sreve Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 hi all i am currently looking into mpg,cruising speed, top speed,acceleration etc of coachbuilt vans with the tried and tested peugeot/fiat/citroen deisel 2.5 and 1.9 turbo and non turbo motors. Any info will be appreciated thanks Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel E Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Sorry to seem negative, but this really is a 'piece of string' question. Any answer will surely be meaningless unless the van in question has been driven under a consistent set of circumstances (all motorway, all minor road, lots of up and down hills), and so on. And in a defined consistent manner - some are happy to cruise at 60 on the MWay, others believe that 80 is the right speed. If we knew more about the purpose of your question, you'd get more useful replies. Mel E ==== Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenewellhome Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Totally agree with Mel here, your question is way too vague. For example a modern T5 VW panel van could well give 35MPG plus if driven with a light foot but put even a small coachbuilt body on it and stick a driver in with a heavy right foot and you could be lucky to see 25MPG. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikey72 Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Hi, from experience avoid the peugeot/fiat 1.9td if you can. On a coachbuilt it's underpowered, mpg I usually get low 20's, and a lot of gearchanges to overtake or cope with any incline. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beetle Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Simon! Basicaly if you go for none turbo you get more mpg. but you have problems going up hills,( you get there eventually,) I have a none turb from which I get between 31 - 34 mpg. I'm told the same model with turbo returns 24 - 26. The cruising speed on "normal" roads is the same.The choice is your's. Trev. :-> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sreve Posted October 1, 2007 Author Share Posted October 1, 2007 in reply to Mel E i do not think it's a "peice of string " question, as i said any info would be appreciated and therefore it is up to me to decide if i think any replies i get are usefull (yours by the way is not) And to davenwell if you read my post carefully you will realise that i am not talking about a modern T5 engine! Thanks to the other 2 replies that is exactly the usefull info i am looking for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Do I see a pattern emerging here *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J9withdogs Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I think that we should ban any mention of string on here *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 Firstly, it will depend greatly what coachbuilt you go for, a short one will be much nippier and more fuel efficient than a larger, heavier one, even if driven by the same person in the same conditions. So, in that regard the question is "how long is a piece of string". A turbo version may be better at accelerating and top speed than a non-turbo one but if you make use of the extra grunt a turbo one gives you, your mpg will suffer, therefore a non-turbo will probably give a much better mpg. The size of engine again is relevant to the size of the van, a 1.9 non-turbo on a large van would be a very slow vehicle indeed and not a pleasant driving experience, a non-turbo 2.5 again would not be as bad but could still be a bit of a pain. A 1.9 turbo was a good engine, we used to have one of these and it was a very good engine indeed, when we changed to the then new 2.8 non-turbo we wished we hadn't bothered! A 2.5 turbo would be the best of all - whether you need it would depend on what vehicle you are looking at and how you intend to use it. The cost of the vehicles will vary as well depending on the engine fitted. As for Dave's comment about the T25, it was an example, nothing more. If you want more specific advice please give more information about your intended use, vehicle size etc, then you might get something more useful in return. One request - please if you want advice do not be discourteous to those you are attempting to help you, or you may find people don't bother if that is the response they get, they are only trying to be helpful after all. I hope you are able to make use of the information I have supplied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigal55 Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 sreve - 2007-10-01 8:39 PM in reply to Mel E i do not think it's a "peice of string " question, as i said any info would be appreciated and therefore it is up to me to decide if i think any replies i get are usefull (yours by the way is not) And to davenwell if you read my post carefully you will realise that i am not talking about a modern T5 engine! Thanks to the other 2 replies that is exactly the usefull info i am looking for.i.m afraid it is a piece of string, i have a new fiat m/home, town 40mpg, 50 mph, 35 mpg, 60 mph, 30 mpg, 70 mph, 20 mpg,my car