# MPG ... me cynical or what!!



## ianhc

I must have a lead foot or always drive into a major headwind. Let me explain. I have had 2.5td, 2.8 tdi's, 2.8jtd and can never get the mpg other mh's claim to achieve.
Ok, all motorhomes quite big, Swift Kontiki 640, Auto Trail Scout and now Auto Trail Chieftain, but the truth is i only now achieve 20mpg max.
Even feathering the accelerator, tail gating to get dragged along and sticking right to the speed limits........... NO GOOD.
I read others who CLAIM to achieve 28+................ How the H**L do they do it, perhaps it's because i actually turn the engine ON is where i'm going wrong.
What do other mh's with decent size mhs get, lets say 3850kgs units, 2.8jtd engines, regular trips of decent length?.
Go on prove me wrong...... show me i DO have a lead foot.!!


----------



## ob1

Ianhc

We had a Burstner 747 (5000kg) and a Burstner 681 (4000kg) both with the 2.8JTD. Both returned an average of around 22mpg overall. We seemed to be able to give those engines all the grunt you liked and they still returned the same mpg. I cannot say what they did with a light foot because I never investigated that.

Ron


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

2.8 jtd with 11k on clock Journey last weekend round trip 275 miles 

23 mpg and never went over 60 mph even on motorway.

Over last 3 years have acheived 22- 24 mpg even on long motorway trips in france.

I own 2 litre scudo new model average 34 mpg
Old model did 44 mpg

dave P


----------



## gaspode

Our last van had a Ford 2.0 litre TDCi on a 3500kg chassis and I had no real problem getting 28mpg with decent performance, 30mpg achievable with care.

The previous van was a Fiat 1.9TD and getting more than 23mpg was impossible, mainly because you had to floor the accelerator all the time to keep it moving.

Our current van is a 4000kg A class (blunt front) with a Fiat 2.8JTD and I can just about manage 25mpg when driving with great care. If I drove in the same manner as I would with a car I'd get somewhere in the region of 20mpg I reckon.

There are obvious ways of improving fuel efficiency, the most obvious being maintaining a lower speed but probably the greatest influence on MPG is the fuel used to start the van from rest. That being the case there are two strategies. The first is to be very smooth when accelerating, use the throttle gently and accelerate smoothly, slower acceleration will have very little effect on journey times. Second strategy (and this is what makes a huge difference) is to avoid stopping. This simply involves anticipation of what's happening ahead. If there is a roundabout, traffic lights or a queue ahead, slow down well in advance and judge your arrival to coincide with a green light or a gap in the traffic, if you can avoid stopping and starting again you'll save quite a bit on fuel consumption.


----------



## sallytrafic

as one who doesn't have a motorhome of a 'decent size' I can only agree with Mike (are you sure yours is decent enough?) 

My brake pads have only lost 20% of their wear allowance in 4 years and 36000 miles. 

PS indecent motorhomes get 40mpg when driven carefully :lol:


----------



## CliveMott

Our Autotrail Scout on a Merc 312 achieved 25 / 26 MPG over thousands of miles towing a light weight trailer with two small motorbikes on it.
Cruising speed set to 90 KPH by cruise control most of the time. This is about the same MPG I achieved with a Landrover Discovery (old type).


Must be your heavy boot!


----------



## GerryD

Always had overcab motorhomes and always averaged 23.5mpg. A few years ago we took three motorhomes in convoy to Barcelona and back, a 1.9td, a 2.0jtd and a 2.8jtd. All of them were overcabs and all on the 3500 chassis. On the full journey the average fuel consumption of the three vehicles was within .25mpg, we never exceeded 60mph except for overtaking.
Gerry


----------



## RichardnGill

I thought I was doing bad at 21 Mpg out of our new van but it seems to be quiet good in comparison. 

Our old Transit 2.2 130Bhp luton could top 30 Mpg on a steady long run no problem. 

I do drive for economy though, I agree its getting back up to speed after being slowed down where the derv goes as well as speeds above 60Mph with a luton esspeccially. 

mind with are new van it seems to do better at 65 MPH than at 60 MPH due to a high 6th gear. 

If you realy want to get a good MPG try drafting a high truck, just don't get too close    


Richard...


----------



## Zebedee

sallytrafic said:


> PS indecent motorhomes get 40mpg when driven carefully :lol:


How dare you Sir!! 8O 8O

I can get 40 mpg if I really try, but that doesn't make me indecent. :roll: :lol:

I really can too, though only when doing no more than about 50mph on traffic free (usually French) roads without much slowing down and accelerating.

The usual figure is around a paltry 35 mpg. (2.2 120bhp Peugeot.)

Dave


----------



## ardgour

A 2.8jtd fiat engine and over 3500KG A class van we returned an average of 29.1MPG on a 2700 mile round trip from Scotland down to Dover then round France and back last October. A gentle right foot and cruise control (mainly the cruise control) seems to be the answer. I must admit it was a lot better figure than we had ever hoped for. Generally tootling round Scotland we get nearer 26mpg

Chris


----------



## cabby

I must say that the heavy right foot is not the main fault, style of driving does make more of a difference, but I am not going to go into a long winded explanation. :roll: :roll: I will say however that if you bought a motorhome you got it for its function and enjoyment,Mpg does not really in my opinion have much of a matter, it uses whatever it uses, the most you will save after taking the enjoyment out of the experience of driving to your destination while worrying about mpg is a few miserable pence per litre, even after a year of worrying and saving it wont be enough to pay for the insurance or road fund licence, but maybe a couple of nights of site fees. :twisted: :twisted: 
Tin hat issued and on.

cabby


----------



## Zebedee

Tin hat not required Cabby - not for me anyway!   I agree with you entirely.  

Ref: my earlier post, we travel very slowly in France when the road conditions allow it as we thoroughly enjoy a very leisurely mooch as a part of the holiday. The pedestrian pace is for relaxed enjoyment rather than to save a few pennies.   

Having said that, we never go very fast when in holiday mode unless there is a specific reason, so the fuel economy is usually pretty good.

As you suggest, doing the sums is quite an eye-opener. The potential difference in fuel cost over a year is far less than one would imagine, even for quite widely differing miles per gallon. :? 

Dave


----------



## short-stick

Drove my previous model 2.8 engined Ducato from north of england to the alps over two days. First tankfull thrashed the thing to make the crossing in time, got 310 miles before fuel warning light came on (full tank to start) which equated to about 21mpg... Drove next tank full like there was an egg under my right foot, freewheeling, drafting, max of 60mph... result, 310 miles, fuel light on!!! Thrashed it rest of way to alps and home again... That van never ever did better than 23mpg... New one is the 2.3 x250 and is at least 10% better fuel consumption...


----------



## barryd

Swift Kontiki 640 2.5td. It varies a lot. All the above makes sense but I reckon that C Class Luton cab makes a big dent in the consumption as its like pushing a wind break along at 70mph. I think I get between 20-24 maybe more if you drive really carefully. Went to Arran a few weeks ago and we were late for the ferry so had to Thrash flat out from Penrith to Ardrosan to catch the ferry. I think from a rough calculation it was down to around 15mpg! We made it with minutes to spare but not enough time to fill up on the mainland. Had to fill up on Arran which is about 15% more expensive.


----------



## mandyandandy

We have one of those you describe, Andy asked on here to begin with what others were getting MPG wise as he was getting 18 to 20 which was giving him nightmares!!

We are on a Ford and someone suggested going getting it tweaked, (means nothing to me) but after that and him talking to Humber Traveller they decided between them that a mix of the "tweak" , free wheeling, cruise controll and tailing all helped in now getting around 25mpg, which on 20,000 miles which is what we have done in 2 years, made him feel a bit better :roll: 

Moving slower is something I prefer anyway as it helps me sleep better  

Mandy.


----------



## Rapide561

*Speed*

Hi

I have often said on this forum that speed does not seem to affect the 3.0 multijet fuel economy, well, in terms of slower speed = more economy.

This is the reason why, I think...

