Pickup topper is 3 inches higher than cab top - ideas?
 

I have, yes, a gas guzzler truck. It's a 2009 Ford Ranger SuperCab 4X4 V6, with a manual transmission, 32 inch off road tires, skid plates, topper and front bumper winch. This I intend to use for my geological explorations in the Black Hills near where I live in South Dakota. The truck gets 16mpg. I haven't done anything as yet to try to improve that, but I don't drive it much especially this summer with no rain.

My question for you experts is this; the topper is not the same height as the truck cab. It is about 3 inches taller. Would it make much difference if I were to make a small spoiler in front of the topper to help the air pass more efficiently while on the highway. I had thought of either an aluminum band going from side to side in an arc so that it would be about three inches away in the center and taper to the sides. I thought of also covering the open space between the top of the band and the topper with some flat aluminum sheet or not. Another idea I have had is to use a piece of right angle aluminum stock and mount it so the intersection of its sides pointed toward the front and mount it from sided to side on the front of the topper.

Any help or opinions on the spoiler thingy for my pickup would be greatly appreciated.

Tom Beno

Aerohead (use search) has a pickup with aero mods, you may be able to see what he has done and get inspiration for your truck there.

Good luck.

Hello from ND, and welcome to Ecomodder.

As far as your truck, with those tires and that ride height, I don't think there's much that can be done to drastically improve your mileage. Not exactly the greatest base vehicle for ecomodding lol. My ex's father is a dinosaur hunter, travels all over the Dakotas digging up fossils and whatnot, and for years he just used his early-90s Grand Prix two door. Beat the hell outta that car, but he dug up a couple-million-dollar near complete fossil with it lol.

(Note from admin: I split this aero question off from Tom's introductory thread, which is here: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ota-23502.html )

Hi Tom -

Hope you don't mind I split your introductory post into two parts. More eyeballs in the aero sub-forum to address this question.

But I think the answer depends on the design of the topper. Is the exposed area flat with sharp edges (bad), or are the corners radiused?

Instead of a spoiler, I'd suggest making a foam pod that fairs from the front of the cab back to the topper.

Of course, if you read further on the related threads here, you'll discover (if you don't already know) that the front end isn't where you incur most of the shape-related losses. So can you swap the topper for one that's just cab-high? And then work on the rear end?

Spoiler's not going to do much. You'll probably need to do a full aero topper to see much over 1 or 2 mpg.

Try an air dam and grille block first. The tires are probably killing your mileage too.

With big wheels the best thing you can do for milage is make sure your wheel alignment is spot on and keep a consistent speed on the highway.

16 isn't too bad for a truck like that so I am guessing that you are taking care of it pretty well.

For the high topper I would think about building up the top of the cab starting at the front following the line of the windshield, sort of like an Xterra. If you used foam construction and went all the way back to the topper it could also help keep the cab a bit cooler in the sun.

Thanks to all who answered my post. I'm going to have to take a few pictures and post them and watch as the groans issue from you all. I have looked at Aeroheads site and photos. I thought that I might put on some 15" inch full moon hubcaps, maybe fender skirts on the rear wheels and a partial fill on the front wheel wells.

The story behind this truck is a somewhat long and tortured one. To make a story short, I needed a replacement for a 1984 S-10 V6 5spd. with a 7 foot bed. This Ranger is the only under full size I could find in four states. It's not exactly what I want but usable. I needed at least a V6 and a manual transmission and small and light enough to get into places a full size truck won't go. Anyway, it will be paid off next month and I can doing some things I wouldn't have done when the bank owned it.

The topper is a standard height Proline aluminum model. If I had bought a fiberglass one it would have been exactly the same height as the cab. The dealer didn't mention that and the brochure didn't show a Ranger. Any way, the corners are rounded but as I have mentioned, the top edge is about three inches taller than the cab. When I take a break from 'modding my car", I'll get some pictures of the truck and let you folks tell me how wrong everything is and have some real fun. For now I've got a couple of things I want to try on my car. The weather is getting better and we are supposed to finally get some rain. I am way overdue for some trips to the Black Hills before they close the roads for the season so the truck will have to do as is for now. Believe it or not the truck was bought new in September of 2009 and it has only 2800 miles on it. The most work it does is a couple of trips to the "Hills" and hauling pellets for my heating stove in the winter. So, it really hasn't been too expensive to have so far.

Well, enough hot air from me for now. I'll get some photos when I can and we can go from there. Thanks again to all for replying .

