Horse power V's weight

Discussion in 'The Beginner' started by oldflemo, May 9, 2013.

  1. oldflemo

    oldflemo Funster

    Joined:
    May 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    634
    Location:
    Redcar- N.Yorkshire
    Hi -hope this question is not considered too stupid but as a total novice to MHs I think we need guidance on this question. What is considered the optimum horse power for a 3.5T motorhome to provide the best fuel economy. We see engines from 100 hp to 150 hp for this weight and haven't got a clue what is best
    Look forward to kind advice
    Ian
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. knokinonabit

    knokinonabit Funster

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2011
    Messages:
    2,483
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    Location:
    Stokesley, North Yorks
    The best fuel economy comes by lifting your right foot a little off the accellerator, but I would personally be looking at the 130 to 150 bhp engines so that you aren't working them as hard.

    Some people will say that 100 bhp is enough, but I like to be able to hold a higher gear without straining the engine or changing up and down gears to much.
     
  3. oldflemo

    oldflemo Funster

    Joined:
    May 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    634
    Location:
    Redcar- N.Yorkshire
    Thanks for this advice -did immediately draw a positive response from SWMBO in terms of my right foot! We will not consider anything less than 130 bhp
    Thanks again
    Ian
     
  4. duane0001

    duane0001 Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2013
    Messages:
    629
    Likes Received:
    389
    Location:
    East Coast, North Yorks
    Mine is a 2.3 120BHP for 3.3T and I would say its more then enough,
    But its also down to the number of gears and gear ratio, I can happily up and down dale in 6th
     
  5. wivvy's dad

    wivvy's dad Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,218
    Likes Received:
    1,807
    Location:
    48.066895,12.862673
    In the words of LJK Setright - Enough is never enough, more than enough is sufficient
     
    • Like Like x 3
  6. dave newell lvs

    dave newell lvs Trader-Vehicle Services

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2008
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    3,323
    Location:
    Telford, Shropshire
    Fuel consumption is about much more than BHP/mass. My motorhome weighs in at just over 3 tonnes but could legally be up to 4.2, I also tow a 1000KGs trailer with it and the engine "only" has 103 BHP (well it did once upon a time, with 175,000 KM under its belts I suspect one or two horses may have escaped). Fuel consumption is acceptable and ranges from 22mpg fully loaded with trailer cruising at 60MPH up to 28mpg running solo at 56 mph cruising speed.

    Load, speed, wind resistance, weather conditions and the type of roads you are travelling on will all afect fel consumption much more than how many horses you have to pull it along.

    D.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  7. steveclecy

    steveclecy Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2009
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    581
    Location:
    Wirral
    Ours has the 130ps engine and I was surprised how powerful that was in 3+ tonnes of metal and stuff.

    But the best way to achieve economy is to resist the traffic light grand prix. An engine like that will accelerate quite remarkably quickly but that is what drinks the fuel.

    Allow those that wish to race away and take your time. Choose your cruising speed carefully. These things don't exactly slip through air. The difference in arrival time if you travel at 70mph as opposed to a more comfortable (and much quieter) 55mph is quite negligible in most circumstances, but the difference in fuel consumption is well worth it.

    Steve
     
    • Like Like x 2
  8. buttons

    buttons Funster

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    12,950
    Likes Received:
    10,722
    Location:
    Hertfordshire
    The right foot will have the biggest effect whatever size your engine but I would say go for the higher BHP, it will be a more relaxed drive as well as needing less right foot, so overall it will return better MPG.

    I wont bore some with facts but my camper was 174 BHP 2.5 diesel and it weighed in at around 3.5T with a top speed of 112mph yet I could maintain over 40 mpg at motorway speeds.

    Obviously a shoe box motorhome wont achieve these figures but it makes a case for the higher the BHP the better. I would only consider a larger 3ltr engine if you are driving something way over 3.5T but who would want one of those to go camping in.:Smile:
     
    Last edited: May 10, 2013
  9. JockandRita

    JockandRita Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Likes Received:
    6,847
    Location:
    Lincs/Cambs border
    I can't name them all, but there are thousands of us. :Laughing:

    Cheers,

    Jock. :Wink:
     
    • Like Like x 3
  10. buttons

    buttons Funster

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    12,950
    Likes Received:
    10,722
    Location:
    Hertfordshire
    Was it because you were missing the fire engine.:Wink:
     
  11. JockandRita

    JockandRita Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2007
    Messages:
    5,663
    Likes Received:
    6,847
    Location:
    Lincs/Cambs border
    :Laughing: What, the ones that got washed twice a day (shift change) and polished to death every week?
    Yes, I missed the "occupational therapy". That's why our 13 year old MH gleams most of the time. :Laughing:

