how do fuel economies on different campers compare?

jinghong · 26-03-2010 1:31am #1

Hi
Wondering if you can help with my choice of motorhome. I plan to use it quite a bit, possibly doing 10k miles per year, with one or 2 trips to the continent along with weekends away in Ireland. Since I can work from my laptop, goegraphy does not matter so much, hence the intended mileage. I'd like to keep the dollars down as well as having something big enough for a bit of comfort especially on those long trips. At the moment there are the 2 of us and one infant, no immediate plans for more procreation but that may happen down the line too. Most importantly I'm concerned about fuel economy, as anyone who will run a camper over the next five years should be.
I got my lesson recently - I sold my car (to free up capital for the purchase) and actually made a profit on it because it was very fuel efficient, while petrol versions are tanking in value

For those reasons I'm a little skeptical about the standard motorhome:

It's big 'nose' over the cockpit must be a real drag on fuel economy. Secondly since it might be better to have something bigger anyway, the A-class type should be a bit more aerodynamic and hence worth the extra money they usually attract, as well as being far more spacious, but a 3 axled beast like this can hardly be easy to shift:

I would have thought that the more modern ones are far more efficient like this:

But thats out of my budget (15-18k)

If it costs around 2k in diesel per annum on a camper that does 24mpg, a 30mpg camper would save €400 in running costs, which adds up both on costs and resale value. Anyone got any knowledge on how mpg compares on the different types?

peasant · 26-03-2010 9:50am

You are correct, generally speaking one of those alkove mobiles will use more fuel than a similar low-profile camper.

The biggest influence over fuel consumption still is the driver though. As wind drag rises in the quadrant of the speed, the faster you go, the more fuel gurgles through the engine.
On a motorway trip, the difference between staying with the lorries or hurrying down the overtaking lane with the pedal to the floor could easily be up to 5 liter/100 km.

Having said all that, if you're going to spend a lot of time in your camper, fuel shouldn't really be your top priority.
It is much more important that the layout suits your requirements, that you feel at home in there and that everything works as it should.

jinghong · 26-03-2010 12:06pm

Thanks for that
Yes, that brings me to another point.
Why drive on the tolled motorways, if you are only doing say 55mph, surely you are better avoiding the tolls if you don't stand to gain the main advantage of motorway driving: higher speeds?

peasant · 26-03-2010 12:30pm

jinghong wrote: »

Thanks for that
Yes, that brings me to another point.
Why drive on the tolled motorways, if you are only doing say 55mph, surely you are better avoiding the tolls if you don't stand to gain the main advantage of motorway driving: higher speeds?

Because there are no traffic lights, no counterflow and no sharp bends on a motorway you can still achieve a high average speed, even when taking it easy. Whether that's worth paying tolls is another question

jinghong · 26-03-2010 12:42pm

Another thing I don't like about the alcoves is that in most of them the front seats are not swivel or captain seats. It seems this would increase the effective usable area inside the camper, whereas a lot of the A class campers seem to have this feature, being on the same level.

It seems like the very modern ones are now starting to be built with useability and economy in mind. Out of my league tho:(

peasant · 26-03-2010 1:16pm

HERE is a nice battleship within your budget

jinghong · 26-03-2010 1:38pm

Nice!
Thanks for that, wouldn't have found that myself

paddyp · 26-03-2010 4:22pm

peasant wrote: »

HERE is a nice battleship within your budget

Thats a lot of van for the money, but travelling sideways in the back on a long journey would be torturous and in a crash would result in severe internal injuries. It looks like the passenger has to use the tradesmans entrance :-p

peasant · 26-03-2010 5:28pm

paddyp wrote: »

It looks like the passenger has to use the tradesmans entrance :-p

In lots of integrated motorhomes there are no front dooors at all
(which can be bloody awkward at times)

jinghong · 26-03-2010 5:51pm

Yes I'd just come to that realization too. We have an infant and need to get her properly strapped in. That cuts out campers with side facing seats unfortunately. Looks like I'm going to have to up the budget a little to get a decent A-class with swivel front seats and front facing passenger seats. They seem to be about 5k more expensive than the c-class but are probably worth it..

peasant · 26-03-2010 6:56pm

another BATTLESHIP then, this time with front facing seats.

Well over three tons empty also, so only 50 Euro VRT

Aidan_M_M · 26-03-2010 7:16pm

jinghong wrote: »

Yes I'd just come to that realization too. We have an infant and need to get her properly strapped in. That cuts out campers with side facing seats unfortunately. Looks like I'm going to have to up the budget a little to get a decent A-class with swivel front seats and front facing passenger seats. They seem to be about 5k more expensive than the c-class but are probably worth it..

What about a low profile Coach built ? Our best sellers , this last 5 years . Better economy than an "A" Class , and IMO A helluva lot safer in a crash . 2 Front doors , and most modern ones have both front seats swivelling . In general they're quieter and less rattley up front than an A class too . Easier to service too .

Our customers report the new shape Ducato 2.3 as being a fair bit easier on juice than the the up to late 2006 2.8 (and a weapon to go!) . And the 2.5 Renault Master a being even more economical . The Renault customers are reporting 32-35 mpg , the Fiat customers around 30 .

jinghong · 26-03-2010 7:59pm

I presume you're talking about one of these?

Looks like this design makes both the a class and c class obsolete no?
How long is it till diesel hits €1.50+ a litre. I suspect that 35mpg will be valued a lot more then..

Aidan_M_M · 26-03-2010 8:16pm

jinghong wrote: »

I presume you're talking about one of these?

Looks like this design makes both the a class and c class obsolete no?
How long is it till diesel hits €1.50+ a litre. I suspect that 35mpg will be valued a lot more then..

yeah that style of thing . I didn't want to post a link on advertising rules . Fair is fair .
It doesn't make them obolete , the OverCab ones are better for families , and the A class is in general more luxurious and has a larger front lounge area .
I agree on the diesel though...

peasant · 26-03-2010 8:29pm

The issue with low profile vans is that you lose one bed in the front (which is over the cab in an alcove van or pull-down in an integrated one) and this has then either to be tagged on at the end (making some low profile machines very looong) or omitted altogether / compromised out of a dinette or something, making the interior that bit more cramped/impractical.

They are perfect for two people, but start getting awkward from then on upwards.

They are very economical to drive however .

Bessa · 29-03-2010 9:37pm

We have a low profile Fiat Ducato 2.3 its good on Diesel and very fast on the road.

Aidan_M_M · 29-03-2010 10:27pm

Aren't they a savage engine Bessa? So smooth , and powerful for a 2.3 . Wee bit more powerful than the 2.8 it superceded!

Do you mind me asking roughly what MPG you're getting? Loads of our customers report in the 30s .

paddyp · 29-03-2010 11:38pm

Aidan_M_M wrote: »

Aren't they a savage engine Bessa? So smooth , and powerful for a 2.3 . Wee bit more powerful than the 2.8 it superceded!

Do you mind me asking roughly what MPG you're getting? Loads of our customers report in the 30s .

The guys in the german ducato forum are putting the rail pressure sensor from the 2.3 into the 2.8 rail for increased torque. Max pressure is then increased from 1500/1600 bar to 1800bar. Apparently couple extra km/l and much nicer to drive with the only cost being a little smoke under heavy accelleration.

how do fuel economies on different campers compare?

Comments