Bipper Tepee

Discussion in 'General Motoring' started by Donwill, Jun 19, 2010.

  1. Donwill

    Donwill Guest

    I fancy one of these vehicles, I have a partner escapade at present but
    the bipper will give me an extra 10miles per gallon.They are smaller of
    course but there's only two of us elderlies that would use it for 80%
    short runs, occasional long runs to Spain and back for hols.
    Anyone got any experience (good or bad) of these vehicles?
    Don
     
    Donwill, Jun 19, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Donwill

    Linea Recta Guest


    I have no experience with Bipper other than having been in it in the
    showroom. I found it too cramped for me, probably because I'm used to the
    spacious interior of my Peugeot Partner.
    I'm a happy owner of a Partner now for about 7 years, and I wouldn't want
    any other car in future.


    --
    regards,

    |\ /|
    | \/ |@rk
    \../
    \/os
     
    Linea Recta, Jun 21, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Donwill

    Donwill Guest

    Yes, you have a point, my partner escapade has only done 21000 miles and
    I find it very convenient spacious and comfortable, unfortunately no
    air con or cruise control :-( ,
    I just hankered after a new car which might improve my MPG.
    Having measured MPG over approx 2500 miles of driving on the continent
    we averaged 48mpg (90BHP HdI 1.6), most of the milage was done on
    motorways so considering the blunt van type frontage of the escapade and
    the consequent lack of streamlining it's not bad I suppose.

    I used to have a 2 litre 806 (Diesel) which was a superb vehicle for
    long distance travel, checking MPG over a similar distance on similar
    roads I measured 50MPG which is surprising in that it's a much bigger
    vehicle than the escapade, however, I suppose it was a bit more
    streamlined perhaps
    ..It had a very large fuel tank, We used to fill it up in Northern France
    and wouldn't need to fill it again until we were in Northern Spain.
    I've also have had an 807 which in my opinion wasn't a patch on the
    806 and exchanged it for my present vehicle, the escapade.
    Sorry about delay in responding.
    Cheers
    Don
     
    Donwill, Jul 9, 2010
    #3
  4. Donwill

    Tinkerer Guest

    As a comparison, my 2.0L HDi 406 is constant at 47mpg, never varies.
    Coincidentally, I was in Staines this morning and saw an Expert Tepee in the
    car park. Looked quite a nice and spacious motor and had been adapted with
    a wheelchair lift at the back..
     
    Tinkerer, Jul 9, 2010
    #4
  5. Donwill

    Linea Recta Guest


    Personally I wouldn't want either of those. (Nor would I want automatic
    gearbox.) As long as we have the choice...


    I just did a search of entire harddisk, I was sure I'd saved consumption
    measurement I'd done years ago. Afraid the text file seems to have
    disappeared mysteriously :-(
    But I think it was something around 1:17 (1 liter for 17 kilometers). Note
    that fuel consumption is largely determined by driving style. I always use
    accelerator pedal very cautiously and never go faster than up to about 90
    kmh. That way the wind resistance isn't going to have big impact on fuel
    consumption. (engine: old fashion 1.9D)
    Also, many drivers forget to check tyre pressure regularly; low tyre
    pressure also causes increased fuel consumption.



    --
    regards,

    |\ /|
    | \/ |@rk
    \../
    \/os
     
    Linea Recta, Jul 9, 2010
    #5
  6. Donwill

    Tinkerer Guest

    Curiously, with my 1999 406 HDi that I have had as a company car, and then
    my personal car, since new I have found that driving style makes absolutely
    no difference to consumption. I was frequently on journeys when working
    when I had to really hammer it and now that I am retired it is more usually
    driven gently and sensibly but over the 11+ years and 130,000+ miles it has
    never varied from 47mpg (I have the spreadsheets to prove it). Even the
    air conditioning seems to have no effect. I can only assume that the
    computer controlled common rail system somehow smooths it all out. I'd be
    interested to know if that is likely to be the case.
     
    Tinkerer, Jul 9, 2010
    #6
  7. Donwill

    Linea Recta Guest


    I realy wouldn'n know, but it surprises me...



    --
    regards,

    |\ /|
    | \/ |@rk
    \../
    \/os
     
    Linea Recta, Jul 11, 2010
    #7
  8. Driving style doesn't make *that* much difference really[1]. Driving
    like a complete loon, in my experience, uses about 10-15% more fuel than
    driving like a granny, and driving "enthusiastically" makes very little
    difference; something around 5%, so within the noise caused by different
    journeys and weather.
    In diesels particularly, how hard you accelerate seems to make very
    little difference, assuming you reach the same cruising speed.

    All that said, I have only had one non-turbo diesel[2], so I can't speak
    with any authority on how they depend on driving style.

    [1] I'm excluding variation in use of the brake pedal here - people who
    don't anticipate and brake reactively a lot will undoubtedly use more fuel.

    [2] Citroen AX 1.5D. Just too sloooooow for me. I sold it and moved on
    to a 205TD as soon as I could.
     
    Albert T Cone, Jul 12, 2010
    #8
  9. Donwill

    Tinkerer Guest

    It pleases me ;o)
     
    Tinkerer, Jul 12, 2010
    #9
  10. Donwill

    Tinkerer Guest

    To some extent that pretty well bears out my comments.
     
    Tinkerer, Jul 12, 2010
    #10
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.