130 and 150 hp ducato fuel consumption? (2 Viewers)

[Just smiffy]

Can someone explain what the + is please and do I have it....?

 

[Happy1]

never looked, which button do you push?

 

[Lenny HB]

Can someone explain what the + is please and do I have it....?

Getting a bit personal

Late x250's & early x290' s had a slightly cleaner engine than the Euro5 and Fiat designated it Euro 5+ from 2013/2014 until Euro 6 came out in late 2016.

It will say the Euro rating on your C of C.

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

 

[Just smiffy]

Getting a bit personal

Late x250's & early x290' s had a slightly cleaner engine than the Euro5 and Fiat designated it Euro 5+ from 2013/2014 until Euro 6 came out in late 2016.

Something else I haven’t got then.......

 

[Guigsy]

Bottom line is that the engine power doesn't make much difference to mileage.

Going bigger and heavier with more pokey-out bits affects the mpg... so a panel van will do a few more mpg than a wider, taller, heavier MH.

But the biggest difference is cruising speed. At 50mph along the country roads, stroking it along, my little Ducato panel van conversion does 40mpg (managed that in the Highlands!). At 65mph, it's still managing over 35mpg. By the time I'm cruising at ~70mph (for occasional overtakes!), it's going to be 30mpg at best. Basically, we're driving things with the aerodynamics of a brick with knobs on. Drag is roughly square of the speed, so dropping a few ticks makes by far the biggest difference.

 

[Mr B]

Our 130bhp A class drinks less than the wife.
Winner

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

 

[Lenny HB]

Something else I haven’t got then.......

Look on the bright side, good excuse to order a new van.

 

[Steve N Tracy]

We had a Benimar Mileo 202 150 bhp Euro 5+ manual and it averaged 25.9 mpg at a steady 60mph we now have a Dethleffs Globus I1 150bhp Comfortmatic Euro 6 and it averages 25.7 mpg at a steady 60mph both models 3500 kgs , never owned a 130 bhp model but our friends Autotrail Navajo 130 bhp manual they said averaged 26 mpg when they were following us.

 

[Minxy]

We've had PVCs with the 130 (2012) and 150 (2015) engines and haven't really noticed much difference in mpg, around 29-39 but hubby does like his speed and we visit lots of very, very, very hilly places and often end up at the top of winding mountain roads!

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

 

[Just smiffy]

I’ll be back home on Monday after about a 4K trip and I’ve kept all the receipts so will know what I’m exactly getting....

On a 2012 2.3 150 comformatic 4250k Euro 5 not sure whether I have the + or not... the dash shows about 25-27mpg on an average of 57mph

Ok, I did 4492 miles on our trip and bought 639.33 litres of diesel = 140.63 gallons and by my reckoning that equates to 31.94 mpg I’m well pleased with that...

 

[Jaws]

Well I am jealous !!

We average 20.5 MPG if I keep it down to 55 MPH

Fiat 2.3 in an X250 chassis rated at 130 bh

 

[Minxy]

Well I am jealous !!

We average 20.5 MPG if I keep it down to 55 MPH

Fiat 2.3 in an X250 chassis rated at 130 bh

Well you would go and buy a big one ... serves you right!

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

 

[jezport]

Well you would go and buy a big one ... serves you right!

It's not the size. It's what you do with it.

 

[stewartwebr]

I dare not look :-(

 

[Minxy]

We've had PVCs with the 130 (2012) and 150 (2015) engines and haven't really noticed much difference in mpg, around 29-39 but hubby does like his speed and we visit lots of very, very, very hilly places and often end up at the top of winding mountain roads!

Just an update on this, hubby filled up the camper today so I was able to calculate our fuel usage for our last 6 week holiday which has come as a very pleasant surprise:

miles covered: 4972
litres used: 668.79
average miles per litre: 7.43
average miles per gallon: 33.83​

He'd previously mentioned he'd noticed it had loosened up more during the latest holiday with it being fully run in and this appears to be borne out in the mpg figure.

Well pleased!

