GORV - Digital Magazine Issue #34 | Page 20

But even loaded up with water and general touring items, it was about 400kg lighter than both the pop-top and full-height caravan. With its lower profile and lighter weight, it was obvious from the outset that the camper would prove to be cheaper to tow in terms of fuel consumption. By how much? The point of this test was to discern whether the potential savings at the bowser by opting for a lighter, lower van would make it worthwhile. Returning to the same Pakenham servo, having spent a few hours on the road heading to Traralgon, Vic, and back again, I was surprised to discover that, according to my odometer, I’d travelled 200m less than the previous two tests, despite following the previous route exactly. In any event, on trickle-filling the tank, I learned that towing the lighter, lower camper for the same duration and on the same route saw the MU-X consume 24.81L – 5.82L less than when towing the pop-top and 10.15L less than when towing the full-height van. The MU-X travelled 8.5km/L and consumed 11.77L/100km. AT A GLANCE Km/L L/100km Refill Cost CAMPER POP-TOP CARAVAN 8.5 6.85 6 11.77 14.6 16.7 $36.20 $44.69 $51.01 *Camper test conducted over 209.6km. *Pop-Top/Caravan test conducted over 209.8km 20 \