francepops Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 hi i am a seasoned caravaner but am now going to venture into the motor caravan way of life. can anyone tell me the difference in fuel consumption between a low profile and the same model . ie weight and size of an overcab. does it make that much difference to fuel economy. as i will be away for long periods the overcab seems a better idea .but i will also be doing lots of milage. can anyone help please Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertGS Posted September 19, 2009 Share Posted September 19, 2009 If you do 10,000 miles a year at 30 mpg it will cost you about £1,500 in diesel at 1 Euro a litre (£4.50 per gallon).Assuming that you buy an overcab and that only gives 25 mpg you will then spend £1,800.That's an increase of £300 every year (or more or less, obviously depending on your mileage).Now consider the capital investment of your motorhome. If you pay cash you'll lose the interest on the capital. If it's £30,000 you'll lose £720 interest. This is based on a return of 3% and after basic rate tax is deducted.Now the killer: Depreciation! This could be anything from £10K per year to just £3-4K.Considering these costs, to which you'll have to add ferries, site fees etc. etc. do you really want to compromise your ideal choice of motorhome for six quid a week?My advice is simple - choose the layout and design that suits your lifestyle and completely forget about the differences in fuel consumption between models. It's peanuts in the grand scale of things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mike 202 Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Agree with Rupert, in fact most motorhomes do only 5k/year so the cost drops to only £150. We made the mistake of limiting the size of our first van so that we could get it up our drive and save storeage cost of £600/year. big mistake !!!. So a year ago we used Ruperts cost and benefits reasoning we now have what we want and store it. Happy holidays - mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
francepops Posted September 20, 2009 Author Share Posted September 20, 2009 yes thanks for that . i did not know that an overcab only takes about 5mpg of the milage. and i thank you for that. as for the other bits the loss of interest and depreciation surely it would be the same for both types of van so that does not come into the equation. but i do agree that for the extra cost of dielsel for the milage is negligilble and comfort and usabillity is a far better deal. thanks all by the way its pouring down in sunny charente at the moment ugh :-> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philjp Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Mpg against comfort , Yes comfort and suitabillaty. I bought a Trigano tribute as it was the nearest we could get to our requirments. I have just come back from France just a short trip around 1500 miles. on board computer as caculated Mpg at 35. Cruise control does help...Van loaded and awaiting the the off on Tuesday............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertGS Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 francepops - 2009-09-20 12:33 PM yes thanks for that . i did not know that an overcab only takes about 5mpg of the milage. and i thank you for that. as for the other bits the loss of interest and depreciation surely it would be the same for both types of van so that does not come into the equation. but i do agree that for the extra cost of dielsel for the milage is negligilble and comfort and usabillity is a far better deal. thanks all by the way its pouring down in sunny charente at the moment ugh :-> You seem to have misread or not understood two parts of my reply. I'm not saying that an overcab will be 5mpg worse. Some may only be two or three MPG worse, you may get the odd one that's a bit more. I was simply illustrating a point that, in the scale of things, it's unimportant.Likewise, I did not say that the costs that I mentioned only applied to one type of 'van. I was simply trying to point out that all motorhomes, whatever the type, have heavy fixed costs and that people get hung up on on saving a few quid on diesel when the investment, depreciation, tax, insurance, servicing and other running costs are very large compared to the annual spend on fuel.I can only put this down to the fact that you pay a large sum every time you fill up, whilst depreciation, which is the largest cost, simply goes on in the background almost unnoticed!A friend of mine recently talked about swapping his car for one that would give him better MPG. I sat him down and worked out that the depreciation on his new one would, in the first year alone, cost the equivalent of ten years' extra fuel costs that he'd pay if he kept his less economical vehicle.He's decided to stick with his current car! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trooper Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 I agree with your comments, said similar many times. By the way Mr Brown could do with you to help saving the country, common sense beats intelligence always. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirage Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 Our Autosleeper Warwick returned 34.8MPG by measurement and 39.2 MPG on the trip computer on a recent trip around Holland but I rarely exceeded 60MPH. I agree fuel is a secondary issue to the van you actually want, however keeping under 3500K is probably worthwhile if you don`t need 3850K e.g. when travelling in Norway, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark to name but a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 trooper - 2009-09-20 7:26 PM I agree with your comments, said similar many times. By the way Mr Brown could do with you to help saving the country, common sense beats intelligence always. (lol)I hope your'e not inferring that Rupert is thick. (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RupertGS Posted September 20, 2009 Share Posted September 20, 2009 peter - 2009-09-20 9:43 PM trooper - 2009-09-20 7:26 PM I agree with your comments, said similar many times. By the way Mr Brown could do with you to help saving the country, common sense beats intelligence always. (lol)I hope your'e not inferring that Rupert is thick. (lol) I may be thick but I know the difference between imply and infer! :-DAnd that your'e is a bit dodgy as well! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Aerodinamics, or steamlining is the answer to MPG and performance. The nearer you can get to the shape of a fish the better it will all be. My Legend all smooth monocoque GRP construction nicely rounded of corners is the best I have had yet. Does not look like a fish, but all the right ideas to slip easily through the air. Also don't drive with the cab windows open that also adds to drag as do top boxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trooper Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Hell no Peter, I'M the thick one :-> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonB Posted September 21, 2009 Share Posted September 21, 2009 Mirarge I think that the same money argument applies to the 3850kg v 3500kg issue as to overcab v low profile. Assuming that you visit, say Switzerland, for one month in the year the difference in road charges is only going to be £10 (58 euros against 40 euros) and even less for shorter periods. Hardly worth worrying about. Ron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rapido-lass Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 Go for what suits you best, the mpg is a tad irrelevant as this can be blown out of the equation by your style of driving or whether you are going up steep mountain passes. Also consider that all the time the motorhome is sitting on the driveway or where ever, then too its irrelevant. We are happy with our layout, comfort, engine and mpg - our holidays are still cheaper than many a package deal but more fun! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek500 Posted September 22, 2009 Share Posted September 22, 2009 RonB - 2009-09-21 8:52 PM Mirarge I think that the same money argument applies to the 3850kg v 3500kg issue as to overcab v low profile. Off topic, but on our travels we're often travelling on roads with a 3.5t limit (they're quite popular on the TomTom fastest route, avoid toll roads setting!!). I've got a 3400kg so I'm OK. What do people who have heavier than 3.5t vans do? Turn around, or risk it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AliB Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 derek500 - 2009-09-22 9:35 PM Off topic, but on our travels we're often travelling on roads with a 3.5t limit (they're quite popular on the TomTom fastest route, avoid toll roads setting!!). I've got a 3400kg so I'm OK. What do people who have heavier than 3.5t vans do? Turn around, or risk it? I've never been in that situation but I would find a way to drive around. I guess that makes the effective fuel used to be greater on 3.5T plus vans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmcclin Posted September 23, 2009 Share Posted September 23, 2009 I have just viewed this thread and i have to say i am really impressed with the facts and figures quoted by RupertGS. I have to say the rational behind his comments was excellent. Well done keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.