Gas Mileage
Printed From: R-pod Owners Forum
Category: R-pod Discussion Forums
Forum Name: Podmods, Maintenance, Tips and Tricks
Forum Discription: Ask maintenance questions, share your podmods (modifications) and helpful tips
URL: http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1347
Printed Date: 24 Jun 2025 at 6:24am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.64 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Gas Mileage
Posted By: brownd
Subject: Gas Mileage
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2010 at 12:55pm
|
I purchased my R Pod 171 4 weeks ago. Overall I am very happy with everything except the mileage I get towing it. Before the Rpod I had a Jayco popup and got 17-18 mpg. Towing nothing I easily get 22 mpg. Due to the specs of the R.Pod, I figured I would get maybe at the worst 15. Actual mileage on 2 trips in areas of some but not a lot of hills was 11-12 mpg. My vehicle is a 2009 Jeep Grand Cherokee with trailer tow package and the 3.7 liter six. I did as the car manual said and auto shifted into 4th instead of drive to ensure that the overdrive did not try to kick in. The car stayed in 3rd almost the entire trip, would not shift into 4th except on dead level pavement with no wind or downhill and my RPMs were 2800 at 55 mph. The Jeep is rated to pull 3500 pounds on a trailer with a frontal area of 40 sq ft. The R.Pod is well under the 3500 pounds with my added gear and options and according to Forest River the frontal area is between 12 and 25 sq ft. I have read all of the miles per gallon posts on this site and the R.Pod Nation user group site and most six cylinder engines are getting about the same as me. The most interesting posts somewhere on this site were the ones that seemed to show through computer simulation that there may be quite a vacuum forming behind the Pod that really hurts performance and mileage. My questions are as follows: Has anyone actually used air deflectors or foils on their vehicle or on the R.Pod and if so, did they help performance or mileage? Has anyone successfully tried any other devices or techniques to improve performance or mileage? Thanks ------------- Dave |
Replies:
Posted By: popgoesweasel
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2010 at 7:10pm
|
The 173T has a small air dam on the back that was put there to ameliorate the vacuum problem. ------------- R171 2010 Frontier 2009 Site 40 Eastern Rally 2010 |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 27 Jul 2010 at 8:14pm
|
Welcome brownd!
popgoesweasel, do you have a pic of the air dam? Haven't seen it yet. ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual 
|
Posted By: popgoesweasel
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2010 at 11:29am
|
I saw it on a 173T at the KY roundup in June but did not take a picture of it. Here are some links from googling rpod 173t photo Notice the air dam at the top of the popout. http://s862.photobucket.com/albums/ab186/dcscudder/r-pod%20camping%20trailer%20173T/r-pod%20camping%20trailer%20173T/?action=view¤t=IMG_0644-1.jpg - http://s862.photobucket.com/albums/ab186/dcscudder/r-pod%20camping%20trailer%20173T/r-pod%20camping%20trailer%20173T/?action=view¤t=IMG_0644-1.jpg http://s862.photobucket.com/albums/ab186/dcscudder/r-pod%20camping%20trailer%20173T/ - http://s862.photobucket.com/albums/ab186/dcscudder/r-pod%20camping%20trailer%20173T/ http://www.rvtraderonline.com/find/listing/2010-FOREST-RIVER-RV-R-POD-RP-173T-96303917 - http://www.rvtraderonline.com/find/listing/2010-FOREST-RIVER-RV-R-POD-RP-173T-96303917 ------------- R171 2010 Frontier 2009 Site 40 Eastern Rally 2010 |
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2010 at 12:17pm
|
Thanks for the replies. The little airdam shows up real good in your first link. It would be worth a call to forest river to see if mileage and handling is why they put it there or if it is to deflect rain when the extra bed is set up. It looks like it is on the 2011 and not the 2010, but I can't be sure. Does anyone out there have the 2011 with that little air dam and does it seem to get better than 10-11 mpg when pulling with a moderate size v6. I sent them an email with a couple of questions and the one about mileage they refered to an engineer and they have not gotten back with me yet.
I am still interested in hearing from the folks who wrote all the earlier posts that did the computer generated airflow tests to see if they ever had any luck or ever tried their air deflectors or not and if they made a difference.
Thanks
Dave
------------- Dave |
Posted By: popgoesweasel
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2010 at 4:43pm
|
I had asked the FR engineer the question about air flow at the roundup. He was the one who pointed me to the airdam on the 173T as their first attempt to reduce the vacuum drag on the rpods. ------------- R171 2010 Frontier 2009 Site 40 Eastern Rally 2010 |
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2010 at 5:26pm
|
Thanks,
That is good news that they are working on it and recognize it as a problem on such a light trailer. I hope it works and they can make an after market one for those of us who don't have one built on. As one of the individuals who did the computer airflow tests said it is as though at 55 mph the breaks go on. ------------- Dave |
Posted By: popgoesweasel
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2010 at 7:19pm
|
Dave, With the Tacoma set for towing ie with overdrive turned off on the gear selector, we got an average of 13 mpg on the recent trip to the roundup from FL to KY and back. Our non tow milage is double that. We really like the Tacoma. Its V6 is more powerful than the V8 that I had in a couple of 60's 'vettes back in the day. Our TV is the basic non 4x4 model. ------------- R171 2010 Frontier 2009 Site 40 Eastern Rally 2010 |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 28 Jul 2010 at 8:52pm
|
Which matches what most of us find out on the highway. Interesting that wind models show that too. I might have to rivet on a big-rig air dam above the rear window! ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: TIDALWAVE
Date Posted: 29 Jul 2010 at 11:46am
|
After towing the Pod with my 2010 Chevy 1500 Pickup (V8 6-speed auto trans) for about 1,000 miles I have found that I average 13-14 mpg in non-Tow Haul and 8-11 mpg with Tow Haul. The Tow Haul acts like the 'overdrive off' command on my Jeep Liberty. I average between 17 to 23 mpg when not towing. I was suprised that my mileage on the new pickup was only about 1-2 mpg better than with the 3.7L V6 Jeep! My dealer suggested that I buy the 2500 model with turbo-diesel for much better mileage but the price difference was more than $8,000. 8K will buy a lot of regular gas so I went with the gas engine. I am also wondering about the effect of an retro-fit airfoil for the Pod for mileage. I suspect that Forest River re-inforced the rear of the new 2011 Pods if they are putting foils on at the factory. I wouldn't want to install a foil on my Pod and have it pull the rear wall apart. ------------- TIDALWAVE |
Posted By: Outbound
Date Posted: 29 Jul 2010 at 9:51pm
|
When I did the airflow analysis last year, positioning a spoiler at the top/rear of the r-pod seemed to have the best effect for moving the disturbance away from the trailer. Baseline (no spoiler): [TUBE]4HLBy-ui_FI[/TUBE] Top/Rear of r-pod: [TUBE]3_qVNtlB1DE[/TUBE]
|
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2010 at 8:08am
|
Thanks for including your work on the computer generated foil. It is interesting that the air dam refered to in the comment about the 173t is in exactly the same spot that you recommended in your analysis. It is also interesting in the post preceding yours that the individual with the Chevy pickup with a v8, six speed transmission and the chevy truck tow package indicates that the r.pod really affects his performance too. I thought it was primairly on medium size sixes like my grand cherokee. Yesterday I emailed Forest River again because the engineer had not responded to my 1st email. asking about the dam on the 173t and if they put it on there for improved performance or to insure no leaks where the bed hinges open. Also made it clear that I am not upset with the rpod, but would sure love to hear about anything that might improve performance and mileage we are all geting and that if they developed an aftermarked device that worked it should sell pretty good.
