115 replies to this topic

[LarryKing]

I've towed with an open trailer for 18 years. Works fine. I'm old enough to remember professional teams using open trailers and paddocked in the grass at Mid-Ohio. Now pro teams need rolling workshops, motopalaces, and 5000 sq/ft hospitality suites. Gotta have em.

 

Box trailers, especially for one-car hobbyists, are a want, not a need. I know guys that have bought bus-sized motorhomes just so they can stay at the track and party Saturday night, even though they live less than an hour from the track. Hey, their money, free country, whatever flips your trigger. This one time at band camp a dude showed up with a semi-trailer hauler and a six man crew for one little bitty Miata. I beat him.

 

When towing to a distance track I prefer a hotel room and sampling the local cuisine in the evening. With a hotel room I don't have to clean it, dump the shit, insure it, store it, fill it with 100 gals of fuel, and for the cost of a bus I can rent rooms for the next 30 years. Added bonus is avoiding the late night track shenanigans and not having a hangover the next day.

[Tom Sager]

 

 

 

That, OR after a recent trip to Europe I had an epiphany of how inefficient we are in the US. People over there are towing with Volkswagen TDI wagons getting an easy 25MPG while towing,

 

 

I'll weigh in on Saul's behalf since he's MIA in this thread.  You should know that any VW TDI in Europe seen towing another car is not doing so economically or in a way that's good for the environment.  Those cars are towing their backup cars which are there to provide seamless transportation to the occupants for when the VW breaks down or is pulled over by the environmental police.   

[Alberto]

 Added bonus is avoiding the late night track shenanigans and not having a hangover the next day.

 

 

Pffft  

You're doing it wrong

[ECOBRAP]

its kinda amazing how bent out of shape folks are getting over your own personal project. 

like, am i going to do this any time soon? probably not. 

is it interesting and am i happy someone is trying something a bit different? yup.

will you find out things that will be interesting to people in the future? totally. 

does reading about your experience make me think differently or bring up alternatives to how i would normally have done something, even if its small? yeah. 

never ceases to amaze me how crabby folks get about something you are choosing to do yourself, and not mandating, not pressuring, not anything to anyone else, and they are still pissed at you for it. never understood it. you do you, and keep posting, cause it is interesting. 

 

Thanks for understanding and support, will be releasing some new videos over the next couple of weeks and will post them here.

[Steve Scheifler]

its kinda amazing how bent out of shape folks are getting over your own personal project.
...

I’ll assume that this is at least in part directed at me so I’d like to respond.

I’m sorry you see it that way though I knew it was inevitable that some would (just as ECOBRAP knew it was inevitable that some would play devils advocate).

But I don’t believe that you have characterized either side accurately. Although he certainly isn’t trying to force anything on anyone he has gone far beyond a casual mention of something he has chosen to do. He has devoted accounts on YouTube, FB & Instagram as well as here. He is producing videos, referring multiple times to the possibility of it “taking off”, challenging others to compete with him on efficiency, getting a bit preachy based on a lot of dubious facts and oversimplifications while frankly painting everyone else with a single less than flattering brush. And then comparing the US with Europe in ways that aren’t logical. He is, by any reasonable definition, promoting, recruiting and campaigning as well as being critical of others, no matter how politely. And that’s all perfectly fine!!!! BUT, having far exceeded just telling us about a personal project to save a little fuel he can also expect some discussion, debate and even challenges of his claims. Would it really be better if we all just condescendingly said “that’s nice Matt” and moved on? Surely not. What a total waste THAT would be!

[Steve Scheifler]

Oh, and I’m still trying to wrap my head around the TDI thing. Whatever “fix” they’ve applied amounts to sacrificing economy and/or emissions relative to the much hyped and criminally false claims on which their entire marketing campaign was based for years. As an eco-conscious person it would seem more appropriate to be out picketing the dealerships rather than promoting what great deals can be had on their compromised products.

