MPG?

Macspower

Hi Guys,

what MPG are you getting from your camper... I'm particularly interested in seeing the Ducato/Boxer based ones

make model engine I guess are the important ones..

Fiat Ducato Hymer 644 6 berth 2.5tdi engine

Doing about 33 mpg overall it seems...

macpete

I have a joint 154 lowprofile, just over the magic weight 3 ton!!!!
It is the fiat 2.8jdt engine, getting between 24 to 30 mpg depending on how you drive, i have a sat dish mounted on the roof so a bit of drag.

zagmund

What is this MPG of which you speak ?

I ran a few tests on my last few drives, but I don't have the figures to hand. I think last time I checked, I got 500km out of 50l of diesel. At least I think that was what I got. I remember thinking it rounded off to more or less 10km/l - since I have a 5l spare tank I know I can get about 50km on it if I ever run dry.

The engine is a 2.5l td in an old (93) Ducato, and the vehicle is something like 2.7t or thereabouts.

z

chrisblack

On my '92 Ducato 2.5 straight, I'm getting around 24mpg, with 2 canoes on top, 3 bikes on back and water tanks half full..

Chris

martyc5674

Ducato 2.8Jtd, 7 berth motorhome with a fairly high roof..im getting 25MPG pretty consistently...very slightly less if i drive it hard(as in consistently over 110 on the good roads...which it has no problem doing:pac:)
I read somewhere that the Ducatos arent great fuel wise with a luton type roof arrangement.
Marty.

keithm1

heres a handy calculator for anyone interested http://www.torquecars.com/tools/uk-mpg-calculator.php

peasant

Laika integrated motorhome on Iveco Daily chassis, pretty much 3.5 tons full up, 2.4 liter / 95 PS TD ...10-12l/100 km depending on terrain (better than most large offroaders)

stapeler

Mine is a 03 Ducato with a 2.8Lt and sitting close to 3500kgs.
Last year on a 2900km trip, mostly motorway (France & Germany) it averaged 24.6mpg or 11.4 l/100km
This year I added a bike rack with four bikes on the back, also added an engine tuning chip and on a 1900km trip, very little motorway, it averaged 23mpg or 12.18 l/100km

Macspower

I did my original calculations incorrectly it seems....

My 2.5 Ducato did 26 mpg over the last 2 tanks.. some of that was wicklow driving with a lot of hills/mountains

Sprinter 311 CDi panel van conversion approx. 3 tons fully loaded seems to use between 9 and 9.5 l/100 km which converts to 30..32 MPG and gives a range of 500 miles from full until warning light comes on.

It used about the same even before the conversion which added about 500 kg of mass in the vehicle. Maybe I drove it faster pre conversion or it could be the fuel consumption is directly related to the shape of the van.

Also, the van was remapped a few months back and the consumption seems to have stayed the same. It did't have any effect on the consumption. I guess I should really call it 314 CDi.

strummer_ie

I would be very interested in hearing the MPG for a Mercedes Vario, if anyone has the info ?

Currently top of my wishlist

paddyp

strummer_ie wrote: »

I would be very interested in hearing the MPG for a Mercedes Vario, if anyone has the info ?

Currently top of my wishlist

20-22mpg neighbour has one, reckons its the worst thing that ever happened to him.

You have the C licence to drive it?

Aidan_M_M

The new(er) crop of Renault Master based Campers are proving to be very dood on fuel , some customers with lo-profiles reporting over the mid 30's . My dad towed a car to Spain , with his own Renault based A-Class , 3 up and all the gear , a heavy trailer and a 1 tonne car , and still returned about 24 mpg .

youneverknow

samih wrote: »

Sprinter 311 CDi panel van conversion approx. 3 tons fully loaded seems to use between 9 and 9.5 l/100 km which converts to 30..32 MPG and gives a range of 500 miles from full until warning light comes on.

It used about the same even before the conversion which added about 500 kg of mass in the vehicle. Maybe I drove it faster pre conversion or it could be the fuel consumption is directly related to the shape of the van.

Also, the van was remapped a few months back and the consumption seems to have stayed the same. It did't have any effect on the consumption. I guess I should really call it 314 CDi.

I have a 310D and it is doing less than 16 mpg :mad: wtf is going wrong

stevire

youneverknow wrote: »

I have a 310D and it is doing less than 16 mpg :mad: wtf is going wrong

What year? 16mpg sounds about right for the old T1's (Sprinters pre 95)

youneverknow

no its not right i know that much its '97, i was getting 20 last week, which is still bad only 127k mile on the clock

stevire

youneverknow wrote: »

no its not right i know that much its '97, i was getting 20 last week, which is still bad only 127k mile on the clock

With a 97, I'd expect mid 20's depending on the load in the back. There's a few things that can help increase mpg:

• Check tyre pressures
• Replace filters
• Use a high grade oil
• Make sure brakes aren't binding

Also, going a little bit slower on the motorway can increase the mpg a good bit. Even going 65mph instead of 70mph I notice the difference in fuel consumption.

