Driving truck with tailgate down while towing Uhaul trailer
TheXBrain
clearance between the hitch ball and the tailgate. Does the ball/hitch move
when you're driving so that it may hit the tailgate? There's no problem
with distance between the Uhaul trailer and the end of the tailgate--the
trailer is WAY back there--seems like about 5 feet. I probably won't do
it, but just wondering why it's bad.
Ray M
cutout for the quick-release. Could have damaged it if i hadnt noticed. 99
CC 4x4
Fitch R. Williams
>I probably won't do
>it, but just wondering why it's bad.
Why is driving with the tail gate down hauling a trailer good? If there is no
benefit, why take the chance?
Fitch
In So. Cal. High Desert
1995 Reg. Cab 2WD 2500SLT/12V/5spd/4.10/Turnover Ball gooseneck hitch/Tekonsha Sentinel
1999 QC 2 WD 3500SLT/24V/5spd/3.55/customized mirrors/Turnover Ball gooseneck hitch/Tekonsha Sentinel/Class IV DrawTite rear hitch.
Sheepdog
trailer will probably clip the corners and CRUNCH!
-sheepdog
TheXBrain <thex...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:7t6hc4$p5g$1...@autumn.news.rcn.net...
> Uhaul says this is bad to do. Is it? With tailgate down there's about 8
inch
> clearance between the hitch ball and the tailgate. Does the ball/hitch
move
> when you're driving so that it may hit the tailgate? There's no problem
> with distance between the Uhaul trailer and the end of the tailgate--the
> trailer is WAY back there--seems like about 5 feet. I probably won't
92GP
Obviously you haven't or you wouldn't be here saying that it uses more gas.
Ernie Peltz wrote in message <37f93f83...@news.linkline.com>...
| It has been proven that driving with the tailgate down is bad for
|the truck period. The tailgate supports the side rails of the bed.
|Thats what the tailgate latches to. With the tailgate down the sides
|of the bed have a greater chance of flexing so eventually the tailgate
|will not close and lock at all. Have you ever noticed that some of the
|people that have taken the tailgate off and installed the "GATER" in
|place of it have added a support in the corners of the bed on both
|sides? This is to keep the flexing of the bed to a minimum.
| Also with the tailgate down you change the wind resistance
|along the body. With the gate up there is a pocket of air that
|circulates around keeping the drag off from the back of the cab. With
|the gate down it adds resistance because of the change in the air
|flow. Actually causing you to use more gas rather than save some.
|Making the back of the cab a bigger trailing edge.
|
|On Mon, 4 Oct 1999 09:12:55 -0500, "Sheepdog" <m...@apd-architex.com>
|wrote:
Ernie Peltz
PcolaPhil
have done the testing and show that it does not help gas mileage, and in
some cases showed worse results. See also a previous posting of mine on
this subject.
Phil
92GP wrote in message ...
>Have you ever driven a truck without a trailer with the Tailgate down?
>Obviously you haven't or you wouldn't be here saying that it uses more gas.
>
>
>Ernie Peltz wrote in message <37f93f83...@news.linkline.com>...
Kyle D. Ross
Dodge Ram Club Cab Short Bed with a 318. I commute 100 miles round-trip
every business day, and I have tried a full tank of gas with gate up and
with gate down. Gate up gets me 17 MPG, gate down gets me 12MPG. That
equates to about 60 extra miles per tank. That's almost a full round-trip
for me. That's a big difference!
--
-- In an attempt to reduce the amount of unwanted
-- e-mail, my e-mail address does not appear anywhere
-- in this message, and the reply address for this message
-- is intentionally invalid.
--
-- If you would like to respond to this message, please do so
-- in this newsgroup.
--
-- I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause you.
--
-- Kyle D. Ross
92GP <tben...@goldsboro.net> wrote in message
news:oSdK3.411$A3....@news.ipass.net...
