The Ford Ranger Raptor, a performance pickup truck celebrated for its off-road prowess, often faces scrutiny regarding its towing capacity. Despite being part of the Ranger family, the Raptor’s towing specifications are notably lower than its counterparts, sparking discussions and sometimes criticism. Is the Ford Ranger Raptor Towing Capacity truly a limitation, or is it a matter of understanding its intended purpose and real-world performance?
Having personally towed a 1500KG load with the Ranger Raptor for over 1,000 kilometers, and possessing experience towing the same weight with a 3.2L Ford Ranger XLT, I aim to provide a practical perspective. This review dives into my firsthand experience towing with the Raptor, comparing it directly to a traditional leaf-sprung ute and shedding light on the real-world Ford Ranger Raptor towing capacity.
What Was Towed and Testing Conditions
For this towing assessment, I used a 2019 Track Trailer T-Van Mk5, loaded with equipment for exhibitions. Based on calculations, the trailer was close to its Gross Trailer Mass (GTM) of 1,500KG. Additionally, the Raptor carried approximately 100KG of personal gear.
The towing test covered over 1,000 kilometers, exclusively on sealed roads or well-maintained unsealed roads. This allowed for a direct comparison to a previous 1,000km towing experience with a 3.2L Ford Ranger XLT.
Understanding the Numbers: Ranger Raptor Towing Specs
To understand the Ford Ranger Raptor towing capacity debate, let’s examine the official specifications:
- GCM (Gross Combined Mass): 5350 KG
- GVM (Gross Vehicle Mass): 3090 KG
- Kerb Weight: 2332 KG
- Payload: 758 KG
These figures translate to a calculated towing capacity at full payload of 2,260KG (assuming a typical tow ball download of 10% of the towed weight). Conversely, at its maximum advertised towing capacity, the payload reduces to 518 KG (after subtracting the tow ball weight).
It’s crucial to note that, as is standard with many modern utes, the GCM is not simply the sum of payload, kerb weight, and maximum towing capacity. This means that maximizing towing capacity necessitates a reduction in payload, and vice-versa. Understanding these limitations is key to safely and effectively utilizing the Ford Ranger Raptor towing capacity.
Engine Performance: 2.0L Bi-Turbo for Towing
The 2.0L bi-turbo engine in the Ranger Raptor has been a point of contention for some, particularly when considering towing. However, on paper, this engine outperforms the older 3.2L in both power and torque, which is likely a key reason Ford opted for it in the Raptor. While concerns about the long-term durability of a smaller engine persist, the 2.0L bi-turbo was reportedly initially designed for demanding commercial applications like the European Ford Transit, suggesting robustness.
Both engines deliver peak torque within a similar RPM range, with the 2.0L edging out the 3.2L slightly in torque output. The primary difference lies in where peak power is generated – around 3750 RPM for the 2.0L versus 3000 RPM for the 3.2L.
However, the Raptor’s 10-speed gearbox plays a significant role in optimizing engine performance, particularly for towing. This transmission keeps the engine operating within its peak torque band, typically between 1500 to 2500 RPM. In contrast, the 3.2L with its 6-speed gearbox utilizes a broader rev range.
Even under heavier acceleration, the 10-speed transmission in standard drive mode prioritizes keeping the engine in its peak torque zone (500Nm). While the 2.0L might not produce the same auditory experience as the 3.2L due to its different rev range usage, its performance while towing is undeniable. Throughout my towing test, the Raptor effortlessly maintained speed limits, even on long, winding inclines across diverse terrains from Narellan to the Blue Mountains and Newcastle.
Towing Experience On-Road
The 140KG tow ball down weight had no adverse effect on the Raptor’s stance. Gear changes remained consistently smooth, and there was no excessive engine noise. The added weight of the trailer presented no discernible issues for the Raptor throughout the entire test.
The 10-speed transmission proved intelligent and adaptive, consistently selecting the optimal gear. It avoided unnecessary upshifts to higher gears and never gave the sensation of engine strain. Gear changes on inclines felt deliberate and smooth, preventing abrupt RPM jumps.
Cabin noise remained minimal, with passengers even commenting on the quietness of the ride, attributable to the acoustic windshields now standard across the Ranger range. Based on this experience, the 2.0L engine is exceptionally well-suited to the Raptor and delivered ample power and torque for the towed weight.
Trailer Feel and Suspension
Towing a 1500KG trailer is always noticeable initially, regardless of the tow vehicle. However, you quickly adjust to the vehicle overcoming inertia and managing the additional weight. The Raptor was no different; its towing ease soon led to routinely checking if the trailer was still attached – a sensation mirroring my recent experience with the 3.2L XLT.
However, a subtle difference emerged in trailer feel between the Raptor and the XLT. Bumps in the road resulted in a more pronounced trailer response in the Raptor compared to the XLT. This is likely due to the suspension differences – the XLT uses stiffer leaf springs in the rear, while the Raptor features high-performance coil springs with Fox shocks.
Off-road, the Raptor’s softer coil springs are a significant advantage, contributing to its renowned composure and high-speed capability over challenging terrain. This enhanced off-road performance comes with a trade-off: a slightly increased awareness of the trailer on-road. It’s crucial to emphasize that this heightened trailer feel wasn’t negative, simply different from the firmer, leaf-sprung ride.
Fuel Economy While Towing
Towing 1,500KG with the Raptor resulted in an average fuel consumption of 11.8L/100KM over 1000+ kilometers. This is a commendable figure, achieved while maintaining highway speeds wherever permitted. With an 80L fuel tank, this translates to a theoretical range of approximately 670KM, suggesting a practical planning range of around 600KM.
In comparison, towing with the 3.2L XLT resulted in approximately 13.0L/100KM, yielding a range of around 550km per tank. The Raptor’s improved fuel economy while towing is another point in its favor.
Verdict: Is the Ranger Raptor a Good Tow Vehicle?
Having accumulated over 6,000km towing a T-van in recent months, including 1,000km each with both the Ford Ranger XLT and Raptor, my conclusion is that the Ranger Raptor is indeed a very capable tow vehicle – as is the Ranger XLT.
The choice between a Raptor and a more traditional leaf-sprung ute like the XLT depends on individual towing needs and travel preferences.
For those prioritizing off-road adventures, the Raptor is the clear choice. Its exceptional off-road capabilities and comfort outweigh the slightly increased trailer feel on-road. Furthermore, if off-road travel is a primary focus, larger, heavier trailers are less likely to be in the equation, mitigating any concerns about the Raptor’s reduced maximum Ford Ranger Raptor towing capacity of 2.5T.
Conversely, if primarily sticking to highways and outback roads, a leaf-sprung ute like the XLT might offer a marginally more comfortable on-road towing experience and potentially a higher maximum towing capacity if needed.
In summary, my experience indicates that the Raptor is a highly competent tow vehicle. The 2.0L engine, coupled with the 10-speed gearbox, performs admirably and is well-matched to the vehicle. If off-road capability is a priority, the Raptor is hard to surpass. However, for predominantly on-road towing, a leaf-sprung ute like the XLT might offer a slightly different, though not necessarily superior, towing experience due to its stiffer rear suspension.
We’ve got the Ranger Raptor for the next 18 months. We’ll continue to provide updates on how it performs, how it handles the huge km’s we put on it, and how you might be able to make the best Off-road ute produced by a manufacturer even better.
Aiden