[ECOBRAP]

I’ll assume that this is at least in part directed at me so I’d like to respond.

I’m sorry you see it that way though I knew it was inevitable that some would (just as ECOBRAP knew it was inevitable that some would play devils advocate).

But I don’t believe that you have characterized either side accurately. Although he certainly isn’t trying to force anything on anyone he has gone far beyond a casual mention of something he has chosen to do. He has devoted accounts on YouTube, FB & Instagram as well as here. He is producing videos, referring multiple times to the possibility of it “taking off”, challenging others to compete with him on efficiency, getting a bit preachy based on a lot of dubious facts and oversimplifications while frankly painting everyone else with a single less than flattering brush. And then comparing the US with Europe in ways that aren’t logical. He is, by any reasonable definition, promoting, recruiting and campaigning as well as being critical of others, no matter how politely. And that’s all perfectly fine!!!! BUT, having far exceeded just telling us about a personal project to save a little fuel he can also expect some discussion, debate and even challenges of his claims. Would it really be better if we all just condescendingly said “that’s nice Matt” and moved on? Surely not. What a total waste THAT would be!

 

You have referred to my points as oversimplified multiple times, without actually going into detail (ironic?).

 

Not sure how many times I can respond to this, the whole point is that efficiency is simple. I bought a truck for less $ than the national vehicle average, an aluminum enclosed trailer for less $ than the average aluminum enclosed box trailer. I have not modified either the truck or trailer in any way (yet). I bring plenty of spares allotment to/from the track, and I race competitively at the front of the field while doing all of the above.

 

To you, this is not relevant, practical, or realistic knowledge? To the majority of racers that tow their own vehicle, on an average budget? In that case, I am talking to a brick wall here.

 

As for "dubious" facts... facts are facts. Europeans get significantly better fuel economy in their everyday cars? Fact. Europeans drive in smaller cars, but have 4-5x fewer fatal accidents per capita? Fact. Towing capacities are decreased or diminished entirely for the US market on the same exact vehicle sold in Europe? Fact. Towing restrictions and education requirements are stricter in Europe than the US? Fact. Using less fuel and less resources is better for our environment and atmosphere? Fact. VW has come to an agreement with the EPA and CARB, fixing their TDI emissions systems to government satisfaction, and providing extended CPO emissions warranties on said cars? Fact. People in Europe get 25-30MPG(US) while towing their cars behind station wagons and small vans? Fact.

 

This post, information, my videos, my social media posts, are all optional to read or watch. If you can find one instance, in any of my videos, where I tell people what they should or shouldn't do with their time or money, please let me know. But I am going to continue putting the information out there. What people choose to do with that information? Up to them.

 

I am open to debate and devils advocate, but when I address all of your concerns and points, including agreeing on some points (i.e. the TDI towing option not being practical for most people in the US), only to be returned with more skepticism, that is why people may see this as getting bent out of shape. If the discussion is going nowhere, which is how it appears to me, let's agree to disagree and move on.

 

New videos will be released in the next few weeks 

[Steve Scheifler]

Fact: In the past five years no NA Spec Miata has won a well attended Majors or HST race east of the Rockies. Conclusion: The NA Miatas are fundamentally and hopelessly uncompetitive.

See, it’s real easy to make an argument with cherrypicked facts and none of the pertinent details. Here’s another: I believe that in general women are often still paid less than men in comparable jobs, but the popular “fact” that they make ~70 cents on the dollar is dishonest and oversimplified BS.

[TylerQuance]

I always thought it would be cool to build some sort of eco-canopy thing that connected the top & sides of the pickup to the top of the trailer to improve tow rig aero.

[ECOBRAP]

I always thought it would be cool to build some sort of eco-canopy thing that connected the top & sides of the pickup to the top of the trailer to improve tow rig aero.