At 55mph, I have my foot on the pedal for pretty much 99% of the time. At 65 - 70, this is not the case. I ease off sometimes and as soon as I lft my foot, the computer shows 99.9mpg until a time I welly it again. These 99.9 figures when averaged with the 20 - 22 that the computer shows when my foot is down, bring the overall average up. On a long motorway decent, such as from junction 24 to 25 of the M62, the reading shows as 99.9 mpg. With cruise control on, it shows 54.

If anyone wants a seat to Spain in September, do let me know. Chin up, foot down and give the thing some pan handle. These are commercial vans and in my view respond better to being hammered rather than namby pambied.

My quote to Richard on his collection day was "just welly the thing back to Durham"

I do not use cruise control in the motorhome as I can always beat the fuel economy by controlling the speed myself. I do however find that cruise control when used in the Vectra diesel does a far better job than me.

On my next long overseas run, so 2000 or so motorway miles, I would expect to see the average for that trip at 25 or above for the motorhome and this will not be with dithering and hanging about.

Russell


----------



## buttons

sallytrafic said:


> PS indecent motorhomes get 40mpg when driven carefully :lol:


Mine is 3000kg with a 2.5ltr engine has 4 good size beds, 5 belted seats, fridge/freezer, wc, shower and capable of 120mph. Whether in-descent or not Frank  it will still manage >40mpg.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

Our Laika is 3,850kg and usually fully loaded, it's the 2.8jtd chipped.

I drive fairly steady, between 55 to 70 on motorways, I try to keep in 3rd or 4th around other roads or in traffic, I drive to the conditions about 3-400 yards ahead, try to anticipate traffic and signals, cruise control helps I suppose.

Normal mpg is a round 25 to 28 mpg, in my opinion, the economy comes from taking my foot off the gas early, coast to lights etc, in gear, don't accelerate up hill, brake only to stop not to slow down, if you're braking to slow down, then you are not reading the road enough, obviously, sometimes braking is unavoidable, such as traffic joining in front of you, gently is the mantra for me, I'm not in a rush, so don't hurry.

Kev. 8) 8) 8)


----------



## chrisgog

Chausson Allegro 83 2006. 3 litre Renault Master . 3.8TON

now averaging 24mpg after 3 yrs monitoring. 

Most on 1 trip was French autoroutes at 28mpg.
chris


----------



## karlb

mines a 2.8jtd ive done just less than 500 miles in a month and im averaging 25mpg


----------



## sersol

*"These are commercial vans and in my view respond better to being hammered rather than namby pambied." *

Russell the engine maybe,but I not so sure about the rest of it.
So when Russell gets his "coach conversion" done who will be at the front of the queue to buy his "High mileage,raced & rallied" Kontiki 8O .

Gary


----------



## neilmac

Kev_Behr said:


> I drive fairly steady, between 55 to 70 on motorways, I try to keep in 3rd or 4th around other roads or in traffic, I drive to the conditions about 3-400 yards ahead, try to anticipate traffic and signals.
> 
> Normal mpg is a round 25 to 28 mpg, in my opinion, the economy comes from taking my foot off the gas early, coast to lights etc, in gear, don't accelerate up hill, brake only to stop not to slow down, if you're braking to slow down, then you are not reading the road enough, obviously, sometimes braking is unavoidable, such as traffic joining in front of you, gently is the mantra for me, I'm not in a rush, so don't hurry.
> 
> Kev. 8) 8) 8)


My driving style exactly! We have so far returned 27 mpg from our 2.8jtd.

I would imagine that anyone with an overcab vehicle is going to find the same figures hard to achieve, just look at the front end from a wind resistance point of view.

Neil


----------



## crimpleken

I have a peugot 2.2 litre and ihave rcorded m.p.g. exactly since the first day I drove it. It is 3 years old and does 32.67 m.p.g. U.K and continental driving. When people say they get about X m.p. g. You know they have not done an accurate check over thousands of miles. If they did they would get a shock.
Crimple ken


----------



## brillopad

mine 2700cc tdi, 3850kg, re mapped, always drive about 60 to 75, on a trip from london to scotland and back 24 mpg.dennis


----------



## EuropeanCampers

I get about 22mpg from the Hymer on a 2.5 Fiat, thats worked out manually.

Note of caution to those who believe their computer readouts. I had a big modern Volvo and the fuel computer was always miles out of reality. A manual calculation showed the car was always doing 7-8mpg LESS than the computer claimed. I replaced the Volvo with a Merc and whilst far more accurate, its still always a couple of MPG optimistic.

I wonder whether some of you who think you are getting a certain MPG really are? Computer says noooo.


----------



## framptoncottrell

We have a panel van conversion on the previous Ducato base, with the 2.8 JTD engine. The roof is covered with all sorts of gubbins: solar panel, Camos dome, airconditioning. It is not very aerodynamic.

I've always tried to practice economical driving in all my cars, and that now applies to the Murvi. 
In the Murvi I never drive faster than 60 mph, except when absolutely necessary (overtaking on two lane autobahns, for example). I can still cover 300 miles in a day, if necessary, and arrive fresh. (I drive faster in my car, cover the same distance in not much quicker time, and arrive knackered.)
I use cruise control whenever possible: it is more restful and never pumps the accelerator. 
In the van I never use more than 2000rpm in any gear except in exceptional circumstances - going up hill is my main exception.
Why has nobody mentioned tyre pressures? I check mine at least once a fortnight and certainly before any trip. Make sure you have the correct pressures from the tyre manufacturers - the pressures in my Fiat handbook may be fine for Ducato 'white van' delivery rounds but are useless for the motorhome conversion.
I try to anticipate braking. I often drive through Milton Keynes and being able to slot into traffic at roundabouts in third gear is much better than having to stop and then restart through all the gears - you get a lot of roundabout technique practice in Milton Keynes!
It is very noticeable that the fuel consumption in winter is 2-3mpg worse than in summer in both my car and the Murvi. Why? Because the engines take much longer to reach equilibrium operating temperature, especially the oil. The moral is never to use powered vehicles for short trips, where the oil has no chance to reach working temperature and viscosity.

The result? I have now covered 7000 miles in the Murvi with an average consumption of just under 29mpg. The engine is still very new so I would expect to break the magic 30mpg within a year or so.

Dr (musical, not medical) Roy


----------



## Spacerunner

I have a low profile 3500. X2/50 2.3.

Driving into a stiff westerly along the M27 I could not achieve anything above 23 mpg on the computer read out. As soon as I turned northwards up the M3 the mpg rose to high twenties and low thirties. So it appears that aerodynamics do play an important part in fuel economy.

Cruise control doesn't really have anything to do with fuel economy. It just retains the set speed up hill and down dale. Mine really puts the hammer down when going up hill in a spirited manner that I would never use when in manual mode. The mpg figures reflect the extra throttle used.
Far better if you are driving with fuel saving in mind is to stick to manual throttle and keep the accelerator pressure the same at all gradients.


----------



## loughrigg

I've only covered 700 miles so far, but the average of just over 26 mpg looks quite reasonable at the moment (2.8hdi Boxer / 3500kg / loaded close to GVW). The last trip out returned 26.7 over 345 miles - mainly UK motorway/dual carriageway but with a day on some hilly bits of Somerset where the pedal was hard on the stop to maintain speed on the inclines. General motorway style was 60mph in fifth at around 2100 rpm.

Mike


----------



## Mrplodd

I run a '97 Hymer B544 (MGVW of 3200Kg) with 60K on the clock 

The engine is an "old style" (i.e. rotary injection pump not common rail electronic injection system) 2.5 litre turbo diesel.

Over the last 12 months I have kept a careful record of miles travelled and fuel used ( full to brim on each fill up to ensure consistency) 

If I am in the MH I am never in that much of a hurry so tend to travel at about 50 - 55 mph (no not in towns you fool :lol: ) 

Almost without exception I return 31mpg BUT on the few occasions I have thought "sod it" I want to get to my destination and have upped my speed to 65 - 70 then my fuel consumption has plummeted down to around 20 - 22 mpg

Yes I know its an A class and does not have a luton to impact my MPG but the lesson is clear, your speed WILL have an impact on fuel consumption.

The simplest thing to do is to check your vehicle spec and find out at what RPM your engine produces its maximum torque (NOT BHP, torque which is a totally different thing) then try and drive with the engine turning over at that speed with as little throttle, and in as high a gear as possible.

