Jump to content

Towing Fuel Economy


signfan

Recommended Posts

Which would be more efficient fuel wise and easier to pull?  A 7' wide TC 167 or an 11' wide 2KF on a 2 place Triton Elite.  Is there much difference between the two?  I'm kinda interested in making the jump from my clamshell setup to the TC 167, but am curious on what the extra weight will mean for the towing fuel bill's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply put it will cost a bit more.

 I made the same transition 6 years ago.

I prefer the 167 but it does feel heavier and cross winds push you around a little more. F150, 5.0ltr doing the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, signfan said:

Which would be more efficient fuel wise and easier to pull?  A 7' wide TC 167 or an 11' wide 2KF on a 2 place Triton Elite.  Is there much difference between the two?  I'm kinda interested in making the jump from my clamshell setup to the TC 167, but am curious on what the extra weight will mean for the towing fuel bill's.

11" wide trailer would be illegal. 8'6" is max legal allowed everywhere.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, signfan said:

Which would be more efficient fuel wise and easier to pull?  A 7' wide TC 167 or an 11' wide 2KF on a 2 place Triton Elite.  Is there much difference between the two?  I'm kinda interested in making the jump from my clamshell setup to the TC 167, but am curious on what the extra weight will mean for the towing fuel bill's.

We went from a 2 place Triton Clamshell, to the TC167 several years ago. In my experience,  the TC167 did everything better then the clamshell. Of course in the wind, being a longer trailer and more 'sidewall ' it will move around more. But for visuals down the sides of the trailer while towing is much better,  with it being only 7 wide. Imo its the better option. We now have a PR147...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JohnnyB said:

Simply put it will cost a bit more.

 I made the same transition 6 years ago.

I prefer the 167 but it does feel heavier and cross winds push you around a little more. F150, 5.0ltr doing the job.

I have the same truck.  Do you find you are fighting pulling over hills, etc with the TC167?  I have been very happy pulling the Elite with 2 sleds in tow.  Hardly even know it's there the vast majority of the time.  Wondering if this is worth the expense.  Only complaints with the elite is it can be a fight to load sleds on icy surfaces.  Skis hit the deck and everything stops.  Also a foot of wet snow on the roof really sucks when it occurs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mine is 102” wide. If you have new power mirror’s that extend out or can add them to vehicle, it is worth it. I am 12 feet long and can easily get two long tracks in. I like wider trailer because it is easier to navigate parking lots, and easier to park at hotels and resorts (takes abit less space) Just seeing Down sides is a challenge with regular mirrors. 11 feet will be a challenge to strap and secure long tracks and close door. Can be done but not much room to spare. I think 12 feet by 102 is new standard. 

Edited by Strong Farmer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, crispy said:

Weight and driving habits make the biggest difference in fuel mileage over aero concerns. Aero helps, but not as much as dropping pounds does. Triton elite is a nice trailer imo

 

Weight may be a bigger difference in a start/stop and lower speed route application, but if you are long haul and faster speed, aerodynamics will trump weight for sure.

 

Those V nose trailers cut through the air so much better than the old skewl 4 place blunt nosed trailers! I towed a chums narrow/V-nose 3 place (prolly a 60* included angle) about 3500 miles out west many years ago and hardly knew it was back there. (behind a 1 ton dually Cummins) Planning to hook onto his newer one in another week or so and try it again.

 

 

If my gooseneck is empty (6000#) or even loaded with steel bundles (say another 12K?) it doesn't make much difference once it's rolling, but you put a big flat thing up there to catch wind, and all you can hear is the pipe the whole trip and kan't pass a fuel pump!

Edited by Ox
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Strong Farmer said:

Mine is 102” wide. If you have new power mirror’s that extend out or can add them to vehicle, it is worth it. I am 12 feet long and can easily get two long tracks in. I like wider trailer because it is easier to navigate parking lots, and easier to park at hotels and resorts (takes abit less space) Just seeing Down sides is a challenge with regular mirrors. 11 feet will be a challenge to strap and secure long tracks and close door. Can be done but not much room to spare. I think 12 feet by 102 is new standard. 

I disagree entirely!  Even with the extended mirrors on my old truck (3500 with Dumbo ears mirrors) I could not see anything behind me unless I was on a curve.  After towing a fellow member's Triton PR 147 on a trip, I was convinced.  The Triton, loaded with 3 sleds, towed easier and felt lighter than my double clamshell.  I was convinced that a 7 foot wide trailer was the way to go.  I certainly would not go back to an 8 foot wide trailer again.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, signfan said:

Which would be more efficient fuel wise and easier to pull?  A 7' wide TC 167 or an 11' wide 2KF on a 2 place Triton Elite.  Is there much difference between the two?  I'm kinda interested in making the jump from my clamshell setup to the TC 167, but am curious on what the extra weight will mean for the towing fuel bill's.

I would suggest the bigger concern for fuel is the width and height of the trailer, the shape of the front and the wind drag it creates. Our 22 ft. boat on a tandem axle trailer gives better fuel consumption than our 8' 6" wide hybrid snowmobile trailer. I chalk it up to the aerodynamics of the two. The bow of the boat deflects the air nicely. The boat also has an 8' 6" beam so the width is the same. The boat and trailer weigh in about twice what the sleds and trailer do. The difference in fuel consumption is significantly higher on the sled trailer.