 

We are going to do a few more events with the OEM, bone stock truck, to see if we can beat 22MPG first (by avoiding San Francisco traffic, on a longer 360 mile haul).

 

Then, we will start messing around. The eco canopy would look ridiculous LOL, but I am sure it would be effective.

 

Also curious from a more realistic perspective of having a simple truck cap (Leer, ARE, Snugtop), that diminishes the air gap between the truck and trailer. We are in a prime spot to try this out because our truck is almost identical in height to the trailer. So if we do use a truck topper to camp in at the track, which we are considering, it very well might increase our towing MPG.

[Steve Scheifler]

I’m not claiming that the information at the below link is 100% accurate but it took me less than 20 seconds to search for and find a reasonable sounding challenge to one of your core “facts”. Have you tested your own claims or just accepted the first thing that fit your narrative? I don’t intend to spend a lot of time trying validate or refute each of your confidently pronounced facts. Even on the surface I see plenty of holes but backing up each of my suspicions isn’t a priority in my life. You on the other hand are on a mission and should try to be as accurate as possible if you want to retain credibility.

For example, I don’t know if it is true today but I believe that for years most European manufacturers were trying to build “global” cars when possible which would meet mileage and emissions requirements in all major markets, reducing overall costs to design, build, certify and maintain them. Someone already mentioned the difference between US and Imperial gallons, plus it’s likely that their testing differs from ours. So your facts about higher mileage sounded suspect, or at best oversimplified as explained in part here:

https://www.google.c...ars-5981938/amp

[ECOBRAP]

I’m not claiming that the information at the below link is 100% accurate but it took me less than 20 seconds to search for and find a reasonable sounding challenge to one of your core “facts”. Have you tested your own claims or just accepted the first thing that fit your narrative? I don’t intend to spend a lot of time trying validate or refute each of your confidently pronounced facts. Even on the surface I see plenty of holes but backing up each of my suspicions isn’t a priority in my life. You on the other hand are on a mission and should try to be as accurate as possible if you want to retain credibility.

For example, I don’t know if it is true today but I believe that for years most European manufacturers were trying to build “global” cars when possible which would meet mileage and emissions requirements in all major markets, reducing overall costs to design, build, certify and maintain them. Someone already mentioned the difference between US and Imperial gallons, plus it’s likely that their testing differs from ours. So your facts about higher mileage sounded suspect, or at best oversimplified as explained in part here:

https://www.google.c...ars-5981938/amp

 

 

I have spent a lot of time researching these things, and am very well educated on the subject. I agree, if I am trying to share information, I should probably know what I am talking about.

 

Yes that article is one of the first that appears. It is from Jalopnik, not exactly known to be a scientific source, but I will cover the validity of their points anyways.

 

Although it has a catchy headline, it only highlights three things:

 

1. UK/US different gallon sizes: Already covered in this thread. The statistic is still 25MPG(US) vs 43MPG(US), after the unit conversion, which is still a colossal 72% difference in efficiency.

 

2. EPA testing vs European testing standards: Yes, there will obviously be some differences in testing procedure. Could it account for a 72% difference? Not a chance. Both testing standards will estimate higher than the average consumer will get because both tests are done in "ideal" conditions at 50-60mph, which no one actually does. They are both idealistic, and I would be surprised if it explained more than a 5% difference, let alone a 72% difference.

 

3. The MPG metric: They are correct that MPG is a terrible unit, because it doesn't make it easy to understand fuel savings. Let's say you upgrade from a 10MPG vehicle to a 12MPG vehicle, versus a 38MPG vehicle to a 40MPG vehicle. Both of those are a 2MPG increase. Using the US average of ~13,000 miles per year, the 12MPG vehicle saves 217 gallons per year over the 10MPG vehicle. The same 2MPG jump for the 40MPG vehicle only saves 17 gallons per year over the 38MPG vehicle. That being said, it still doesn't explain a 72% difference in efficiency.