Anyway, thanks for the posting of your work on the airflow, it really depicts what seems to be going on.
Still looking for a response from someone who either has the 2011 173t with the airdam and what their tow vehicle is and how it performs relative to miles/gallon and towing ease.
Also anyone who has tried any type of aftermarket dam on their vehicle or pod.
Thanks
------------- Dave |
Posted By: pod-head
Date Posted: 30 Jul 2010 at 10:05pm
|
Something to keep in mind: The drag of an object (truck w/ rpod) scales as the square of the velocity (v^2), meaning the drag increase between 30mph and 60 mph is not double, but 4X. The power required to overcome this extra drag scales at the cube of the velocity (v^3). This means that the extra power required in the case above is 9X. Slow and steady wins the race. ------------- =========================== '10 RP177 towed with '10 Tundra D and T, and sometimes Nala the cat |
Posted By: ToddsPod
Date Posted: 14 Aug 2010 at 5:27pm
|
For anyone who's wondering what airfoil they're talking about, here's a pic.
 -------------  
'07 Dodge RAM 1500 ST Longbed QuadCab 4.7L V8 --- '10 Forest River R-Pod 172 |
Posted By: popgoesweasel
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2010 at 11:58am
|
Great close up photo. Much better than the one that I found previously. We pull our unit at about 55mph due to the drag and get mileage of about 13mpg. ------------- R171 2010 Frontier 2009 Site 40 Eastern Rally 2010 |
Posted By: TIDALWAVE
Date Posted: 15 Aug 2010 at 3:03pm
|
I second the request about whether or not anyone has installed an aftermarket spoiler to the back of their Pod. It appears from OUTBOUND's airflow studies and FR's addition of a spoiler to the 173t, that there is a need for a spoiler on our Pods! If anyone still has the photos of the 'factory trip' a member took a few months ago, which had the aluminum ribs exposed...it should be possible to anchor a spoiler across the back of the Pod, without going all the way through the rear wall. ------------- TIDALWAVE |
Posted By: Rog-Pod-ge
Date Posted: 16 Aug 2010 at 5:05pm
|
We just purchased a 177 and were surprised and disappointed at the fuel consmption it commanded. We have a V8 Touareg and towing our 17 1/2" outboard with a 115 HP motor we pulled almost 15 mpg on a trip to Canada and the rig weighs in very close to the Pod. Coming back from Michigan with the POD, we were running less than 10 mpg. I double checked tire pressures on both units and they were both at or near max psi recommended. Sure the Pod is much taller but that was a big mileage hit. On the converse, the V8 still allowed me to pass when I needed to. I'd e interested to see or hear from others. I'd happily drive somewhat slower but even when I did I did not see a bid difference in mpg. ------------- Rog Podge |
Posted By: popgoesweasel
Date Posted: 16 Aug 2010 at 7:03pm
|
Define slower. We find that 55 is the max speed to keep the mileage from falling off the cliff. ------------- R171 2010 Frontier 2009 Site 40 Eastern Rally 2010 |
Posted By: ToddsPod
Date Posted: 16 Aug 2010 at 7:16pm
Unfortunately, the photos posted by Sandpiper on Rpod Nation don't include any of the roof construction, just the base, interior and sidewalls. I'm not sure if they have any more pictures that might include shots of the roof structure. It's definitely worth investigating. For anyone interested in the pictures of naked r-pods, look no further:
http://www.rpodnation.com/r-pod-plant-tour_topic1313.html?KW=plant+tour - http://www.rpodnation.com/r-pod-plant-tour_topic1313.html?KW=plant+tour -------------
'07 Dodge RAM 1500 ST Longbed QuadCab 4.7L V8 --- '10 Forest River R-Pod 172 |
Posted By: KSinclair
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2010 at 12:13am
There is a picture of a 2010 173T at Giant RV in Murietta, CA that has the airdam. |
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2010 at 3:41pm
|
We just returned from a trip to the Upper Peninsula of Mi. Aside from the gas mileage, the camping was great. After all of the responses I heard from each of you it appeared that the only cure for 11 mpg would be slower speed. My 1st trip I was trying to keep speed at 55 to 60. I decided for this current entire trip to try 50 mph pulling my Rpod 171 with my 2009 six cylinder Grand Cherokee. I averaged 12.4 heading east with no wind and moderate hills. Coming back the same way but with about a 15 mph headwind I averaged 11.3 mpg. To sum that up, speed made very little difference. I had made one other trip on a hilly and curvy road where speed could be no more than 45 and I averaged 13.2 mpg. Somewhere between 45 and 50 the wind takes over. Transmission was left in 4th gear on the 5 speed automatic to ensure overdrive would not kick in and out. The transmission spent a fair amount of time in 4th at 1900 rpm with no wind but against the wind or up hills it was in 3rd at about 2500 rpm. At 50 mph you sure can build a line of traffic behind you. Got to pull over occasionally. I sent a 2nd email to Forest River Customer service about the possibility of the Air deflector also asking them for confirmation they were experimenting on the 173. So far they have not returned the request. I am going to forward this link to them. Questions: Rog-Pod-Ge: What was your speed. I am still very surprised that many v8s are also having difficulty pulling the rpod relative to mileage? Popgoesweasel: What automobile and engine configuration are you pulling your 173 with? Also hilly or flatland? Thanks for all the responses, maybe someone will come up with a solution or maybe after gas goes back up to 4.00/gal we’ll do like the guys pulling the big rigs. Stop camping. That would be too bad. ------------- Dave |
Posted By: popgoesweasel
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2010 at 8:50pm
|
brownd, We have a 171. I talked to the Forest River engineer at the eastern rally in Kentucky in June. He confirmed that the device installed on the 173T was to reduce drag. We have a Frontier V6 two wheel drive standard setup. We travel between 55-60. The trip to the rally was from Florida up through Georgia into Tennessee and then Kentucky. Almost all the travel was on interstates with the overdrive lockout switch engaged on the trannie to prevent the constant shifting between fourth and overdrive. We had MPG's between fill ups that were all in the low teens with an average of about 13 mpg. This is about half of the regular highway mileage without the pod for this vehicle. The peak torque on the 09 is 281 lb-ff @ 4000 rpm and the maximum horsepower is 261 @ 5600 rpm. Most of the time we had the engine running in the 2000's. Torque really falls off quickly in the low 2000's on this engine. This engine is better than the ones in some vettes that I had in the 60's and they had to have super grade gasoline. ------------- R171 2010 Frontier 2009 Site 40 Eastern Rally 2010 |
Posted By: Outbound
Date Posted: 17 Aug 2010 at 9:26pm
I've found that as gas prices rise that the guys with the big rigs start looking for seasonal sites. BTW: gasoline 'round here is 99.9 cents per litre, which would be $3.78 / us gallon and has been at least that for two years. I haven't noticed a drop in the number of people towing on the highways or in the campgrounds. Frankly, I don't think that there's a solution to this problem that will have much of an impact on gas mileage. I suspect 0.5 to maybe 1.0 extra miles per gallon at the most would come from a spoiler. The problem is the wind resistance: its like pulling a barn door down the highway, and there's not much that can be done about that.
