# Improve your MPG



## RUBY 2 (Jul 9, 2012)

I recently aquired a Swift Motorhome 2.3ltr 130 BHP doing an average 32.2 MPG, which was pretty good but after fitting the Turbotune dt from my previous Motorhome (Trigano Tribute 2.2ltr 100BHP averaging 40MPG)and having it modified for the new vehicle by sending it back to Easy Tune at Ashington along with £29 (it took 3 Days, Congratulations to Easy Tune) fitted it for our 2 weeks holiday and am now getting 38MPG.

a very satisfied Customer.


----------



## Firefox (Jul 9, 2012)

The figures quoted seem exceptional as an average for the engines quoted. I'm assuming "average" would include a percentage of urban cycle driving. Are you practicing economy driving on level motorways only? 

Welcome to the forum by the way


----------



## Byronic (Jul 9, 2012)

Wow, that's unbelievable don't hesitate, contact the van engine maker ( andEasy Tune), you could be in for millions,


----------



## Steeveboy (Jul 9, 2012)

*Good mileage*

Wow! These are good figures and as you say may well be right. Wish I could get the same. 
However; what I am interested in is how you calculate your figures. The only accurate way I have found of getting MPG figures for my Rapido on a 316 Merc (25.5 mpg) is to consistently fill tank to first 'click off' of the pump and then divide Mileage since last fill up by the litres of fuel bought. I do that on a regular basis and do not take any notice of the figures it gives me until after 3 or 4 months which then gives a good overall figure for general use.
I guess I wondering if your calculations follow a similar pattern?
Meanwhile - Happy motorhoming.
Steve


----------



## al n sal (Jul 9, 2012)

that's how I calculate mine, keep hoping it will get better but Noooo,


----------



## ellisboy (Jul 9, 2012)

:welcome: Sounds good!


----------



## m30 (Jul 9, 2012)

I have a tuning box on both my 07 Ducato 2.3 120 work van, and our Eura Mobil which is also 2.3 but 130 bhp. They both give read outs on the dash which are usually about 4-5 mpg hicher than I'm actually getting. I put this down to the fact that the ecu opens the injector for a pre set time thinking the amount of fuel injected is x, when due to the increased fuel pressure actually delivers x + some more.
This adds up to an even more inacurate mpg readout. As posted above you have to do brim fill to brim fill checks.

Stu


----------



## Makzine (Jul 9, 2012)

I thought our Hymer was doing exeption milage when we brought her only to discover that the speedo had been changed to mph but the odometer (numbers) was still in kph :mad1:


----------



## jovik (Jul 9, 2012)

*mpg*

:wave::wave::wave::wave:





RUBY 2 said:


> I recently aquired a Swift Motorhome 2.3ltr 130 BHP doing an average 32.2 MPG, which was pretty good but after fitting the Turbotune dt from my previous Motorhome (Trigano Tribute 2.2ltr 100BHP averaging 40MPG)and having it modified for the new vehicle by sending it back to Easy Tune at Ashington along with £29 (it took 3 Days, Congratulations to Easy Tune) fitted it for our 2 weeks holiday and am now getting 38MPG.
> 
> a very satisfied Customer.



i have recentley come back from touring ireland north and south i have bessacar e765 2.8 diesel and topped up to the second klick every fillup i did about 2000mls i divided the litres by4.5 to get gallons and averaged 27 to the gallon   there was not much motorway driving but i did drive with economy in mind very pleased by the way i have not got a tuner fitted:wave::wave::wave::wave::wave::wave::wave:


----------



## RUBY 2 (Jul 11, 2012)

*Re Mileage Report*

I have read all of your comments out there, in answer:- the first check without the Turbotune fitted was was about a 755 mile round trip from Teeside to the Big Session in Derbyshire then down to the English/Welsh border and on to the Gower Peninsular, the return journey was via Warwick and home  (32.2 MPG).
 Yes the MPG average was taken off the onboard computer but so was the next one with the Turbotune fitted,about 160 miles, a journey from Teeside to Settle in the Yorkshire Dales (A19-A1-A59-A65) and on to RibbleHead Viaduct via Horton in Ribblesdale, returning via B6255-A684-A19 (38.0 MPG). sorry the supplier was actually called "Energy Tune" from Ashington.


----------



## Guernsey Donkey (Jul 24, 2012)

HiRuby2 Welcome to the site.


----------



## locksmith (Jul 24, 2012)

*They do work*

I had a similar box fitted on my Autotrail Cheyenne 696G with a fiat 2.8 engine, I decided to try it out over a 32 mile distance along the A14 Dual Carriageway as I was not convinced it would work, I waited till 8pm on a Saturday night when the road was quiet and went to asda filled the tank up to the first click then drove from there to the next town 16 miles away and back without the box of tricks on, I then refilled again and it cost £5.98 to the first click I put the box of tricks on and repeated the drive at the same speed and back to asda and topped up again to the first Click and it came to £4.93 a difference of £1.05 it was enough to convince me, I have now put one on my company VW T5 Transporter 2.5 and the difference is amazing. less gear changing more power.


