Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Motor7
Senior Member
Joined: 09 Jan 2019
Location: E. TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
|
Topic: Just completed 4,000 miles...avg of 10mpg Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 4:13pm |
I have pulled a lot of trailers. The 176T is 18' long but it feels like I am pulling something way bigger....like a 30' camper. I have not weighed the rig, but we do not carry a bunch of 'stuff' and ran with about 15 gal in the water tank.
The TV is a 2002 1/2 ton Avalanche 4wd w/5.3 and 373 gears. On the highway w/no trailer we average 17mpg at 70-ish mph. On this trip I was running 65mph and had to be in third gear most of the trip with the tach showing 2500 rpm. The 2002 Avalanche has a tow button, but does not separate 'drive' from 'overdrive'. This means I am either in overdrive or third. I tried riding in OD(@ 1700 RPM) but each overpass or mild hill made a downshift and after a tank of fuel is was only slightly better than 10mpg so I decided to just run in third and give the tranny a break.
Anyway, I have brand new Goodyear Endurance tires on the pod and they have no visible wear on them after this trip. Brakes are not dragging and I checked both sides of the bearings before i left for proper tightness. I'm at a loss as to why I feel like I am dragging a sailboat with a spinnaker deployed behind me....or is this normal fuel mileage at that speed with my set-up?
Many 1/2 ton chevy trucks passed me doing close to 80 pulling larger trailers and I wish I knew their MPG or Tachometer reading. Kinda thinking I should have bought a 3/4 ton Avalanche which has the 8.1 engine and a Allison tranny. This is my second 5.3 over the years and the last one was a 4Dr truck that also sucked when towing anything heavy....it was replaced with a 3500 Duramax 1 Ton which I still have.
|
2016 R-Pod 176T
|
|
furpod
Moderator Group - pHp
Joined: 25 Jul 2011
Location: Central KY
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6128
|
Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 4:58pm |
A gas engine is going to get around 9.5 to 11mpg towing an R-Pod.. as much as they look to be.. they are not very aerodynamic.
It takes X amount of horsepower to push the air out of the way.. regardless of 4/6/8/10 cylinders, turbos, blowers, etc.. it takes X amount of fuel and air to make that horsepower..
Reducing your average speed to 60 will help a little. Those people going faster, if they have gas engines, are getting the same, or poorer MPG then you are. We towed our 31 foot 7000lb Airstream back to back with our R-Pod 177 once.. mileage was the same +/- a couple percent, attributable to actual route and or weather..
Towing our Pod with a 5.4 Expedition, our usual stop and stretch stop is about 3.5 hours from home if headed south to the Smokeys and beyond.. We would take 18-20 gallons. Towing a 6,000lb Lance 2295, with a F 250, 6.2 gas engine, 3.73 gears, we take.. between.. 18 and 20 gallons at that stop. It is what it is.
|
|
jato
Senior Member
Joined: 23 Feb 2012
Location: Kewadin, MI
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3227
|
Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 5:15pm |
We recently upgraded from a 2013 Expedition (3.5 V-6) to a 2011 F-150 (5.0 V-8). We have towed our 2011 177 with 2 different Explorers over the years and averaged 12 mpg. That being said, I have taken 1 trip to the UP of Michigan with our F-150 and got 11 mpg and that was over pretty flat roadways so I feel quite sure that once we go out west in the mountains and cross the plains with all the winds, I expect (or hope) we will average 10, same as what you get. We normally travel at 60 unless traffic dictates otherwise. Traveling to Detroit area this week, a short 500 mile trip, will let you know what we average. September, out west to RMNP in Colorado and then to Utah for 4 - 5 weeks. Again, will give a report upon our return.
|
God's pod
'11 model 177
'17 Ford F-150 4WD 3.5 Ecoboost
Jim and Diane by beautiful Torch Lake
"...and you will know the Truth and the Truth will set you free."
|
|
Motor7
Senior Member
Joined: 09 Jan 2019
Location: E. TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
|
Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 5:23pm |
Thanks for the info...I feel a little better. You are right Furpod, the 'egg' fools some like me into thinking it's pretty aerodynamic. I wonder if some type of airfoil or vortex generator on the trucks roof would make any difference? Need to stick a bunch of surveyor tape all over it and get it into a wind tunnel...lol.
|
2016 R-Pod 176T
|
|
mcarter
podders Helping podders - pHp
Joined: 07 Apr 2016
Location: Greenbrier, TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 3419
|
Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 5:31pm |
I have towed with a 2016 Colorado 3 liter and 2 Silverado 4X4s, a 2006 and a 2014. Both with 5.3s., The 2014 has the V8/V4 option. None of what you described have I experienced. I could tow 80, but why? I keep my tow speed at 65, and I monitor the gas mileage and usage. Without trailers, I'm over 20MPG on the highway. The Colorado doesn't perform as well as the 2014 Chevy, the truck never drops to 10 or 11 and has no issues climbing hills. I agree Pods are not necessarily aerodynamic. But mine is not a heavy load to a good tow vehicle.
|
Mike Carter
2015 178
" I had the right to remain silent, I just didn't have the ability."
|
|
furpod
Moderator Group - pHp
Joined: 25 Jul 2011
Location: Central KY
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6128
|
Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 5:33pm |
Originally posted by Motor7
Thanks for the info...I feel a little better. You are right Furpod, the 'egg' fools some like me into thinking it's pretty aerodynamic. I wonder if some type of airfoil or vortex generator on the trucks roof would make any difference? Need to stick a bunch of surveyor tape all over it and get it into a wind tunnel...lol. |
It's been done.. didn't help. In fact the first production runs didn't have the light bar spoiler. We had a fluid dynamics engineer in the group, he had already run tests of the basic Pod shape.. he found that the "spoiler" actually increased drag.. LOL I no longer have the links to his tests, but wish I had saved them locally.
