2nd Gen Non-Engine/Transmission Flatbed MPG Question

[jmarx82]

My bed on my truck in pretty bad shape has far has rust goes. I have been looking at flatbeds for a while. I like the idea of a flatbed and the look. I have read on here and other forums that people have lost 2-3 mpg going to a flatbed. I was wondering if this was common or was that just one persons experience? Thanks

 

[JPulliam]

Steel flat beds are pretty heavy, so the loss of MPG makes sense.

 

[HBarlow]

I have a C&C with flatbed. It is the only one I've ever owned and is mounted on an ISB6. 7 which is not as economical as previous 5. 9s so I can't testify under oath but I would dispute the 2 to 3 mpg loss reports you mentioned.

The aftermarket steel beds are heavier, that is a fact, and a little less aerodynamic, but I doubt a flatbed will cost you more than one mpg if that.

It is wind that drops fuel mileage, not weight unless pulling in the mountains constantly pulling long steep grades.

 

[WDixon27]

i would suspect it is all aerodynamics that effects the mileage, the weight difference shouldn't effect much more then the fuel used on acceleration, if a couple extra hundred pounds hurt things that much everybody that put on a toolbox and winch bumper would loose about the same



a lesson on aerodynamics comes from a few hundred mile trip on flatland i took to pick a about a 3200# car with a borrowed trailer, big 8 lug double axle that had nearly a full sheet of plywood on the front standing straight up as a crap blocker, thing pulled empty like a parachute, i loaded the car backwards and butted it right up to the shield to at least kill the vacuum behind it, this was good for 2 mpg better on the return despite the extra ton and a half of metal