Foretravel Motorhome Forums => Foretravel Discussions => Topic started by: wa_desert_rat on October 27, 2011, 11:32:03 am
Title: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: wa_desert_rat on October 27, 2011, 11:32:03 am
At some point in the 1990s Foretravel changed their body styles significantly. Versions in the early 90s and the late 80s had what looks like more aerodynamic styling while later (and current) models.... not so much. This change certainly increased the useful interior space of the coaches but I am wondering if the change to a more vertical front had an effect on fuel economy. I'm sure there are Foretravel owners here who have owned both styles. Did you notice any difference that could be attributed to the body change (and not just a larger engine)?
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: wolfe10 on October 27, 2011, 11:50:14 am
Reasonable question. No reasonable answer.
In addition to shape changes, the following changed, with each change affecting MPG:
Weight gain
Larger engines (heavier weight and often requiring heaver transmissions, rear axle, etc).
Different transmissions (one of the few things that IMPROVED with the newer ones with 6 speeds with lock up torque converters in 2-6 gear ones).
More frontal area-- both height and width, so even the same drag coefficient would produce more aerodynamic drag.
Stricter EPA emissions requirements
But, net net is that the older coaches generally DO get better MPG than the newer ones! An honest 10 MPG AVERAGE (not just I once got one tank over...) was common on the U225, U240 and close to that on early U280's.
Our AVERAGE over 157,000 miles with every gallon recorded and calibrated speedometer is 11.3 MPG. Ya, I HAVE made some mods, but friends with stock U240's still get 10
Brett.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: jeff on October 27, 2011, 12:02:19 pm
Brett does keep meticulous records..Me, not so much. But, on average, with our 93 u225 we got approx 9 MPG. Don't have any accurate MPG numbers on our 95 U320. So far on our 2002 U 320 we are lucky to see 71/2 MPG. I have just started to use the economy mode, so, hopefully, that will increase. FWIW
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Dave Head on October 27, 2011, 12:22:48 pm
More to do with weight than anything else.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: wolfe10 on October 27, 2011, 12:32:03 pm
Absolutely true in hills/mountains. Aerodynamic drag a much more significant factor on flat ground than is GCW. I was surprised about this myself, but in spending a month working with the engineers at Caterpillar on the "Understanding Coach (RV) Performance" document, the physics was well laid out.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Pierce & Gaylie Stewart on October 27, 2011, 01:01:23 pm
Yes, very reasonable question but lots of factors.
Older, single bumper, lower U240s, U225s will have less frontal area, get better mileage on the flat. Will also weight less so better mileage in the hills/cities.
5.9 Cummins should get better mileage on the flat or in the hills and especially in town. Less internal friction overcomes a few more revolutions per mile plus weight is less.
36 footer will get better mileage than a 40 footer everything else being equal because of weight, most difference being in hills, cities.
Light loaded weekender will best a full timer in hills, towns especially if only partial propane, water fill.
Incorrect front end alignment can use more fuel and tires.
Pulling toad will lower mileage, a little on long trips on the plain, a lot in mountain country (and speed).
Running tires at max listed cold pressure on side of tire will give better mileage and performance. Some tire brands may get very slightly better fuel mileage. Watch the Michelin ad on TV.
Any change in altitude uses lots of fuel raising 30,000 lbs three or four thousand feet. The downhills don't make up for it. City driving out of lock-up also use a ton of fuel. Anytime you use the brakes, you use fuel getting back up to speed. Those of us living in the west will get much less mileage than you flat-landers.
Where we live is all hills so always full throttle or Jake brake. Lucky to see 5 mpg if going to local campgrounds. On the flat at 55 mph, we have gotten up to 13 mpg.
Betting a line of Foretravels with same tire pressure on the same FLAT road would get within a mile or so to the gallon at 55 mph with the low 5.9 Cummins the best of the bunch.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: nitehawk on October 27, 2011, 01:50:52 pm
1989 Grand Villa 36' with Detroit Diesel--not towing toad--hot summer day with cruise and air on--10.6MPG (forgot to mention, engine not totally broken in at 67,000 miles)
Still lots better than our 31' class C gas with 460 Ford at 4.5MPG
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: J. D. Stevens on October 27, 2011, 02:01:23 pm
Our 1997 U295 gets around 7 mpg. The engine is a Cummins C8.3-325. It is mechanical and has no electronic controls. Based on reports I have read, the newer engines with fuel injection control by electronic control units get better fuel mileage for similar loads.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Steve & Ginny Hill on October 27, 2011, 02:28:16 pm
Our 1996 U295, C8.3-300, weighs about 26-27K and will get about 8mpg not towing. 7.5 towing Wrangler. This is one of the most fibbed about topics in the RV community IMHO.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: wa_desert_rat on October 27, 2011, 04:31:53 pm
This is one of the most fibbed about topics in the RV community IMHO.
