# Fuel consumption



## Bobonong (May 7, 2007)

Hi - I'm still wrestling with the problem of which type of motorhome to buy. It's only for the 2 of us but an extra couple of berths wouldn't be a bad idea - either for grandkids or extra storage. So I'm looking at low profile models but with an eye on the smaller 4 berths with an over-cab bed. My question in this regard relates to fuel consumption - I can't seem to be able to pin down salesmen/dealers to explain the relative performances of low profiles and luton models (is that the right term?) - ie does the low profile result in significant fuel savings? And also a related question - is the handling also improved? Any comments gratefully received. We're still at the early stages of looking for a motorhome - in fact I've yet to drive one!
Thanks in advance, Bob


----------



## ksebruce (Nov 5, 2006)

Hi, we had a burstner A530 with overcab bed 2ltr diesel engine. We now have a low profile Marano similar size with 2.3 ltr diesel. The low profile we found to be approx 5 mile to the gallon better and much more stable to drive particularly when overtaking lorries. Hope this helps. P.S. The A530 was 4 berth (tongue in cheek) the Marano is two berth.


----------



## oldenstar (Nov 9, 2006)

More experienced than me will advise, but I was in your situation about 8 months ago, and have now bought.
We decided that the van was for us, the two of us, and not for grandchildren etc., therefore we would stick at two berth.
I wanted to be able to use the van daily if necessary, park in most car parks etc, so therefore decided on a Panel Van Conversion rather than a coachbuilt.
I decide on new, against most advice, because most of the various chassis have just been revamped, Fiat especially in a big way.
Definitely low profile, if you go coachbuilt, because it WILL affect fuel consumption, though I agree real figures are hard to come by.
My van has done just 1250 miles (in 2 weeks) and is averaging about 31mpg.
Whatever you choose will be a compromise (cost, size, shape, gizmos) so just keep looking at lots, and keep checking this site.
Best of luck


----------



## 101400 (Oct 15, 2006)

Hi Bob, we have a coachbuilt 2.5 TD with overcab bed. Nessie has done 87,000 miles and still returns 29mpg consistently overtaking is not a problem. Have fun.


----------



## chapter (May 1, 2005)

i have a sundance o/h cab 2l tdi returns 25 mpg b/inlaw has a ace milano o/h cab 2.8 tdi returns 30 + on the same trip f/inlaw has a movano panel van returns 34 mpg but depends were you plan to us it


----------



## fdhadi (May 9, 2005)

We have a Burstner 747 2.8jtd 5ton, 8mtr, 7birth,overcab coachbuilt. Loads of space & loads of storage.

23/24mpg & getting better with every 1000miles more on the clock.


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*MPG*

Hi

The low profile models will certainly take/make less "buffeting", but I would suggest you try to have a couple of test drives on windy days.

I have an overcab bed version and do not find it particularly bad in the wind, when passing lorries etc

MPG is 25 - 28, and generally with a car on tow.

Russell


----------



## takeaflight (May 9, 2005)

IMHO fuel consumption is the last to thing to worry about unless you intend to use your van on a daily basis, get the layout that works for you. Whether the Motorhome does 22 or 26 mph in real terms makes little difference to the cost of fuel however get the layout wrong as I have found, its going to cost more than a few extra gallons of fuel. What value do you put on a spoilt holiday due to being in a van thats not working for you ?

Also how you drive as a big effect, its amazing I have found by driving say at 65 instead of 70 makes a huge differance to fuel consumption.

I recently looked at buying a RV and I thought sh*t 10 to the gallon but when I added up the average mileage I do it equated to only an extra few hundred pounds a year.


----------



## Yeti (Jan 17, 2006)

Hi
we have an Elnagh Doral 6 berth coachbuilt 3.8t, overcab bed and a huge garage with a superking size bed over that ,acres of storage as well on a Merc 316cdi chassis.
fully loaded and towing a Smart on trailer we get 25 mpg on long haul

Our old van , a BurstnerT610 low profile, 3.1t , 4 berth on a Talbot 2.5 tdi, fully loaded and towing "smartypants" on its trailer returned 28-30 for the same trip

Once again keep the right foot light (60 mph) and the figures make good reading.