..:drive:

Oh! Sorry, and very big welcome to RUBY 2


----------



## dave docwra (Jul 24, 2012)

Sorry, have to ask what doe's the box do to achieve these results, i.e electronically? why have none of the vehicle manufactures used them to increase their vehicle fuel consumption & power/torque? Why do the government not offer a tax break so we can save the planet by fitting one, why do companies like DHL, Fedex & Eddie Stobart & others not use them? lots of questions but I have never found a good answers to any of them..

Dave.


----------



## locksmith (Jul 24, 2012)

dave docwra said:


> Sorry, have to ask what doe's the box do to achieve these results, i.e electronically? why have none of the vehicle manufactures used them to increase their vehicle fuel consumption & power/torque? Why do the government not offer a tax break so we can save the planet by fitting one, why do companies like DHL, Fedex & Eddie Stobart & others not use them? lots of questions but I have never found a good answers to any of them..
> 
> Dave.



That's a very good question! and they should be asked why ?..... I do know our local Taxi drivers use them, you should try one .....


----------



## locksmith (Jul 24, 2012)

dave docwra said:


> Sorry, have to ask what doe's the box do to achieve these results, i.e electronically? why have none of the vehicle manufactures used them to increase their vehicle fuel consumption & power/torque? Why do the government not offer a tax break so we can save the planet by fitting one, why do companies like DHL, Fedex & Eddie Stobart & others not use them? lots of questions but I have never found a good answers to any of them..
> 
> Dave.



We have found the power is increased and fuel consumption (decreases) not as Dave has mentioned.


----------



## dave docwra (Jul 24, 2012)

I did try one, but admittedly it was a few years ago, all it appeared to do was change the signal from the MAF, gave some extra power a slight diesel knock at 1500 revs & consumed more fuel, they may have moved on since then, if someone wants to send me a free one I will evaluate & report back, obviously after checking that it would not affect any future warranty claim.

Dave..


----------



## dave docwra (Jul 24, 2012)

locksmith said:


> We have found the power is increased and fuel consumption (decreases) not as Dave has mentioned.



Sorry badly written, I meant Increase as in more miles per gallon.

Dave.


----------



## iceman1956 (Jul 24, 2012)

Hi Ruby2 & :welcome:

I bought my Ci with a 2.8jtd and my first major trip was to the west coast of Scotland, total mileage that week was just under 1000 miles average over the week 25.4MPG, what I found was that I could never get into 5th gear as it seemed to be under powered as I only travel at 60,mph on the motorways. So I had the engine remapped and was asked what I wanted power or economy, naturally I want the economy. 

Having now completed a few trip out since the remap and with a mixture of motorway and urban, I can say that whilst I have seen about 3MPG increase so I am now getting approx 28 to the gallon. The vehicle is definitely more responsive and it cruises quit nicely in 5th gear now on the motorway at 60MPH.

We also did the same on 3 Renault Traffic 115 Sports and they have shown a similar increase.

Why does it work ?? I have no idea all I know is that it does. But it does matter how you drive them if you have a heavy foot you will not see any improvement .


----------



## Tony Lee (Jul 25, 2012)

Hang on!!

If this had been the OP's tenth post, or better, his hundredth post or even much more credibly, his thousandth post THEN it could be taken as being a genuine  private post by a genuine motorhomer.

BUT it is the first post and is nothing more than an unsubstantiated glowing reference for a commercial enterprise.

Could it be that the post is merely commercial spam dressed up as a proper post.

-------------
Car manufacturers spend billions trying to comply with government-mandated economy and emission targets yet in this topic are incredible claims that bolting on a $29.95 gismo can exceed everyone's wildest expectations in one easy step.

"I had a similar box fitted on my Autotrail Cheyenne 696G with a fiat 2.8 engine, I decided to try it out over a 32 mile distance along the A14 Dual Carriageway as I was not convinced it would work, I waited till 8pm on a Saturday night when the road was quiet and went to asda filled the tank up to the first click then drove from there to the next town 16 miles away and back without the box of tricks on, I then refilled again and it cost £5.98 to the first click I put the box of tricks on and repeated the drive at the same speed and back to asda and topped up again to the first Click and it came to £4.93 a difference of £1.05 it was enough to convince me, I have now put one on my company VW T5 Transporter 2.5 and the difference is amazing. less gear changing more power."

