# Fuel Economy



## MrSimon

Forgive me if this is in the wrong place, and i'm sure it has probably been asked before. Is there much difference in fuel economy between a van conversion, and low line or high line coach built van?

My own gut feeling is that a coach built van is probably considerably worse on fuel than a van conversion because of the aerodynamics?

The engine i'm thinking of is the Ducati 2.2 Turbo diesel

What's the general consensus?



Thanks,

Simon.


----------



## teemyob

*Duvato*

Hello,

A lot depends on the engine, gearbox and drivetrain (like final drive etc)

I run two sprinters, one a 3 Litre V6 5000kG Manual A Class
The other a 2.2 Litre 3500kG Auto Traveliner (just think panel van)

I get 25 mpg out of both!

And I think you mean Ducato!

Hope this helps?

TM


----------



## MrSimon

*Re: Duvato*



teemyob said:


> Hello,
> 
> A lot depends on the engine, gearbox and drivetrain (like final drive etc)
> 
> I run two sprinters, one a 3 Litre V6 5000kG Manual A Class
> The other a 2.2 Litre 3500kG Auto Traveliner (just think panel van)
> 
> I get 25 mpg out of both!
> 
> And I think you mean Ducato!
> 
> Hope this helps?
> 
> TM


I knew it wouldn't be simple!

And yes, I meant Ducato haha.


----------



## teemyob

*simple*

I would say if the base chassis is the same, say a LWB Panel Van 2.2 and a much bigger coachbuilt lump (especially if it has a luton (ALKOVE)).

Expect to get around 30 for the panel van and mid twenties for the luton.

In my humble opinion.

TM


----------



## MrSimon

Thanks TM


----------



## waspes

Hi we down sized last year from Autotrail Cheyenne 660 to a Autocruise Tempo Panel van. Autotrail fiat 2.3, 22-23 mpg Tempo Peugeot 2.2 35-36 mpg.

Peter.


----------



## rowley

I get similar figures as Peter, but with a Citroen Relay 2.2 panel van conversion.


----------



## Patrick_Phillips

Just a thought...
Most vans do very little mileage. Even as fulltimers we seldom do more than 5,000 a year!
Worth doing the calculations as to what the cost of the worst mpg is against the best.
Sometimes I suspect the payback on less comfort is not justified by mpg.
Just a thought.
Patrick

PS. I come from Yorkshire where the answer to "How do I get to..." starts off with "If I were going from here to there, I wouldn't start from here."


----------



## Mrplodd

A Panel van driven by "Carlos Fandango" like he stole it will turn in worse MPG than say my 4000Kg Autotrail Dakota coachbuilt driven by a mean old git like me (I get 27-28mpg)

So its a bit of an unfair question as there are so many variables. 

Aerodynamic drag increases by the square of the speed (or thereabouts) So if you keep your speed down (50-55) in a coachbuilt you will get reasonable MPG.

Up your speed to over 60 and your MPG will fall of a cliff !! (like 15-20% worse)

A heavier vehicle will again use more fuel than a lighter one (thats why F1 teams are obsessive about every single gram) How many of us run with fresh water tanks nearly full?? 1 litre of water weighs 1 Kg so a full water tank is like another passenger being hauled along 

So if you have two types of MH (PVC and Coachbuilt) on the same base vehicle theoretically the PVC will give you slightly better MPG (if you drive them in the same manner) because it will (probably) be lighter and will have less aerodynamic drag.

However if you think of the annual mileage you will do in either MH I would suggest that the actual difference in fuel consumption (5-10% is a realistic figure) will work out as a VERY small part of the overall running costs.


----------



## levoyden

My Renault master quick shift 6, 150hp mobile workshop (Medical) just below max gross weight averages 36 - 37 mpg. But I can and have achieved 42 mpg. His is now my third master, all have been first class mechanically.
Our MH is a LeVoyageur 3 ltr A class manual gearbox. Returning 25-28 mpg.
We test drove a IH on a Fiat, dismal fuel economy and completely empty 23 on the computer. Some will say take no notice of computers and economy readings, I'm no expert but first master, 250,000, No died in the 2007 floods, No 3 , 80,000 on the clock, looks like new drives like new and the computer read out is so close to actual gallons used, milage and my accounts department doing a average .

Last week was one of my lowest average Mpg, 2 call outs and keeping to the high end of speed limits!!!! 33.2 mpg over several hundred miles and no white van man past me.

Shame not enough MH's built on Renaults but they are worth looking into.
Den


----------



## MrSimon

Thanks for your informative replies 

I've just sold a car that averaged around 18 MPG after 4 years and 62000 miles of ownership so the MPG doesn't concern me too much, I just wondered if there was a huge difference or not.

Den,

I used to work for a water company and our fleet was full of Vauxhalls. Mostly Combos, but we had a lot of Vivaros and Movanos.

I had a Movano (which is identical to a Master) for about a month and loved it. 

I wouldn't mind a Master based van, but they seem to be few and far between.


----------



## rod_vw

My recent mpg history with VW PVCs is as follows (all LWB hightops and recorded over large mileages)....

1999 T4 2.5l 102ps = 33mpg
2002 T4 2.5l 102ps = 33mpg
2006 T5 2.5l 174ps = 30mpg
2011 T5 2.0l 140ps = 30mpg (this is over the lowest mileage at 11,000miles from new)

All four have been used for both domestic and holiday motoring. The holiday part has always been extended European use.

As you can see from the avatar the T5 has quite a big roof!

Rod


----------

