2000 Ford Ranger and 3023

**shunter917** · 07-27-2003, 01:05 PM

2000 Ford Ranger XLT with 4.0 L 6 cylinder pulling a 2001 3023.

I added an electric brake controller (natch) and air springs. These are installed along with the stock springs and do not replace the shocks. I have a pump mounted in the engine compartment and a gauge and lever inside the cab that allows me to add or remove air as needed.

I found this a lot better than the WD hitch for getting a level tow, but I still use the WD hitch to help with sway. If we are going a short distance, I tow without the WD hitch. The air springs also helped with gas mileage, both with and without towing, by about 1 or 2 mpg.

08-01-2003, 01:18 PM

What kinds of air springs would folks here recommend? I see Firestone all over the place. Goodyear a few places.

**shunter917** · 08-01-2003, 05:09 PM

I have Firestones.

08-01-2003, 09:27 PM

I don't understand how air springs could have any effect on gas mileage either way, plus or minus ?
The effective gear ratio is not changed, power is not changed, overall weight has to have increased, maybe not a lot, but they do weigh something over not having them. Someone care to explain how this is possible???

Jack & Gayle

**shunter917** · 08-03-2003, 06:43 PM

Beats the heck out of me, but I'm not complaining.

I had the truck a year before the springs went on and I'm pretty religous about tracking my mileage.

08-03-2003, 08:27 PM

Did you by any chance add a camper shell about the same time. That would do it.

08-03-2003, 08:39 PM

The physics of it may have to do with dampening the bounce of the rear tires on the leaf springs alone. Just a guess. When I tack them on eventually, I'll be in a place to record the difference. I keep all my truck records in a spreadsheet and run both per-tank mpg and a running average mpg.

I'm interested in the comment on the canopy effect on milage. What's your experience? I'll be adding a canopy in the next week or so. (A cab-high Leer with Yakima rack on top).

Tedd

08-04-2003, 02:38 PM

Could the air springs have to do with the amount of ground clearance. As that distance would increase or decrease, the turbulance under the vehicle would change. Hard to believe it could account for 1 to 2 miles per gallon though.

RockyMtnRay · 08-04-2003, 03:06 PM

My suspicion is that it has more to do with relative angle of the vehicle to the airstream. If without the air springs, the front was noticeably higher than the rear, the bottom of the vehicle would have been acting a bit like having a very large non-aerodynamic board partially turned into the wind. That would have significantly increased the wind resistance and could alone account for a 1 to 2 mpg decrease. Leveling the pickup with the air springs would have returned it to it's factory optimized aerodynamics.

08-04-2003, 05:38 PM

Tedd, a PU without a capper pushes the wind twice, once with the front of the truck and the second with the tailgate. As air slips over the cab a vacuum is formed in the bed just behind the cab thus pulling down the slip stream just enough to catch the tailgate, which causes a roll which increases the vacuum etc.

A camper shell removes this. It also helps with side to side stability and when pulling a trailer acts as a deflecter of wind for the trailer. As logic would dictate, a vacuum should form behind the capper, it does but it is small for air slips in from all sides and forms a cone shaped buffer just before the trailer.

This is one reason so many folks use vans to pull with. I prefer the PU with a camper shell because I carry stuff that I don't want riding with me in the cab. Like the blue boy, floor jack and assorted tools. My wife is an artsy/craftsy type and collects lots of very strange stuff, rocks, tree stumps, clay - you name it we have most likely carried it home. (I did put my foot down at road kill, she collected the porkypine spines and we took those)

Any way I'm sold on camper tops.