Mudflaps

[snowjoke]

I've found the sides of my new RAV are getting very muddy from doing no more then just driving down a lane with a few puddles, so I've ordered a set of mudflaps (genuine Toyota, £40 for 4).

Question is, has anyone noticed whether they affect fuel efficiency to a significant degree? They look like they'll create a fair amount of extra aerodynamic drag, especially when going fast on motorways etc. And presumably there's a reason why they're not a standard feature.

[bothwell_buyer]

I've found the sides of my new RAV are getting very muddy from doing no more then just driving down a lane with a few puddles, so I've ordered a set of mudflaps (genuine Toyota, £40 for 4).

Question is, has anyone noticed whether they affect fuel efficiency to a significant degree? They look like they'll create a fair amount of extra aerodynamic drag, especially when going fast on motorways etc. And presumably there's a reason why they're not a standard feature.

Up bright and early today.... been setting fires in an old barn? :lol: ..

I don't think the RAV is all that aerodynamically slick that a set of mudflaps would make so much difference unless you intend to para-glide along the lanes. The 4.1 model is often likened to a brick, and the newer models aren't that much better. The advantage of course is to keep the stones from chipping the bodywork, and to minimise the sludge getting fired onto the bodywork.

With 'off-roaders' the trend was not to fit mudflaps as they get tangled with the ground when transversing ruts and so on. With landrovers, the extra weight of the mudflap reduces the top speed by 8mph.

In the very early days, the basic model was basic, and there were loads of extras one could buy to enhance the look. Mudflaps were, I think, one of these. Just be careful reversing up high kerbs!!

[xenodrew]

Question is, has anyone noticed whether they affect fuel efficiency to a significant degree? They look like they'll create a fair amount of extra aerodynamic drag, especially when going fast on motorways etc. And presumably there's a reason why they're not a standard feature.

I have to ask . . . How big are your mudflaps?

[snowjoke]

Up bright and early today.... been setting fires in an old barn? :lol: ..

Actually hadn't been to bed - playing poker at the casino and losing the price of a pair of tyres! I made it £10 to go with a pair of Queens, someone else goes all-in for £25, then another player raises me a fitted tyre with AJ. I call all-in and he flops an Ace. :censor:

I don't think the RAV is all that aerodynamically slick that a set of mudflaps would make so much difference unless you intend to para-glide along the lanes. The 4.1 model is often likened to a brick, and the newer models aren't that much better. The advantage of course is to keep the stones from chipping the bodywork, and to minimise the sludge getting fired onto the bodywork.

With 'off-roaders' the trend was not to fit mudflaps as they get tangled with the ground when transversing ruts and so on. With landrovers, the extra weight of the mudflap reduces the top speed by 8mph.

In the very early days, the basic model was basic, and there were loads of extras one could buy to enhance the look. Mudflaps were, I think, one of these. Just be careful reversing up high kerbs!!

OK, nothing to worry about except kerbs. Thanks!

Question is, has anyone noticed whether they affect fuel efficiency to a significant degree? They look like they'll create a fair amount of extra aerodynamic drag, especially when going fast on motorways etc. And presumably there's a reason why they're not a standard feature.

I have to ask . . . How big are your mudflaps?

To be honest, not sure - they haven't arrived yet. Maybe I'm worrying about nothing.

[bothwell_buyer]

Up bright and early today.... been setting fires in an old barn? :lol: ..

Actually hadn't been to bed - playing poker at the casino and losing the price of a pair of tyres! I made it £10 to go with a pair of Queens, someone else goes all-in for £25, then another player raises me a fitted tyre with AJ. I call all-in and he flops an Ace. :censor:

I don't think the RAV is all that aerodynamically slick that a set of mudflaps would make so much difference unless you intend to para-glide along the lanes. The 4.1 model is often likened to a brick, and the newer models aren't that much better. The advantage of course is to keep the stones from chipping the bodywork, and to minimise the sludge getting fired onto the bodywork.

With 'off-roaders' the trend was not to fit mudflaps as they get tangled with the ground when transversing ruts and so on. With landrovers, the extra weight of the mudflap reduces the top speed by 8mph.

In the very early days, the basic model was basic, and there were loads of extras one could buy to enhance the look. Mudflaps were, I think, one of these. Just be careful reversing up high kerbs!!

OK, nothing to worry about except kerbs. Thanks!

Question is, has anyone noticed whether they affect fuel efficiency to a significant degree? They look like they'll create a fair amount of extra aerodynamic drag, especially when going fast on motorways etc. And presumably there's a reason why they're not a standard feature.

I have to ask . . . How big are your mudflaps?

To be honest, not sure - they haven't arrived yet. Maybe I'm worrying about nothing.

stick tae yer poker - yer obviously crap at that as well :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2: :lol2:

If yer ever aroon when ahm aboot, ye can try a drive at number 1 RAV. Mudflaps are the least o yer worries!!