Actual Fuel Economy

[jen b]

I don't have the budget or space to keep multiple cars and trucks so my tow car is the same as my not-quite-daily-driver car (city life, walk a lot). And I don't want to be shoveling more of my travel budget into fuel than I really have to. I get 30-32 mph highway in the 2014 Subaru Outback manual without towing, and 19 - 21 mpg with the 13' Burro attached which is pretty satisfactory to me.

One of these days we'll size up the trailer and I'll have to consider a tow vehicle with more capacity but I'll still be thinking about how to minimize general impact whether on my budget or on the carbon footprint. I'm really hoping that in 8-10 years there will be more choices along those lines.

[steve dunham]

IT'S CALLED "PROPER PERSPECTIVE"
Most people don't want to spend anymore than necessary on fuel
but no one buys a travel trailer in order to get better mileage.
A travel trailer is a luxury and luxuries cost money.
We have acquaintances who we travel with . They have established an arbitrary fuel price threshold in their mind and if fuel prices go above that threshold they stay home.
I don't understand the notion that spending $50 to fill a 20 gallon fuel tank is cheaper than spending $100 to fill a 40 gallon tank.
Following that logic , I should install a 10 gallon fuel tank in my vehicle and cut my fuel bill in half.
Running your vehicle constantly so it is always warmed up is just as foolish as refusing to drive over and visit your Mother on Mother's day because the price of fuel went up 5 Cents a gallon or you would be fighting a head wind.
My vehicle tows my trailer to where I want to go , safely , comfortably and without issue. That pretty much does it for me.


A friend of ours drives the 6 miles up to the gas station everyday and buys $5 worth of fuel . His reasoning is that by buying a small amount everyday he is price averaging and filling his tank once a week is too expensive cause it ties up too much of his interest earning money .

[floyd]

Fuel economy can be approached from different perspectives.

1] Stay out longer and make more destinations per trip.
This makes more efficient use of your travel fuel budget.

2] Reduce both acceleration and cruising speed.
This increases safety and fuel consumption.
It also reduces wear and tear on equipment.
Don't fool yourself... RV towing is more hazardous than driving without a trailer, so slow down.

3] Its a travel trailer not a condo.
Instead of a larger tow vehicle, consider a smaller travel trailer.

Finally RV travel is not the same as Snow birding or long stay, single destination towing.
If you are going to stay in one spot for months, fuel expense is spread over time and becomes less relevant, and maybe more space becomes more important.

For touring with frequent moves, smaller TVs and smaller trailers are more efficient, not only on fuel but for traffic, parking, exploring, etc.

Of course the TV should match the trailer and driving should match the rig. Loose 10 MPH when towing and lift at the top of the exit ramp. Increase following distance too.
5 under instead of 5 over is only prudent when towing and is a small price to pay to save fuel, equipment and lives.

[Jon in AZ]

[Raspy]

Originally Posted by steve dunham

I don't understand the notion that spending $50 to fill a 20 gallon fuel tank is cheaper than spending $100 to fill a 40 gallon tank.
Following that logic , I should install a 10 gallon fuel tank in my vehicle and cut my fuel bill in half.

You missed the point. Fuel was over $4.00 a gallon and then it dropped to $2.00. Half the price for a an equal fill up.

At that point I bought 900 gallons of diesel for my heating oil that will heat the house for about 15 years. And at 40,000 miles/year driving, my fuel cost was cut in half with a savings of about $4,000.

Yes, I do care about that as I go about my normal course of business and fun. I have better things to do than feed the oil companies. Saving $250. on fuel for a camping trip will easily pay for all the nights spent at an expensive campground, or pay for an upgrade in the trailer that will last a long time. We don't have to be super careful with the money, but as I mentioned, I don't burn $100. bills to stay warm either.

I'm gonna go camping either way, but given the choice, Id rather go for less than go for more.

And back to range: When I go to Death Valley, it's about 150 miles round trip to the nearest gas station and 100 more if I go exploring. Carrying extra fuel cans on trips is not my idea of fun.

