M P G

[Guest Tracker]

Rather than reply off topic and incur the wrath of someone else again I'll move this discussion to a new thread!

 

Location: East Sussex. Motorhome = 2007 Hobby Van T500GFSC.

 

peter - 2009-07-31 10:02 PM

Tracker - 2009-07-28 12:37 PM Off topic maybe but I would agree with Nick about fuel consumption. Every set of new regulations starting with catalytic converters has worsened the real life fuel economy of most vehicles and all in the name of saving the planet. What a load of rubbish! My current car has all this stop start and regenerative crap and although the VCA theoretical fuel consumption figures are amazing given it's power the reality is somewhat different and it is no better in the real world than the car that it replaced and is supposed to be so much better than! The only consolation is a reduced VED! How on Earth can using more fuel to do the same job be better for the planet - but if it keeps the eco bandits at bay I suppose that is a good thing! I'm sticking the the previous model Boxer for the forseeable future and am seriously thinking of going back to a pre cat, no depreciation, no gizmos 'classic' for everyday use.

I'll flog you my 1987 Toyota Supra 3 Ltr, 29 MPG no rust for a good price Richard.

 

Well, OK, but - I have recorded the fuel consumption on our van (2007 2.2 litre, 130PS, Mk 7 Transit) since new, by noting the actual quantity of fuel bought, and the recorded mileage. Motorway and dual carriageway cruising at 65MPH, UK non-dualled 60MPH (wherever possible), Euro non-dualled roads 90KPH (wherever possible), cab aircon used extensively.

 

Last time we re-fuelled the totals were 2,389 litres and 15,971 miles. That, according to my calcs, is an average of 28.92 MPG. Not bad for a vehicle that normally runs at around 3.2 tonnes! Oh yes, and it is Euro 4 compliant.

 

Our previous van, similar size and weight, not Euro 4 compliant, was 2005, 2.8 litre, 146 PS, Ducato based and, used in a similar way, consumed 2,352 litres over 20,554 KM, or (again according to my calcs) around 24.65 MPG.

 

So, some real world advantage then in consumption, and presumably emissions, from all this emissions rubbish?

[Guest Tracker]

OK Brian - I take your point but don't necessarily agree with it!

 

Several points arise.

 

One is that you are comparing a 2.8 five speed with a 2.3 six speed on different chassis with different aero dynamics and whilst the power outputs might be similar, maybe if a six speed box with similar final drive ratio had been fitted to the 2.8 the two consumption figures would have been somewhat closer?

 

Next point is that as both are fitted with catalytic converters and other emission control gubbins we will never know what mpg either is truly capable of! However one thing is for sure - it would have been a lot more that it is with all the gubbins!

 

Next, I have no experience of either of the two engines that you refer too but I do have experience of the 2.2 Peugeot and 2.3 Fiat engines on the older Boxer/Ducato, both five speed, both of which return around 28 mpg over several thousand miles.

 

Assuming your driving style is similar to my own - not thrashing it but cracking on at 60 - 65 mph when on a long run and gentle 40 mph pootling when touring - and I had bought a brand new 2.3 six speed van that also did 28 ish mpg I would be mighty unimpressed!

 

I remain to be convinced that all this engine control wizardry is little more than smoke and mirrors to keep the eco terrorists at bay as how on earth can it make sense to use more fuel to theoretically cut emissions?

 

Several years ago I had a Citroen ZX 1.9 td. Nice car for the price and being pre cat con it always gave me a fraction under 50 mpg over 35000 miles. I liked it so much that when Citroen offered me a super deal on a new one with cat con I took it - and whilst it went OK with very little loss of power in everyday use it averaged just over 44 mpg over 40,000 miles.

 

So I still need someone to explain to me how using more fuel can save the planet and my pocket?

 

 

[GypsyTom]

I'm no tree hugger but a recent survey found that in London alone 3000 people die every year from respiratory diseases caused by car emissions. Just imagine how many more that would be without the much cleaner engines and catalytic converter systems that we have today.

Going back to filthy polluting engines may well suit those people living in Llanfair-Cloud-Cuckoo-Land who care more about saving a few pounds than they do about the health of their countrymen living in the big cities, but I, and I suspect the vast majority of people visiting this site, would prefer to have cleaner air and be a little bit poorer.