Robert
use any less at least with my '86 and '94 Rangers. When I put a bed
cover on my '86 & my '94, my mileage never changed. I also ran several
tanks with the tailgate lowered on a 2000 mile cross country trip
before I got the cover on my '94. I couldn't tell one tank from the
next. I believe a pocket of air does develop in the bed that smooths
out the airflow. Since I don't have wind tunnel, I can't verify it
though.
Robert
In article <oSdK3.411$A3....@news.ipass.net>,
"92GP" <tben...@goldsboro.net> wrote:
> Have you ever driven a truck without a trailer with the Tailgate down?
> Obviously you haven't or you wouldn't be here saying that it uses
more gas.
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Kristopher L. Broberg
Lay down in the back of your truck, while someone drive, and see if the
air is moving or not to verify it.
Brian Dozier
Robert <rebe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:7tdkl5$eu0$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> I wouldn't say that it uses more gas, but I would say that it doesn't
> use any less at least with my '86 and '94 Rangers. When I put a bed
> cover on my '86 & my '94, my mileage never changed. I also ran several
> tanks with the tailgate lowered on a 2000 mile cross country trip
> before I got the cover on my '94. I couldn't tell one tank from the
> next. I believe a pocket of air does develop in the bed that smooths
> out the airflow. Since I don't have wind tunnel, I can't verify it
> though.
My experience with my '93 Dakota (3.9L V6, 5-speed manual, 4x2) is that
there is a measurable difference. I had to run with the tailgate off for a
several weeks (fixing the handle/latch mechanism, hard to find time to work
on it). My mileage was 21-22 (high 21s) during that time, instead of the
22-23 (low 22s) I was accustomed to. Not much of a difference.
The larger problem was that at high speed the back end wasn't nearly as
stable with the tailgate off. Apparently the trucks performance was
optimized for tailgate on and up . . .
Eugene Nine
bacuse they thought it would catch air and cause drag. I never dropped mine
and got better milage than most. My best mileage was with an aluminum cap
on the back though. I hit 27 on a long trip.
Eugene
Brian Dozier <brian_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:VNtK3.354$SU1....@news1.primary.net...
Steve Stone
back on.
92GP wrote:
>
> Have you ever driven a truck without a trailer with the Tailgate down?
> Obviously you haven't or you wouldn't be here saying that it uses more gas.
>
--
---------------------------------------------------------------
Some of the ideas expressed above are mine, some are stolen
from others, none of the statements are my employer's.
Fix the _DOT_ to reply.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Bransford
open truck bed with the closed tailgate creates an air 'bubble' that has
very low drag. Opening/removing the tailgate or swapping in one of
those web-strap tail gates will destroy that 'bubble' and lower the
truck's fuel economy by increasing drag, according to him. He was very
emphatic when he discussed their wind-tunnel tests on this very subject
in attempts to squeeze out every last mpg they can to meet fleet MPG
requirements.
Jerry
--
Jerry Bransford
PP-ASEL KC6TAY C.A.P.
The Zen Hotdog... make me one with everything!
ciscowiz
Engineering Departments water drag test pool.
Go Red Raiders! We beat A&M..
Jerry Bransford <jer...@home.com> wrote in message
news:37FAC421...@home.com...
92GP
figure. Its worked for me. All the documentation won't change my mind.
Because I have my OWN proof that it WORKED FOR ME.
PcolaPhil wrote in message ...
|Sorry 92GP but tests have shown just that. Chrysler (Dodge), Ford and GM
|have done the testing and show that it does not help gas mileage, and in
|some cases showed worse results. See also a previous posting of mine on
|this subject.
|
|Phil
|
|
|
|92GP wrote in message ...
Brian Stafford
made the difference.
Donald Karelas
mileage. Period.
mrdancer
(engineers) have tests that say just the opposite. They WANT higher MPG on
their vehicles for the sole fact that it reduces their Corporate Average
Fuel Economy and keeps them from getting fined by the EPA.
Sometimes, reality isn't what it appears to be.
--
'92 Dak CC 2wd 318 3.55
'84 GoldWing Interstate
Donald Karelas <no@mail> wrote in message
news:eQf9N97Lo10NiR...@4ax.com...
