Fuel consumption on a Warwick Duo

Timedout....I’m getting at best 32ish (old man driving) in my shorter Symbol with basic kit so I too would love the 35 mpg that others claim!!

jennyandpeter wrote:A car will use 20% more fuel at 70 compared to 55, With a aerodynamic brick I would imagine the difference is greater. So 26 mpg at 70 could easily become 35 at 55.

Point taken. I find it depends on where you are aiming for and if you just "amble" ok, but we go way down south to Provence and it does save an extra night stop, so as we only use campsites what we spend on fuel we save on site fee.

I know others on here think it is mad to use toll roads, but it suits us and gets us there with only 2 overnight stops, more time in the sun!
----------
Richard

Timedout wrote:Being new to running a camper are a bit disappointed with the fuel consumption. We have a 2012 Warwick Duo. This is the Boxer base with the 2.2 130bhp Ford engine and a 6 speed manual box. Over the years I have driven innumerable hired vans for moving stuff and most panel vans are reasonable on fuel. Lutons are terrible. With our Warwick we seem to be getting about 25mpg on average but under 20 in rural areas. 
I recognise that fuel consumption is a function of driving style but I am an old man and I drive like one.

Looking a posts on the forum some of you are getting figures in the high 30s . What’s going on? Is there something wrong with our van? We are not overloaded so that’s not it. I have never exceeded 65mph yet and I accelerate gently.

Is it a ford engine?
david

There is another aspect to this, so far uncommented.

You are all running around in 35k gbp + vehicle's,  mostly doing circa 5000 miles per year, and seem concerned re the comparative trivia of a few mpg????

I'm willing to bet that depreciation, annual servicing, habitation servicing, tax, mot,  breakdown insurance, etc,etc come to much more than the comparative trivia of fuel consumption!!!!!

Too true Ian

If it's any consolation, Timedout, I can assure you that the roads of Cornwall and Devon are not conducive to good MPG. We always do better when we go away, especially to East Anglia.

Mine is a totally different engine so I can’t help with figures.

rgermain wrote:

jennyandpeter wrote:A car will use 20% more fuel at 70 compared to 55, With a aerodynamic brick I would imagine the difference is greater. So 26 mpg at 70 could easily become 35 at 55.

Point taken. I find it depends on where you are aiming for and if you just "amble" ok, but we go way down south to Provence and it does save an extra night stop, so as we only use campsites what we spend on fuel we save on site fee.

I know others on here think it is mad to use toll roads, but it suits us and gets us there with only 2 overnight stops, more time in the sun!
----------
Richard

I totally get that, sometimes the destination has priority, other times the journey has it.

My youngest son got married at Malcesine castle on Lake Garda in 2014 and my priority was to get there quickly and make the most of the 8 days of celebration. Local ferry out of Newcastle then after landing at IJmuiden, it was a road trip to our one night stopover in Switzerland, before arriving at Malcesine the next day. 

When I loosely tootled round the NC500 in 2017, kayaking at several spots off the route, it was much more of a relaxed pace 

Tinwheeler wrote:If it's any consolation, Timedout, I can assure you that the roads of Cornwall and Devon are not conducive to good MPG. We always do better when we go away, especially to East Anglia.

Mine is a totally different engine so I can’t help with figures.

From considerable experience, the further you stay from either Cornwall or Devon the better things become!!!!!



6 winter months on Nimrod Ocu, if not being ripped of currently, you are just about to be!!!
Also, all roads were designed for a slim horse, usually stolen!!!!

Timedout wrote:As I explained at the outset. I do not drive hard. I use cruise control whenever suitable, drive at 60 on motorways, 50 or less on single carriageways. I usually see good consumption in our cars. I am an old man and I drive like one. A few years back I had a C220 estate. It was registered Nov 2011 which makes it contemporary with our van within a month or so. Fuelled up and loaded with the camping gear the C220 would weigh about 2000kg. Consumption on a bad day would be at least 55mpg. Ok the 7Gtronic box would change gear much more efficiently than me but there is a question I have to ask about the engine in this van. Is it just and old dog of a design? Or does it need attention? The folks with around 35Mpg are in an enviable position. If it’s possible, it’s what I want.