LOL. No doubt about that. But lots of people just guess, too. Very few keep good records or even bother with a calculator at a fill-up.
We just bought (or at least made the deposit on) a 1993 U225. The current (almost ex) owner says he has gotten 14mpg coming out of the Cascades into the Puget Sound area. Since it's a 60-mile run down from 4,000 feet (Stevens Pass on US2) I suspect he's right. Claims 10-12mpg average but has no records; or at least hasn't shown them to me.
He has also mentioned some techniques to us about getting better mileage (like not keeping the pedal to the floor). What is the "economy mode" mentioned earlier.
We live in central Washington almost halfway between Seattle and Spokane. Our RV experience runs all the way from an old Dodge camper-van ("Van de Camp") (which got 7mpg!) to an 8-foot Alaskan camper, to a cab-over camper, to a 29-foot Alpenlight pulled by a Dodge diesel pickup, to a 19872 Streamline 21-foot trailer, to assorted tents. We also spent 5 years cruising the Pacific in a 32-foot sailboat in the 1980s (which makes us confident that we can manage life in a 36-foot motor home). My father-in-law has owned an assortment of motorhomes since the 1970s so it's pretty much in the family tradition.
And my wife is a school bus driver. I'm expecting her to give me lessons. :)
Thanks for the data. Nice forum you guys have here. :)
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Barry Beam on October 27, 2011, 04:49:59 pm
He has also mentioned some techniques to us about getting better mileage (like not keeping the pedal to the floor). What is the "economy mode" mentioned earlier.
A previous thread on the mode button. Economy, transmission (http://www.foreforums.com/index.php?topic=13865.msg78458#msg78458)
;) I'm going to have my DW go on a diet, ;D ;D My 1994 U300 6V92 never did better than 6.9 mpg... about 17,000 miles all around USA. :o
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Dave Head on October 27, 2011, 05:29:05 pm
I am light loaded, but pull a Tahoe. This trip I'm using VMSpc again and my mileage has been consistent at 9 mpg this time out...
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Chuck Pearson on October 27, 2011, 06:00:00 pm
I've been avoiding posting this as it seems anyone posting higher than normal mileages is deemed to be a liar. However on our 9k mile trip just finished, mileages and fuel pumped were carefully monitored for the first 7500 miles, at that point the odometer but not the speedo gave up the ghost. The speedo coincided exactly with speed indicated by gps so I assume the odometer was accurate also.
Area covered- South Tx - Yellowstone - Arkansas Ozarks - Smokies - S. Tx.
No toad, so nothing pulled, but a certain amount of in-town driving for grocery gettin etc. as necessary. Based on the number of coaches that blew by me, and the fact that I, in turn, passed maybe ten during the whole trip, my pace was leisurely. Mostly cruising in the high 50's to low 60's, up to an interstate cruise of 63-65, rare blasts to 70 to blow the soot out. A fair amount of cruising Yellowstone, back roads, blue ridge pkwy, 45 mph or so. My leisurely pace was somewhat driven by the fact that directional stability of this coach blo...er, is lacking. Presently addressing this.
Tire pressure lowered per Wayne at FOT to 85 front, 80 rear, Mich XZA3 LR H. Coach weighed a couple times with full fuel, provisions, tanks partial, right at 28K. Engine is 8.3 Cummins, mechanical inj., 300 hp. This is a bus style 96 U295.
10.375 mpg on the nose. That just happens to also be the mileage I got with my prior rig, an F350 4x4 diesel with a 10.6 Bigfoot camper on top. I'm real happy with the change!
Chuck
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Dave Katsuki on October 27, 2011, 06:01:21 pm
I keep records of all mileage traveled and all fuel filled. Our average over 29,600 miles is 7.6 miles/gal and includes lots of mountains and flat.
We weigh in at 30,200 with full fuel and fresh water. and tow a ~3000 lb Subaru. Usually travel with full fresh water tank. If we're running late to our next stop, we may run at 65-70 mph, but usually travel at 60.
