Let's talk MPGs - R-pod Owners Forum

Author

Share Topic

Topic Search

Topic Options

olphart

Newbie

Joined: 01 Aug 2010
Location: Ontario, Canada
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4

Topic: Let's talk MPGs
Posted: 05 Oct 2010 at 7:16am

The thing that made my decision to opt for a Toyota Sienna over the Durango that I nearly bought, was the realization that I'm not pulling my pod all the time. So, while getting the same mpg as most, I average in the high twenties, (28 - 29), most of the time, plus the Sienna has little trouble with the 171

James & Nancy
Rpod 171 "Launch Pod"
04 Sienna LE

Guests

Guest Group

Posted: 02 Oct 2010 at 6:54am

To sum up (and bail out on this subject) I think the following can be said about fuel milage/TVs:

1. If you want to get great mpgs on your camping experiences - buy a Prius or Civic and throw a pup tent in the back.

2. If want camp in a Pod (or any 18-20' TT), you'll need to have something with a tow cap. in excess of 3000lbs.

3. If you choose option 2 (above), most any vehicle you choose (in this class) will get about 10-12mpg towing and 20-ish when not towing. Forget mpgs (they are all about the same) - think performance. What kind of traveling experience to you want?

4. I have intentionally avoided diesels, as I feel they are in a whole nuther class of TV. Also, I don't know if I spell the word "diesel" corrrectly. It is "i" before "e" except in Budweiser...isn't it? This could be the topic of another thread; 24 hours in a day, 24 bottles in case.....coincidence or by design?

5. Some debate topics will rage on forever; Ford or Chevy, sweet or unsweetened tea, Ginger or Mary Ann? It comes down to personal situations/preferences. Does anyone know if they show "Gilligan's Island" on Hulu?

Till next time.......

PS - The answer is Mary Ann!

Guests

Guest Group

Posted: 01 Oct 2010 at 4:28pm

Originally posted by cane2

I pulled my 177 up to Lake Superior last week and i filled the tank up just before going down Duluth hill and i had to drive 45 mph cause of construction for 20 miles then another 35 miles of since drive. I got 16.3 on that drive but before i got 12.9 driving 58 mph at 2500 rpm with a 3.8 Tc with a 20 mph tail wind. I believe that speed is the most important factor unless you are in mountains. I agree with Dixie's buddy. Problem is that at 45 mph on regular roads you will not make a lot of friends.

Thanks to you also, cane2! I had a simlar experience comming back from the Rocky's last year. On one tankful thru Illinois (flat) I got 17mpg doing about 65mph. I had a contant brisk tail wind of (est.) of 20-30 mph. The air "acted" as though I was only driving about 35-45mph. The air was not "pushing" me, as I was still outrunning it by the above numbers.

The Pod seems to act very well below 50mph. Something about the areo above that speed just ruins any advantage of the lighter weight. If FR could come up with a solution for this (maybe push that "critical speed" up to 70mph)....if they think they're selling a lot of Pods now...look out! There would be mobs of eager buyers pushing and shoving their way into the dealers to buy a fully equipped TT that gets 15-17mpg and gets , at least, reasonable performance with a smaller TV. I really believe aero is the problem and it will take an aero solution. Your mpg and rpms (V6-yes?) sounds completely in line with my theory (small engine, bigger engine, bigger(still) engine. Again, thanks.

PS - More than one person showed me that I was "number 1" when I was strggling to do 50mph on a 75mph highway!

cane2

Groupie

Joined: 06 Dec 2009
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 92

Posted: 01 Oct 2010 at 3:16pm

I pulled my 177 up to Lake Superior last week and i filled the tank up just before going down Duluth hill and i had to drive 45 mph cause of construction for 20 miles then another 35 miles of since drive. I got 16.3 on that drive but before i got 12.9 driving 58 mph at 2500 rpm with a 3.8 Tc with a 20 mph tail wind. I believe that speed is the most important factor unless you are in mountains. I agree with Dixie's buddy. Problem is that at 45 mph on regular roads you will not make a lot of friends.

Guests

Guest Group

Posted: 01 Oct 2010 at 2:20pm

Thanks for saying and affirming what I am trying to convey. The size of the TV/engine really doens't matter (within reason) - if all a person looks at is miles per gallon. There seems to be no advantage to having a small TV. However, with the larger TV/ engine, you gain a lot of performance. A small TV operates at or near it's capacity. The large TV can handle challenges (hills, wind, etc) with ease, but milage will likely drop somewhat below the 10-12mpg that seems to be what most get, when using the extra performance.

Don't go out and buy a large engine thinking it will get better mpg while towing. The reason to buy the larger tow vehicle is because you want better performance, towing ease & safety, and longevity of the life of the engine and drivetrain.

Conversely, don't buy a small TV thinking it will save money. It will be straining it's guts out trying to get the load down the road, keep up with traffic and, road/wind challenges.

