# FiatX250 Multijet160 fuel consumption



## viator (May 1, 2007)

The computed result on the dash display varies from 19 to 21mpg. My own calculation worked out topup to topup is 26mpg. With only 800 miles on the clock and me getting used to the van, I mean ultimate use of the gearing etc I would be hoping for 30+mpg. Anybody got views on this?.


----------



## b6x (Feb 26, 2007)

I have a 120 MultiJet panel van, with 5k on the clock and dont think i'm too heavy on the accelerator. I very rarely get above the 30mpg milestone.


----------



## andyman (Aug 31, 2006)

I would have thought 30 + was very optimistic. I run a 3.0 ltr LWB high roof Renault van to deliver our equipment so ut goes out loaded comes back empty. If i look at fuel receipts v milage we certanly dont see 30 mpg, add the aerodynamics of a M/H and the extra weight mid 20's are what I would expect.


----------



## Zebedee (Oct 3, 2007)

Don't know whether this will help or not, but after about 5,000 miles the computed figures I get on my 2.2 litre, 120bhp X250 hover around 35mpg. _(I'm told that modern trip computers are very accurate, so have never bothered to check against fuel receipts.)_

Headwinds make a very significant difference, and I rarely drive at more than 60mph when in "holiday" mode, which suggests that the aerodynamics of the vehicle are pretty important.

Cheers


----------



## geraldandannie (Jun 4, 2006)

Zebedee said:


> I rarely drive at more than 60mph when in "holiday" mode


The drag coefficient varies as a square of the velocity through the air, so outright speed is more important, which probably explains why you get such (relatively) low values for fuel consumption (high mpg).

During a long drive along the M4 on cruise control at around 65-70mph, I was getting approaching 27mpg (constant speed). This on a low profile 130bhp Fiat X2/50.

From :: Wikipedia :: -



> About 60% of the power required to cruise at highway speeds is taken up overcoming air drag, and this increases very quickly at high speed. Therefore, a vehicle with substantially better aerodynamics will be much more fuel efficient. Additionally, because drag does increase with the square of speed, a somewhat lower speed can significantly improve fuel economy.


Gerald


----------



## SPACEFLOWER (Oct 22, 2006)

geraldandannie said:


> Zebedee said:
> 
> 
> > I rarely drive at more than 60mph when in "holiday" mode
> ...


Gerald's figures match mine in an identical 'van, so it would appear that the onboard computers are more accurate than i had assumed. Dropping the speed to 60 mph I can get an extra 5-6 mpg, so speed, like size, matters!


----------



## UncleNorm (May 1, 2005)

*Fiat X2/50*

Merry Christmas!

I couldn't resist coming in on this one! :roll:

My MH is similar to Gerald's and Spaceflowers's Chaussons in many ways, but especially the 2.3 130 bhp multijet engine.

Two weeks ago, Auntie Sandra and I did a 600 miles round trip to Van Bitz at Taunton. We left home with only 240 miles on the clock. We also left an hour later than planned and needed to make up some lost time, so as to arrive at Van Bitz whilst still light. I also had to learn to 'play' with the cruise control! :wink:

On the downward journey ('cos we live up north) I rolled merrily at up to an indicated 75mph. Upon arrival at Eddie's place, the onboard computer told me I had achieved 21.9mpg. I thought that that was quite good, tight engine and all.

The return journey was much more sedate, holiday-like!  I set the cruise control at 60 mph, which, according to Garmin Sat Nav, was more towards 57mph. By reducing my speed, my consumption on the home run was calculated at 27.9mpg. Even Auntie Sandra, who is not interested in such boring matters, commented, "Ooh! That's good!"

I have to agree with her!   If that's what a tight motor is going to give me in this country, I can only look forward to such sedate journeys in France, where I would seriously expect to see 30+mpg. And, despite the inbuilt water feature, Our Coral drove beautifully!


----------



## oldenstar (Nov 9, 2006)

All comes down to the right foot, speed, loadings, and 'lumps' sticking out.