I predict that this thread will now follow the usual Tracker pattern. His views will be totally ridiculed and made to look as silly as they usually are. He will then return and boast that he only posted it to stir things up and draw people in. He only does this of course when he's been made to look a bit daft!

Personally, I'd rather be seen as a little bit silly than as someone who deliberately goes out of his way to cause trouble and argument but it doesn't seem to bother you know who!

[Guest Tracker]

Tom, why is it that you are unable to disagree with me without being rude or offensive?

 

I, and most of us on here, are able to note other people's points of view and reply to the points with which we disagree without being unpleasant or insulting to the the person who posted it.

 

Please, for the sake of courtesy, more pleasant reading for all, and your own credibility, do try to contain your lack of manners.

 

I take your point about pollution but I still don't see how burning more fuel to cover the same distance and theoretically cut emissions can save the planet and preserve the diminishing oil reserves?

 

New vehicles may in theory be cleaner and more economical but the reality is, I suspect, that they are far less of both than the makers and the government would have us believe?

 

If you believe, as you seem to suggest, that I posted this simply to stir you up your delusion may be worse than I feared and maybe you should consider seeking some help before the paranoia gets out of hand!

 

[GypsyTom]

Tracker - 2009-08-02 12:23 PM Tom, why is it that you are unable to disagree with me without being rude or offensive? I, and most of us on here, are able to note other people's points of view and reply to the points with which we disagree without being unpleasant or insulting to the the person who posted it. Please, for the sake of courtesy, more pleasant reading for all, and your own credibility, do try to contain your lack of manners. I take your point about pollution but I still don't see how burning more fuel to cover the same distance and theoretically cut emissions can save the planet and preserve the diminishing oil reserves? New vehicles may in theory be cleaner and more economical but the reality is, I suspect, that they are far less of both than the makers and the government would have us believe? If you believe, as you seem to suggest, that I posted this simply to stir you up your delusion may be worse than I feared and maybe you should consider seeking some help before the paranoia gets out of hand!

God, I'm rolling on the floor with laughter! Why is anyone rude to Tracker? Could it be because you post vitriol like this?

Surpassed only by the look of self satisfied condescending arrogance when he (or his CC counterpart) then tells you that the site is full even for just one night and even though there are still lots of empty pitches at 7.00 pm just waiting for people who will never turn up! Magic!

And you've only yourself to blame for the other part of my post. Time and time again your arguments are demolished (like then one about the conspiracy to set speedos high) and your usual response is to try to make the other contributors look silly by saying that you only posted to dangle a worm amd draw them in!

So how can you blame me for wishing to spike your guns at the very beginning! I notice that you've not used this argument yet and I hope that you never do again!

[rupert123]

Rich I would really like to know at how the burning more fuel bit comes about. All vehicles I have owned, and it is a lot, are more efficient than they were twenty years ago. They burn less fuel, are more reliable and rust is almost a forgotten problem now. How do you know if a vehicle without all the emmission controls would be better? I can only go by what I have personally experienced in this. Diesels for example, which most have in their vans, cannot even be compared with those from ten years ago, they are more efficient, less polluting and make less noise.

[Brian Kirby]

On a point of accuracy, M'Lud, the Transit is a 5 speed gearbox, not 6.

That apart, my point, simply put, is that despite the smaller engine working harder, and the Euro 4 compliance, the Ford uses less fuel than the earlier generation Fiat. 

There are a number of differences between the vehicles that might explain some of the variation in consumption, aerodynamics being one, and the fact that one was on Michelin Camping tyres while the other is on Continental Vancos being another.

However, your original contention was that the fuel consumption should have risen due to the eco gubbins, whereas, on a very simple, direct, comparison the reverse proved the case.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee?  :-)

[Guest Tracker]

rupert123 - 2009-08-02 12:49 PM

 

Rich I would really like to know at how the burning more fuel bit comes about. All vehicles I have owned, and it is a lot, are more efficient than they were twenty years ago. They burn less fuel, are more reliable and rust is almost a forgotten problem now. How do you know if a vehicle without all the emmission controls would be better? I can only go by what I have personally experienced in this. Diesels for example, which most have in their vans, cannot even be compared with those from ten years ago, they are more efficient, less polluting and make less noise.