 

 

 

As for the real reason for the huge disparity, it really isn't rocket science. Engine displacement and vehicle size. They are driving around in 1.2L, 2300lb hatchbacks, we are driving around in 3L, 3700lb SUVs. We only have one option in the US to match their displacement standard of 1.2L, the Mitsubishi Mirage. That car matches their 40+MPG standard, right here in the US. The proof is right there. 

 

As for personal experience, my family lives in the UK. They own a VW Golf R (extremely fun car). They owned the same Golf R when they lived in the US. I have driven both, they both achieve ~30MPG (US) on the highway at 65mph. Certainly no 72% difference. They also own an Audi Q2 crossover, another great looking car that I feel Americans would love. Comes with a 1.4L turbo, gets 38MPG(US) in real world driving.

 

We are simply not offered the same vehicle/engine options as Europeans, because we don't create demand for them. Mazda had to discontinue the Mazda2 in the US as a result of this.

[Steve Scheifler]

I apologize. You had mentioned the difference in average vehicle size and engine displacement more than once, but I was reading it as an “also” issue rather than as the crux of your MPG argument. Definitely my mistake. Some of the statements, like them getting 25-30 MPG towing with a station wagon or van kept me thinking along those lines because I find that difficult to believe. Do you really think they do that much better than your truck? For us, I suspect most, the vast majority of a trip is steady speed on an open highway, and under those conditions I don’t see engine displacement being a huge variable, and often the difference is in the opposite direction. It takes a certain amount of energy to push an object of a certain size and shape through the air at a given speed. Under cruise conditions there are differences in the efficiency of modern engines but they aren’t massive due to displacement. Big ones aren’t producing gobs of unnecessary power to get the work done and they aren’t spewing unburnt fuel out the tailpipe. Most of my towing over the years has been with larger trailers, three different diesel Duallys by three different manufacturers, and one much larger and more powerful truck with some very modest built-in comforts for at the track. Guess which one gave the best overall fuel economy? One of the duallys actually, but not by much. Two of the duallys were worse than the big truck despite having much smaller frontal area. The purpose-built truck has the power to cruise at a lower RPM with far fewer downshifts for hills. Judging only by the crap out the tailpipes of the duallys when they downshift at full load up hills I’d guess that they are not running in the sweet spot for emissions either. The big truck keeps the revs down and marches on with less drama. Is your goal to use less fossil fuel or produce fewer emissions? No published data that I’ve seen attempts to define emissions under high stress conditions so we really have no basis for comparison on that. Pulling my trailer up hills with a dually is definitely high stress, as is pulling a smaller rig with a compact sedan. Little commuter turbos aren’t intended to stay on boost for extended periods, they will probably melt down and they will definitely cook the engine oil at an accelerated rate. Even on nearly level ground I’d wager that every gentle grade winds up the turbo and takes it outside the “clean” operating range. There’s just a lot more to it than ignoring US tow ratings and pulling with the smallest vehicle that can drag it. It isn’t that simple.

Sure, most of the world drives on average a smaller and lesser powered vehicle than we do. Much of that is a matter of practical and economic issues, and a lot of it is simple preference. They drive smaller and often less “comfortable” vehicles because it makes the most sense in terms of cost, space, need for utility, the shorter trips they make, etc. The manufacturers respond and offer them more smaller options. In a sense it’s simple, demand dictates supply, but the reasons are much more complicated than a single statistic. The simplest part is that for obvious reasons they tow with what they already own even if it’s not ideal. Meanwhile we live in a huge, prosperous and decadent country. If your point is that most people COULD get by with a smaller vehicle then I absolutely agree. It is disturbing to me that, rather than offering more small car options, the major manufacturers are abandoning most traditional sedans because they have successfully conditioned us to want much larger and more profitable vehicles. You have pointed out a couple cars you say would sell well here and maybe they would, but not well enough or the’d be here. I guess on this whole area of debate my point would be that a campaign to get people back into smaller more efficient vehicles for their daily commute and general running around makes sense. Trying to use a single vehicle as a daily driver and as a tow vehicle surely does not for most of us. Either I’m burning more fuel than necessary all year, or I’m overworking my commuter towing a trailer because “it can” but outside it’s design specs without really knowing what that does to the emissions and likely wearing it out faster. Not to mention reducing its resale value if I’m honest about how it was used. But hey, the next guy will get to brag about getting it for below the national market value. Or, because we are land rich as well as prosperous I can get around daily in something fairly efficient and clean with enough utility for my daily activities, and buy something better suited to towing for the serious work. Seems to me that works better both ecologically and economically. I don’t have scientific studies to back up most of the above so I’m reluctant to state everything as FACT, but I’m comfortable in saying that it isn’t as simple as a few generalized statistics.