    Cheers for now,

    Jock.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. oldflemo

    oldflemo Funster

    Joined:
    May 7, 2013
    Messages:
    2,165
    Likes Received:
    634
    Location:
    Redcar- N.Yorkshire
    While I appreciate your helpful comments I've got to start somewhere with hard accepted facts to assist us select our preferred MH. The variables you mention,load,speed,wind resistance,weather and road conditions certainly will influence mpg . Thanks again
    Ian
     
  13. 163phil

    163phil Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2012
    Messages:
    283
    Likes Received:
    273
    Location:
    Kenilworth
    We've just had ours remapped by Quantum (there's a franchise in Kenilworth) and it's made a huge difference - it's taken the power up from 84bhp to 110bhp and it sure feels like it! Only time will tell what effect it's had on fuel consumption, but it's probably helped that too (especially as we'll be towing a bike trailer) as it certainly feels more up to the job. Of course I'll have to be a little more careful with the right foot!:thumb:
     
  14. oldun

    oldun Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2008
    Messages:
    748
    Likes Received:
    160
    Location:
    St Neots
    Frontal area and air flow over the vehicle is probably more important at higher speeds than is the weight.

    I believe that the air drag is related to the somewhere between the square of the speed and the cube of the speed.

    I had a Renault Master LWB campervan with a maximum weight of 3500kg, auto gearbox and the 120 engine - it preformed very well and returned between 29 and 30 mpg.
     
    Last edited: May 14, 2013
  15. flashkim

    flashkim Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2012
    Messages:
    72
    Likes Received:
    43
    Location:
    Bucks
    Mine is a brick shape 3.5 ton 175BHP and using cruise at 60 staying in 6th as much as possible over 28mpg returned .....You are in charge of the go peddle :Smile:
     
  16. WillH

    WillH Funster

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    1,619
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    Location:
    SW Scotland
    I have the 130 hp engine and find that it does the job. Plenty of power on tap when you need it but if you feather foot the throttle it can return superb mileage. Last week on a 150 mile run it returned 33.6 mpg on the computer and when I eventually filled up it gave 30.75 mpg on a tankful. As above though, motorhomes are not aerodynamic, I find that a headwind can knock the consumption right back, down to 28 mpg or even less.

    Rgds
    Bill
     
  17. Stewart J

    Stewart J Funster

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,449
    Likes Received:
    1,251
    Location:
    SW Northumberland
    No-one has mentioned "Torque" this is the magic ingredient that modern diesels have in plenty and makes a paltry 2.2/2.3 or whatever pull like a train and resulting in great all round driving, acceleration, towing etc. Test drive a few examples its not about 0 - 60 times forget all that you just need to be able gently accelerate, cruise easily and not to much gear-changing on gradients/hills and not forgetting mpg as said a light foot is needed our hobby is not about being in a rush or hurry (normally:Smile:).

    I have just changed from a euro 4 2.3 130 bhp MH at 3.500 kg to a new euro 5 2.3 with optional upgrade to 150 bhp on a 4.250 kg and its money well spent this MH is far more sprightly despite being heavier, much less gear changing and better mpg and its still not run in yet with only 1k on the clock.

    Are you considering used or new?

    Best wishes in your search:thumb::thumb::thumb:
     
    Last edited: May 15, 2013
  18. pappajohn

    pappajohn Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Messages:
    29,484
    Likes Received:
    16,967
    Location:
    YO11 2BD
    in my opinion you can never have too many horses.

    but as already said by Stewart, torque is more important for smooth and powerful pulling.

    I dont have to worry unduly with 310 horses and 425 torques :thumb:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. Rapide561

    Rapide561 Read Only Funster

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2007
    Messages:
    471
    Likes Received:
    164
    Location:
    Leeds and Lake Garda
    BHP

    Hi

    These are my thoughts based on experience.

    We had a Compass motorhome. The standard engine was the 2.0 Peugeot, but we got the 2.2 just because it was the one in stock at the time. I have only experience of the 2.2 but the chap who bought if from me said it was better than the 2.0 that he had driven.

    The 2008 Kontiki was a 3.0 157 bhp. The next model was a 3.0 with 180 bhp - and the latter was better to drive, more powerful, held 6th gear better on long motorway hills and was more economical.

    Russell
     
  20. timdownieuk

    timdownieuk Funster

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2013
    Messages:
    612
    Likes Received:
    326
    Location:
    Ayr
    If it's any help, we have a small Swift Sundance with a 1.9 turbo diesel (89bhp maybe - when new). It's not enough. :Laughing:

    Tim
     
Loading...

Share This Page