Just remember that the MPG figures quoted for most vehicles are artificially obtained but relate as close as is practical to a constant 56mph with a light throttle

The advice that has gone before about not screaming away from the lights, standing on the brakes, and running on as light a throttle as possible is spot on. driving style has a HUGE impact on fuel consumption, ask anyone with a constant mpg readout what happens when you floor it !! the reading will go down into single figures very quickly


----------



## Jean-Luc

I would agree with Gaspode, it's all about trying to keep momentum and smooth driving, remember every time you stop its back to 1st. gear and loads of juice to get going again.
FWIW I have a 3850kg A class 2.8 JTD Power engine and average about 25 MPG, the most recent long trip was 6000Km sunseeking trip south, avoiding toll roads, and I generally travel at 90 to 100 KmPH, that's 55/60 ish MPH


----------



## SpeedyDux

Hello all,

Motorhome manufacturers/converters never seem to publish their coefficient of drag numbers, do they. Dealers seem to exagerrate the fuel economy potential of the MHs they want to sell, don't they 8O .

Around 60 mph seems to be a critical speed as far as aerodynamic drag is concerned. Above that speed your average mpg figure will plummet.

The formula for kinetic energy (= 1/2 mass x velocity squared) explains why reaching higher speeds requires a lot more fuel. Payload makes a difference, but speed much more so. Your MH's kinetic energy reflects the amount of fuel used to reach a certain speed. Since the KE figure is proportionate to the square of the speed, you need vastly more fuel energy converted into kinetic energy to reach incrementally higher speeds. [Strewth, it was worth paying attention in the Physics class at school, wasn't it. 8) ]

The amount you brake also makes a huge difference. Every time you brake you convert the KE into heat energy, dissipated by your brake disks as they cool. The more you brake, the more KE is dissipated, the more fuel converted to heat and lost. Regenerative braking systems woul be a giant leap forward. Bring it on.

Accelerating and then braking hard between successive roundabouts on ringroads causes exceptionally poor fuel consumption for the reasons explained above.

I agree with what Kev said. Better anticipation means you need to brake less, so you can stay in a higher gear. That saves a lot of fuel also. Driving style makes a big difference to fuel consumption. Those trip computers may be inaccurate, but they can still help you develop a better feel for economy.

SD


----------



## Barts

Hi, we have a 2001 Hymer 2.8 Mercedes Motorhome and have just returned after travelling carefully at about 50 mph for 201 miles. The vehicle is only 5.76 metres in length, so it is not long. We filled up before and after the journey and it took 42 litres of diesel. My calculations return 21.75 mpg, very disappointed!!

If anyone can suggest how I can improve on this, please let me know. Perhaps a retune?

Barts


----------



## waz

My old Hymer that I have for sale in the classifieds returned 10Ks to the ltr on the run back from Hungary last week. It is a Peugot 2.5 non turbo.
Waz


----------



## b16duv

Barts said:


> If anyone can suggest how I can improve on this, please let me know. Perhaps a retune?
> 
> Barts


I once asked this question in a landrover magazine about my landrover's fuel consumption - bigger wheels/tyres? overdrive? freewheeling hubs?

NO

The answer - take the bus!

I've had my 2.8jtd remapped by Boosters (recommended) and my fuel consumption has stayed the same, but at a higher average speed - 65mph instead of 55mph. Presume fuel consumption would improve at the lower speed, but it's 500 miles to Dover from here and it's just a blast down the A1 to get there!

David


----------



## buffallobill

i try to keep my motor home moving , when approaching traffic lights round abouts etc, on the hgv driving test there is minor marks awarded if you dont use the forward preparation and planning, ie, keep the stoppping to a minimal, and to maintain a smooth traffic flow.


----------



## Jean-Luc

Back in 1996 when tugging a Trophy caravan with an Alfa Romeo 155 with about 150 BHP and 138 Ft/lb under the bonnet I did about 80 MPH for a short period in France before my mortality flashed before me
Contrast that to the Mitsubishi Evo with 771BHP and 640 ft/lb which Top Gear used to achieve 125 MPH. That's nearly 5 times the power for only a about 60% more speed. I think this speaks volumes for the increase in power output and fuel consumption required for quite small increments in speed.
Don't forget, what looks like a 10 MPH increase between 60MPH and 70MPH on the speedo, with a headwind of say 25 MPH, is in real air penetration terms an increase from 85MPH to 95 MPH, which will suck a lot of extra diesel.
BTW length has little to do with, its the bluntness of the front end.


----------



## selstrom

Our last motorhome a Euromobile 810 weighing 4.6 T with fiat 2.8jdt averaged 19.6 mpg over 17,000 miles. Cruise control set to 60 mph. The mpg per tank ranged from 15.4 to 22.8.

Our present motorhome weighing 6.7 T with an Iveco 3.0 engine has averaged 16.5 mpg over 15,000 miles, this has ranged from 14.5 to 19.5 mpg.

Using the mpg based on a tank of fuel is not very accurate due to variation in fuel pump cut off and the level of the vehicle.


----------



## SaddleTramp

I Don't want to appear impertinent here But I think that the message here seems to be !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Drum Roll



Buy a pair of Slippers.  :lol: :idea:


----------



## skiboycey

I would die of boredom at 55mph or even 65mph and probably fall asleep and cause and accident. Why get a big engine then sit at a speed where you expect to see the vicar overtake you on a pushbike?

My 3.0 autotrail cheyenne 696g has just come all the way to the South of France. I sat at 80mph on the cruise control. 77mph on GPS so the speedo is pretty accurate as an aside. Average 17mpg. Time saved compared to getting 23mpg at 60mph - 6 hours. Extra fuel used - about 50 litres so 50 euros more or less. So the economic calculation is 'Would I pay 50 euros to save 6 hours time and get to spend an extra day (more or less) in my destination? Yes would be my answer. Is this good for the environment? No but it's less fuel than you're burning sitting in your seat taxying to take off when you go on holiday so let's keep it in perspective.

Feel free to lecture me about safety, tyre wear, the environment, blah de blah now. Let me know when you've finished - I'll be having a beer and enjoying my extra 6 hours!

Cheers, Mark


----------



## 106559

Funnily enough I quite enjoy the drive, maybe that's why I do it for a living as well as a hobby.

Quite a few companies in Aberdeen have "panic wagons", usually dropside pick ups and the more aware drivers remove the tailgate when possible. They don't usually get much more MPG but they do get there a heck of a lot quicker. Driver input and aerodynamics are the main factors IMHO.


----------



## AberdeenAngus

Aaaarrrggghhh please stop it !
Quoting mpg to a decimal place is meaningless.

It's an average.
An approximation.

By using the decimal place you are quoting down to a fraction of one percent !

It's like saying "I drove here at 61.5 mph"
Imagine what you would make of the person that said that to you at a party !

Please stop it, it makes you sound really anal !
And as for 2 decimal places..............OH MY GOD !

You know who you are 8O


----------



## Jean-Luc

skiboycey, are you for real or are you just doing a wind-up. 
If your mh is over 3.5t then you were exceeding the speed limit by a significant margin, your extra time could have been somewhat reduced while talking to a not so friendly Gendarme and your beer money considerably reduced.
Have you ever had the need to take evasive action or come to an emergency stop in a vehicle running close to or over its GVW at high speed .
8O 8O 
Unless you are running on run-flat tyres or have Tyron bands fitted, travelling at such a speed is crazy, imagine the carnage if one of your tyres suffered a blow-out.
Finally, if time is so precious, why risk using up all you have left in one go !!


----------



## yozz

sallytrafic said:


> as one who doesn't have a motorhome of a 'decent size' I can only agree with Mike (are you sure yours is decent enough?)
> 
> My brake pads have only lost 20% of their wear allowance in 4 years and 36000 miles.
> 
> PS indecent motorhomes get 40mpg when driven carefully :lol:


Mine gets 40+ around town. I haven't measured what we get out and about. It flew through the MOT today and according the mechanic it's been over-serviced for the miles it's done   8)


----------



## AL8

Well this seems as good a place as any to put this info.

We are fairly new to this MH-ing lark and were interested to know what mpg our 2003 Buccaneer Cruiser 770, 2.8, 3.5+ton, fully loaded is getting.