Macspower

stevire wrote: »

With a 97, I'd expect mid 20's depending on the load in the back. There's a few things that can help increase mpg:

• Check tyre pressures
• Replace filters
• Use a high grade oil
• Make sure brakes aren't binding

Also, going a little bit slower on the motorway can increase the mpg a good bit. Even going 65mph instead of 70mph I notice the difference in fuel consumption.

good tips there.

I notice a massive difference in the mpg vs speed. at 100km it is at its best and at 120km you could watch the needle dropping! then having an overhead cab/bed ... ie the aerodynamics of a brick... doesn't help

Irishgoatman

I like the way most of us talk about mpg and not Lt/km!

My reason is that the speedo on my '85 camper only reads in mph and I get 30 to 32 mpg.

My car speedo is only in km but I still convert everything back to mpg. Stupid or what:o.

Ildere

Renault master 2.5 150bhp, Average 10.1 but thats driving it under 100 kph in 6th gear which is usually at or under 2000 revs and full gear on board.

Thats about 28mpg.

At 120 kph that drops to 24 mpg or worse.

shaysue

Burstner Aviano A Class 4000kg on FIAT Ducato base 3ltr engine I get 26mpg consistently. This is based on both computer readout and on fill up check.

I'm getting 28 - 34 in a 308D.

Aidan_M_M

2 year old Elddis 140 lo-profile on a Peugeot chassis , 2.2 120 bhp , 34 mpg average over the last 2000 miles .

youneverknow

anyone use dipetane?

Aidan_M_M

youneverknow wrote: »

anyone use dipetane?

I only heard of people using it in petrols , more for emissions than anything .

Irishgoatman

Aidan_M_M wrote: »

I only heard of people using it in petrols , more for emissions than anything .

I've never heard of Dipitane before.
I've never bothered about additives before, Redex etc, as I have no problem with emissions, but having just Googled Dipitane, most of the reviews do appear to say that it does reduce fuel consumption in both diesel and petrol engines, so I might just give it a try if I can find it.

elaverty

Any/Every decent motorfactors should stock it,,

Irishgoatman

Thanks, I will be looking for it when in town next.

It will still be nice to hear from anyone who has used it.

Any way to use less fuel is good.

Aidan_M_M

Dipetane is actually a trade name , ye know , right? It's not an actual chemical in it's own right. Rather it's an additive made by a Wicklow company AFAIK.

Irishgoatman

Aidan_M_M wrote: »

Dipetane is actually a trade name , ye know , right? It's not an actual chemical in it's own right. Rather it's an additive made by a Wicklow company AFAIK.

Correct, and they have a very comprehensive website. Dipetane.ie

Certainly worth a read.

Aidan_M_M

Irishgoatman wrote: »

Correct, and they have a very comprehensive website. Dipetane.ie
.

Don't they ? It's a credit to them .

moodrater

Our van just returned 33.2mpg over 550km including about 120km of motorway, 240km of r roads, 60k of urban and the rest n roads.

Anyone looking at dipetane and not already put off by their outlandish claims should note that the single vehicle they like to quote actual factual emmissions data for is a 1989 american 7.3l diesel heap of ****e so unless your driving something like that don't expect the mpg improvements quoted. Practically every figure they give is preceded by non scientific terms like 'up to' or 'about' which is jarring if you're from a scientific or engineering background.

Its good for getting bangers through the nct but your moneys probably better spent on repairing the cause of emissions failure unless your doing very small miles. A much more realistic expectation is the 3% quoted by topaz for their fuel which includes ultra super dooper miracle additives for free. People with efficient diesels may see no statistically significant difference at all.

Irishgoatman

My vehicle has a 1986 ,1ltr petrol engine, 2 berth.

As I said earlier, it has no emission problems, but despite the fact that it's built with the wind resistance of a brick I feel I should do better than 30mpg. I rarely go over 50mph because that's the speed it likes. Because the gear box is very low ratio I do often find myself doing 30mph and still in 5th gear, which I'm sure doesn't help the fuel consumption.

I don't know the price of Dipitane but if it's not too dear, anything that gives a little help will be welcome.

I take all claims of greatness with a large pinch of salt, to the extent that I quite often don't believe myself!.

Check your leaf springs. If they are straight or can potentially bend against the bow then you stand to gain a lot in fuel economy by adding a helper leaf and maybe even new shocks.
Self-builds tend to be closer to laden weight than not.

Aidan_M_M

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Check your leaf springs. If they are straight or can potentially bend against the bow then you stand to gain a lot in fuel economy by adding a helper leaf and maybe even new shocks.
.

How so , Liam?