Brian Stafford
Donald Karelas wrote:
> That's a laughable statement. The tailgate up causes wind-drag and reduces
> mileage. Period.
>
Steve Winters
>
> That's a laughable statement. The tailgate up causes wind-drag and reduces
> mileage. Period.
>
> Brian Stafford <sco...@uswest.net> wrote:
>
> >More likely it was the different driving conditions, and not the tailgate that
> >made the difference.
Tail gate up = less drag. Think about it. At high speeds, the back
of the cab is a giant low pressure area. This is where the drag comes
from. Leaving up the tailgate "fills in" the low pressure area
resulting in less drag and better MPG. The improvement in structural
rigidity of the bed is an added benefit. Guys who drive with tailgates
down or off are fooling themselves. Multiple tests in controlled
conditions have proved this.
--
Remove "*" from address to reply.
Cheers,
Steve
82 Z28 305 4 speed For Sale
00 Camaro SS #1363 on its way
96 K1500 Silverado 350 5 speed 3.73 axles Z71 G80 etc.
The opinions expressed here are mine alone and do not represent those of
my employer or any one else.
"It riles them to believe that you perceive the web they weave..."
Moody Blues
92GP
again with my tailgate up, I've gotten better mileage with it down. Now all
of your scientific evidence in the world isn't going to change my mind about
my results.
Steve Winters wrote in message <37FE07...@cadence.com>...
F450
All I can say is that driving the same trip with my tailgate down and then
again with my tailgate up, I've gotten better mileage with it down. Now all
of your scientific evidence in the world isn't going to change my mind about
my results.
You might get better milage if you were driving under water?
Chris Taylor Jr.
They can Install expensive bed covers and eat the cost OR increase cost ot
vehicle when they make it standard equipment OR they can EAT the MPG of the
tail gate since it is NOT OPTIONAL if you want a Pickup :-)
Having the tail gait down WILL no matter WHAT anyone say improve mileage
the REAL question since the above is NOT arguable fact! is by HOW MUCH
IE if it gets you .2mpg it is worthless to bother with if it gets you 1 or 2
mpg why not
--
-----
Trust me you can Mail me without Mods
Chris
http://www.nerys.com/rocketry/
http://www.nerys.com/myjeep/
mrdancer <mrdanceratcamalottdotcom> wrote in message
news:7tj903$h...@enews4.newsguy.com...
> Do you have wind-tunnel tests to back that up? Auto manufacturers
> (engineers) have tests that say just the opposite. They WANT higher MPG
on
> their vehicles for the sole fact that it reduces their Corporate Average
> Fuel Economy and keeps them from getting fined by the EPA.
>
> Sometimes, reality isn't what it appears to be.
> --
> '92 Dak CC 2wd 318 3.55
> '84 GoldWing Interstate
>
> Donald Karelas <no@mail> wrote in message
> news:eQf9N97Lo10NiR...@4ax.com...
Mark Morissette
If you say so! I guess all of those people that have tried it and not
seen an improvement (or seen their milage decrease?!) are just morons,
then?
---
Mark, Oshawa, Ontario, Canada
Remove NOSPAM to respond via Email!
Rob Munach
I guess that's me. I have tried it and haven't seen a noticeable
improvement. You cannot always predict the aerodynamic drag of an object
simply by looking at it.
--
Rob Munach, PE
Excel Engineering
Carrboro, NC
Sheepdog
Did you take all these into effect? I didn't think so.
-sheepdog
92GP <tben...@goldsboro.net> wrote in message
news:X4NL3.486$A3....@news.ipass.net...
mrdancer
myself. Had to make two long trips one day, under VERY similar weather
conditions, same road, same directions, etc. I got slightly better mileage
with the tailgate UP, but it was rather insignificant (maybe 0.4 MPG). I
keep the tailgate up anyway just to maintain structural rigidity and
lifetime of the truck bed.