I recognise that irony and sarcasm are extremely good ways to point out the absurdity of claims regarding fuel consumption and power claims, and this effort from Locksmith was indeed one of the best spoofs on the topic so far, but I suspect this excellent offering might be a bit subtle for many and they might think it genuine and rush out and buy one.


----------



## locksmith (Jul 25, 2012)

I see where your coming from Tony .......:nospam:


----------



## Tony Lee (Jul 25, 2012)

Sorry Locksmith - my unbounded scepticism concerning vehicle 'enhancements" sometimes gets away from me.

My mentor in this state of mind is a bloke called Tony, apparently a professional in this field and I think his whole web site should be mandatory reading for anyone claiming magic improvements. 
First page has a good summary - Fuel saving gadgets - a professional engineer's view including



> The essential requirements to prove a fuel "saving" device works are:
> 
> rolling-road tests, over standard cold-start cycles such as the FTP75 (US) or ECE+EUDC (Europe)
> a test car (preferably two) that is reasonably modern, and in good condition (emissions and economy in line with when it was new)
> ...



so in the test Locksmith ran, if he performed a third run without the gisma and the first and third results were within a few percent, then I would be inclined to think the device was worth looking at more closely. That would mean running the same three tests the next day with a different driver and then running a series of tests where the driver wasn't told whether the device was installed or not.

Ideally such tests can only be run on a fully equipped dynamometer where specific load and speed profiles can be run under computer control and fuel use measured to the last drop using laboratory-grade instrumentation. 

Tony also claims


> Fuel "saving" gadgets
> 
> I have worked in the car industry for over fifteen years, everything from development of novel fuel-efficient engines to mapping of production vehicles. In that time I've seen dozens if not hundreds of supposed "fuel saving devices" advertised. Without exception, I advise you not to buy them! Over and over again, a company starts selling a "miracle" fuel-saving product, which of course is supposedly revolutionary and different to every other product that's been offered in the past; over and over again, the product turns out to be bogus and buyers lose thousands (or even millions) of pounds / dollars. To the best of my knowledge, no "add-on" fuel economy device or product has ever demonstrated worthwhile savings, yet new ones are always being introduced to the market, and uninformed customers are easily taken in by the claims and marketing "hype".
> 
> ...



However, his page on chipping Fuel saving - a professional engineer's view does concede that chipping can result in a boost or an increase in economy,





> Adding 10 or 20% more torque / power to a turbocharged engine (petrol or diesel) is relatively simple, and there is no question that these upgrades do approximately what they say. As a result, the engine may be able to cope with a particular driving situation in a gear one higher than is normal (say fourth rather than third). This means the engine runs more slowly, and so there is less power wasted in friction. The principle of using very "tall" gearing for better economy is well understood and indeed can be seen in many of today's 6-speed vehicles.
> 
> Generally the engine's combustion efficiency will be worse at full power, since both petrol and diesel engines "over-fuel" to some extent at full load and so some fuel is wasted. But the friction reduction effect will normally more than compensate for this and so overall the economy will be better.
> 
> Performance "chipping" is the one "bolt-on" device that really can improve fuel consumption, which is ironic since it is almost never marketed in this way! Having said that, I would not recommend anybody to go down this route - certainly not if your aim is to save fuel, and not generally either, for a number of reasons.


 but even then he claims that the actual or potential cost is too great to even consider it 





> Firstly, safety. The companies making these upgrade chips are undoubtedly clever and resourceful, and in some ways I admire them. But they don't have full knowledge of the detailed operation of the software in the ECU, so there is a risk that the changes they make may cause unexpected behaviour in certain rare fault conditions. With a modern "drive-by-wire" engine, there is then a chance of uncontrolled acceleration! Having said that, the risk is extremely small, is theoretical rather than actually having been observed, and any reasonably alert driver could easily take "avoiding" action such as pressing the clutch.
> 
> Secondly, emissions. Smoke (diesel) and CO (petrol) emissions inevitably increase when an engine is worked harder. Admittedly this performance will only rarely be used, but if environment-friendliness is your main concern then performance chips should be avoided. (Also, it appears that some unscrupulous "chipping" companies disable the EGR valve on diesels, which gives a modest economy and smoke benefit but hugely increases NOx emissions.)
> 
> ...


----------



## Northerner (Jul 25, 2012)

There is no doubt that many people who buy the latest fuel saving gizmo will increase their mpg. A pal of mine was once talked into selling some magnetic device that went around the fuel line and did some wizardry with the ions or something and was guaranteed to give you 15% more mpg.

The problem was that the increased mpg lasted about a fortnight! And the reason of course is that no one likes to think that he's made an unwise choice and he wants it to work. So either consciously or even sub-consciously, he drives much more carefully and with a lighter foot. But this lasts a few days and then it's back to normal. Few of these people have the nous or the interest in doing any kind of real before-and-after comparison.