No Timedout, you are not driving a van with an old dog of an engine, you simply cannot compare a relatively sleek car pulling around 2 tonnes to a high top van probably closer to 3.5 tonnes and geared accordingly.Try driving an overcab motor home into a headwind and see how quickly you come to a halt if you lift off the throttle!   I have asked around my colleagues and no one gets over 30 mpg in mainly short wheel base standard roof top Transits. This is over hundreds of thousands of miles collectively. My own experience is around 27 to 29 mpg keeping up with traffic . Perhaps some do get over this but there is probably a 4 mile taleback behind them simmering and cursing 

IanH wrote:There is another aspect to this, so far uncommented.

You are all running around in 35k gbp + vehicle's,  mostly doing circa 5000 miles per year, and seem concerned re the comparative trivia of a few mpg????

I'm willing to bet that depreciation, annual servicing, habitation servicing, tax, mot,  breakdown insurance, etc,etc come to much more than the comparative trivia of fuel consumption!!!!!

With all due respect, that’s probably not the issue here.  TimedOut is probably concerned that he is only getting 25mg IF he should be getting 35mg. It’s a reasonable concern; if I was only getting 70% of the expected figure, I would want some assurance that my vehicle was not faulty. 

It’s not an absolute issue here (as in boo hoo I’m only getting 25mpg in my hugely expensive van that costs a fortune to tax, insure, store etc).  It’s a case of ‘am I only getting 25mpg because my van is foobarred.

It may well be his right foot. It may also be that cruise control is not the best fuel saving device going. It’s definitely true that you can’t compare different vehicles. But in my opinion he’s right asking the question.

IanH wrote:

Tinwheeler wrote:If it's any consolation, Timedout, I can assure you that the roads of Cornwall and Devon are not conducive to good MPG. We always do better when we go away, especially to East Anglia.

Mine is a totally different engine so I can’t help with figures.

From considerable experience, the further you stay from either Cornwall or Devon the better things become!!!!!



6 winter months on Nimrod Ocu, if not being ripped of currently, you are just about to be!!!
Also, all roads were designed for a slim horse, usually stolen!!!!

Glad to hear you’re a fan of my home county.

Rolyan wrote:

IanH wrote:There is another aspect to this, so far uncommented.

You are all running around in 35k gbp + vehicle's,  mostly doing circa 5000 miles per year, and seem concerned re the comparative trivia of a few mpg????

I'm willing to bet that depreciation, annual servicing, habitation servicing, tax, mot,  breakdown insurance, etc,etc come to much more than the comparative trivia of fuel consumption!!!!!

With all due respect, that’s probably not the issue here.  TimedOut is probably concerned that he is only getting 25mg IF he should be getting 35mg. It’s a reasonable concern; if I was only getting 70% of the expected figure, I would want some assurance that my vehicle was not faulty. 

It’s not an absolute issue here (as in boo hoo I’m only getting 25mpg in my hugely expensive van that costs a fortune to tax, insure, store etc).  It’s a case of ‘am I only getting 25mpg because my van is foobarred.

It may well be his right foot. It may also be that cruise control is not the best fuel saving device going. It’s definitely true that you can’t compare different vehicles. But in my opinion he’s right asking the question.

With all due respect in return, if the majority with similar, if not identical vehicle's are getting 27 or so mpg, then i t is very likely that is all he can expect.
My 3.25 ton housebrick is worked hard and has returned the same mpg over 2 very carefully measured years.
My 1.2 ton aerodynamic 2001 Volvo V40 has returned, petrol btw, 36mpg over the same carefully measured period.
The answers speak for themselves!!!

Tinwheeler wrote:

IanH wrote:

Tinwheeler wrote:If it's any consolation, Timedout, I can assure you that the roads of Cornwall and Devon are not conducive to good MPG. We always do better when we go away, especially to East Anglia.

Mine is a totally different engine so I can’t help with figures.

From considerable experience, the further you stay from either Cornwall or Devon the better things become!!!!!



6 winter months on Nimrod Ocu, if not being ripped of currently, you are just about to be!!!
Also, all roads were designed for a slim horse, usually stolen!!!!

Glad to hear you’re a fan of my home county.

