Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I've got the TruXedo Lo Pro.

 

I wasn't interested in a roll up because of their operation in the winter - I was thinking that when you roll it up in the stupid cold it would wrecking it. But with the lifetime warrantee on the entire cover, there wasn't much risk. And for the price, I risked it. Since then - I'm really surprised. It keeps out the water (at least in the car wash), and the snow, and it doesn't flap around all that much on the highway either. I'm a believer

  • Like 2
Posted

Correction: The GM tonneau cover is a tri-fold. The fold-a-cover is a 4 panel cover. I saw a youtube video showing how the GM cover is installed and operates on a NNBS truck.

 

The rails are a part of the cover so as you fold the cover up, the rails go with it. It looks like a quick installation as the clamps are built in the rails. Looks pretty good. But I like the fold-a-cover for the front of the bed access. I think I am going to lean that way when I get ready to buy. But ChevyParts.com has the GM for $609 which is influencing me that way. That and bearman95's review. Decisions, decisions.... :dunno:

This is the one I have. It is money IMO, not sure why people keep ignoring what GM has to offer then complain they bought a cheaper tonneau and it leaks....

Posted (edited)

I have the extang trifecta signature series. I love it! It is 99% waterproof. Only time I see water is in torrential down pours or going through the car wash. It takes about 5 minutes to put on by myself and about 2 minutes to remove myself. asa2ydeq.jpg Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

I had this cover on my 2002 Silverado. Its a GREAT cover. and Extangs customer service it top notch. I had a hinge break on my Trifecta. They sent me a new one after I sent them a picture of the broken one, free of charge.

 

How much did you pick this one up for?

Edited by fondupot
Posted

To those that have the GM hard folding tonneau on your '14, could you provide some pics of it. I am curious as to if it covers the new hand hold stake pocket. Thanks.

Posted

To those that have the GM hard folding tonneau on your '14, could you provide some pics of it. I am curious as to if it covers the new hand hold stake pocket. Thanks.

 

 

Assuming the comments are correct and the GM Hard folding cover is the Fold-A-Cover G4, see the pic linked below on my review of that cover

 

http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/156634-fold-a-cover-g4-elite-hard-folding-tonneau-cover-review/?p=1392966

Posted

Easy to install, need basic tools, just did it this last weekend and was straight forward with good instructions

Posted

No - the GM cover is not the same. The GM cover is a tri-fold where as the Fold-a-Cover has 4 panels.

 

The question was about the hard folding cover, not the soft folding cover. From a review of the gmaccessoryzone site the factory one is definitely the Fold-A-Cover

 

post-125682-0-51089400-1389233363_thumb.jpg

post-125682-0-51089400-1389233363_thumb.jpg

post-125682-0-51089400-1389233363_thumb.jpg

post-125682-0-51089400-1389233363_thumb.jpg

Posted

GM also sells their own branded hard cover tri-folds. See part nbr: 22834743

Posted
I have the extang trifecta signature series. I love it! It is 99% waterproof. Only time I see water is in torrential down pours or going through the car wash. It takes about 5 minutes to put on by myself and about 2 minutes to remove myself. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

I had this cover on my 2002 Silverado. Its a GREAT cover. and Extangs customer service it top notch. I had a hinge break on my Trifecta. They sent me a new one after I sent them a picture of the broken one, free of charge.

 

How much did you pick this one up for?

 

I believe it was around $440. The signature series is canvas instead of vinyl.

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

 

Posted

No - the GM cover is not the same. The GM cover is a tri-fold where as the Fold-a-Cover has 4 panels.

The four panel one that GM sells is the Fold-A-Cover. Exact same thing. Cheaper to buy direct from Fold-A-Cover. GM also has a three panel one that I don't know who makes.

Posted

I believe it was around $440. The signature series is canvas instead of vinyl. Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

Thanks yea. I had the signature series on my 2002. It's definitely a better option than the vinyl top. I think that's about what I paid. Not bad.

Posted

To those that have the GM hard folding tonneau on your '14, could you provide some pics of it. I am curious as to if it covers the new hand hold stake pocket. Thanks.

They do not cover it very much - maybe a 1/4" on the inside. You can still get your hand in there to help pull yourself up. But you couldn't use it to install a stake or tiedown or anything. There's a tab on the cover side rail that goes in there to secure it to the bed.