Sorry about the decimals 

Mostly we were around 55/60 on the speedo on the motorways.

Just for a bit of fun really and gave me something else to do whilst away last week.

I must say that I'm more than happy with the mpg, yes sometimes it seems a bit slow, but it's a big lump to bring to a halt and I'd cry if a silly accident ruined our very precious holiday time.

I feel safe, more importantly my wife feels safe and we very much enjoy the driving time - either talking, making plans or just enjoying the scenery (one of the main reasons for the purchase in the first place).

It's easy to see how people get much lower mpg's, as many a MH passes us at or over 70mph.

But each to there own........... for some £50 to save 6 hours is cool, for others 6 hours to save £50 is cool.


----------



## Rapide561

ianhc said:


> I must have a lead foot or always drive into a major headwind. Let me explain. I have had 2.5td, 2.8 tdi's, 2.8jtd and can never get the mpg other mh's claim to achieve.
> Ok, all motorhomes quite big, Swift Kontiki 640, Auto Trail Scout and now Auto Trail Chieftain, but the truth is i only now achieve 20mpg max.
> Even feathering the accelerator, tail gating to get dragged along and sticking right to the speed limits........... NO GOOD.
> I read others who CLAIM to achieve 28+................ How the H**L do they do it, perhaps it's because i actually turn the engine ON is where i'm going wrong.
> What do other mh's with decent size mhs get, lets say 3850kgs units, 2.8jtd engines, regular trips of decent length?.
> Go on prove me wrong...... show me i DO have a lead foot.!!


Hi

I don't claim to get almost 28 mpg - I can do it with ease. The motorhome is a tag axle, weighs five tonnes and is fully loaded. I do not use cruise control.

Russell


----------



## 106573

Anything over 20 m p g with 5 tonne+payload should be acceptable, even more so if vehicle is a Tri-axle!!. I can tell you know, if it wasn't for Euro emission nonsense engine designers would be giving use diesel engines that would be returning 60+ on light commercials and 20+ on Heavy commercials, but with all these particulate traps and cat converters it really does effect m p g.
What do you do? use more fuel but expel cleaner exhaust gases ? or less fuel but higher levels of toxic gases?
Over to you!!
Tinhut


----------



## EdinburghCamper

2 litre fiat ducato, doing aroudn 50 to 53mph, 31mpg on the motorway. Drops to 26 or so when the speed is up and down. The minute I take it OFF cruise control, MPG goes tits up.

Gary.


----------



## Traveller_HA5_3DOM

*MPG*

Just feel the need to mention the Renault Master 2.5. Mine is the 150bhp Auto and the Cipro 85 is a 3850kg and always runs with 110 litres of water and a full garage. It has the Tunit Chip box fitted which if turned up to highest setting will up bhp to 175. I run it on the number 4 setting and the best I have had was the run across France to the Ambois meet up when it returned 36mpg. It never got into 6th gear on the country roads and spent a good deal of time in 4th gear. When I do get on the motorways and up at 70mph it drops back to 30mpg, so even the slippery shape of the low line suffers at speed.


----------



## TDG

*Re: MPG*



Traveller_HA5_3DOM said:


> so even the slippery shape of the low line suffers at speed.


All the things said about smooth driving, good anticipation, weight , keeping the vehicle rolling etc. are relevant but whatever size van you drive, speed is very significant. This is because the wind resistance varies as the square of the speed.
So, in going from 50 to 60 mph (a 20% increase) the wind resistance increases by 44% !


----------



## TDG

Tinhuttraveler said:


> Anything over 20 m p g with 5 tonne+payload should be acceptable, even more so if vehicle is a Tri-axle!!. I can tell you know, if it wasn't for Euro emission nonsense engine designers would be giving use diesel engines that would be returning 60+ on light commercials and 20+ on Heavy commercials, but with all these particulate traps and cat converters it really does effect m p g.
> What do you do? use more fuel but expel cleaner exhaust gases ? or less fuel but higher levels of toxic gases?
> Over to you!!
> Tinhut


So true! In the marine industry where we now have diesel engines developing >100,000 hp from 14 cylinders, the specific fuel consumption fell more or less in a straight line by 25% between 1980 and 2000 but since then because of the need to control emissions, improvements have stalled. This despite the fact that we have variable injection, sequencial injection, variable valve timing, variable valve lift, sequential turbocharging and variable geometry turbochargers. Net result, we have computers trying to control engines with a bore of 980mm and stokes of up to 4000mm!
Some say this is progress.


----------



## teensvan

Hi.

Over the last 12000 miles our average MPG is 21.7. Worst we did was around 15 MPG when keeping the van to 70 on motorways.

steve & ann. ---------------- teensvan.


----------



## jenniedream

I am more familiar with driving a lorry but guess the principles are the same...yes - anticipate stops and slow down rather than stop-start. Coax rather than demand with pedal power and I try and stay (safe distance) behind larger vehicle and travel in their slipstream on motorways. OH moans because he gets fed up with looking at the back of another heavy goods but it does make a difference. Have yet to drive any significant distance with the Hymer so this will be interesting - hope I get 30 though.


----------



## CliveMott

CONCORDE CHARISMA

The last two re-fills achieved 17.9 amd 18.2 MPG. Cruise set at an indicated 60 MPH which in reality is close to a real 90 KPH. But its a good six tonnes of house brick being hauled along by the 2.7 litre 5 pot Merc.

C.


----------



## TDG

I posted this under Ford Chassis last night but it seems to me it would have been better placed here.
Appologies for the failed table anignment but I think it's still understandable?! 

"There seems to be a lot of talk about fuel consumption. Some of it quotes what seems to be incredibly high and others, almost impossibly low figures
So, I offer the following comparison of our vehicles in an attempt at a crude reality check for other to comment upon.

Vehicle, Fuel, Power, Working Weight, Mileage, Shape, Speed, norm/max, Av. Cons. 
Chausson D, 140 hp, 3200kg, 8400, Brick 60/75, 27mpg,
Flash S3, 

Honda D, 138 hp, 1500kg, 10500, Slinky, 75/??; 49mpg
Civic 

Ford KA P, 69 hp, 950kg, 1500, Sexy, 60/70, 45mpg

My conclusion? That our M/H gives a fairly good consumption – especially since last evening I had occasion to follow Jane in the M/H for a few miles and found that she was out accelerating me in the KA from junctions and roundabouts!"


----------



## Vennwood

cabby said:


> I will say however that if you bought a motorhome you got it for its function and enjoyment,Mpg does not really in my opinion have much of a matter, it uses whatever it uses, the most you will save after taking the enjoyment out of the experience of driving to your destination while worrying about mpg is a few miserable pence per litre, even after a year of worrying and saving it wont be enough to pay for the insurance or road fund licence, but maybe a couple of nights of site fees. :twisted: :twisted:
> Tin hat issued and on.
> 
> cabby


Hi Cabby,

Hope you still have your tin hat on as I dissagree with your statement as in my case for example, if I can gain an extra 2mpg then I save over £200 and well worth it. (15000 miles per annum, 20mpg up by 2 to 22mpg, av £1 per litr) As a pensioner with a fixed income £200 can make a difference - an extra trip abroad, road tax, a new toy for the MH etc. etc. - better in my pocket than going up in smoke so to speak.

I'm very interested in mpg and found this thread very informative. What I'm still looking for is a justification for a remap. I accept there would be lots more power so I wouldn't need to change gear so often :roll: but I'm only interested in economy so can anyone confirm better economy AFTER a remap?


----------



## RichardnGill

Vennwood, that makes 2 of us. 

I don't like wasting money so keep a close eye on fuel used. If you are on a long trip of 2,000 miles it can make a few quid difference if you are careful. 

I am also keen on a re map to save fuel. 

Boosters say on commercial vehicles with a speed limiter they will guarantee an improvement. Should be the same in practice for a M/H if you keep to the same speed as pre mapped? 

If a re map saves 10% on fuel it would take about 15,000 miles to brake even. So it is not too bad even without taking it will be better to drive into consideration. 


Just need someone the make me a good offer to prove the theory    

Richard...


