2016 A.R.E CX Canopy- design, mpg issue

Cx weighs in at 130lbs-140lbs. I've had 3 passengers with more weight and haven't had this type of mpg loss.

 

Just went out and measured my DC and it appears that 19.25 to the top of the light curve portion would be the optimal height for a shell. At 21 inches that is indeed dragging in the wind. Did you call ARE and just ask the sales person to walk out and measure the CXs that are coming out of the mold or those prepared to ship. I would think they would be very interested as they have a major issue if these are 21 inches tall instead of around 19.25 - 19.5 (which is almost too much). Post up a side view photo just as she sits now.

 

Pockets - From this angle (which could be misleading) it definitely looks like the upper edge of the canopy sits above the shark fin antenna base. Just for fun, go to the Show Me Your Shell thread, page 202, "Lost Sherpa", number 4032. This photo of a CX from his angle shows that the top of the canopy is definitely lower than the shark fin base - which would be correct. Angles and photos can be in error but it looks different in Sherpa's post.

 

Made me dig for it. Anyway, certainly looks like @pocketsmcaaron's sits higher , at least from the angle of the photo. I really hope they get it sorted out.

 

Thanks Taco, it appears that from pg.202 his shell rests lower than mine. In my first post, I mentioned my previous ARE CX for my 2nd gen worked good and I experienced no loss in Mpg. Camera angles are tricky and are different, but my shell on the top in fact encroaches above the cab's roofline, which creates a parachute effect especially when I go above 50mph. I also noticed I get a lot more rain hitting the front inner window of the canopy, this did not happen nearly as bad on my 2nd gen CX set-up.

ARE's response: "I do apologize you are unhappy with the fit of your recently purchased CX series cap. The area of concern is not a design flaw after carefully reviewing your photos as well as looking at our 2016 Tacoma with a CX cap with my engineering team. We believe your cap is fitting as intended. If we were to match the cap up with the lowest point( at the rear) it would appear almost a "V" shape which would be less aesthetically pleasing, and may be more problematic. If you are truly unhappy with the fit/appearance of your cap you will need to address it and continue to work with your original dealer, since that is your point of purchase."

 

What the hell are they talking about "V" shape? Geez, I'm definitely not buying an ARE shell after I get my truck. Thanks for posting their response. Hopefully the dealer will take care of you.

 

Hopefully tomorrow they will give you the 19.5 inch Overlander...if it turns out to be 21 inches maybe your money back.

Edit: The ARE website has the specification of a height of 20 inches from the base plate. Be interesting to check this.

 

Ok, so dealer pulled the canopy today. My Cx measures 19.5" (not the 21" I tried measuring while it was installed, which I previously indicted it was difficult to measure) same as the V series. I don't know if the front end design is different between the two as they had the V series in front of their lot and pulled mine in their back garage. All I know is I lost between 1.5-2 mpg.
If I placed the rolled foam carpeting between top of canopy & cab my mpg resumed back to normal numbers. I am working with the dealer to request a return of ARE's CX product without exchange as I believe it's a design flaw specific to the front top of their canopy. I would hope that ARE's engineer team takes this return request seriously and looks into re-angling top.
Any current 3rd gen member's with an ARE on their ride, I'd be interested to learn how your mpg's are doing? Any second gen ARE owners, I'd also be interested to find out your measurements from top to bottom of either your CX or V series.
For better or worse, I'd figure I'd let my fellow Tacoma brothers and sisters know my experience.

 

Since I am trying to decide on a canopy I found some Leer's on Gen 2 Tacomas and they sit about the same as Pockets, mainly an inch above the trailing roof line...

 

Should be in for install next week. Will post then.

 

I emailed Snugtop yesterday asking them the height from the base of their canopy. They have not answered yet. If it is anything over 19 inches then on Gen 3s the issue will be the same. I re looked at the ARE brochure and they list the mini as being 20 inches tall.

 

If the height is the same, maybe snugtop's front top angle is different than ARE's? Im going to a snug top dealer on Monday to see if there's a difference. Update: heights same, design though is different.

 

I have the CX as well and my MPG haven't suffered at all... I have read different dealers use different foam seals between the topper and the bed that may cause varying degrees of height.

 

I assume the "V" they are talking about is the rear of the cab coming down and the canopy/topper matching. This seems pretty standard. Pic of my 2nd Gen. 3rd Gen should be similar.

 

Profile.

 

My second gen sat the same way from cab to canopy, Dexter. My 3rd gen did not.

 

Lost, If my CX articulated lower than the base of the attenna, as your picture shows, I wouldn't have had a problem. Unfortunately, the top rested above cab's top ridge-line

 

Maybe they can try a different seal? Seems to me like if it measures the same then there has to be an actual fix.

 

And you think it would since the cab design didn't really change that much. ARE said the V would be unappealing yet that is how the 2nd Gens are.