Sorry if ofendid!

IanH wrote:

Rolyan wrote:

IanH wrote:There is another aspect to this, so far uncommented.

You are all running around in 35k gbp + vehicle's,  mostly doing circa 5000 miles per year, and seem concerned re the comparative trivia of a few mpg????

I'm willing to bet that depreciation, annual servicing, habitation servicing, tax, mot,  breakdown insurance, etc,etc come to much more than the comparative trivia of fuel consumption!!!!!

With all due respect, that’s probably not the issue here.  TimedOut is probably concerned that he is only getting 25mg IF he should be getting 35mg. It’s a reasonable concern; if I was only getting 70% of the expected figure, I would want some assurance that my vehicle was not faulty. 

It’s not an absolute issue here (as in boo hoo I’m only getting 25mpg in my hugely expensive van that costs a fortune to tax, insure, store etc).  It’s a case of ‘am I only getting 25mpg because my van is foobarred.

It may well be his right foot. It may also be that cruise control is not the best fuel saving device going. It’s definitely true that you can’t compare different vehicles. But in my opinion he’s right asking the question.

With all due respect in return, if the majority with similar, if not identical vehicle's are getting 27 or so mpg, then i t is very likely that is all he can expect.
My 3.25 ton housebrick is worked hard and has returned the same mpg over 2 very carefully measured years.
My 1.2 ton aerodynamic 2001 Volvo V40 has returned, petrol btw, 36mpg over the same carefully measured period.
The answers speak for themselves!!!

I’m not sure it’s a majority on here getting as low as you are. Even if it was, that’s a minute sample. 

The main point remains that it’s probably not the absolute value that people are concerned about, it’s how it compares to what it should be.  I think you misrepresented the concerns, when you brought ownership costs into the discussion. For example, I get between 30 to 35mpg*, measured by actual amount used against miles travelled. If it dropped to 25mpg I would want to know why. I suppose the biggest problem for TimedOut is knowing who to believe; unsurprisingly everyone thinks that their figures are correct and everyone else is wrong. You clearly think that, as do I, as do the other posters. That’s natural, but not really helpful.  But it’s the nature of forums.

*I travel extremely lightly and I’m a ‘trained’ driver; but those figures are more than possible.

Rolyan wrote:

IanH wrote:

Rolyan wrote:
With all due respect, that’s probably not the issue here.  TimedOut is probably concerned that he is only getting 25mg IF he should be getting 35mg. It’s a reasonable concern; if I was only getting 70% of the expected figure, I would want some assurance that my vehicle was not faulty. 

It’s not an absolute issue here (as in boo hoo I’m only getting 25mpg in my hugely expensive van that costs a fortune to tax, insure, store etc).  It’s a case of ‘am I only getting 25mpg because my van is foobarred.

It may well be his right foot. It may also be that cruise control is not the best fuel saving device going. It’s definitely true that you can’t compare different vehicles. But in my opinion he’s right asking the question.

With all due respect in return, if the majority with similar, if not identical vehicle's are getting 27 or so mpg, then i t is very likely that is all he can expect.
My 3.25 ton housebrick is worked hard and has returned the same mpg over 2 very carefully measured years.
My 1.2 ton aerodynamic 2001 Volvo V40 has returned, petrol btw, 36mpg over the same carefully measured period.
The answers speak for themselves!!!

I’m not sure it’s a majority on here getting as low as you are. Even if it was, that’s a minute sample. 

The main point remains that it’s probably not the absolute value that people are concerned about, it’s how it compares to what it should be.  I think you misrepresented the concerns, when you brought ownership costs into the discussion. For example, I get between 30 to 35mpg*, measured by actual amount used against miles travelled. If it dropped to 25mpg I would want to know why. I suppose the biggest problem for TimedOut is knowing who to believe; unsurprisingly everyone thinks that their figures are correct and everyone else is wrong. You clearly think that, as do I, as do the other posters. That’s natural, but not really helpful.  But it’s the nature of forums.

*I travel extremely lightly and I’m a ‘trained’ driver; but those figures are more than possible.

The reference go overall costs is irrelevant to this discussion
FACT my carefully recorded consumption over 2. Years is circa 27mpg
I am not a trained driver, I am a trained f!ight engineer and know more re fuel consumption than most.
If the poster wants unrealistic mpg, then that is his problem.

