That's pretty amazing that doubling the trailer weight doesn't make much mpg difference -- I suppose that's a key advantage to diesel engine physics vs gasoline.
It's got nothing to do with diesel vs gas. Aerodynamic drag increases as the square of velocity, so each additional 1 mph consumes more fuel per mile the faster you go. When I set cruise control at 65 MPH, the trip computer reports 36 MPG. If I increase to 70 MPH, it drops to about 33 MPG. If I increase to 75 MPH, it drops to about 29 MPG. If you're towing something with a large frontal cross-section (like a travel trailer) or with lots of uneven surfaces (like a Maverick Trail), aerodynamic drag will be disproportionately large.
The reason diesels get better mileage towing is because the torque peak and hp peak are closer in RPM. Torque peak is where the engine operates most efficiently (uses the least fuel per work done), hp peak is where the engine delivers the most power (can tow the biggest load). So a diesel towing (closer to its hp peak due to the higher load) is still relatively close to its torque peak. A gas engine has to rev up higher to generate the power needed to tow, which puts it further from its torque peak and thus makes it operate less efficiently.
Towing a 1500kg caravan at the 60mph UK towing speed limit, I average 22 mpg Imperial but headwind/tailwind can give silly figures above and below that.
Note that Imperial gallons are bigger than U.S. gallons. 22 MPG imperial is 18.3 MPG US.
Someone else put it in an earlier post, but FUEL is probably the biggest contributor to your current economy. I saw in one of your posts that you are in the snow belt (I think I saw Grand Haven MI). Winter fuel has a lot less energy in it to prevent it from gelling up. And it's still winter blend time in the north.
Winter blend only has about 1.5%-2% less energy than summer blend. Edit: Strike that, I was thinking of gasoline. Ethanol fuel also makes a difference. It's got less 30% energy per gallon, so E10 fuel (10% ethanol) will have about 3% less energy. Bear that in mind if you ever guy E85. In addition to possibly ruining the gaskets and seals in your engine, 12 gallons of E85 is only going to move you as far as 9 gallons of pure gasoline.
I've found that by not using cruise control especially on hilly trips, economy goes up big-time. You can keep a super-light foot on the go-pedal and drive to the conditions, consumption-wise, rather than driving to the vehicle's capability. It's a test of self-restraint not to use all that lovely torque to power up a hill at the speed limit towing a big weight just because you can, and to let others pass you.
This one is a bit tricky. For relatively flat but hilly terrain that you traverse at high speed (like a highway which goes up and down), yes maintaining constant engine RPM will give better mileage than maintaining constant speed. If you go up a hill at a certain speed, then go down the same hill at the same speed, the energy used isn't the same as traveling the same distance on a flat road. Due to having to run the engine harder going uphill, you're operating less efficiently. So the extra fuel you burn going uphill is more than the fuel you save going down the same hill.
At slower speeds however, the hotel load of the engine (how much fuel it needs to burn to keep running regardless of speed) starts to become a factor. It's proportional to how long the engine is running. It's why your MPG is worse at 35 MPH than at 45 MPH, even though the aerodynamic drag is less. The engine is on for a longer time covering a mile at 35 MPH than at 45 MPH, so it burns more fuel just keeping itself running, more than enough to offset the savings from less aero drag. If you try to maintain constant engine RPM like in the above paragraph while going at a slower speed, the decrease in your speed while going uphill will greatly extend your travel time, and you will wind up burning more fuel simply due to the needing to run the car longer to get to your destination.
The Touareg TDI also shuts off fuel to the engine when coasting or going downhill. The last half mile to my house is a slight downhill grade and I was annoyed that my Touareg insisted on engine braking since it forced me to tap the accelerator a bit to make it home. I tested it coasting the distance and occasionally tapping the accelerator to maintain speed, versus putting it in neutral and just coasting the entire distance (I didn't need to tap the accelerator to maintain speed). To my surprise, it used more fuel in neutral. The engine is constantly getting fuel if it's in neutral. Whereas if it's in gear the computer cuts off fuel and relies on the downhill grade to keep the engine turning.
So the Touareg would actually benefit from hypermiling like Prius drivers do. I don't do it (most of the time) because it's annoying for people behind me. But on long empty stretches I've hypermiled (accelerated to speed up to about 75 MPH, then let off the accelerator to coast down to about 55 MPH, then speed up again and repeat). I managed to push it from about 36 MPG at 65 MPH, to about 38 MPG. Basically, when fuel is cut off to the engine, the hotel load drops to zero, resulting in a small fuel savings.
All that said, the difference probably isn't worth it. Unfortunately, the U.S. uses MPG to measure fuel economy. MPG is actually the inverse of fuel economy, so it's not a linear measure. The bigger MPG gets, the less fuel you're saving per 1 MPG increase. In other words, going from 15 to 16 MPG, actually represents a much larger fuel savings (nearly 4x) as going from 30 to 31 MPG, and 2x the fuel savings of going from 30 to 32 MPG. So my increase from 36 to 38 MPG from hypermiling for 10 miles the highway, can be completely offset by being stopped at one red light.
The rest of the world uses liters per 100 km to avoid this problem. That measure is linear with respect to fuel efficiency. If you don't believe me, imagine a 100 mile trip on a 20 or 25 MPG sedan, vs a 40 or 50 MPG economy car.
20 MPG = 5 gallons used
25 MPG = 4 gallons used, 1 gallon saved for a 5 MPG increase.
40 MPG = 2.5 gallons used
50 MPG = 2 gallons used, 0.5 gallons saved despite a 10 MPG increase.
If it helps, you can think of this as diminishing returns, although that's not entirely accurate. It's only diminishing because you're inverting the fuel consumption graph (which is linear).
FWIW, I get about 14 MPG on the highway towing a 7500 lb boat with a large frontal cross section at 55 MPH. But if I'm forced to stop a couple times at red lights, that'll quickly drop to 11-12 MPG.