Buy a trailer (instead of a pickup truck)

[oldtamiyaphile]

I think the bullet train look of the current Ducato is pretty cool:

[freebeard]

...who cares what it looks like?

In some scenarios image is very important

[acparker]

Tall, yes. Skinny, no.

Can't argue with the numbers, but the euros can certainly make wide look cramped and boring to my ugly american eyes. For utility, a box is the answer, and the euros do have more experience at trying to make a box look good.

I know that visual perception is often inaccurate. I have had claustrophobia attacks inside a full Dodge 16-passenger van, but it did look big from the outside.

Still, with all the discussion and a little background research, I have to stand by my statement about the 1996-2002 Chevy Express four-headlight van being the most aesthetically pleasing van design in the past 30 years (I would qualify it to say "full-sized" van, to give proper homage to the Astro and Previa).

Its good to see that the designers keep trying to make a box look good.

[freebeard]

(I would qualify it to say "full-sized" van, to give proper homage to the Astro and Previa)

Thanks, the Astro is another good design. I saw my son's Dodge Charger parked next to a Caravan once. It was as wide, almost as tall, and made the Caravan look dinky.

[Hersbird]

Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile

I think the bullet train look of the current Ducato is pretty cool:

Except every one I have seen looks more like this

[cRiPpLe_rOoStEr]

I still like those Asian forward-control vans more than American full-sizes.



On a sidenote, they have a shorter wheelbase. Well, since bobtails/prime movers/tractor heads/whatever you call them usually have a short wheelbase, one can easily guess those Asian vans could still have a respectable towing performance if they had stronger engines...

[PaulB2]

I just bought one of these:
40-1/2" x 48" Small Utility Trailer - 1090 Lb. Cargo Capacity

$240, can't argue about the price. I aim to pull it behind my VW Passat TDI, which is rated to pull 1000 lbs. It is 40" wide in the bed with the fenders adding about another 12 inches, so it fits behind the car. Nice thing, in Oregon there is no registration for trailers this small.

I have a question though. Assuming I make some effort to put some clean sides on it, and a top that tapers down from the level of the trunk, with a 12 degree slope to the back, and a flat bottom, is it likely I will get better mileage with trailer attached than driving the car without a trailer? I'm thinking the aerodynamics will be better but the rolling resistance worse...

I want the top half removable so I can put my motorcycle in there at times (yes I know I have to extend the bed for that). I know that will not be very good aerodynamically.

[skyking]

My initial guess is no. The tongue length is too long and there would be significant separation. That is not to say your trailer idea is without merit. I think you'd see somewhat less mpg but not much, especially considering the added utility.
If you either faired back or pulled the trailer closer, you'd be in better air. Might get to equal mpg.
Remember your passat already has great CD

[freebeard]

OTOH the long tongue is an opportunity to place a bracket for the front wheel of the motorcycle. If the front wheel reached the hitch would the rear wheel overhang in the rear?

Re-lube the bearings immediately.

[freebeard]

The only case I've seen where the mileage went up over stock was when HHOTDI moved his roof rack from the roof to a trailer-hitch mount.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...tml#post390588

Beetle w/o any attachments/slick top= ave 48mpg :{)
Beetle with factory VW Roof racks and CVT tent= 38mpg :/
Beetle with new areo-hitch mounted rack/CVT tent= 49.3MPG

A 10mpg hit turned to a 1.3mpg gain. In his case something about the size of your trailer bed was placed high in the natural wake of the New Beetle body.



Flat sides and square corners are sub-optimal. A rowboat turned upside down and back to front would streamline it best.