MPG

[tonyfletcher]

Hi All,

I know that MPG should not be the be and end all when considering a Motorhome, but I would like an opinion on an average MPG for the 3.0ltr Ducato engine when coupled with the Tax Axle models eg Swift or Autotrail

One was tested in MMM and the MPG was a little disappointing at 16.5mpg.

I was considering the auto version, is that worse?

Cheers,

Tony

[Basil]

Only comment I can make is it should not make a difference whether auto or manual because if I understand correctly the auto is in fact an automated manual box in effect.

 

Bas

[johnsandywhite]

B-) NOT wishing to apear negative in any way. BUT. Why when someone is going to be spending between £45,000 and £65,000 do they WORRY about a couple of MPG difference? Why not just buy a cheaper van and buy MORE fuel to run it> ;-)

[747]

The MPG quoted is a bit off putting as it sounds surprisingly low.

 

I have a Burstner 747 Tag axle with a MAM of 5 tonne and I get 21.5 mpg with the 2.8 jtd engine. I would expect that a fully run in 3.0 engine would be better than that as the engine is not working so hard.

 

My figures were obtained over a number of months and not a lot of it was on motorways or dual carriageways. As I am limited to 50 mph on single carriageways, 5th gear is too high for that speed and I am in 4th more than I like.

 

As has been said, I knew the likely mpg before I bought it. It is well worth it for the space and the quality.

[Rod_vw]

I'm intrigued by the reasoning of dismissing fuel economy when you 'spend' a lot on a motorhome. Surely it is not what you 'spend' on the motorhome but what it 'costs' you to own it. i.e. depreciation and running costs etc.

 

I don't count the 'cost' of my house when considering being economical with my use of electricity and gas.

 

Is this not the same as considering fuel economy for the motorhome?

[Mel B]

When considering what motorhome to get, then comparing MPG is just one element to think about. I would be horrified if I bought 'van 'A' and only got 15 mpg as some do, but would be more than happy with van 'B' if I got 30 mpg! If you spend a lot of time using your motorhome that can make a heck of a difference every year.

 

For example, say fuel is £5 a gallon or around £1.10 a litre:

 

5,000 miles a year at 15 mpg = 333 gallons - that's £1665 in fuel costs

5,000 miles a year at 30 mpg = 166 gallons - that's £830

 

I would say that saving £830 a year is something not to be sniffed at and would cover insurance, road tax, habitation and base vehicle servicing in our case and we'd end up with change to boot!

 

In our case, our 3 year old motorhome has just done 17,200 miles but we haven't used it much over winter as we would normally do, so lets say we average 6,000 miles a year minimum. At around 23 mpg it is okay but not fantastic, so we're hoping our new van, being smaller and lighter, will be more economic, hopefully reaching in the region of 28 mpg, if so instead of 22p per mile, it will work out at 18p a mile:

 

18p x 6,000 miles a year = £1,080 on fuel

22p x 6,000 miels a year = £1,320 on fuel

 

That £240 difference will cover the insurance for a year. The more miles we do (and we intend to!) the better the 'return' will be. I'm not saying that we chose the van specifically because of the potential fuel saving, but it was just one factor to consider.

 

For those who use their motorhome as daily transport then the cost of the fuel will be of more importance than those who only use it for holidays.

 

[Clive]

1 years motoring and every fill and mileage recorded. As near as whatsit it 18 to the galleon. Its 6.4 tonnes 2.7 litre Merc Full auto (not an automated manual box) and I gave up trying to be too frugal and just drive at about 90 KPH most places. Just spend less on chocolates!

 

 

C.

 

 

[Mel B]

Wouldn't that be 90 knots there Clive .....? (hint: galleon :D ).

[johnsandywhite]

:-D SO. Based on Mel B's figures:-

 

For example, say fuel is £5 a gallon or around £1.10 a litre:

 

5,000 miles a year at 15 mpg = 333 gallons - that's £1665 in fuel costs

5,000 miles a year at 30 mpg = 166 gallons - that's £830

 

Cost of Motorhome £30,000 instead of £65,000 = - £35,000

 

£35,000 / £1665 nextra cost = 21 years FREE running. IMH&HO. ;-)

[johnsandywhite]

*-) Sorry doube post

[Brock]

Tony, being a regular reader of commercial vehicle magazines but not a 3 litre man myself, it seems that a manual gearbox tends to benefit those with a high level of skill and experience of their vehicle. People who change vehicles regularly or are less skilful tend to benefit from (semi)automatics. It's not just about fuel economy, it's also about less wear and tear on the mechanics. You also have to consider what type of driving you will undertake. (Semi) automatics tend to come into their own, as you would expect, if you are regularly driving in heavy traffic such as town centres. They can ease the stress levels, which may be beneficial on such a big motorhome.

