Frontal Area

Yep, Marty, I even did some towing with a '67 Chevy with a 283 and a 2-speed powerglide. Then in the '70's towed with numerous GM cars and station wagons with small block V8's and THM350 and one big block with a THM400 trans.
We've come a long way.

You wanna try towing with a dog, we used my brother's mid 70's Chevelle wagon with a 307 and a THM350. We pulled our boat with that quite a bit.

gmw photos wrote:

mkirsch wrote:

When I'm towing, I'm not in a race, so I don't mind having to run at slower than non-towing speeds, and I'm willing to accept the 8 to 12 mpg I get with the trailer back there.

When I started towing, I said that too. However, after a few years of crawling up hills with my little maybe-4000lb trailer behind a 4.8L V8 engine, the fun factor fizzled. I found that I was DREADING going places instead of looking forward to it, because I was going to have to drag that %$#@ trailer along, and drop down to 35MPH any time I hit a decent hill.

My guess is that there are more people like me than like you, who would prefer being able to at least somewhat keep up with traffic.

Dang... I wish you were close by. I'd take you for a ride in the Nissan Frontier with either of my trailers behind it. It will literally climb the 6% grades just southwest of me, on cruise control, and maintain 60 mph with my horse trailer on, with the quarter horse in it and all the gear for a show.....5000 lbs, plus or minus a little.
I've run this road numerous times, with both trailers on days that were over 100 degrees outside. Not a problem.

I can't speak to how good or bad your truck did.

But the OP didn't ask about a truck like yours. He asked about a Nissan Frontier with a 4.0 V6. I "can" speak about it. Even about it towing in Colorado. Here's a pic of the camper in Colorado.

EDIT:
As of right now, I have four trailers. Two GN ( a four horse GN, and my equipment trailer that I haul hay or the bobcat or the tractor on ) two bumper pulls ( two horse Titan or the Funfinder ).
We pull with the four trucks in the family and the company. Frontier, F350 dually, Silverado 1500 (6.2L V8 ) or F150 (3.5EB ).
All the trucks do the jobs they are asked to do, no problem.

That 4.8L V8 has a 4 sp trans vs some of the others you are towing with with 6 or 8 sp transmissions. Probably 125-200% of the HP that the 4.8 mkirsh had. Along with his trans was had larger spacing between gear shifts. Newer rigs than his will do better. Now try towing back in the day with carburetors, 3 sp transmissions, and less than 200HP in a BB, 100HP was standard hp in a 1500 pickup...really slow!

Marty

mkirsch wrote:

When I'm towing, I'm not in a race, so I don't mind having to run at slower than non-towing speeds, and I'm willing to accept the 8 to 12 mpg I get with the trailer back there.

When I started towing, I said that too. However, after a few years of crawling up hills with my little maybe-4000lb trailer behind a 4.8L V8 engine, the fun factor fizzled. I found that I was DREADING going places instead of looking forward to it, because I was going to have to drag that %$#@ trailer along, and drop down to 35MPH any time I hit a decent hill.

My guess is that there are more people like me than like you, who would prefer being able to at least somewhat keep up with traffic.

Dang... I wish you were close by. I'd take you for a ride in the Nissan Frontier with either of my trailers behind it. It will literally climb the 6% grades just southwest of me, on cruise control, and maintain 60 mph with my horse trailer on, with the quarter horse in it and all the gear for a show.....5000 lbs, plus or minus a little.
I've run this road numerous times, with both trailers on days that were over 100 degrees outside. Not a problem.

I can't speak to how good or bad your truck did.

But the OP didn't ask about a truck like yours. He asked about a Nissan Frontier with a 4.0 V6. I "can" speak about it. Even about it towing in Colorado. Here's a pic of the camper in Colorado.

EDIT:
As of right now, I have four trailers. Two GN ( a four horse GN, and my equipment trailer that I haul hay or the bobcat or the tractor on ) two bumper pulls ( two horse Titan or the Funfinder ).
We pull with the four trucks in the family and the company. Frontier, F350 dually, Silverado 1500 (6.2L V8 ) or F150 (3.5EB ).
All the trucks do the jobs they are asked to do, no problem.

When I'm towing, I'm not in a race, so I don't mind having to run at slower than non-towing speeds, and I'm willing to accept the 8 to 12 mpg I get with the trailer back there.

When I started towing, I said that too. However, after a few years of crawling up hills with my little maybe-4000lb trailer behind a 4.8L V8 engine, the fun factor fizzled. I found that I was DREADING going places instead of looking forward to it, because I was going to have to drag that %$#@ trailer along, and drop down to 35MPH any time I hit a decent hill.

My guess is that there are more people like me than like you, who would prefer being able to at least somewhat keep up with traffic.

I know absolutely nothing about your truck. I would buy the trailer I want, try it out and if I felt I needed more truck I'd get a 1 ton srw diesel.

I feel it is interesting they include this sentence:

"Exceeding these limitations may significantly reduce the performance
of your towing vehicle."

They don't define what they mean by performance, but we might assume they are referring to the ability to attain highway speed, maintain that speed in headwinds, perhaps an inability to maintain the speed climbing hills, suffer poorer fuel mileage or experience overheating.

To bring the discussion back to the specifics of this thread, my Frontier does not suffer excessively in any of these categories pulling either of my full height trailers.

Point being, that are NOT stating the sq ft limit is a safety issue, or even a excessive drivetrain wear issue. They only mention performance.

