Mileage Per Gallon
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=3641
Printed Date: 01 May 2024 at 10:20pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.64 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Mileage Per Gallon
Posted By: P&M
Subject: Mileage Per Gallon
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2013 at 2:22pm
|
There's been a lot of discussion regarding how many mpg's we all get when towing our Pods. What I am curious about is this:
For those of you that have had other types of trailers prior to your Pod, both larger and smaller, did you get better or worse mileage towing them? Or was it about the same? ------------- P & M ... and Comet too! 2012 171 -- The Monkey Pod 2018 Ram 2500 |
Replies:
Posted By: hogone
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2013 at 2:43pm
|
This is the first camping trailer I have had, but did have a 6X12 enclosed motocycle trailer. Weight of trailer around 1200 pounds, add two bikes add another 1300 pounds; some gear 200 pounds; total 2700 pounds; got around 12-14 MPG, same as the pod. ------------- Jon & Pam 2013 RP177 2010 F150 2017 HD Streetglide 2009 HD Lowrider CHEESEHEAD |
Posted By: hogone
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2013 at 2:49pm
|
I guess I should indicate this is with the same TV; F-150 V8-4.6L 4X4 ------------- Jon & Pam 2013 RP177 2010 F150 2017 HD Streetglide 2009 HD Lowrider CHEESEHEAD |
Posted By: Kickstart
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2013 at 4:31pm
|
1. 1991 Aljo 17'/1992 S-10 4.3 v6-10-14 mpg
S-10 best non towing mpg tank was 28 mpg (35 mph day around Yellowstone)
2. 1994 Layton20'/1992 S-10 4.3 v/6 and 1997 F150 4.6 v8/9-12 mpg
F150 best non towing tank was 17.9 mpg
3. 1998 Arctic Fox 22'/F150 4.6 v8/8-11 mpg
4. 2005 Chalet 18' foldable hardside (low tow height)/F150 4.6 v/8 & 2007 3.7 v6 Dakota/10-15 mpg
Dakota best non towing tank was 22.6 mpg
5. 2010 RP 175 2007 3.7 v6 Dakota/ 9-11 mpg 3 trips only
2006 4.0 Toyota Tacoma v/6 10-12.5 mpg 18 trips over 1.5 yrs
2012 4.6 Toyota Tundra v/8 10.5-14.3 mpg 20 trips over 1.5 yrs
Tacoma best non towing tank was 22.8 mpg
Tundra best non towing tank was 23.7 mpg
All Pod trips have been from 2 to 7 days in length. Notice that while towing the Pod, the bigger the tow rig I had, the better the towing mpg. That may not be a constant for everyone, but that's what it has been for me. I have hand figured nearly every tank of gas for the past 44 years of driving, and that's not nearly as anal as my mom. She still has notebooks covering date, gas purchased, price, and mpg for a LOT of driving years. Oh, Mom! Just about time to take away the keys.
------------- '10 RP 175-Replaced by 2014 Kodiak 173 QBSL '12 Toyota Tundra '05 Sportster (half a Harley) Retired-We're on Beach Time! |
Posted By: hogone
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2013 at 4:42pm
|
wow, great stats ------------- Jon & Pam 2013 RP177 2010 F150 2017 HD Streetglide 2009 HD Lowrider CHEESEHEAD |
Posted By: dsmiths
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2013 at 10:01pm
|
I have not made any long pulls, most of our trips are close to home (both still work) trips are 70 to 100 miles round trip. I used to pull at 70 mph and got about 10 or 11 mph, then dropped to 60, now I try to keep it at 55mph and in the right lane. 45 up steep hills. We did a 80 mile round trip last week and I got 14.7 but kept it down to 55 or lower. when you double the velocity the drag goes up by 4. when I hit 60mph it feels like I am pulling a parachute. t.v. is a 08 chevy trailblazer 4.2 in line 6 , 295 hp. ------------- Dane and Donna Smith 2011 RP-172 2008 Chevrolet Trailblazer 4X4 lift kit prodigy wireless brake controller |
Posted By: 2Peas-n-Rpod
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2013 at 10:55pm
|
I have a Ford f150 5.4L V8 4x4. We have towed a Pod and a 26 ft. Prowler with this truck, and both were about 8-10 mpg. Like dsmiths said above, if I keep the speed 55 or under, I get around 10-11 with the Pod. With my little 6X10 1200 lb. utility trailer in tow, I get around 12-14, mostly stop and go traffic in town with it. Best mileage for this truck is about 17-18 mpg.