i avg 30 mpg, my wife 22mpg, my average speed is faster also, reason, she uses the accelerator as a on off switch,i,e, she accelerates towards red lights then brakes, mpg figures are only a very rough guide Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 sreve rudely and ungratefully replied. in reply to Mel E i do not think it's a "peice of string " question, as i said any info would be appreciated and therefore it is up to me to decide if i think any replies i get are usefull (yours by the way is not) And to davenwell if you read my post carefully you will realise that i am not talking about a modern T5 engine! Thanks to the other 2 replies that is exactly the usefull info i am looking for. JudgeMental - 2007-10-01 8:47 PM Do I see a pattern emerging here *-)Oh dear not another Jen's Grumpy Git. :-o Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davenewellhome Posted October 1, 2007 Share Posted October 1, 2007 I give up!!! You asked a vague question which was akin to asking the length of a piece of string, Mel and myself gave you honest answers. My answer used a T5 as an example only. Okay I could have made the example using a Peugeot 1.9TDI but I didn't, the example is still valid as it points out that without more information from yourself it is very difficult to give any kind of constructive advice without writing a 2000 word essay. I've had enough of people coming on here and asking questions that have either already been answered a dozen or more times but they're too bloody lazy to read through the thread at the top labelled Frequently Asked Questions or people who ask a vague question then get all uppity because they're asked, very reasonably, for more info on exactly what they want! If you don't like my answer then tough! Stick it where the sun don't shine!! I'm gone, Bye, D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
empress Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Blimey, here we go again! Another grumpy old man? Empress Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Mary, And here's me thinking that we had finally nearly got over it all and back to normal good banter ..No such luck :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest caraprof Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 empress - 2007-10-02 10:18 AM Blimey, here we go again! Another grumpy old man? Empress I know! And I'm nowhere in sight!OK, maybe l'm lurking around the corner! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sreve Posted October 2, 2007 Author Share Posted October 2, 2007 well i think it's about time this subject was laid to rest.I am new to these forums and i thought my question was specific enough, obviously it was to the 4 people who responded to me with some very good info,many thanks to them.Lastly i will say that i think it is important that only people with usefull information for the person asking the question should be responding to the posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michele Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 Thats a bit unfair because surely everyone posting obviously thinks that they are helping you or at least trying to help you . How about sorry I did not mean to come across like that lets start again from one who as you say is new to this forum. Believe me its a much nicer way ;-) after all if you choose to keep that attitude up no one will respond at all your loss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazza454 Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 caraprof - 2007-10-02 10:45 AM empress - 2007-10-02 10:18 AM Blimey, here we go again! Another grumpy old man? Empress I know! And I'm nowhere in sight!OK, maybe l'm lurking around the corner!Love the location.Suggest that you find your tin hat and wellies for when the SOS returns..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carioca Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 sreve - 2007-10-01 4:38 PM hi all i am currently looking into mpg,cruising speed, top speed,acceleration etc of coachbuilt vans with the tried and tested peugeot/fiat/citroen deisel 2.5 and 1.9 turbo and non turbo motors. Any info will be appreciated thanks Simon hi sreve i have a 2.3jtd fiat overcab coach built carioca 656 2 1/2 years old 11500 on the clock best ever achived at about 60mph on dual carriageway/motorway is 24.5mpg, worst on mway at 70-75mph 15.5mpg :'( i dont know how other people achieve better mpg at similar speeds >:-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted October 2, 2007 Share Posted October 2, 2007 sreve - 2007-10-01 4:38 PM hi all i am currently looking into mpg,cruising speed, top speed,acceleration etc of coachbuilt vans with the tried and tested peugeot/fiat/citroen deisel 2.5 and 1.9 turbo and non turbo motors. Any info will be appreciated thanks Simon Simon, maybe you could say if you're looking at: New, or second-hand? The boxer 2.5 diesel (1994 up) or the J5 (1982ish, to 1994)? Lowline or overcab coachbuilt? Single or twin axle? Body weight? With roof box(es) or not? I ask, as ours is a 1992 overcab coachbuilt, with the 2.5 litre deisel non-turbo