Chris Taylor Jr. <nos...@nerys.com> wrote in message
news:7trmtb$4pr$1...@ash.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> No fact of reality
>
> They can Install expensive bed covers and eat the cost OR increase cost ot
> vehicle when they make it standard equipment OR they can EAT the MPG of
the
> tail gate since it is NOT OPTIONAL if you want a Pickup :-)
>
> Having the tail gait down WILL no matter WHAT anyone say improve mileage
>
JKH & :o}D
have a bodyshop and have seen many trucks that break out in the lower
corners because of people doing this, can be a costly repair, does this
justifie the extra 5 to 10 miles on a tank of gas?
James
Mark Morissette <pepp...@NOSPAM.home.com> wrote in message
news:3801e6ee....@news.rdc1.on.wave.home.com...
> >Having the tail gait down WILL no matter WHAT anyone say improve mileage
>
Steve Stone
surface is more than the friction of the air moving across a pile of
air. With the tailgate up you will get a nice little circular flow with
a very small amount of upwards lift at the front of the bed. The air
flow off the cab then hits the trapped air in the bed and slides right
off of it. With the tailgate down, the airflow hits the bottom of the
truck and has to slide along that. Air slides on air better than air on
steel or wood.
Don't believe me? Fine, do some web searches on your own. Here's a
link from a pair of autmotive mechanics that have a nationally
syndicated radio broadcast called "Click and Clack, the Tappet
Brothers": http://cartalk.org/Columns/CC/CC7237TXT.html
Here's a world-renowned scientist, inventor and best-selling author, Dr.
Willard Wattenburg (aka "Dr Bill") doing a radio show in San Francisco:
http://www.kgoam810.com/frames.html?page=/jocks/wattenburg/page/index1712.html
Search for "mileage"
"Chris Taylor Jr." wrote:
>
> No fact of reality
>
> They can Install expensive bed covers and eat the cost OR increase cost ot
> vehicle when they make it standard equipment OR they can EAT the MPG of the
> tail gate since it is NOT OPTIONAL if you want a Pickup :-)
>
> Having the tail gait down WILL no matter WHAT anyone say improve mileage
"no matter WHAT anyone say". Now that is pure scientific reasoning
here! How can one disagree with that?
--
Tom Rutledge
>
> how about wind speed, direction, traffic air flow disruptions...etc.
> Did you take all these into effect? I didn't think so.
>
> -sheepdog
I dunno about him, but yes, I did, and it wasn't just one or two tanks
of gas. It was averages across months of driving, various conditions,
same chunks of road.
Like the man said, all the scientific studies in the world, all the
trends you wish to cite, do not change *my* results.
Tom
Steve Winters
>
> Sorry, but you are wrong. The friction of the air moving across a solid
> surface is more than the friction of the air moving across a pile of
> air. With the tailgate up you will get a nice little circular flow with
> a very small amount of upwards lift at the front of the bed. The air
> flow off the cab then hits the trapped air in the bed and slides right
> off of it. With the tailgate down, the airflow hits the bottom of the
> truck and has to slide along that. Air slides on air better than air on
> steel or wood.
>
Air "friction" has nothing to to with the issue. Aerodymanics is the
key. At high speeds, a large low pressure area forms behind the cab.
The raised tailgate causes this low pressure area to "fill in" resulting
in less drag. This is why driving with the tail gate up is the smart
thing to do. Structural reinforcement is a side benefit.
Gary Glaenzer
Steve Winters <winterss*@cadence.com> wrote in message
news:3804F9...@cadence.com...
> Steve Stone wrote:
> >
> > Sorry, but you are wrong. The friction of the air moving across a solid
> > surface is more than the friction of the air moving across a pile of
> > air. With the tailgate up you will get a nice little circular flow with
> > a very small amount of upwards lift at the front of the bed. The air
> > flow off the cab then hits the trapped air in the bed and slides right
> > off of it. With the tailgate down, the airflow hits the bottom of the
> > truck and has to slide along that. Air slides on air better than air on
> > steel or wood.
> >
>
> Air "friction" has nothing to to with the issue. Aerodymanics is the
> key.
Funny, I always considered 'aerodynamics' to be a pretty fair measure of the
frictional losses when passing through air.
>At high speeds, a large low pressure area forms behind the cab.
