the general Posted November 29, 2014 Share Posted November 29, 2014 As anyone road tested the new 2 tonne ford transit PVC, that a few converters are now using? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 There are quite a few on-line reviews of the latest Transit, including this AutoExpress video http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/ford/transit/88295/fastest-van-track-battle-video-transit-vs-sprinter and I think the MMM team has test-driven the vehicle and will report on it at some stage. In the October 2014 issue of the French motorhome magazine “Camping-Car”, examples of Fiat Ducato, Ford Transit, Renault Master and Mercedes Sprinter current-model commercial panel vans were tested against each other. An attempt at specification parity was made by choosing motors with roughly similar power output (respectively 148bhp, 155bhp, 163bhp and 163bhp) and body length (respectively 5.41m, 5.53m, 5.54m ans 5.90m) and the on-track tests involved acceleration/top-speed, braking, fuel consumption, noise and the field-of-vision from the driving seat (the vehicles were, of course, LHD). There wasn’t much to choose between the vehicles regarding acceleration/top-speed, but the Transit had the best braking and fuel consumption, and was significantly the quietist. The Transit’s dashboard was criticised for being a mite difficult to understand. I’ve sat in a few new Transit-based motorhomes, but not driven one. The cab-seat height is much lower than that of the outgoing model and the steering wheel has two-way adjustment. I expected to like the revised driving-position a lot, but it didn’t fee immediately ‘right’ and I thought that the seat-squab was still too short. I expect I could get used to it and at least one sits straight ahead, not cock-eyed like in a Ducato. As Transit comes in RWD and FWD versions and with various power-outputs for its 2.2litre motor, it won’t be easy to comment definitively on what a coachbuilt motorhome based on a Transit camping-car chassis would be like. The motor only comes in 2.2litre capacity, there’s no automatic-transmission or Al-Ko chassis options, so it’s never going to be a realistic competitor to Ducato in the European motorhome marketplace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 No auto option again *-) ..........and I wonder what they mean by improved mpg?.........40 mpg? :-S........as the 2013 I hired had worse mpg than my 1990 & 1999 ;-) ............. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muswell Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 My 2011 140bhp gives around 34mpg driven fairly vigorously so I guess 40 could be in sight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 pelmetman The fuel consumption figures given in the Camping-Car article were based on an average speed of 73.1 km/h and were as follows: Fiat Ducato (8.1litres/100km), Ford Transit (7.9litres/100km), Renault Master (8.2litres/100km) and Mercedes Sprinter (7.9litres/100km) - so I should have said that Transit had equal best fuel consumption with the Sprinter. I’ll leave you to do the metric to imperial conversion as it will give you something to occupy yourself with rather than keep harping on about ancient Transits being God’s gift to impecunious motorcaravanners. I’ve driven plenty of old Transits across the years and owned a 1996 Transit-based motorhome with 2.5litre 100bhp motor and a 2005 Transit-based one with 2.0litre 125bhp motor. As one might logically anticipate, the much more modern 2005 version was significantly more fuel efficient than the 1996 model - by a minimum of 20% - and with much improved performance. I’ve no idea how you managed to get worse mpg with a 2013 Transit than you obtain with your Mk 4 and Mk 5 vehicles. Perhaps you weren’t aware it had a 6-speed gearbox and, being on hire, that you thrashed it within an inch of its life... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Many fuel consumption figures for short test drives are taken from the on board computer and these are, in my experience, more often than not very optimistic. My current and previous X250s, current Peugeot 2.2 PVC and previous Fiat 2.3 coachbuilt record mpg figures on the trip computer of between 5 and 7 mpg over optimistic when compared to long range tank to tank fill ups. Similar checks on many cars over many years have found the same to be true and I have never had any vehicle with an accurate on board fuel consumption recording. Progress - or deliberate misinformation - what do you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Tracker - 2014-11-30 10:44 AM Many fuel consumption figures for short test drives are taken from the on board computer and these are, in my experience, more often than not very optimistic. My current and previous X250s, current Peugeot 2.2 PVC and previous Fiat 2.3 coachbuilt record mpg figures on the trip computer of between 5 and 7 mpg over optimistic when compared to long range tank to tank fill ups. Similar checks on many cars over many years have found the same to be true and I have never had any vehicle with an accurate on board fuel consumption recording. Progress - or deliberate misinformation - what do you think? 5 to 7 mpg would equate to Derek's 20% improvement in mpg :D ............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 pelmetman - 2014-11-30 11:26 AM 5 to 7 mpg would equate to Derek's 20% improvement in mpg :D ............... Surprise surprise - electronic trickery rules again. You only have to read any Auto Express road tests and compare the fuel consumption that they record to realise that all manufacturers massage their figures and produce vehicles programmed to do well in the official test cycles regardless of what the real life consumption is. Even worse - if that info is taken from the car rather than by proper fuel flow measuring kit the real figures are even worse than those printed? The only benefit is that through their deceit we pay less VED than we otherwise would even if we do give the govt more in fuel duty and VAT than we should be giving them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Muswell - 2014-11-30 9:51 AM My 2011 140bhp gives around 34mpg driven fairly vigorously so I guess 40 could be in sight My 1999 does 32 mpg being thrashed up and down the M11, based on a fill up last week ;-) ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Tracker - 2014-11-30 11:33 AM pelmetman - 2014-11-30 11:26 AM 5 to 7 mpg would equate to Derek's 20% improvement in mpg :D ............... Surprise surprise - electronic trickery rules again. You only have to read any Auto Express road tests and compare the fuel consumption that they record to realise that all manufacturers massage their figures and produce vehicles programmed to do well in the official test cycles regardless of what the real life consumption is. Even worse - if that info is taken from the car rather than by proper fuel flow measuring kit the real figures are even worse than those printed? The only benefit is that through their deceit we pay less VED than we otherwise would even if we do give the govt more in fuel duty and VAT than we should be giving them! Interesting item on BBC Watchdog the other night about Fiat 500's that can't get up hills, apparently due to onboard trickery to achieve economy .....................Progress eh? (lol) ...