Grand Aidan...as per usual I'm making some assumptions here.
afaik a LGV is designed to compromise road holding against cargo capacity on a sliding scale of about 2 tons.
Vans are not designed to be fully laden.
They move quickly and efficently when empty and hunker down when transporting.

If you know you will always have an extra 0.5ton to 1.5ton in the back you can afford to firm up the suspension and reduce fuel consumption in vibration, differential offset, vertical forces on the universal joint of the drive shaft etc.

I've added 3mpg swapping my leaf set with a lutton body.

http://www.portlaoisesprings.ie/

Aidan_M_M

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Grand Aidan..
If you know you will always have an extra 0.5ton to 1.5ton in the back you can afford to firm up the suspension and reduce fuel consumption in vibration, differential offset, vertical forces on the universal joint of the drive shaft etc.

.

Fair play , I'm sorry if you were thinking I was being smart. That's a well detailed and informative answer! Fair play. Makes sense too, apart from the vibration bit , I don't really get that , unless the propshaft is very short.

cipro 55

Anyone know how accurate the MPG read out is on the dash of the transit.

Aidan_M_M

Aidan_M_M wrote: »

Fair play , I'm sorry if you were thinking I was being smart. That's a well detailed and informative answer! Fair play.

No worries, not at all, I am a bittov a chancer you correct me when I'm wrong all the time. Keep it up it's educational

vibration comes into play when the axle is moving. The more rigid the back axle the less fuel is wasted by the differential sending more power to one wheel.

It's a saving probably more suited to RWD self-builds.

moodrater

cipro 55 wrote: »

Anyone know how accurate the MPG read out is on the dash of the transit.

The average on the newer one is supposed to be fairly accurate over a couple of tanks but the only scientific way to measure mpg is by brimming the tank (and waiting and filling several times to ensure that air and foam has escaped) and recording the odometer.

Irishgoatman

moodrater wrote: »

The average on the newer one is supposed to be fairly accurate over a couple of tanks but the only scientific way to measure mpg is by brimming the tank (and waiting and filling several times to ensure that air and foam has escaped) and recording the odometer.

Quite right but don't forget to record the anount of fuel that goes in each time.

I've been doing this since the late 70's when I had a Vauxhall Victor car. By doing that, filling the tank each time, recording the odometer reading, subtracting that reading from the previous reading and dividing that by the amount of fuel you put in. With the Victor, whenever the comsumption went up it told me that the air filter needed changing!. The note book that I've got for the car actually goes back over 4 cars!.

It helps by letting you know that something needs checking even though you might not notice it whilst driving.

You can take the volume readout off the receipt when you buy fuel. Always having a full tank will increase your weight thus reducing MPG. You can save here too if you fill according to range.
Jaysus we're all such nerds...:o

Irishgoatman

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

You can take the volume readout off the receipt when you buy fuel. Always having a full tank will reduce MPG by 2 (for me anyways).
Jaysus we're all such nerds...:o

That's fine if you bother/remember to get a receipt.

But at least we are thinking nerds, unlike trainspotters:D.

I fill by volume not by (cheapest) price. Makes more sense to me.

Irishgoatman

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

I fill by volume not by (cheapest) price. Makes more sense to me.

Price doesn't come into it when keeping a check on consumption.
Just distant travelled (miles or km) from one full tank to the next full tank as long as you've kept a note of any fuel put in between the full tanks.

Comes into it when you pay for it though...
Wasn't that the point in the first place?

*Kol*

Sir Liamalot wrote: »

Comes into it when you pay for it though...
Wasn't that the point in the first place?

It only depends on what value you put on the use of your MH/camper. For me I get more enjoyment out of the use of the MH than the cost of the fuel.

Grand I'm not sure how relevant that is to a MPG thread though. Surely the only reason to monitor it is to increase your range to further enjoy your MH? Or as Irishgoatman does to monitor mechanical health.

*Kol*

I should have elaborated above. I dont worry about the fuel consumption so much, if i want to use the MH i need to put fuel in it regardless of the fuel consumption. The MPG of the MH is part of the running cost but by no means outweighs the enjoyment i get from the MH, I thought that might be relevant in the MPG thread and something to consider for people who may be unnecessarily worrying about it.

I do keep an eye on it out of interest and for health monitoring purposes though. It's a good idea as you do to fill according to the length of journey you intend to do. Also not filling up with water, heavy unnecessary items (wife and family!!!) etc helps keep the weight down and aids keeping the fuel consumption down.

Of course one of the heaviest things on fuel consumption can be your right foot!! It's always tempting to eat up the miles/kms on the motorway at 120 kmh but you really notice the increase in consumption.

Irishgoatman

I think that when Macspower started this thread it was just to see how different vehicles did on fuel consumption.

This sort of information is always nice to have. You can either give yourself a pat on the back for buying the right vehicle or give yourself a lot of sleepless nights wondering where all the fuel is going:D.