toedtoes wrote:
ron.dittmer wrote:
toedtoes wrote:
ron.dittmer wrote:
toedtoes wrote:
I get between 7.5 and 10 with my 1975 21' class C in overall mpg (varies with terrain) per trip. I don't think mpg is really all that different from what they were before.
For reference.....
On numerous multi-week vacations involving crossing the great plains from Chicago to the west & back, driving between 3000 and 5000 miles per trip, I have accurately tracked the gas mileage of our 2007 Phoenix Cruiser which is nearly 24 feet long and is built on a 2007 Ford E350 with the 6.8L-V10 engine.
Fuel economy is quite consistent as follows.
~10.5mpg when not towing
~9.5mpg when towing our Jeep Liberty (as shown in my signature)
Buying something exceptionally old will lack current-day safety features such as air bags. To me the best safety feature to have is 4 wheel disk brakes. As for the Ford E350 and E450 goes, 4 wheel disk brakes was introduced around year 2000. You would need to do a little research as to the exact year.
I will never own another vehicle with drum brakes again. They work well only if you fuss with them every so often via adjusting. Not so with disk brakes. They work at peak performance throughout their life.
So at most you get .5mpg better than mine. That's my point - there isn't that much difference when you look at it as a whole.
Yes, there are differences in the engine/chassis between an older rig and a newer one - I pointed that out as the biggest concern in my first post. But mileage is NOT a major factor between old and new - it's a minor difference in a lousy mpg however you look at it. We're not talking the difference between an older pickup that gets 10mpg and a newer one that gets 21mpg. We're talking about no more than 3mpg difference with an average mpg between 8 and 10. If that difference is a major factor, then you probably can't afford to be driving an RV.
If an old rig averages 8mpg and a recent one 10mpg, that is a 25% improvement. It's not a huge savings, but is significant. Maybe it's more about being able to stretch the fuel tank 25% farther, especially if traveling to Alaska for example where fill-up opportunities are not as available.
That is one of a list of reasons to consider a later chassis. If adding up all the benefits, the original poster might justify spending the extra money. But it would be easy to toss away the benefits list if he finds an old cream puff stored indoors it's whole life, just like a classic car.
Well, for a difference of 2mpg, you can pretty much gain that back just by watching how you drive. From all the posts by newer C owners, I haven't seen anyone getting real mileage that I don't get with mine.
Again, I think there are a lot of benefits going with a newer engine/chassis, but mileage just doesn't add up in the real world. It's not enough of a difference to be a reason of its own. Now, if you want all the other benefits, go ahead and add in "it'll get better gas mileage" - but on it's own merit the gas mileage just doesn't do it.
QUOTE: - but on it's own merit the gas mileage just doesn't do it.
I most certainly agree!