 

In the commercial world, (semi)automatics are taking over, particularly in the heavy trucks market and high mileage fleet markets.

 

Back to back road tests in the commercial press put the fuel economy of the 3.0 Comfort semi-automatic slightly ahead of the manual. However, they say it is an expensive option.

 

Sorry, I can't give you a definitive answer.

 

 

[Lord Raindrop]

Don't give a hoot what the MPG is. Buy it, use it and forget it, life's too short for trivial details. It depends on how its driven and wind direction anyway.

[derek500]

johnsandywhite - 2010-03-05 6:14 PM

 

B-) NOT wishing to apear negative in any way. BUT. Why when someone is going to be spending between £45,000 and £65,000 do they WORRY about a couple of MPG difference?

 

For many the purchase of a MH is from capital, whereas the purchase of fuel is from income.

 

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

johnsandywhite - 2010-03-06 7:58 AM :-D SO. Based on Mel B's figures:- For example, say fuel is £5 a gallon or around £1.10 a litre: 5,000 miles a year at 15 mpg = 333 gallons - that's £1665 in fuel costs 5,000 miles a year at 30 mpg = 166 gallons - that's £830 Cost of Motorhome £30,000 instead of £65,000 = - £35,000 £35,000 / £1665 extra cost = 21 years FREE running. IMH&HO. ;-)

Er, wrong, I think!

The annual saving is actually £830, not £1,665, so the sum should be:

£35,000/£830 = 42 years.  So, free travel for life?  :-D

[BarnacleBob]

I have done just over 4000 miles since new with my 3.0litre comfortmatic gearbox Fiat engine on a 4.25 tonne chassis. So far my overall average m.p.g. is 24.7. However it does appear to have slowly improved as the engine loosens up which I believe is to be expected.

I have a single rear axle and don't know what effect a tag axle might have on M.P.G.

Fiat claim better M.P.G.with the comformatic gearbox than the manual version because the electronic "wizardry" ensures the vehicle always runs in the optimum gear. I don't know about that but I am very happy with overall performance so far.

I guess M.P.G. is also a matter of speed and driving style as anything else.

Barnacle Bob

[donna miller]

johnsandywhite - 2010-03-05 5:14 PM

 

B-) NOT wishing to apear negative in any way. BUT. Why when someone is going to be spending between £45,000 and £65,000 do they WORRY about a couple of MPG difference? Why not just buy a cheaper van and buy MORE fuel to run it> ;-)

 

No doubt I will get slated for saying this, but here goes, I'm sorry but that sort of statement ,intentionally or not, (and I'll make no assumption of your intention) stinks of snobbery.

There is a common misconception on all motorhome forums, that everyone who owns a motorhome must be wealthy enough not to worry about the monetary costs involved . The reality however is a little different.

Years ago, motorhoming may have been the bastion of the wealthy, with owners constantly believing they were the elite and looking down their noses at campers and tuggers, but today, for those of us who do not have the luxury of high level salaries or pensions, the purchase of a motorhome (at whatever cost) is a huge outlay, therefore running costs ARE very important, as Mel B says, she would be horrified to lay out a huge amount of money on a van only to find it cost twice as much in fuel as a similar model. The difference between 18mpg and 30mpg, could well determine the extent of your travel and ultimately the use of your van. Factor into this, those who have families etc, and I think you will find that running costs are far more important to the average motorhomer than you realise.

 

Secondly, your suggestion that those who do worry about mpg should "buy a cheaper van and buy more fuel to run it" hardly makes sense does it, an older van will inevitable cost more to maintain, therefore would be false economy.

But just what would you consider to be a 'cheaper' van, judging by your profile picture ( if that is your RV) then £40k would be a cheapy for you, but totally out of reach for myself, and I would imagine many others.

