On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:42:43 -0500, "m II" wrote:

Gas economy. I have been told without a cover and with the economy goes
from 12 mpg up to 20 mpg on a full size pickup.

In your dreams. A couple of percent, tops.

This may not be any concern in the USA as their gas prices are so cheap
and their air doesn't matter.

It matters, but my little truck only gets 15MPG, on a good day )4WD kills gas
mileage).

-----------
wrote in message ...

I wonder why people put caps or covers on pickups. If you want to
cover the
thing, get an SUV.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:15:12 +0000 (GMT), Stuart
wrote:

In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
I wanted lockable space behind the seat. I also didn't want a monster
truck (it's a Ranger).

I wonder why people put caps or covers on pickups. If you want to cover
the thing, get an SUV.

To keep prying (thieving) eyes off what you've got whilst still retaining
the usefulness of an open back for when you need it?

Get an SUV.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:35:10 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:


I might try that, but it sounds scary (suspension moving around under
there). It is a Ranger 4x4 (that hasn't been in 4WD since I moved
from Vermont to Alabama ;-).

Shouldn't be a problem. You're going to tie the load up to the truck, so it
will move with the body. No issues with suspension movement.

Why not? It is moving relative to the body (springs, shocks, axles, transfer
case, drive shaft,...).

I have to admit, when someone posted this idea (or having seen someone do
it), I thought this was the most clever of the ideas.

I'd thought about it, but was wondering about the suspension, since it *is*
moving around down there.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:33:28 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A. Falk)
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

It matters, but my little truck only gets 15MPG, on a good day )4WD kills gas
mileage).

Look around the console; there ought to be a lever or something that
takes it out of 4WD.

Oh, good grief!

My little truck got 25MPG hauling a load of lumber on the freeway
the one time I measured it. It's got a pretty tiny engine
though.

....and no 4WD.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 03:33:28 +0000 (UTC), (Edward A.
Falk) wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

It matters, but my little truck only gets 15MPG, on a good day )4WD kills gas
mileage).

Look around the console; there ought to be a lever or something that
takes it out of 4WD.

My little truck got 25MPG hauling a load of lumber on the freeway
the one time I measured it. It's got a pretty tiny engine
though.
FullTime 4wd has no disconnect - and the extra weight of 4wd affects
mileage even when disengaged.

Full time 4WD used to have disconnects at the wheel hubs.

----------
wrote in message ...
FullTime 4wd has no disconnect - and the extra weight of 4wd affects
mileage even when disengaged.

On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:32:40 -0500, "m II" wrote:

Full time 4WD used to have disconnects at the wheel hubs.

----------
wrote in message ...
FullTime 4wd has no disconnect - and the extra weight of 4wd affects
mileage even when disengaged.
No, PART TIME 4wd had locking hubs.You could not engage 4wd on the
run. There were "manual" and "autromatic" locking hubs. Warn was the
major manufacturer. The automatics released if you backed up with the
transfer case disengaged.
Automatic 4wd today uses a differential disconnect (really just
disconnects one drive axle) and full-time 4wd drives all 4 wheels all
the time. (Also known as AllWheel drive)

On 01/18/2012 08:28 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 09:42:43 -0500, "m wrote:

Gas economy. I have been told without a cover and with the economy goes
from 12 mpg up to 20 mpg on a full size pickup.

In your dreams. A couple of percent, tops.

This may not be any concern in the USA as their gas prices are so cheap
and their air doesn't matter.

It matters, but my little truck only gets 15MPG, on a good day )4WD kills gas
mileage).

-----------
wrote in message ...

I wonder why people put caps or covers on pickups. If you want to
cover the
thing, get an SUV.

My Chevy Silverado Duramax 8' bed gets 22mpg on the highway, 14mpg
towing 10k lbs 5th wheel.


--
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure,the creed of ignorance, and the
gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery"
-Winston Churchill

Edward A. Falk wrote:
In article ,
zzzzzzzzzz wrote:

It matters, but my little truck only gets 15MPG, on a good day )4WD
kills gas mileage).

Look around the console; there ought to be a lever or something that
takes it out of 4WD.

My little truck got 25MPG hauling a load of lumber on the freeway
the one time I measured it. It's got a pretty tiny engine
though.