------------- 2011 R-Pod 182G Hood River Edition "Ribbitt" Pod (now sold) 2000 Ford F150 5.4L V8 TV |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 21 Jun 2013 at 10:58pm
|
Prior TV, Toyota Sienna: 23 mpg commuting ------------- 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: 22 Jun 2013 at 9:09am
 From computer simulations another guest and I ran independently a couple of years ago, mpg while towing depends little on weight (in non-hilly areas). The most important factor was the frontal area of the trailer. The gap between the tow vehicle and the trailer also was a factor. R-Pods are about 11 feet high and 6 feet wide. From member responses, the size of the tow vehicles engine does not seem to matter much for mpg. The variations tend to be from 10 to 14 mpg. The rounded shape of the Pods does NOT contribute to increased mpg...the rounded frontal shape produces a much larger spacing between the tow vehicle and the Pod. This allows air rushing behind the tow vehicle more room to 'swirl' and thus produce more drag. You may notice the fiberglas sheathing behind a big rig semi cab and the trailer, decreasing the distance of the open gap between the two. The rear 'clearance lights' spoiler will do little to increase mpg. It is just too small.A 'pop-up' trailer, of the same weight as the Pod, will deliver a significant increase in mpg because its frontal area while being towed is much smaller than a Pod. ------------- TIDALWAVE |
Posted By: David and Danette
Date Posted: 22 Jun 2013 at 10:03pm
|
I watched a video of a radius shaped front trailer same weight and same length as a trailer with a V shaped front towed by the same TV and using same gas from same pump traveling identical routes wind direction and speed the same. The V shaped trailer had the better MPG. but not by much. I don't know if any of the trailer manufactures test there trailers to have the best shape for MPG as the automobile industry does. Perhaps that will be something commonly done in the future as fuel prices get higher. It would be a good competitive selling point. Lite weight is a popular selling point now for best MPG. 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: Bill-GA
Date Posted: 22 Jun 2013 at 10:41pm
|
I remember watching Myth Busters last year and they took the concept of recessed circles on a golf ball and applied it to the back, front,top & sides of a car (5-6 ? inch concave circles) and they got a 10% improvement on MPG. It would make a strange looking trailer ... but hey, 10% savings on gas.
------------- Bill & Bev 13 yr old dachshund 'Elsa' 2010 RP-176T (tent & slide-out) 2011 Toyota Tundra 2WD TV |
Posted By: Anthony Valenzano
Date Posted: 22 Jun 2013 at 11:45pm
|
I usually get 10.5 Mpg towing with a 2008 pathfinder. I drive about 60, occasionally bumping up to ~72mph if the traffic is moving fast. What is strange is that 72mph seems easier than 65 mph, like the wind starts to break.
My impressions is that travel trailers are not wind tested and not much attempt is made to make them aerodynamic. Its expensive and difficult to manufacture large things that have curves in three dimensions. I believe they should push the air around the sides and round the back a bit. My parents get better gas mileage in their 35' Winnebago. If you look at it all the corners are rounded by about 3 inches. One other thought was that vehicles are all wind tunnel tested these days. So I bet you are better off with a larger TW, just to have a larger but more aerodynamic thing moving the air, rather then the pod. This may mean more than engine displacement. However a transmission that can't lock up can be devastating to mpg. |
Posted By: Burt
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 10:08am
|
Kickstart: Thank You for your statistics! It confirms many of the comments and data others have presented in this forum. Thank your Mother for teaching you to do that! Generally, I believe that most of us purchase a smaller trailer for ease of towing lighter vehicles with the smaller engines now in trucks and SUV's. We combined that thought with the unrealistic anti-gravity thought in mind that a POD will magically get good mileage when towing. Not so! While I am very pleased with our POD, I am also like most who thought it would be a bit like a teardrop, burro, casita type mileage. Not so! Most likely, as long as the tow vehicle is capable, the only real answers for better mileage are to use a lower speed as proven, or buy a bigger TV. Other than that, another solution is to find a way to reduce wind turbulence with flared canopy on the TV or invent a front cowling on the POD. The latter is not going to be done by a manufacturer as they are happy once these are out on the road and the money transfer is made. Not to mention that unlike car and truck manufacturers, there are not government mandates forced upon trailer manufacturers to achieve better mileage. Personally, I did achieve 1 to 2 MPG better by putting a performance chip in our truck, and I installed a K&N air filter. Also, I use Non-Ethanol gas when towing and usually get more MPG out of a gallon than the corn fuel. The chip improved the non towing by 3 to 4 MPG. Physics and fantasy don't really do well together. |
Posted By: Anthony Valenzano
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 10:46am
| Burt - What performance chip did you buy? |
Posted By: Keith-N-Dar
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 11:51am
And what is the TV? ------------- Keith-N-Dar Boris & Betty (Boston Terriers) 2011 R-Pod 177 2010 Ford F-150 |
Posted By: Kickstart
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 3:45pm
|
Here's a little more stuff, some from a previous post, that will back up what Tidalwave found with his study. Adding the wing to my Pod did only slightly increase my mileage when towing--less than a 1 mpg, but it was a consistent improvement. What I'm now finding most interesting is that 4 of my first 5 tanks after having the A/C installed there has been a further improvement of over a mile per gallon. I'm eager to see if this improvement will be consistent.