When I'm towing, I'm not in a race, so I don't mind having to run at slower than non-towing speeds, and I'm willing to accept the 8 to 12 mpg I get with the trailer back there.

dodge guy wrote:

Bobbo wrote:

OK, you subtract the frontal area of the truck to get the trailer's frontal area. THEN you have to add the frontal area of the truck to the trailer's frontal area ("Frontal area is the total area in square feet that a moving vehicle and trailer exposes to air resistance") to get the total frontal area. Seems easier to me to just use the trailer's frontal area. You get the same number.

No. The TV’s frontal area isn’t figured into the equation because Ford already did that. You take the trailers frontal area then subtract the TV’s frontal area and that gives you the frontal area of what you are towing. It doesn’t need to be difficult because it isn’t!

You can argue with the manual's quote that is highlighted in red if you want, but it still says "a moving vehicle and trailer." To me, the phrase "a moving vehicle" means, well, the moving vehicle, and the phrase "and trailer" means the trailer. If you have a source that shows otherwise, please provide it, otherwise, the only source is the manual that says "a moving vehicle and trailer." Your word, unsupported, is not convincing. Provide sources please.

dodge guy wrote:

Bobbo wrote:

dodge guy wrote:

gmw photos wrote:
Ford states in their literature:

Frontal area is the total area in
square feet that a
moving vehicle and
trailer exposes to air
resistance. The chart
shows the maximum
trailer frontal area that
must be considered
for a vehicle/trailer
combination. Exceeding
these limitations may
significantly reduce the
performance of your
towing vehicle.

Yep, that's where I read it! And it makes sense. why would you subtract frontal area from an area that's already being used by the TV? I put an air deflector on the roof of the X and it made a huge difference. gained .5 mpg and I noticed that the throttle opening is 15% less with the deflector than without. frontal area makes a difference, but if you change it slightly it helps!

OK, you subtract the frontal area of the truck to get the trailer's frontal area. THEN you have to add the frontal area of the truck to the trailer's frontal area ("Frontal area is the total area in square feet that a moving vehicle and trailer exposes to air resistance") to get the total frontal area. Seems easier to me to just use the trailer's frontal area. You get the same number.

No. The TV’s frontal area isn’t figured into the equation because Ford already did that. You take the trailers frontal area then subtract the TV’s frontal area and that gives you the frontal area of what you are towing. It doesn’t need to be difficult because it isn’t!

LOL, hey this is rv net, of course things have to be made difficult !

I have an easier solution. I hook up the trailer, put the truck in gear, and let out the clutch. Pretty soon I'm at highway speeds. If it works, I'm good to go.

Been doing it this way since 1966, so I'm probably not going to change how I do things.

I'll say it again, in case it got lost in all the noise: I tow either my Funfinder 19' TT or my two horse Titan trailer with my Frontier, the vehicle of choice for the OP to this thread.
It works fine and dandy for both trailers. The horse, the dog and I am happy. Well, I guess the horse is happy... I keep asking her and she just ain't talkin' ....

BarabooBob wrote:
Before I bought my truck and TT I did a lot of research into using a topper to help with drag from the trailer. Most of the articles claimed that a topper did nothing to help with trailer drag because the space between the topper and trailer was big enough to eliminate any benefit. they even tested canoes and kayaks to see if there was a benefit. Nothing seemed to matter much.

This is a huge part of this discussion. The turbulence created behind the truck can have almost as much impact as the resistance at the front. I read some studies regarding removing your tailgate to increase mpg. They uniformly did not support this. Today's pickup trucks are designed to travel with the tailgate in place and closed. Similarly there were studies about putting a cab height canopy on a pickup. These studies concluded that "some" toppers can improve mpg ratings but not by a huge amount.

So, I agree with those who say the frontal area, all of it, needs to be considered. Any part that is "hidden" by the TV is likely to experience a lot of turbulent flow coming off the truck.

I tow an Airstream around. A few years back I added a bike rack to the back. I immediately noticed a decrease in my mpg and it didn't matter if I had 2 bikes, 1 bike or even no bikes on the back. The apparatus alone created enough turbulence to make the difference. Amazing but true.

Bobbo wrote:

dodge guy wrote:

gmw photos wrote:
Ford states in their literature:

Frontal area is the total area in
square feet that a
moving vehicle and
trailer exposes to air
resistance. The chart
shows the maximum
trailer frontal area that
must be considered
for a vehicle/trailer
combination. Exceeding
these limitations may
significantly reduce the
performance of your
towing vehicle.

Yep, that's where I read it! And it makes sense. why would you subtract frontal area from an area that's already being used by the TV? I put an air deflector on the roof of the X and it made a huge difference. gained .5 mpg and I noticed that the throttle opening is 15% less with the deflector than without. frontal area makes a difference, but if you change it slightly it helps!

OK, you subtract the frontal area of the truck to get the trailer's frontal area. THEN you have to add the frontal area of the truck to the trailer's frontal area ("Frontal area is the total area in square feet that a moving vehicle and trailer exposes to air resistance") to get the total frontal area. Seems easier to me to just use the trailer's frontal area. You get the same number.

No. The TV’s frontal area isn’t figured into the equation because Ford already did that. You take the trailers frontal area then subtract the TV’s frontal area and that gives you the frontal area of what you are towing. It doesn’t need to be difficult because it isn’t!