If a photo is worth a thousand words:


This is the smaller unit that carries up to 10 cubic feet. Made out of 18 oz material with duffle style opening. I do not have any experience with this. This is the link to the website: http://www.aeropackusa.com/aeropack.php

 

In my experience the hard car-top carriers only make a big hit in fuel economy when speeds are over 65. If I keep my speed average about 60 with my large Yakima (full of skiis and boots) it does not degrade my mpg a noticeable amount. Air drag varies with the square of speed, so I take that into account if I have time available for the drive.

 

Dave, would you like to tell us what vehicle you use?

 

This was on my 2004 Volvo XC70, traveling between Redding, CA and Bend, OR and back. I have done the trip with and without the carrier at similar speeds (avg 27 mpg both times). The carrier does fit this car rather well, so perhaps the increase in drag with the carrier on is not much more than the frontal area increase .

I'm shopping for another car, perhaps a FEH, and will test the carrier with the new car on the same trip at the same speeds.

 

Volvo XC70 was one of the vehicles I researched and test drove several times prior to obtaining my FEH in 2007. The FEH presents a greater frontal area than the Volvo XC70 and I would not be surprised to find out there is a greater loss in fuel efficiency with the carrier on the FEH than the Volvo. I previously had a Mercury Sable wagon and used my Thule Carrier and noted around 3 mpg loss on the highway.

 

WhatyousayIcannotreadit!

 

We just purchased a Yakima Space Cadet to increase our capacity on the roof by 5 cubit feet or so (we have an older Thule box). It definitely hit the FE, especially in highway driving. I was afraid to go larger with the rating of the rack and the potential for shifting the center of gravity too high. It does make it so that we can take 2 adults, 2 kids, and 2 dogs with us on trips.

 

I started aeropack because of the dissatisfaction (wind drag, mpg loss, pain to load, high cg, storage, etc) with roof mount carriers.
The mpg data (5-6 mpg loss) is from independent tests by Edmunds and Consumer reports.

I have use aeropack on a sedan, hatchback, minivan and large van, with great results.

If you are looking for an easy to use alternative to roof mounts, this is a viable option.

Best regards...

 

One problem of rear mounted trunks or cases (or even spare tires) is that if you back into something, or another vehicle rear-ends you, they will multiply damage to the vehicle and distribute the impact over a much wider area. Rear windows are usually very expensive to replace! Maybe your insurance will cover it or maybe they won't, YMMV.

 

Good comment, the hitch mounts, shelves, hard cases, bike racks, tire mounts, trailers etc. will cause a significant impact in the rare event of a rear ender.

The same for roof mount carriers / baskets, with low clearance bridges and garages, heads up.

What ever your cargo carrier preference, be aware of the driving situation.

AP is for soft gear and mounts above the bumper line, this never has been an issue in road tests. But point taken...