Tow cars and trailers

On May 20, 9:37 am, Bullwinkle wrote:
On 5/20/07 6:24 AM, in article
om, "Doug Hoffman"



wrote:
On May 18, 7:05 am, Dan G wrote:
I think it's important to be clear what we're talking about here. A VW
Passat TDi station wagon has a combined mpg of 48 and a long-run mpg
of 58, with 236lbs/ft of torque at 1,750rpm. The car has a kerbweight
of 3,500lbs and using the figure of 85%* of kerbweight to give towing
capacity, that allows trailers of up to 3,000lbs to be towed
comfortably.

The maximum towing capacity is specified by the vehicle manufacturer.
The Passat TDi may or may not be rated for up to 3,000lbs.

My Neon 2.0L with manual transmission (less than $14,000 new)
routinely gave me 33-38 mpg depending on driving cycle. It could
easily pull my 15m glider with its 2,000lb towing rating. I wonder
how much a Prius is rated for towing?

gasoline-elctric hybrids

The Prius stickers at around $24,000. The full government rebate is
limited to the first 60,000 Prius per model year (about $3,000):

http://hybridcars.about.com/od/news/...dtaxcredit.htm

If I miss out on the full government rebate then I would pay up to
$10,000 more than the Neon to drive a vehicle which I doubt will tow
my glider. Let's not even consider the extra cost for maintenance and
repairs or battery replacement costs.

For $10,000 I can drive my conventional technology Neon over 87,000
miles, assuming gasoline is $4/gal and 35mpg. And still tow my glider
most places (albeit less than 35mpg while towing).

Btw, I think vehicles like the Prius are great. But they are no
silver bullet (I know you didn't claim they were).

(Going a bit further OT):
If we truly believe what Al Gore is saying, then we would all
immediately stop using anything that creates CO2 and other greenhouse
gases (I guess we should still allow ourselves to breath as our bodies
do create CO2 and water vapor, both GHGs). Park all cars and trucks
permanently. Ground all airplanes and so forth. As far as
inconvenience to daily life, so what? We are talking about saving the
planet, right (at least according to Gore and some others)? Maybe
even if Gore believed what he is saying he would stop living in a huge
house that consumes many times the energy of the average US house. Or
is that four houses he owns?

Regards,

-Doug

Apologize if I missed this elsewhere in the thread, but FYI the Prius is
prohibited from towing, per the owner's manual.

The Highlander Hybrid is OK for towing, per its owner's manual.

Regards,
Bullwinkle

Actually the biggest advantage of the hybrids (for towing) is that the
electric drive gets its best
torque at 0 rpm. This allows you to get a good start without
overtaxing your
engine or transmission. This also improves the highway mileage
because a smaller
gas engine can power the car -- most of the power in a conventional
car is used
for low speed torque and power, and only around 15% is needed for
maintaining your
highway speed.

The hybrids wind up wearing much more slowly as a result. When I
did my first oil change at 5K miles on mine the oil looked unused.
I've also seen
picture of the brake pads on a hybrid that showed no wear after 110K
miles, since
most of the braking effort comes from electrical generation. The
brake pads only
get used once your speed drops to around 6mph or less.

Doug Hoffman wrote:
The Prius stickers at around $24,000. The full government rebate is
limited to the first 60,000 Prius per model year (about $3,000):

http://hybridcars.about.com/od/news/...dtaxcredit.htm

The credit for Toyota hybrids will phase out completely as of October 1,
2007, and will not return for future model years. All Toyota/Lexus
hybrid rebates are limited to a few hundred dollars at this point:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162562,00.html

Ford, GM, Honda, and Nissan hybrids aren't scheduled for the phase out
at the moment, as they've yet to hit their 60000 hybrid thresholds.
Some of these companies started building hybrids somewhat later than
Toyota, but many don't sell well for good reasons. Hybrids are not a
silver bullet, as you state. And, most can't tow a glider trailer. The
Escape and Mariner hybrids, for example, have a towing capacity of only
1000 lbs.

I will again remind everyone that hybrids provide the bulk of their
improvement in local stop and go driving. On the highway, there are
comparable gasoline and diesel engined vehicles that provide better
mileage (hybrids will generally have better controlled emissions).