99 U270, 36', Cummins ISC 350 hp.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Kent Speers on October 27, 2011, 06:25:50 pm
One thing I learned for sure is that you have to take the average mpg over lots of miles. I thought my U225 got 10 or 11 mpg at times on certain trips but the overall average was closer to 9 mpg at an average of 62 mph.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Bob Hall on October 27, 2011, 06:37:47 pm
On our 2100-mile trip last month across Colorado into Utah and Arizona and back: 9.4 mpg pulling a 2700 lb Pontiac Vibe. The U280's gross weight is around 27,000 with a C8.3 Cummins, 300 hp.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Bill Chaplin on October 27, 2011, 07:46:10 pm
At any given weight/horse power. Drag is to the Square of speed.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Chuck Pearson on October 27, 2011, 08:14:28 pm
At any given weight/horse power. Drag is to the Square of speed.
Yep. Slow down if your goal is fuel economy. Also, be aware of what your engine is doing. To me, driving this coach brings back very pleasant memories of years of driving VW campers...typically with blueprinted/balanced engines, you could feel/sense the power curve, hear the exhaust scavenge. Be one with it. How you attack grades is a huge factor. Also, (strapping on flame suit), there's no such thing as a fast coach. There are fast airplanes, fast cars,fast motorcycles, somewhat fast boats, but fast coaches are like fast turtles.
One thing I learned for sure is that you have to take the average mpg over lots of miles. I thought my U225 got 10 or 11 mpg at times on certain trips but the overall average was closer to 9 mpg at an average of 62 mph.
Yes, and diplomatically said I might add. Of course, there are other, major variables that affect economy. Headwinds are a major factor, ambient air temp is another of course elevation, humidity all figure in. "Sorry baby, the density altitude is too high today,plus we'd be bucking a 15 mph headwind, we're staying put." Good luck selling that one.
On our 2100-mile trip last month across Colorado into Utah and Arizona and back: 9.4 mpg pulling a 2700 lb Pontiac Vibe. The U280's gross weight is around 27,000 with a C8.3 Cummins, 300 hp.
Sounds pretty close to what I'm getting when you factor out the toad. This 8.3 mechanical engine comes in several horsepower variants, I'm guessing that the higher hp versions have larger injectors which is great when you need to go to warp, but not so when you're running at the low hp levels that economical cruise takes. Those nozzles lose efficiency when running at lower volumes.
Chuck
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Dave M (RIP) on October 27, 2011, 08:42:01 pm
Felt it was time to mention the mechanical condition of your engine, transmission, brake drag and of course the normal speed, wind, weight all make a difference, One reason the auto makers are now recommending 0W-20 lube oils, and the diesel engine makers lower oil pressure to reduce fuel burn, it takes more power/fuel to make 60 psi lube oil pressure, my ISM is 34-36 psi, I had to ask about that, all good, how I found out about the lower pressure settings. But the Biggie is the FOOT on the pedal. I can have the VMSpc show 10.0 mpg for a good while, but I get bored at that mode of driving, it also can show 3.2 mpg so normal runs from 7.2 - 8.8 it all depends on towing, speed and attitude etc. ;D
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Kent Speers on October 27, 2011, 08:52:30 pm
The bottom line is that as few miles as most of us put on our coaches each year, MPG just isn't that critical. If you are a trucker driving 100,000 miles per year plus, 1 or 2 mpg means a lot in fuel expense. At 10,000 miles per year it is not terribly significant when you consider the cost of our coaches and the cost of annual upkeep. IMHO
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: kb0zke on October 27, 2011, 09:29:36 pm
Seeing these real-life numbers sure is a help for me. I understand that there are many factors that go into the final fuel economy number, but I wonder if somewhere, maybe buried in some shop manual, is a "best economy" rpm number. I realize that such a number is more of a laboratory number than a real world one, but I would think that it would certainly be a good starting place.
Experts, please add to my education.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Dave M (RIP) on October 27, 2011, 09:42:34 pm
I feel my ISM is at its a best at 1350-1450 RPM, in general the lower the rpm the better fuel efficiency in general, In Foretravels case, I am certain Foretravel and Cummins have spent a lot of time figuring the rear gear ratio, tire size to get the best fuel burn for the average old goat that purchases these things.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: wa_desert_rat on October 27, 2011, 10:08:54 pm
Seeing these real-life numbers sure is a help for me. I understand that there are many factors that go into the final fuel economy number, but I wonder if somewhere, maybe buried in some shop manual, is a "best economy" rpm number. I realize that such a number is more of a laboratory number than a real world one, but I would think that it would certainly be a good starting place.
Experts, please add to my education.
