Fellbound Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I posed this query on another forum yesterday (sorry!) but haven't got a definitive answer. It is, to some extent, academic and posed just out of interest. I have a new MH arriving next week. It's got a Peugeot 2.2 engine with 150 BHP. I know many new MHs have 130 BHP 2.2 engines. I have very little technical knowledge and was wondering what impact the higher BHP would have on diesel consumption. I've assumed it would be lower but wondered if the higher BHP might mean that that there will be less changing down through the gears and this could be beneficial on fuel consumption. As you can possibly see from that comment I am probably a bit clueless about these things! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 ...much will, of course, depend on how the particular engine mapping suits your own driving style. Peugeot, however, quote exactly the same consumption figures for the 130 and 150 engines, as determined using the (artificial) EU process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 From an engine of the same cubic capacity; in your case 2.2 litres, the difference in power between 130 and 150hp is not very much really. What is different is the way that extra power is provided. If the 130hp has a normal turbo, and the 150hp has a variable rate turbo the latter can be more economical, but normally is not since it also encourages you to make the most of the extra power and therefore waste fuel! What is much more important is the relative amount of torque. An increase of 50Nm from, say 300 to 350 will make a significant difference to how the vehicle pulls in lower gears and therefore how often you find yourself changing gear. This results in a more relaxed driving style and this can improve fuel consumption. At the end of the day it's all in your hands. Or feet! Fuel consumption varies from driver to driver, even in what appear to be identical vehicles and those vehicles have engines that are subject to certain tolerances and rates of wear along with varying vehicle body types and weights, so most figures are pretty meaningless. I always go for the most POWERRR! But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cleddytanhouse Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 I had an Elddis with a Peugeot 2.2 engine and 130bhp. It regularly did 33mpg. It had done 9000 miles when I swapped it for a new Autotrail with a Fiat 2.3 engine and 150bhp. I guess that being new, the engine is still "tight". It gives 27th, but, it is so much more enjoyable to drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Den Posted August 5, 2015 Share Posted August 5, 2015 More horses the better. I have a Renault master van 150 photos 2007 Plus a Renault master 16 seater with only 120 photos. 2013. The van goes amazing well and returns more mpg. Over the years I've had fiat, merc and Renault. When it comes to commercial it's different to cars, vans and MH's are like bricks, wind restart wise. As long as you keep to around 60 mph it will be fine. When drivers quote mpg with little knowledge of several brands and various BHP it can be misleading. I cover 100,000 miles per year and economy is a major cost factor. But don't let it spoil your enjoyment. I've recently down sized from a 3 litre merc Levoyaguer to a fiat 125hp Chausson 610. On our recent trip to France we saved quite a lot. The merc loves diesel. ( I'm sure they have a drink problem) On our trip to the south of France it averaged 32mpg for an engine running in it's pretty good. But I still hope for more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artheytrate Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 My 2014 Peugeot Boxer 130 does 28mpg at 60 mph 26mpg towing my small trailer. 70ish its down to 24 mpg. this is with the on board computer so in effect might be even less. My van has now done 12,000 miles. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
candapack Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Well there you go. Being very non technical, I would have assumed that more horses meant you would need more hay. As for mpg on the same vehicle being different for different drivers, I did know that, but daren't mention it to my wife. 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 I keep a record of fuel used and mpg and the on board trip computer on the three X250 based vans that have had them fitted they have ALWAYS read at least 5% and sometimes 10% more than the actual tank full to tank full reality. The Fiat 130 was worst at almost 10% with two Peugeot 2.2s averaging around 5% over read. This also makes the fuel guage unpredictable around the reserve area with the predicted mileage often very optimistic - so I don't trust it and when the red light comes on I know I have at least 50 miles and possibly 80 miles if I need it to get fuel. I have had one of these tuning boxes on the Fiat and on one Peugeot and they seem to make very little difference to mpg whilst giving a worthwhile boost to low speed torque and engine flexibility that did improve the drivni g experience somewhat. I didn't use the extra power to go faster apart from occasional uphill or overtaking and that probably helped? http://www.energy-tuning.co.uk/motorhomes.php So far our 2011 Peugeot Executive 2.2 hdi is returning around 29 mpg actual, the previous 2009 2.2 Warwick Duo returned around 30 mpg and the 2008 Fiat Cheyenne returned around 24 mpg actual. Previous model X240/244 Peugeot and Fiat based coachbuilts 2004 to 2006 all returned around 27 mpg over many thousands of miles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melenter Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 I don't normally bother replying to posts on the forums but for a change most replies seem to be sensible.If you listen to most M/H owners the usual mpg is exaggerated. First of all ignore on board computer readings,, second fill your tank to top , after a couple of hundred miles fill up again and do. your maths.I have had 13 M/Hs in my fortynine years of traveling and at present have a 4 year old 150 bhp autocruise automatic. Long journeys fully laden 27average running about locally 22mph. Just enjoy. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HymerVan Posted August 6, 2015 Share Posted August 6, 2015 Slightly off topic I have a 2012 2.2 litre Citroen Euro V which has now done 25,000 miles. It seems to have got better economy even well after 10,000 miles so the engine takes a long time to loosen up which I think is a good sign. I think I get around 30mph, slightly more if driven gently and significantly less if hammered. These figures are calculated from my fuel records not the computer although I use the odometer for distance. The speedometer over-reads a lot (much more than my car) so perhaps if the odometer is also over-reading and if so these figures will be optimistic by about 8%. Concerning the torque it feels as if it has plenty torque in fact sometimes a little bit under geared in gears one to four. The quoted unconverted base vehicle weight is around 2 tonnes and my calculation of the converted unladen weight in around 2.7 tonnes. I think we would not normally operate with more than 3.1 tonnes gross weight. So perhaps we are operating the vehicle at a weight below the "design weight" for the gearing. It would be nice to think so. When I replace the vehicle which is not something I plan to do soon I will think about the 150bhp option. That would be an indulgent choice because the 130 seems to have adequate torque and performance but I would be interested in others experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.