I know that I prefer loads of room and storage to an extra 4 mpg there again we do use ours a lot on the continent, 

Hope you make the right choice 

regards 
The Yeti


----------



## Bobonong (May 7, 2007)

Thanks Guys - good information and points made. I think 'Takeaflight' talks great sense in emphasising that layout is of paramount importance in the initial choice of vehicle. Although you can't completely discount a potential extra couple of mpg - 'easy on the pedal' seems the best advice! With regards stability - like suggested by Russell - I'll have to wait for a windy day and arrange a couple of test drives!
Thanks again - I'm sure I'll be back with more queries as the search/research goes on! Cheers, Bob J


----------



## Nogin (Nov 10, 2006)

Hi Bob

We have an Autosleeper Nuevo ES which I think would fit your requirements very well, it has a very versatile layout with two belted passenger seats for the grandchildren.
The base vehicle is a Peugeot Boxer 2ltr HDI, I wished it was a 2.2 until I fitted a PSI power box, now goes very well and zooms up hills. I use the van daily around town and cruise at 68 MPH on motorway which is 3000 revs. During the winter I was getting 25 MPG now I get 27. I can achieve better figures if 60 MPH on the motorway but to be honest feel safer keeping up with the traffic out of the way of the HGVs.
Hope this helps.
Regards Nigel


----------



## Bobonong (May 7, 2007)

Thanks Nigel.
Funny thing I saw an Autosleeper Nuevo today at Mendip Caravans in Newport (South Wales). This was the 2-berth version however, not like yours. I have yet to see the ES model. Nevertheless is seemed a well made and very compact vehicle. They want £24,995 for it - 2002 Reg, 17,346 miles. Looks a little pricey to me - or can one expect to pay a bit more for these motorhomes?

If you like see it at:
http://www.mendipcaravans.co.uk/

Cheers, Bob


----------



## Wanderwagon3 (May 27, 2005)

*As Topic*

My Devon Monte Carlo has optional Double bed plus 2 singles. Optional meaning it can be left up and made all the time or stowed and end lounge formed.

Renault 2.5l TD is doing 29.8 mpg from new in march 05. Is under 6m OAL

Most importantly plated at 3500kgs and mine when stowed and ready for a trip still had 400kgs "spare" kgs of "booze load "available!

Consider.

HTH

Ken.........with Wanderwagon3


----------



## Spacerunner (Mar 18, 2006)

Our new Chausson is a low profile, already on a new engine it is doing 33mpg average. Its a low profile, really low! Its primarily a fixed bed two berth, but it has a sitting/dinnette area which converts to a smallish double bed (sshh. its a secret!), would be ideal for you, not me, to take the grandkids away for the occasional weekend. loads of storage under the fixed bed and f'ard seat box.
After experiencing the wobblies with an overcab I would say that a low profile has better handling qualities too.


----------



## Nogin (Nov 10, 2006)

*Nuevo Price*

Hi Bob Nigel again.

That does seem to be rather expensive for the year, however all vans are at a premium this time of year. The ES does look bigger up against the standard Nuevo, though it is the same length and width.

The Nuevo being a compact van does not have a great deal of storage so the overcab on the ES comes in handy for storing bedding sun beds etc. I guess it does offer more wind resistance but the shape is quite steamlined, high sidewinds can be a problem though not so much in the summer months, all you have to do is slow down.

Nigel


----------



## Bobonong (May 7, 2007)

Thanks Nigel. 
Storage does strike me as a potential problem. Because I have yet to buy a motorhome I have a problem in visualising all the 'stuff' that we'll be taking with us - our own personal stuff plus all the necessary must-have accessories that such holidays surely demand. What about your outside table and chairs, BBQ etc - where on earth do you stick those in a smaller van with no 'garage' to speak of? Not to mention (I'm guessing now) spare gas cylinders, water carriers, spare wife etc . . . . ! I suppose this is where roof storage comes in handy? So once again I perceive the inevitable compromise - ie small compact motorhomes vs larger beasts with more storage.
Cheers, Bob


----------



## 88927 (May 10, 2005)

Hi Bob
Regarding storage, I would rather have a bigger van than a smaller van with a roof box.... Several reasons ie the roof box will drain fuel efficiency, it will make the base vehicle slightly more unstable and also don't forget that everytime you want something out of the box you will have to climb up onto the roof......... Not something that I would want to do to put away stuff when it starts raining :roll: :roll: 
HTH

Keith


----------