engine, with PAS, single rear axle. Roof rails but no box. Overall mpg is about 29, on mainly equivalant to UK A-roads, but some motorway and some narrow twisties and uppy downies. BUT, this mpg only comes from me driving relatively REALLY slowly and carefully. The van is an old dog, with 140k kms on the clock, and I want to nurse it - so never accelerate hard, and chug along at about 80kmph (about 50 to 55mph), never above that. With any coachbuilt motorhome, and especially an overcab, because of their awful drag co-efficient, you slaughter your fuel economy once you get above 60-ish. I bet if I tried hard, I could get the economy down to below 20mpg by really thrashing it. Modern vans will of course do well in excess of 50mph, but my guess is you'll watch the fuel gauge drop like a stone if you bang along at 70 or above. I'd maybe ensure you try out the 1.9 motor if you are considering the non-turbo version - my guess is it could be pretty gutless for pulling a coachbuilt body, plus all your kit, around - but I've never driven one myself so that's purely conjecture. I'm perfectly happy with the 2.5 non-turbo engine in ours: it chugs on forever, a piece of cake to maintain, and a lot less to go wrong than with the turbo version. Cheers, Bruce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonW Posted October 3, 2007 Share Posted October 3, 2007 Assuming you had the same MH full of the same junk and with the same wind resistance you could then compare engines. A small highly efficient engine such as the newer common rail engines can produce the same power but being lighter would give a lower total weight but for a MH the engine weight is less of a factor in the total weight. Conversely a larger non turbo motor will probably be more rugged. Really though is motor power and mpg the major factor. If you spend more time driving than enjoying the van parked up I would feel you have the balance wrong. I think the right layout and facilities come first. If you are buying new you may then have a choice of engine, but if its second hand you may have little choice. If you want more mpg ease back on the pedal and drive with economy in mind. You'll be surprised how much difference it can make. Of course its easier if you give up work as time becomes less of a factor. But actually if you do 70mph for three hours you do the same distance as three and a half at 60mph. in practice unless you are on a motorway the difference will be a lot less. Personally I find galloping up motorways add little to my day, thrassh your engine and guzzle fuel. Is that fun? Don ps nearly 30mph on a 2.5 non turbo peugeot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlieme Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 sreve (Simon) poses an impossible question. There are as many pieces of string as there are questions. There are in fact eleven questions with an enormous amount of variables due to driver, weather, weights, age, terrain, town, country and so on. If you reject the advice given by those who have many years experience then go to a large Motorhome supplier and ask the same question, not forgetting to tell us all what they say as we would all like to know. In fact there can never be an answer to your question cos we all do it differently, sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vixters other half Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 Perhaps a better definition would be tonne.miles per gallon. Take the weight of your vehicle when in holiday configuration and mutiply the mpg by that. A lighter vehicle should give a better fuel consumption ( assuming relaxed driving styles all round) but the true economics are reflected in the actual weights moved around. Big Brian is 7.5 tonnes and the fuel consumption varies between 16-18mpg if Im towing a trailer with a Smart on board. So I get between 120 and 135 tonne miles to the gallon. So what does yours do? VoH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charlieme Posted October 4, 2007 Share Posted October 4, 2007 And if you're into tonnes, it's surely litres and kilogrammes as well to confuse the issue further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icdsun Posted October 5, 2007 Share Posted October 5, 2007 Simon As with all things mechanical variables exist, it is a factor we as humans can do little about, if MPG is a major factor for you in your decision process can I suggest that you use 20mpg as a base figure, anything above that and you are in profit and happy. Unless you intend to do high mileage it is more relevant to purchase a van with good residuals and reliability, coupled with the right layout for your needs. The difference in a van doing 20mpg to one doing 25mpg over 10000 miles is about £400 PA, as a new MH'er the help and comments from the learned ones on this forum have been extremely helpful and saved me more than the above figures with just a few replies to my questions, some replies were not that relevant to my question, but I was grateful that they took the time to respond whether the answer was useful or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.