Edited by 02Sled
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a 4.8l Silverado 1500 and using my 7x14 V nose enclosed 6’ high. It used more fuel than my new 6.0l Silverado 2500. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Baylaker said:

I had a 4.8l Silverado 1500 and using my 7x14 V nose enclosed 6’ high. It used more fuel than my new 6.0l Silverado 2500. 

Possibly the 4.8 was really working to tow the load where as the 6 was loafing along. I'm sure this is the first example of me reading that the 6 L had better fuel mileage LOL

3 hours ago, gtserider said:

4sp vs 6sp but 4.8 do ok down hill empty. haha

 

 

Had a couple of guys in a company truck asking me about the mileage in 1 of my 3/4 tons a few years ago. I said I didn't really know what it got, but gave an example of one mileage.

 

"Well it can't be any worse than this truck", they said. It was another Silverado HD. "Probably similar", I replied. "Oh no, this is the worst, it's got a 8.1 in it". 

 

They had no idea why the boss bought it as they never towed anything with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would tend to agree with those saying the 7' v-nose trailers are easier to tow than the blunt nose 8' ... When I moved from Timmins back to Hearst I borrowed a friends' car hauler, towing with my 4.6L F150 2wd.  Towing it loaded to the gills, absolutely packed solid right to the back door with absolutely every belonging we had in the house, it took more fuel returning to Timmins empty than going to Hearst loaded ... 75$ loaded, 78$ empty ... possibly due to the fact that I was pushing it a bit more empty trying to make time ... someone saw it at Driftwood truck stop and said he figured around 10-12000# if it was that full.  Took it really easy coming up .... once in a while we'd hit a little bump and the suspension would come up off the bump stops and settle back down on them ... lol ...

 

It was empty in this pic ...

 

100_0784.thumb.JPG.cefd5cf37b2d1b2ef25cffb579a6d110.JPG

 

..... and loaded in this one .... 

 

100_0788.thumb.JPG.f80583234a52fcde276943725eb479f6.JPG

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, revrnd said:

Possibly the 4.8 was really working to tow the load where as the 6 was loafing along. I'm sure this is the first example of me reading that the 6 L had better fuel mileage LOL

 

Had a couple of guys in a company truck asking me about the mileage in 1 of my 3/4 tons a few years ago. I said I didn't really know what it got, but gave an example of one mileage.

 

"Well it can't be any worse than this truck", they said. It was another Silverado HD. "Probably similar", I replied. "Oh no, this is the worst, it's got a 8.1 in it". 

 

They had no idea why the boss bought it as they never towed anything with it.

The 4.8 would’ve definitely been working harder. 6.0 doesn’t break a sweat, does everything I need it to do. The 4.8 was an awesome little truck, was nice and smooth too. 7’ wide trailers are great, you don’t need to extend your mirrors to see behind you, and the trailer is basically the same width as the tow truck. It works for us.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diesels are great for towing heavy loads everyday, but the maintenance and costs of repairing a diesel can be expensive. I almost bought a new diesel, but went with the gas engine instead. The 6.0ls are tough as nails and it’s very rare they have any issues.

Edited by Baylaker
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Towed many a trailer with the 4.8 and still can't believe how much better the 5.3 is.  Gosh all you add to the 4.8 is my 600 ace motor and what a difference.   There was a thread last year and PLC stated the numbers for towing the inline vs the 2 wide.  I did get another 2 wide,  maybe I should have got the inline,     hey Blake,     maybe  we got the trailers mixed up  that day.  Fuel milage dropped  5 liters per 100 km and that's empty. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, TURBO DOO said:

We went from a 2 place Triton Clamshell, to the TC167 several years ago. In my experience,  the TC167 did everything better then the clamshell. Of course in the wind, being a longer trailer and more 'sidewall ' it will move around more. But for visuals down the sides of the trailer while towing is much better,  with it being only 7 wide. Imo its the better option. We now have a PR147...

X 2...we made the same change years ago from 102" clamshell to 7' TC-167.  No comparison in ease of towing (way better aerodynamics), and ability to see down the sides of the trailer without the hassle of mirror extensions.  And I'm apparently not alone in that preference...it's no coincidence that so many models of hybrid and V-nose trailers are now 7' wide instead of the old standard of 8'6".

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My recent open deck 102" x 14' trailer was significantly harder to pull with the salt deflector shield on, than off. I removed it for the summer hauling quads, the difference was substantial. And the shield was only 2 feet high. Imagine an 8 1/2' full height trailer. 

 

As for trucks, engines, bigger is better. Its finding the balance between fuel economy when empty, and sufficient power to haul a trailer when needed, that is difficult. Lots of varying opinions out there. I now know that a 4.6L is NOT sufficient to check both boxes.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Baylaker said:

Diesels are great for towing heavy loads everyday, but the maintenance and costs of repairing a diesel can be expensive. I almost bought a new diesel, but went with the gas engine instead. The 6.0ls are tough as nails and it’s very rare they have any issues.

If you're going to be towing a lot, especially heavy or driving a lot of km then diesel works out economically with the life span of the engine. For the average person occasionally pulling a boat, an RV or snowmobile trailer they aren't really financially viable.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...