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 pelmetman - 2014-11-30 11:48 AM Progress eh? (lol) ...... Yup - and skeptical (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordThornber Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 I very recently hired a lwb diesel manual Transit, 2013, it had 64k on it. No idea which engine variant was under the bonnet. It was lightly loaded and empty on the return journey. I drove it sensibly and 90% of the journey was on the motorway. I refuelled it after its full to the brim start, (I can confirm it was full). It did 36 mpg. Martyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 also a good comparison of most of the new vans that can be read online with auto translation on promobil.de site. Saw a new ford the other day and does not look that different than a Fiat. but its the dimensions that are the real nitty gritty as to whether its a practical base as a camper.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 I agree with Rich, fuel consumption figures from the on-board trip computers are not real-world figures, and I've long since given up looking at them. Neither, IMO, are single fill figures reliable indicators, even if measured by brimming the tank each time. Too many variables, weather, road conditions, driver etc etc. For example, the best our van has recorded fill to fill was 31.23 MPG, while its worst was 22.81 MPG. OTOH, its average, taken over nearly 11,000 miles - so about as accurate a real life figure (for me driving) as one is likely to get - is 25.95 MPG. That includes twisting mountain roads to near flat motorways, and just about all variants between. It includes miles in heat with the a/c going full tilt, to quite cold with the heater going full tilt, rain and shine. It includes free-flowing traffic and jams. Even so, another driver would undoubtedly get different consumption from the same van. The biggest variables when taking figures from a single tankful are how level the filling station forecourt is, and to a lesser extent how accurately the pump meter has been set. Even if both fills are at the same station, unless the same pump is used, the results are liable to vary for these reasons alone. Despite the impression I've probably now given I'm not obsessive about fuel consumption, I don't look that often. :-) I just drive the truck and the consumption is what it is. However, I do record how much was taken at what mileage, and stick the results into a spreadsheet that does all the calcs in a trice. Why? So that I can see if a significant variation is developing, possibly indicating the onset of trouble. Otherwise I'd ignore the whole issue. It seems pointless worrying about it, vehicles use fuel, and without the fuel one would never go anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brom Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 the general - 2014-11-29 6:08 PM As anyone road tested the new 2 tonne ford transit PVC, that a few converters are now using? The new full-sized Transit? Yes - it was brilliant! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 brom - 2014-11-30 8:29 PM the general - 2014-11-29 6:08 PM As anyone road tested the new 2 tonne ford transit PVC, that a few converters are now using? The new full-sized Transit? Yes - it was brilliant! That’s going to be a helluva short MMM test report then. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brom Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Wait and see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Why does everyone get so concerned about fuel consumption on a Motorhome, if you can afford 50 - 100k on a van does it really matter if it costs a couple of hundred quid more or less a year to run. I know it wouldn't influence my decision to which van I brought. However I do have to own up to monitoring my own consumption but only because that dam computer is staring you in face and you just have to play with it. I've always found them to be pessimistic, last van read about ½ mpg under, reading gave 28 mpg actual was 28.5 mpg, current van reads 1 mpg under, to me I consider that fairly accurate, my car is worse that reads 4 mpg under. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 You should've got yourself a '90s transit Lenny...I've read that they pish all over this unreliable modern junk... ...and so what if you can arrive at your destination with your ear drums intact and your spleen un-ruptured?... (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordThornber Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 To say nothing of a couple of charity shop pillows doubling up as airbags :D :D Martyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 LordThornber - 2014-12-01 2:26 PM To say nothing of a couple of charity shop pillows doubling up as airbags :D :D Martyn With all this new technology I'm going to be safe as houses, as all your modern vans will slam on the brakes when ever they get near me :D.............although perhaps they better start fitting rear airbags to stop us Luddites rear ending you >:-)................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LordThornber Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 Thought you'd like that Dave :D Martyn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 pepe63 - 2014-12-01 1:50 PM You should've got yourself a '90s transit Lenny...I've read that they pish all over this unreliable modern junk... ...and so what if you can arrive at your destination with your ear drums intact and your spleen un-ruptured?... (lol) I think I'll pass on that one. :D My better half would get on well with Dave, she want's a 1960's Mini - guess who would have look after it, (lol), so she's not getting it if I have my way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 lennyhb - 2014-12-01 5:00 PM pepe63 - 2014-12-01 1:50 PM You should've got yourself a '90s transit Lenny...I've read that they pish all over this unreliable modern junk... ...and so what if you can arrive at your destination with your ear drums intact and your spleen un-ruptured?... (lol) I think I'll pass on that one. :D My better half would get on well with Dave, she want's a 1960's Mini - guess who would have look after it, (lol), so she's not getting it if I have my way. Your Mrs clearly has good taste ;-) ............I had a mini pickup for a while on Gib when I was a Navy dispatch driver........ terrific fun B-) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billggski Posted December 1, 2014 Share Posted December 1, 2014 The "honest john" website gives realistic mpg figures, based on owners' experiences. Needless to say they are much worse than published. My theory is that competitors should be given the job of testing. BMW doing Mercedes, Ford doing Vauxhall and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.