 

[Rod_vw]

donna_miller, my sentiments entirely!

 

Our 'motorhomeing' began over thirty years ago when our sons were small and economical holidays were a must. Then it was a 1969 Volkswagen Devon conversion with a fixed roof.

As you see from my avatar we have moved to a more up to date model at a size that fits all parts of our lifestyle but running costs are still very important to us.

[bazooka]

donna millar,Well said!!!welcome to the REAL world

baz

[Mel B]

I know this gonna shock a lot of people ... but ... I totally agree with Donna!!!! 8-) :D ;-) (lol)

 

There's a first time for everything! :->

[donna miller]

Well, let's hope it's not the last. :-S

[johnsandywhite]

Brian Kirby - 2010-03-06 11:52 AM

johnsandywhite - 2010-03-06 7:58 AM :-D SO. Based on Mel B's figures:- For example, say fuel is £5 a gallon or around £1.10 a litre: 5,000 miles a year at 15 mpg = 333 gallons - that's £1665 in fuel costs 5,000 miles a year at 30 mpg = 166 gallons - that's £830 Cost of Motorhome £30,000 instead of £65,000 = - £35,000 £35,000 / £1665 extra cost = 21 years FREE running. IMH&HO. ;-)

Er, wrong, I think!

The annual saving is actually £830, not £1,665, so the sum should be:

£35,000/£830 = 42 years.  So, free travel for life?  :-D

:-D I did that calculation first and thought it was TOO high. (lol)

[johnsandywhite]

donna miller - 2010-03-06 6:37 PM

Secondly, your suggestion that those who do worry about mpg should "buy a cheaper van and buy more fuel to run it" hardly makes sense does it, an older van will inevitable cost more to maintain, therefore would be false economy.

But just what would you consider to be a 'cheaper' van, judging by your profile picture ( if that is your RV) then £40k would be a cheapy for you, but totally out of reach for myself, and I would imagine many others.

 

B-) Actually I currently have 3 Motorhomes. The RV was bought CHEAP at a Repo auction in the USA. Our Suntor was bought CHEAP second hand. The Kontiki was a cheapo that did us 2 years of running backwards and forwards to Spain. My argument is THIS. With the £25/35,000 pound SAVING from buying second hand instead of buying new you could save the money and use it to buy MORE fuel. Simples. (lol)

[GypsyTom]

It is obvious that, for some people, MPG is important. If you have a fixed income and do a high mileage then a few hundred pounds a year is a lot. However, some of the examples given above are not in the real world!

Who agonises between choosing a motorhome that does either 15 mpg or 30 mpg? Our choices are usually more refined in that we're choosing between the 2.3 litre engine or the 3.00 litre version, between a manual gearbox and an automatic.

It's here that the mpg question becomes fairly minor when taken into the context of all the other running expenses and capital and depreciation costs.

There is no doubt that some people get hung up on mpg when they should really be worrying about other things. For instance, I don't think it was suggested, as Donna has said, that the buyer should purchase an older motorhome. It was cheaper one that was suggested, which is very different.

If you're considering buying a £55K motorhome from your limited capital, but then have to worry about running it, wouldn't you be better to buy a new £40K motorhome and leave £15K in the bank to cover exigencies?

Finally, the difference between 25 mpg and 30 mpg, which is what most people are normally worried about, is about £340 per annum assuming a mileage of 10,000, which is high for most people.

[Rod_vw]

And £340 will fuel my motor from Shropshire to Provence and back!

 

Enough said!

[GypsyTom]

Rod_vw - 2010-03-07 10:39 AMAnd £340 will fuel my motor from Shropshire to Provence and back!Enough said!

But it's not enough unfortunately! Tony Fletcher made the most sensible comment when he said, in the opening of this thread:

"I know that MPG should not be the be and end all when considering a Motorhome.............."

Buying a motorhome that has a lower rate of depreciation than another one, will pay for your trip to Provence 20 times!

Keeping a motorhome another two years instead of trading it in for a new one will pay for your trip to Provence 40 times!

The point of this thread, which I hope most people will grasp is that, whilst mpg may be important for a few people who are on a knife-edge between income and expenditure, it is of much less importance than so many of the other factors involved in buying and running a motorhome.