Poor MPG

[fizzy]

Nobody only puts 1 ton on a Sprinter..

Very true. My SWB was rated at 1600kg and was quite happy with a 1500kg lathe in it.

 

[Wedg1e]

Nobody only puts 1 ton on a Sprinter..

Nobody only does 60 in one either.

 

[minimutly]

Nobody only does 60 in one either.

Are the new ones as fast as the original lwb ones - they were ton up weren’t they?

 

[fizzy]

Are the new ones as fast as the original lwb ones - they were ton up weren’t they?

Yes I could hit 100 in mine - I had several LWB and then a medium wheel base. Engine was about 140bhp.
LWB ones were RWD. Incredible turning circle but deadly in crosswinds and no traction unless heavily laden. The medium wheelbase would carry 300kg more and was FWD. Reasonable turning circle - much better than a Crafter FWD. Traction far better - even good with a lathe in the back. Nice to drive but loads of niggly problems. Like doors not working and locking you out etc

 

[8ob]

Good lorry with a good driver on a good run on a good day - is just below 10mpg on average.

8 wheelers tipping can't do this - but a big artic wagon on a good run - amazing really when you think your car is doing high MPG.

Thats about where my truck is which isnt bad.
Even a 747 at 500mph works out at 100mpg per seat, cars are pretty poor in the grand scheme of things.

Bob

 

[jimbo84]

Are the new ones as fast as the original lwb ones - they were ton up weren’t they?

Yes I could hit 100 in mine - I had several LWB and then a medium wheel base. Engine was about 140bhp.
LWB ones were RWD. Incredible turning circle but deadly in crosswinds and no traction unless heavily laden. The medium wheelbase would carry 300kg more and was FWD. Reasonable turning circle - much better than a Crafter FWD. Traction far better - even good with a lathe in the back. Nice to drive but loads of niggly problems. Like doors not working and locking you out etc

Of the earlier 2000 ones It was the five cylinder one you wanted for speed, not overly common, 160BHP, also available in the vito.

(You may already know) the first number of the 3 digits model was/is weight and the second two numbers times by 10 for BHP.

 

[Trevorleach]

I've noticed an increase in cars on the Motorway doing about 55mph, mostly sat in the middle lane. Fuel saving?

That has been going on for years, dicing with the heavies is never a good idea.

 

[Trevorleach]

0.03 litres per mile per container. This is based on the Emma Maersk which can carry 15,000 containers.
A lorry uses 4.54 litres per mile. Now these figures are based on 20ft containers but most are 40ft. So given a lorry can carry 2x 20ft we have 2.27 litres per mile.
Summing up a container ship is 75x more efficient than a lorry. Not bad! Equivalent to a lorry doing 750mpg

You are way off there with the truck mpg figures, truck running at max weight can be approx 10mpg, roughly 2 and a bit miles per litre.

 

[fizzy]

You are way off there with the truck mpg figures, truck running at max weight can be approx 10mpg, roughly 2 and a bit miles per litre.

I put the point in the wrong place. Already corrected.

 

[Guineafowl]

^ Obviously a fertile subject.

So, it looks like there’s likely nothing wrong with the V40 (although I’ll check plugs/general stuff as advised), just a petrol auto not doing well with short/variable speed journeys. Overall running should be cheaper, though.

 

[Trevorleach]

I put the point in the wrong place. Already corrected.

How does that point now adjusted effect the final comparison figures ship to trucks?

 

[fizzy]

^ Obviously a fertile subject.

So, it looks like there’s likely nothing wrong with the V40 (although I’ll check plugs/general stuff as advised), just a petrol auto not doing well with short/variable speed journeys. Overall running should be cheaper, though.

I find most autos are probably about 4 to 8 mpg worse than manuals.
I generally prefer a manual. My new Ford Ranger is doing 28.4mpg average. I bet I could get about 34 with the manual.

 

[8ob]

^ Obviously a fertile subject.

So, it looks like there’s likely nothing wrong with the V40 (although I’ll check plugs/general stuff as advised), just a petrol auto not doing well with short/variable speed journeys. Overall running should be cheaper, though.

Lots of variables and driving styles, I knew of a guy that could eek out 30mpg from a v8 petrol range rover, he was happy trollying along with the trucks on the motorway.

Bob

 

[fizzy]

How does that point now adjusted effect the final comparison figures ship to trucks?

Ships about 8x more efficient. Having said that lorries don't always carry a 40ft container. You often see a single 20. In that case I would say perhaps 10 to 12x better efficiency from the ship.

 

[Robotstar5]

Lots of variables and driving styles, I knew of a guy that could eek out 30mpg from a v8 petrol range rover, he was happy trollying along with the trucks on the motorway.

Bob

I used to sit around 55 mph in my V8 RR as that gave the best economy, but when doing recovery on the RAC rally we were given Shell fuel cards so I could cane it
I was once pottering down a hill on the motorway at economy speed when a 2 CV started to overtake, we hit the dip and started up the other side, I maintained my steady 55 and he dropped back.

 

[fizzy]

I used to sit around 55 mph in my V8 RR as that gave the best economy, but when doing recovery on the RAC rally we were given Shell fuel cards so I could cane it
I was once pottering down a hill on the motorway at economy speed when a 2 CV started to overtake, we hit the dip and started up the other side, I maintained my steady 55 and he dropped back.

I would fall asleep at that speed!
One thing I like about the Ford Ranger. The first 2 weeks I drove it gently and really made an effort. It was actually worse on fuel - so now I drive it like I stole it and get 28.4 mpg. No need to feel guilty

 

[Trevorleach]

Ships about 8x more efficient. Having said that lorries don't always carry a 40ft container. You often see a single 20. In that case I would say perhaps 10 to 12x better efficiency from the ship.

It is not always about the length with trucks, ie a 20 and a 40ft can weigh the same amount.
Plus no ship is ever going to be at 100 percent capacity 100 percent of the time, with a clean hull and the right weather for max fuel efficiency, same as no truck will be 100 loaded 100 percent of the time , add in under inflated tyres/binding brakes plus the weather.

 

[Pigeon_Droppings2]

I've been doing a lot of driving the last 18 months....mainly up/down the A1...I've also noticed the drop in speeds with lots of people sticking to 65mph-70mph.

I was wondering whether it's fuel costs AND maybe insurance costs too...points really increase the premiums I was thinking?

 

[fizzy]

It is not always about the length with trucks, ie a 20 and a 40ft can weigh the same amount.
Plus no ship is ever going to be at 100 percent capacity 100 percent of the time, with a clean hull and the right weather for max fuel efficiency, same as no truck will be 100 loaded 100 percent of the time , add in under inflated tyres/binding brakes plus the weather.

I know a 20 foot will carry more weight than a 40 foot. My point was container ship capacity is measured in 20 footers - but lorries can carry a 40 footer. Obviously many variables - both for the lorries and ships. A guesstimate is the best that can be done but I reckon around 10x would be fairly close.
Of course there are other variables as well. To carry 15,000 containers the ship has a crew of about 15. You would need at least 7,500 lorry drivers

 

[Trevorleach]

You would need at least 7,500 lorry drivers

Nah flip flops would do that with 10 drivers in one weekend