Honda Car Forum


 

Go Back   Honda Car Forum - Accord Parts Civic Tuning Acura Racing > Honda Acura > Honda 2


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old 06 Dec 2007, 07:15 pm
Ed White
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be


"E Meyer" <epmeyer50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:C37D942A.2AFCE%epmeyer50@msn.com...
>
>
>
> On 12/6/07 10:26 AM, in article
> 4758221d$0$27497$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net, "NoOneYouKnow"
> <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:
>
>> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
>> news:newscache$khgksj$fhk1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>>> If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a
>>> fairly
>>> fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a
>>> sedan
>>> of
>>> course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what.

>>
>> Pickups get better mileage with the tailgate up, and no cover. The bed
>> creates a vortex behind the cab that maximizes the aerodynamics. With no
>> tailgate and/or a cover, the vortex cannot form.
>>
>> ---JRE---
>>
>>
>>

> Consumer reports debunked that several years ago. They tested a number of
> different pickups with and without tailgates. The results depended on the
> truck. Some did better with the tailgates in place, some with them
> removed.
> Its not a given that removing the tailgate improves mileage.


From CR Online:

Truck tailgate
Q. My neighbor told me to remove the tailgate of my truck for better
mileage. What is your take on this matter?
A. Several years back, CR said that lowering or removing the tailgate gate
made only a marginal difference in gas mileage and in most cases simply does
not improve mileage. We are still sticking with that report. Also, the
tailgate is part of the structure of the vehicle and when removed, makes the
bed of the truck weaker.

You might aslo want to review:

http://web.archive.org/web/200303101...ffner/base.jpg
http://web.archive.org/web/200304142...affner/Net.htm
http://web.archive.org/web/200304142...emove_gate.htm



Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old 08 Dec 2007, 06:00 pm
Picasso
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be

E Meyer wrote:
>
>
> On 12/6/07 10:26 AM, in article
> 4758221d$0$27497$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net, "NoOneYouKnow"
> <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:
>
>> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
>> news:newscache$khgksj$fhk1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>>> If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a
>>> fairly
>>> fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a sedan
>>> of
>>> course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what.

>> Pickups get better mileage with the tailgate up, and no cover. The bed
>> creates a vortex behind the cab that maximizes the aerodynamics. With no
>> tailgate and/or a cover, the vortex cannot form.
>>
>> ---JRE---
>>
>>
>>

> Consumer reports debunked that several years ago. They tested a number of
> different pickups with and without tailgates. The results depended on the
> truck. Some did better with the tailgates in place, some with them removed.
> Its not a given that removing the tailgate improves mileage.
>


few people know that... i'm impressed.
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old 08 Dec 2007, 07:02 pm
Picasso
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be

Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:13lat59kpldif26@corp.supernews.com...
>> "My Name Is Nobody" <nobody@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:Vme5j.7711$o_6.2647@trnddc08...
>>
>>>> I suppose the one exception is the "all new" Camry for 2007. But then
>>>> Ford had an all new Mustang in 2004, all new 500 in 2005, and all new
>>>> Fusion in
>>> Come on now Ed, the Mustang was all new for 2005. :-)

>> You are correct.
>>

>
> Whall, you see part of the problem is that most of the auto pundits out
> there,
> like the people that write the reviews in Car and Driver and such, have not
> reconciled to the fact that a basic truck is extremely utilitaritian and
> functional.
> You can haul plywood, a motorcycle, a couch, move across town, you name
> it. If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a
> fairly
> fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a sedan
> of
> course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what.
>
> There's enough of the new car buying public that recognize this that light
> and
> mid sized trucks are always going to sell well in the US.
>
> Personally I can't stand the look of the things - any pickup truck after
> 1955
> looks like a Mexican/white trailer trashmobile in my book - and I'll never
> be
> caught dead owning one. I do my hauling with a trailer. But I see the
> point
> that dealing with hauling out a utility trailer from the shed and linking it
> up takes
> a lot more time than just walking out to the street and tossing whatever
> piece
> of crap you need to haul into the truck bed then driving off.
>
> New car buyers generally either buy for image reasons (ie: Prius) or for
> functionality. Trucks are extremely functional, it's no wonder they are as
> popular as they are. Most of the auto pundits out there are so focused
> on the image thing they have lost touch with the functionality end of it.
>
> Ted
>
>


Image reasons in a prius?

right
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old 09 Dec 2007, 05:41 am
Ted Mittelstaedt
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be


"Picasso" <Picasso@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:475b30d7$0$5271$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...