My Tribute 550 with the 2.2 (Panel Van) 130 engine has achieved an overall average, after 8100 miles, of 32.07mpg.
This is calculated by filling completely each refuel and taking the mileage (sad aren't I?)
After the initial euphoria of wanging it up to 80 odd I settled down to a mundane 60, using cruise control whenever possible.
Mostly the van has been quite heavily loaded (always fill my tanks from home), and about 50% of the time has had a roof box.
As my next van will be a coachbuilt, although a low profile, I expect the mpg to drop a little-don't know if the 2.3 normal 130 Fiat engine will be thirstier than the 2.2 version.
With the price of fuel these days that light right foot can save a deal of money over a year!!


----------



## 105062 (Jun 10, 2007)

Hi viator
I think the interesting point you have made is that you have a difference between the computers mpg and your calculations, about 32% which is a lot.

I never bother looking at fuel receipts as they only depress me but I will now.

One interesting thing that I am sure some bright spark will be able shed light on, does the fuel computer ignore the fuel used by the diesel heater ie are the calculations done from a flow sensor or the fuel level gauge ??

Happy Christmas
650


----------



## oldenstar (Nov 9, 2006)

Just did my own rough sum on this.
If I save 5 mpg over 8000 miles by driving economically, that is about 46 gallons saved. (Using 32mpg and 27mpg)
I reckon that is between £200-£230 at todays prices, so worth having.
I'm not the best mathematician in the world, so could be shot down in flames. but it could save at least the ferry costs on an overseas trip.


----------



## b6x (Feb 26, 2007)

oldenstar said:


> My Tribute 550 with the 2.2 (Panel Van) 130 engine has achieved an overall average, after 8100 miles, of 32.07mpg.


Is this a Ducato? I always thought the options for Panel Vans (not camping chassis) were:

2.2 MultiJet - 100 bhp
2.3 MultiJet - 120 bhp
3.0 MultiJet - 160 bhp

All a bit confusing. For me anyway. Wish I was getting 32mpgs though


----------



## 101405 (Oct 15, 2006)

*160 bhp*

Why do you need a 3.0 -160 bhp engine in a panal van , unless you are using it for its intended use. its always going to have a poor return. 
I would think the 2.3 would be Ideal a for camper van .


----------



## RainDancer (May 24, 2005)

Hi
I have the 160 multijet with nearly 7000 miles on the clock. The van has a total weight of 5000kg fully loaded however I should imagine it is nearer to 4500kg and I have been getting 18.5 miles per gallon. My van is a tag axle so there will be more drag on the tyres being 6 of them but the mpg is not very good.


----------



## oldenstar (Nov 9, 2006)

> Is this a Ducato? I always thought the options for Panel Vans (not camping chassis) were:
> 
> 2.2 MultiJet - 100 bhp
> 2.3 MultiJet - 120 bhp
> 3.0 MultiJet - 160 bhp


Yeah, sorry B6X-it's me. Yet another senior moment.  
Mine is of course the 2.3 120 bhp panel van version.
The new Mooveo will be with the 2.3 130 bhp engine, and it will have the camper van chassis with the wider track.
I specified the larger engine with the 6 gears as I didn't want to take a backward step forwards if you see what I mean.
Also specced the cruise control and elec mirrors etc., which is interesting as Mooveo/Pilote do not seem to share Swift's misgivings over add-ons to the standard spec. It helped that a Mooveo rep was on the stand all week at the NEC.


----------



## linal (Mar 14, 2006)

Hi not long back from a couple months thro France & Spain on long straight roads & motorways etc. used cruise control normally about 60ish done approx. 3000 mls. on board computer showing either 25.7 or 27.5 can't remember at moment [ age doesn't come alone ] and it's too cold to go out & check. This is a big improvement on the first journey of about 400 mls. where it was showing about 21.4 per gall. tho. can't remember what speed I was doing probably nearer 70 as Lin wasn't with me.
Alex.


----------



## viator (May 1, 2007)

Hi to all,
A good response, thanks. My driving experience goes back to the 50's, deckers, coaches and heavy goods(car transporters out of Cowley). What you do with your right foot has a great bearing on how you look after a motor,and not least the fuel consumption. My thinking is to run the engine at the minimum revs suited to any one gear, stroke the cat and it will purr. I keep a check on fuel consumption as follows, top up with diesel allowing for froth to die(this is what shuts off the pump initially) when you next top up, check the receipt for amount of litres supplied divide this by 4.546, this will give you gallons, divide the miles done between fueling by the gallons figure to get mpg.This is not exact calibration, but very near. And yes fuel consumption will differ depending on body type.