----------



## teemyob

*MPG*

Our house does 18mpg at 70-75MPH and about 22-24MPG @ 55-60mph


----------



## sersol

"What I'm still looking for is a justification for a remap."

"but I'm only interested in economy"

Reading your post I don't think a remap is for you,great if you are looking for more "power/grunt" but with the extra power after the remap not sure it would improve mpg. Of course people selling the "remap will tell you another story.................but they would :wink:

If you are looking for mpg,stay as you are the cost of a GOOD remap will buy you alot of fuel 

Gary


----------



## dragabed

*motorhome performance*

i read an article some months ago about people adding 2 stroke oil to thier diesel and achieving 10% more ecconomy ,quieter engines and better all round performance.does anyone have any information or experiance of this


----------



## TDG

*Re: motorhome performance*



dragabed said:


> i read an article some months ago about people adding 2 stroke oil to thier diesel and achieving 10% more ecconomy ,quieter engines and better all round performance.does anyone have any information or experiance of this


Can't think of any technical reason for that. 
I might consider it if I has inadvertently put a few (actually very few!)litres of petrol in the tank and I HAD to run without flushing the system!


----------



## Vennwood

sersol said:


> Reading your post I don't think a remap is for you,great if you are looking for more "power/grunt" but with the extra power after the remap not sure it would improve mpg. Of course people selling the "remap will tell you another story.................but they would :wink:
> 
> If you are looking for mpg,stay as you are the cost of a GOOD remap will buy you alot of fuel
> 
> Gary


Spot on Gary,

Hence my reticense - I simply haven't heard any evidence of remapping giving reliably better economy. I already have 176 BHP and that is quite adequate - £250 - £500 just to get up my local hill without changing gear wouldn't cut it. I accept that some folk justify it by better driving ability but I'm perfectly happy as I am - just would be nice to get better mpg. :wink:


----------



## richyc

Barts said:


> Hi, we have a 2001 Hymer 2.8 Mercedes Motorhome and have just returned after travelling carefully at about 50 mph for 201 miles. The vehicle is only 5.76 metres in length, so it is not long. We filled up before and after the journey and it took 42 litres of diesel. My calculations return 21.75 mpg, very disappointed!!
> 
> If anyone can suggest how I can improve on this, please let me know. Perhaps a retune?
> 
> Barts


Hi running a b654 similar to yours on fiat chassis/engine and i get 30 steady on a run.The merc must be a thirstier engine?


----------



## Mrplodd

Barts

I would be very disappointed with your consumption, are you sure you "brimmed" it both times??

I have a 7.5 metre Autotrail Dakota on an '03 Merc 316 (2.7 litre) with a Sprintshift gearbox that maxes out at 4000 kg and I regularly get 25 -26 mpg (but I dont go over about 50 -55mph and always have a "light" right foot)

It might be worth getting your beastie plugged into one of Mercs diagnostic computers in case a setting has altered??


----------



## b16duv

Vennwood said:


> Spot on Gary,
> 
> Hence my reticense - I simply haven't heard any evidence of remapping giving reliably better economy. I already have 176 BHP and that is quite adequate - £250 - £500 just to get up my local hill without changing gear wouldn't cut it. I accept that some folk justify it by better driving ability but I'm perfectly happy as I am - just would be nice to get better mpg. :wink:


Pete,

My experience of a remap is that fuel consumption is certainly reduced. It's just that I choose to use the benefit to travel at a higher average speed for the same fuel consumption.

Before remap 55mph 22mpg

After remap 65mph 22mpg

Were I to travel at 55mph now, fuel consumption would be lower (formula is given earlier in this thread).

David


----------



## TDG

gaspode said:


> .....................There are obvious ways of improving fuel efficiency, the most obvious being maintaining a lower speed but probably the greatest influence on MPG is the fuel used to start the van from rest. That being the case there are two strategies. The first is to be very smooth when accelerating, use the throttle gently and accelerate smoothly, slower acceleration will have very little effect on journey times. Second strategy (and this is what makes a huge difference) is to avoid stopping. This simply involves anticipation of what's happening ahead. If there is a roundabout, traffic lights or a queue ahead, slow down well in advance and judge your arrival to coincide with a green light or a gap in the traffic, if you can avoid stopping and starting again you'll save quite a bit on fuel consumption.


I agree with all that and would add:-
-The throttle stroke on our Mk.7 Transit base is very short - about half that on the other vehicles we drive making gentle acceleration difficult to judge :roll: 
-The effect of speed with an overcab is particularly severe :evil: 
-Are we all talking "brim-to-brim" consumption calculations or trip computer figures :?: Some computers systems are very optimistic


----------



## Rio

*mpg*

Our first motorhome was a 2006 hymer 2.3 jtd which did 38 mpg tank to tank regularly , 
So impressed we chose a ducato x250 rapidio low profile 2.3 jtd which does at best 25mpg , Major dissapointment !!!!
the running weight was 50 kg heavier on the new van and tyre pressures the same, both on 15 inch wheels
the hymer ran at 51mph at 60 on the sat nav, the new van 59,
we compared a run to port grimaud, route stored in garmin track log
filled with fuel at the same places, and went at the same time of year and the weather was pretty much the same, 
i always tot up the litres used each way and use the sat nav to set cruising speed,
as i always felt we were going slow in the older shape van, 
fuel used was amazingly approx 1 litre more on the x250 over a 2000 miles plus journey!!!!!,
so i wouldnt use the recorded miles as an exact calculation, 
I do agree wth the many good tips and the wealth of knowledge on this forum ,especially the speed being a major factor, 
Regarding weight we chose a 3500 kg motorhome and load it sensibly,
overloading and /or speeding opens a can of worms ,and gets us all tarred with the same brush, ditto jean luc s comment
The laws are there for heavier vehicles as they take longer to stop etc , so for the minority think of others for a change, regards rio,


----------



## maddicksman

You are so right. I think a lot of people quoting "low" (i.e. surprisingly economical) mpg figure simply don't calculate it carefully enough. I have a Burstner Solano 695 (4000Kg chassis) with a 130bhp multijet and we get 26.5 whether on the m/way (cruise at 65-70), touring or w.h.y.
I think your figures for a bigger (but slightly older design engine) are very reasonable.


----------



## rayrecrok

Hi.

Set off from home go to where I want end up, put diesel in the tank sit back stick the cruise control on and let it get on with it... :roll: 

Worrying about MPG would do my head in!... 8O


----------



## barryd

Never really worked it out but like the OP used to have, I have a Kontiki 640 and anything over 20MPG (estimated and never properly worked out) seems ok. Seems to go through the same amount of fuel no matter how I drive it which is usually with the foot on the floor and a full (perhaps too full) load.

However Im not fussed about MPG as long as the wheels stay on and the axle doesnt break! (read my threads if you dont know)

Im even less bothered now cause Im in Cauterets in the Pyrenees and having the time of my life!

IT could do 5MPG and right now I wouldnt care. In fact Im so impressed with this place I might even rant a new post about it!

BD


----------



## haydon

did 22500miles over 2years with 2007 swift bolero l/p recorded every fill up and achieved 29.9mpg .My new bolero 09reg. has done only 5500miles and averaged 28mpg both were 2.3fiats.the weather certainly affects consumption plus short stop start trips.try and drive around 2000rpm or 58-60mph.also tight.do not enjoy giving all that tax to the government.


----------



## Vennwood

b16duv said:


> Vennwood said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spot on Gary,
> 
> Hence my reticense - I simply haven't heard any evidence of remapping giving reliably better economy. I already have 176 BHP and that is quite adequate - £250 - £500 just to get up my local hill without changing gear wouldn't cut it. I accept that some folk justify it by better driving ability but I'm perfectly happy as I am - just would be nice to get better mpg. :wink:
> 
> 
> 
> Pete,
> 
> My experience of a remap is that fuel consumption is certainly reduced. It's just that I choose to use the benefit to travel at a higher average speed for the same fuel consumption.
> 
> Before remap 55mph 22mpg
> 
> After remap 65mph 22mpg
> 
> Were I to travel at 55mph now, fuel consumption would be lower (formula is given earlier in this thread).
> 
> David
Click to expand...

