What are you guys towing?

[ctechbob]

The spring bars have plenty of tension, almost too difficult to load onto the
L brackets, I set this up myself and followed the measuring of the Ranger front end height so the wdh does transfer weight forward. I think if someone drove my setup they'd likely say it's fine, the nobo does stand 10' high, 10' 6" at the ac, so yes high but not like some of those 11' rigs. I bought it for both use in rv sites and backcountry use, the independent suspension makes a big difference in handling uneven surfaces without stressing the trailer frame. Now I will disagree on boosted 4 cylinder vs na v8 as it pertains to towing, many vehicles only use a fraction of their power at cruising speeds but towing changes that equation and a 4 cyl is going to be running boost which generally negatively impacts fuel efficiency whereas a larger displacement v8 essentially stays in an efficient rpm range without relying on boost, when using tow mode on the Ranger I'm in 7th 8th and 9th gears a whole lot and those higher rpms and need for boost impacts mpg. It may not be much of an mpg gain but it also means less strain on the drivetrain. in talking with people that tow with v8 or diesels the fuel milage drops while towing but not to the 50% decrease of the Ranger. In my subdivision every home has rv parking and well over half of the homes have RVs so I get to talk to a lot of owners , some have mammoth RVs and they get around the same mpg as the Ranger.

It's all physics my man. Given two equally efficient drivetrains, which is pretty much the era we're living in (with direct injection, 8-10 speed transmissions, ULV oils, special bearing and piston coatings, etc) at the moment, there is next to no difference in fuel usage between a V8 and a TGDI I4 producing equal power, there just isn't. It takes a certain amount of fuel energy to make a certain amount of power. It doesn't matter if it is made in 8 cylinders or 4 (yes, this is glossing over frictional losses and the like, which are possibly HIGHER in a V8). Boost or no boost, doesn't matter.

You also can't use a % number like that. Sure the big Suburbans and 1/2 tons don't drop 50%, they're starting with a lower number in the first place. It doesn't mean they are more efficient because they went from 18mpg unloaded to 10mpg (~45%) towing and you went from ~22mpg unloaded to 10mpg (~55%) towing.

If you want a decent example of this, watch some of the TFL videos about them going up the IKE. Especially with the midsized test they just did. Pretty much all of the trucks from V6's to turbo I4's returned (roughly) the same mileage (Granted, they use the factory lie-o-meter, which is iffy at best).

Why?

Because it takes a set amount of energy to move a given load up that hill. Doesn't matter if it is burned in a V6 or an I4.

Now, if you want to talk driveline stress, sure, our I4's are 'working' a bit harder, but they are designed for it. Engines should work, not loaf along. The EB2.3 is designed for it.

At the end of the day, you do you, that's what's great about choice, but you're working on false economy if you think a V8 is the sure-fire solution to towing more efficiently......although you will muscle around the trailer a lot better.

Sponsored

 

[ldg]

Just traded in my 2022 Bronco Sport for a (new to me) 2022 Ranger Lariat Tremor so that I can tow my money pit around to shows and future camping/trails. Don’t have my own trailer yet, but now I can at least rent or borrow one until then.

He’s still a baby but once he’s full grown, a loaded 2 horse bumper pull trailer will range from 5,000 - 6,500 lbs

 

[Juany118]

thanks - good info . wouldn't be considering a V8 engine vehicle except need to replace wife's Hyundai Sante Fe 2.0T , I've been driving 4 cylinder turbos since the 80s so know their attributes well. But also acknowledge those old school larger displacement push rod V8s still excel at some things, GM in a particular has done a good job modernizing their V8 engines. I have the luxury of large 3 car garage with one slot being around 40' deep , the other 2 slots can accommodate full sized pickups. I did hit over 13 mpg towing the ranger back from a trip to AZ , mostly stayed off the interstates and kept speed below 60 mph. I'm good with that but when it drops to 10 mpg get a little bit disgruntled. On that trip to AZ on the outbound leg I drove i-70 and maybe i-15 thru Utah, a good deal of up and downs in elevation and some higher winds, was going 65 mph and getting 10 mpg. Halfway thru decided to remove the tow bars to see what difference that made and detected a bit of additional sway bit not a whole lot - my opinion would be that the Ranger tows reasonably well without the wdh. But I've not loaded the trailer up with a whole lot of additional weight.

A question that I don't think has been asked? Do you have the FX4 package? While I get a little porpoising, it's not as bad as my buddy who has a similar trailer to mine (Forest River FSX, just different model).

The difference between the two seems to be that I just got the "Sport" package. I did that to have a slightly higher payload and to avoid the wayward feel that the FX4 rear suspension can have on prepared surfaces. That FX4 suspension is simply less refined than the Tremor set up so, in the words of one tester (paraphrasing), the Ranger FX4 package can feel like you are driving a boat on a lake instead of a truck on the road.