------------- Craig :: 2009 RP171 towed by a 2017 F150 |
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2010 at 3:30pm
|
Outbound, you are probably right that big increases in mileage are not to be found with spoilers but I would at least like to do better than my snowmobile which does about 13 mpg. This was my first experience with a small travel trailer and I guess I expected it to be fairly similar to the popup that I traded up from to this. Obviously it was much lower profile. I think it would still be of value to keep this thread alive, number 1 so that those researching this unit or other small travel trailers won't be quite so surprised and who knows someone might come up with something. It would be nice if it were Forest Wood with a retrofit should the 173 spoiler work at all. ------------- Dave |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2010 at 4:01pm
|
I did send these questions off to my contact @ FR. I'll let you know if I hear back. ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2010 at 9:33pm
|
Thanks, we will be waiting for any responce from Forest Wood. ------------- Dave |
Posted By: Butterfly_Lee
Date Posted: 18 Aug 2010 at 10:48pm
|
Couple of questions. 1. According to the models does the spare tire have any effect (with or without) on the turbulence in the back, (i.e. would moving the spare tire help) . What happens when you put a bike rack or carrier in the back. 2. So far I've only seen the model with an SUV, does it make a difference with an open bed pickup, or would a slanted (up) cab over the bed help with airflow. Here's where I'm going, slanted cab deflecting airflow up and over the pod, and moving the spare tire to tongue or elsewhere. Would we gain any smoother airflow, which should translate into better MPG. Just my two cents Lee  ------------- Still a work in progress, lots of pictures. http://podterfly.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: David and Danette
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2010 at 9:11am
|
Butterfly Lee I thought about the same question does moving the spare tire to the front make a difference with air flow. We moved the spare tire to the front but we also changed tow vehicles at the same time, so I don"t know if it made a difference with the MPG. But it seems to make since that it may help with the air flow. David and Danette ------------- 2018 Vista Cruiser 19BFD (2018- 2012 Vibe 6503 (2014-2019) 2009 r-pod 171 (2009-2014) Middle Tn 2014 Ram 1500 Quad cab |
Posted By: TIDALWAVE
Date Posted: 19 Aug 2010 at 8:02pm
|
For the last two months I have been towing my Pod with a 2010 Chevy Pickup with a V8 engine and auto transmission. Because I have room in the pickup bed and carry a bike, I frequently tow the Pod with the spare in the truck. I have found no change in the mpg whether or not the spare is on the Pod or the bike replaces the spare. I get about 11-12 mpg using 'tow haul' (no overdrive) and gain about 1 to 2 mpg shutting off tow haul (with overdrive). ------------- TIDALWAVE |
Posted By: TIDALWAVE
Date Posted: 21 Aug 2010 at 9:01pm
|
I just came back from a camping trip and encountered an "A-Liner' owner who hauls the largest version. His A-Liner weighs significantly more than my Pod but is able to lower the 'walls/top' like a tent camper. He also pulls his A-Liner with a Chevy pickup identical to mine in engine and transmission. He gets about 14-17mpg. Which is about 30% better mileage than what I have been getting. It seems that pulling anything higher than your tow vehicle really cuts the mileage! ------------- TIDALWAVE |
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 23 Aug 2010 at 10:59am
|
Tidalwave,
I guess your last posting says it all. It is wind resistance and not weight that is preventing decent performance and reasonable mileage on 6 cylinder engines and for v8s you get the performance but mileage is still bad even at slower speeds. My experience with the Jayco popup as I stated when I opened this discussion was 17 mpg with no problem. As Outbound said earlier we are towing a barndoor (a pretty comfortable one when you get to camp) down the road.
It sure would be nice to hear from someone who has tried a spoiler of some sort or the 173t that already has an experimental spoiler from the factory. ------------- Dave |
Posted By: rpodcamper.com
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2010 at 12:01am
OK I had a strange one that I found out by mistake. I went to Codurus State Park which is about 80 miles from my home with the kayaks on the roof. I had just thrown them up their in a hast and did not notice that the front was closer together than the back (basically making a large V). I averaged 13.1 miles to the gallon from the computer in the car. I then like a stooge fixed the kayaks to make them straight for the ride home and the computer showed 11.2 miles to the gallon (but no wind noise from them).  |
Posted By: Butterfly_Lee
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2010 at 12:43am
|
Were you getting wind noise when boats were in the shape of a V? You need to run that image on the airflow model. Looks like that v-shape was high enough to deflect the front shape of the POD, is it physically wider and higher? If nothing else it appears it would deflect about 80 percent of the front airflow. Interesting. Lee ------------- Still a work in progress, lots of pictures. http://podterfly.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2010 at 7:36am
|
Yes it would be interesting to see what a the computer model says, but the best test is if the loading of the kayaks can be reproduced with the same results of around 13 mpg. If so then it appears that a spoiler/air diflector on the car would do some good. Thanks for the observation. ------------- Dave |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2010 at 8:58am
|
Did you have an overall increase or decrease in altitude between home and Codorus? That slight difference could be explained if you lost/gained several hundred feet in either direction. ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2010 at 8:59am
|
Good afternoon Doug I just got back into town from a week long road trip. The spoiler design came from the people that make our fiberglass rear cap. It was not intended to be a spoiler, they came up with the design strictly for cosmetic purposes. It was never intended to be a spoiler. We're not sure if there is any improvement with the spoiler. Do you think if we were to develop a rear spoiler it would be beneficial??? and what do you think about us developing an after market rear spoiler?? We haven't looked into it, but what are your thoughts. Please let me know and hope this helps,
Based on the posts from the link, I think you would have a market for one *if* you can demonstrate that it would lower drag in real-world tests. The computer simulations (also on that thread) show a high disturbance area on the tail area which would explain why so many of us feel a sharp drop off in available power above 50 mph. I think the appearance of a spoiler on the back would complement the existing curves, maybe make it look “sporty”, so it shouldn’t be a problem for those of us that bought it because it is so different. I’ll pass on your questions to the forum to get more input. ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: Butterfly_Lee
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2010 at 10:41am
|
I would be very interested in an after market spoiler. An added plus would be a channel for the water the runs down from the A/C. Plus with less turbulance in the back would there tow be easier? So in theory..back spoiler = plus 2.5 mpg and front wedge = plus 2.5 mpg
5 mpg gain over 1000 mile trip = 50 miles = 3.33 gallons saved at $3.00 per gal = $9.99 SAVED
So lets say we plan travel 50,000 for the life of the POD, which is 499.50 dollars in fuel cost saved. With all the additions, which cost how much?.
