Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

AC7880 · (This post was last modified: 03-02-2014 18:01 by AC7880.)

Did they have to cut the rear cap and engine area framing to swap engines? 3-4 mpg from a ISX seems extremely low. Did he hand calculate it, or rely on the engine computer readout?

I would have guessed 5-7 mpg range (60-70 mph) for the newest Cummins ISX, even with the weight and frontal area of that coach. I'd want to research lemon laws on the purchase if Cummins/Entegra can't sort it out.

A 45 foot coach is way to big for my personal preference, and 4 slides adds too much complexity for my taste. I might do a 1 - 2 slide 38' - 40' coach someday - after researching which slide systems are reliable and which are not.

(03-02-2014 09:29)JD33 Wrote: So my friend did get his new Entergra and stacker, they put a new engine in it and all is well for now. He drove it back from Indiana to Florida lat week, pulling an empty stacker and is positive after checking it several times that he got 3.4 mpg. So maybe things are not so good? Something is definitely wrong there I think.

That's some good MPG while pulling a trailer of that size and at that speed. I usually cruise 63 - 68 on interstates and get 8.5 towing a light Honda Fit (94 BMC 37').

(02-14-2014 18:57)JD33 Wrote: Dan, I don't think that you are far off on your guess re fuel mileage LX vs M380. Personally I can only speak of an LX, and I am very happy with the power to weight ratio and fuel economy of the coach. Pre 2004 for sure there is no emissions concerns, my 2001 LX does not even have an EGR. FWIW, I pull a 26' enclosed featherlight behind my LX, fully loaded, run between 65 and 70 up and down the east coast on I-81, I-77 and I-95 and average right around 7 mpg. I do not find any hill a challenge and that includes Fancy Gap.
That being said I would not hesitate to look hard at an M380, however the concerns that you mentioned are certainly valid.