Explain this
I have a '11 GMC Sierra 2500 gas. I traded a '09 KZ Spree 261RKS loaded weighed in at 5500 lbs. If I held my speed at 60 I could keep my mileage at 9mpg. Anything over 60 and I would drop to mid 8'...
Forum Discussion
+X for the aerodynamics of the rig....
I noticed the difference in mpg from the the back wall being shaped differently from our first trailer to our second. First had a slight angle down about 2/3 of the way from the roof line, then actually angled back toward the front of the tt the rest of the way down. Usually saw 10+mpg with the Yellowstone, and was lucky to get 9.5-10mpg with the Dutchmen.
DrewE wrote:
Aerodynamics do make a big difference in power needed (and hence in fuel milage) at speed, as you've seen. Weight, in itself, is comparatively a non-factor for flat highway driving. For stop-and-go driving at low speeds, things tilt more in the opposite direction.
I don't know if it applies in your case, but the back end of the trailer makes at least as much of a difference in air resistance as the front end. A squared-off back introduces a lot of turbulence and air resistance; this is why practically all new cars have sloping backs, even if it makes for poorer back seat headroom or poorer trunk access or poorer rearward visibility.
I noticed the difference in mpg from the the back wall being shaped differently from our first trailer to our second. First had a slight angle down about 2/3 of the way from the roof line, then actually angled back toward the front of the tt the rest of the way down. Usually saw 10+mpg with the Yellowstone, and was lucky to get 9.5-10mpg with the Dutchmen.