Also, while towing with my Tacoma I towed with an empty bed, with a tonneau cover, and with a cab high cap. There was no difference in towing mileage during any common trips. I think that was exactly what Tidalwave, or maybe it was what the other study found. Hey, the Pod is no different from any other T/T I've towed--they all push wind. ------------- '10 RP 175-Replaced by 2014 Kodiak 173 QBSL '12 Toyota Tundra '05 Sportster (half a Harley) Retired-We're on Beach Time! |
Posted By: Burt
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 6:13pm
|
The performance chip we purchased is an X3. There are a lot of them out there. Research the one FOR your TV (Tow Vehicle). Burt |
Posted By: Burt
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 6:15pm
|
The performance chip we bought is an X3. Do your research for your own TV (Tow Vehicle). Performance chips are different and many just dump fuel into your engine. Some are made just for manufacturers. Bottom line is that they almost bring a vehicle up to what it was supposed to do without all the green constraints. Burt |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 7:00pm
As shown in my last post, our mpg went down when we bought a larger TV. ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: Burt
Date Posted: 23 Jun 2013 at 9:24pm
|
Right, I agree. However, our chip and the filter helped. Most of these MPG type questions arise, I believe, from the faulty thinking right from the get go when we buy a "lighter" trailer. Most believe that the mileage won't be as bad as it truly is. The perceptions don't match the reality and we seek ways to make the original thought/perception more of a reality. The original post I responded to was highly accurate. The bottom line is that 10 to 14 MPG is the reality unless you are towing downhill for about 50 miles. I agree with the lower speed concept and use it to our advantage. Best MPG to you and all, Burt |
Posted By: Seanl
Date Posted: 24 Jun 2013 at 9:04am
techntrek Do you think that is because you tow faster with the more powerful TV? I know my terminal speed with any kind of head wind on the Jeep is 60MPG but with a little more horse power I would push it to 65 or 70. ------------- Sean, 2011 Rpod RP-173,2009 Jeep Liberty Rocky Mountain Edition 
|
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 24 Jun 2013 at 9:28am
|
I didn't change my towing habits, at least not intentionally. I would regularly tow at 65 with our old TV and if anything I tow a little slower now at 60-65 trying to get a little higher mpg. The amount of stuff we take hasn't changed. One thing that did change is the octane of the gas, but I don't see how that would affect the equation. I had to put 92 octane in our Sienna to squeeze out every available horsepower. It had variable valves and would only put out its maximum 215 hp with high octane gas. This was very noticeable to me on the few occasions where we towed with lower octane gas (usually the first trip of the season since we would put 87 in it over the winter). The Suburban only requires 87 octane and the manual doesn't even claim it will give you any more with a higher octane so 87 is what it gets. ------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|
Posted By: Seanl
Date Posted: 24 Jun 2013 at 11:01am
|
Thanks for the answer Techntrek. ------------- Sean, 2011 Rpod RP-173,2009 Jeep Liberty Rocky Mountain Edition
|
Posted By: TIDALWAVE
Date Posted: 24 Jun 2013 at 11:20am
|
One variable that is difficult to pin down is the amount of ethanol that is actually in gasoline! Ethanol may make gas burn cleaner but it has less energy per gallon. Here in the Midwest, States are pushing for 15% ethanol vs the normal 10%. Theoretically, this is a farmer pushed potential change. More money for them but a noticeable decrease in mpg. In Minnesota, several sampling tests were done and the 10% ethanol varied +/- 2%. This may not seem to be much...but when R-Pod owners are trying to 'hyper-mile' their tows, this can make a noticeable difference in mpg. I took a trip out west with the Pod and as soon as I passed into another state which had non-ethanol 87 octane gas...my mpg jumped by more than 3 mpg! ------------- TIDALWAVE |