Geezus - my truck would need to be coasting down hill the whole trip to ever
get 25 mpg. 15 is tops for mine, but it gets that no matter what the
circumstances. Until I put it into 4WD... This time of year it spends most
of its time in 4 Low and that is painful - 5 to 6 mpg at the best.

--

-Mike-

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:35:10 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


I might try that, but it sounds scary (suspension moving around
under there). It is a Ranger 4x4 (that hasn't been in 4WD since I
moved from Vermont to Alabama ;-).

Shouldn't be a problem. You're going to tie the load up to the
truck, so it will move with the body. No issues with suspension
movement.

Why not? It is moving relative to the body (springs, shocks, axles,
transfer case, drive shaft,...).


Because all of those elements are pretty much in unity with the frame/body.
It's the wheels that are allowed some degree of independence from the
frame/body via the suspension. So - something tied to the underside of the
body will also in unity with the body regardless of suspension travel, not
moving relative to it. There could be some movement dependent on the
suspension type, as some pivot from a centerline point, but the amount of
movement is at its least at the centerline and increases out at the wheel.



I have to admit, when someone posted this idea (or having seen
someone do it), I thought this was the most clever of the ideas.

I'd thought about it, but was wondering about the suspension, since
it *is* moving around down there.

Well yeah - but just the suspension is moving while you drive. Assuming of
course that the load is secured to the underside in a manner that it is not
going to contact the exhaust or the driveshaft.

You'd sure want to make sure that it ended up hanging at a height that is
higher off the ground than curb heights in your area...

--

-Mike-

You could disconnect the wheels from the old Jeep 4WD if you hung under
the chassis while "on the run".

I don't remember names for any types of 4WD back then. These appear to
be some new advertising hype.

------
wrote in message ...
No, PART TIME 4wd had locking hubs.You could not engage 4wd on the
run. There were "manual" and "autromatic" locking hubs. Warn was the
major manufacturer. The automatics released if you backed up with the
transfer case disengaged.

------------
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:32:40 -0500, "m II" wrote:
Full time 4WD used to have disconnects at the wheel hubs.

On 1/18/2012 10:32 PM, m II wrote:
Full time 4WD used to have disconnects at the wheel hubs.

----------
wrote in message ...
FullTime 4wd has no disconnect - and the extra weight of 4wd affects
mileage even when disengaged.

in which case it wasn't a "full time" four wheel drive. the real full
time 4x4's did not have lockouts (manual or automatic) on the hubs.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On 1/19/2012 4:11 PM, Edward A. Falk wrote:
In ,
wrote:

FullTime 4wd has no disconnect - and the extra weight of 4wd affects
mileage even when disengaged.

Ahh, I was unaware that there were 4WD vehicles that couldn't go into
2WD mode.


Most all suv's are that way now. They've coined a yuppie term, it's
called "all wheel drive" . It distinguishes their luxury vehicle from
those redneck ones.

--
Steve Barker
remove the "not" from my address to email

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:54:59 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 1/18/2012 10:32 PM, m II wrote:
Full time 4WD used to have disconnects at the wheel hubs.

----------
wrote in message ...
FullTime 4wd has no disconnect - and the extra weight of 4wd affects
mileage even when disengaged.

in which case it wasn't a "full time" four wheel drive. the real full
time 4x4's did not have lockouts (manual or automatic) on the hubs.
If you are responding to my post you can't read.
And if not, you are agreeing with my post.

Lazy editing rules!


---------
wrote in message ...
If you are responding to my post you can't read.
And if not, you are agreeing with my post.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:53:20 -0500, "m II" wrote:

You could disconnect the wheels from the old Jeep 4WD if you hung under
the chassis while "on the run".

That is *not* "full time 4WD". There is a reason it's called "full time" or
usually AWD ("all wheel drive"). Yes, you can disconnect the hubs (a switch
on the dash does it in mine) but you're still dragging the transfer case
around (both weight and gear friction).

I don't remember names for any types of 4WD back then. These appear to
be some new advertising hype.

AWD means just that.