Posted
A tonneau can help improve MPG

Mythbusters Testing

I always take Mythbusters episodes with a grain of salt. How many different model and configuration types did they test? What was the weight of the tonneau used.... Mythbusters episode reference:http://kwc.org/mythbusters/2006/12/episode_64_more_myths_revisite.html

Their results actually got the same MPG with tailgate up compared to with tonneau cover. Now account for the weight of the tonneau cover being about 100 lbs and you actually had better aerodynamics but that was countered by the weight of the cover. Effect on MPG will also depend on the steadiness of your speed when adding weight - lots of stop and go acceleration will mean greater effect of added weight. Go with a lighter tonneau like lazerlite aluminum (48 lbs) or an ABS cover (60 lbs) and you will not have so much extra weight to haul around and should get better gas mileage.

SAE Testing

An example of a good SCIENTIFIC test was done by the Society of Automotive and Aerospace Engineers (SAE): http://ecow.engr.wisc.edu/cgi-bin/getbig/me/363/ghandhi1/pickup.pdf

Their testing shows that other variables make a difference such as crosswind and bed length.

For their testing of pre-2004 model F-150s they found:

1. In most cases a partial box cover (at the rear) or full tonneau gave the best aerodynamics.

2. For the 8' bed standard cab trucks the tailgate down but not removed gave better aerodynamics than with tailgate up. Tailgate off gave better or worse depending on how much crosswind compared to speed. Full tonneau gave the least drag in all conditions (best for MPG). Mesh gate gave the highest drag in all conditions (worst for MPG).

3. For the 6.5' bed super/crew cab trucks the tailgate up gave better aerodynamics than down or off (like Mythbuster results but opposite of 8' bed results). Tonneau covers gave the least drag in all conditions with a partial cover slightly better than a full cover (best for MPG). Tailgate off gave the highest drag (worst MPG).

If you look at the flow models you can see that the difference in Cd occurs after the cab, so you could extrapolate that the bed length difference will be the decider in what method you should go with. The GMC and Toyota tested also support this conclusion with their 6.5' bed trucks having similar results to the Ford 6.5' beds. (Tailgate up is better than tailgate down)

In all cases, a tonneau lowers drag...but you have to account for the weight of the tonneau possibly having a negative effect on MPG. Lesson: if you want improve aerodynamics and lower MPG with a tonneau, pick the lightest available.

SEMA Testing

Here is more scientific testing by SEMA showing that tonneaus improve aerodynamics: http://www.trucktestdigest.com/PDFfiles/SEMATonneauStudy2007.pdf

Summary of some of their results:

1. Hard tonneaus did better than soft in general with 6.5% or better drag reduction (hard covers) compared to 5% drag reduction (soft covers) at highway speeds.

2. Reduced drag primarily occurs at above 40 mph and the benefit increases up to 65 mph where it levels off.

3. They also mention that the weight of heavy fiberglass covers can negate benefits.

SnugTop manufacturer testing

Yes, I am including a link to a manufacturer's tests.
http://www.snugtop.com/gas_savings_test.php

Their tests show an improvement of MPG with fiberglass tonneaus. Of note, they did their test with cruise control on which would help minimize the effect of additional weight of the cover.
  • Like 1

