How is the MPG on a 25-27 foot Class C

[Ron Dittmer]

Originally Posted by twinboat

I left the Blue Ridge Mountains heading south west and saw 12 MPG on my old 7 MPG, class C. It was down hill the whole way.

I get your point.

Hey, I should put my transmission in neutral when rolling down such hills so my ScanGauge-II reads 99 mpg. Can I claim that fuel economy on this forum?

[kenandterry]

If you’re in neutral......shouldn’t the ScanGauge report 0 mpg?
I mean.....if you were stopped, in neutral, you aren’t covering ANY miles, and yet you’re still burning fuel.

Just askin’.

[Ron Dittmer]

Originally Posted by kenandterry

If you’re in neutral......shouldn’t the ScanGauge report 0 mpg?
I mean.....if you were stopped, in neutral, you aren’t covering ANY miles, and yet you’re still burning fuel.

Just askin’.

At a stop, real-time reading, mpg is zero. Rolling at any significant speed while in neutral, the reading jumps way up. I said to 99mpg, but I really don't recall the actual top reading.

[twinboat]

Originally Posted by Ron Dittmer

At a stop, real-time reading, mpg is zero. Rolling at any significant speed while in neutral, the reading jumps way up. I said to 99mpg, but I really don't recall the actual top reading.

I think you will get better MPG with the engine windmilling, rather then idling in neutral.

When the engine is being turned by the drive train, the fuel will be off.

In neutral, some gas will be needed to keep it idling.

[Ron Dittmer]

Originally Posted by twinboat

I think you will get better MPG with the engine windmilling, rather then idling in neutral.

When the engine is being turned by the drive train, the fuel will be off.

In neutral, some gas will be needed to keep it idling.

Hi twinboat,

What you say makes sense if the fuel is actually cut off during engine breaking. But I question if that is the case because during an extremely long decent in extremely cold weather, wouldn't the engine go cold? That would be a fun-fact to know.

It has been some years since I toy'd with the ScanGauge-II mpg readings, what influences it's calculating mind. I will have to experiment again during our next big trip.

[twinboat]

Originally Posted by Ron Dittmer

Hi twinboat,

What you say makes sense if the fuel is actually cut off during engine breaking. But I question if that is the case because during an extremely long decent in extremely cold weather, wouldn't the engine go cold? That would be a fun-fact to know.

It has been some years since I toy'd with the ScanGauge-II mpg readings, what influences it's calculating mind. I will have to experiment again during our next big trip.

It may cool down some, but its still compressing air on every stroke, just not firing.

I'm not going to see a hill until I head north in March, so its hard to check. By then I'll forget.

[Ron Dittmer]

Originally Posted by twinboat

By then I'll forget.

I surely understand you there.
Me too.


Good point. Maybe just compressing air maintains the engine temperature. My belt-driven air compressor at home gets hot doing just that.

[AJMike]

From my experience the V10 mileage seems to depend quite a bit on the size and weight of the RV. We had one on our 2005 Winnebago Sightseer Class A and got between 8 and 9 mpg, but the same V10 on our 2008 Pleasure-way Class B gave us 13-15 mpg. Of course a lot depends on how fast you are driving, what kind of terrain, city or country and other variables.

We now have a 24 foot Class C with a diesel and it gives us 17-20

[Ron Dittmer]

Originally Posted by AJMike

From my experience the V10 mileage seems to depend quite a bit on the size and weight of the RV. We had one on our 2005 Winnebago Sightseer Class A and got between 8 and 9 mpg, but the same V10 on our 2008 Pleasure-way Class B gave us 13-15 mpg.

The V10 engine heads on the class A are huge with 3 valves per cylinder and more power compared to the lower profile 2 valve version in the van of the class-C. Still your point is well received. Weight, quantity of tires (4 or 6), and aerodynamics are 3 primary influential factors for V10 variations within the 2-valve version. Other contributors include the generation of the transmission and the rear axle ratio. I know for my exact rig, model year 2007, if built on a 2007 E350 as I have, I get 10% better fuel economy compared to the same rig built on a 2007 E450. solely because of the difference in the rear axle ratio. In more recent years, the rear axle ratio is common for E350 and E450, but the transmission used in both has one or two more gears so the fuel economy improves in both. Transmissions up to around 2005 have 4 gears, then 5 gears to around 2014, then 6 gears, now I think 7 gears. I really don't know the details except that Ford keeps adding gears to improve power and fuel economy. The E-series keeps getting better, the best one yet is the latest with the improved larger V8 engine delivering more power yet is more fuel efficient. Unfortunately all the improvements along the way don't make massive improvements in fuel consumption. Much of the benefit is that the owners experience a better performance power band with lower reving engine noise.....things like that.

[sibe]

There are always a spread on MPG , subjective to many variables, Design, weight, tires, gear ratio, fuel quality, drive habits, terrain you cover..speed.. ETC ETC..

Having a 20ish foot B+-C-(10.8 K setting) and a 29foot C.(11.3k setting).. same 4.10 rear same tires... same motor... same tweeks.. pulled same 7x16 when i had too.
4.5 5.5 mpg when hilly and hammering it to make time.. 9.5 mpg with good fuel and traveling level abd 60ish.. As most see 7-8 is a norm..

a buddy has a 24ft we traveled with a little newer class c,, had 3.55 rear.. Open road he was 8-9 mpg ,, but struggled on hilly roads to stay in site even when I hauled trailer.. and he was in that same 6.5 -7 in that terrain hammering it..

When you figure the cost of diesel in the 25-35% more range..

The newer ford 7.3 is reporting a bit better
(10-15%++) than the old 460 and V10...
Some NEWER Diesels in the smaller Class C based on sprinter/tranist style unichassis have almost doubled the old mpg numbers but those newer chassised RV may or may not be and apple to apple compariosn in room and comfort of older RV s

Blah blah... snowing morning being a troll... LOL

[Lendzion]

Have 25’F350 and wish I had a F450 for going up hills and pulling a tow veh which mine is only 3,000lbs. I get 10 mpg not towing and 9 mpg towing but if I’m in hills or mountains I lose another 1mpg. I only travel 62 on hwy as well

[Tireman9]

2016 22QB Chevy 4500 chassis w/ 6.0L Documented 10 MPG at 12,500 mi




https://ibb.co/cDbFJts

[Gforceone]

Pretty much averaged 9 mpg. V-10 Ford. Class C, 33’. Drove at 62-65. Sometimes 1/2 gallon better or worse, but could generally be explained by wind conditions. Head winds will kill ya. I guess I always felt if mileage was my biggest concern I wouldn’t have boughten a motor home. My trips were generally under 100 mile weekends. Only one long one to the Black Hills. 1800 mile round trip. Just did a car rental, rather than towing a toad, which of course have an affect on you mileage.

[rkimall]

A few years ago I traded my 27', 7 mpg, V10, class C for a 25', 13-15 mpg, Diesel, Class A (Winnebago Via). I'm not looking forward to increasing fuel prices this summer, but I'm glad I made the swap.