2.3 Versus 3.0 Fuel Consumption (1 Viewer)

[stevec]

How much different will the fuel consumption figures be for these engines . 3 litre 160bhp against 2.3 130bhp. All things being equal of course.

 

[bungy]

i average 27mpg n a 3.ol fully loaded to 3500kg
and my driving style isnt the most fuel conserving either
if that helps...

but...how big a van is the engine pulling along?, what shape etc etc

 

[DuxDeluxe]

I had a 3.0 and now a 2.3 and to be quite honest not a lot of difference. Given the choice, I would go for the bigger engine every time

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Lindsay]

Me to. There's no substitute for cubic capacity, me thinks

 

[Gandhi]

With my smaller engine in the past I had my foot further down all the time to maintain speed so there was no real saving.

 

[iandsm]

My 2.3 seems plenty powerful for my 3.6 tonnes, but of course I don't know how different a bigger engine might be, I might change my mind if I tries one. Anyway I routinely get 27.5 and have sometimes gone to 27.9 but have never gone over.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[keith]

Nothing to do with the size of the engine, but definitely all to do with the weight of the boot on the right foot.

 

[Stealaway]

My van is a low profile but I always get around 30MPG @ 50-60 MPH - 2200 rpm
If the route is flat I have seen 34 MPG. I change gear at 2000 rpm and use the maximum torque.
But do like the sound of more power and would love to try one.

 

[stevec]

We've been looking at 2.3L MHs and found a Pilote T680 which makes much better use of it's length than some others we've looked at. But this one has a 3.0L engine. We thought we had decided on a make and model until we saw this one this afternoon. Now we're weighing up the pros and cons of each and engine size (and economy) is one factor. To answer Bungy's question it is a 3500kg chassis in a coachbuilt low profile.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[jonandshell]

Why worry about a few mpg when the real cost of motorhoming is the eye-watering depreciation?

 

[keith]

We've been looking at 2.3L MHs and found a Pilote T680 which makes much better use of it's length than some others we've looked at. But this one has a 3.0L engine. We thought we had decided on a make and model until we saw this one this afternoon. Now we're weighing up the pros and cons of each and engine size (and economy) is one factor. To answer Bungy's question it is a 3500kg chassis in a coachbuilt low profile.

Don't worry about it the 3 ltr is a much better engine, more like driving a car than a MH. The extra power makes all the difference, I wouldn't change mine now I have felt the difference & I don't see any difference in MPG to our previous MH.

 

[DavidG58]

If cost really matters stick out for a 2.3, we have a 3.0 Mercedes and rarely get over 20 mpg, we don't drive overly fast or accelerate hard but have never had a 2.3 to compare to, but bigger engine must mean lower mpg

I am lucky enough not to have to worry too much about cost of running (for now at least), it is a very comfortable drive and we do weight just over 5000kg

I would imagine that too much power in a FWD will just make the traction control work harder

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[bungy]

We've been looking at 2.3L MHs and found a Pilote T680 which makes much better use of it's length than some others we've looked at. But this one has a 3.0L engine. We thought we had decided on a make and model until we saw this one this afternoon. Now we're weighing up the pros and cons of each and engine size (and economy) is one factor. To answer Bungy's question it is a 3500kg chassis in a coachbuilt low profile.

Ive had a 2.2, 2.3 and now a 3l...3lmis the best by a long shot and next to naff all difference on fuel economy. Best bit is it is a pleasure to drive, loads of oomph when needed and with cruise on in 6th gear it trundles along with no problems at all...especially as its only moving 3500kg

go have a test drive, probably be the icing on the cake for a near perfect van for you....

 

[Chockswahay]

I think it really depends on how many miles you do................. we have the 2.3 and average about 15000 miles per year.

At an average of37 mpg that is a LOT of fuel saved .......... makes me smile at the pumps On a motorway run we get around 44 mpg

15000/37 = 405 gallons ......... 15000/27 = 555 gallons

I am quite happy to save £800 per year (at least)

 

[TerryL]

During our sojourn in Morocco we travelled around with Cherrypirate - they've got a 3.0 Comfortmatic and we're a 2.3 Manual (both low-profile coachbuilts). We found we were filling up at the same time with almost the same amount of fuel. The only comment I'd make is that their 3.00 seemed to cope better with hills and rarely changed down whilst we usually had to drop a cog; didn't seem to make any difference to the fuel consumption though.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Tea Bag]

Hi.
Next time you are alongside the spinning wheel nuts of a lorry,look at the area around the bottom right ahnd corner of the door,does it say.."480-500 ?"
Then ask yourself,why would they put sutch a big lump in it,when a smaller unit would do the job more efficiently(Spelling LOL). There is your question answered,as many of the above posts prove. You don't ahve to paint black lines away from traffic lights,but there is no substitute for power/cc/h-power.
Tea Bag

 

[colinw]

I wanted the 150bhp engine if I could get one but our stock van was the 130 , I am amazed at how well it pulls . the dash trip Meter is showing 31.9 but I haven't checked with calculating manually yet as the engine is new .