 

Absolutely Henry! Diesel engines have come on tremendously in recent years and cars are safer, quieter, more reliable, better made and less polluting than ever.

 

However if I may take just one example of a modern car and the misleading claims of economy and pollution made by the makers and the government sponsored official VCA economy and CO2 figures.

 

The 2.0 td engined car that I own has revised makers fuel economy and performance figures following it's updating with stop start and regenerative braking in 2007. Pre face lift it was 36.6mpg urban, 49.5mpg combined, 163 bhp and 152gmco2km. It now boasts a theoretical urban mpg of 46.3, combined mpg at 54.3, 177bhp and co2km down to an amazing 128.

 

The outcome in real life is that when driven in the same style in everyday use it does pretty much the same 44 mpg as it's predecessor and also costs less in VED. Don't get me wrong as I still think that 44mpg for a 177bhp flyer is pretty darned good and close enough to the old 49.5 mpg combined figure to be reasonable but it is nowhere near the 'revised' combined figure of 54.3 mpg.

 

Now the conclusion that I come to is that if it is no more economical on fuel for all this clever wizardry, and believe me it is clever, then how can it be sending out less CO2?

 

So I remain to be convinced that in the real world, rather than the theoretical world, fuel usage and with it emissions are a lot higher than those in the know would have us believe?

 

If you read Auto Express you may have noticed that their road test mpg returns are more often than not significantly less than the urban figure - let alone getting anywhere near the combined figure - so it therefore follows, to me anyway, that my experience is fairly typical and that cars are not as economical or unpolluting as we are lead to believe?

[Clive]

When we get to the camp site at 18 MPG (I got fed up soft footing it to get 20) we then get our 100cc monkey bikes out for all the running around at about 150 MPG. Does that count in mitigation m'lud?

 

C.

 

[malc d]

Clive - 2009-08-02 1:41 PM

 

When we get to the camp site at 18 MPG (I got fed up soft footing it to get 20) we then get our 100cc monkey bikes out for all the running around at about 150 MPG. Does that count in mitigation m'lud?

 

C.

 

 

No.

 

;-)

[Guest Tracker]

GypsyTom - 2009-08-02 12:48 PM

I notice that you've not used this argument yet and I hope that you never do again!

 

Sorry but I am unable to understand what you mean by this comment?

 

I am not surprised that you choose to interpret my sense of humour and irony as vitriol as you do seem to have this enormous chip on your shoulder - but do believe me when I add that I spare the vitriol for those who offend me and you have not yet got beyond my pity for your inflexible and intolerant attitude.

 

Just for you let me explain that the comment about site wardens was made tongue in cheek as a reply to a posting made in a similar vein. Everyone else seems to understand this and maybe you will too now?

 

I find it very sad when someone like yourself is only able to try and make their points by repeatedly referring back to previous postings as it does show a stark lack of imagination in being unable find a suitable or relevant reply!

[Guest Tracker]

Brian Kirby - 2009-08-02 12:56 PM

On a point of accuracy, M'Lud, the Transit is a 5 speed gearbox, not 6.

That apart, my point, simply put, is that despite the smaller engine working harder, and the Euro 4 compliance, the Ford uses less fuel than the earlier generation Fiat. 

There are a number of differences between the vehicles that might explain some of the variation in consumption, aerodynamics being one, and the fact that one was on Michelin Camping tyres while the other is on Continental Vancos being another.

However, your original contention was that the fuel consumption should have risen due to the eco gubbins, whereas, on a very simple, direct, comparison the reverse proved the case.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee?  :-)

Sorry Brian I forgot yours was a Ford!So we are now comparing a 2.8 Fiat with a 2.3 Ford are we! Fair enough!Given my own experience with similar sized engines I find the case far from proven Brian as the older vans are just as economical - or uneconomical - depending on your point of view - as the newer ones. Forgive me if I over simplify but as I understand it, a larger capacity engine of whatever make has by it's nature a greater swept volume and it must therefore draw and expel more air simply to revolve. As said air needs a certain percentage by volume of fuel to combust it therefore seems to follow that it must use more fuel than a smaller capacity engine. That said I am not an engineer and it's just my own experiences and perceptions?Maybe a better comparison would be between similar sized engines from different generations from the same maker? I've never owned a Peugeot 1.9td engined van to know whether they were any more or less economical than the similarly sized 2.0 hdi that replaced it and anyone with experience of both might be able to advise?So I remain sceptical!And I do so love a nice fresh cup of coffee too!