Check my Math, I'm looking a cost effectiveness.
Lee
 ------------- Still a work in progress, lots of pictures. http://podterfly.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2010 at 12:57pm
|
This had been edited, someone pointed out an error in my math. Changes are bolded.
1000 miles/10 mpg = 100 gallons used
1000 miles/15 mpg = 66.6 gallons used... 33.3 saved from 10 to 15 mpg, or $100 saved @ $3 per gallon
1000 miles/20 mpg = 50 gallons used... 16.6 saved from 15 to 20 mpg, or $50 saved @ $3 per gallon
So it looks like there is an increasing return depending on where you start. In my case, using only a 'pod spoiler, I would go from 12 mpg to 14.5 mpg:
1000 miles/12 mpg = 83.3 gallons used
1000 miles/14.5 mpg = 69 gallons used
14.3 gallons saved, $43 saved over every 1000 miles.
However, I'm much more interested in getting some power back at highway speeds for uphill climbs and passing. I always had lots of extra "umph" pulling my popup even though it was many hundreds of pounds heavier than the 'pod. Passing a semi on an uphill climb was no problem, now I'm getting passed by the semis. ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2010 at 2:43pm
|
I was going to respond to the 1st set of math being too low but I see techntrek has already done that. If one extrapolates his $43 dollars saved each 1000 miles at 2.5 mpg improvement then take the 50000 mile potential lifetime of the pod and multiply his $43 /1000 miles saved times 50 and that is $2150 over the lifetime of the pod. 5 mpg would double that. That is not too bad.
I second his opinion that the power regained from less drag on the vehicle should both lengthen the life of our transmissions, especially on six cylinder suv's, and allow us to travel with ease at 55 or maybe even 65 mph. Right now my jeep is struggeling a good deal of the time at 55 in 3rd gear and 2300 rpm or more. At 50 as I stated above the line of traffic behind is both embarrasing and kind of dangerous until you let them by.
I really want to thank Forest River for responding to Techntrek and for him exploring this with them. They have a great product that is hindered by just this issue I think. If they could talk to folks through their dealers and advertising that they have worked with owners to obtain better mileage and improved performance pulling the Pod for a 6 cylinder vehicle equiped to pull 3500 that would be a marketing plus for them. I would love to go out and experiment with different air deflectors or spoilers but can't afford to do it. If there were an aftermarket item either to add to the pod or the automobile that was reasonably priced and documented to work with the Pod, I would snap it up in a minute. ------------- Dave |
Posted By: Butterfly_Lee
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2010 at 4:45pm
|
Thanks for checking the Math...to much blonde hair dye when I was younger.
Leasing the drag, would certainly help the smaller vehicles. My 4 cyl Nissan would surely benefit.
I too would be very happy to be a tester, Give me even more reason to hit the road.
Lee , ------------- Still a work in progress, lots of pictures. http://podterfly.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2010 at 4:47pm
|
In a later email I made an offer to be a prototype tester, and said I was sure others here would be willing. I would be more than happy to take test runs and report my results to FR. ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2010 at 8:31pm
|
I too would be interested in doing prototype testing if that were an option. Since I am centered out of Northern Wisconsin and mainly camp there and in the UP, obviously if it happens and occured in the winter months, folks in the southwest and south would be the most likely candidates. Data collection which includes vehicle make and model, engine type, transmission, rear end gearing, terrain, weather conditions and speed will all play into any potential testing. Folks who are chosen to do testing, if it were to happen, would have to very carefully record all of that information. In addition to MPG recording, performance information would also be very necessary. Rpms at different miles/hour, does your transmission search constantly for the proper gearing on a rolling highway etc.
Also based on all the responses it appears that drag may be eliminated with a vehicle mounted diflector (mistakenly loaded Kayak) or a Pod mounted rear spoiler (Earlier computer generated smoke tests).
It is still interesting to me that noone with a 173 that has the airfoil has not surfaced and said that it makes a difference or not. ------------- Dave |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2010 at 9:36pm
|
Completely unrelated to this thread, I was poking around the videos on the 2nd page and came across this neat video of our 'pods being made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0W9PCL7TZM&feature=player_embedded - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0W9PCL7TZM&feature=player_embedded ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: rpodcamper.com
Date Posted: 24 Aug 2010 at 11:00pm
| I need to do some more playing with the kayaks and r-pod. I do not always carry them with me as we are camping depends on where and who is going. The wind noise was the kayaks while they were in the vshape and the wind was hitting the cockpits. They do sell covers to cover them up but I have not yet got them. I did do some playing about a year ago on a short haul comparision with a straight wind deflector on top of the car and really did not see any difference. One thing we need to remember we are pulling a "brick" wall down the road on wheels as it sits up high behind the vehicles. |
Posted By: ToddsPod
Date Posted: 25 Aug 2010 at 8:08am
|
I would definitely do some prototype testing, and I will be doing most of my camping in the fall/winter, as that's the best time in Texas. I have one of the underpowered TVs that would definitely benefit from reduced drag, if that's possible. If they came up with a design that was tested and proven, I'd be likely to buy it. Pricing would have to be in the sub-$200 range, preferably under $100. -------------
'07 Dodge RAM 1500 ST Longbed QuadCab 4.7L V8 --- '10 Forest River R-Pod 172 |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 25 Aug 2010 at 9:51am
|
rpodcamper - what about mounting the 'yaks with the cockpits facing inward? Eliminates the turbulence from the air crossing that hole.
I have revised my math on the last page, someone pointed out an error I made! ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: HuronSailor
Date Posted: 25 Aug 2010 at 2:38pm
You weren't in Bay Furnace west of Munising a few weeks ago, were you?
We were on the east side of town, in Wandering Wheels, spotted the other pod on a drive-through one day. ------------- .: Mark & Beth :: Silverado 5.3L :: 2018 rPod 180 :. |
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 25 Aug 2010 at 4:08pm
|
No, but we were in Bewabic State Park 2 weeks ago. ------------- Dave |
Posted By: David and Danette
Date Posted: 25 Aug 2010 at 6:20pm
|
[QUOTE=techntrek]
Completely unrelated to this thread, I was poking around the videos on the 2nd page and came across this neat video of our 'pods being made: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0W9PCL7TZM&feature=player_embedded - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0W9PCL7TZM&feature=player_embedded I was looking at the short video to see how the roofs were made on the pods. In the video which was not that clear looks like it is wood framed. Does anyone know how the two sides are joined together? David------------- 2018 Vista Cruiser 19BFD (2018- 2012 Vibe 6503 (2014-2019) 2009 r-pod 171 (2009-2014) Middle Tn 2014 Ram 1500 Quad cab |
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2010 at 4:14pm
|
I hope this forum has not run out of gas. I realize that it is a lot more fun to discuss the modifications and other fun things that we all do with our R.Pods, but I was hoping that through the contact from Forest River that responded to us all through Techntrek, that we might be able to get some live research on the pod to see if there is any chance of improving gas mileage we get. At gas below 3 dollars / gallon stateside it is hard to keep the discussion going, but I'll bet that when we go to 4.00 per gallon again that there will be a lot of campers that will look to park their units at one campground, sell their units etc. I think what people have said is that they would purchase a proven after market wind diflector or spoiler if made avaliable and if affordable. So far, other than the kayaks that were mistakenly loaded in a V that appeared to improve mileage we have heard nothing other than we are pulling a barn door or a brick. Though it is a brick and seems to push a lot of wind, it is a pretty light unit and the fact that V8s have difficulty show that the problem is wind.
