My new motorhome

I took my first trip down to Norfolk last week to try out my new Carioca 694 and it run like a dream with no reversing problems and is a dream to be in.

The only problem is fuel consumption I know it will get better but I still had a bit of a shock I started off with a full tank and filled it up when I got home I put in just over 75lt at a cost of just under a stonking £103 and I did four hundred and 81 miles can anyone console me and tell me it will get better I know it was only the first trip out but I hope it does better next time most of the time it was on cruse control doing 55mph on the M6 and the A14 I expected at least 28/29mpg

Hi

 

Not sure about what you are saying because 75 litres is roughly 16.5 gallons. 481 miles for 16.5 gallons is about 29 mpg.

 

I've just sold a Rollerteam 694 on a 130 bhp Fiat.

 

Before the gearbox judder was done I could just get 27 to 28 mpg. After judder done the best was 25 to 26 with 11K miles covered.

 

I doubt you will improve much on last weekend.

 

Dave

I make that 29.15 mpg, so a good estimate. Glad you enjoyed your first outing.

Hi Gdf. Am I missing something? I thought the retro mods only altered the reverse gear ratio and not the forward or final drive ratios. So should not the fuel consumption be the same unless yoy are doing mileage in reverse now that it works??!!

Sorry folks I have got my figures wrong I ended up with 22 gallon and 22mpg thanks for the replys though (lol)

Your tank takes 22 gallons?

We have a Chausson on a Transit body. On the first outing I was shocked when we only got 25mpg. We have now done just under 2k miles and we are getting 29mpg. This drops to about 27mpg up and down the box in Cornwall with the hills.

Have had 31mpg but with a following wind. I was rather surprised the effect the wind had on a low profile and this could drop consumption by 2mpg even doing 58mph on cruise. B-)

fiat 2.3 x250 16000 miles on clock with cruise control set at65mph on our run to peterbrough show last week  on A1 van achieved 30.7mpg the was fully loaded.when van was new 22 to 24 mpg was the norm    

Don't dispair Micky

 

It will improve when it gets a few k-miles on it.

But don't rely on the Speedo trip mpg figure, it's hopeless IMO as ours regularly show >30mpg & occasionally as high as 34mpg.

 

Consumption will vary depending on conditions.

Last year one trip down to Southampton - 240miles our actual trip mpg was 28.27. Return journey with strong head wind we were down to 23.51 mpg, although same route & travelling time variance was less than 5minutes..

 

Currently we are getting between 28 to 31mpg with our 2.2 litre 5 speed, so I expect your 2.3 litre 6 speed will be similar eventually.

 

 

JamesFrance - 2011-04-19 6:58 PM

 

Your tank takes 22 gallons?

 

A X250 with long range tanks, such as ours, has 120l(26gal) capacity. It's the first vehicle that I will proboly not be filling tank fully except on very long trips.

Getting the right figures now.

 

I started with a full tank and did 481 miles that is where I got 22mpg am I still wrong or is this bad for the first trip in a new vehicle it does not sound much.

 

Sorry I did not notice replys before I posted this one thanks one and all.

 

Mike

So if you refilled then with 75 litres as you said, you got your 29 mpg.

I also believed that final drive ratio was not altered in the mod but..... the fuel consumption got worse because I needed more revs for the same speed going forwards. When I brought this up on a forum other people had found the same thing.

 

Dave

gdf - 2011-04-21 7:56 AM

 

I also believed that final drive ratio was not altered in the mod but..... the fuel consumption got worse because I needed more revs for the same speed going forwards. When I brought this up on a forum other people had found the same thing.

 

Dave

 

Sorry, I'm confused.

 

If the final drive ratio was not altered, how can it possibly need more revs for the same forwards speed?

 

Surely, all the relations between engine revolutions and road wheel revolutions are fixed in each gear.

 

 

 

 

It might be that because of some combination of changes in drag/wind resistance, weight, tyre pressures/ rolling road resistance, air-con operation et al, your vehicle is harder to push along.

 

But in simple terms, the way that it delivers that extra effort is that the ECU is telling the fuel injectors to squirt a bit more fuel into each cylinder, each "bang", to make the explosion in that cylinder give more downwards pressure on each piston.

(Pedants: yes, there's the extra air and minute changes in ignition timing and EGR valve settings etc too, but let's keep it simple).

 

 

 

So I reckon it ain't more engine revolutions for any given speed (assuming you're in the same gear), it's more power to the driven wheels per revolution of the engine.

 

Hi GDF

 

My vehicle runs at 2000 revs at 55mph on the cruse how does that compare with yours

My two peneth......

 

Low profile

Ford trannie 140 bhp

60mph

2000rpm (ish)

On cruise gives 32mpg

 

Done 5000miles from new

Have seen 36mpg but you have to really try hard to attain it.

Worst I have seen is 26mpg when I was in a rush and doing 75mph

Pretty darned good I reckon ... B-)

Mickydripin - 2011-04-21 10:50 AM

 

Hi GDF

 

My vehicle runs at 2000 revs at 55mph on the cruse how does that compare with yours

 

I obviously didn't make myself clear in the earlier post but...

 

before the 'gearbox' change mine did 60mph at 2000 revs but after it was 55mph at 2000 revs which looks to me to be around a 10% change. That wasn't caused if all that was changed involved going backwards!

 

When I mentioned this to the dealer I got what I would describe as 'a knowing look'.

 

Please don't come back and post about road conditions because the van did about 5000 miles before it got the gearbox sorted and about 5000 miles afterwards.

 

Dave