 

[jemhorn]

3ltr so much more pull, less gear changing etc. had 150bhp before. Fiat Comfortmatic gear box linked to a 3 ltr is a real pleasure to drive

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[colinw]

Hi.
Next time you are alongside the spinning wheel nuts of a lorry,look at the area around the bottom right ahnd corner of the door,does it say.."480-500 ?"
Then ask yourself,why would they put sutch a big lump in it,when a smaller unit would do the job more efficiently(Spelling LOL). There is your question answered,as many of the above posts prove. You don't ahve to paint black lines away from traffic lights,but there is no substitute for power/cc/h-power.
Tea Bag

500hp is wasted in a restricted truck ! . if you need to get from London to Stranraer to catch a ferry and your restrictor has ' failed ' , then it comes in very handy .

 

[musson]

130hp, just got 27 trip to norfolk, on motorway can get 30

 

[Diabalo]

I wanted the 150bhp engine if I could get one but our stock van was the 130 , I am amazed at how well it pulls . the dash trip Meter is showing 31.9 but I haven't checked with calculating manually yet as the engine is new .

Don't trust the on-board computer, my last van said it was doing 29mpg but I kept a log from fill up to fill up and it rarely went over 23mpg and that was on a 2.2 Ltr euro 4 engine with a 3.5 ton van.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[colinw]

Don't trust the on-board computer, my last van said it was doing 29mpg but I kept a log from fill up to fill up and it rarely went over 23mpg and that was on a 2.2 Ltr euro 4 engine with a 3.5 ton van.

I just use it as a guide , when it goes up , slightly , I'm driving more efficiently . when I go to France for 6 weeks I will do some sums . if the computer is wrong I will mention it on here !

 

[Chockswahay]

Don't trust the on-board computer, my last van said it was doing 29mpg but I kept a log from fill up to fill up and it rarely went over 23mpg and that was on a 2.2 Ltr euro 4 engine with a 3.5 ton van.

Mine is more pessimistic, we actually do better than the computer says

 

[PhilandMena]

We have the 2.3 and use the auto cruise at 2000 rpm when on long runs and exceed 30 mpg. We are 3.5 T low profile and never have a problem on hills because we have a gearbox. For the first 20,000 miles we were lucky to average 30mpg but were always close to it, now at 28,000 we get much improved mpg. Our engine is also maintained in accordance with the Fiat service schedule.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Hogan7777]

We have 3 Ltrs in. 4500 kg Hymer. Loads of power we go over the Pyrenees at least twice a year and it just pulls very rare to have to change down. Plus 26/27 mpg. To save fuel knock off cruise control when pulling up hill or it will just keep at your set speed and use more fuel.

 

[TerryL]

To save fuel knock off cruise control when pulling up hill or it will just keep at your set speed and use more fuel.

When I drove coaches I always reckoned I could improve the fuel consumption by NOT using the cruise control, but it was more tiring so almost always was up against the limiter. In the van I don't have the pressures so prefer to drive "manually" although on a long reasonably flat motorway with light traffic the CC has its uses. I get better fuel consumption that way - have averaged 28mpg actual (not computer) over 55000 miles, 2.3 euro 4.

 

[stevec]

This 3l engine is a Peugeot HDi unit. Are they the same as the Fiat lump?

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[The Dudess]

We've been looking at 2.3L MHs and found a Pilote T680 which makes much better use of it's length than some others we've looked at. But this one has a 3.0L engine. We thought we had decided on a make and model until we saw this one this afternoon. Now we're weighing up the pros and cons of each and engine size (and economy) is one factor. To answer Bungy's question it is a 3500kg chassis in a coachbuilt low profile.

We previously had a Autotrail Savannah with a 2.3 L engine - we usually averaged 26/27 mpg unless we were driving into a headwind, and it really seemed to struggle up hills. We now have a A class Pilote G742 with a 3 L engine and get an average of 28/29 mpg. Husband says the Pilote is a pleasure to drive and is much less tiring than the Autotrail.

 

[pyro]

We are running a Chausson 515 (3.55T low profile, using a 2.3 Euro 5, manual box- Peugeot badged by Fiat, I believe) and are returning 31 mpg on short runs, 34 on longer runs

Performance is better than I would have expected, not a great deal more sluggish than our old 300 TDI Discovery. I would have liked a larger engine, and especially comfortmatic, but we liked the discounted stock offer better

 

[RidersofRohan]

3ltr consistently 27/28 mpg calculated brim to brim on 3.5 tonnes, and not hanging about on motorways. Try to change up at 2000 rpm only concession to fuel economy. Never driven a 2.3 so can't compare, but this will pull eg big hill (Windy Hill) on M62 back into Yorkshire 6th gear same speed at top as at bottom.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}