I have never felt that the issue is serious enough to justify modifying the rear suspension but that may change if/when my wife and I decide to upsize to a more spacious couples model when our daughter heads off to college.

As a side note You also have to keep something in mind, a truck's suspension can be too firm for a trailer. Some of the issues with frame flex, including 5th wheels, can be traced to tow vehicles that have too firm a suspension, resulting in more energy being transferred into the RV frame than the designers intended.

 

[Juany118]

Just traded in my 2022 Bronco Sport for a (new to me) 2022 Ranger Lariat Tremor so that I can tow my money pit around to shows and future camping/trails. Don’t have my own trailer yet, but now I can at least rent or borrow one until then.

He’s still a baby but once he’s full grown, a loaded 2 horse bumper pull trailer will range from 5,000 - 6,500 lbs

?

 

[DukeCanBuildit]

 

[Grumpaw]

NICE Duke !!!! Is that your new rig ???

 

[dtech]

That Ranger's name is Jonah and the trailer is the Whale.

 

[DukeCanBuildit]

NICE Duke !!!! Is that your new rig ???

That’s my “dream rig” Steve.

 

[Juany118]

The spring bars have plenty of tension, almost too difficult to load onto the
L brackets, I set this up myself and followed the measuring of the Ranger front end height so the wdh does transfer weight forward. I think if someone drove my setup they'd likely say it's fine, the nobo does stand 10' high, 10' 6" at the ac, so yes high but not like some of those 11' rigs. I bought it for both use in rv sites and backcountry use, the independent suspension makes a big difference in handling uneven surfaces without stressing the trailer frame. Now I will disagree on boosted 4 cylinder vs na v8 as it pertains to towing, many vehicles only use a fraction of their power at cruising speeds but towing changes that equation and a 4 cyl is going to be running boost which generally negatively impacts fuel efficiency whereas a larger displacement v8 essentially stays in an efficient rpm range without relying on boost, when using tow mode on the Ranger I'm in 7th 8th and 9th gears a whole lot and those higher rpms and need for boost impacts mpg. It may not be much of an mpg gain but it also means less strain on the drivetrain. in talking with people that tow with v8 or diesels the fuel milage drops while towing but not to the 50% decrease of the Ranger. In my subdivision every home has rv parking and well over half of the homes have RVs so I get to talk to a lot of owners , some have mammoth RVs and they get around the same mpg as the Ranger.

You would actually be surprised at how often the 4 cylinder is in vacuum when simply cruising at speed on the flats. The gear that you are in isn't a reliable indicator as to whether or not you are boosting. This isn't just me talking btw, one of my friends is a turbo expert who has done work on everything from simple tunes on a Ranger to full custom jobs on Subaru STIs.

As for mileage, in terms of real world mileage most 1/2 ton trucks are in the same mpg range as the Ranger believe it or not, both in terms of with, and without, towing, when you are talking about the most common engines like the 3.5 Ecoboost in the F150 or the 3.6 eTorque in the Ram. You will even see the Ram people talking about getting 10-12 mpg, the same as us, on the Ram forums. This, imo, is a better comparison than trying to compare a 4 cylinder to a 5.0 or 5.7 Hemi.

 

[mtbikernate]

As for mileage, in terms of real world mileage most 1/2 ton trucks are in the same mpg range as the Ranger believe it or not, both in terms of with, and without, towing, when you are talking about the most common engines like the 3.5 Ecoboost in the F150 or the 3.6 eTorque in the Ram. You will even see the Ram people talking about getting 10-12 mpg, the same as us, on the Ram forums. This, imo, is a better comparison than trying to compare a 4 cylinder to a 5.0 or 5.7 Hemi.

Sure. The real question is about range. So knowing the fuel economy, the next part of that is the size of the gas tank. At 10-12mpg, the tank on the Ranger is a tad too small for long trips at that kind of fuel economy for me. I want more flexibility with my fuel stops.

There are things I don't love about owning a teardrop, but one thing I do really like about it is that on the road trips I've done, I'll get about 20-21mpg with it. That gives me a range of better than 350mi on a tank. Which means a bit over 5hrs (maybe even 6) of driving at 65mph. Which means I can make it from lunch until dinner on a tank of gas. I'll be stopping for food, anyway, so getting gas at the same time economizes my stops. Yeah, maybe I'll have to stop to pee at least once along the way, but adding a fuel stop along with a pee stop adds time to the trip.

I did some testing with a different car once. I had a TX to IN road trip I was doing regularly one year. My test was with speed, but the same idea holds. If I drove 5mph faster, my fuel economy dropped enough that I had to add another fuel stop. Which made the whole trip take almost an hour longer because if I'm stopping for fuel, I'm going to stop to pee, also, and probably also top up my coffee.