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Latest Articles

  • Posts

    • As a matter of amusement I’ll leave this conversation with this. Do you beat the government average fuel estimate? Statistics are a guide to me. Not a rule. Someone once said I have to have the last word. If true and possible may be. I’ll blame that on working in a family business.
    • That is a fair point, and I agree that trying to log “everything in the truck” would be the wrong direction.   There are a lot of modules and a lot of traffic. If the product became a full-truck datalogger, the amount of data would get huge very quickly, and most owners would never use it.   I think the first useful version would need to be narrow: - powertrain-side event evidence - selected high-value parameters - communication / voltage / reset events - pre/post event window - short report first, raw log only as backup   One distinction I should make is between active OBD/PID polling and passive bus capture. If you are polling PIDs through OBD, then yes: the more parameters you request, the lower the effective sample rate becomes, and you are adding diagnostic traffic to a vehicle that is already busy running itself. With passive CAN capture, the recorder is not asking all the modules for data. It is listening to traffic that is already on the bus. So it does not consume vehicle bus bandwidth in the same way that a scan tool polling hundreds of PIDs would. But your point still applies in a different way.   Even if passive capture does not add bus traffic, the recorder still has limits: - processing rate - storage rate - timestamp accuracy - decoder workload - event filtering - report size - user attention span   So the answer cannot be “log everything and let the user figure it out.” The product would need to store enough raw evidence to be useful, but only decode, graph, and present the important parts around the event.   A practical report should probably show: - what triggered the capture - how much pre/post data was preserved - which selected parameters changed - how those values compared to baseline - whether the same pattern happened before - whether any voltage, reset, bus-off, lost-message, or communication fault occurred - selected graphs around the event - raw data only as supporting evidence   So I agree with you. More data is not automatically better. The real product is the reduction from raw data into a useful event report.
    • That makes sense, and I agree with most of that.   I think the product would need both: 1. a default powertrain template, so it is useful out of the box; 2. user-selected priority parameters, so the owner or shop can choose what they want to see first.   Different users are going to care about different things. One owner may care about oil pressure and voltage. Another may care about misfire trend, AFM/DFM behavior, or U-codes. A shop may want communication events and repeatability first. Your baseline point is probably the most important one. Raw data is not very useful unless the report can show what normal looked like for that vehicle under similar conditions.   The way I would think about it is: - start with a basic known-good baseline - learn normal behavior for that specific vehicle over time - allow the event to be overlaid against baseline - show whether the event was a one-time spike or a repeatable pattern - provide a simple severity level, but with clear limits on what that severity means   For example, early severity could be something like: - Info: event captured, no obvious abnormal pattern - Watch: value moved outside baseline, but not repeated - Warning: repeatable abnormal pattern under similar conditions - Critical: communication loss, voltage drop, bus-off, reset, or severe repeated event   I would not want the first version to say “replace this part.” That would be overclaiming unless there is repair-confirmed data behind it. It would be more honest to say “this pattern deserves inspection.”   On the OBD port question, I think OBD absolutely has a role. OBD is probably the right place for: - DTCs - freeze frame - VIN - calibration information - normal scan-tool parameters - Mode 6 / enhanced diagnostic data if available The reason I am still looking at an ECM-side recorder is that the failure may happen before anyone connects a scan tool. If the owner plugs in a scanner after the event, the pre-event evidence may already be gone unless the ECU happened to save it. So I do not see this as “OBD versus ECM-side.” I see it more like: - ECM-side recorder: always armed, rolling buffer, event evidence - OBD/DLC companion: DTCs, freeze frame, VIN, calibration, normal scan data - phone/cloud: status, notes, upload, report generation, notifications   I agree that phone connection and push notifications would be useful. I just would not want the phone or cloud connection to be required for capture. The recorder should save the event locally even if the phone is not connected. The phone should help with event marking, download, notes, upload, alerts, and report viewing.   For a default GM V8 event report, would this list make sense? - RPM - calculated load / MAP - throttle position - vehicle speed - gear / torque converter state if available - coolant temperature - oil pressure - oil temperature if available - battery voltage - commanded AFM/DFM state if available - actual AFM/DFM state if available - misfire counters / roughness by cylinder if available - fuel trims - relevant U-codes / communication events - bus-off / lost periodic message / module reset / voltage drop events Which of those would you remove, and what would you add?
    • I went to the county a few years back to dispute my property taxes. To do that I hired an appraiser and a lawyer. The County Assessor wished to argue that the homes in my neighborhood the appraiser used were all 'distressed properties" and not representative of the "Market Average".    My response was," Of the 50 homes in our subdivision 43 of them were "distressed properties" under bank foreclosure and as such "Distressed IS the market". Lawyer about choked on his coffee and handed the Assessor the 'receipts'.    I won that case on the evidence provided by the Lawyer and the Appraiser.    We have the same thing going on here. My statements were based on the GOVERNMENTS NATIONAL DATA and yours on local markets in areas of your interest. They are both correct....   Thing is, this divergence was based on NATIONAL and not on LOCAL. I think you even understand that. But like you said, we are both stubborn and hardheaded.    I do not see any advantage to disengagement.  But that said we can step back to compose ourselves. 
    • Trust me I appreciate the comments and concerns. It's what I was looking for to help me evaluate the situation and what I want to do. I have decided to move forward with the BORA hubcentric slip on 3/8" (.375") with the extended lugs nuts. Fedex says they should be here Monday :). Meanwhile, the dealer got the remote start and Patriot spray in bed liner done over the last couple of days. Also, I installed an inline stop/start eliminator today. Starts back up in what whatever mode you shut it off in, so you don't have to hit the button every time you fire up.
  • GM-Trucks.com Clubs

  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...