I don't know if I qualify as an "expert" but I can tell you that RPM would not necessarily be an indicator of anything other than the crankshaft revolutions per minute. If you were driving on a flat road at 1500RPM you would not be using as much fuel as if you were climbing a hill at 1500RPM. There are more variables than just RPM that enter into the equation.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Dwayne on October 27, 2011, 10:11:32 pm
Did some experimenting on the long cross country: flat road 60-63 right at 10. Bump up speed to 65-67 9.5 and 70 ish 9. I think I might get to 10.5 if I stayed at 55 but that is really hard to do as 60 feels like I'm just lumbering along. I don't think the styling amounts to much. It is weight and horsepower. I have a friend with SOB about 32' but with two slides and a Ford V10 who gets 7 driving 55-60. He doesn't believe I get 10.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Keith and Joyce on October 27, 2011, 10:30:15 pm
I am getting 9.0 MPG for the last 2,000 miles. Texas to Chicago to Upper Peninsular of Michigan - Chicago. I drive at 65 mpg most of the time but the coach wants to go faster!
I don't think it has been mentioned but different fuel blends and bio-diesel will also affect mileage.
Biodiesel = 33.3 - 35.7 MJ/liter
Diesel = 36.4 MJ/liter
(Bigger number is better)
Cold fuel is denser than warm fuel, therefore on a mechanically injected engine cold fuel delivers more power per squirt all other things being equal. You get more energy for your dollar with cold fuel. Once fuel has sat in an underground tank it warms to about the same temperature everywhere.
Therefore follow the tanker on a very cold day and buy fuel when he drops. Of course you will burn more fuel by doing this than you will save, but if you are caring about things that much you should be riding a bicycle!
Keith
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Dave Head on October 27, 2011, 10:37:21 pm
Get yourself a boost gauge installed. Then try to keep the boost 5 pounds or less on flat ground... The idea is to figure out the boost required to maintain forward speed and no more. Once you get a feel for it, you will watch your mpg climb... It's all about smoothness.
For my coach, 62-63 mph is the sweet spot for mpg vs 'getting somewhere'. In Econ mode I can run all the way down to 52, but I get bored (plus downright dangerous on an interstate!).
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: amos.harrison on October 28, 2011, 08:29:52 am
For best mileage, cruise at the lowest speed cruise control will hold in top gear. For my coach, that's 60.5 mph.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Paul Smith on October 28, 2011, 09:29:30 am
While 60.5mph is a good suggestion, it is the "best mileage in top gear," not necessarily the "best mileage." For my 1999 U320 M11 better mileage is in 5th gear at 55mph (12mpg or so), and even better mileage is at 40mph (I traversed Upper Michigan at 40mph on a low traffic day once just to see what would happen).
In my 320 I need to get to 62mph to get into 6th gear. Then, as above, I can stay in 6th and get better mileage by dropping speed and staying in 6th.
best, paul
Quote
For best mileage, cruise at the lowest speed cruise control will hold in top gear. For my coach, that's 60.5 mph.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Bill Chaplin on October 28, 2011, 10:42:25 am
At any given weight/horse power. Drag is to the Square of speed.
Still applies reguardless of gear
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Jerry Whiteaker on October 28, 2011, 11:58:10 am
The question was, "Do older coaches get better mileage". My opinion is yes, but not because they are older. Mpg might improve a little after break in, but doubt if you would notice it due to road conditions, temperature, wind, and other variables. When I was searching for a Foretravel, I really wanted a 93 - 95 Grand Villa, but couldn't pass up what I found and haven't been sorry. Most of the earlier Grand Villa's were narrower, and weighed less than the bus style. The sloping windshield will have less drag than the almost vertical one. Aircraft are pointed both at the front and back to reduce drag. That would reduce the liveable area in a MH though. I'm with the group that thinks a speed that keeps the transmission in top gear gives the best mpg. I don't always do that. Everything is a compromise and just try to be practical about it. Headwinds hurt and tailwinds help, smoother roads help, interstate highways are better than secondary as they are more level, less slowing, and stopping, but may bypass all the local sites in villages and towns; take your pick.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Merle Hench on October 28, 2011, 09:36:32 pm
My only trip so far in my 91 U225 was just over 1000 miles from Tampa to Delaware. Water tanks empty, propane full, no "stuff" on board. Recorded 11.43 mpg with the 5.9 Cummins.
I found at times my foot was to the floor; still used to driving a car. It seemed to drive best with the cruise control on. Better throttle modulation than my right foot. Better mileage too, I expect.