I may be burned at the stake for saying this but, the Pod is an 18' travel trailer and it "pulls" just about like any other 18' travel trailer. The lightweight advantage seems to be negated by aero forces above 50mph. As long as persons understand this and make an informed decision based on it, this is good.

rpodcamper.com View Drop Down

Admin Group - pHp

Joined: 26 Nov 2009
Location: Reading, Pa
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3990

Posted: 01 Oct 2010 at 9:33am

I have towed the R-pod with 5 different vehicles in the last year and half and found many different things. The one item that seemed to stay the same was the average MPG on the trailer. The differences was how hard the engine worked to get me there. I have pulled with a Jeep Liberty (6cyl), Chevy Trailblazer (6cyl), Ford Ranger (4cyl – 5 Speed Manual), Dodge Dakota (6cyl) and now a Dodge Ram 1500 (8cyl). All of them could tow it according to weight but some just worked harder. Only reason for switching so many times was jeep was totaled, Trailblazer engine keeps popping a fan clutch (4 in the last year but replaced under warranty), Ranger Traded in for Dodge Ram, and the Dakota was a test to see how it pulled but then found a great Ram.

The Rpod is a light-weight Trailer that many vehicles can pull but you still have the weight to move. I'm not too worried about the MPG I get as I look at what I have and where I can go with it. Much cheaper to travel with the R-pod than staying in hotels and eating out all the time.

techntrek

Admin Group - pHp

Joined: 29 Jul 2009
Location: MD
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 9059

Posted: 01 Oct 2010 at 9:01am

Originally posted by David

It says I get 79F. This seems to be about average; sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. In the winter, this number is much lower.

Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ Pod instruction manual

Guests

Guest Group

Posted: 30 Sep 2010 at 5:10pm

Just for the halibut (though I don't know why people do things for a fish species, but I frequently hear people saying that they doing something for the halibut, so I guess I will too) I decided to reset the onboard computer this morning and get a reading of an average mpg of my daily commute.

Sorry for the blurry picture. It says I get 79F. This seems to be about average; sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. In the winter, this number is much lower. The other number, 20.8, seems to be about average too. This represents about half driving on county roads and half on a busy six lane city street with frequent stop lights.

A little more real world experience....new TVs are not inexpensive. My checkbook is still howling in agony!

The smaller tow vehicle will do the job (I towed my Pod to the Rocky Mts. & back with a 4 cyl) and Lee's hints/tips/stratigies would undoubtedly help. MPG wise, do the math and come to your own conclusion.

Guests

Guest Group

Posted: 29 Sep 2010 at 7:49pm

Let me add to my own post.

It takes a certain amount of energy (fuel/gas) to move a given load (weight/wind resistance, etc.) over a given distance (miles). Since we are talking about the same load (Rpod) and the same distance (a mile is a mile) is will take roughly the same amount of energy to move it. I would find it remarkable if there were a large variance in mpg in the different tow vehicles.

When comparing the small vs larger TV, I can think of this example:

Imagine you are out of gas and need to push your 3000lbs truck one mile down the road to the gas station. Let's say you do it yourself and you burn 1000 calories doing so. But, what if I were to show up, see your predicament, and help you push it one mile to the gas station. That would be much easier! However, the same amount of energy is still required to travel the mile and the 1000 calories (same total amount of energy) is still burned (3000lbs over one mile). The difference is you burned 500, as did I.

Does that help?

Guests

Guest Group

Posted: 29 Sep 2010 at 5:40pm

Originally posted by Butterfly_Lee

Originally posted by Outbound

Agreed; what's amazing to me is that the mpg's all seem to be about the same, regardless of t.v. engine size (5.3L,4.8 l, 3.8L, etc.).

Don't forget, MPGs can be deceptive when they're low. For example, if one person gets 10 MPG while towing and another gets 12 MPG, the second person gets 20% better gas mileage.

Ok, So I have a 2.4L engine I get about 10 to 12 (twelve is flat land no wind), I have a 50% drop in gas milage when towing. Which means I'm no better off with the smaller truck then the bigger TV other than I get 20-22 when not towing.

Lee

Lee - In a word...yes IMHO. Last year I towed my RP173 with a 2008 GMC Cannyon 2.9L 4cyl. I got 11mpg 99% of the time. I typically drove at 60-65mph and the engine rpms were about 32-3300. With the TV I have now 5.3L V8 I was getting about 11-12 mpg towing the Pod - though I admit I didn't tow it much with the new truck. However, my engine rpms are roughly half (about 17-1800). Though the engine was smaller in the GMC, it was "working" twice as hard - turning nearly twice the rpms. This is why the mpg is about the same in either scenario. The 4 cyl were "firing" twice as often. By the way, I got about 24mpg (non-highway) when not towing with the Canyon and 28mpg highway.

My 5.3L gets about 20+ mpg, with a personal best of 21.7 mpg under the same circumstances as when the Canyon was getting 24. (I'll be happy to take a picture of the dashboard computer if anyone doubts.) Also, it has the horsepower and torque to pull the camper, uphill, with a headwind and the A/C on...no problem. In turning half the rpms, the V8 is likely to "live" longer, too.

I tried the small TV scenario and didn't like it and I didn't see where I gained squat! (Sorry, I call 'em like I see 'em). The mpg is about the same either way - in my experience.

Please understand that I am not "bragging", promoting any particular tow vehicle, or intend to be unduly harsh. This is my "real world" experience and opinion. I hope you take it with however many grains of salt you deem well and good.