How much pressure differential?
> The raised tailgate causes this low pressure area to "fill in" resulting
> in less drag.
Well, if its 'filled in', it can't be a 'low-pressure area', now, can it?
>This is why driving with the tail gate up is the smart
> thing to do. Structural reinforcement is a side benefit.
>
Sounds like so much phlogiston to me...........
Steve Stone
Gary Glaenzer wrote:
>
> Steve Winters <winterss*@cadence.com> wrote in message
> news:3804F9...@cadence.com...
> > Steve Stone wrote:
> > >
> > > Sorry, but you are wrong. The friction of the air moving across a solid
> > > surface is more than the friction of the air moving across a pile of
> > > ... snip ...
> >
> > Air "friction" has nothing to to with the issue. Aerodymanics is the
> > key.
>
> Funny, I always considered 'aerodynamics' to be a pretty fair measure of the
> frictional losses when passing through air.
It also has to do with "laminar flows" which refer to turbulent or
smooth movement of air. Smooth is better, turbulent less so. Waxing a
racing airplane can increase its top speed.
> > The raised tailgate causes this low pressure area to "fill in" resulting
> > in less drag.
>
> Well, if its 'filled in', it can't be a 'low-pressure area', now, can it?
Lower than normal, but not as low as it would be with the lowered
tailgate. Goes back to my original post where I was trying to avoid
scientificism. A pool of air.
Harold J.
wrote:
>Steve Stone wrote:
>>
>> Sorry, but you are wrong. The friction of the air moving across a solid
>> surface is more than the friction of the air moving across a pile of
>> air. With the tailgate up you will get a nice little circular flow with
>> a very small amount of upwards lift at the front of the bed. The air
>> flow off the cab then hits the trapped air in the bed and slides right
>> off of it. With the tailgate down, the airflow hits the bottom of the
>> truck and has to slide along that. Air slides on air better than air on
>> steel or wood.
>>
>
>Air "friction" has nothing to to with the issue. Aerodymanics is the key.
^^^
This is hilarious! And I'm not referring to just your hideous spelling.
Do you even know what aerodynamics is???!!! Friction IS THE ONLY ISSUE!!!
mrdancer
Steve Stone <dyn...@programmer.net> wrote in message
news:38052C33...@programmer.net...
> It also has to do with "laminar flows" which refer to turbulent or
> smooth movement of air. Smooth is better, turbulent less so. Waxing a
> racing airplane can increase its top speed.
A coupla years ago, Nature magazine (a 'scientific' periodical) ran a story
of some scientists who were experimenting with rough surfaces to improve
airflow across a surface. It's the same concept as a golf ball having
dimples, or fast-swimming fish (such as tuna) having a rough body surface as
opposed to a smooth surface of a slow-swimming fish (like catfish). What
they found was that random protrusions on a surface increased airflow by
something like 15%, whereas uniform protrusions increased airflow by <5%
over a smooth surface.
A smooth surface would allow little eddies (like rolling up a rug) of air to
build up and break off into the airflow, thus 'hindering' some of the
airflow. The protrusions would break these eddies up before they had a
chance to grow and break off the surface flow. Interesting stuff.
Their contention was that soon you'll see this technology applied where it
makes the most difference (from an economical standpoint), such as
commercial airliners and America's Cup sailboat hulls. It also has
applications on speeding the flow of fluids thru a pipe or other vessel.
Mike
back. They had changed the surface of the hull to a small tight ribbed
surface to mimic the skin of a shark thus decreasing drag and I can't really
remember much more than that. Again, I have probably provided to little
information to be of any use :^)
Mike :^)
mrdancer wrote in message <7u4nq4$1d...@enews2.newsguy.com>...
Steve Stone
>
> Steve Stone <dyn...@programmer.net> wrote in message
> news:38052C33...@programmer.net...
> > It also has to do with "laminar flows" which refer to turbulent or
> > smooth movement of air. Smooth is better, turbulent less so. Waxing a
> > racing airplane can increase its top speed.
