Mudflaps

**** PLEASE USE SUBTOPICS BELOW FOR NEW TOPICS ****

Moderator: volvite

Gray
Posts: 750
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 12:39 pm
Location: xxx

Mudflaps

Postby Gray » Thu Apr 17, 2008 12:43 am

Looking at some photos of aerodynamic cars I was noticing that very few of them have mudflaps installed, and especially never at the rear of the vehicle. Now I'm wondering if we take some kind of fuel economy hit by leaving the flaps on, and wonder how much the rear mudflaps as provided effect the rear drag zone of the vehicle, big ghetto ass that it is.

If mudflaps marginally reduce rock hits on the truck body or other vehicles but cost us fuel economy could there be another more fuel friendly solution?

Who the hell do we benefit by having full sized mud flaps on our trucks, when I don't see them on the majority of other small and medium sized trucks on the road, and almost never on cars anymore. :|

.


User avatar
pdslug
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu Mar 06, 2008 8:45 pm
Location: Kansas

Postby pdslug » Thu Apr 17, 2008 7:33 am

I hate the mudflaps - mostly because they are so rigid. I tore one of the back ones off when driving over a stump - so took the other off later. Dont know about fuel economy.

User avatar
NVSteve
Sponsored Member
Posts: 1987
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 11:27 am
Location: Salt Lake City

Re: Mudflaps

Postby NVSteve » Thu Apr 17, 2008 8:01 am

Greybrick wrote: Who the hell do we benefit by having full sized mud flaps on our trucks,
.
I would not even consider them "full sized" by any stretch of the imagination. They are tiny & just present yet another solid surface for crap to cling to. I've been debating just installing rubber ones instead. Actually, I believe it was you who provided a link to some pics of a racing PF that had very thin, yet clear, mudflaps. Those look interesting.

As to mileage hits, I don't know. I don't like the stock flaps, but I'd prefer having something on to protect from dings.


Return to “2005-2012 Pathfinder (R51)”