A/C, while are they still putting them on the roof.  If was going to build a TT I'd put a small one beneath the bed and vent to the rear.  Since both area A/C only there would be a weight savings.

AC is an option on these trailers.  Best to leave in place even if you don't use it much. 

The Hood River version sold in the West is already lifted with 15 inch tires. 

The standard RV black water system works fine, I would not mess with it.  Much greater storage capacity. 

The biggest issue with the Subaru was tongue weight and squat.  I did add some 'Sumo spring' helpers, but you can't easily add air suspension and Subaru does not support using a weight-distributing hitch.  So we really couldn't drive at night or other drivers would get really annoyed with our headlights (and I couldn't adjust the aim enough).  Power going over the mountains was never a problem though.  I'm sure the Ascent, with a 5000# towing limit, a 500# tongue weight rating, and the same turbo engine would be better though (but you still can't use a WDH).

Just washed the 'Pod and we're headed south tomorrow for a week of desert camping. Whoever gave the tip on Meguiars' ceramic wax, thanks. Stuff worked like a charm.

FWIW, I did weight the 179 when we bought it and it was about 200# heavier than the claimed weight even without battery and LP. When I was dialing in my WDH, I weighed it again with the normal load we would take camping and, no surprise it was a lot more, not just a bit more. The weight of stuff really adds up fast. I knew this from years of backpacking, but it was a good reminder transitioning into RV life.

You all take care

Certainly, the deceased horse has been soundly beaten to a pulp and is ready, with the addition of some salt and pepper, myrtle berry powder, and potassium nitrate, to put into the bologna casing.

I'm not trolling -- I haven't said anything I don't think is right.  But sure, it's possible that there's some entertainment value nonetheless.

In the case where you are not the original owner or where you are relying a spec, not the manufacturers statement of the weight when it left the factory with two full propane bottles.  This isn't a number they could fudge without facing legal difficulties.  

For fiberglass boats, it's a different story -- you can't trust the specs because the actual weight depends on the fiberglass layup (and how careful the workers were being at the time).  Weights will differ from boat to boat of the same model (and all will generally heavier than advertised).  But Gulfstream attested to the actual weight of my trailer when it rolled out of the factory (with those full propane tanks).  They'd face legal liability if they were faking or lying about it.

I do, but apparently you don't.  A linear function is one kind of monotonic function, but there are lots of others.  The point being, as I said, if you decrease weight by 10%, does that increase safety by 10%?  Or 1%?  Or 50%?  Or 0.1%?  All of those are consistent with some monotonic function, but you have no idea which.  

And in fact, we both *know* it's not even a monotonic function because you can increase safety by adding weight when that weight is added to increase tongue weight when it is too low.  It's possible that adding weight (especially weight that lowers the center of gravity) may increase safety in some conditions.  A heavier trailer may (or may not) handle high winds better than a lightly loaded one.  A full tank of water may be better than half a tank that can slosh back and forth.  There are a lot of complexities.

They do last a long time, but used vehicle prices are very high -- in my judgement, they are not a good deal right now (the same is true of travel trailers -- used prices are crazy).  The first x years of a cars life are its best years, and I'd rather enjoy those years myself.  And we can afford it. 

It is true, though, that driving is very safe (even while towing -- though obviously less so).  It's the reason why safety problems with autonomous vehicles took so long to emerge.  So, no, a single 4400 mile trip can't tell us about safety at a level of a handful of crashes per million miles driven.  But it can rule out the idea that the configuration just doesn't work (e.g. that it simply can't handle mountains or wind or rough roads or will break down and overheat, etc).  

I was advised, when I decided to sell our 172 and was looking for a trailer with a little more room, that the slightly wider [6"], higher [another 6"], and heavier [about 500# gvw], and longer [3'] Sonoma 167rb would result in much poor fuel economy, much more problematic to drive.  Though I was much closer to the maximum combined vehicle weight, I was still within the limits.  I had no issues towing the new trailer and the fuel consumption was exactly the same as it was when I pulled our Pod.  In fact, the under chassis wheel configuration, instead of the cantilevered axle of the rPod, made towing easier because I needed a foot less side to side clearance for the trailer.  So much for the advice I got.

So, enjoy your trailer and travels.  And, as they say in the Boy Scouts, be prepared.

Ours isn't a Pod, but similar in size and weight--probably closest to a 171 (no slide), but a little taller and wider.  Anyway, ground clearance really wasn't a problem.  We aren't trying to overland, just get into some dispersed sites that required a few bits of what I guess you'd say is light off-roading.  Rougher than getting to some of the camp sites were a couple of long unpaved roads -- particularly Rock House Valley Road that stretches about 30 miles across Vermillion Cliffs.  The problem was sections of washboard.  Two things did go a little wrong that time.  First, one of the rear stab jacks vibrated part way down and then did drag at one point and bent a little (but I was able to bend it back).  The other was that our double rear dinette window wasn't fully latched and worked it's way partly open and ... the dust!!!  Not a fun cleanup (I wished we had that propane-powered shop vac).  But it was worth it get to the trailhead for the Buckskin Gulch slot canyon which is spectacular.  Checking out the trailer post-trip is a good idea.  We've been home a few days now and have done a thorough cleanout of the trailer and things look to no worse for wear.

All the best! Keep us posted what you decide.

It wasn't just 4400# miles, it was driving, at times, in strong head and crosswinds, over multiple mountain passes, across long, rough unpaved roads (in Vermillion Cliffs and Escalante) and to dispersed camp sites that sometimes required 4WD and high-clearance.  We had to do a panic stop when a jackass pulled out in front of us.  It was a pretty thorough workout.  It wasn't a high-heat workout (temps were never above the low 80s and mostly lower -- especially high in the mountains), but that's OK -- we have not intention of ever camping in really hot temperatures (yuck!)

Probably not much point in going around and around more on safety margins.  Happy camping (or farming)!