Pushed the towing limits

[HeyBales]

Wow memory lane.
My dad won some contest for fuel efficiency on a loop course around a lake in Garnett, KS in the early 70's, he practiced in his Ranchero.
55.5 mpg on 2 successive runs. "keep the rpm's low and coast" the news article quoted as the advice.

Sponsored

 

[BradH]

the ranchero and the F-100 were single piece body on steel frame not unibody. Unibody means body and frame are all in one. I wouldn’t trust the Mav to tow as much as a body on frame vehicle. I’ve learned from experience that the Mav has limitations. I was coming back from LR on I-40 and I ran over a 6 foot piece of 18 wheeler tire and it ripped out one of those fiber body shields, evap canister and more important the pegs that the shield fastened to leaving little holes in the floor board. $2000 damage. Thankfully I was only doing between 60-65 mph. Just think what it would have done at 75 speed limit.

Correct, Ford did call their F-100 a Unibody, which at the time referenced the one-piece body and bed construction, not the chassis & frame setup. This has been covered in some magazines too like Vintage Truck. The old car dealer StreetSide Classics currently has an F-100 Unibody for sale, with lots of photos of it including the frame (photos 63 and 64) so you can see the ladder frame construction underneath. Here's the link:

https://www.streetsideclassics.com/vehicles/6640-dfw/1962-ford-f-100-unibody

The side photos also give you a great view of the unibody setup too. I remember reading an article where Ford found situations could arise where the body flexed and caused the doors to not close properly.

 

[ScubaSteveCanada]

Is the Maverick the first or one of the first unibody pick ups ?
4,000, 5,000 pounds towing loads, towed with a unibody.
Any history out there ? Of other vehicles similar to ours towing 2 to 2.5 Tons .

I was wondering about long term effects on the unibody platform.
Data may be non existent. We may be on uncharted ground.
What was the towing limits on the old rangers, the body on frame?
I know a guy that pulls parade floats down the interstates to parades in other cities in an Older Ranger.
He said most of the floats were well over 5,000 with two or three axles.

I used to own a 2024 Santa Cruz; it was capable of towing 5,000 lbs. I was leery of the DCT transmission for off-roading.

My new 2025 Maverick Lariat AWD/hybrid is being built this week. It will have the 4K tow package which is fine for my travel trailer. I have no concerns about the eCVT.

 

[First Sergeant]

Not according to anything I can find onm them. Since early Rancheros were on Falcon chassis they would be true unibody, then on Fairlane and Torino platform so still unibody. No ladder frame I can find.

Nope, they had a ladder frame after all. Only the body section (no gaps, between cab and the bed, all one piece) was "unibody". Had to dig around to find it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_F-Series_(fourth_generation)

 

[The Real Maverick]

I simply provided the information from Ford on them. If it is wrong then Ford put out false information. I wouldn't trust it to tow as much either. It is as my late wife would have said a "cruck". Not a car not a truck but in between. I would call the Maverick, Santa Cruz, Ridgeline AUVs, alternate utility vehicles. The Maverick is as much a truck as an Escape is an original Jeep CJ5. Just because the manufacturer labels it something does not make it so. Today's SUV is marketable, while calling them rugrat haulers, station wagons, of family trucksters is not. And I feel your pain about the truck tire. Saw one come off the rim and destroy the front of a Honda CRV which was in front of me on the I-95.

I think the term you are looking for is:

"body-neutral" and does not wish to identify.

 

[Phimosis]

In the unibody discussion, a lot of people are getting hung up on whether the car has a frame, making it body on frame, or if it has a one piece body, making it unibody.

But the designation is really coming from what the part is creating the structural rigidity, the crash worthiness and the cargo carrying capacity.

For example, older corvettes had both a ladder frame and a one piece body.

Where they considered to be unibody? Nope. They were body on frame. The body didn’t provide the structural rigidity or crash worthiness. In a crash, the fiberglass would fracture apart and all that would be left is the frame.

Or consider the 1990’s Italian monocoque design:

It clearly doesn’t have a one piece body “unibody” and it has front and rear ladder style sub frames that the body pieces are bolted on to, like the old school body on frame cars. Yet it is considered to be a “unitized body”, or unibody. Why? Because the monocoque, or “tub” is where the strength, the structural rigidity and crash worthiness come from. When these things break apart in high speed impacts, the only thing left intact is the monocoque.

And lastly is the evolution of the unibody. Even though today’s cars are a single body assembly that is all welded together into one piece by a dozen welding robots, it didn’t used to be that way because welding was time consuming and expensive.

The oldest unibody cars were still bolted together as multiple assemblies.

And you could even drive around in the frameless platform, without having the body panels on it.

They key point was that there was no frame

And it was the body that was creating the structural rigidity and crash worthiness.

 

[imboden013]

In the unibody discussion, a lot of people are getting hung up on whether the car has a frame, making it body on frame, or if it has a one piece body, making it unibody.