What does seem to work is the chipping route, as has been mentioned. My partner had a Mercedes S320 diesel chipped by a specialist and he tells me that the the power increase is genuine. Of course the question always asked is: "If this chipping is so good, why don't manufacturers do it to all their cars?"

It was explained to him thus: Manufacturers, when setting an engine's parameters must assume the worst, in that it may not be serviced regularly, or it many be run on cheap fuel, so they set things with this in mind. If you know that your engine is regularly serviced and you won't be filling it up in the Congo there is no problem in tweaking the engine to give an increase in output.


----------



## BambiOwner (Jul 25, 2012)

Last year we brought a Autocruise Starspirit and we were told that the MPG should be about 30mpg but to be honest I do not care not that I am rich or any thing I have always been a beliver in if you can afford the vehicle you can afford to run it and if this changed I would get rid. We get out and about a lot and all I care about is that the van does not break down plus I have never been bothered to check the petrol consumption I just fill up have a little moan and then drive away to my destination.


----------



## Northerner (Jul 25, 2012)

BambiOwner said:


> Last year we brought a Autocruise Starspirit and we were told that the MPG should be about 30mpg but to be honest I do not care not that I am rich or any thing I have always been a beliver in if you can afford the vehicle you can afford to run it and if this changed I would get rid. We get out and about a lot and all I care about is that the van does not break down plus I have never been bothered to check the petrol consumption I just fill up have a little moan and then drive away to my destination.



What a sensible person! That's what I do. I drive it a whatever speed I find comfortable and fill it up when it needs it. It amuses me when I see posts from people who are deciding between two or three different 'vans and worry which one gives a couple of miles per gallon extra.

Fuel consumption for the average motorhomer is a small proportion of the real killer costs, which are: loss of interest on capital, depreciation, insurance, road tax, tyres and servicing. Never ever let mpg override your choice of 'van if the layout etc. that you really prefer does a bit less mpg. Choose the 'van that you really like and stop worrying about two or three hundred pounds a year, which is what the difference is between 25 and 30 mpg for the typical motorhomer doing five to seven thousand miles a year in the typical 'van.

Very big 'vans and high mileages excepted of course, just in case anyone wants to pick me up on this. I'm talking about the average recreational motorhomer.


----------



## mark61 (Jul 25, 2012)

Northerner said:


> What a sensible person! That's what I do. I drive it a whatever speed I find comfortable and fill it up when it needs it. It amuses me when I see posts from people who are deciding between two or three different 'vans and worry which one gives a couple of miles per gallon extra.
> 
> Fuel consumption for the average motorhomer is a small proportion of the real killer costs, which are: loss of interest on capital, depreciation, insurance, road tax, tyres and servicing. Never ever let mpg override your choice of 'van if the layout etc. that you really prefer does a bit less mpg. Choose the 'van that you really like and stop worrying about two or three hundred pounds a year, which is what the difference is between 25 and 30 mpg for the typical motorhomer doing five to seven thousand miles a year in the typical 'van.
> 
> Very big 'vans and high mileages excepted of course, just in case anyone wants to pick me up on this. I'm talking about the average recreational motorhomer.



Pretty much the way I look at it too. 
I don't have to try too hard to get mine down to 17 mpg, 14 mpg with a trailer, (not in the UK of course. ) on a long trip filling up twice a day does make me wonder though. Not for long mind.  lol.


----------



## Tony Lee (Jul 26, 2012)

Your fuel consumption figures are to envy compared to my BigRig which gets 6.7mpg  -- 2.3km/Litre


----------



## Deleted member 2636 (Jul 26, 2012)

locksmith said:


> I had a similar box fitted on my Autotrail Cheyenne 696G with a fiat 2.8 engine, I decided to try it out over a 32 mile distance along the A14 Dual Carriageway as I was not convinced it would work, I waited till 8pm on a Saturday night when the road was quiet and went to asda filled the tank up to the first click then drove from there to the next town 16 miles away and back without the box of tricks on, I then refilled again and it cost £5.98 to the first click I put the box of tricks on and repeated the drive at the same speed and back to asda and topped up again to the first Click and it came to £4.93 a difference of £1.05 it was enough to convince me, I have now put one on my company VW T5 Transporter 2.5 and the difference is amazing. less gear changing more power.
> 
> 
> ..:drive:
> ...



Locksmith - check your PMs please. Did you get your "magic box" fitted in Ipswich or elsewhere? fi so, where did you get it?


----------



## mark61 (Jul 26, 2012)

Tony Lee said:


> Your fuel consumption figures are to envy compared to my BigRig which gets 6.7mpg  -- 2.3km/Litre




Ouch, that would blow my travelling budget a bit too quickly. :lol-053:

Ok in Libya, when I was there a couple of years ago it was 6p a litre. Looking forward to going back.


----------