> >

>
> Image reasons in a prius?
>
> right


Apparently you missed the Prius commercial where the guy buys one
to be able to get ****ed by the girl who regularly attends the "Save the
Whales" conventions.

There's all kinds of images out there. The Prius owners are no different
than the 50 year accountants who run out and buy Harleys and black
leather jackets with fringe. Just because both are equally silly doesen't
mean they don't exist.

Ted


Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old 09 Dec 2007, 07:42 pm
still just me
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 19:00:55 -0400, Picasso <Picasso@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Consumer reports debunked that several years ago. They tested a number of
>> different pickups with and without tailgates. The results depended on the
>> truck. Some did better with the tailgates in place, some with them removed.
>> Its not a given that removing the tailgate improves mileage.
>>

>
>few people know that... i'm impressed.


Best way to improve mileage when you own a pickup: sell the friggin
thing unless you really _need_ a truck and buy a car instead.


Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old 10 Dec 2007, 09:38 am
NoOneYouKnow
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be

"E Meyer" <epmeyer50@msn.com> wrote in message
news:C37D942A.2AFCE%epmeyer50@msn.com...
>
>
>
> On 12/6/07 10:26 AM, in article
> 4758221d$0$27497$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net, "NoOneYouKnow"
> <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:
>
>> "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm@toybox.placo.com> wrote in message
>> news:newscache$khgksj$fhk1$1@news.ipinc.net...
>>> If you take the tailgate off of it or put on a tonneau, it becomes a
>>> fairly
>>> fuel efficient single-passenger commuting vehicle - not as good as a
>>> sedan
>>> of
>>> course, but if you don't have to commute a great deal, so what.

>>
>> Pickups get better mileage with the tailgate up, and no cover. The bed
>> creates a vortex behind the cab that maximizes the aerodynamics. With no
>> tailgate and/or a cover, the vortex cannot form.
>>
>> ---JRE---
>>

> Consumer reports debunked that several years ago. They tested a number of
> different pickups with and without tailgates. The results depended on the
> truck. Some did better with the tailgates in place, some with them
> removed.
> Its not a given that removing the tailgate improves mileage.


It'd be interesting for them to do it with newer trucks, which are more
aerodynamic than trucks from "several years ago". While pickups aren't
really sold for their fuel efficiency, the better aerodynamics contribute to
increased towing capacity and acceleration - things trucks are sold for.

Perhaps if I phrase it this way: pickup trucks are designed to produce less
drag with the tailgate up and no cover. That's how they're wind tunnel
tested, and if you watch one of those tests, it's pretty easy to see the
vortex and resulting slipstream. All things being equal, less drag usually
means better mileage.

In reality, it probably has more to do with speed than anything. At highway
speeds, you're probably better off with the tailgate up so the
vortex/slipstream can form. At slower speeds, it's less likely a vortex
will form, so you're probably better off with the tailgate down.

The point being that the OP's assertion that taking the tailgate off or
putting a cover on would increase your mileage is more or less a myth.

Speaking of, I'll see your CR and raise you a Mythbusters. :-)

---JRE---



Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old 12 Dec 2007, 09:22 am
still just me
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:38:15 -0600, "NoOneYouKnow"
<NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:

>Perhaps if I phrase it this way: pickup trucks are designed to produce less
>drag with the tailgate up and no cover. That's how they're wind tunnel
>tested, and if you watch one of those tests, it's pretty easy to see the
>vortex and resulting slipstream. All things being equal, less drag usually
>means better mileage.


You have any illustrations of this alleged vortex? I'm having some
difficulty visualizing how a deep bed interrupting airflow can produce
less drag than a smooth surface cover from an engineering point of
view. I could see it having weight/force distribution advantages, but
from a drag viewpoint, it doesn't seem to make logical sense.


Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old 12 Dec 2007, 11:04 am
n5hsr
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be


"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acrvl31bcq5fphdl5spnaci42ked6l0hqq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:38:15 -0600, "NoOneYouKnow"
> <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps if I phrase it this way: pickup trucks are designed to produce
>>less
>>drag with the tailgate up and no cover. That's how they're wind tunnel
>>tested, and if you watch one of those tests, it's pretty easy to see the
>>vortex and resulting slipstream. All things being equal, less drag
>>usually
>>means better mileage.

>
> You have any illustrations of this alleged vortex? I'm having some
> difficulty visualizing how a deep bed interrupting airflow can produce
> less drag than a smooth surface cover from an engineering point of
> view. I could see it having weight/force distribution advantages, but
> from a drag viewpoint, it doesn't seem to make logical sense.
>
>


Go check the back episodes of Mythbusters, they did an episode on that.
Tailgate up produces less drag than tailgate down. They even did a
miniature model test in water and used oatmeal flakes to show the pattern.

Charles the Curmudgeon


Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old 12 Dec 2007, 11:44 am
B A R R Y
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be

still just me wrote:
>
> You have any illustrations of this alleged vortex? I'm having some
> difficulty visualizing how a deep bed interrupting airflow can produce
> less drag than a smooth surface cover from an engineering point of
> view. I could see it having weight/force distribution advantages, but
> from a drag viewpoint, it doesn't seem to make logical sense.


Throw some tissue in the back and go for a ride. On many trucks, the
tissues will move in a circular fashion, forward along the floor, up the
front wall, backwards in mid-air, and back down to the floor. At the
right speeds, the debris will continue around and around.

I've seen it with cans, paper, leaves, etc...
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old 12 Dec 2007, 12:20 pm
NoOneYouKnow
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Ford car production ain't what it used to be

"still just me" <wheeledBobNOSPAM@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:acrvl31bcq5fphdl5spnaci42ked6l0hqq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 08:38:15 -0600, "NoOneYouKnow"
> <NoOneYouKnow@SpammersSuckBigTime.Com> wrote:
>
>>Perhaps if I phrase it this way: pickup trucks are designed to produce
>>less
>>drag with the tailgate up and no cover. That's how they're wind tunnel
>>tested, and if you watch one of those tests, it's pretty easy to see the
>>vortex and resulting slipstream. All things being equal, less drag
>>usually
>>means better mileage.

>
> You have any illustrations of this alleged vortex? I'm having some
> difficulty visualizing how a deep bed interrupting airflow can produce
> less drag than a smooth surface cover from an engineering point of
> view. I could see it having weight/force distribution advantages, but
> from a drag viewpoint, it doesn't seem to make logical sense.


Drive around in a pickup with a few dry leaves in the bed. Notice that,
while some fly away, many blow upward behind the cab then fall back to the
bed towards the back, even at highway speeds.

The thing to remember is that the air caught by the tailgate has to go
somewhere. Since it can't go upward due the additional air being caught by
the tailgate, it goes down, then towards the front of the bed, then up the
back of the cab and back into the bottom of the main airflow... where much
of it is caught by the tailgate again. This is called a "locked vortex" and
it essentially creates a differential pressure zone within the bed that the
main airflow rides upon as it goes over the bed.

---JRE---



Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
2007 Honda CR-V. U.S. Production skylight Honda CR-V Pictures 2 22 Jul 2010 02:17 am
Will Honda up production of its FIT? Why is production so low? Don't they see the demand?... Tenche N Honda Technical 3 06 Oct 2007 03:45 pm
New Si (06 production?) MAT Honda 2 10 02 Sep 2005 06:27 am
6 speed production numbers acctforjunk@yahoo.com Honda 3 0 28 Jan 2005 05:36 pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:59 pm.


Attribution:
Honda News | Autoblog
Powered by Yahoo Answers

Archive: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.3.2 © 2009, Crawlability, Inc.
HondaCarForum.com is not affiliated with Honda Motor Company in any way. Honda Motor Company does not sponsor, support, or endorse HondaCarForum.com in any way. Copyright/trademark/sales mark infringements are not intended or implied.