[GypsyTom]

Tracker - 2009-08-02 1:48 PM

GypsyTom - 2009-08-02 12:48 PM I notice that you've not used this argument yet and I hope that you never do again!

Sorry but I am unable to understand what you mean by this comment? I am not surprised that you choose to interpret my sense of humour and irony as vitriol as you do seem to have this enormous chip on your shoulder - but do believe me when I add that I spare the vitriol for those who offend me and you have not yet got beyond my pity for your inflexible and intolerant attitude. Just for you let me explain that the comment about site wardens was made tongue in cheek as a reply to a posting made in a similar vein. Everyone else seems to understand this and maybe you will too now? I find it very sad when someone like yourself is only able to try and make their points by repeatedly referring back to previous postings as it does show a stark lack of imagination in being unable find a suitable or relevant reply!

Mmmm - So this is what you call 'humour and irony' when referring to site wardens is it?

Surpassed only by the look of self satisfied condescending arrogance when he (or his CC counterpart) then tells you that the site is full even for just one night and even though there are still lots of empty pitches at 7.00 pm just waiting for people who will never turn up! Magic!

'Self satisfied condescending arrogance' Very humorous and ironic. What are you like when you try to be really insulting! I'll leave it to others to decide if this is insulting vitriol or 'humour and irony'!

I can't understand why we're not allowed to refer to previous posts - I refer to them to make a point, I would have thought that obvious!

I received a PM from another member earlier who told me that, if there's a chip on anyone's shoulder, it's on yours when it comes to having anything to do with the Caravan Club. She said that your avatar location once read 'As far away from a CC site as possible'.

More humour and irony I suppose! Well, I'm laughing at you anyway!

Now do your usual - don't answer any arguments or debate, just act the poor wounded Tracker - you're getting good at that but no one's fooled!

See you in a week or so, I've had my fill of your nastiness for a while. Time for a break I think.

[Clive]

I have always called Site Wardens Kamp Kommandants, and yes to their faces - with a big beaming smirk!

Only failed once! (The lady was not for turning)

 

C.

 

 

 

[malc d]

Clive - 2009-08-02 5:19 PM

 

I have always called Site Wardens Kamp Kommandants, and yes to their faces - with a big beaming smirk!

Only failed once! (The lady was not for turning)

 

C.

 

 

 

 

Well that's better than the CC&C decision to call them " Holiday Site Managers "

No mention of 'camping' - ( AND they are putting up chalets !)

 

Where's it all going ?

 

 

:-( :-(

[Brian Kirby]

Tracker - 2009-08-02 2:03 PM

Brian Kirby - 2009-08-02 12:56 PM

On a point of accuracy, M'Lud, the Transit is a 5 speed gearbox, not 6.

That apart, my point, simply put, is that despite the smaller engine working harder, and the Euro 4 compliance, the Ford uses less fuel than the earlier generation Fiat. 

There are a number of differences between the vehicles that might explain some of the variation in consumption, aerodynamics being one, and the fact that one was on Michelin Camping tyres while the other is on Continental Vancos being another.

However, your original contention was that the fuel consumption should have risen due to the eco gubbins, whereas, on a very simple, direct, comparison the reverse proved the case.

Time to wake up and smell the coffee?  :-)

Sorry Brian I forgot yours was a Ford! So we are now comparing a 2.8 Fiat with a 2.3 Ford are we! Fair enough! Given my own experience with similar sized engines I find the case far from proven Brian as the older vans are just as economical - or uneconomical - depending on your point of view - as the newer ones. Forgive me if I over simplify but as I understand it, a larger capacity engine of whatever make has by it's nature a greater swept volume and it must therefore draw and expel more air simply to revolve. As said air needs a certain percentage by volume of fuel to combust it therefore seems to follow that it must use more fuel than a smaller capacity engine. That said I am not an engineer and it's just my own experiences and perceptions? Maybe a better comparison would be between similar sized engines from different generations from the same maker? I've never owned a Peugeot 1.9td engined van to know whether they were any more or less economical than the similarly sized 2.0 hdi that replaced it and anyone with experience of both might be able to advise? So I remain sceptical! And I do so love a nice fresh cup of coffee too!