Any more news on whether the kayak loading really improved mileage or if it was a one time spike.
Anyone who has a 173 with the spoiler and some mileage results.
Has the Forest River rep said any more.
It will be a lot more fun to discuss the different parks we have visited when gas goes up than how to preserve our tires because it is always parked.
Help Forest River ------------- Dave |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2010 at 5:06pm
|
Its only been a week so I wasn't going to prod FR yet. I kept the email in my inbox as a reminder, I'll wait another week and try again.
rpodcamper - will you have an upcoming trip where you can load the kayaks cockpit-inward and see if that helps (sound and mpg)? ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 31 Aug 2010 at 9:06pm
|
I didn’t mean to push, just prod all of us. I agree with your decision not to move too quickly, I just wanted the discussion to continue so that possibilities such as the kayak loaded in a V might popup again or someone who shelled out the cash to try an air deflector on their car found a solution. Only through discussion will we ever hear these possibilities. My overall goal for this thread was to see how others are doing relative to mpg and if we were all in the same boat, try to get Forest River to help find something to improve our mileage and their sales. I am sure if they are even discussing this they will have to evaluate if they find something it may help the mileage of people towing other brands of campers too. I do think, however, there is a competitive advantage for Forest River to help solve the problem. This forum and R.Pod Nation are a lot of folks who mostly have already purchased an R.Pod. There are also lots of folks on both forums who are trying to decide between the Pod, MPG, Scamp, KZ Sportsman Classic. If Forest River were to find or help find the solution to this problem, that new buyers and old owners of the Pod could benefit from, I am sure it would increase customer loyalty to their brand. I never test towed the R.Pod before I bought. I’ll bet a very large percent of us drove off the dealers lot with a great deal of excitement about the great standard equipment, options and the feeling it is so light, it will be fairly easy on gas only to hit 50 to 55 and feel the gas pedal turn to mush and the mileage drop from 22 not towing to 11 mpg or so. ------------- Dave |
Posted By: Bigbit
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2010 at 9:34am
|
Some more empirical data for you guys. I owned an R-Pod 175 for about a year. I sold it in June for other reasons, but when I bought it, I expected good gas mileage, due to what I thought was an aerodynamic design. Yet, typical gas mileage was 10 - 11 mpg. The TV is a Buick Enclave with a 3.6L V6, which, when not towing, gets around 20 - 23 MPG highway and 17 mpg combined highway / city driving.
My replacement TT is a Trailmanor Elkmont 24' trailer. It weighs about 400 - 500 lbs. more, and is almost 6 feet longer. It's a traditional box shaped TT. Towing it with the Buick, I'm averaging 12 - 13.5 mpg, fully 2 mpg better than the R-Pod - an unexpected side benefit.
Who wouldda thought that?
 |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2010 at 1:44pm
|
Yup, about the same for all of us. Our Sienna gets 23 with daily driving, got 16-17 pulling our popup (over 3000 pounds), and gets 12 pulling the 'pod. BTW, we almost went to a dealership to look at the Elkmont last weekend
 , but they only had the 26 and we were enjoying an afternoon nap at the campground. Don't tell anyone!Oh, wait. ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: Bigbit
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2010 at 3:00pm
|
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 01 Sep 2010 at 4:36pm
|
We like the layout of the 24 (original) more, which is partly why we didn't go look at the 26 they had in stock. The dealer confirmed the 26 weighed about 3400 with options, vs. 3000 with options for the 24. Once you add in clothes, food, fuel, stuff, the 26 would definitely be too heavy. I don't like the price - double what our 'pod cost. I've always loved the look of the 'pod compared to everything else out there, and the Elkmont is just like everything else. I don't like the smaller holding tanks. And I'm very happy with the length of the 'pod for towing and parking, just long enough for a double parking spot. But that walk-around queen and full-sized shower is appealing! ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: rpodcamper.com
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2010 at 11:15am
| I went from having the popup for 10 years to a 30' Bunk house Trailer back down to the R-pod. It does not get the best gas milage but I like the features fo the rpod right now. If I could talk my wife into it I would get a True Teardrop Camper. A 5X10 Trailer with a queen bed in the from and the Gallery in the back. I have also switched my tow vehicles a few times in the last year and half. We started with a Jeep Liberty that my Wife totalled, then a Chevy Trailblazer which has a problem with the cooling system and keeps popping an circuit to the cooling fan, now looking at Full size Trucks or Dodge Dakatos. I have also pulled the camper with my Ford Ranger short distances but would not want to do that very far. |
Posted By: David and Danette
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2010 at 3:04pm
|
Could it be possible that the downward curve of the back of the R-Pod could create more of a vacum and drag, than if it were square? I have read that some identicle TV's will get better MPG towing a larger heavier trailer as the Gulfsream Visa than they would towing the R-Pod. Perhaps it is Fuzzy math as our past president had used that term. David ------------- 2018 Vista Cruiser 19BFD (2018- 2012 Vibe 6503 (2014-2019) 2009 r-pod 171 (2009-2014) Middle Tn 2014 Ram 1500 Quad cab |
Posted By: TheDogHouse
Date Posted: 02 Sep 2010 at 11:09pm
|
We purchased our 173T just a few weeks ago, I have very little data to add to this forum. Having said that we are venturing out this week for our first camping trip in this camper and hope to have some comparable information to share with other F150 owners not having the spoiler on the back of their camper. The only MPG data thus far is from when we picked up the camper at Couch's, camper completely empty, as was the bed of truck. We managed 15 MPG on the drive home, about 65% of the road was highway and I averaged about 62 MPH. My average MPG not towing is between 18 and 21 MPG, truck being a standard cab, 8' bed with the 4.6 liter v-8. This TV is severely anemic without a camper behind it, not much change with the camper behind it. After our 300 mile trek this weekend I'll report back with the loaded camper/truck scenario. Happy camping,Steve ------------- Steve and Rosa 11' 173T 09' Silverado Extended Cab |
Posted By: Butterfly_Lee
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2010 at 12:48am
|
So I was driving down the road and was passed a SUV with a rather large thule on the roof (about 3ft across and at least 15" high). As I passed the airflow from the roof carrier rattled my windshield wipers. So I was thinking that was a large airflow displacement, I was wondering if that would not be a double plus. Extra storage on the roof, and a wind deflector in one. It looked like it would divert the main airflow impact on the front of the POD. Anyone use a roof carrier? Might work just like the canoes? Just a thought. Lee
------------- Still a work in progress, lots of pictures. http://podterfly.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: Bigbit
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2010 at 8:38am
|
Out of curiosity, what has convinced you folks that the "foil" on the upper rear of a 173T is there solely for aerodynamics?
