Airstreamer67 wrote: Looks great Captain! I've got an adjustable wing myself but no scan gauge. I run at about a 35-degree angle, probably close to what you show in the picture. Did your gauge indicate that steep an angle reduced the benefit in terms of fuel economy?
I have experienced some fuel savings, but not as much as you. Maybe it will improve if I reduce the wing angle.
I was initially too low - as evidenced by the 8" wide swath of dead bugs along the leading edge of the trailer. When I raised it a little so that the wing was aimed right at the top edge of the tailer and the front of the trailer was no longer getting hit by bugs that seemed to be the optimum angle. I would guess it's around 35 to 40 degrees. I know the mileage went up about half an mpg immediately following the adjustment so getting the optimum angle is crucial for the best performance. Do you have a shell on the back of your truck? The further aft/closer to the trailer you can get the wing the more efficient it will be. Icon reports a 2 mpg increase with the deflector on the top of the cab but moving it back should make even better performance possible.
Don't know what year your F250 is (the newer ones may have data displays that my 2006 did not), but I highly recommend the Scan Gauge especially for real time/average mileage data as well as transmission fluid temps, oil and coolant temps etc. The Scan Gauge alone quickly taught me to improve my mileage by 8 to 9 percent.
We are headed back up to the White Mountains next week and I will get to do some good testing at higher elevations (but without the long climb to get there), as we left the TT in Lakeside at about 6,600' and we are headed out to Greer at 8,500' But will have to pass over 9,000' to get there. We are doing a couple of days at the Hoyer CG and then heading back over to Fools Hollow Lake in Show Low. I am hoping for around 13 mpg average for the entire loop but doubt if 12 would cause me any grief. I'll report back after that trip.
your the 1st I know that has gotten any better mpg...tons of racers(including myself) tried the "wing thing" back in the 90s....they were all removed due to not doing anything but creating putting the truck in the garage a problem
Captain, my F250 PowerStroke is a 1996 model, so the Scan Gauge won't work. I can see how the gauge could help determine the best angle to set the wing. I've settled on about 35 degrees myself.
I do have a campertop, so the wing is as close as I can get it to the trailer.
There are some folks, like us, who report an improvement in mileage, and others, like sc3283 and friends, who do not. It apparently is a case-by-case situation.
Good luck with your mountain trip. You may find that the variations in mountain travel will mask any improvement in mileage since the constant differences in grades, etc. in the mountains can make fuel economy comparisons difficult.
Airstreamer67 wrote: Captain, my F250 PowerStroke is a 1996 model, so the Scan Gauge won't work. I can see how the gauge could help determine the best angle to set the wing. I've settled on about 35 degrees myself.
I do have a campertop, so the wing is as close as I can get it to the trailer.
There are some folks, like us, who report an improvement in mileage, and others, like sc3283 and friends, who do not. It apparently is a case-by-case situation.
Good luck with your mountain trip. You may find that the variations in mountain travel will mask any improvement in mileage since the constant differences in grades, etc. in the mountains can make fuel economy comparisons difficult.
I agree that results, like opinions vary. I have a lot of road testing to do and will continue to report the results. Obviously in the mountains results can be suspect as non turbo'd engines lose 3 percent (of power), for every thousand feet of elevation. What helps me evaluate performance is having been to the same locations many times. My bride journals every trip religiously and we have a very accurate record of previous mileage for any given trip. We tow an average of about 6,000 miles a year so between the Scan Gauge and our frequent rips, a couple a month, I'll know for sure before too long just what it does or does not do. We are heading back up tomorrow to beat the heat and have some fun and I'll report back upon our return.
Mileage update: We picked up the trailer in Lakeside last Monday and headed for Greer, 50 miles to the east and 3,000' feet higher. Going east and mostly up (we were well over 9,000' and the CG was at 8,600'), averaged 10.5 which is consistent with previous climbing runs. Coming back, mostly downhill, we got ridiculously good mileage, no, you probably would not believe it but the east/west trip averaged well over 13. I think I now have the ideal angle on the deflector and the Scan Gauge seems to agree.
Given that our median altitude was around 8,000' which equates to a 24 percent loss of power breaking 13 mpg seemed awfully good. Perhaps someone out there knows how to translate altitude induced power loss into meaningful impacted mpg's...... but I do not. We were cruising at 50 to 55 with little if any traffic and the wind was not much of a factor.
I will probably have to wait until this fall (as we plan on leaving the TT up in the mountains for the summer), to get a sea level interstate run of a couple of hundred continuous miles to really see where deflector impact and mileage sort themselves out but for now it looks encouraging. After three runs without the trailer between Tucson and Show Low we are averaging 19.2. That is about what I had hoped running 60-65 with about half of the F-150's GVWR (generator, lots of firewood, food drinks etc).
Sounds good. Any improvement through aerodynamics is a big plus.
There are 4 basic areas to consider.
Front of trailer
Rear of trailer
Underbelly of TV and trailer
TV: Having an aerodynamic TV that cuts a hole in the (on going) wall of wind that allows the trailer to slip through with minimal resistance.
In the interest of science and fuel economy our combo was put together with all of the above in place.
Airstreams.... the best towing trailers on the planet!
OK, just got back from another trip and here are the latest numbers. We drove up to Show Low at 6300' and picked up the trailer from storage and headed west out to the Mogollon Rim (would you believe that it is pronounced "Muggy own"). It is 120 miles round trip with the first and last ten slow in town driving, lots of stop lights etc., the rest is open highway 55 to 65 and we averaged 55. You climb to 7,700' to reach the Canyon point campground so we got a good mix of driving conditions and there was very little wind.
We averaged 13.5 mpg for the entire 120 mile loop. The truck was seriously loaded with two Honda 2000's, two large ice chests, lots of fire wood (which we never got to use as the lack of rain has prolonged the Red Flag Warnings statewide), and the rest of the usual camp gear (chairs, BBQ, toys, tools etc.). The run up the mountains from Tucson and back down (without the trailer), from Show Low saw an overall average of 19.4 (18.34 going up and 20.6 coming down).
I drive with a very light and thanks to my Scan Gauge, well educated right foot. I keep the tach around 1700-1800 most of the time and strive to stay below 2,000 (with the exception of few long steep grades that necessitate climbing into the 2500 to 3600 rpm range). I would credit the SC for about an 8 to 9 percent improvement in my overall mileage.
The wind deflector is consistently showing a 2.5 mpg improvement while towing. Keep in mind that all of my road tests to date have taken place at relatively high elevations, between 6300' and 9300'. I am losing 18 to 27 percent of my power to the the thinner air but some here feel that the thinner air contributes to mileage in the form of less wind resistance. I'm not sure which factor hurts/helps the most here...less power or less resistance but bottom line, with numbers like these who cares?
Offline