Hi David,

I'm sure with the price of fuel rising and rising mpg will become more important. What I'm finding is that it's not so much the speed that effects consumption in the Flair but the direction and speed of the wind. This can and does have a marked effect on mpg.

What I originally set out to do was find some actual proof or examples of fuel savings but even the folks that carry out the re-mapping can't offer any facts or figures. My reluctance remains that with a £4/500 cost for perhaps a 1 or 2mpg gain (providing the wind remains calm) would take an awful long time to recoup the cost.

Pete


----------



## barryd

On a 3000 mile trip over say 8 weeks to the south of France at perhaps 20 MPG and £4.50 per gallon its going to cost £675 in fuel. If your van does 30MPG its going to cost £450. so £225 difference over 2 months. Not exactly a great hill of beans of difference to get worried about really is it when you think what you can see and achieve in all that time?

Ive had a few so if my calculations are completely rubbish then can a Mod or someone just delete my ramblings?

BD


----------



## DTPCHEMICALS

Son in law averages 2 mpg more than me in both mh and slk.
We did a delivery on friday down to Huntingdon

He managed 42mpg in merc slk over 240 mile run.
the first time i have let him drive it.


Dave p


----------



## oilslick

*26 mpg*

Our Autotrail apache 700 with 2.8jtd got 26 mpg average over the last 3 years. Considering the bits of short mileage we do (shopping once a week etc) then I guess on a run we must be getting 28 if not more mpg.

It is actually a horiffic spreadsheet to look at... 2 tonnes of fuel

HOWEVER we have not gone back for the speedo recall as this would ruin it by 5%!!!

As a point of interest I do not tend to work in mpg, but pence per mile.... it is far more meaningful - £22 gets me quarter of tank and 100 miles (used to be £20!)

Grant


----------



## SorC

Every time we fill up I note the milage and quantity then using a simple excel spreadsheet calculate the trip and also the overall average mpg. Our lowest trip mpg is 19.02 the highest 37.59. Over the life of our Hymer A-class basically a B544 Classic 3500Kg the lowest overall average is 24.58 the highest overall average is 26.30 generally our overall average works out at about 25.60. As others have said I try to anticipate the traffic conditions and don't accelerate hard. These averages are over the 5year and 19000 mile life of our m/h mostly touring around France, Spain & Portugal where driving is a greater pleasure than Britain's congested motorways.


----------



## Oil-on-the-Road

We do an Excel spreadsheet too - and since we got our Autosleeper Clubman GL (Turbo Intercooled from TB Turbos fitted) last October we've recorded a solid 25 mpg on mixed mileage. - until last week when we filled up on the way to Northumbria. On entering the figures when we got home, the mileage had slumped to 23.8 mpg - and most of that tankfull had been used on the way home from Cornwall a couple of weeks previous - had only done 60-ish miles that day before filling.

I can only think of two explanations - either at one or other of the fills the pump auto cut off was over sensitive and the tank was not actually filled - OR (and this is a longshot) that last sixty miles had pulled so much volcanic dust into the air intake that the filter became clogged - it was the second day of very obvious falling ash that we set off & I'd done some pootling about the day before.

Anybody else noticed a sudden falling-off of MPG over that period?

Steve


----------



## WiltonShagpile

Hi,

Live in Driffield and just back from the Motorhome show at Peterborough.

135 miles each way.

Drove down at about 65mph............ MPG 24.8
Drove back no faster than 50mph......MPG 33.9

That's about 1/3 better fuel consumption.!!!!!!

Both ways I kept a constant speed on and off the A1.

I does show what a difference 10 to 15 MPH makes.

All reading were off the van's trip computer. If they are inacurate then both readings are as inaccurate as each other.

2009 Swift Sundance RL590, Luton

All the best Wilt.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

Just to add my twopennyworth, we get around 24 MPG, on a run, that's with the cruise control set between 55-65, but it doesn't get much worse even at 70+.

We don't bother to check the MPG as such now, as we've got to know how far a tank goes, which averages 390-410 ish on a regular basis, but this includes driving in 5th down to around 30-35 on the single track roads.

I'm not going to cry over an extra £5ish if we have to get somewhere before dark.

The Laika brochure says tank = 80ltrs/17.6Gallons


----------



## rayrecrok

Hmmm.
Drive round Wales, then drive round East Anglia compare the MPG realise!. then get on with it. Simples

If you are running short of fuel put some in!...

If you can afford a motor home you can afford the diesel,. if not get a push bike.


----------



## TDG

rayrecrok said:


> ................If you can afford a motor home you can afford the diesel,. if not get a push bike.


Hmmmm :!: 
Now at >20p per mile - I wonder  
Not everyone is a diver :roll:


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

rayrecrok said:


> If you can afford a motor home you can afford the diesel,. if not get a push bike.


i bet you knew you'd get a little stick for that one Ray :lol: :lol:

That's not very public spirited or environmental, and fuel economy is not to be sneezed at, if we use less, we can use more. :wink: :wink:


----------



## Vennwood

rayrecrok said:


> Hmmm.
> 
> If you can afford a motor home you can afford the diesel,. if not get a push bike.


Well, I guess I have to disagree with you on that one. Not everyone drives around only in the UK doing 2000 mile a year or less. Not everyone earns a barrow load of money. Some people buy their Motorhome as a way of achieving their ambitions or even that it is something they enjoy. Some save up for years or put themselves in hock so they can get realise their dream earlier. We certainly didn't plan to see fuel prices rocket as quickly as they have - with a forecast by some that the price will hit £2 a litre by Christmas

Fuel cost is by far our biggest expense. We travel mainly in Europe for around 20+ weeks every year. We cover around 15000 miles every year, at current prices that's a whopping £3800 on fuel alone.

If we can reduce that by even £200 it would mean we could stay away another week


----------



## steco1958

TDG said:


> rayrecrok said:
> 
> 
> 
> ................If you can afford a motor home you can afford the diesel,. if not get a push bike.
> 
> 
> 
> Not everyone is a diver :roll:
Click to expand...

I am. But I still have concerns about the increase in fuel.

The people that can afford the fuel at these prices don't see a problem, as above "Get a pushbike"

Those that have to be a little more careful, then the only thing I can say is do less trips, its not ideal but I think it is the reality.

Steve


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

Can't we just slow down a little, save a little, and then we might be able to go away a little more.

We try to get away at least once a month even if only for the weekend fairly close to home, that why we bought it, if it's going to site on the drive it may as well be sold.

If you can't afford it is not the real issue, it's sensible to not squander either the planets, or our personal resources, on fuel or anything else for that matter, unless you're a to$$er and don't give a sh1t of course


----------



## gm6vxb

Last long trip was from Fraserburgh to Hereford in snow and gales going, nice coming back but was the Friday before Easter so busy.
Average MPG for 1000+ mile was 28.5 doing manual calculations not using the onboard MPG'ometer which I do not fully beleive.
2007 Ducato 2.3 Litre on a low profile. Average speed 55 to 60MPH.
Have had low 30's touring.

Martin, GM6VXB


----------



## RichardnGill

Affording the extra money for fuel is not my main concern in being careful with how much fuel I use.

I do care about wasting both my money and the planets resources.

For the sake of traveling 5 mph slower and keeping a good distance in front of you so you dont have to brake as often can have a big impact of the fuel you use, so why even if you can afford it would you want to waste it? 

To me its like putting the heating o in your house and opening the windows because its to warm instead of turning the heating down.


Richard...


----------



## rayrecrok

Kev_n_Liz said:


> rayrecrok said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you can afford a motor home you can afford the diesel,. if not get a push bike.
> 
> 
> 
> i bet you knew you'd get a little stick for that one Ray :lol: :lol:
> 
> That's not very public spirited or environmental, and fuel economy is not to be sneezed at, if we use less, we can use more. :wink: :wink:
Click to expand...

Hi.

I could say park up your van if using fuel bothers you, all of us who own a motor home tour all over using fuel, and it could be said they are pointless journeys in the eyes of others who do not have big fuel guzzling vehicles.

But Hey Ho we are all naughty motor home people..  ..


----------



## teensvan

Hi 

Just got the best ever MPG from our burstner 748-2. 23.15 mpg, this was on our trip to peterborough and back. We normally get about 21 as an average.

steve & ann. --------- teensvan


----------



## raynipper

Just worked out the figures on two longish trips for our 2000 Hobby tag with the 2.8i DTD engine. OK it's pre electronics.

