# Ford Transit 140hp



## 111552

I'm new, if you've seen this question before - apologies but I've looked and I can't see a discussion on this

I've got a Rimor Kat5 (07) with a Transit cab 140hp. The mpg is terrible.

When loaded ( I use it for motocross) with 2 adults & 2 children, 2 bikes ( 1 @ 95kg the other 75kg), full domestic water 100lt and full wash tanks 250lt it will do less than 20mpg on the motorway at a steady 60mph on an 'A' road this might get up to 22mpg at speeds between 40-50mph.

When unloaded (just the driver) on the motorway - same 60mph it does just under 22mpg and the best I've had on an A road at 55mph is 23.9mpg.

(It went beach under a re-call for suspension to a Ford dealers last year and the ignition was re-mapped but this made little difference)

I thought I'd get over 25mpg at least as this is what the older 135hp model does.

Am I expecting too much ?

Any solutions?


----------



## jackc

i had on 2006 transit based unit with 2.4 135bhp engine only ever managed 19-20mpg.
I thing the final drive was too low, causing higher revs of the engine in 6th gear.See what the revs are at 60mph and compare with other transit owners!


----------



## pippin

Probably does not help you, but our Hymer Van based on the MK7 Transit 2.2 130 engine consistently does >30mpg on mixed driving.


----------



## ActiveCampers

We have the modern transit 125hp engine on a van which is close to 2700kg when loaded. Its a high top conversion, 2 people, bikes, etc.
Driving at speed limit and not hanging around, we get 30-32mpg
Engine only just clocked 10,000 so not loose yet


----------



## 111430

*Help for performance*

Not sure if this will work ,but it worked very well on my vivaro ,try and have your engine re-mapped .This can be set up to increase your mid range to improve your mpg.


----------



## COLIN_TEC580

*ford mph*

hi have chauuson flash 09 twin rear wheels have only done 300 miles but fuel computer says mpg 25.9 140 bhp


----------



## mandyandandy

Hi, We have the Transit 140 RWD twin wheels and got the same MPG as your getting, we took it in to have it checked over, that nothing was causing it and got it back but only gained about 1-2 MPG. 

What did seem to make a difference was putting air in the tyres to the correct amount, never thought to do this when we first picked it up as presumed they would be right. We now get around 25 MPG with steady driving. 

Mandy


----------



## sallytrafic

I would imagine that its more to do with aerodynamics than engine type or power. My 140hp 2.5ltr Renault does 34-37mpg.


----------



## ytank

*09*

09 plate not out yet in think you forgot to check before you posted


----------



## Zebedee

sallytrafic said:


> I would imagine that its more to do with aerodynamics than engine type or power. My 140hp 2.5ltr Renault does 34-37mpg.


I'm with Frank on this one.

Speed has by far the greatest influence on fuel consumption, and that (almost by definition) is due largely to the vehicle aerodynamics.

In "holiday dawdle" mode on pretty and quiet French minor roads I can get 40mpg by driving at 45 - 50mph.

70mph on the motorway drops the figure to around 26mpg, or less if there's a headwind.

Many motorhomes have the aerodynamics of a small bungalow, but within obvious limits their fuel economy can be quite dramatically improved by choosing lighter footwear.

(Peugeot 2.2 litre 120 bhp.)

Cheers


----------



## maddie

Hi also with Frank on this anything with a big bump on will struggle to give above 25 mpg no matter what engine,20 / 22 mpg will reflect on your driving,ie get your clog down and suffer the mpg or dawdle along,free wheel down hills etc, and get more :lol: Personaly I am a clog down and moan when filling up :lol: Then again I am never in a rush in the van anyway (holiday mode) :lol: Blow your tyres up! that helps  
terry


----------



## Auchmill

Interesting discussion, but how many of the mpg figures are from the only reliable method of calculation: ie bybrimming the tank each fill and noting the mileage. The onboard computers are not sufficiently reliable.


----------



## Zebedee

Auchmill said:


> Interesting discussion, but how many of the mpg figures are from the only reliable method of calculation: ie bybrimming the tank each fill and noting the mileage. The onboard computers are not sufficiently reliable.


Valid point, but I asked several people who ought to know (i.e. in the motor trade) and they all said the computers are accurate to within two or three per cent.

Don't know - that's what I was told.

Frank or DAB will probably know, or one of our engineer members.

Cheers


----------



## cronkle

Auchmill said:


> Interesting discussion, but how many of the mpg figures are from the only reliable method of calculation: ie bybrimming the tank each fill and noting the mileage. The onboard computers are not sufficiently reliable.


Interesting. Last month we went to visit our daughter who lives 546 miles from us according to my TomTom1. I set the trip on our '07 Transit and according to it we arrived there 543 miles later. I had also brimmed the tank, not wanting to miss the chance of checking fuel consumption, and while I don't remember the actual figures I was impressed to find that it the 'brimmed' figure was only 0.1 mpg different to the on-board computer.

I had expected the odometer to be 5 or 6% different to the TomTom as I had assumed that it would be linked to the speedo and have the same tolerances. I also expected there to be a difference due to tyre wear.

Now you may well be right generally but in the case of my van I know that the computer can be trusted as this is not the first time I have checked it; just the longest distance that I have done it over.


----------



## Auchmill

Ready to stand corrected.


----------



## Zebedee

cronkle said:


> Last month we went to visit our daughter who lives 546 miles from us.


Was it something you said?? :lol: :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll:

Interesting post and thanks for the info. Seems my informants may well know what they are talking about. :roll: 

I was ready to believe Auchmill, but your accuracy is phenomenal. If mine's even close to that I'll be happy. Must check next time we do a long one - or over a period of time.

Cheers


----------



## cleo

Can vouch for the 07 tranny on board computer/gauge. Manually worked out mpg after a 350 mile round trip and it was close enough for me.


----------



## 107812

I get about the same as you, 22 -24 mpg at 60 mph, much less if traveling at 70. I've been hoping it will improve as the engine gets a few more thousand miles on it (currently just over 3000). 
I would agree with jackc, the final drive, or at least 6th gear, seems very low and it feels like the engine would easily pull a higher gear. 

Have you had your PAS safety recall notice yet? 





Phil


----------



## COLIN_TEC580

*Re: 09*



ytank said:


> 09 plate not out yet in think you forgot to check before you posted


thats the model no flash 09


----------



## 111552

What's the chances of getting the 6th gear altered to make it rev lower
or is this a bad idea?


I've done some of the other suggestions already - tyre pressures and a Ford dealer in Tonbridge have already made some changes to the mapping during a re-call but without much change to the mpg.


----------



## 111552

Sorry should have added that the first recall was for a stearing knuckle being 180 degress out - the PAS is being done in a few days - I've been told by the dealer that if it hasn't leaked already it probably won't and the reacll is a precaution.


----------



## RichardnGill

As a comparisom we have a simular size M/H but ours is a 2.2 130Bhp and we get 25ish MPG at 70 MPH, if we keep to 60 MPH it will do close to 30 MPG and if we keep on slower roads about 50 MPH can see the fuel comp showing 32MPG. I have also found the comp to be within 0.3 MPG.

Ours is only a 5 speed and it is doing 2200 RPM at 60 MPH. I think the 2.4 is close to 3000 RPM at the same speed. This is probally one cause of the poor MPG.

Richard...


----------

