17 ft size towing? - Page 2 - Fiberglass RV


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-02-2006, 06:11 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Trailer: 2002 17 ft Casita Spirit Deluxe
Posts: 106
I should qualify the mileage figure - that is not towing the trailer. While towing we get around 15 - 16 mpg. Curiously, the mileage figures towing with several different vehicles are pretty close to being the same. What you will appreciate is the better figure than what you would have from some humongous stick built rv. We once camped next to a huge bulgemobile with expanding sides for a 12 ft wide living room, asked the guy what he got for mpg highway. All he said was 'you don't want to know.' Don't think you will be reluctant to reveal yours ! Don
__________________

__________________
Donald Stahl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2006, 07:42 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
BOBSMITH's Avatar
 
Trailer: 2002 Casita Freedom Deluxe / 2007 Nissan Frontier King Cab
Posts: 729
We tow with a 1999 Nissan Frontier with a V6 4WD. We get about 18mpg when towing our Casita and the truck bed fully loaded, plus our 15 foot canoe.

We keep the cruise control about 60mph, sometimes creeping a little higher than that. We slow down on steep inclines going over the high mountains up into the NC/VA/TN/WV/GA high country.
__________________

__________________
BOBSMITH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-02-2006, 09:01 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Brian B-P's Avatar
 
Name: Brian
Trailer: Boler (B1700RGH) 1979
Alberta
Posts: 5,000
Perhaps one factor to keep in mind is trailer width. The Boler 1700 that I have (like Benny's) is a wide-body: it's a foot wider than the typical narrow-body egg. The Scamp, Casita, and Escape 16' to 17' units are all narrow-bodies, while recent (1500-series, 2500-series) Bigfoot models of similar length are wide-bodies (even wider than the B1700). Apparently Burros come in both widths. Since air drag is very important at highway speeds, width (which determines frontal area) matters.
__________________
1979 Boler B1700RGH, pulled by 2004 Toyota Sienna LE 2WD
Information is good. Lack of information is not so good, but misinformation is much worse. Check facts, and apply common sense liberally.
STATUS: No longer active in forum.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2006, 08:06 AM   #18
Member
 
Trailer: 86 Burro 17 ft Widebody
Posts: 64
17' Burro wide body, 2400 pounds. 2004 F150 2WD super crew, 5.4L, 3.73:1 rear axle ratio. 13-16 MPG at 60 MPH. At 65-70MPH the mileage will drop to 11. I learned that the 3.73 gears really make a difference if using cruise control. This truck will just keep pulling in OD without downshifting. I look at the slight fuel penalty as cheap life insurance. It also reminds me to keep the speed down.
Rick
Attached Thumbnails
burro_1.jpg  
__________________
Rick F. D. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2006, 11:19 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Trailer: 74 13 ft Boler and 79 17 ft Boler
Posts: 568
I`m guessing that if I had a 3.73 gear instead of my 3.42, I`d notice the difference....the next one would be a 4.10......problem then would be I`d have to feather the throttle more when taking off when empty,LOL......Oh...gross trailer weight for my truck is 6100 lbs. with a GCWR of 11,000 lbs. ....my truck is my primary transportation but if I decide to get a car and use my truck basically to tow only, then I may change the ratio......Benny
__________________
Benny K is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 11:07 AM   #20
Administrator
 
Mary F's Avatar
 
Name: Mary
Trailer: Escape 21; (formerly Casita LD 17 & 16)
Texas
Posts: 9,711
Registry
Anybody have experience backing a 17 footer uphill on a gravel road?

Our 4.0L Ford Ranger manages our 17 ft. Casita just fine, except for when we get home and cannot back it up our gravel driveway.


Twice now, we've had to unhitch and connect it to the F-150 to get it parked... (The Ranger has tow package and limited slip differential, whatever that is. The F-150 has no package, similar horsepower, but bigger tires, better traction.)

