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 \