Euro 5, 150MJ Tag axle?

[Kon-Tiki1664232238]

Hi, Trying to find a user of this forum with a Swift Kon-Tiki 2012 Model year 2.3ltr 150MJ Euro 5 engine to compare the very poor performance and fuel economy.

Kind Regards 8-)

[bolero boy]

Kon-Tiki# - 2012-04-10 3:31 PM

 

Hi, Trying to find a user of this forum with a Swift Kon-Tiki 2012 Model year 2.3ltr 150MJ Euro 5 engine to compare the very poor performance and fuel economy.

Kind Regards 8-)

.........compare with what?

These figures are on the Swift website showing a marked improvement in economy for the 150 over the 160 and in acceleration.

 

Engine Comparison: Kon-Tiki and E700

 

Euro 4 Euro 5 Euro 5

Engine 3.0litre/160MJ...........2.3litre/150MJ VGT....................3.0litre/180MJ VGT

Power 157bhp...................................148bhp.....................................180bhp

Torque 400NM...................................350NM......................................400NM

Fuel Consumption...............................-18%...........................................-6%

Acceleration time

40-60mph in 4th Gear..........................-12%...........................................-25%

 

[Kon-Tiki1664232238]

Hi, I am trying find anyone else with a like for like 2.3ltr 150mj Tag axle, real comaprison not brochure data. We have tank to tank filled the MH and so far our average is 17.6mpg, this was after a run to Paris, 95% motorway, so best possible conditions, especially as the MH was not laiden with all items. :-|

[Derek Uzzell]

I'd also try the SwiftTalk and MotorHomeFacts forums (Perhaps you have?) as the former will be appropriate for your motorhome's make, while the latter has a much larger membership than this forum's and, consequently, there's more chance there of you finding someone owning the same vehicle. However, as Fiat Euro 5 motors have only become available fairly recently and (I suspect) most buyers of tandem rear-axle Fiat-based motorhomes with Euro 5 powerplants will opt for the 3-litre engine, you might well have trouble obtaining like-for-like feedback.

 

17.6mpg is low, but one might anticipate consumption to reduce as the motor frees up. I'd expect low-20s as a reasonable expectation, but it wouldn't greatly surprise me if (in real-world conditions rather than based on EU-test figures) the Euro 5 2.3litre's consumption when fitted to this design/size/weight of motorhome turns out to be no better than that of the Euro 4 3.0litre motor.

 

 

[Guest JudgeMental]

2.3 a bit small for what is it, a 8.5m long, 4000kg + tag axle?*-) Dont you think you should have gone for the 3 litre?

 

2.3 just about adequate in my 6m panel van..must be stressed to hell in a big CB

[Melvin]

JudgeMental - 2012-05-09 5:27 PM

 

2.3 a bit small for what is it, a 8.5m long, 4000kg + tag axle?*-) Dont you think you should have gone for the 3 litre?

 

2.3 just about adequate in my 6m panel van..must be stressed to hell in a big CB

 

I cant agree.

 

My Autotrail Cheynne 660 2008 2.3 is 4005 kg towing a Toyota Aygo probaby around the 4700/4800 kg mark, has only covered 8,000 miles, but still getting around 22/23 mpg measured between fill ups.

[pepe63xnotuse]

But we there's no way of telling how your driving "style" compares to the OP's..

 

(..you could drive like a nervous nun...and the OP could be thrashin' the n*ts of his.. (lol) )

[euroserv]

Hello Campers,

 

I am with the Judge on this one, and I will tell you why;

 

The difference between the 2.3-130hp and 15hp is a variable vane turbo. These do indeed give a a bit of extra grunt but always at the expense of fuel economy. In the strictly controlled tests that these units are put through, with a light footed engineer and a small panel van you would likely see the sort of economy and emissions improvements that have been stated (over the Euro4 3.0 litre) but in the real world you will be driving what is basically a truck and having to put your foot down and waste fuel while a 3.0 would be much more contented.

 

For a large vehicle and for satisfactory performance there has never, nor will there be any substitute for a bigger engine. Larger engines do not necessarily use more fuel in the real world. Sometimes; and I think this is a good example, they can use less.

 

If you can't afford the bigger engine you would be better off buying the 130hp and having it 'chipped'. This would release some of the hidden power that the unit posesses without the wasted fuel that comes with the 150 version.

 

It will get better as it beds-in but for the application described I doubt it will ever acheive better than 21 or 22 mpg even if used with restraint, with a following wind and down a gentle slope.

 

Keep on truckin'

 

Nick