------
wrote in message ...
No, PART TIME 4wd had locking hubs.You could not engage 4wd on the
run. There were "manual" and "autromatic" locking hubs. Warn was the
major manufacturer. The automatics released if you backed up with the
transfer case disengaged.

------------
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 23:32:40 -0500, "m II" wrote:
Full time 4WD used to have disconnects at the wheel hubs.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 07:04:20 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

wrote:
On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 06:35:10 -0500, "Mike Marlow"
wrote:

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


I might try that, but it sounds scary (suspension moving around
under there). It is a Ranger 4x4 (that hasn't been in 4WD since I
moved from Vermont to Alabama ;-).

Shouldn't be a problem. You're going to tie the load up to the
truck, so it will move with the body. No issues with suspension
movement.

Why not? It is moving relative to the body (springs, shocks, axles,
transfer case, drive shaft,...).


Because all of those elements are pretty much in unity with the frame/body.
It's the wheels that are allowed some degree of independence from the
frame/body via the suspension. So - something tied to the underside of the
body will also in unity with the body regardless of suspension travel, not
moving relative to it. There could be some movement dependent on the
suspension type, as some pivot from a centerline point, but the amount of
movement is at its least at the centerline and increases out at the wheel.

But the suspension bits are still moving relative to the body.

I have to admit, when someone posted this idea (or having seen
someone do it), I thought this was the most clever of the ideas.

I'd thought about it, but was wondering about the suspension, since
it *is* moving around down there.

Well yeah - but just the suspension is moving while you drive. Assuming of
course that the load is secured to the underside in a manner that it is not
going to contact the exhaust or the driveshaft.

....or springs, or axle, or...

You'd sure want to make sure that it ended up hanging at a height that is
higher off the ground than curb heights in your area...

4WD trucks (off-road) trucks tend to have a bit more clearance than a Miata.
;-)

zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


But the suspension bits are still moving relative to the body.


Ya know - I realized something after I had posted my last reply. Don't try
to figure this out, but even though there were comments about trucks and all
that stuff, somehow I had gotten it into my mind that the under-slung
concept was associated with a car. I know - makes no sense. Since most
cars employ independent suspension systems, I got stuck in this thought that
there would be no issues with things like - oh, say... axles... Oh...
forget it - I'm gonna go grab the wife (until she wakes up...)

--

-Mike-

In article ,
says...

On Thu, 19 Jan 2012 10:54:59 -0600, Steve Barker
wrote:

On 1/18/2012 10:32 PM, m II wrote:
Full time 4WD used to have disconnects at the wheel hubs.

----------
wrote in message ...
FullTime 4wd has no disconnect - and the extra weight of 4wd affects
mileage even when disengaged.

in which case it wasn't a "full time" four wheel drive. the real full
time 4x4's did not have lockouts (manual or automatic) on the hubs.
If you are responding to my post you can't read.
And if not, you are agreeing with my post.

The quoting on the post is messed up--it looks like both original and
response are quoted at the same level so it's difficult to figure out
who said what.

Tell us how you "make out".


--------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Since most
cars employ independent suspension systems, I got stuck in this thought that
there would be no issues with things like - oh, say... axles... Oh...
forget it - I'm gonna go grab the wife (until she wakes up...)

--

-Mike-

Josepi wrote:
Tell us how you "make out".


--------
"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Since most
cars employ independent suspension systems, I got stuck in this
thought that there would be no issues with things like - oh, say...
axles... Oh... forget it - I'm gonna go grab the wife (until she
wakes up...)

Wouldn't ya know - she woke right up... immediately! Don't need to tell
anyone here where it went from there...

Oh well - at least I got a full night's sleep...

--

-Mike-

You go girl!

We had a guy at work tell us how his wife fell asleep in the middle of it
all. We laughed for more than one reason. Years later we still bring it and
chuckle occasionally.


------

"Mike Marlow" wrote in message
...
Wouldn't ya know - she woke right up... immediately! Don't need to tell
anyone here where it went from there...

Oh well - at least I got a full night's sleep...

Josepi wrote:
You go girl!

We had a guy at work tell us how his wife fell asleep in the middle
of it all. We laughed for more than one reason. Years later we still
bring it and chuckle occasionally.


Ugh! That's certainly not something to tell around the water cooler...

--

-Mike-