>
> A coupla years ago, Nature magazine (a 'scientific' periodical) ran a story
> of some scientists who were experimenting with rough surfaces to improve
> airflow across a surface. It's the same concept as a golf ball having
> dimples, or fast-swimming fish (such as tuna) having a rough body surface as
> opposed to a smooth surface of a slow-swimming fish (like catfish). What
> they found was that random protrusions on a surface increased airflow by
> something like 15%, whereas uniform protrusions increased airflow by <5%
> over a smooth surface.
>
> A smooth surface would allow little eddies (like rolling up a rug) of air to
> build up and break off into the airflow, thus 'hindering' some of the
> airflow. The protrusions would break these eddies up before they had a
> chance to grow and break off the surface flow. Interesting stuff.
Very good point here! We want smooth air flow (laminar not turbulent).
Eddies are turbulent. A pickup bed is a long, smooth surface (like the
catfish above). Thus lots of area for the air molecules to drag and
cause friction. So the eddies discussed above are what are the problem
with the tailgate down. By that theory, pickup beds with many dents,
dings, or dimples in the floor have less friction (as would shortbed
truck). Thus they may not see a reduction in the mileage with the gate
down.
>
> Their contention was that soon you'll see this technology applied where it
> makes the most difference (from an economical standpoint), such as
> commercial airliners and America's Cup sailboat hulls. It also has
> applications on speeding the flow of fluids thru a pipe or other vessel.
--
Alexander Vogt
>
> Steve Stone <dyn...@programmer.net> wrote in message
> news:38052C33...@programmer.net...
> > It also has to do with "laminar flows" which refer to turbulent or
> > smooth movement of air. Smooth is better, turbulent less so. Waxing a
> > racing airplane can increase its top speed.
>
> A coupla years ago, Nature magazine (a 'scientific' periodical) ran a story
> of some scientists who were experimenting with rough surfaces to improve
> airflow across a surface. It's the same concept as a golf ball having
> dimples, or fast-swimming fish (such as tuna) having a rough body surface as
> opposed to a smooth surface of a slow-swimming fish (like catfish). What
> they found was that random protrusions on a surface increased airflow by
> something like 15%, whereas uniform protrusions increased airflow by <5%
> over a smooth surface.
>
> A smooth surface would allow little eddies (like rolling up a rug) of air to
> build up and break off into the airflow, thus 'hindering' some of the
> airflow. The protrusions would break these eddies up before they had a
> chance to grow and break off the surface flow. Interesting stuff.
>
I think you are both right.
Macro-rough surfaces(Like the MIG29?) will improve aerodynamics.
But I think that the surface should be smooth on micro-scale.(Like
polishing the surface)
Andrew Murray
always gets blown about until it eventually it ends up in a neat pile just
behind the cab, presumably in dead air. Significant thing is that it remains
in the truck and doesn't get blown out.
Next time it's foggy I'll go flat out on the DC beltway so I can watch the
air turbulance out of the back window.
Andrew
mrdancer <mrdanceratcamalottdotcom> wrote in message
news:7u4nq4$1d...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>
> Steve Stone <dyn...@programmer.net> wrote in message
> news:38052C33...@programmer.net...
> > It also has to do with "laminar flows" which refer to turbulent or
> > smooth movement of air. Smooth is better, turbulent less so. Waxing a
> > racing airplane can increase its top speed.
>
> A coupla years ago, Nature magazine (a 'scientific' periodical) ran a
story
> of some scientists who were experimenting with rough surfaces to improve
> airflow across a surface. It's the same concept as a golf ball having
> dimples, or fast-swimming fish (such as tuna) having a rough body surface
as
> opposed to a smooth surface of a slow-swimming fish (like catfish). What
> they found was that random protrusions on a surface increased airflow by
> something like 15%, whereas uniform protrusions increased airflow by <5%
> over a smooth surface.
>
> A smooth surface would allow little eddies (like rolling up a rug) of air
to
> build up and break off into the airflow, thus 'hindering' some of the
> airflow. The protrusions would break these eddies up before they had a
> chance to grow and break off the surface flow. Interesting stuff.
>