Well, actually, and for what it's worth, the Ford is 2.2 (common with the PSA engines) and not 2.3, which is the Fiat/SOFIM lump. 

Not so sure about your reasoning on swept volumes etc, but I think it's a red herring.  Fuel consumed should equate to work done x percentage efficiency, or something along those lines.  Fiats old 2.8 lump was never very efficient as a naturally aspired diesel, and it doesn't seem it gained much from having a two stage turbo bolted to it.  The Ford/PSA 2.2 litre is a fairly new engine by comparison and, due to developments in combustion technology, and in no small measure to electronic control of same, it should be more fuel efficient, and thus less polluting.

It is also, despite having less power and torque on paper, much more lively to drive, giving the impression of having more torque and power, rather than less.  Doubtless this impression is created by gearing differences, and the manner in which the power is delivered - but whatever the reasons, the drive is much less ponderous.

I have to say, whatever the emissions, and however the end result is achieved, it just uses less fuel for a better performance, and is much more agreeable drive overall.

So, as I speed past you at my 65MPH or so cruising speed, with my little 2.2 litre engine turning at a calm and sedate 2,250 RPM, I shall give you a little wave, and disappear over the horizon leaving naught but sweet smelling air behind me, safe in the knowledge that you will have spent more on fuel getting thus far, and won't be catching me because you'll have to make all those extra pit stops!  This kind of progress, I can easily live with. :-)

[libby]

Tom,

 

The sole and only reason that goverment pushes the environment-issue, carbon-emmisions, carbon-footprints, Planet-warming, green-issues, holes in-the-ozone and so on is to enable them to tax you further and increase business sales.

 

Its a black art and a well known fact that the 'blame the public' syndrome works wonders on the minds of the populace.

 

If an issue is constantly predicted it becomes believable, even by those who consider themselves non believers.

 

Bill

[roger20]

Please can certain parties stop their bickering in public!

 

Do it by PM if you must because it does spoil an often intesesting topic and will inevitably dissuade some people who may be new to the forum from posting themselves.

 

Lets keep it friendly folks.

 

[Guest Tracker]

I agree Roger!

I am a very friendly and outgoing sort of bloke and I NEVER attack anyone who does not attack me first or is not rude or insulting in their replies no matter how much their views may differ from mine.

I am happy with my record of offering help and support to others both on here and in real life or on the road - as should be many other people on this forum.

I too just wish that the noisy minority who seem unable to offer anyone in need of help any worthwhile support would learn to argue the points without personalising their postings instead of just being parasites.

[Guest Tracker]

Clive - 2009-08-02 1:41 PM

 

When we get to the camp site at 18 MPG (I got fed up soft footing it to get 20) we then get our 100cc monkey bikes out for all the running around at about 150 MPG. Does that count in mitigation m'lud?

 

C.

 

Who needs mitigation Clive!

It's our money to spend as we see fit and if our van did 18 mpg and was what we wanted we too would not give a toss about what others thought!

[euroserv]

Wow!

 

I believe it was me that started this on the other thread and I had no idea that free speech was so distasteful to certain people.

 

I have considerable experience of the use of the various incarnations of the Fiat Ducato van. Not as a camper (which rules out all of the body-style variables) but as a work horse. My customers tell me about their fuel consumption and I do a lot of subjective testing so that I am ready to field the inevitable questions.

 

The progression from 2.5TDi to 2.8idTD and 2.8JTD showed at least a 20% worsening of fuel consumption at each stage with very little difference in driveability (the idTD being my favourite).

 

The emissions standards of Euro 2, 3 and 4 did not contain ANY reference to CO2 emissions and it is only recently that following alterations in V.E.D. pricing that manufacturers of cars have paid any attention to this. Euro specifications are more concerned with particulate matter, Carbon Monoxide, Nitrogen dioxide and hydrocarbons. In order to reduce these items we have ever greater amounts of exhaust gas recirculation (EGR) that has many undesirable results. Heat is the biggest problem and that is why all vans got ugly new front grille treatments for Euro 4 to get as much air in as possible. Increased crankcase pressure is another issue and these all add up to incresed fuel consumption.

