigger tires that raised it just a hair. See how this new one works out. Miss those hood struts. Lol

Sponsored

 

[WingShot]

I think you’re spending too much time thinking about a truck you no longer own and never liked, and not enough time enjoying what fits you better. But spare time is obviously something you have a lot of.

 

[JesseS]

Hmmmm, 6'2" and never gave bed height a second thought. I like that the sides are high, gives me more room under the tri-fold.

 

[Floyd]

I still wish they had produced a 2WD Ranger, not just a 4WD with parts missing.
That being said its a great truck overall.

 

[CVA62]

OK, so now I am beginning to think that my huge RedNeck cooler I modified with 3 day ice is gonna fit just nice in the back with the tonneau down. That makes me happy.

 

[WV_Ranger]

Oh, yeah, you’ve never owned an F950 Supa Dupa Duty ???

?????? I figure that would require an extension ladder to access

 

[WV_Ranger]

Rear Ride height a Design defect caught tooo late?

No.
If they engineered it just like the Toyota and Nissan, then it would be just another Toyota and Nissan. The G5 Rangers are BIGGER in every dimension than the 80's and 90's F-150. But trucks have changed and the Ranger was marketed for people who like the bigger trucks but were leaving Ford for Nissan and Toyota. So if you don't want a gargantuan F-150, you can have a Ranger. Better MPG, and easier to park - but everybit as capable for the weekend warrior who needs an occasional truck not a full duty service truck.

YOU HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD! I enjoyed the trade down to ranger from f150. It's still a quite capable truck for my needs!

 

[LostMy65]

I've been searching pictures of the Ranger 6g.
It looks like it's the same height as the 5g.

 

[subquark]

I'm only 5'5" and have no issue with the Ranger's rake. I defer to Ford on their design and their engineering expertise.

I haul often and trailer at times and it works fantastically. I can't imagine not having a rake and wanting to use its payload to the max.

Being able to reach in is secondary to my use of the Ranger as a truck. This is a bizarre argument like complaining that a tank's armor is too heavy.

 

[RedDakooter05]

It sits a little too high for my liking but so did my F150(seriously my truck looked like it was in heat all the time).

Nothing 200-300lbs of sand won't remedy.

 

[Trustable]

It sits a little too high for my liking but so did my F150(seriously my truck looked like it was in heat all the time).

Nothing 200-300lbs of sand won't remedy.

I had 350 pounds in the bed last winter for “traction” (didn’t make a difference for me) it did ride a bit better but I never really noticed it any lower I’m pretty short so to get into the bed is a jumping and climbing maneuver for me. Or maybe it did get lower but I’m still to short to notice!

 

[RedDakooter05]

I had 350 pounds in the bed last winter for “traction” (didn’t make a difference for me) it did ride a bit better but I never really noticed it any lower I’m pretty short so to get into the bed is a jumping and climbing maneuver for me. Or maybe it did get lower but I’m still to short to notice!

My 175ish lbs body seems to lower the rear about an inch as I climb over the tailgate, so I'm sure 4-5 bags of sand will give it a little less rake.

But to your point, the ranger bumper is about equal to that of my previous F150. Kinda stupid imo.

 

[brroberts]

I hate the bed height on all new trucks. I much prefer my ‘98 C2500 with an 8’ bed. I’m 5’8” and loading newer trucks is impractical to me. I also hate no midsize truck offers an 8’ bed. I bought the Ranger because it was the cheapest vehicle to do what I needed. It’s been a good truck so far, but I wish the load height was lower and the bed was longer.

 

[TICKLE ZOMBIE]

Is he talking about the rake or the walls of the bed? If the rake, I personally love the stance….I understand it will lower under weight but hope it “springs” back up when empty.

 

[sklnbnz]

I can't get my head around this at all...

I am 5'11", I am on 33's now (285/70/17) and have a 2 1/2" level up front. I can walk out, reach over the bed and touch the bottom of the bed even with the added overall height. I can not, however, reach "everywhere" in the bed from the side, I open the tailgate when I need to do that (such a hassle?)... I can't see where any of this is a "design flaw" rather than a preference of the OP to apparently want to be able to reach anything, anywhere in the bed from the side. Again, preference or design flaw? I say preference. I do notice on MOST manufacturer/model forums that there is always someone who claims design flaw when everything about a vehicle doesn't meet their every need. (Hence, EVERY vehicle has some kind of "design flaw"). Popular "design flaws" people complain about... I broke this or that because I didn't read the instructions, buttons are not where I want them, I can't floor the vehicle every time I move and get advertised gas mileage, the windshield of my Jeep or Bronco is flat so I get rock chips etc etc...

Sponsored