[Steve Scheifler]

I forgot to mention other factors which may come into play with choice of cars in other countries. Besides fuel costs that you already mentioned and my points about commute length, space, utility etc. there are of course additional taxes and fees in many countries for larger or heavier vehicles and larger or more powerful engines. Even where that isn’t true there can be big differences in how the average paycheck is split up to pay for other taxes, housing, food etc. leaving less for indulging in nicer transportation. Insurance rates may be a significant factor. And I’m sure there are others. Again, quoting broad statistics to make a point is just too easy and frankly makes it sound like nothing more than a matter of will, or to some a vast conspiracy. But most things are immensely complex if you zoom in. It’s like using a microscope for the first time and seeing a whole other hidden world. I don’t pretend to even scratch the surface but I know there’s a lot more to consider than a few convenient facts.

I applaud any sincere effort to do better but I can’t help analyzing whether the goals are actually achieved and even if they are then relative ROI (or equivalent measure) and scalability. I have far more doubt than certainty here.

I obviously have WAY too much free time these days and have very low ROI expectations for my efforts.

[Bench Racer]

Considerable gains may be made throug reduction of are drag. Seach, pickup truck, pickup truck towed trailer, truck trailer gap and Vortex generators. Oh, and how much drag is below your pickup truck and trailer.

[Martinracing98]

Europeans drive in smaller cars, but have 4-5x fewer fatal accidents per capita?

 

Come on. Just because it is a fact does not make it accurate. More fatal accidents per capita is misleading. I quickly see we have fewer fatalities per car. I bet with more research I would find we have fewer per miles driven.

 

Their manual use is dropping as automatics get more fuel efficient.

 

Their fuel economy gap I suspect will drop a little as they are backing away from diesel because of polution concerns.

 

We could still from them. They definitely educate their drivers better before issuing license

[-P-]

After reading this thread I decided to see what my rig could do while maintaining a safe and respectful highway speed as many roads were 2 lane state highways or 75mph US highways (god bless Texas). Instead of the ~72mph I usually run at I kept it between 60-65. I saved 1.5mpg and ended the trip at 9.2mpg. The savings paid for my race gas for the weekend including practice day. Thanks!

 

F150 3.5 EB w/ 8000lb 24ft toyhauler.

[ECOBRAP]

Come on. Just because it is a fact does not make it accurate. More fatal accidents per capita is misleading. I quickly see we have fewer fatalities per car. I bet with more research I would find we have fewer per miles driven.

 

Here's what more research would have shown you, instead of guessing. Would prefer not to become the fact police here, but I will counter false assumptions.