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

 

[Just smiffy]

Just an update on this, hubby filled up the camper today so I was able to calculate our fuel usage for our last 6 week holiday which has come as a very pleasant surprise:

miles covered: 4972
litres used: 668.79
average miles per litre: 7.43
average miles per gallon: 33.83​

He'd previously mentioned he'd noticed it had loosened up more during the latest holiday with it being fully run in and this appears to be borne out in the mpg figure.

Well pleased!

Glad to see this ties up with my similar figures.... as I was doubting mine

 

[Minxy]

Glad to see this ties up with my similar figures.... as I was doubting mine

Hold fire ... I'm not totally convinced that hubby has given me the 'correct' mileage figure so I'll sneak out later and check whilst he takes the dogs for a walk and report back!

 

[Lenny HB]

Glad to see this ties up with my similar figures.... as I was doubting mine

I doubt your figurers as well.
Mel has a PVC, we get around 23 out of our A Class but hopefully should get around 25 once its done at least 10,000 miles.

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

 

[funflair]

I guess a lot of Left Hand Drive people are in the same position as us in that we fill in litres and measure distance in km, to save the long winded conversion each time to do a "brim to brim" just work it out as km/litre and then multiply by 2.815 to get MPG, it took me ages to work it out so thought I would share.

Well I am jealous !!

We average 20.5 MPG if I keep it down to 55 MPH

Fiat 2.3 in an X250 chassis rated at 130 bh

We get about the same out of a 3 litre IVECO pushing 6t and built like a brick whatsit, which suggests that the van size and weight has more of a bearing on the figures than the engine capacity and power, makes sense really as its simply work done by the fuel, the engine is just a means of converting the fuel into motive power and the size and weight of the van is the resistance or work to be done.

Martin

 

[Jaws]

I guess a lot of Left Hand Drive people are in the same position as us in that we fill in litres and measure distance in km, to save the long winded conversion each time to do a "brim to brim" just work it out as km/litre and then multiply by 2.815 to get MPG, it took me ages to work it out so thought I would share.



We get about the same out of a 3 litre IVECO pushing 6t and built like a brick whatsit, which suggests that the van size and weight has more of a bearing on the figures than the engine capacity and power, makes sense really as its simply work done by the fuel, the engine is just a means of converting the fuel into motive power and the size and weight of the van is the resistance or work to be done.

Martin

Absolutely agree... Why on earth someone thought it would be a good idea to fit a 2.3 in a 5.5 ton van is a mystery !

But a bigger mastery is why A class vans seem, in general, to do better MPG than C class's

 

[Just smiffy]

Ok, I did 4492 miles on our trip and bought 639.33 litres of diesel = 140.63 gallons and by my reckoning that equates to 31.94 mpg I’m well pleased with that...

I doubt your figurers as well.
Mel has a PVC, we get around 23 out of our A Class but hopefully should get around 25 once its done at least 10,000 miles.

Me too, a hymer 2012 b544, front as aero dynamic as Kim Kardashian’s arse.... weighing about 4000kg throughout but it was a long journey, left on a quarter of a tank from Cornwall to tunnel then down to biarritz over to Spain down the length of Portugal then along southern Spain and back up through Carcassonne to Calais. Back in Cornwall with 1/4 tank.

On board mpg was erratic for other reasons but said about an average of 27mpg, made sure I kept all receipts and recorded litres and mileage, I was very surprised by the mpg as didn’t think it would be that good..... I do drive like I’m not going anywhere though, 60 on the speedo with about 55-57 on the sat-nav... did have a few times when doing 65mph to get somewhere....

I now have around 47k on the van from 35k when bought back in March....


I do use Millers Diesel fuel additive on most fillups.....

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

 

[funflair]

But a bigger mastery is why A class vans seem, in general, to do better MPG than C class's

All down to Aerodynamics, if it is an overcab there will lots of dirty air behind it and then again lots of dirty turbulent air behind it, saying nothing of the front, an A class might be a "brick" but its a cleaner "brick"

Martin

 

[Guigsy]

All down to Aerodynamics, if it is an overcab there will lots of dirty air behind it and then again lots of dirty turbulent air behind it, saying nothing of the front, an A class might be a "brick" but its a cleaner "brick"

Martin

Aerodynamics is more to do with the shape at the back of the 'brick' than the front. Drag is less about the hole you punch in the air as the turbulent air you are creating and dragging behind you. Look at a jumbo jet with it's fairly blunt nose, yet long tapered tail. Look at recent car designs where the roof line drops (taking away rear headroom) and the sides tuck-in in an effort to reduce the dragged vortex out the back. As A classes are generally wider and taller (so a larger area out the back) I'd expect them to do worse at speed.