Steve
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Dave Head on October 30, 2011, 02:06:19 pm
I made my last fill of the trip at Brunswick GA (last fill Carmel Church VA). My trip odometer said 572.1 miles, Mapquest says 574. Filled as usual to the bottom of the filler neck. My procedure is to fill both sides. The first one to trip gets closed off, then I slowly hand fill the other side until I reach the same point - bottom of the neck. There may be a differential but I always follow the same method. 9 hours of generator run time - I subtract .3 gph because it was lightly loaded (head strips for roof air and reefer). Total fill 60.1 gal so 10 mpg. Flat or downhill, 63-64 mpg, econ mode. 1 stop for overnight, 1 stop for lunch. Pretty sure I had the wind at my back too from the Noreaster... That makes that leg 10 mpg. Previous fills: 8.8 mpg (Winchester to Carmel Church via Reading, PA, Annapolis/Pax River MD), 9.08 (Knoxville TN to Winchester VA), 9.18 (Oviedo FL to Knoxville TN). I believe my coach is one of the lightest/most aerodynamic U320s (95 with jake, no Aquahot, overhead cabinet delete (salon/bedroom), window awning delete). The only 'weight gain' is the Tahoe, solar panels and the factory wood floor throughout. Our bays are not full of 'stuff'. My normal travel water load is 1/2 tank fresh and empty grey/black (or at least grey). Front G rated Michelins are 105# and rears are 100#. I normally use Power Service Cetane boost. Reduce weight, wax the nose and mirrors, drive with VMSpc, cruise and econ mode on in the flats, off in the mountains. If I get in a hurry the mpg drops to 8-8.5 in very short order. I also believe the 400 hp M11 software uprate (from 370hp, 95 and 96 models) was the thriftiest.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Dave M (RIP) on October 30, 2011, 02:38:58 pm
Another Tid Bit about fuel mileage, about 7-8 year ago, Cat, Cummins, DDC and Navistar engines, all 4 of these manufacturers got in trouble with our Fed Govt known as EPA, for emissions, The problem was total fuel injection timing, originally they had the timing retarded at idle and as engine speed increased the timing went to a proper advance position, while this gave better mileage and power, it produced emissions unacceptable to our beloved EPA, so large fines followed for all. The engines all dropped mpg and all drivers/owners complained to no good. Today the new engines that use the DEF make more power due to the ability of DEF to clean the exhaust emissions. This is what I was told by a upper level "Bright" employee of Cummins, as we got into this subject. Crazy Huh?
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Chuck Pearson on October 30, 2011, 03:09:30 pm
Dave, I've never been able to follow the logic that says reduce emissions per gallon of fuel burned but use more gallons to get where you're going. Could it be that the same geniuses are the ones cramming E-10 and if they get their way E-15 down our throats? The same crew that isworking on outlawing 100LL, obsoleting billions of dollars worth of aircraft powerplants?
But what really chaps me is the perception that environmentalists are, by necessity, completely lacking in common sense. Where's the fool killer when you need him?
Chuck
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Dave M (RIP) on October 30, 2011, 04:08:13 pm
Chuck, I am in total agreement. Nonsense. In closer to me event, I think it was the 2006 Ford F350 with the 6.0 Diesel, I got the note from dealer requiring it to have a computer update, not knowing, I took it in and they DID it. yup, mileage dropped by 2 mpg, when I asked what they had done to kill my mileage, and please put it back. Nope, Was informed it was done to meet the EPA emissions, saying it improved the emissions for the engine, I ask how does it help emissions when it now burns more fuel------------Duh! I am the idiot on that one I guess, no answer.
As an Ex flier who purchased a lot of 100LL, I was not aware of the new brain waves, I know I am off my rocker, (Can't say anything that even slightly smacks the liberals, sorry) will leave it blank.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Barry Beam on October 30, 2011, 05:23:45 pm
In closer to me event, I think it was the 2006 Ford F350 with the 6.0 Diesel, I got the note from dealer requiring it to have a computer update, not knowing, I took it in and they DID it. yup, mileage dropped by 2 mpg, when I asked what they had done to kill my mileage, and please put it back. Nope, Was informed it was done to meet the EPA emissions, saying it improved the emissions for the engine, I ask how does it help emissions when it now burns more fuel------------Duh! I am the idiot on that one I guess, no answer.