A couple owners have added a spoiler to the tow vehicle.. no conclusive evidence reported. I know of one owner who pulled a pod with 2 sea kayaks on the truck roof, he DID claim to see a 10% or better increase, over routes he had traveled several times..
|
|
GlueGuy
Senior Member
Joined: 15 May 2017
Location: N. California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2630
|
Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 5:36pm |
Our 2015 F-150 with the 3.5L EcoBoost gets a solid 14 MPG. A little less if we're doing hills, a little more if it's flat and not a big headwind. I watch the real-time MPG as we go up and down, etc. If I go over 60, the mileage goes to heck, but in California, max trailer-pulling speed is 55. So I'm fine with it.
The EcoBoost has power to burn. At 60 MPH we're in top gear and a little over 1500 RPM.
|
bp
2017 R-Pod 179 Hood River
2015 Ford F150 SuperCrew 4WD 3.5L Ecoboost
|
|
Motor7
Senior Member
Joined: 09 Jan 2019
Location: E. TN
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 196
|
Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 6:24pm |
Originally posted by mcarter
I have towed with a 2016 Colorado 3 liter and 2 Silverado 4X4s, a 2006 and a 2014. Both with 5.3s., The 2014 has the V8/V4 option. None of what you described have I experienced. I could tow 80, but why? I keep my tow speed at 65, and I monitor the gas mileage and usage. Without trailers, I'm over 20MPG on the highway. The Colorado doesn't perform as well as the 2014 Chevy, the truck never drops to 10 or 11 and has no issues climbing hills. I agree Pods are not necessarily aerodynamic. But mine is not a heavy load to a good tow vehicle. |
When you say the 2014 has no issues climbing hills, what does that mean? Are you towing in OD? Does it downshift on overpasses? I'm not sure when, but sometime after 2002 Chevy made their trucks to allow the tow button to be in, and take the truck out of OD and put it into Drive. If I could do this I think access to that (hidden)300 rpm would keep it from downshifting a lot.
I don't want to tow at 80 either......I'm good with 65. I felt like I was just out of the torque curve of my truck. I did a little digging and the 5.3 does not peak in torque until 4,000rpm. But, it's around 300lb at 2,000rpm. I will quote a post from GM trucks forum:
" That chart is showing about 300 lb./ft. of torque at 2,000 RPM. If that's true..then why does my truck downshift at every little hill? Why does it tow like crap? My previous vehicle was a Jeep Liberty CRD, and it made 300 lb./ft. at 2,000 RPM and it would never downshift at hills and it towed my trailer like a dream. I'm very confused here.... "
I'm that guy...confused. The Avalanche is on a Surburban frame with Suburban running gear. A long time ago in South Louisiana a co-worker was describing a lack of towing power to his car. He Said "It can't pull a greased string out of a goats arse" and that kinda describes my situation. Oh, the truck can get it done and did, ....but it just was not a relaxing 14 hour day yesterday. Maybe I am just used to the Duramax.....too bad the suspension on that truck will aid in spleen transplant after a day in the saddle.
|
2016 R-Pod 176T
|
|
offgrid
Senior Member
Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290
|
Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 7:57pm |
First a caveat when comparing fuel economy figures. It is very difficult to get an accurate and consistent fuel economy number because very slight changes in wind speed and direction can make a tremendous difference. That is because about 2/3 of the horsepower required towing at 60 is used to overcome drag. Drag goes up with the square of the wind speed and horsepower goes up with the cube of wind speed. Climbing and descending hills makes a big difference as well. Going up and down hills will kill you because you never get all the energy you put in going up when you go back down.
That being said, dead flat, 60 mph, no wind, I get just at 14 mpg towing my 179 with my Highlander. And thats not because the Highlander is a lighter vehicle, the difference in rolling resistance due to that is not very significant and the most of the power goes to overcome drag anyway.
I suspect you are right and are slitting at an unfortunate point on your engines horsepower curve at 65 mph in 4th gear which forces a downshift to 3rd. The additional pumping losses your engine is incurring at the higher rpm are eating into your fuel economy. Try slowing down to 60 or till wherever the truck stays in 4th gear. Pick a no wind day and a flat road, and get your fuel economy number again, see if it goes up to something closer to Glueguy’s and mine. If it does then that was the problem, if not then there might be something else going on with your drivetrain.
|
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
|
|
marwayne
Senior Member
Joined: 25 Oct 2011
Location: Edmonton AB Can
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1002
|
Posted: 12 Aug 2019 at 10:20pm |
Just came back from a 1550 mile trip, 75 % mountain driving, 2016 Tundra, average speed 60 mph, 12.25 mpg.
|
If you want something done right, do it yourself.
2011 RP172, 2016 Tundra 5.7 Litre, Ltd.
|
|