To me, it looks like it was placed there simply as a rain gutter to keep roof rain run-off from inundating the canvas tent when expanded. I think it was designed that way to minimize it's effect on the aerodynamics, but not to improve overall aerodynamic performance.
JMHO; I could be flat wrong...
|
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2010 at 9:30am
I think this is exactly what is happening, but it doesn't make sense. Some ultra-high-mpg'ers have added extra-long nose cones and tail cones to smooth out the air flow ( http://autos.aol.com/article/boat-tail-boosts-mpg/ - http://autos.aol.com/article/boat-tail-boosts-mpg/ ). It would seem that the curves of the 'pod would do the same. But apparently not. ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2010 at 9:32am
|
bigbit - Some said they heard that from FR people that were at a rally. But the email I posted earlier denies that. ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: rpodcamper.com
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2010 at 10:44am
|
I used to have a Sears Cargo Carrier we would put on the roof. It was so full of wind drag it was bad. BUT the Thule Company has designed their equipment to cut through the wind.
This weekend I'm doing some testing pulling the Camper as I need to dump the tanks. I plan to throw the kayaks back up in a v shape and run the camper round trip that way, then move the kayaks straight and see what that does to the MPG. I also have permission from an Auto Dealer to try out any of the Trucks on his lot to see how it pulls the Rpod as I'm just about to make a deal with him on a truck. Debating about a Dodge Ram 2500 Crew Cab 4x4 or if I should scale it back to the Dodge Dokato Crew Cab he has.
|
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2010 at 11:05am
|
rpodcamper - can you mount the 'yaks with the cockpits inward for these tests? ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: rpodcamper.com
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2010 at 12:01pm
| I'm going to try that bit if that does not work I have tarps to fasten down to them. |
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2010 at 1:34pm
|
I will be anxious to hear the results of the kayak test. Also the Thule idea is very interesting and gave me a thought. This would only apply to those with pickup trucks. Some pickup truck toppers are shaped almost like a spoiler. They start out the same height as the cab and angle up somewhat higher, almost like a spoiler. That would make the pickup plus the topper push air higher onto the R.Pod. Anyone using the Thule or this type of topper? Thedoghouse gave us the first 173t report. Though just one run, at 15mpg, it is the highest mileage I have seen on either of the pod forums. I would be interested to know if he calculated mileage or used the averaging on his trip meter. Also does the truck have a topper? This is the 1st 173t reporting as you get more information please report it. Thanks.
------------- Dave |
Posted By: popgoesweasel
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2010 at 4:59pm
|
techntreck, I personally had a conversation with the engineer who came to the Eastern Round Up in June. He said that one of the functions for the air-dam on the 173T was to reduce the drag of the r*pod while it is being pulled. He was responding to a question concerning the reduced mileage on the TV while pulling an r*pod. Regards, Ed Reames ------------- R171 2010 Frontier 2009 Site 40 Eastern Rally 2010 |
Posted By: photog
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2010 at 9:08pm
happy podding ------------- Heinrich and Elly 2010 Dodge Dakota Crew Cab 2010 Prime Time Tracer 205M |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2010 at 9:48pm
|
popgoesweasel, next time I talk to FR I'll pass that along, thanks. You know how companies go - left hand may not know what the right hand is doing.
------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: Outbound
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2010 at 11:27pm
|
I overheard a conversation between a 'podder and the Forest River Engineer at the Eastern Round Up (it may have been Ed... I'm not sure). As Ed said above, the Engineer confirmed that the 173T's spoiler was indeed a spoiler and was an attempt to reduce drag. As a side note, I was very impressed with the Engineer in both his depth of knowledge and commitment to the r-pod line. All of the Forest River staff were a welcome addition to the event. ------------- Craig :: 2009 RP171 towed by a 2017 F150 |
Posted By: rpodcamper.com
Date Posted: 03 Sep 2010 at 11:47pm
| Well i can cross off the 2 trucks I was thinking and will now be pulling with a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 Club Cab. Came across and almost new unit with only 33,000 miles on it! Pick it up on Tuesday or Wednesday as soon as they run it through service. I fit better in this truck than the Dakota so it was almost a no brainier. |
Posted By: popgoesweasel
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2010 at 10:17am
|
I again will note that we are very happy with the Nissan Frontier standard cab 2x4 as a TV. The unit gets great mileage as our regular vehicle (20+mpg) and decent mileage (12-13mpg) while towing at below 55 mph. The engine in the Frontier is better than some that I had in 'vettes back in the 60's. ------------- R171 2010 Frontier 2009 Site 40 Eastern Rally 2010 |
Posted By: TIDALWAVE
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2010 at 4:54pm
|
I am not sure that placing kayaks on top of the tow vehicle will make much difference. I just got back from a trip with two kayaks mounted on the roof of my Chevy pickup. I didn't 'toe' the kayaks in...they were mounted parallel to each other. I didn't measure any difference in mpg's for the Chevy+Pod when carrying the kayaks, versus just pulling the Pod. ------------- TIDALWAVE |
Posted By: vandallc
Date Posted: 04 Sep 2010 at 6:48pm
|
I have found that I get pretty substantial improvement in MPG by driving behind a large truck. I stay back a safe distance so I am not drafting per se so I have to assume the turbulence behind the truck is disrupting the vacuum effect on the pod at higher speeds. As an example, on a flat highway and no other traffic I am getting 8-9 mpg driving at 55 if I push over 55 I am sure to cause the vehicle to down shift. whereas on a flat road behind a big rig I get 11 mpg going between 60 and 65. I also found that I cannot use cruise control because it is constantly down shifting. If I am manually regulating the speed I can greatly reduce the down shifting and keep my rpms much lower. All that said, I am thrilled to get 10-11 mpg but then again my Lincoln Navigator is a hog and I only get 18-19 when I am not towing. I agree that it appears that we need spoilers on the back of the pod. If anyone knows of a effort to design one, I would gladly be a beta tester. ------------- vandallc 2011 177 2003 Lincoln Navigator |
Posted By: TIDALWAVE
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2010 at 11:37am
|
I am glad that I traded in my Jeep Liberty for a full-sized pickup with a much larger engine. I always had to tow the Pod with the overdrive shut off when towing with the Jeep, even on flat roads. With the new pickup and a much larger engine, the transmission can use the overdrive with a measurable increase in mpg. I only have to go to non-over-drive when towing into a very stiff head wind or pulling up steeper hills. I actually get better mileage when non-towing with the pickup than when I drove the Jeep (20-22 mpg vs 17-19 mpg). I, too, have found a distinct decrease in mileage when going over 55 mph. I feel uncomfortable towing at 15 mph less than the speed limit on the Interstate, with traffic always passing around me. However, if I take state highways at the 55 speed limit, I find that everyone still tries to speed around me, and there is no passing lane for them to get around. ------------- TIDALWAVE |
Posted By: vandallc
Date Posted: 05 Sep 2010 at 3:37pm
|
Next time you are on the interstate try getting behind a large semi going between 60 and 65 mph and see if you don't get the same or better mileage that you are getting at 55 on the open road. It kills three birds with one stone. You are driving closer to the speed limit so you don't have the added danger people running up behind you with a differential speed of 20 mph, you get better mileage and save money on fuel and, you save time. You need to be 100 ft or less behing which sounds close but it is not nearly as close as you have to drive when stacked up passing in the left lane. ------------- vandallc 2011 177 2003 Lincoln Navigator |
Posted By: TheDogHouse
Date Posted: 06 Sep 2010 at 8:30pm
|
Sticking with my promise to report back my MPG findings on a longer trip with a loaded vehicle, I'm not all that excited about the results but here's what we experienced: My 2007 F150 does have a solid hard cover (Foldacover) which minimizes box turbulence. My calculations are completely manual (calculator, pump receipt and odometer) and truck/ camper loaded with water, firewood and all the goodies. I assume close to 600 pounds was added to the first towing scenario.