(Going a bit further OT):
If we truly believe what Al Gore is saying, then we would all
immediately stop using anything that creates CO2 and other greenhouse
gases (I guess we should still allow ourselves to breath as our bodies
do create CO2 and water vapor, both GHGs). Park all cars and trucks
permanently. Ground all airplanes and so forth. As far as
inconvenience to daily life, so what? We are talking about saving the
planet, right (at least according to Gore and some others)? Maybe
even if Gore believed what he is saying he would stop living in a huge
house that consumes many times the energy of the average US house. Or
is that four houses he owns?

You are confusing the message with the messenger. If Al Gore lived in
one 500 sq ft house and traveled around only by bicycle, many would this
frugal lifestyle further reason for ridicule.

The point is that, if the message is correct (and I personally find the
"qualifications" of the dissenters rather unconvincing), we will all
suffer the consequences. There are many good reasons to communally
reduce our energy footprint, beyond concerns about greenhouse gases.

Or, we can collectively bury our heads, and wonder why the whole dung
heap is collapsing on top of us 20 or 30 years down the line...

Marc

Marc Ramsey wrote:

You are confusing the message with the messenger. If Al Gore lived in
one 500 sq ft house and traveled around only by bicycle, many would this
frugal lifestyle further reason for ridicule.


Al Gore is his own reason for ridicule. His message is tainted,
undeniably, by the fact he has yet to demonstrate that he is _not_
one of those who says, "Do as I say, and not as I do." Until then we
will ignore him and others like him.

As long as we insist on being warm in the winter and also believe
that the earth can sustain increasing billions of human inhabitants
the problem will continue to grow -- only the rate might be changed
imperceptibly by anything we may try to do about it. It makes no
sense at all for 300,000,000 Americans to become tree-huggers if
5,000,000,000 Asians, Africans, and others are doing all they can to
increase their own material comforts, and with little or no regard
for the pollution that results.

Nature will take care of the problem, one way or the other. It is
our obligation only to see that we are the beneficiaries of the
natural course of events, and not its victims. That requires much
more science and far less dogma.


Jack

On May 17, 11:14 pm, Paul Hanson
wrote:

I think we must be careful not to use too light of
a vehicle to tow our glider trailers with. Although
the 2:1 ratio some trailer rental companies use ('U-Haul
used to require 2:1 ratio between the towing vehicle
and the trailer. Stated differently, the towing vehicle
must weigh twice as much as the trailer and its contents.
To increase rentals, U-Haul lowered that ratio from
2:1 to 1:1. This change decreased stability and increased
accidents'.--fromhttp://www.beasleyallen.com) may
be suitable for short coupled trailers, our glider
trailers although admittedly light in weight, have
much greater moments due to the longer arm, so for
me at least, that unfortunately rules out small, lightweight
super efficient vehicles, due to safety concerns. I
did find this in another thread though, talking about
glider towing with a Toyota Highlander Hybrid:
'I'll add my two cents to this thread. I towed my glider
trailer last weekend with a HH 4wd. Glider trailers
are tricky to tow because of their length (28') and
the fact that they have a lot of sail area. Weight
is about 1800 lbs. The rig was rock solid in mountainous
terrain with a 25 mph crosswind. Was at least as good
as my previous vehicle, a Grand Cherokee. I am quite
pleased with the performance. Overall, I am getting
about 26-27 MPG'.
found in:http://townhall-talk.edmunds.com/direct/view/.f0daea6

I like the idea of good gas mileage, since I tow mine
enough for that to be a major budget concern, for me.
(Ca to Memphis last Feb, Ca to Oshkosh later, plus
several milk runs...ouch) I currently tow with a Chevy
Astro Van, and get around 18-19mpg, doing normal interstate
speeds (70-80mph), so 26-27mpg does not sound too bad,
although I would need a motel when I got where I was
going because the Highlander Hybrid does not sound
big enough for me to camp in with my dog while on site.
It does sound like a good possible solution for some
of you though.

I do really like the idea of some sort of drive-assist
system in the trailer though, an idea I've considered
before, although my gas mileage without the trailer
is near the same in the Astro. Somebody needs to develop
a hybrid van, with good towing capacity, coupled to
a trailer that assists and then we would be on to something.
Although, the excessive cost of this combo would probably
outweigh the extra money that would be saved on gas,
it seems like a step in the right direction none the
less.