To answer silversurfa's question, why do I need a 160 in a panel van?. I live in the north of Scotland, travelling south quite a lot using the A9, between Perth and Inverness(114miles)it is mainly single carriageway with parts of it dual and overtaking HGV's (45mph) in a 60mph stretch(single carriageway) is much safer with power under the bonnet. I have no interest in top speed, and seriously try and observe the limits.
viator


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*MPG*



RainDancer said:


> Hi
> I have the 160 multijet with nearly 7000 miles on the clock. The van has a total weight of 5000kg fully loaded however I should imagine it is nearer to 4500kg and I have been getting 18.5 miles per gallon. My van is a tag axle so there will be more drag on the tyres being 6 of them but the mpg is not very good.


Hi

I have a tag axle, weighing 5000kg max (but about 4800 kg in reality) and get 23 - 25 mpg which is not bad all things considered.

Russell


----------



## wobby (May 1, 2005)

RainDancer said:


> Hi
> I have the 160 multijet with nearly 7000 miles on the clock. The van has a total weight of 5000kg fully loaded however I should imagine it is nearer to 4500kg and I have been getting 18.5 miles per gallon. My van is a tag axle so there will be more drag on the tyres being 6 of them but the mpg is not very good.


My MH is also a tag axle 160 multijet and on the way back from Vanbitz I was gatting 22 mpg, which I thought for new engine was not to bad, speed mixed no motorways.

My friend has a 30ft RV and gets 12 mpg, now that would hurt the pocket !!


----------



## rowley (May 14, 2005)

Zebedee wrote--(I'm told that modern trip computers are very accurate, so have never bothered to check against fuel receipts.) 
I find that the computer on my Fiat Doblo and on the Ducato are both over-optimistic by about 10%
My Adria Twin on a 2.2 multijet is returning 32mpg on a top up to top up. Still only done about 2000 miles.


----------



## oldun (Nov 10, 2005)

Gerald[/quote]

Gerald's figures match mine in an identical 'van, so it would appear that the on board computers are more accurate than i had assumed. Dropping the speed to 60 mph I can get an extra 5-6 mpg, so speed, like size, matters! [/quote]

Computers are extremely accurate in their calculations, much better than 1 part in a million. However the speed/distance measuring device is only accurate to with a few percent and the fuel consumption meter is much less accurate. Finally the fuel consumption figures are not measured over a long period so are in effect only a snap shot. So the figures quoted are not very useful for determining running costs

There is nothing as accurate (for a standard road vehicle) as a full record of fuel bought against miles travelled over a few thousand miles.

Serious research work on engines/vehicles are done with incredibly expensive instrumentation which is then re-alibrated very frequently.


----------



## sweetie (Nov 28, 2005)

We have a solano on 4000kg chassis running at about 3800kg with 3ltr engine over the weekend we travelled 300 miles and returned 25.9 mpg the milage now is only 380 done mainly at 55-60mph which we are very pleased with.

Steve


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*Aeros*



andyman said:


> I would have thought 30 + was very optimistic. I run a 3.0 ltr LWB high roof Renault van to deliver our equipment so ut goes out loaded comes back empty. If i look at fuel receipts v milage we certanly dont see 30 mpg, add the aerodynamics of a M/H and the extra weight mid 20's are what I would expect.


Depends on a lot of factors.

I run a 4.6T Mercedes Motorhome, about as Aerodynamic as our house 25mpg nearly always.

I also run a VW T5 174 van 25mpg

This was a replacement for a faulty T5 that returned 35mpg!

In my opinion, not only are there the usual factors like the driver, heavy feet, tyres, weight and aerodynamics. There is also the quality issue, I don't think it is consistent enough. Same engines in same vans with same drivers with massive consumption differences.

I read on the T5 forums from drivers who drive their T5's hard and get 35mpg all day. Then others who nurse them and struggle to get 30.

Trev.


----------