Managing 62-65 MPH for 60% of the trip and the remainder at 55 MPH we were able to achieve 13.6 MPG on our trip. I switched in and out of overdrive on hills where it seemed to make sense but the TV seems to make pretty reasonable shifting choices on it's own. I did notice that "dragging a barn door" effect headed west probably due to the winds and I really doubt that the spoiler is doing much to help, but I'll leave that for the experts.
On the good side, we loved the camper and all the good ideas built into it. 3 people is about the limit for comfortable camping and remember to take an electric heater this time of year. 42 degrees Saturday morning was very cold on the hybrid end and the gas furnace ran allot.
Pod on!
Steve ------------- Steve and Rosa 11' 173T 09' Silverado Extended Cab |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2010 at 12:17pm
|
I think you have the new best record for mpg. ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 07 Sep 2010 at 11:22pm
|
Thanks for the report on your latest trip with your 173. I think that is a record for Miles/Gallon. Your 1st trip you reported about 15 I think. It is appears to be either your truck, the spoiler on the 173 or the wind was at your back the both trips. Please keep on reporting on your mileage. Also, what is the rear end ratio on the truck. That could be it too. I once had an older chevy pickup with a 350 that got 13 mpg not pulling or 13 mpg pulling a freight train. Slight exageration.
I hope at some point we can also get a report from someone pulling a 173 with a medium size six cylinder to see if it is the 173 and spoiler or the F150 with the V8. As we have seen before though other V8s don't do 13.8-15 mpg.
I also hope that Forest River is monitoring these posts because they are the only ones who could do a truely scientific test. ------------- Dave |
Posted By: argh6
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2010 at 4:34pm
|
Would it be possible for a member with a 173T to post a picture of the "spoiler"? I have a 172T and it also has a protrusion right above the rear hatch. I am pretty sure all of the "T" series Pod's have this but wanted to make sure! Thanks! ------------- Jerry, Julie, Kaiti, & Abbi ~ Phoenix, AZ ~ 2010 172T ~ 2004 Acura MDX |
Posted By: Bigbit
Date Posted: 08 Sep 2010 at 4:43pm
| Go to the post by ToddsPod on page 2 of this thread for a pic. |
Posted By: argh6
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 3:33am
|
Thanks! Yeah, that looks exactly like the one on my 172T. I assumed it was a water diversion devise to keep as much water away from the rear hatch seals as possible. It may have a spoiler affect though, as I can usually get about 13-15mpg out of our 2004 Acura MDX... Thanks! ------------- Jerry, Julie, Kaiti, & Abbi ~ Phoenix, AZ ~ 2010 172T ~ 2004 Acura MDX |
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 7:43am
|
Thanks for the report on the 172T. Is the engine a six or eight cylinder, what is the size and hp of the engine. Do you drive with overdrive on or off? That is really good gas mileage especially if it is a midsize six. Also, how are you getting your gasmileage readings?
Thanks ------------- Dave |
Posted By: argh6
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 2:24pm
|
The MDX has a 3.5L V6, 265hp, 253 lb ft. I use cruise control and let it decide which gear to use (Honda transmissions are the best!) Avg towing in Arizona, up to the mountains and back, so there are some hills included. The MDX has a trip computer, and I found it to be pretty accurate when comparing it to my gallons pumped/miles driven calculations. ------------- Jerry, Julie, Kaiti, & Abbi ~ Phoenix, AZ ~ 2010 172T ~ 2004 Acura MDX |
Posted By: psaman
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 3:12pm
The numbers are pretty close to our Mitsubishi; 3.8L V6, only 225 HP, but 250 FT/LBS torque. I too let the cruise control decide which gear. On level roads @ 55mph, the rpms will run around 1800. I find I can accelerate smoother with the cruise handle than with the gas pedal while towing. ------------- 2011 R-177 "Sponge-Pod" 2011 F-150 XLT "Texas Edition" |
Posted By: Gone to Pod
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 8:10pm
I have a 2001 MDX (the first year) with the factory tow package. We are planning on getting 175 but not until spring. I am learning here before and am wondering, you said you use the cruise control to decide gears. Are you in D5 or D4 when you do this? Lots of people here talk about not letting it be in overdrive because it searches to much. We love, love our MDX . It has over 135K on it and is just getting broken in. You should have seen the looks we got this last summer in Colorado. We were tooling up to Yankee Boy Basin as all the "true Jeep" owners were coming down. They couldn't believe we were up there. It drives like an SUV but rides like a car. Didn't quite make it all the way up but sure did have fun watching them stare at us.------------- "a rolling POD gathers no moss" http://www.aipics.com - http://www.aipics.com |
Posted By: argh6
Date Posted: 09 Sep 2010 at 8:53pm
HAHA! We have had our MDX there as well! We want to take the pod back to Ouray and spend more time there! We too love our MDX, and just clicked over 120k and it pulls the pod with ease! I leave it in D5, unless we are going down a steep grade, then I'll D4 or lower. The logic in Honda transmision ECU's works great, and when it sences the extra load, it will stay in the appropriate gear by itself. You'll love towing the Pod with your MDX!
  ------------- Jerry, Julie, Kaiti, & Abbi ~ Phoenix, AZ ~ 2010 172T ~ 2004 Acura MDX |
Posted By: rpodcamper.com
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 9:32am
|
Ok over last weekend we did some testing with the Trailblazers and the kayaks. We ran just shy of 50 miles round trip mostly highway with a full tank of fresh water and empty black and gray tanks. Trailblazer is using just a straight 2 1/2 Dropped Receiver with no sway or weight distrubtion on it. 6Cyl, 4.2 Liter Engine, 4X4 LTX Version.
On the first run we had the 2 kayaks on the roof straight with the cockpits covered over with tarps. Seemed the engine liked about 60 MPH as when we went over that the RPMS went high. Onboard computer showed 11.6 MPG.