Paul Hanson
"Do the usual, unusually well"--Len Niemi

Also consider the Ford Escape/Mercury Mariner hybrids (aka FEH or
MMH). Curb weight 3800lbs,
35-40mpg with good driving techniques. Supposedly there's a Toyota
hybrid minivan coming one
of these days (it's been available in Japan for several years now)
that includes electric drive on the
rear wheels (like the HyHi). Personally I have a Prius as my wife's
car, which I love except for the
fact that it can't tow anything.

One additional consideration is to think further outside the box.
What about using public transportation,
bicycling, or telecommuting for your daily grind? You can keep the
gashog around for the weekends.
When I was riding the bus every day to work my gas usage in my truck
dropped to around 1 tank a month
(300 miles or so), which is enough to keep it running well but not
enough to be a financial drag. I also
got a break on car insurance because I wasn't using it for daily
commute.

FWIW, my tow car is an ancient Volvo wagon that got 23 mpg on the
mountain grade tow mentioned in my last post. The Volvo has a long
overhang, which means I don't tow above 70, but that's fine by me
(I've been busted twice in Calfironia for high speed towing), and I
can sleep in it. Not elegant but a mostly reliable efficient road
warier.

One additional consideration is to think further outside the box.
What about using public transportation,
bicycling, or telecommuting for your daily grind?

Where I live, this is not outside, but pretty much in the center of the
box. But we're getting OT.

On May 17, 6:07 pm, "Bill Daniels" bildan@comcast-dot-net wrote:
Well, gas is $3.50/Gal in many parts of the US and who is to say it won't be
$4/gal next summer. This is starting to hurt - and getting me to think of a
more economical vehicle.

Yes, go for a more economical car. As others mention, the Passat and
Volvo XC wagon both make good tow vehicles. A few members from my club
use them to tow from the midwest out to Utah every year. One reported
that his Passat 1.8 T tiptronic with a Cobra trailer averaged 25-27
mpg at 75 mph, AC on. They get 32-34 mpg without the trailer.

My Audi A6 quatto wagon with 2.8 gas V-6 will get 20 mpg with a boxy
Minden-fab trailer, 27 mpg without at 75 mph. Not great, but not too
bad either.

I will consider a TDI for my next vehicle. The torque is massive and
the economy unsurpassed. If you ever drive the autobahn you will soon
notice that TDI's are typically going faster than gas. They work just
fine at high load and speed. Hybrids only pay-off around town.

One small note on the Passats: the older 1998-2005 model years used a
wonderful 4 link front suspension, the same as found on the Audi A4
and A6. The ride and handling is far superior to a MacPherson strut
design, IMO. The new 2006+ Passats went back to MacPhersons.....too
bad.

Good luck to you,
Adam

On May 18, 8:18 pm, Adam wrote:

One small note on the Passats: the older 1998-2005 model years used a
wonderful 4 link front suspension, the same as found on the Audi A4
and A6. The ride and handling is far superior to a MacPherson strut
design, IMO. The new 2006+ Passats went back to MacPhersons.....too
bad.

Way O/T... the new Passat is a distinct "downgrade" from the previous
model, as it was taking sales away from the Audi A4. The engines are
still identical between the two brands.

Back O/T, don't underestimate the effect that noseweight has on
stability. I've been a passenger in tow car where a K21 was actually
lifting up the hitch, rather than pushing down. Not good. Conversely,
a trip with a Janus (slightly long trailer, and actually with a
smaller and lighter towcar) was much pleasanter experience because it
had a proper noseweight.


Dan

Consider the third generation (in America) Toyota RAV4.
It's got a 268 h.p.(!) V-6 that gets about 27 mpg
with four wheel drive (not towing).

When my 2000 Accord has to be replaced, I will definitely
consider this vehicle.

On a recent trek with trailers in tow, me with my Accord
and a friend with his RAV4, we started the trip with
full tanks of gas and we ended the trip a few hundred
miles later and tanked up. His Toyota used less fuel
than my Honda did. SUV vs. sedan and the SUV wins.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina

Ray, did you have trouble getting a classs III hitch on your Accord?
(I assume the dealer wouldn't touch this?)