But the designation is really coming from what the part is creating the structural rigidity, the crash worthiness and the cargo carrying capacity.

For example, older corvettes had both a ladder frame and a one piece body.

Where they considered to be unibody? Nope. They were body on frame. The body didn’t provide the structural rigidity or crash worthiness. In a crash, the fiberglass would fracture apart and all that would be left is the frame.

Or consider the 1990’s Italian monocoque design:

It clearly doesn’t have a one piece body “unibody” and it has front and rear ladder style sub frames that the body pieces are bolted on to, like the old school body on frame cars. Yet it is considered to be a “unitized body”, or unibody. Why? Because the monocoque, or “tub” is where the strength, the structural rigidity and crash worthiness come from. When these things break apart in high speed impacts, the only thing left intact is the monocoque.

And lastly is the evolution of the unibody. Even though today’s cars are a single body assembly that is all welded together into one piece by a dozen welding robots, it didn’t used to be that way because welding was time consuming and expensive.

The oldest unibody cars were still bolted together as multiple assemblies.

And you could even drive around in the frameless platform, without having the body panels on it.

They key point was that there was no frame

And it was the body that was creating the structural rigidity and crash worthiness.

Good write up. The meaning of unibody has changed over the years. In the days of 61-63 F100 and the Rancheros and GM El Camino unibody meant the bed and cab were all one piece but the front end was bolted on and all was mounted on steel frame. To day unibody means body and frame are all one weld together conglomeration.

 

[imboden013]

The early Rancheros on the Falcons were the same chassis as the falcon. Slightly different than the uni-body of today but it was not a full frame. Here is the underside of a 1960 Ranchero.

I stand corrected, I was thinking it was a full frame like the 61-63 F-100. It’s been several decades since I was under neath a Ranchero. Last time was a 1974 model

 

[First Sergeant]

wikipedia is NOT a reliable source. Anyone can edit and add to content. If you are talking about just the F100 I did find additional info that they were ladder frame. Look at the pictures of this 1960 Ranchero. https://bringatrailer.com/listing/1960-ford-ranchero/

I use Wiki to confirm things I usually know. I did other research that I did not include, because the Wiki article had other, interesting tidbits! So, essentially those trucks were unibody vehicles with ladder frames. There were many others built like that. That Ford in your search says iit sold for $6,600, I would have bid in on that, pretty cool vehicles! I'm waiting on Toyota (it may never happen) for a Mav style hybrid truck 4X4. I just like them as the older ones Camrys, Tundra's, Venza and a 4Runner I have had all made it to over 200,000 miles and one of them made it to 287,000. Older 1980 pickup.

 

[imboden013]

When Ford switched to the Torino station wagon body to create the Ranchero they went with a full frame.

that explains my thinking there was a full frame. I thought my memory was going down hill. Only Rancheros I ever owned were all based off the Torino, 72,73 and 74.

 

[ShadowBlack XL440]

And you'd be way off.

The Subaru Brat is an obvious first thought from the '70's. Internationally, Australia has been crazy for "utes" since at least that far back.

The Jeep Comanche was a hybrid of a uni-body to bed on semi-frame. The frame under the bed blended into the uni-body cab floor.

 

[Charles T.]

Ranchero and El Caminos were. Also F-100 61 to 63. Chevy had the Corvair based pickups in the 60s.

they were not unibody

 

[BLUEOVALRACER]

I stand corrected, I was thinking it was a full frame like the 61-63 F-100. It’s been several decades since I was under neath a Ranchero. Last time was a 1974 model

Yes the 74 Model had a Full Frame until they quit making them in 79 IIRC. Although the 72 and older were Uni Body IIRC.

 

[heady]

I don't have my Mav yet, but towing is one of things i'll be doing a lot of with it. Currently the highest payload vehicle I've ever owned (~4500 lbs.) is a unibody - Transit 350HD; and it's done a lot of towing at (and slightly above) its factory suggestion of 7,500 lbs as well. I really was not shopping for a Maverick, but rather things like RAV4 hybrid/PHEV or Mitsubishi Outlander PHEV, which I have an older one I tested specifically for long distance towing to see if it met our needs. Once the 2025's came out with hybrid AWD with the 4k tow package, I was sold. The hybrid Mav has more HP and off the line torque than my Transit diesel, and far higher factory ratings than the SUV's I was shopping originally, and far more ICE power than the Outlander it will be replacing, which tows very well above its 1,500lb rating with a meager 117 HP from the on board ICE on "normal" highways, all the way up to its 3,500lb factory hitch rating (same hitch used on the PHEV and v6 models).

I expect very good things from the little Maverick based on what I've been reading here and elsewhere, and it's a better value for the dollar, too! The only downside I've ever had towing with a unibody was hitch noise with looser reciever fit, which is easily remedied.

 

[imboden013]

Yes the 74 Model had a Full Frame until they quit making them in 79 IIRC. Although the 72 and older were Uni Body IIRC.

My favorite model Ranchero was the 1st year 1957

Sponsored