On the second run we moved the front of the kayaks closer to the middle of the Car and moved the back out towards the sides of the car so that it was a big v shape. Cockpits were still covered with tarps. ran the same course we had taken and the engine still liked the 60 MPH but Onboard computer showed 12.8 MPG. I did have a headwind we were fighting part of the way.
On the third run we kept the kayaks in the V shape but we installed a K&N Series High-Flow Performance Air Intake http://www.knfilters.com/search/product.aspx?Prod=77-3036KP - http://www.knfilters.com/search/product.aspx?Prod=77-3036KP on the car. Ran the same course again but noticed that the car did not push the RPMs up over 60 MPH as was before and we could move up to about 65 MPH. Onboard computer shower 13.1 MPG but no headwind lik we had the second time. With the Air Intake installed the Car now has a bit more pickup.
Not sure what to do now as we have also just bought a 2001 Dodge Ram 1500 Club Cab to use as a TV. I'm also looking at putting Cold Air Intake upgrade on that and also Dual Exhaust from the Manifold back (including putting 2 cataletic convertors on) to increase fuel milage and horsepower.
|
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 10 Sep 2010 at 5:47pm
|
I've been considering a high-flow intake, although K & N doesn't have one for my TV (just a washable replacement for the original). I've seen them done with parts from the local hardware store, with a K & N filter like yours on the end. ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: tma-333
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 7:25pm
|
Just got a 177 a few weeks ago. I have had same experience as described by most of the posts related to poor mpg and the sense of an anchor being dropped at 55mph. I tow with an 01 Pathfinder 3,5l rated for 5000 pounds. I had my R-pod weighed and with no load, just all accessories, 2960lbs. That is a full 1200lbs less than my previous tt in addition to 5 feet less with worse towing results! Ouch! I,M glad FR is on board, too bad they didn,t use the airflow tests in their original design. I certainly hope for there sake theses threads are not read by prospective R-pod buyers.
Or maybe it should! At the very least, FR might be forced to stopped misleading buyers with their marketing into beleiving they will be buying a tt that is easier to tow because of its lightweight.
As for now, they should be very active in testing all kinds of solutions including all those mentionned here. Eventually, if they don,t make a move to provide a solution to exisiting customers, these same customers might take to the streets. There is limit to our love of our little but hard to tow toy.
How about checking out the effectiveness of the same windfoils used by truckers on their semis, must be a reason theses seasoned pros use them.
!!!!!
|
Posted By: brownd
Date Posted: 15 Sep 2010 at 10:18pm
|
Well, it looks like we have a fair amount of informal but real data to show that wind resistance is what is causing the very poor, 10-12 mpg, that most of us are getting towing the R.Pod. Following is a summary of what we have seen:
Techntrek, I doubt we are going to get much more information that is different from what we have seen thus far. Do you suppose you could talk to your contact at Forest River and see if they are interested in 1. Doing some controlled studies to either prove or disprove what we are seeing. 2. More importantly develop or improve the air foil on the 173t and 3. Develop an aftermarket airfoil for those of us who already own a pod. 4. Either do testing to find an air deflector that can be mounted on our SUVs As I stated earlier, from reading all the other posts on Rpod Owners and Rpod Nation forums, most people are happy with the style and functionality of this unit except for the gas mileage issues. These, in the long term will become transmission issues on the vehicles that this travel trailer is designed for. Forest River, please help us out. Thanks------------- Dave |
Posted By: Runebane
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 8:35am
|
Not much to add, but my 4 cylinder Toyota Tacoma also gets 10-12mpg while towing the RP-177. Though I've not noticed hitting a "wall" at 55mph. It pretty much feels the same all the way up to about 65mph, thats when I feel more drag and the truck having to really work at it. I usually stay at 60mph. -Runebane ------------- RP-177 |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 1:42pm
|
Ok, I just copied Dave's post (good summary!) and added the following. I stuck some email stamps on it and sent it off to FR.
Checking in on the airflow/mpg issue. We’re up to 10 pages of discussion and one member just posted a pretty thorough summary which I’m copying below. Bottom line, some people who have towed heavier travel trailers have gotten better mpg, and some who have used kayaks as wind deflectors – and some who have 173T models with the little air foil on the back – do get better mpgs. So the airflow on non-T models is highly suspect on the ‘pod. (Dave's info was below this) ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: Butterfly_Lee
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 4:58pm
So I plan my routes with a little elevation as possible which is pretty hard since I'm at sea level (I rarely go above Longtitude 30 after October anyway). Summer 2012 is my goal for Yellowstone, Glacier, Etc, I want to keep my 4cyl for around town and hope to pickup a V8 for that trip.
For now it will take me better park of a year (going camping once a month) just getting to all the State Parks within 400 miles of me.
Lee
Thanks for sending that information for FR it would be in their interest to help us increase our MPG, that would mean happy customers and more sales.
------------- Still a work in progress, lots of pictures. http://podterfly.blogspot.com/ |
Posted By: tma-333
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 5:37pm
|
Thanks for adding your two cents worth to this issue. I hope to get the chance to test out the big rig airspoilers althought I still resent having to try to correct and issue on a new trailer that should have been and should be addressed by the manufacturer and not individual owners.
If the FR rep is reading this, please give us some reassurance that the matter is being addressed. If your hands are tied, we could put the pressure in the right place if someone could point us in right direction. I saw a post on this forum from a prospective trailer buyer who had chosen to not purchase and R-Pod. Although he did not state his reasons, I wonder if it was something he read here. I know I wonder if I would have purchased and R-Pod with the objective of finding an easier trailer to haul if I had read these treads about all the mpg and towing issues.
Come on Fr, we are giving a friendly headsup, the market place will find out and start sharing their concerns over this issue if you don,t address it...
|
Posted By: tma-333
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 6:01pm
|
replying to my own post, with the intention a saving and not adding fuel to the issue, pardon the bad pun.
Just follow these links and read on to see that we are not alone in thinking this issue can be resolved. Some already suggested solutions are addressed but from different angles and users which gives even more credibility to all those who have ventured similar suggestions on this very forum.
http://www.rpod-owners.com/new_reply_form.asp?TID=1347&PN=10&TR=96 - http://www.rpod-owners.com/new_reply_form.asp?TID=1347&PN=10&TR=96
http://caravanersforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2471 - http://caravanersforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2471
http://www.peterbilt.com/eco/Opportunities-EcoActionStrategies.htm - http://www.peterbilt.com/eco/Opportunities-EcoActionStrategies.htm
Proof that we are not trying to reinvent the wheel, just trying to make it roll with less mpg and drag.
|
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 9:54pm
|
That first link is to a reply form here on the forum, did you intend a different link? You can edit your post to change it.
------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: Runebane
Date Posted: 16 Sep 2010 at 10:20pm
 -Runebane
------------- RP-177 |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 17 Sep 2010 at 9:46am
|
Interesting. Usually they just say "turn off overdrive". Never heard of having to manually handle the gears. Have you tried to let it shift on its own? As long as it doesn't hunt up and down a lot you should be OK. I've found I need to manually downshift to 2nd on hills to keep mine from constantly hunting, but otherwise I let it do its own thing. ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|