View Single Post
Old 06-03-2013, 11:16 AM   #56 (permalink)
slowmover
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,442

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,422
Thanked 737 Times in 557 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by kach22i View Post
A great attitude to have, will get you though some sticky challenges and make this an engaging hobby.

My own modest aero-treatments have a net zero affect on mpg.

Some things I've done have gained me mpg, others added down-force resulted in better handling at speed, so it's a wash.

In the end I feel much safer and with no loss of mpg.

Yes, sir, it limits what I am willing to do as FE is only one concern of many . . for example, how would the vehicle of this thread do when loaded to manufacturer weight maximums (fleeing a hurricane in traffic with the family and what we can carry). We do have fun with this game of fuel burn, but larger perspectives put what can be done and what ought to be done in correct perspective.

IOW, when I leave out the full use of the vehicle (passenger and cargo load) I am playing a game . . when I take them also in to consideration I am playiing that same game at a higher level. (A second vehicle moves us farther away from what economy is, IMO).

None of these comments are intended to be critical as to time & effort. A win, as I see it. I may wish to have an Aerolid on the back of my truck, but I may wind up with a stout/secure contractor topper with a full rear door that would need a boat-tail fitted . . security/load volume is a higher priority as to full use of the trucks abilities. Etc. Trade-offs abound.

.
  Reply With Quote