 

Road fatalities per 100,000 people (10.9 US vs 2.9 UK) ~4x worse

Road fatalities per 100,000 vehicles (12.9 US vs 5.1 UK) ~2x worse

Road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle kilometers (7.3 US vs 3.8 Ireland) ~2x worse.      (UK did not publish their data so I used Ireland as reference instead)

 

edit: I work in driver education programs for a racing school, and we do contract work that requires us to test and evaluate adult drivers for accident avoidance maneuvers. It is funny to watch them destroy the exercise cones during a simple braking exercise, but later, it scares the **** out of you when you realize how unprepared most Americans are for the road. Including a simple exercise of hitting the brakes hard enough to engage ABS. This doesn't come as a surprise when our driver evaluations require reversing along a curb and thats pretty much it. Not to mention getting 7 questions wrong out of 40 on your drivers test still results in a passing grade (California). I don't think we need to go as crazy as Finland and require 360 degree skid control on a wet skidpad, but a simple one day exercise at an airport parking lot would go a long way to helping people understand the limits of their car.

 

 

Their fuel economy gap I suspect will drop a little as they are backing away from diesel because of polution concerns.

 

The 42-43MPG statistic for the United Kingdom was for gasoline vehicles only. Diesel did not account for their 70+% efficiency advantage, but here's that information.

 

Diesel vehicles in the UK average 51MPG (US units).

[ECOBRAP]

After reading this thread I decided to see what my rig could do while maintaining a safe and respectful highway speed as many roads were 2 lane state highways or 75mph US highways (god bless Texas). Instead of the ~72mph I usually run at I kept it between 60-65. I saved 1.5mpg and ended the trip at 9.2mpg. The savings paid for my race gas for the weekend including practice day. Thanks!

 

F150 3.5 EB w/ 8000lb 24ft toyhauler.

 

Awesome work!!! That is almost a 20% increase in fuel efficiency just from a lower speed. Because air resistance and drag are exponential with speed, a simple speed adjustment can have a huge impact. Glad your wallet is happy

 

And I know it's easier said than done on a 75mph Texas road. I personally try to keep my speed delta against other cars to 10mph. If people are blowing by at 20mph speed differential, I am forced to speed up from a safety perspective. But if people are doing 65mph, then yep I'll throw on some good music, and put along at 55-60mph!

[ECOBRAP]

Judging only by the crap out the tailpipes of the duallys when they downshift at full load up hills I’d guess that they are not running in the sweet spot for emissions either. 

 

This is an interesting point, one that I have done some research on without conclusive results. The only conclusive results I found were that on a naturally aspirated gasoline engine, lower RPM with higher load percentage, was better for fuel efficiency than high RPM low load percentage.

 

Not sure if this is consistent with diesels or turbo vehicles.

 

One of the very few things I dislike about my truck is its shift programming. If I give it more than 10% throttle in 8th gear, it will kick down into 7th gear. The whole point of a diesel is to be able to use that low RPM torque, along with the variable geometry turbo, and remain efficient in the process, but the shift programming won't let me do that. It doesn't let me lock the truck in 8th gear, which would definitely increase my MPG. I see my MPG visibly drop when it kicks down into 7th gear.

 

It makes me curious if this is an emissions thing (do diesels run cleaner at higher rpm?), which is why RAM gave it this very antsy transmission tune? Or did RAM just not want liability and refused to let their customers take control of the gears?

 

There are aftermarket transmission tunes out there that do let me take control of the gears, but I will hold off until I get some evidence on the above.

 

 

 

Is your goal to use less fossil fuel or produce fewer emissions?

 

Great question, I think it has to be a bit of both. Use less fuel, and retain the emissions system on the truck. If I wanted purely MPG, then I would indeed remove the emissions restrictions, but I won't be doing that because they serve a purpose.

 

The truck I owned before this was a 1999 F-350 7.3 Powerstroke Dually. Great truck. What was interesting is that even under full load, I never saw any black smoke or soot out of the exhaust. It had a CARB legal Banks tune on it. I kept the full emissions system on that truck and it seemed to be doing something? Although likely not as effective as modern systems with DPF, DEF, EGR, etc.

 

At some point I would like to emissions test my modern Ecodiesel, versus a 7.3L powerstroke from back in the day. Not really apples to apples, but would be interesting either way to see the differences on paper.