Oh no, here it comes!...............YMMV

[minke]

In the '60s when my Volvo would get just about 6,000 miles between tuneups measuring MPG was valuable to tell you when to get that tuneup in before it was too late. I don't know if I'll ever adjust to the new reality.

[Raspy]

Floyd,

Good points. A smaller and more streamlined fiberglass trailer is much more economical to tow, and easier than the typical big stickie.

My Oliver is only 7' wide compared to my old, square shaped, toy hauler that was over 8' My average mileage went up 30% when I got the Oliver! Plus it will fit into spaces that larger trailers won't and is just easier to navigate around.

I don't want a luxury apartment when camping, but I don't feel we've given up anything by having a simple trailer. On the contrary, I marvel at how efficient, comfortable and practical it is. It all fits in to the overall satisfaction of being out in the wild, roaming around and exploring. For instance, we accidentally discovered the fantastic train museum at Ely Nevada and spent three days there at the KOA. Yikes! $40. per night! But well worth it for the outcome. We also go to the Bristlecone Pine Forest where the cost is a "suggested" $5. per night. I usually pay $10. instead.

[ZachO]

In the end there is a continuum from people who don't care at all, to people who are OCD about fuel mileage and cost. Regardless of income. People who own trailers are just like other people. They run the entire continuum. No amount of "reasoning" or explaining or valid points or rational thought will necessarily have any effect on their (or your) thinking.

[Raspy]

Originally Posted by ZachO

In the end there is a continuum from people who don't care at all, to people who are OCD about fuel mileage and cost. Regardless of income. People who own trailers are just like other people. They run the entire continuum. No amount of "reasoning" or explaining or valid points or rational thought will necessarily have any effect on their (or your) thinking.

You're absolutely right. It's fun to discuss it though, and see where people are coming from.

[charlsara]

Kind of neat to see how different we see the world of gas milage. It shows how different we are in lots of ways. Yet we belong to the tribe of FGRV[emoji106]

[Mike Magee]

I reached driving age during the 1970s fuel crisis, when everyone was hyperventilating about saving gas and the interstate speed limits were dropped to 55 mph. It has colored my thinking ever since. But at least I can recognize the root cause of my gas mileage over-interest, and I can try to compensate.

[Mike_L]

charlie,
How does the Expedition compare to the Ranger stability wise?

[ZachO]

Oh yeah, still interesting to talk about. Just always also interesting to see how annoyed people get when other people are more concerned about something than they feel is appropriate. I can’t deny it’s happened to me at times.

My Tacoma gets 14mpg pulling my 17’ Bigfoot. Which is really pretty good. But I’d get probably better mileage with a full size domestic truck. By the looks of it, a full size domestic would be less efficient and less environmentally responsible. But the truth is that my little Tacoma is actually pretty inefficient. 19mpg highway, not towing. 14mpg towing. The towing mileage isn’t bad. But for a little V6 pickup, not being able to break 20mpg highway is kinda lame.

[Raspy]

There are a lot of improvements currently appearing in engines. Variable valve timing and lift, Atkinson Cycle, direct injection and turbocharging. Especially turbocharging with direct injection, that is a magic combination. The new compression ratios are very high and can be varied with the cam timing to help with scavenging or efficiency under light loads.

Ford's Ecoboost is a fine example, Honda is doing the same thing with the new Accord engines. These have low end power from a small displacement that could not be achieved until recently on pump gas.

Mazda has a new generation of Skyactive coming soon that will be very interesting. It doesn't use spark plugs once warmed up and seems impossible to make into a practical design, but they are magicians.

Even Chrysler has updated their Pentastar with direct injection on top of that already very efficient engine.

I think we'll see more and more four cylinder engines for light duty use, and fewer 8 cylinder engines. V8 engines run so nice and are naturally balanced, but are reaching their limit on efficiency. V6 engines are inherently out of balance and more complicated than in-line engines. They also have more sliding friction than a comparable displacement in-line four cylinder, but they can replace an eight, by adding turbos.

