2.3 Versus 3.0 Fuel Consumption (1 Viewer)

[irnbru]

When we were in Europe last year going around in 2 mhs. Alan is slightly shorter with a 3ltr engine. Ours has a 2.3 and Alan took a few euros less each time to fill.
.

 

[rb62]

When we were in Europe last year going around in 2 mhs. Alan is slightly shorter with a 3ltr engine. Ours has a 2.3 and Alan took a few euros less each time to fill.
.

I take it you mean his van!

 

[Lenny HB]

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

Depreciation is negligible compared to a car, my last van depreciate at 5% a year compared to the car at 20%.
Will agree fuel is ilrelavant compared to cost of the van.

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

 

[John & Joan]

This will be a bit of an academic question shortly as Fiat have announced they will be ceasing production of the 3 litre

 

[G7UXG]

I've had three motorhomes.

• First, 4250kg Autotrail with 2.3L 130BHP, manual. Adequate power (it never failed to get me anywhere I wanted to go) and around 26-27 to a gallon over 17000 miles
• Second, 4250kg Autotrail 3.0L 180BHP, Comfortmatic. Fantastic power and gearbox and around 24-25mph over 14000 miles
• Third (and current), 4250kg Hymer 'A' class, 3.0L 180BHP, Manual. Fantastic power. 25-26mpg over 10000 miles.

I keep a record of my vehicle costs on an app and all of the fuel consumption figures are based on actual fuel purchased, not the dashboard computer. On the odd tank full I've got 27-28 out of the 3 litres but only after driving very carefully. Give it some stick on the motorway and it'll drop to low 20s. Having weighed my vans on a few occasions I generally run at about 4100kg - 4200kg.

I'd choose the 3 litre every time for the sheer pleasure and comfort compared to the 2.3 litre. That's not to say the 2.3 is poor; it's not, but the 3 litre is so much better. You will never run out of power. It's no race car but that's not what it's all about is it? It's just more 'muscular' and the fuel consumption difference is negligible.

As for Comfortmatic, I'd choose that every time. The only reason my current one isn't Comfortmatic is because I bought it second hand and there were so many other good things about the motorhome that I compromised on the gearbox.

Mike.

 

[Lenny HB]

This will be a bit of an academic question shortly as Fiat have announced they will be ceasing production of the 3 litre

Already dropped from manufacturers latest price lists, replaced with a 2.3 of the same power and torque as the 3 Lt.

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

 

[pyro]

When it comes to the rumour mill, Fiat/Peugeot are right up there with Apple and Google over hyping how great their future products will be, and how there's a better/newer/more powerful/more "environmentally sensitive" model on the cusp of release rather than see users rush out to get their vehicles chipped.

We don't expect huge mileage on our 2.3 (130) van, and the 60Kg additional capacity is far more useful to us on our kind of journeys than the ability to race lorries up hills. Frankly, I didn't really expect a "car-like" experience in what is, after all, a pimped up commercial vehicle, we're in no hurry.

 

[peterc10]

Our previous motorhome was a 2.3L 130hp C class lowline with manual gearbox and weighed in loaded close to its 3,500kg limit Our new one is a bigger 3L A class with the comformatic gearbox which weighs in at about 4,300 kg when loaded. I record actual litres used and miles driven to get mpg rather than rely upon the figures from the on-board computer.

We averaged 26.0 mpg on the old one over the 8,000 miles I recorded the figures. With the new one so far we have averaged 24.6 mpg over 4,000 miles. I think most of the difference of 1.4 mpg is probably down to the 800kg of additional weight that is being carried, along with the larger wind resistance of the bigger motorhome.

However I have found that the combination or 3l engine and auto gearbox gives a much better driving experience - so much more relaxing and enables me to pootle along using lower revs.

So in answer to the OP's original question I do not think you will find much difference in fuel consumption between the two and even if it is slightly more thirsty it is worth it for the better driving experience. I have not regretted for a minute getting the bigger engine.

 

[My Dog Likes Fishing]

I have a 2.3 130 Bhp Euro 5 that's s couple of months old. I came from an 8 year old 2.8 gtd and the difference is unbelievable. It feels like I'm driving a car now with plenty of power and it's really smooth. I tow a Smart car sometimes and can set the cruise control at 60 with no problems at all.

According to the trip computer I've been getting around 25 to the gallon. Haven't checked it but it seems about right. Didn't but it for economy though. Being as we fill the garage to its full potential I'm really pleased with the performance.

I've never driven a new 3 ltr so I can't compare it but I am really impressed with the new smaller engines.

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

 

[Reallyretired]

I have a 3.0l Mercedes A class at 4000kg and get about 26mpg, however the computer only makes it about 23mpg so they aren't always optimistic.

 

[RidersofRohan]

So in summary, size doesn't matter but BIG is Better.

 

[martin2603]

I achieved 26.00mpg on our trip to Spain and France in March/April, last weekend towing the i10 24.5,
5ton gross although not up to weight last weekend. 3.00 litre @190bhp . At 2200rpm I would probably be doing in excess of 70mph !! Just rest the right foot gently on the pedal.

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

 

[Phillybarbour]

One of the big commercial vehicle magazines ran tests on this in the same size and same weight vehicles side by side. Result was less than 1 mpg difference with all drivers saying the bigger engine was so much easier due to much less gear changing due to significantly more torque.

I've had both and much prefer the 3 litre. Having said that the 3 litre is no longer from 2017 spec vehicles, it's replaced with a bigger out put 2.3.

 

[peterc10]

One more thing going for the 3l engine over its 2.3l alternative is that it has a timing chain rather than a timing belt on the 2.3l which has to be changed every 5 years. That is what I had to do on my previous motorhome and I will not miss that expense on my new one. I suspect that saving alone will more than make up for the cost of the slightly lower mpg over that period.

 

[wiljoy]

I've a 2.3 Fiat pushing 150 bhp and 4.25 ton pulling a scooter with crossover trailer I was achieving 26mpg. We're in France now and have travelled 650 miles down to the loire area. For this trip we are pulling a Smart on a trailer so with the total combination we are over 5 tons. To my delight our overall consumption is a very healthy 27.5 mpg.

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

 

[tonyidle]

It takes the same amount of fuel to push it through the air & uphill no matter which engine it has. Smaller engines tend to be more efficient in stop start motoring but once on the motorway there'll be little if any difference. If the bigger engine holds a high gear better than the small one it might even be more economical on longer runs.

 

[pyro]

Just to update on previous posting, we have only just returned (by air) from a 850 road mile trip in our new Chausson 515 (low profile, 6M, Euro 5 130 2.3L, manual 6 gear, Ducato base). Close on 3500, no trailer. The 90 miles to Portsmouth worked out at a tad below 33mpg, 410 miles Santander - Guarda (Portuguese border, with detours) saw a tad below 28 mpg, and from there to Lisbon (around 250 miles to destination) a tad below 29

So far, very pleased with performance and fuel consumption, but no experience with others.