# MPG



## Oil-on-the-Road

I'm interested in comparing notes with owners of older Autosleeper Clubman or similar size 2.5 diesel-engined MH's

My 1993 Clubman (VW Transporte Mk II chassis & engine I think - but with turbo intercooler fitted) is doing around 25 MPG - this includes short urban journeys as well as long leisure trips as it is our only vehicle.

Does anyon think this is poor (or good for that matter) - or is it what I should expect??.

My main reason for asking is that their are various measures that could be taken to inprove MPG (new air filter, new fuel filter, service turbo etc) - but there is little point rushing into these if the vehicle is performing up to scratch.

Interested to hear what MPG others may be getting

Steve


----------



## DustyR

My 2008 2.2 Ducato on board computer tells me I am getting 30-33mpg but I have no idea how accurate this is. I have not done a full tank to full tank measurement yet but perhaps it would be interesting to make comparisons.

Has anyone else calibrated the computed results with the tank to tank results??


----------



## Jezport

Discodave had a VW not sure what engine, you could PM him. He's a nice bloke. I valeted his van last year.


----------



## teemyob

*VW*

I had a VW T5 174 LWB

It averaged 35mpg and on a run I managed 42, but VW had to replace it due to numerous faults.

The Identical Spec replacement struggled to do 25 and usually returned 22.

I think you ar doing well with your VW given age weight and aerodynamics.

TM


----------



## Groper

The engine in my 1995 Autosleeper is the 2.5 T.D. and my fuel consumption is similar to yours.Depends quite a lot on your right foot.

Clive


----------



## Oil-on-the-Road

Groper said:


> The engine in my 1995 Autosleeper is the 2.5 T.D. and my fuel consumption is similar to yours.Depends quite a lot on your right foot.
> 
> Clive


I think you are right - as far as I'm aware the 93 & 95 models are almost exactly similar. I also have a mate with a '98 pnael van transporter & he gets approaching 30 - but of course he hasn't got the extra weight and drag of the monocoque & habitation accessories to contend with.

I rarely do over 55 MPH (though on motorways it can creep up to 60) and tend to short shift - but of course the extra weight does call for a bit of welly on hills sometimes 

Good to talk to another old Autosleeper owner - they are rather lovely aren't they 

Steve


----------



## teemyob

Not what you asked but for comparison 

Our previous 416CDi 5 Cylinder Mercedes Alcove Motorhome averaged 22-25mpg
Our current.. 518CDi 6 Cylinder Mercedes AClass Motorhome averages 20-23mpg


----------



## Groper

Hi Steve

I seem to be having a "senior" moment and cannot remember how to quote!
We love our old Autosleeper - I mentioned to my B/H that maybe we should upgrade to a newer motorhome with a drop down bed,no chance.
Nice to talk to a "Loiner", I was born in Leeds a long,long time ago.
Still have a sister living there and go to a reunion every year with friends we met whilst on a CCC tour of New Zealand.

Clive

P.S. I also try to keep to around 55 mph and do get about 30 mpg whilst touring.


----------



## Oil-on-the-Road

Groper said:


> Hi Steve
> 
> I seem to be having a "senior" moment and cannot remember how to quote!
> We love our old Autosleeper - I mentioned to my B/H that maybe we should upgrade to a newer motorhome with a drop down bed,no chance.
> Nice to talk to a "Loiner", I was born in Leeds a long,long time ago.
> Still have a sister living there and go to a reunion every year with friends we met whilst on a CCC tour of New Zealand.
> 
> Clive
> 
> P.S. I also try to keep to around 55 mph and do get about 30 mpg whilst touring.


Hi Clive

Button - top right of the message 

We are (hopefully) off for a circuitous trip to Cornwall in a few weeks - It will give me a chance to get some pure "long trip" figures.

I was born in Sheffield a similarly long time ago - but we try not to talk about that - after all, Sheffield is only in Yorkshire by the skin of its teeth 

Steve


----------



## lalala

Our T5 (2.5, 174, 4x4) gets 40 -45 mpg on a longish run, but 24 - 26 around the city. It is our only vehicle but we actually don't use it much for short runs as it's easier to walk. We stick to the speedlimits.
lala


----------



## oldun

DustyR said:


> My 2008 2.2 Ducato on board computer tells me I am getting 30-33mpg but I have no idea how accurate this is. I have not done a full tank to full tank measurement yet but perhaps it would be interesting to make comparisons.
> 
> Has anyone else calibrated the computed results with the tank to tank results??


