160BHP 3.0Ltr Diesel Nuevo

Curious to know if anyone here has or knows anything about the Nuevo II with the upgraded 3.0 Ltr 160BHP diesel engine, seen one for sale but not sure about fuel consumption MPG? is the standard Nuevo engine the 2.2Ltr or 2.8Ltr HDI?

2.2 is standard. Would imagine the 3ltr option would be better on fuel due to the difference in weight to power ratio and needless to say a better performance acceleration wise. You would need to check what difference if any the larger engine made to the Nuevos loading allowance.

Hi,

We have a 3.0 Ltr Nuevo ES (4 berth), but have only had it for a couple of months. It drives like a dream (but we did have a 1.9 Ltr Mobilvetta Driver 52 before as a comparison). We had a two week holiday in Exmoor and have been on several weekend trips more local in Sussex. We get around 25MPG which I think is comparable to the 2.2Ltr (but with the added advantage of plenty of power). Roli is right about loading allowance.

Looking at my handbook: for a standard 2 berth Nuevo the Mass of user payload is - 520Kg for a 2.2 Ltr and 473Kg for a 3.0 ltr.
For a 4 berth ES Nuevo the Mass of user payload is 510Kg for a 2.2Ltr and 490Kg for a 3.0 Ltr.
I don't understand why you should lose more User Payload with a standard compared with a ES!!! I presume the handbook is correct.

The handbook doesn't mention a 2.8 Ltr so not too sure if these exist!

Hope this helps.

I forgot to mention that we found a very low mileage model as it has only done 1000 miles to date. So the engine is still tight.

The 2.8 engine was never an option on the X250 models only the older Boxer based vans.

Thanks for the weight data sure others will appreciate your posting.

Regarding the ES, it may be cos as standard does that one come with a luton where as the others are low profile. The extra bodywork will reduce the loading allowance.

With a popular long running model, with a few variants it can get confusing over changes.

Yes I can understand that the Luton adds extra weight and reduces running load, but why should there be a smaller loss with an ES (2.2 compared with 3.0 ltr) to a standard (2.2 ltr compared with 3.0 ltr), confusing.

Thanks Roli & Burfy

25 mpg is a little lower than we hoped for, you say this compares with the 2.2, but I understood this could return around 28 mpg? must admit the thought of a 3Ltr lump under the bonnet appealed and the extra power would be welcome but really would like a bit more than 25 mpg which I presume is on a run?

As for the loading allowance I struggle a bit with this, does this refer to loading up your van with all your bits and pieces as you would before a trip then getting yourself weighed on a weighbridge? Is the lower loading allowance due to the weight of the bigger engine or am I way off track?

CC

Forgot to mention the model we've seen has done 49k which is a lot more than we wanted really, for a 3 yr old MH it's seen a lot of road but it is more in our price range, albeit by only around 2-3k difference for a similar model with around 10k on the clock

My ten pennies worth..... Last van was a 2.0 JTD and did 24-25 mpg on 3400 kg. Current van is 3.0 multijet on 4000 kg and does........... 24-25 mpg. There is a whole world of difference between the two, only partially explained by the X244/X250 change. 3.0 litre for me every time. These engines are designed to do monster miles so a high miler shouldn't be off-putting and may indeed be a better bet than one that is used 3 times a year

Thanks everyone for the feedback, so am I correct in thinking (from what I've read) that the 3.0Ltr returns pretty much the equivalent miles per gallon as the 2.2Ltr?? If so then surely it's a no brainer as they say Are the mpg figures quoted motorway / long run figures? any other fors or againsts I should be aware of? Servicing costs etc Still haven't got my head around this lower loading allowance can someone clarify this simply

Thanks

CC

Hi Cruizing comet,

Thinking about it, a 2.2 Ltr probably does return a better MPG then 3.0Ltr, especially if there's only two of you, but when you have the extra weight of a luton, plus the family and the extra food and clothes that entails, a dog, etc. etc. and your driving up hill, you really appreciate the 3.0ltr (and this is where the power/weight ratio would reduce the difference in fuel economy between a 2.2ltr and a 3.0ltr).

As for the Mass of User Payload - I find this to be the most useful figure of all that is quoted. It is basically the load that you can add to the van as it leaves the factory (however, a driver of 75Kg and 90% of fuel is assumed fitted as it leaves the factory, so these don't come off your Mass of User Payload).
So, my weight over 75Kg, plus my wife's, daughter's and dog's weight, personal effects, books, food, chairs, BBQ, drive away awning, LPG cylinders, bikes, water (that I have added to the freshwater tank for the journey), gadgets etc. etc. etc must not exceed the Mass of User Payload (sounds impossible doesn't it!).

To also make it a little more complicated, It is based on a standard specification for a model, so any options that have been added to the vehicle after it leaves the factory (ie. above the standard specification) will also reduce your Mass of User Payload.

For example, the mass of user payload for a standard Nuevo ES 3.0ltr is 490Kg. I had a bike rack fitted to mine and the previous owner had corner steadies fitted (approx 30Kg total). So now I have an allowance of 460Kg that I can add to the van.

Hope this hasn't made it even more confusing.

all the best,
Paul

CC, I've just read your post again, I have not actually answered your question..... oh well, might be useful for other members!
Loading allowances are based on the strength of the axles, it has nothing to do with engine power. So, the lower loading allowance is due to the extra weight of a bigger engine.
However, I am also confused about the loading allowance differences between the two Nuevo models- Based on the 2 berth Nuevo, fitting a 3.0 Ltr engine weighs 47Kg more then a 2.2 Ltr engine, but this doesn't hold true for the Nuevo ES, as the difference is 20Kg! Can someone help here!)

CruizingComet wrote:Forgot to mention the model we've seen has done 49k which is a lot more than we wanted really, for a 3 yr old MH it's seen a lot of road but it is more in our price range, albeit by only around 2-3k difference for a similar model with around 10k on the clock

I believe the extra cost for a 3.0Ltr engine over the standard 2.2Ltr was around £1500, so something to bear in mind when looking at prices.

Thanks for all the feedback burfy

Looking at prices there doesn't seem to be that much difference that jumps out between the two, we are currently looking into another which is a 2.2 MKII but guess as with most in our price range of 30k or less it will be gone when we receive a reply back! The other dilemma is we either have to sell our Trident first, or establish / negotiate what kind of trade in deal we can get for it so fun times ahead

CC

Dear cc
As I said somewhere before I get about 30 mpg from our 2.2 Lancashire, it is reasonable on hills but on this basis I wouldnt recommend the 2litre version, but the 3 litre should waltz over hills, I do suspect that the top gear is an overdrive mainly on a 2.2 for motorway & level road use the top gear on our 5 speed gives about 43 mph at 2000revs. I have heard 33mpg quoted by owners of 2.2 6speed post 2007 vehicles. 40 odd thousand miles is not high for a modern deisel they are designed to live for about 200 thousand miles.