Gary,

Forgot all about those Wilderness AT tires ;-)  Ford ended up buying 
me a set of new Michelin LTX's. Their less-aggressive tread design 
gives away some traction in the muck and snow. But they're MUCH 
better than the Firestones on wet pavement, which unfortunately is 
where I do most of my driving.

Where'd you find the utility trailer and how big is it? A fishing 
friend is looking for one as an excuse to buy a pontoon boat to tow 
behind his Benz SUV (doesn't want to muss it up by trying to put the 
boat on the roof ;-)

Kent Lufkin

>Good discussion topic, Kent.
>
>I've got a Ford Ranger Pick-up almost identical to yours, but a year older
>(1997). Same plusses and minuses. I too, really wish it had those small rear
>doors. It's a pain in the butt sometimes to access the back seat. And yes,
>it's tough to get a long rod caddy in the back. I tow a utility trailer and
>inflated raft with it and no problem--plenty of power. It's perfect for one
>or two people. I think it's the most comfortable vehicle I've ever driven.
>I'm tall and it fits me well. I can drive 12-14 hours (such as to Montana)
>without getting fatigued. I think it's great truck and fishing rig overall.
>Good ground clearance. Maneuverable. Tight. Good 4WD (I take it skiing too).
>No mechanical problems. Plus it had Firestones. So I got 4 free new tires
>from Ford.
>
>I also have a '98 Suburban and if I'm hauling a crowd or going somewhere
>where I'm camping and I want my gear secure, I'll take it. Surprisingly, it
>gets decent highway mileage. Sometimes 20+ mpg. But, I find it
>uncomfortable. The front seats are cramped for such a big vehicle. And of
>course it's a pig to park and drive around town.  Whenever possible, I'll
>drive the Ranger. 
>
>Gary Meyers
>Kirkland
>
>
>
>>  Over the years, we've discussed just about every kind of fishing gear
>>  or strategy imaginable. But it struck me the other day that there's
>>  still one indispensable piece of gear that every one of us uses: the
>>  vehicle that gets us where we fish.
>>
>>  I assume that for most of us, our fishing vehicle is also our daily
>>  driver that spends most of its time making trips to the store or
>>  commuting. For some of us in a multi-car household, a second vehicle
>>  may be much more appropriate for fishing. A very few of us may
>>  actually have a rig dedicated just for fishing, refined over years of
>>  use.
>>
>>  To get the ball rolling, here's my own 2� on the subject:
>>
>>  I've always owned a pickup. In fact I can only remember a couple
>>  years when I didn't have one. My current ride is a 1998 Ford Ranger
>>  XLT extra cab 4x4 with a 4.0 liter V-6 and an automatic. Wish I'd got
>>  it with the small, half-sized doors to get behind the front seats.
>>  However, a retractable cover keeps things out of sight back there.
>>
>>  The bed will hold a couple float tubes fully inflated or my 9 foot
>>  pontoon boat (I haven't tried stacking two pontoon boats back there
>>  yet.) There's plenty of room left over for gear bags, coolers, oars
>>  or rod tubes. Plus, the bed doubles as a place to sit and wader up
>>  without rocks that can tear up my neoprene wader feet.
>>
>>  But having a pickup does pose some limitations. Leaving stuff in the
>>  back is an open invitation to theft if you leave it there even
>>  briefly. And relatively light weight stuff needs to be tied down to
>>  keep it from becoming airborne at highway speeds.
>>
>>  My truck's bed isn't long enough that I can stretch out in it to
>>  sleep, and I'd need some sort of canopy to stay dry in the rain. The
>>  space behind the seats doesn't hold very much gear (long rod tubes
>>  are an especially tight fit) and it's a real pain to get to. Finally,
>>  if I owned a boat and trailer, my rig is probably much too puny for
>>  serious towing.
>>
>>  But for the most part, it works well for the kind of fishing I do.
>>  The 4wd and high ground clearance are a real plus on marginal roads.
>>
>>  I'd sure like to hear how other subscribers have adapted their
>>  vehicles for their own fishing style.
>  >
>>  Kent Lufkin
>>
>>
>

Reply via email to