R-pod Owners Forum Homepage

This site is free to use.
Donations benefit a non-profit Girls Softball organization

Forum Home Forum Home > R-pod Discussion Forums > I need HELP!!!
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed: New Vehicle - Towing Questions
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Calendar   Register Register  Login Login

Topic ClosedNew Vehicle - Towing Questions
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234
Author
Message
  Share Topic Share Topic  Topic Search Topic Search  Topic Options Topic Options
offgrid View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290 		Direct Link To This Post Topic: New Vehicle - Towing Questions
    Posted: 09 May 2021 at 2:33pm
I can hitch my horse trailer up in a minute or less. No hassle at all, and an easy tow. A nice low loading surface and a ramp to roll things on and off. A utility trailer would work as well, just no weather protection or security. As you say, don't knock what you haven't tried.

As for pickups, Who's knocking them? Not me. I've owned several. Just don't want one now. And I'm sure the ride is fine, never suggested it wasn't. If I could afford to have as many vehicles as I wanted one would most likely be a regular cab long bed pickup. But that won't seat 4 people comfortably, and I can't afford both, so the SUV and horse/utility trailer wins.

To carry 16 ft material safely it would need to extend over the cab of the truck. So it sounds like a pretty heavy rack. The lumber racks I used to have on my pickups weren't easy to take on and off the truck. Can you post a link to the one you have, I'm curious?

1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
Back to Top
offgrid View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2021 at 3:43pm
Originally posted by podwerkz



It's pleasing to me that on a forum about the modest little r-pod we get to talk about big honkin trucks to pull them with. Or even mid size SUVs....







Originally posted by offgrid

...Horsepower is horsepower. There is nothing special about diesel horsepower. You will climb a mountain with a 300 hp gasser just as fast as you will with a 300 hp diesel. Low rpm torque has nothing to do with it, you will be running your engine at high rpm either way.
This is not true in the real world. In the lab it might be, but the problem is the way we RATE horsepower and torque. I can absolutely guarantee you that a 400 hp, 400 ft/lbs (also pound/feet) 5.7 liter gas engine equipped pickup will NOT be able to drag 80,000 pounds over a high mountain pass any where near as fast as a 400hp 1600 ft/lb rated 15 liter class 8 diesel engine will. Both rated at 400 hp but there is a HUGE difference in total available towing power.
Its because of the way we divide total engine power into two measurable units: one is how FAST it makes power (while increasing RPM) one is how MUCH power it makes (during steady rpm).

Huh? The second measurement you are referring to is the definition of power (watts in SI units). The first one sounds like it's the time derivative of power (watts/second). Never heard of that unit, and I have a degree in physics. Please post a reference to it.

And I'll stand by my statement, if two engines are each making 300 hp in the same vehicles at the same weight the two vehicles will go uphill at the same speed regardless of what fuel is used. Gravity doesn't care.

[QUOTE=offgrid]...The normally aspirated engine is burning less fuel at altitude while it's making less power, as it's ECU is maintaining the proper stoichiometry.
Actually, it sounds impressive to use that word BUT...most modern, normally-aspirated gas engines with fuel injection will enrichen the fuel mixture during a hard climb at high altitudes to help cool the pistons and cylinders and help to keep the exhaust temps within a 'normal' range. Meanwhile the catalytic converter is drinking a LOT of unburned gasoline and converting it into heat. Lots of it. Which means that yes, they are much less efficient at high altitudes while also under a heavy load, compared with the same engine equipped with a turbo. You can't cheat physics, and it's the very reason that turbo equipped engines tend to perform so well (for a given displacement) when the going gets tough and the air gets thinner. 
Back in the 'olden days' (or golden days?) before tight emission controls, this was evident in most diesels and some gas engines, as you would see them 'rolling coal'....which is nearly always the result of a rich mixture and wasted fuel. 



You raise a valid point about operating rich for better cooling during climb. All pilots know this as we manually adjust mixture usually to full rich during climb out. But that is done in turbonormalized aircraft too, which have more heat issues than normally aspirated ones. So the turbo doesn't provide an advantage there.

Once at altitude, you lean to peak EGT which should represent the stoichiometric ratio, then set your final mixture to be slightly lean or rich of peak depending on your engine and operating philosophy, which pilots debate endlessly, kinda like TT owners debate propane vs electric fridge operation while driving....

So for gasoline engines both turbos and non turbos are run rich during climb and close to stoichiometric ratio in cruise.

Diesels are different, because the fuel is not as volatile, so is not completely vaporized and mixed with air before it is ignited as it is injected. So diesels normally run lean (unless rolling coal which is just partially burned diesel droplets). My reference to proper stoichiometric ratio was not meant to apply to diesels, which we were not discussing at that time. But I stand by it for gassers.