 

[Steve N Tracy]

All down to Aerodynamics, if it is an overcab there will lots of dirty air behind it and then again lots of dirty turbulent air behind it, saying nothing of the front, an A class might be a "brick" but its a cleaner "brick"

Martin

Not very scientific, but our cleaner brick is a very expensive fly squatter, compered to our previous coach built, so it ain't directing much air out of the way.

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

 

[funflair]

Aerodynamics is more to do with the shape at the back of the 'brick' than the front. Drag is less about the hole you punch in the air as the turbulent air you are creating and dragging behind you. Look at a jumbo jet with it's fairly blunt nose, yet long tapered tail. Look at recent car designs where the roof line drops (taking away rear headroom) and the sides tuck-in in an effort to reduce the dragged vortex out the back. As A classes are generally wider and taller (so a larger area out the back) I'd expect them to do worse at speed.

Yes indeed the “teardrop” I can’t imagine that an overcab hump followed by the the low pressure at the back is terribly aero but there again as you suggest not many vans are.

Martin

 

[Guigsy]

Yes indeed the “teardrop” I can’t imagine that an overcab hump followed by the the low pressure at the back is terribly aero but there again as you suggest not many vans are.

Martin

Yeah, an overcab hump is going to make a mess of turbulence. I think the return slope needs to be about 15 degrees maximum or you'll get air flow separation.

Interesting facts (according to my hydraulics lecturer over 20 years ago):
-Most cars up until at least the early 90s had less drag going backwards than forwards.
-Put your wedge-shaped roof box on backwards and you'll get better mpg (although everyone will think you are an idiot)
-In some cases, putting roof bars on a particularly un-aerodynamic car or van can reduce the drag as it chops the trailing vortices into smaller ones. The power they sap is proportional to their area squared, so chopping one into two will half the drag. This is what some spoilers do.

 

[funflair]

Yeah, an overcab hump is going to make a mess of turbulence. I think the return slope needs to be about 15 degrees maximum or you'll get air flow separation.

Interesting facts (according to my hydraulics lecturer over 20 years ago):
-Most cars up until at least the early 90s had less drag going backwards than forwards.
-Put your wedge-shaped roof box on backwards and you'll get better mpg (although everyone will think you are an idiot)
-In some cases, putting roof bars on a particularly un-aerodynamic car or van can reduce the drag as it chops the trailing vortices into smaller ones. The power they sap is proportional to their area squared, so chopping one into two will half the drag. This is what some spoilers do.

Are we really discussing the aerodynamics of a Motorhome it think we had better stop before we get locked up.

My brother has built this and teaching himself aero as he goes with orange wool and cameras and a bit of CFD software.

Martin

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

 

[Portland]

I notice a number of posts quoting 70+ MPH. I hope you don't do this in Spain as the limits are under3.5 56 MPH 3.5plus 62MPH and the guardia love to fine you

 

[Guigsy]

I notice a number of posts quoting 70+ MPH. I hope you don't do this in Spain as the limits are under3.5 56 MPH 3.5plus 62MPH and the guardia love to fine you

Is it really slower for lighter vehicles??!? BTW, I found an information web site that said the same thing as you... seems odd.

 

[AXO66]

Our Transit 2.2 150bhp pulling a chassauon 510 did 30.6 mpg ( according to the on board computor) on our recent 3k miles disn through france and into N Spain. Kept speed below 63mph though.

Remember from a long time ago hearing that once you hit 40 mph an most of the power is used to defeat wind resistance , not pulling the weight of the van.

And thinking about it way dont vans have spoilers on them to cause the air to fill in behind the back and reduce the low pressure there , to reduce drag .could be the next innovation, big wings on the back end.....

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