The computer on my Renault master giver mpgs from around 23 to 33 but no matter where I travel with it (mountains, plains, towns, motorways) my average mpg is always 28.5 plus/minus 1,0.

I have kept a full record over the 10000 miles I have had the MH

The same is true for my Yaris. Computer ranges from 35 to 65 but the recorded average over 5000 miles is always around 55 mpg.


----------



## 1302

Weve only done 160 miles in our 2.5 TDi so far but I topped it up from full and it was giving 25mpg - bear in mind in any of that it was stop start non motorway stuff - I shall expect better on a good run and would expect 35 mpg

ps - I have been showing off the turbo future during most of these miles


----------



## b16duv

Have you thought about getting one of These? :twisted:

David


----------



## oldun

b16duv said:


> Have you thought about getting one of These? :twisted:
> 
> David


When I see the test results from a professional run series of tests done by an independent organization then and only then will I consider the merits of buying one.

There have been dozens of similar devices in the past that have made similar claims regarding the fuel consumption, torque and power.

So far none have stayed the course and have become hugely popular.

You must remember three things.

1. The manufacturers must keep their vehicle engine with tight pollution limits. Third party devices have no such limitations so your vehicle could be operating outside the law (Though I don't know how anyone could normally tell).

2. The manufacturers try a keep the vehicles running at conditions which will give a reasonable engine life. No such considerations for third party suppliers.

3. The manufacturers try and get an all-round engine performance and it is possible to mod the engine map to change to change this. So perhaps more power and torque at lower revs (as per the new Ducato engine mods), greater economy etc.

If it was so easy to radically improve the engines by simply adding on a very cheap box then why haven't the manufacturers installed this type of technology?


----------



## Oil-on-the-Road

Ha! - Even if I'd been tempted, the website would have set off all my bull**** alarms at full volume 

Steve


----------



## b16duv

oldun said:


> b16duv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have you thought about getting one of These? :twisted:
> 
> David
> 
> 
> 
> When I see the test results from a professional run series of tests done by an independent organization then and only then will I consider the merits of buying one.
> 
> There have been dozens of similar devices in the past that have made similar claims regarding the fuel consumption, torque and power.
> 
> So far none have stayed the course and have become hugely popular.
> 
> You must remember three things.
> 
> 1. The manufacturers must keep their vehicle engine with tight pollution limits. Third party devices have no such limitations so your vehicle could be operating outside the law (Though I don't know how anyone could normally tell).
> 
> 2. The manufacturers try a keep the vehicles running at conditions which will give a reasonable engine life. No such considerations for third party suppliers.
> 
> 3. The manufacturers try and get an all-round engine performance and it is possible to mod the engine map to change to change this. So perhaps more power and torque at lower revs (as per the new Ducato engine mods), greater economy etc.
> 
> If it was so easy to radically improve the engines by simply adding on a very cheap box then why haven't the manufacturers installed this type of technology?
Click to expand...

 :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :wink:


----------



## ChrisandJohn

Hi Steve

When we did a calculation our 2000 AutoSleeper Medallion, on a VW LT35 2.5 engine base, had done about 28 MPG over the 6 months that we'd been keeping a record. At a recent service we had a new air filter fitted, but that was after the above calculation. Haven't done enough mileage since to know if MPG has improved.


Chris


----------



## SpeedyDux

Hi Steve,

I would expect your Clubman to be on a T4 originally with the normally aspirated 2.4 diesel and presumably a later turbo modification. In this cold weather I'm not surprised you are getting an average 25 mpg. 

I have the T4 with 2.5 Tdi and auto gearbox. On long trips it does 38-40 mpg if I cruise at around 60 to 65 mph, and depending on headwinds, but running locally with mixed driving conditions 26-28 mpg is more likely.


SD


----------



## Oil-on-the-Road

SpeedyDux said:


> Hi Steve,
> 
> I would expect your Clubman to be on a T4 originally with the normally aspirated 2.4 diesel and presumably a later turbo modification. In this cold weather I'm not surprised you are getting an average 25 mpg.
> 
> I have the T4 with 2.5 Tdi and auto gearbox. On long trips it does 38-40 mpg if I cruise at around 60 to 65 mph, and depending on headwinds, but running locally with mixed driving conditions 26-28 mpg is more likely.
> 
> SD


Indeed it is a T4 Speedy - don't know why I've been blathering about a T2. Senior moment. It has an intercooler turbo retro-fitted by TB Turbos of Lancaster. We're looking at a long trip in March, down to Cornwall via Swindon and Oxford it will be interesting to see how the MPG works out.

Steve


----------