Rolling coal in a gasser, eh? Like to see that sometime.




1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
Back to Top
StephenH View Drop Down
podders Helping podders - pHp
podders Helping podders - pHp
Avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2015
Location: Wake Forest, NC
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6288 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2021 at 4:06pm
I don't like to see rolling coal in Diesels either. I'm glad I have cabin air filtration when I see one of those.
StephenH
Happy is the man that findeth wisdom,...

ouR escaPOD mods
Former RPod 179
Current Cherokee Grey Wolf 24 JS
Back to Top
GlueGuy View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 15 May 2017
Location: N. California
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2629 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2021 at 4:36pm
Our F150 has a 6-1/2' box, which holds most of what I need. I can also drive our ATV into the box and close the gate. If I have plywood or something 8' long, I can just drop the tailgate to make it 8' long. 

For longer items, we have a TracRac, which also holds our kayaks, and I've put 12', even 16' lumber on the TracRac (our kayaks are 17' long). If I have tall stuff to load, the TracRac uprights slide all the way to front, or if I need the full length, I can slide the uprights off the back, and stow them in the back seat.

The thing is a bit of a pain to make U-turns, but I've gotten used to it. It's just a bit over 20' long.
bp
2017 R-Pod 179 Hood River
2015 Ford F150 SuperCrew 4WD 3.5L Ecoboost
Back to Top
offgrid View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2021 at 4:54pm
Just be glad you don't live in India. That shows what things would be like here if everyone drove diesels with no pollution controls. It's horrendous, I tried to stay inside as much as possible for the 3 months I was there.

Rolling coal is illegal federally and in some but not all states. In NC it is illegal for diesels to emit smoke of more than 20% opacity for longer than 5 seconds. So if you see them spew pitch black smoke for a long time on a state highway you could file a complaint I guess. Good luck with that.
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
Back to Top
offgrid View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2021 at 5:45pm
Looked up the Tracrac sliding version and it looks pretty nice. The non sliding versions like I used to have would get in the way a lot.

Still, a trailer is more convenient for my needs. It's longer but doesn't compromise the turning radius of the vehicle. I also like the ramp and low loading platform. Used on CL utility trailers that size are usually only few hundred bucks around here. Horse trailers are more and heavier duty but I already have one. You can't put a horse in the back of a pickup...

I'm not taking away from anyone's choice of a pickup, if that's what you like then great. Just not my preference. To each their own.
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
Back to Top
lostagain View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member
Avatar

Joined: 06 Sep 2016
Location: Quaker Hill, CT
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2587 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 09 May 2021 at 6:28pm
Yes, we all agree! Big smile  To each his/her own.

According to the instructions, the rack will hold 350 pounds and extends from the hitch receiver.  I got it at a local truck store.  Personally, I don't think it'd be good idea to test the weight limit with a big load of green doug/fir 2x8's but for kiln dried trim/base stock, you can get more than I'd want to put on an SUV roof rack.  And for plywood or drywall, the limit is the payload capacity of the truck bed (2,470# with my whimpy 2.7), a bit better than most SUV's.  And, I made a convenient platform to fit behind the front seat with the back seats folded up, giving me about 45 cu.ft., where I can securely load all my tools when we're off to Reno to work on a Habitat house.  We put our bikes inside the passenger cabin for our trip east, but it's been so rainy and cold that we haven't used them. Disapprove
Never leave footprints behind.
Fred & Maria Kearney
Sonoma 167RB
Our Pod 172
2019 Ford F-150 4x4 2.7 EcoBoost
Back to Top
offgrid View Drop Down
Senior Member
Senior Member


Joined: 23 Jul 2018
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5290 		Direct Link To This Post Posted: 10 May 2021 at 7:09am
Not sure I would put 16 ft lumber on one of those hitch extender racks on a short box pickup. That's going to extend about 6 ft unsupported.

Of course my lumber doesn't go on or in the SUV (except for trim material). It all goes in the trailer. The SUV carries the tools
hardware, groceries, supplies, feed, etc. Nice and dry in all the rain.

Horses are heavy and the trailers have tandem axles. 2 horse bumper pull trailers can carry about 4000 lbs, which with the trailer would be a bit more than my SUV is rated for. I can put more green pressure treated pine material in there than I can unload without having to take a break or two.

You found a cool wet period to come east. Much of April was warm and sunny. Did that last year too IIRC. The rain is a good thing though. Grass really likes it. Gonna hafta bush hog the pasture soon.
1994 Chinook Concourse
1995 RV6A Experimental Aircraft
2015 Rpod 179 - sold
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 234

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Bulletin Board Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 9.64
Copyright ©2001-2009 Web Wiz