Tom Beno

Thanks to all who answered my post. I'm going to have to take a few pictures and post them and watch as the groans issue from you all. I have looked at Aeroheads site and photos. I thought that I might put on some 15" inch full moon hubcaps, maybe fender skirts on the rear wheels and a partial fill on the front wheel wells.

The story behind this truck is a somewhat long and tortured one. To make a story short, I needed a replacement for a 1984 S-10 V6 5spd. with a 7 foot bed. This Ranger is the only under full size I could find in four states. It's not exactly what I want but usable. I needed at least a V6 and a manual transmission and small and light enough to get into places a full size truck won't go. Anyway, it will be paid off next month and I can doing some things I wouldn't have done when the bank owned it.

The topper is a standard height Proline aluminum model. If I had bought a fiberglass one it would have been exactly the same height as the cab. The dealer didn't mention that and the brochure didn't show a Ranger. Any way, the corners are rounded but as I have mentioned, the top edge is about three inches taller than the cab. When I take a break from 'modding my car", I'll get some pictures of the truck and let you folks tell me how wrong everything is and have some real fun. For now I've got a couple of things I want to try on my car. The weather is getting better and we are supposed to finally get some rain. I am way overdue for some trips to the Black Hills before they close the roads for the season so the truck will have to do as is for now. Believe it or not the truck was bought new in September of 2009 and it has only 2800 miles on it. The most work it does is a couple of trips to the "Hills" and hauling pellets for my heating stove in the winter. So, it really hasn't been too expensive to have so far.

Well, enough hot air from me for now. I'll get some photos when I can and we can go from there. Thanks again to all for replying .

Tom Beno

If an F150 V8 4x4 used only for hauling and/or towing gets better than 16, then I'd say it is too bad.

Then you suggest a wedge on top of the cab is a potential fix. Read the other posts; that ain't where it's at. That cab/topper spot should react much like the hood/windshield junction, and that isn't the evil thing many think it is unless, as Metro alluded to, it has a square leading edge not a radiused one. If that's the case there are simpler ways to correct it, namely adding a 1/4 round segment to the leading edge of the topper.

The alignment and speed things are good tho', so you scored 2 outta 4.

FWIW 3.0 V6 Ranger 2wd a/t = 30 mpg highway. Not exactly the same but still...

How fast do you cruse? How much time in stop and go?

Well 4x4 Rangers with the SOHC 4.0L V6 get notoriously poor fuel economy even with standard sized tires. The fact that a smaller truck burnt more fuel than a full sized F150 was one of Fords excuses for discontinuing them in NA. He is on-par with the EPA combined number despite the big meats.


Come on, give me at least 2.5/4 :p

2.25! :thumbup:

Ranger
 

I visited with a guy with a 2WD Ranger in Dona Ana,New Mexico.He was reporting 28 MPG HWY actual.He'd worn out an Isuzu pickup which he said was good for 29 MPG.
Looks like there is fruit to pluck!

I can personally vouch for an Isuzu 2WD doing 40MPG at 60MPH.

And that was gas with only a four speed manual. With a 5th gear, would have been quite impressive.

Completely different beasts. The 4-bangers in the 2wd models were designed with fuel efficiency in mind, and are very good in that respect. Ford was claiming to have the most fuel efficient truck on the market with the 2wd ranger. The V6 on the other hand is a rock solid engine that works very well except that it burns a lot of fuel. So much so that it burnt more in a ranger than the new 3.7L in a 4x4 F150


There are many things that can be done to make sdecoman's truck more fuel efficient but there is no point if it can then no-longer get him where he wants to go.

I frequently listen to semi rigs as the pass by. Yes I drive 55 mph. The quietest ones in particular have a smooth junction between the trailer and the cab. Frequently they are very well matched and have have smooth rounded contours. at the front. They also have strakes between the back of the cab and the trailer wheels.

I can only assume that quiet equals efficient.

BTW my 99 Ford mini van with 170,000 miles has the 3.8 engine in it. I see 27mpg many times on the ultragauge.

Just some points of reference for comparison:

My present Ranger is a 2.3 L 4 cylinder and I get about 30 mpg around town.

My last Ranger was a 3.0 L 6 cylinder 4WD and I got about 21 mpg around town, 25 mpg on the highway.

I would expect the 4.0 L to be worse than this, but don't know how much.

None of my vehicles have had much ecomodding done to them, just the way I drive.