Guest ChrisB Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 We have recently returned from SW France having toured for a month in our new (well 8 week old) Fiat 2.3/130hp PVC conversion. Apart from delivery mileage on the clock the engine was new. We covered about 2500miles. Our previous (euro4) van (same manufacturer and similar spec - 2.3/120hp) delivered around 28mpg on similar excursions during the previous 3 years (according to the on board display). Some years just below 28mpg, others just above, but pretty consistent. I'm surprised that the current van achieved almost 38mpg for the same itinerary as last year. As far as I am aware I drove using equivalent roads and at the same speeds (don't usually exceed 100kph as measured by the satnav on motorways and 90kph on other roads - speed limits permitting). I would be interested to know if anyone else has been impressed by the new Euro5 engine economy in any of its guises. Chris Edit Forgot to say I was also towing a 500kg trailer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 You can't rely on the computer readout unless you have checked it against the old fashion way of brimming the tank. I know my van's read out is fairly accurate reads 28mpg actual is 28.5 others have reported over reading by 20%, my car's one under reads by about 20%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly58 Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 My x250 Peugeot has shewn as high as 38mpg but from fill to fill the average this year has been 31/33 mpg which is as accurate as you can get. It seemed to improve once passed the 10,000k miles and has now done 16,900mls in 2 years , but as it is only used from April to October each year Its like a 12 month milage of 16,900 miles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mirage Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 As previous post states beware the trip computer. I would think it highly unlikely the Euro 5 increases MPG by ten. My own PVC Euro 4 is consistent on the trip at 38MPG provided I tread lightly and stay under 60 MPH. By measurement at the pump this gives 34MPG this being about the best I can achieve.It looks to me as if your previous trip reading was on the low side. I would be disappointed at 28 MPG for a PVC. It will be interesting to see some other replies from PVC owners with the Euro 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike88 Posted October 6, 2012 Share Posted October 6, 2012 28.6mpg for a 3 litre PVC X250. Slightly disappointing but got exactly the same from my 2.4 Transit PVC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HymerVan Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I have a 2012 Euro 5 Fifer on a 130bhp Citroen Relay MWB chassis. On our 4000 mile trip to France and Spain this year we averaged around 31mpg, a mileage which has been pretty consistent since new. A small amount of diesel is used for water and space heating out of that "allowance" but I don't think it is significant. I would expect the mileage to improve by up to 10% as the engine slackens off. One difference I have noticed between the "Citroen" engine and my previous Ford Transit 125ps engine is that the Ford provided fairly uniform consumption up to about 60mph whereas the "Citroen" will reward slower driving especially below 50mph with a significant drop in consumption. I am sceptical about achieving 38mph when towing although this figure might be achievable if driving at unrealistically slow speeds. Incidentally and on a separate but related matter I understand that conventionally light commercial vehicles are referred to as Euro 5 ( i.e. a figure) , and large goods vehicles should be referred to as Euro V (i.e a roman numeral) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisB Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 I take the point on not relying on the on-board computer results for mpg - but I was comparing "like for like" (assuming that any inaccuracies in readings on the two vehicles were of a similar order). Surely the "brim to brim" reading relies on: a) Accurate pump delivery readings (these are tested regularly so I think I can assume they are correct - in fact one recent report I read indicated that they tend to deliver slightly more fuel than indicated as a safety martgin). b) Accurate reading from the odometer. This could suffer the same inaccuracies as the mpg reading? Will check the odometer against a journey of around 300 miles I'm about to undertake against the reading on the satnav (which I would hope would be reasonably accurate) and adjust if necessary. Then use the trip meter and top-up method to compare with the on-board and actual mpg. Report back later - but I'm pretty confident I won't achieve 38mpg (even without the trailer), but it will be interesting to see what is achieved with the engine just about run in. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 When the Fiat Ducato Euro 5 motors were introduced a 9% improvement in fuel consumption was claimed over the Euro 4 powerplants - your 38mpg versus 28mpg would seem to imply an improvement of around 35%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 running A/C makes a 5-10% difference according to piece in ST yesterday.. I dont bother monitoring consumption but with CB I could fill up twice a day on a long European journey, panel van never....This summer trip 3000 miles cost about £400 in fuel...Not a clue what that works out at, but pleased with the difference over a CB. Will be probably changing to new Euro 5 van in new year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Ah but the old Boxer/Ducato had a 14 gallon fuel tank and the new one has a 20 gallon tank and that impacts on how often you need to fill it up!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 getting 120 liter tank in new van...Will be doing my fills in Luxembourg way prices going! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 JudgeMental - 2012-10-08 10:30 AM running A/C makes a 5-10% difference according to piece in ST yesterday.. I dont bother monitoring consumption but with CB I could fill up twice a day on a long European journey, panel van never....This summer trip 3000 miles cost about £400 in fuel...Not a clue what that works out at, but pleased with the difference over a CB. Will be probably changing to new Euro 5 van in new year I've never found on modern vehicles the aircon makes any appreciable difference to the mpg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 JudgeMental - 2012-10-08 10:30 AM running A/C makes a 5-10% difference according to piece in ST yesterday.. I dont bother monitoring consumption but with CB I could fill up twice a day on a long European journey, panel van never....This summer trip 3000 miles cost about £400 in fuel...Not a clue what that works out at, but pleased with the difference over a CB. Will be probably changing to new Euro 5 van in new year That's an interesting point, and so is this; In the early 90's an extensive series of tests were conducted (comissioned by none other than Fiat) that concluded that in passenger cars and light commercial vehicles the effect of having both front windows partially opened (which affects air flow), or that of keeping them closed and using air conditioning was almost exactly the same at about 5% extra fuel consumption. With the more efficient engines with more power available to overcome the resistance caused by air conditioning compressors it is likely that the effect is less than 5% nowadays; particularly if we also consider that in humid conditions engines are even more efficient, and that is when you use your A/C most.... Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frankkia Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 We have just returned from Germany and the new 'van has now done 4000 miles. As you can see on the avatar we replaced like with like (that's the day we exchanged 'vans both old and new were 5 tonne Frankia I 840 BDs). We carry the same essential rubbish around with us and my driving style has not changed much in more years than I care to remember. The only difference between the 2 'vans is the E5 engine verses the E4 in the old 'un. So far the new one is returning an average of 23.1 mpg (I really wish it was the 38 mpg quoted above) which is about 8% better than the old 'van ever did even after it was fully "run in". (figures from brim to brim calculations rather than relying on the electronic readouts). In fact the run home after brimming in Luxembourg gave 24 mpg (so better by about 10%) but that was mainly motorway / A road cruising rather than going up and down dale (or schwartzwald) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terryW Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 This graph shows 27 full tank readings for a 2.3, 130 bhp, low profile with mileage from 17000 to 32000. Sorry the scale got lost but it reads from 20 to 34 mpg. To save anyone doing the calculation this is an average of 28mpg over the last 6 readings. The single very low reading was a very fast drive over mountains and along the A23 to Valencia with a head wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flicka Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Hi Terry I guess by your mileage your Bessacarr is the Euro 4 engine. Strange that the van comp reading is generally below actual, as most (me included) find that reading is normally very pessimistic. Our previous Autocruise Sportstar on the Peugeot 2.2L, 100hp Euro 4 consistantly gave a 14% to 15% higher figure than the brim to brim calculation. Giving us a brim to brim 25.13mpg average over 3 years. Our current Adria on the Fiat 2.3L 130hp, Euro 5 is already giving us 27.82mpg average (29.77 best) after only 2500 miles, so just over the 9% better fuel consumption quoted for the Euro 5 engines, by Fiat. Although I do expect to improve current figures as mileage increases & the engine beds in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisB Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 terryW - 2012-10-11 11:39 AM This graph shows 27 full tank readings for a 2.3, 130 bhp, low profile with mileage from 17000 to 32000. Sorry the scale got lost but it reads from 20 to 34 mpg. To save anyone doing the calculation this is an average of 28mpg over the last 6 readings. The single very low reading was a very fast drive over mountains and along the A23 to Valencia with a head wind. Impressive record-keeping! I'm surprised the figures from the on-board computer are nearly always lower. Just one question (a point I raised earlier) I have no doubt the fuel used figure is pretty accurate - but where did you obtain the distance readings? If you used the vehicle's odometer have you verified the distance readings against e.g. those from a satnav or obtained from a route planner and adjusted the figures? This is something I hope to do soon. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terryW Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 No I havn't done that check but I do have a record of the mileages so I may be able to look at that when I have finished washing and polishing the van. Hi Flica. I have confused you having just changed the van the mileage is for an 08 Auto roller 100P low profile, so probably Euro 5. The Bessacarr is an 07 5 speed box 100bhp and appears to have just as much poke and is giving 2 mpg better. Also the 5 speed box gives a much quicker change on the hills than the 6 to 5 change. I always lost a lot of speed on that change and often when through the gate in my haste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flicka Posted October 12, 2012 Share Posted October 12, 2012 Hi Terry No confusion, both the 08 Auto Roller & the 07 Bessacarr would be the Euro 4 engines, the Euro 5 only became available in 2011. But your actual mpg figures very much reflect our experience, abiet ours were lower, but engine not enough miles to be fully bedded-in. Our worst individual figure was 23mpg travelling against a head wind on motorway & dual carriageway. I was interested that your van readout was lower than actual. All our recent Vans (06 Bessacarr -Fiat 2.0L 5speed, 09 Autocruise Peugeot 2.2L 5 speed & current Adria Fiat 2.3L 6 speed,) have given a higher mpg reading than actual brim to brim measured mpg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terryW Posted October 13, 2012 Share Posted October 13, 2012 Hi Flicka I'm going to look into the suggestion made by Chris and compare mileage with sat. and see if there is any difference. That thought has been with me for some time as most of our coach built vans have indicated a speed 10% higher than actual and wonder if that translates into 10% extra on the mileometer. I have the data to compare the readings but there's just so much to do in this retirement and so little time. Terry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HymerVan Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 There have been posts about speedo over-reads before and their relationship with the indicated speed on satnav. I have noticed in my new Van (2012 Citroen Relay) that the speedo seems to over-read significantly more than my previous Van and probably by quite a lot, i.e. perhaps as much as 10%. Anybody else experiencing significant over-read ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Recieived wisdom seems to be that a 10% speedometer 'over-read' is pretty common - see these 2006 comments: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/more_or_less/6105370.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terryW Posted October 14, 2012 Share Posted October 14, 2012 Just compared recorded miles with sat Nav over a regular trip we use and they came out as 212 and 213 so I would say that they read the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.