Dave, I think you solved my question as to my lower mileage lately. I was at cummins earlier this year and had them add all the updates to my engine since I never had any of them done. I could not figure out why my mileage was getting worse for no reason on the same trips I had taken before but it was a noticeable difference. I never gave it a thought it might have been the updates which I thought would improve it. ??? >:( :o :-[
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Monti on October 30, 2011, 05:41:17 pm
It is interesting that many of the people answering the original question mention that they have VMS-PC but no one quotes the lifetime fuel mileage of their coach. An odometer can be set up to show the data from day one. This will be from the day the engine was built unless Cummins reset it during a service event. It may not reflect the mileage the current owner sees on a given trip but it is probably a pretty good representation for the coach. Naturally those with mechanical engines won't be using this tool.
In my case, VMS-PC shows a total distance of 70,659.2 miles and an economy of 7.5 MPG. Yes, my own average is usually over 8 MPG and I suspect that I drive at a slower speed and tow a lighter vehicle than the original owner. However, a comparison of the lifetime mileage might be the most consistent figure to use and it is easy to view.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Barry Beam on October 30, 2011, 06:11:00 pm
It is interesting that many of the people answering the original question mention that they have VMS-PC but no one quotes the lifetime fuel mileage of their coach. An odometer can be set up to show the data from day one. This will be from the day the engine was built unless Cummins reset it during a service event. It may not reflect the mileage the current owner sees on a given trip but it is probably a pretty good representation for the coach. Naturally those with mechanical engines won't be using this tool.
In my case, VMS-PC shows a total distance of 70,659.2 miles and an economy of 7.5 MPG. Yes, my own average is usually over 8 MPG and I suspect that I drive at a slower speed and tow a lighter vehicle than the original owner. However, a comparison of the lifetime mileage might be the most consistent figure to use and it is easy to view.
Mine is 7.3 over the 128,000 lifetime miles which is the only number I go by.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Peter & Beth on October 30, 2011, 06:20:39 pm
Around 34,279.2 miles since I've owned Forrest and the last fuel fill, the average is 8.308 mpg; C8.3 mechanical towing the Honda Element full of golf clubs, coolers, and other sorta stuff like beverages.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Chad and Judy on October 30, 2011, 06:22:47 pm
Quote
Snip: [Mine is 7.3 over the 128,000 lifetime miles...]
I've not found the path to displaying life-time mileage on our VMSpc; how is that done?
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Monti on October 30, 2011, 07:31:08 pm
Quote
"I've not found the path to displaying life-time mileage on our VMSpc; how is that done?"
One way is to create a new odometer and select the option for "Start From Day One." I keep 2 odometers on display. One I reset each time I fill the tank and the other shows lifetime data. I have them slightly overlapped in the display so that I can click on either one to see the data I want.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Dave Head on October 30, 2011, 08:02:59 pm
Engine houre and mileage came up automatically on mine. I will look up the PID. You should have one of the simple gauges to select from...
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Kent Speers on October 30, 2011, 09:04:54 pm
If you click on the Advanced heading of the VMSPC and go down to PID search, you will see the fuel category near the bottom of the list. On that line, in the far right column of the box you should see your cumulative mpg. I don't know how accurate it is on my Detroit but I am taking it in to the Detroit shop tomorrow and will ask them to verify that number. Mine is showing 7.9 mpg but I have never seen mileage that good in the year I have owned the coach.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: GMC_jon on October 31, 2011, 03:56:48 pm
Kent,
We've had our '91 300GV for a year and a half. The VMSPC shows an average of 8.2 MPG for 158K.
Our experience for the 1 1/2 years & 7500 miles has been exactly 8.2 MPG.
FWIW
John
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: Pierce & Gaylie Stewart on October 31, 2011, 05:56:12 pm
We've had our '91 300GV for a year and a half. The VMSPC shows an average of 8.2 MPG for 158K.
Our experience for the 1 1/2 years & 7500 miles has been exactly 8.2 MPG.
FWIW
John
I met a family in a '94 40' U300 from Florida at the entrance to Yellowstone last year. In five years of traveling with Chevy Tahoe toad, they averaged 7.9 mpg. Only repair was a cracked exhaust manifold a couple of weeks earlier. Pretty close to what you averaged.
I like the recessed ICC lights.
Title: Re: Do older coaches get better mileage?
Post by: bbeane on November 02, 2011, 09:34:36 pm
Had my U295 about 7 years, trips all over the place pulling 20' trailer, or Jeep. According to my wallet at the fuel pump you can bet on 8 MPG. Try to keep it turning between 17-1800 RPM the ISC seems to be happy there.