Posted By: HuronSailor
Date Posted: 24 Jun 2013 at 12:31pm
|
Recent trip from MI to NC averaged 10.1 MPG, with a low of 9.9 MPG and a high of 12.44 MPG averaged over 9 fill ups. I did not include one tank used sightseeing with no pod which was 16.7 MPG. ------------- .: Mark & Beth :: Silverado 5.3L :: 2018 rPod 180 :. |
Posted By: hogone
Date Posted: 25 Jun 2013 at 8:44am
|
Ethanol definately decreases MPG. Another point that hasn't been brought up is time of year, use of air conditioner, windows up or down. Probably minimal effect however. ------------- Jon & Pam 2013 RP177 2010 F150 2017 HD Streetglide 2009 HD Lowrider CHEESEHEAD |
Posted By: David and Danette
Date Posted: 25 Jun 2013 at 8:54am
------------- 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: Seanl
Date Posted: 25 Jun 2013 at 8:57am
+1 to this if I am bucking a headwind I think I can watch the gas gauge go down. ------------- Sean, 2011 Rpod RP-173,2009 Jeep Liberty Rocky Mountain Edition
|
Posted By: CharlieM
Date Posted: 26 Jun 2013 at 5:08pm
|
For what it's worth: I just returned from a 780 mile camping trip towing the 172 with a Honda Pilot. MPG was 12.7 towing at 60 MPH, including about 200 miles not towing. Trip included climbing to 2400 feet at Cheaha State Park, AL (oxygen not required). This with 93 octane gas. I have found the 93 octane gas can make 2 MPG difference while towing with my Pilot. Other TVs will differ, but at present prices, the cost/mile is a bit improved and I get more miles per tankful and more horsepower for climbing. It's worth a trial to see if you can benefit. Non ethanol gas would probably be even better. ------------- Charlie Northern Colorado OLD: 2013 RP-172, 2010 Honda Pilot 3.5L 4WD PRESENT: 2014 Camplite 21RBS, 2013 Supercharged Tacoma 4L V6 4WD |
Posted By: hogone
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2013 at 11:38am
|
I was always under the impression that you can actually do damage to a car engine running higher octane fuel if not called for. And could actually decrease your MPG using higher tyan recommended octane. ------------- Jon & Pam 2013 RP177 2010 F150 2017 HD Streetglide 2009 HD Lowrider CHEESEHEAD |
Posted By: CharlieM
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2013 at 11:55am
|
Never heard of the damage thing, and many of the small truck/SUV manufacturers recommend premium when towing. As far as decreasing MPG, I can only relate my own experience, which has been a noticeable increase. ------------- Charlie Northern Colorado OLD: 2013 RP-172, 2010 Honda Pilot 3.5L 4WD PRESENT: 2014 Camplite 21RBS, 2013 Supercharged Tacoma 4L V6 4WD |
Posted By: furpod
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2013 at 12:12pm
|
I know for sure we got some crappy lower octane than advertised (87) gas in the NC mountains, and when we had a really long hard pull on the interstate coming back, we got some wicked bad pinging for the two seconds it took me to shut the cruise control down when big Ex shifted to 3rd at 65mph. Next fill up we put in a higher octane (91), then got into the mountains again.. no pinging at what appeared to be the exact same conditions. (RPM incline, and road speed) I don't think I have ever heard of damage from a higher octane being used, it just isn't always helpful or needed. Most modern vehicles will adjust ignition timing and spark to compensate anyways. Our GTi does that. It wants 93, but you can run it on 87.. and you can tell when you do. My guess is it cuts boost and timing advance pretty harshly, because merging and passing are noticeably different. ------------- |
Posted By: techntrek
Date Posted: 27 Jun 2013 at 1:53pm
|
The opposite is true, the few vehicles which require 93 octane (usually sports cars) will be damaged if you put 87 into them.
------------- Doug ~ '10 171 (2009-2015) ~ 2008 Salem ~ http://www.rpod-owners.com/forum_posts.asp?TID=1723 - Pod instruction manual
|