__________________
Mary F Fiberglass Rules!
________________________________
FGRV Forum Custom Search
Mary F is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 01:20 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Donna D.'s Avatar
 
Name: Donna D
Trailer: Escape 5.0 TA, 2014
Oregon
Posts: 24,433
Sounds like you need more weight over the rear axle of the Ranger Mary. The F-150 has a higher weight ratio to the trailer than the Ranger. Pickups are generally light in the bed area, a couple of bags of tube sand thrown in the back of the Ranger would probably take care of the problem.
__________________
Donna D.
Ten Forward - 2014 Escape 5.0 TA
Double Yolk - 1988 16' Scamp Deluxe
Donna D. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 01:21 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
Brian B-P's Avatar
 
Name: Brian
Trailer: Boler (B1700RGH) 1979
Alberta
Posts: 5,000
Mary, I would guess that the F-150's advantage is simply weight on the drive wheels, not the tire size. Weight = traction.

A limited-slip diff (LSD) limits the amount one tire spins by partially locking the left and right sides of the axle together - great if one tire has less traction (poorer surface, for instance) than the other. With a limited-slip, you aren't so limited by the worst-off tire, but if both tires are working together and still don't have enough traction (both spin), the LSD isn't enough.

The problem is the backing up: with the rig facing downhill, the truck's front axle carries more load (and the rear axle less) than while level - that's load transfer. This means less traction for the rear axle to drive with. I have had the corresponding front-wheel-drive problem: traction is reduced when going forward uphill. Certainly, this is a practical limitation to the towing capacity of two-wheel drive vehicles: how much of the rig's total weight is on whatever tires are being driven?

I find it interesting that weight-distributing hitches (WDH) exist to transfer load away from the rear axle (onto the front axle and trailer axle), so with a rear-wheel-drive vehicle it makes drive traction worse; with a front-wheel-drive, the WDH would make drive traction better. If I had the backing problem with the Ranger, and was using a WDH, I would slack off the WDH as much as possible (without violating the rear axle rating) to improve traction in this situation.

I already had "I have no idea if Mary is using a WDH or not" in this post, but now that Mary has responded I'll point out that since she doesn't use a WDH, this part is not relevant to her. (I also edited the formatting of this post for clarity).

In my case, when loaded, the front and rear axles of the van carry almost identical load, so it would not matter which end gets driven except for the hill issue, and the fact that load transfers from front axle to rear when accelerating.
__________________
1979 Boler B1700RGH, pulled by 2004 Toyota Sienna LE 2WD
Information is good. Lack of information is not so good, but misinformation is much worse. Check facts, and apply common sense liberally.
STATUS: No longer active in forum.
Brian B-P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2006, 01:47 PM   #23
Administrator
 
Mary F's Avatar
 
Name: Mary
Trailer: Escape 21; (formerly Casita LD 17 & 16)
Texas
Posts: 9,711
Registry
Quote:
Sounds like you need more weight over the rear axle of the Ranger Mary. The F-150 has a higher weight ratio to the trailer than the Ranger. Pickups are generally light in the bed area, a couple of bags of tube sand thrown in the back of the Ranger would probably take care of the problem.
Yeah, or maybe some of these spare limestone blocks we have laying around our yard.

Or we could just pave the driveway...

Or not sell/give away the Big Blue Gas Hawg.




And, no, Brian. We don't use a WDH. But thanks for guessing that we do.
__________________

__________________
Mary F Fiberglass Rules!
________________________________
FGRV Forum Custom Search
Mary F is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
bed size??? curtis c General Chat 1 03-04-2009 03:53 PM
Bed Size Legacy Posts Care and Feeding of Molded Fiberglass Trailers 30 01-18-2009 09:09 AM
Need some help, ball size & towing Arline Lovell Towing, Hitching, Axles and Running Gear 10 06-08-2008 03:59 PM
Bed Size Rob M General Chat 8 03-26-2008 04:23 PM

» Upcoming Events
No events scheduled in
the next 465 days.
» Virginia Campgrounds

Reviews provided by


Copyright 2002- Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:24 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.