[sokhapkin]

Originally Posted by ZachO

Oh yeah, still interesting to talk about. Just always also interesting to see how annoyed people get when other people are more concerned about something than they feel is appropriate. I can’t deny it’s happened to me at times.

My Tacoma gets 14mpg pulling my 17’ Bigfoot. Which is really pretty good. But I’d get probably better mileage with a full size domestic truck. By the looks of it, a full size domestic would be less efficient and less environmentally responsible. But the truth is that my little Tacoma is actually pretty inefficient. 19mpg highway, not towing. 14mpg towing. The towing mileage isn’t bad. But for a little V6 pickup, not being able to break 20mpg highway is kinda lame.

19mpg highway not towing is terrible... My 2013 F150 screw V8 5.0L naturally aspirated engine makes ~22 mpg highway not towing and 16-18mpg towing 16' Scamp layout 4 (~2600 lbs).

[Jon in AZ]

"Pretty lame" is the way it was described... But let's not forget Florida is relatively flat and low elevation, while Colorado is neither. In the end there are so many variables that affect fuel economy- loading, geography, weather, driving habits, even the method used to calculate it- that my response to claims of superior fuel mileage is, "I'm so happy for you."

I do value good fuel economy, and I generally choose the smallest class of vehicle that will accomplish the purposes for which I buy it. Beyond that, though, fuel economy has never been the factor that led me to buy one vehicle over another. Not once.

[Glenn Baglo]

Turn off the music and you will improve fuel economy.

[steve dunham]

Originally Posted by ZachO

In the end there is a continuum from people who don't care at all, to people who are OCD about fuel mileage and cost. Regardless of income. People who own trailers are just like other people. They run the entire continuum. No amount of "reasoning" or explaining or valid points or rational thought will necessarily have any effect on their (or your) thinking.

From my experiences , people that are OCD about fuel mileage are usually OCD about anything having to do with money
My fishing buddy has this problem , he will drive 10 miles out of his way to save 2 cents on a gallon of fuel , he and his wife split a McDonald's kid's happy meal to save money and when we are fishing and hunting he washes out the disposable paper coffee filters and reuses them.
I don't like wasting things or money either but at some point it can go overboard and become an obsession.

I have not tried turning the radio off as Glenn suggested but I do know that if I turn my headlights off when driving at night my mileage does go up ever so slightly .

[rbryan]

I've seen some lively discussion about mileage on this thread, but I haven't seen any comments yet indicating someone is obsessed with mpg or has OCD about it.

There's a difference between being frugal and cheap. We aren't cheap. If we were, we certainly wouldn't be driving a 2015 Lariat and towing an Escape 19 behind it.

But, we do consider ourselves frugal. We just believe in being good stewards of what the good Lord has given us, and not to waste needlessly. A small part of that is owning and driving a more fuel efficient vehicle, but one that is still safe and capable.

[Bruce H]

On a slightly different note I am convinced that 10% ethanol gasoline reduces fuel economy. I know it does absolutely nothing for the environment.

On my trips to California from Missouri the past few years I used to fill up at a the Sam's Club at Roswell, New Mexico. The attendant there told me that gasoline contained no ethanol. I took that info with a grain of salt but every trip the tank of gasoline I purchased there got better fuel mileage than the other tanks full I purchased.

On a related note I suspect that the 10% ethanol figure may not always be 10% content. Ethanol has a wholesale cost per gallon just like gasoline does. I don't know what those markets are right now but I seriously doubt they run in tandem. If the ethanol cost is less per gallon than gasoline there would be an incentive for the oil companies (or the distributors, or whoever) to up that percentage. On an 8,000 gallon tanker load of gasoline each 1% equals 80 gallons. If the price differential was say 25 cents per gallon in favor of ethanol there would be an incentive to add ethanol and reduce the gasoline. Each 1% would gross an additional $20.00 per load (or $100.00 per load if an extra 5% ethanol was added. What government agency tests gasoline for ethanol content? And how does a consumer or convenience store operator test it?? Just idle speculation on my part.