IanH wrote:

Tinwheeler wrote:

IanH wrote:
From considerable experience, the further you stay from either Cornwall or Devon the better things become!!!!!



6 winter months on Nimrod Ocu, if not being ripped of currently, you are just about to be!!!
Also, all roads were designed for a slim horse, usually stolen!!!!

Glad to hear you’re a fan of my home county.

Sorry if ofendid!

No worries.

Timedout wrote:Being new to running a camper are a bit disappointed with the fuel consumption. We have a 2012 Warwick Duo. This is the Boxer base with the 2.2 130bhp Ford engine and a 6 speed manual box. Over the years I have driven innumerable hired vans for moving stuff and most panel vans are reasonable on fuel. Lutons are terrible. With our Warwick we seem to be getting about 25mpg on average but under 20 in rural areas. 
I recognise that fuel consumption is a function of driving style but I am an old man and I drive like one.

Looking a posts on the forum some of you are getting figures in the high 30s . What’s going on? Is there something wrong with our van? We are not overloaded so that’s not it. I have never exceeded 65mph yet and I accelerate gently.

Hopefully, you’ve seen enough to help you make a decision.

The figures reported on this thread (for the Duo) are:

Paul 35
Richard 27
Jenny and Peter 37
Hat 30
Roll 33
Ian 27
Wigley 34
Burlington 31
Rolyan 33

That very small sample of the Duo population gives an average of 32, with the minimum at 27 and the maximum at 37.  32+/-5.  Which is pretty near the previous thread recalled by Biker which he believes was about 30mpg average of the Peugeot boxer.

So if you accept that mpg is a function of the weight, the weather, the loading, the tyre pressures, the driving style, the outside temperature, the passengers, the fuel carried, the water carried, the road type, the road condition, the distance travelled, the time of day etc etc etc, your figure of 27mpg falls within the reported 32+/-5.  It’s at the lower end, but certainly possible, and suggests that it could be improved.

Hopefully that should put your mind at ease re anything being wrong, and encourage you to try different things to see if it makes a difference.

That has to be a positive result, surely, and shows the benefit of this forum.

PS. Any errors in the above are purely mine, trying to make notes at the same time as I make tea!

I did a run today which I hope to show you can prove any thing with figures, these results by the way are totally useless but here goes.

Total miles to Hayling beach and return   13 miles, avg. fuel 28.5 mpg, avg. speed 21mph.

Speed limits 30/40 all the way.

At that speed it would take us 37 hours to get to Provence, just to save some fuel? just time to turn back.

These figures are what I usually get when driving up to 70 mph, 27 mpg at best.

I do follow other advice on here, 20mph 2nd, 30mph 3rd etc.--6th 60+

These figures have not changed since I bought the van with 30 miles on the clock.

This should open a can of worms.
----------
Richard

One thing that makes a difference is that we tend only to use our van for long runs and tend not to carry water in the tanks.

jennyandpeter wrote:One thing that makes a difference is that we tend only to use our van for long runs and tend not to carry water in the tanks.

So you reduced your weight by 67kg, 0.02% of your 3250,or so kg!
Don't think that'll be significant!!

Frankly don't think its ever done 37mpg, unless on a trailer!!!!

Couldn't possibly be different driving styles, could it.  Just because you've never achieved such figures doesn't mean they aren't attainable. No need to infer that those that can achieve them are liars.

Unfair Paul
Never inferred any were liars.
Look at the figures, no way any Duo could ever achieve 37mpg.
They even said it was from the trip computer
Not remotely possible IMHO!!!!

Timedout- and Dbvwt have already said that the trip computers are surprisingly accurate compared to brim to brim calculations. What does your trip computer say Ian compared to your brim to brim accurate calculations?

IanH wrote:
Look at the figures, no way any Duo could ever achieve 37mpg.
They even said it was from the trip computer
Not remotely possible IMHO!!!!

Peugeots own figures are in the high 40's so it must be possible at least theoretically.

32mpg against actual of 27.6
Surprisingly Volvo car one is more or less accurate, but then it's a Volvo!