Towing 1 ton car not on motorways but gently average 23 mpg.
Solo keeping speed down to 55mph in convoy average 29 mpg.
Solo keeping up with faster traffic 60 to 65 mph average 26 mpg.

So I guess moving a 4+ ton van around at 26 mpg is not too bad.

Ray.


----------



## teal

Have 2001 2.8jtd and have been getting 25 mpg, however since the last service couple of weeks ago where we had 5/30 synthetic oil put in we got 30 mpg for the 350 miles on last journey.


----------



## LonesomeTwin

I'm getting about 2.3 miles per litre. But then I have got a 6 litre engine!


----------



## raynipper

I also wondered about full synthetic oil but when I saw the price you have to do a large mileage to even start to recover the extra outlay.

Ray.


----------



## nicholsong

My income comes in £/month (day) not per mile.

So my budget for fuel is £/day (in my case about £6) 

I think in terms of about 20-30 miles per day max, and then stay put for a while -what is the rush?

I see figures of 15,000 - 30,000 miles a year, but do not understand the need. 

Geoff


----------



## metblue

*mpg*

I Have begged, teams roles Ford Transit 4.2 = 26mpg
Fiat Ducato Swift Sundance 590 2.3 23 mpg (old shape)
"" " " 630 8.2 22 mpg
"" " Kontiki 669 3.0 22.5 mpg (x250 on trip to Spain)
Fiat Swift Sundance 630L 2008 2.3 27 mpg (I Have Had It now chipped so Will Have To See What I get next week going to / from York / Scarborough
All were bought new van and were on soldier at approx one year old & the mpg usually never changed despite averaging 10- 12000mls per year.
There was a gap of a year due to the terrible purchase of a Autotrail Arapaho bag of nails that we bought.so we went abroad several time flying to various points.
Now back to our old favourite the sundance and with it's new chip we will just see what improvements to the mpg will be.


----------



## Hymer1942

Morning all, some sense but a lot of rubbish, fuel is dear we all know that when we buy the motorhome, but as in one case to say you get over 37 mpg from an "A" class Hymer !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. I am on my third Hymer all with Sprintshift which I love the latest one is a 650 "S" class 4.6 ton which returns a consistent 20.5 when towing our Matis or 22ish on its own. I do agree its mostly down to speed but not all as a retired Class 1 HGV I know that timing is the most important, by that I mean trying to drive not to stop where you can, not to break if your just slowing down because its the getting up to speed that uses the fuel. But I also agree if your going to worry about fuel dont buy a motorhome. Finally the only way to check consumption is to fill to the brim complete journey or part of, fill to the brim and divide gallons into miles. In that way you get the correct MPG. Barrie


----------



## delboy0127

Hi

I agree with Barrie, with regard to checking fuel consumption, that way is 100% accurate.

I have a Mercedes chassis 2.2ltr 150bhp 3800kg automatic, towing Smart Car on Bantam trailer 20/mpg or 22/mpg without trailer.

Delboy


----------



## peedee

Hymer1942 said:


> Finally the only way to check consumption is to fill to the brim complete journey or part of, fill to the brim and divide gallons into miles. In that way you get the correct MPG. Barrie


or you could log your refills >here<

peedee


----------



## metblue

*mpg*

Hi Ian , begged Kontiki 669 and an Arapaho Both with 3ltr 160 bhp best I ever got was 24mpg with cruise, on the N74 south heading over the Millau Viaduct . Now Have a Sundance 630L it has been chipped to 160bhp ! just back from Blackpool , motorway all the way home averaged 27.2mpg according to the comp but will check at the garage when in refuel it tomorrow .
cheers ,
Tom


----------



## gnscloz

*Re: mpg*



metblue said:


> Hi Ian , begged Kontiki 669 and an Arapaho Both with 3ltr 160 bhp best I ever got was 24mpg with cruise, on the N74 south heading over the Millau Viaduct . Now Have a Sundance 630L it has been chipped to 160bhp ! just back from Blackpool , motorway all the way home averaged 27.2mpg according to the comp but will check at the garage when in refuel it tomorrow .
> cheers ,
> Tom


hi there 
did you have map or tuning box? who did it looking at getting my sundance done?

thanks


----------



## ceejayt

I remember following a big American RV which had a sign on the back along the lines if...

""12 miles per gallon, crap for a vehicle but not bad for a house!"

Made me smile


----------



## TDG

Hymer1942 said:


> .. I do agree its mostly down to speed but not all as a retired Class 1 HGV I know that timing is the most important, by that I mean trying to drive not to stop where you can, not to break if your just slowing down because its the getting up to speed that uses the fuel. But I also agree if your going to worry about fuel dont buy a motorhome. ...Barrie


Absolutely - all very true  
Although, having bought the van, there is little one can do about it, the shape is also of significance.
Our 140 hp van is realtively small, never weighs more that 3200 kg but has the aerodynamic characteristics of a misshapen brick  and we have to try hard to get better than 27mpg ( but I do know one of our drivers had little difficulty in achieving 23 mpg :wink: )which I don't think compares very favourably what you guys with the big posh vans achieve  
When towing your cars, you seem get a 10%( :?: ) fuel penality from about a 25%( :?: ) increase in weight which to my mind reconfirms the speed thing.,,,,,,after all, the wind force does vary as the square of the speed 8)


----------



## nicholsong

Hi ceejayt

Thanks for that one - gave me my chuckle for this morning!

But also, How True!

Geoff


----------



## pauwilson

Interesting to see all the different numbers, having been talking to people on our holiday it seemed high 20's should be expected from a 2.2 or a 2.3, albeit on lighter vans and others were very similar to us.

Ours is 4005kg Bessacar E495 on 2.3 Fiat freighted to around 3900kg, until Sunday I was getting approx 21mpg. mostly motorways around 65mph over the 2000 miles travelled and with a headwind a lot of the time it should be said. This is having come from a similar sized old van doing similar road types and speeds, but with the long 5th gear fitted.

As we were in no rush to get home I tried to experiment with different driving styles., over what were fairly similar motorway road conditions and pretty much no head or tail winds - all around 60 miles total each time and the results were pretty startling. The speeds were dash indicated so slightly over what the real speed was.

70mph - returned 18.9mpg, engine 2500rpm - 6th gear, but had to change to down to 5th to maintain speed sometimes

55mph  - returned 27.2mpg, engine just under 2000rpm - stayed in 6th the full way and did not appear to labour despite just being at start of torque band but had trucks slowly overtaking so not the kindest driving style for other road users.

*60mph* - returned 27.8mpg, engine bang on 2000rpm - had occasional drop to 5th but this was problably slightly hillier than other stretches - this speed is 56mph real life as I was bang on with the trucks so may have picked up a tow sometimes.

So in summary I will just drive like a lorry driver from now on!!!! And they tend to be more consitant so will problably not inccur much more journey time by doing so.


----------



## Rapide561

*Motorhome fuel*

Don't forget you can record your mpg on the relevant page by creating a profile for your van etc.

Members who have done this have their MPG shown near their avatar.

I am pleased with my van - especially the recent MPG to Italy and back.

Russell


----------



## barryd

I have tried on occasion to stick behind a truck at 55 mph on a motorway. I know it makes a big difference and you will get better MPG but I usually last about 5 minutes before I floor it and pull out to 70mph. If I have 250 miles to go I just cant go at 55. at the end of the day 20mpg, 23 or even 27. Does it make that much difference?


----------



## sallytrafic

mind is just nudging 38mpg but a more reliable figure is 35/36 but mine is a very slippery shape. These newish low profile jobbies should be up around that I would think.


----------



## barryd

Not at 7-8 metres 6 birth coach builts with a motorbike on the back they wont be!


----------



## Zebedee

barryd said:


> If I have 250 miles to go I just cant go at 55. at the end of the day 20mpg, 23 or even 27. Does it make that much difference?


It's a bit late Barry, but if my sums are correct it makes a difference of £17.68 on that 250 mile journey if you get 20 mpg instead of 27.

