That was my original suggestion as well.
The op was looking for additional ideas that others had tried. Short of a cover to streamline the whole rig or only going down hill if that can be arraigned there does not seem to be much else to do.
Experience reducing Aero drag while trailering?
- Thread starter Thaniel
- Start date
The op was looking for additional ideas that others had tried. Short of a cover to streamline the whole rig or only going down hill if that can be arraigned there does not seem to be much else to do.
Humor is good. The power company use to own a Camp with a ramp. Employees leaned the hard way about their sailboats as the power company had strung a power line across the ramp. Sent CEO of power company a funny card with the word DUH with sailboat mast near it. Suddenly that line was re-routed at Smith Mountain Lake.
Last edited:
Just a follow up for those interested. For those thinking that searching for better MPG is a waste of time.....I'm trying to say this the nicest way possible....you are in the wrong thread.
Trip has been completed. Towed the boat over 1,600 miles. And I'll share my very unscientific results.
I live in the hills of Virginia and due to the hills my initial tow MPG isn't necessarily a good comparison. However my initial tow appeared to drop the MPG of my SUV from 15 ish, unloaded, to 8 or 9 (depending on how fast I went) towing.
For the long vacation tow we removed the standing rigging, pulled the halyards into the mast so the mast was pretty clean, pushed the mast much farther forward which also lowered it (didn't lower to all the way to the Cabin as we still wanted inside and also feared damage from supporting it oddly) and removed the life lines. This was not only good from a MPG stand point but reduced wear and tear on the rigging and life lines. With those removed we seemed to get between 9-10 mpg (based on measuring with filling the tank and comparing to fuel needed to refill). This again was at driving typically at posted freeway speeds. Not a huge gain, but even with that small gain it saved 20-40 gallons of gas, 1 to 2 fuel stops and $60 - $112. Not bad for a few min of work.
I tried drafting Semis or large motor homes and that seemed to have pretty significant effect (based on the instantaneous MPG gauge from the car). This seemed to net a gain of maybe 3 MPG over not following anything. And much to my surprise it didn't require being very close to the lead vehicle, only a smidgen closer than I'd follow normally. With the semi's there was a sweet spot of too close and the boat would buffet uncomfortably, too far back and there'd be no effect at all. Following RV's had less turbulence and were more enjoyable to follow. Following car transporters or smaller trailers seem to have little benefit. (The drive was 12 hours there and 12 hours back. So yes I had a lot of time to experiment).
When driving a bit slower, say 5 mph, based on the instantaneous gage it appeared to only gain about 1 MPG. Much less than I anticipated (again with hills and traffic this is hard to gauge accurately, this isn't scientific, remember). Even when I was on some back roads doing 55 mph I was showing worse MPG on the gauge then when driving 65 mph following a semi.
Sadly I didn't spend a lot of time drafting other vehicle as it was rare to find one going the speed I wanted to and having to constantly keep the distance just right was trouble some. I preferred to set the cruise control at my desired speed and give my foot a break.
And as you already know.....Your mileage will vary
Trip has been completed. Towed the boat over 1,600 miles. And I'll share my very unscientific results.
I live in the hills of Virginia and due to the hills my initial tow MPG isn't necessarily a good comparison. However my initial tow appeared to drop the MPG of my SUV from 15 ish, unloaded, to 8 or 9 (depending on how fast I went) towing.
For the long vacation tow we removed the standing rigging, pulled the halyards into the mast so the mast was pretty clean, pushed the mast much farther forward which also lowered it (didn't lower to all the way to the Cabin as we still wanted inside and also feared damage from supporting it oddly) and removed the life lines. This was not only good from a MPG stand point but reduced wear and tear on the rigging and life lines. With those removed we seemed to get between 9-10 mpg (based on measuring with filling the tank and comparing to fuel needed to refill). This again was at driving typically at posted freeway speeds. Not a huge gain, but even with that small gain it saved 20-40 gallons of gas, 1 to 2 fuel stops and $60 - $112. Not bad for a few min of work.
I tried drafting Semis or large motor homes and that seemed to have pretty significant effect (based on the instantaneous MPG gauge from the car). This seemed to net a gain of maybe 3 MPG over not following anything. And much to my surprise it didn't require being very close to the lead vehicle, only a smidgen closer than I'd follow normally. With the semi's there was a sweet spot of too close and the boat would buffet uncomfortably, too far back and there'd be no effect at all. Following RV's had less turbulence and were more enjoyable to follow. Following car transporters or smaller trailers seem to have little benefit. (The drive was 12 hours there and 12 hours back. So yes I had a lot of time to experiment).
When driving a bit slower, say 5 mph, based on the instantaneous gage it appeared to only gain about 1 MPG. Much less than I anticipated (again with hills and traffic this is hard to gauge accurately, this isn't scientific, remember). Even when I was on some back roads doing 55 mph I was showing worse MPG on the gauge then when driving 65 mph following a semi.
Sadly I didn't spend a lot of time drafting other vehicle as it was rare to find one going the speed I wanted to and having to constantly keep the distance just right was trouble some. I preferred to set the cruise control at my desired speed and give my foot a break.
And as you already know.....Your mileage will vary
So this is not as straight forward of an issue as it might first appear. The octane rating is not a measure of how much energy a fuel has. It is determined by running a fuel formulation in a test engine against another test engine burning pure isooctane. That is where the name “octane rating” comes from. What is being compared by this test is a fuel formulation’s ability to auto combust. When you compress a gas, it gets hot. Get it too hot too soon and it will ignite before the spark plug sparks. In a high compression engine (think fancy race car or high-end BMW) the higher compression can cause lower octane fuels to combust prematurely … leading to knocking. So if you own a car with relatively high compression, you need to buy higher octane fuel. Putting high octane fuel in a 1980’s Ford F150 is just throwing money away.
BTW: Straight run gasoline (right off the refinery column) has an octane rating in the 60s. We used to add a compound called tetraethyl lead at about 0.1% to bring the octane rating up into the 80s. Now we add different toxic stuff.
When I have used the 87 vs 89 octane in my truck I see a noticeable difference in power and gas mileage. The ECU on the truck detunes the engine by adjusting the ignition and valve timing. the engine runs fine just with less power. This is particularly true with a trailer behind it. Yes there is no need for 91 or 93 octane gas but the 87 stuff just does not cut it.