 

Brian mentioned the 146hp Ducato in his comparison which is a little unfair because this was just a variable turbo version of the 127hp 2.8JTD. It is well documented that this has little effect on the performance of the engine but it uses an awful lot more fuel in the process. The Iveco 65C15 used that engine and you were lucky to get 15mpg out of it, while the later 65C17 used an all new 3.0 engine and that does 24mpg. Not a fair comparison either.

 

I drove a Fiat Scudo 2.0 110hp (06) for a year and got an average of 48mpg and now have an 07 120hp van that won't do better than 28mpg. It is bigger, heavier and has a much greater payload but this is hardly progress.

 

The car makers have woken up to the need to reduce CO2 emissions and on paper they are acheiving much, but look at the road tests printed in Autocar and Motor magazine and you will see that the real CO2 figures for these 'clean' cars are nothing like the manufacturers claims.

 

I feel sorry for the car makers because when they were designing their vehicles to conform to the Euro specs, they had no idea that taxation was going to based on CO2 emissions alone and it took them several years to adjust to this. (should have concentrated on fuel efficiency to start with) They also had to deal with improvements in safety which added weight so they really had their backs against the wall for a while.

 

The commercial vehicle world is not focussed on CO2 yet; it is all they can do to acheive the Euro spec without using exhaust treatment! The answer has been to improve the torque of the engines and have higher gear ratios (and we all know where that gets you).

 

I don't know about the history of bickering between contributors but I find the personal attacks unnecessary and offensive. As far as I can see, Richard wanted to open up the debate from the other thread and I think the point that I made and that he picked up on was that a concerted effort to reduce actual fuel consumption would have at least as much effect in reducing emissions as all the nonsense that has been bolted onto engines over the last 10 years and I suggest that this course of action would have made engines more reliable too.

 

I can't see anything controversial in this, but let the barracking begin.

 

Nick

[Guest Tracker]

Nicely put Nick - and not just because I agree with you!

 

Does anyone have anything new to add please - either in agreement or in disagreement - or has this discussion reached it's terminus!

[BGD]

Some people may not be awars that the BIG (VERY VERY BIG) difference between "official" mpg figures and the real world is: Wind Resistance.

 

All vehicles whcih are required to submit to the Euro-standard mpg test do so as follows:

Engine and gearbox are blue-print hand assembled (blue-print assembly by hand ensures tolerances are absolutely perfect) bu Company experts.

Vehicle is stripped of anything not bolted down (to save on rolling raod resistance).

Vehicle is taken by Techies from Manufacturers Company to a Euro-test lab and placed on it's "rolling road" (smooth rollers), loaded with a minimum of fuel, and fitted with lowest resistance tyres they can get hold of (again, to save weight and rolling resistance.

Euro test lab then conducts the 3 computerised tests (it's a computer which alters the revs/gears in the car to simulate the 3 different "routes" which all such cars go through), BUT all these tests are done whilst the vehicle is static (ie just the driven wheels moving on rollers. NO wind resistance at all, and no weight of driver or passengers or kit and caboodle inside the car. And no scrubbing off of impetus due to cornering.

Air temperature in lab is optimised for best mpg performance.

 

The best that can be said of these figures is that they can help with a comparison of how vehicle "A" performed IN THIS TEST, versus vehicle "B".

 

But they are virtually useless as a measure of how the car/MH you buy in the real world will perform out in the open air, loaded, with real world rough road resistance acting on real-world tyres; variable grade fuels, variable air temperatures, varaiable tyre pressures, actual cornering forces, heavier right foot on accelerator and /or brakes, hills, etc etc etc.

 

 

[Guest Tracker]

BGD - 2009-08-03 3:08 PM

 

The best that can be said of these figures is that they can help with a comparison of how vehicle "A" performed IN THIS TEST, versus vehicle "B".

 

 

And even this is partially invalid as every test uses a different driver trained and prepared by the manufacturer for a technique specifically designed for each car!