Can that be correct? It seems a big difference. 8O 8O

Dave


----------



## teemyob

*Fuel*



Tinhuttraveler said:


> Anything over 20 m p g with 5 tonne+payload should be acceptable, even more so if vehicle is a Tri-axle!!. I can tell you know, if it wasn't for Euro emission nonsense engine designers would be giving use diesel engines that would be returning 60+ on light commercials and 20+ on Heavy commercials, but with all these particulate traps and cat converters it really does effect m p g.
> What do you do? use more fuel but expel cleaner exhaust gases ? or less fuel but higher levels of toxic gases?
> Over to you!!
> Tinhut


Slow down, use less fuel.

DPF's do a superb job.


----------



## pauwilson

barryd said:


> I have tried on occasion to stick behind a truck at 55 mph on a motorway. I know it makes a big difference and you will get better MPG but I usually last about 5 minutes before I floor it and pull out to 70mph. If I have 250 miles to go I just cant go at 55. at the end of the day 20mpg, 23 or even 27. Does it make that much difference?


Watch out for the green police!!!! In days gone by - no, but in these tougher economic times / high fuel prices its personally getting much more noticable - to put it into perspective, just for me to get to the ferry and back before my holiday even begins the difference between 20 & 27mpg is around £60 in beer tokens over the 960 miles, so Dave - yes that is correct. Thats 3/4 of a tank of fuel for me - or a full tank if I fill up on the other side at the moment. 8O

Next time you are driving on a busy motorway at above 60mph getting plauged by the drivers that have to have their right foot on either the brake or the accelerator or hogging the middle lane , look to your left when you start off and note the trucks there then check again sometime later - you might be surprised what you find. The M6 between Warrington and Stoke is a classic bit for this.

Oh and incidentally, 10% extra weight can give an increase in consumption of around 10% - just something else to throw in the mix. The joys of being a transport manager, I have to deal with this sort of crap every day :?


----------



## teemyob

*M6*



pauwilson said:


> barryd said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have tried on occasion to stick behind a truck at 55 mph on a motorway. I know it makes a big difference and you will get better MPG but I usually last about 5 minutes before I floor it and pull out to 70mph. If I have 250 miles to go I just cant go at 55. at the end of the day 20mpg, 23 or even 27. Does it make that much difference?
> 
> 
> 
> Watch out for the green police!!!! In days gone by - no, but in these tougher economic times / high fuel prices its personally getting much more noticable - to put it into perspective, just for me to get to the ferry and back before my holiday even begins the difference between 20 & 27mpg is around £60 in beer tokens over the 960 miles, so Dave - yes that is correct. Thats 3/4 of a tank of fuel for me - or a full tank if I fill up on the other side at the moment. 8O
> 
> Next time you are driving on a busy motorway at above 60mph getting plauged by the drivers that have to have their right foot on either the brake or the accelerator or hogging the middle lane , look to your left when you start off and note the trucks there then check again sometime later - you might be surprised what you find. The M6 between Warrington and Stoke is a classic bit for this.
> 
> Oh and incidentally, 10% extra weight can give an increase in consumption of around 10% - just something else to throw in the mix. The joys of being a transport manager, I have to deal with this sort of crap every day :?
Click to expand...

Next time you are driving on a busy motorway at above 60mph getting plauged by the drivers that have to have their right foot on either the brake or the accelerator or hogging the middle lane , look to your left when you start off and note the trucks there then check again sometime later - you might be surprised what you find. The M6 between Warrington and Stoke is a classic bit for this.

How very true.

The same truck!


----------



## TDG

pauwilson said:


> Watch out for the green police!!!! .....


So right :!: 
In the marine industry we have some *very * large diesel engines - some >100,000 hp from 12 cylinders 8) 
Because of their size but mainly resulting from recent technology advances , some clever things are done, such as
- sequential turbo charger operation, variable geometry turbochargers, multistage intercooling and exhaust waste energy recovery
-multiple fuel injectors, variable cylinder and injector number operation, pilot injection and variable start, duration and end of injection 
-variable opening, duration and closing of exhaust valves.
- burning "fuel" that is crude oil that has everything useful taken out of it - ie the gunge that is left and that is therefore called "residual fuel"
- exhaust gas scrubbing 
From the 1960s to the mid '90s fuel consumption was improved by over 25% but this has all but halted over the last few years as technology has allowed international marine regulations to require every demanding emission controls. These regulations are often implemented because of the votes of non maritime nations that do not have any significant merchant marine or in some cases, a coast line :x 
If these requirements were set a more reasonable levels, immediate fuel savings of up to 15 % would be possible, which in the case of a 100,000 hp engine, would reduce the consumption by about 50,000 litres per day 8O 
No cheers for the green police :roll:


----------



## Zebedee

TDG said:


> No cheers for the green police :roll:


Especially when a TV programme a few days ago revealed that cattle produce more greenhouse gases than all the motor vehicles on the planet . . . . . . and *not *from their exhaust pipes either, surprisingly. 8O :wink:

Dave


----------



## barryd

I think the only way I would get 27mpg out of our van is down hill with the engine turned off.

I might get up to 25mpg if I really drive at 50-55 mph all day long. I know it makes sense what your saying and on none motorway roads I enjoy the drive and will just drive along within the limits. Its just motorways do my head in. I think it comes with years of belting up and down the UK in a hurry to get from one of the country to the other (in a past life). Boring!


----------



## lebuski

I drive with my eye on the Tacho rather than the Mileometer. I change up from first as soon as i can and every other gear change is at 2000 revs. I also try and cruise at 2000 revs (traffic permitting, as i don't like to cause tailbacks) and this normally gives me a driving speed of between 55 and 60 mph. 
My last van, a Fiat based 3,ton Low profile with 2.3TD engine (55000 miles) i achieved 35mpg on average and 37mpg at best.
My new van although a bit soon to give average figures i am looking at somewhere in the region of 32mpg to 35mpg. This vehicle is a Fiat based 4.5,ton Low profile with 2.8JTD engine (40000 miles)

This may all sound about anal, but for me every penny counts
John


----------



## KeiththeBigUn

I must admit that I do not normally monitor my MPG. :?

However on my recent trip to Ireland I did fill up to the brim and wrote down my mileage. On leaving Ireland I filled up to the brim again and noted the distance I had covered. So fairly accurate I would say. Now this really was a mixed bag of roads from Somerset to Connemara! 8O 

I did not rush although I do try to keep up with the flow of traffic. :wink:

There were four adults in my 6 birth Rimor (and two dogs) and in just short of 1000 miles I managed 23 MPG from my 2002 Merc 316. I was quite happy with that if I am honest! 

Keep smiling   

Keith


----------



## TDG

lebuski said:


> My last van, a Fiat based 3,ton Low profile with 2.3TD engine (55000 miles) i achieved 35mpg on average and 37mpg at best.
> My new van.....somewhere in the region of 32mpg to 35mpg. This vehicle is a Fiat based 4.5,ton Low profile with 2.8JTD engine (40000 miles)...


You might be able to help fund your meagure fuel costs by starting an Economic Driving School :wink: :lol:


----------



## lebuski

Or stay at home :lol:


----------



## TDG

KeiththeBigUn said:


> I must admit that I do not normally monitor my MPG. :?
> 
> However on my recent trip to Ireland I did fill up to the brim and wrote down my mileage. On leaving Ireland I filled up to the brim again and noted the distance I had covered. So fairly accurate I would say. Now this really was a mixed bag of roads from Somerset to Connemara! 8O
> 
> I did not rush although I do try to keep up with the flow of traffic. :wink:
> 
> There were four adults in my 6 birth Rimor (and two dogs) and in just short of 1000 miles I managed 23 MPG from my 2002 Merc 316. I was quite happy with that if I am honest!
> 
> Keep smiling
> 
> Keith


Keith,
Any notable performance changes to report since your fateful remapping in Exeter :?: 
Best regards,


----------



## KeiththeBigUn

[/quote] 
Keith, 
Any notable performance changes to report since your fateful remapping in Exeter :?: 
Best regards,[/quote]

Hard to say on the MPG as I really do not bother keeping records but the performance is much better! No need to change down on hills at all. Very happy with it and even with the hassle I would do it again. :wink:

Keith


----------

