Bob Rosadini Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 Are those drum brakes?!?!?!?!? For sure but I'm sure this is just to illustrate the differential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuzzymoomoo Posted August 6, 2017 Share Posted August 6, 2017 (edited) Are those drum brakes?!?!?!?!? FWIW none of the mules that have been photographed have had drum brakes. Dana does have the contract for both the Ranger and Bronco axles. That came out several months ago. Edited August 6, 2017 by fuzzymoomoo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 and it's been that way since the start of T6 in early 2011, any expansion of that role is purely to apply new differential technology via DANA. who are an existing Ford T6 supplier..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 wont just be commercial/ fleet, regular trucks have priced themselves out of the market for first time buyers...I think theres an awful lot of recreational teenagers that would rather have a pickup than a Focus....especially to throw their surfboards/ mountain bikes in.... My daughter had a Ranger when she was going to college back in the day. Her 6'3" boyfriend could barely fit behind the wheel and only crouched forward. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theoldwizard Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I like the 9" as much as the next gearhead, but I don't see that happening. There is a reason that design was dropped. Cost, not durability ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Don't all NASCAR vehicles use a 9" Ford rear end (even the Chevys and Toyotas)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 My daughter had a Ranger when she was going to college back in the day. Her 6'3" boyfriend could barely fit behind the wheel and only crouched forward. They're not that bad. I'm 6'-1" and fit comfortably with at least 4 inches between my head and the roof. The older reg cabs could be a bit tight on leg room, but the '98 cab redesign fixed that. If he was crouched over the wheel he was doing it wrong. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sullynd Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Two 6'-1" people can fit very differently in the same vehicle... Someone with a short inseam (headroom - tall torso) will fit differently than someone with a long inseam (legroom - short torso). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Two 6'-1" people can fit very differently in the same vehicle... Someone with a short inseam (headroom - tall torso) will fit differently than someone with a long inseam (legroom - short torso). FWIW, I'm close to 6'3" with a long torso, and I fit quite nicely in my '97 Ranger back in the day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Did the bench seat adjust in the regular cab Ranger? I sat in one and had zero room in it at 6'2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
92merc Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 My buddy has a '97 short box regular cab manual trans Ranger. It does have a split bench in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 Yes but obviously it's limited by the back of the cab. I'm 6'0" and never had problems in my 90 regular cab. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kev-Mo Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 FWIW, I'm close to 6'3" with a long torso, and I fit quite nicely in my '97 Ranger back in the day. My '86 Regular Cab Ranger with bucket seats was a very comfortable truck - loved it! Not at all like a Toyota Tacoma where you feel like you are sitting on the floor - still after all these years they have those low-slung seats - Dang! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 (edited) Did the bench seat adjust in the regular cab Ranger? I sat in one and had zero room in it at 6'2 It has been a few years, but I think I had the split bench, and I'm pretty sure it adjusted fore and aft and had a tilting seatback. It was a regular cab long-box with a 4-banger and 5-speed stick Sally Rand Edition. My dad (who was about 6'1" and 210-ish at the time) never complained about the space in the passenger seat when we went places in the trucklet. Edited August 9, 2017 by SoonerLS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 It was a regular cab I sense a pattern here...... I love the older regular cab trucks including my high school favorite 73-79 F100s and my 1990 Ranger. Those years look terrible with super and crew cabs. But on the newer F150s I think the supercab and supercrews look better. Maybe it's just because you hardly ever see a regular cab pickup any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rmc523 Posted August 9, 2017 Share Posted August 9, 2017 I sense a pattern here...... I love the older regular cab trucks including my high school favorite 73-79 F100s and my 1990 Ranger. Those years look terrible with super and crew cabs. But on the newer F150s I think the supercab and supercrews look better. Maybe it's just because you hardly ever see a regular cab pickup any more. I have to agree - Older trucks look better in regular cab form. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sevensecondsuv Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 It's because older trucks have a much more vertical windshield angle. The newer trucks are all very sloped which makes the roof quite short on a regular cab. Look at the super duty (or at least the pre-17s). They have the most vertical windshield of a modern truck and still look good in a reg cab format. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
630land Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 Teens today just get rides from folks. They can't look up from their smart phones. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tbone Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 I have to agree - Older trucks look better in regular cab form. I agree as well. I think those designs were focused on the single cab, whereas today's are extended or crew. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 I sense a pattern here...... I love the older regular cab trucks including my high school favorite 73-79 F100s and my 1990 Ranger. Those years look terrible with super and crew cabs. But on the newer F150s I think the supercab and supercrews look better. Maybe it's just because you hardly ever see a regular cab pickup any more. Funny enough, of all the trucks I've owned, only one wasn't a regular cab--a '72 F250 4x4 Crew Cab Chassis Cab. I should've kept that one... I'm missing having more than three seats this week (I have a bunch of nieces and nephews in town, and I can only take two at a time), but I think the regular cab looks better than the Supercab or SuperCrew. Buying this truck was more of a right time, right place deal--it was all about price. The closest Supercab or SuperCrew would've been another $10K, minimum. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 It's because older trucks have a much more vertical windshield angle. The newer trucks are all very sloped which makes the roof quite short on a regular cab. Look at the super duty (or at least the pre-17s). They have the most vertical windshield of a modern truck and still look good in a reg cab format. Wow - you're right! Huge difference. I knew there was something drastically different but I couldn't put my finger on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 Funny enough, of all the trucks I've owned, only one wasn't a regular cab--a '72 F250 4x4 Crew Cab Chassis Cab. I should've kept that one... I'm missing having more than three seats this week (I have a bunch of nieces and nephews in town, and I can only take two at a time), but I think the regular cab looks better than the Supercab or SuperCrew. Buying this truck was more of a right time, right place deal--it was all about price. The closest Supercab or SuperCrew would've been another $10K, minimum. I'm struggling with the cost difference. I don't need extra seats - I'd just be using the truck for hauling lumber and occasional trips to HD. But I really like the look of the newer supercabs over the regular. And I can't stand the shorty bed on the supercrews since I'm actually planning to use it to haul lumber which can be up to 14 ft. I'm still entertaining the idea of getting a 1977 F100 and restoring it (after I retire). That solves both the cost and cab issue (but creates so many more.....). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoonerLS Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 I'm struggling with the cost difference. I don't need extra seats - I'd just be using the truck for hauling lumber and occasional trips to HD. But I really like the look of the newer supercabs over the regular. And I can't stand the shorty bed on the supercrews since I'm actually planning to use it to haul lumber which can be up to 14 ft. A 16' utility trailer would solve the bed length problem. The 6.5' bed on my truck is fine for most of the lumber I've needed to haul, but I can't imagine trying to haul 14' lumber in the 5.5' SuperCrew bed. They make receiver-mount supports for long loads that might help for occasional long loads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted August 10, 2017 Share Posted August 10, 2017 Those would be rare - I'd probably use a rack for those either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
351cid Posted August 11, 2017 Share Posted August 11, 2017 Don't all NASCAR vehicles use a 9" Ford rear end (even the Chevys and Toyotas)? Not only NA$CAR, but most serious hot rods uses a 9" rear. If you're making power; it's the rear to have. I've got a buddy with a pretty serious 1985 Monte Carlo SS that he auto crosses. When he upgraded the 305 to a 383 stroker; the 10 bolt was replaced with a 9" from Moser. It was bolt in since they sell a rear specifically for the GM G-body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.