 

[Juany118]

Sure. The real question is about range. So knowing the fuel economy, the next part of that is the size of the gas tank. At 10-12mpg, the tank on the Ranger is a tad too small for long trips at that kind of fuel economy for me. I want more flexibility with my fuel stops.

There are things I don't love about owning a teardrop, but one thing I do really like about it is that on the road trips I've done, I'll get about 20-21mpg with it. That gives me a range of better than 350mi on a tank. Which means a bit over 5hrs (maybe even 6) of driving at 65mph. Which means I can make it from lunch until dinner on a tank of gas. I'll be stopping for food, anyway, so getting gas at the same time economizes my stops. Yeah, maybe I'll have to stop to pee at least once along the way, but adding a fuel stop along with a pee stop adds time to the trip.

I did some testing with a different car once. I had a TX to IN road trip I was doing regularly one year. My test was with speed, but the same idea holds. If I drove 5mph faster, my fuel economy dropped enough that I had to add another fuel stop. Which made the whole trip take almost an hour longer because if I'm stopping for fuel, I'm going to stop to pee, also, and probably also top up my coffee.

Now range is a different beast all together. I was part of a discussion about this on the forums very recently. If did a 300 mile + (one way) trip to see the eclipse and it annoyed me that I had to plan for 2 fuel stops because my highway mileage was going to be ~11 mpg instead of 20+ due to the travel trailer. Then someone pointed out the fact I was going to be stopping anyway to break my dogs and to let the kid stretch their legs etc. if it's just me I would love to drive through but I have to plan around a 13 lbs Rat Terrier, 50lb Black and Tan Coon Hound, a the wife and 10 year old.

 

[mtbikernate]

Now range is a different beast all together. I was part of a discussion about this on the forums very recently. If did a 300 mile + (one way) trip to see the eclipse and it annoyed me that I had to plan for 2 fuel stops because my highway mileage was going to be ~11 mpg instead of 20+ due to the travel trailer. Then someone pointed out the fact I was going to be stopping anyway to break my dogs and to let the kid stretch their legs etc. if it's just me I would love to drive through but I have to plan around a 13 lbs Rat Terrier, 50lb Black and Tan Coon Hound, a the wife and 10 year old.

I've honestly never had a problem with any of the dogs I've ever owned using the same break frequency as me. Current dog when he was younger would outright refuse to go to the bathroom on road trips, even. Thankfully he doesn't do that anymore.

 

[mlarma]

A question that I don't think has been asked? Do you have the FX4 package? While I get a little porpoising, it's not as bad as my buddy who has a similar trailer to mine (Forest River FSX, just different model).

The difference between the two seems to be that I just got the "Sport" package. I did that to have a slightly higher payload and to avoid the wayward feel that the FX4 rear suspension can have on prepared surfaces. That FX4 suspension is simply less refined than the Tremor set up so, in the words of one tester (paraphrasing), the Ranger FX4 package can feel like you are driving a boat on a lake instead of a truck on the road.

I have never felt that the issue is serious enough to justify modifying the rear suspension but that may change if/when my wife and I decide to upsize to a more spacious couples model when our daughter heads off to college.

As a side note You also have to keep something in mind, a truck's suspension can be too firm for a trailer. Some of the issues with frame flex, including 5th wheels, can be traced to tow vehicles that have too firm a suspension, resulting in more energy being transferred into the RV frame than the designers intended.

Interesting about the porpoising. I have a 2020 Ranger 4x2 FX2 and a Grand Design 23LDE. Definitely get a bit of this even when the WDH is dialed in. Want a comfortable ride that isn’t jarring and doesn’t porpoise - what is the solution and the jarring isn’t occurring as I’m not hitting the bump stops. That would really be unpleasant.

 

[dtech]

Interesting about the porpoising. I have a 2020 Ranger 4x2 FX2 and a Grand Design 23LDE. Definitely get a bit of this even when the WDH is dialed in. Want a comfortable ride that isn’t jarring and doesn’t porpoise - what is the solution and the jarring isn’t occurring as I’m not hitting the bump stops. That would really be unpleasant.

I feel like I'm driving a low rider sometimes when towing, shaken not stirred. WDH doesn't seem to help much. The joys of towing.

 

[Grumpaw]

I feel like I'm driving a low rider sometimes when towing, shaken not stirred. WDH doesn't seem to help much. The joys of towing.

I don't know how your suspension or miarma's is set up, but pretty sure my trailer is larger and heavier than yours an I get no porpoising at all.
I have the Eibach's on the rear, Blue Sumo's, and the Roadmaster Active Suspension, which I believe is the main reason I have no problems.
I also have some decant E rated 10 ply tires that I can pump up to 50 psi with no worry, and that definitely helped.
I think the porpoising comes from the rear suspension being too soft, with maybe a part of the problem is the road surface in certain areas.

Sponsored