BGD Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 A question for you good people.............. If all other things were equal about your Motorhome, which power train would you guys go for, given the choice between: a) 2005 or 2006 Fiat Ducato 2.8 "maxi power" 146bhp JTD, with 5 speed manual box. Only 29,000 kms in one case and only 51,000 kms in another case. b) 2007 Fiat Ducato 2.3 "130" 130bhp multijet, with 6 speed manual box. 65,000 kms. I'm thinking of possible differences in power, mpg, reliability, costs of servicing, costs of spares. The "Old" model of Ducato must surely have had all it's bugs ironed out by 2005/6, at the the end of it's production run, and might (I guess?) be easier/cheaper to service and maintain, with cheaper parts. The "New" Ducato would I guess be better mpg, with better cab/toys/chassis, but could have the reversing "juddergate" and water-ingress-into-engine-compartment-from-scuttle issues; and could be more complex/expensive to service and maintain? All advice/experiences please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WA Michael Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 We have 160 hp Fiat and find it astoundingly good,it has been around Australia and over roads which would make most Europeans cry. Our friend has the prior model and can't fault it also. Friends,one of whom owns a Mercedes service shop, are amazed that on rough roads they don't have to clench up to save their fillings with the Fiat. Frankly the people who say they won't buy Fiat IMO will regret it, the converters don't buy a chassis on the basis of who can they p--s off most they do because one or more is currently outstanding. Good luck with whatever you do. New for GRUNT old for cheaper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Basedd on servicing costs and proven reliability I'd give the 51,000 KM jobbie a close look myself. The newer X250 is a great vehicle but I find the throttle response to be just a bit too sharp for comfortable driving although I'm sure I'd get used to it. I find the last generation (X244) Ducatos to be comfortable, powerful enough and generally pretyy reliiable. I'd always go for the slightly higher milage vehicle myself as regular use and servicing is much more beneficial to any vehicle than sitting around untouched for weeks on end. D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 Thanks guys. :-D More comments welcome..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowie Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 BGD - 2012-09-02 8:19 AM b) 2007 Fiat Ducato 2.3 "130" 130bhp multijet, with 6 speed manual box. 65,000 kms. The "New" Ducato would I guess be better mpg, with better cab/toys/chassis, but could have the reversing "juddergate" and water-ingress-into-engine-compartment-from-scuttle issues; and could be more complex/expensive to service and maintain? All advice/experiences please! Hi, I've no experience of the old model, but have a 2008 2.3/130/6-speed LWB. Lovely to drive, good mpg, I like the 6-speed 'box. At 65K then I would suggest that the judder has either been found and rectified, or the seller has ignored it. My understanding is that Fiat were rectifying vans that were out of warranty, but unless you get a mega-deal on the basis of the possibility of that problem, then I'd say better to not buy if you are at all concerned. It would take the shine off ownership. Our PVC had a judder and was fixed without argument, so full marks Fiat. Hope this helps: enjoy alan b Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
starvin marvin Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 On looks alone I'd have the "old" shape. We did have one, apart from eating front wheel bearings, cheap nasty electrical components etc, etc. Remember what FIAT stands for, F%*&king Italian Aways Trouble and you won't go far wrong. Buy a Merc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laimeduck Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 I don't have as much experience as others, but have had my 2.8JTD now for about 2.5 years and about 14000 miles. Absolutely no problems, it has been very reliable. It has got me over some of the highest Alpine passes with no problems. It consistently returns about 27mpg. It's not really for belting down motorways.... it's quite noisy then, but I don't want to do that anyway. Plus.... my tame mechanic has one & swears by it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 No experience of the old model but the X250 if a treat to drive as you say has a better cab & chassis. If you do a lot of wilding and need decent ground clearance the X250 sits much lower, it's better on A class's with an ALKO chassis, the Fiat camping car chassis is very low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Hi Bruce We had a 146HP "TGV" 2.8 Fiat based motorhome from 2005 to 2007. I had previously hired an identical 2.3 litre Fiat based van. Both were 3.4 tonne 6.0 metre low profiles. From memory, its average consumption was about 25 MPG. To be honest, I didn't think the 146HP JTD was that much more powerful than the plain vanilla 2.3JTD. It has a two stage turbo, so may be a little more delicate compared to the single stage job on the standard 128HP JTD. I suspect you'll find, as I did with the 2.2 litre Ford Puma engine in our present van, also rated at 130HP, that the 2.3 litre 130 multijet Fiat engine is more responsive, and feels more powerful, despite it loss, on paper, of 16HP. It should also return better MPG, somewhere around 30 MPG, depending on how, and where, driven. The only way to know is to try one of the older 2.8JTDs, and the 2.3 130 multijet, and see what you think. I assume all are Spanish vans, so shouldn't have suffered too much from rust, though they may be a little sunburned! I think you'll also probably find the 130 cab an improvement over the 2.8 JTD. I agree with Dave that the higher mileage is more an advantage than a problem. Even so, it is under 41,000 miles, so only around 8,000 miles a year. I think it essential to drive it, and reverse it, to check how it goes. I would also look for any signs of clutch slip, because I have seen folk totally roasting their clutches trying to reverse their vans, especially onto levelling ramps. I think I'd worry a bit about a seven year old van with only 29,000 K on. 18,000 miles over 7 years? It must have been standing around for ages on, or between trips. Possibly an elderly owner who became ill, hoped to recover but didn't, and wouldn't sell in the hope of future use. Tyres on any will need checking. Interiors should give the best clue as to how carefully they've been used. Especially hob, and corners of washrooms! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wills Wagon Posted September 2, 2012 Share Posted September 2, 2012 Loved our old 2.8JTD and 5 speed box but now have a 2.3 litre 130bhp multijet, with 6 speed manual box which is in a different class. The 2.8 was like driving a lorry solid but slow and tiring to drive. The newer Fiat is like driving a car much lighter and responsive, a real pleasure to drive and less tiring. The only thing to watch with the newer one is whether the gearbox/clutch has been changed. The first models had a very high reverse gear and was prone to clutch judder and vibration. All models that were affected should have had the reverse gear, engine mountings and clutch changed under warranty but the owner had to notify Fiat to get the work done. Suggest you check with the owners paperwork and also try reversing the vehicle, if it is fast in reverse with any judder then dont buy it. I dont think there is any difference in servicing costs, repairs, spares etc and the mpg on the smaller engine is actually better but only by about 2mpg and that maybe due to the way I drive it, although FIat would claim it is better. If you travel in London or Germany low emission zones then the 2.8 may not comply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted September 2, 2012 Author Share Posted September 2, 2012 Many thanks for all comments so far. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 lennyhb - 2012-09-02 3:37 PM ...If you do a lot of wilding and need decent ground clearance the X250 sits much lower, it's better on A class's with an ALKO chassis, the Fiat camping car chassis is very low. This seems to be a common misconception and (even though you own an X250-based motorhome and I don't) I'm going to contradict your statement. The underside of an Al-Ko chassis fitted to an X250 will be significantly closer to the ground than the underside of an X250 'standard' or 'camping-car' chassis fitted to an equivalent motorhome. An Al-Ko chassis connects to the original cab section via specialised lowering brackets and the inevitable effect on ground clearance will immediately be apparent from the drawings on pages 7 and 8 of this file: http://www.al-ko.co.uk/edit/files/handbooks/amc-handbook.pdf For equivalent motorhome models there is no difference in under-chassis ground clearance between an X250 standard chassis and a camping-car chassis. The camping-car version allows a motorhome's interior floor and/or a motorhome's overall height to be lower than standard, but this reduction in height is achieved by the upper section of the standard chassis not being present on the camping-car chassis, rather than the latter's underside being closer to the ground. The camping-car chassis is significantly less deep than the standard X250 chassis but, on a like-for-like basis, the ground clearance of both types of chassis will be the same. The differences between the types of chassis can be seen in the brochure pictures here http://www.nor-com.co.uk/assets/pdf/motorhome-brochure.pdf In the Ducato brochure the 'standard' and 'camping-car' chassis are referred to respectively as "Leisure time" and "Special leisure time". It should be evident from the pictures that the "Special leisure time" chassis obtains its reduction in overall height by not having the "Leisure time" chassis's upper layer and that removal of that upper layer won't affect the ground clearance. Later in the brochure there's the following statement "Chassis Special. A Fiat Auto concept, featuring light-weight construction making for enhanced loading capacity, and reduced ground clearance making for easier access to the living area" This is incorrect - the 'special' reduced-height chassis makes access to a motorhome's living area potentially easier by having its upper surface closer to the ground not its under-surface Misunderstandings may also arise when motorhomes are not compared on a like-for-like basis. For example, a motorhome built on an X250 'Maxi' chassis, with 16" wheels and heavyweight springs will have more ground clearance than the same model built on a 'non-Maxi' chassis with 15" wheels and lighter springing. This will be true whether the chassis is standard or camping-car. A motorhome constructed on an X250 camping-car chassis with its lower floor height will often have bodywork with side-skirts and/or an integral entrance-step that are close to the ground. Such features can dramatically reduce ground clearance, but that reduction is not the 'fault' of the chassis. (Having written the above, I note that the X250 ground clearance issure was discussed in some depth a year ago) http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=24913&posts=25 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 Hello, If you need my two pence worth; here it goes...... I absolutely love the 2.8JTD 2002 to 2006 vans. They were brilliant to drive and were very reliable. The 146hp did indeed have a variable turbo and definitely used considerably more fuel than the 127hp if you made the most of the extra power. We have seen campers that have had serious over-heating issues when used on alpine passes though; it appears that the variable turbo gets considerably hotter than the standard one, and suggests that the intercooler is inadequate when the air gets thinner. I have seen some smoldered and burned insulation materials, so would advise some caution on this one. On the other hand, there were (and still are) front wheel bearing issues with all 2002 to 2006 vans, and the cab doors never seem to fit quite right without some judicious bending. The locks are poor and there are no deadlocks. The hand brake is a bugger to get right for the (insane) MOT test but for my backside, the earlier seats are more comfortable than the X250 and the steering is more adjustable. The ride is firmer on the old van too which helps to show up all rattles and creaks. The simplicity of the engine and it's injection system is legendary and highly preferable to the later set-ups. No EGR! No CAT! The X250 should be considered a huge step forwards because of the wider chassis and the increased stability that it gives. The dashboard is neater and better put together and in the main, the problems that afffected the old vans are sorted out. Some new ones were introduced and apart from the reverse judder (which it will or won't do), there is now EGR valves, solenoids and throttle bodies along with CAT theft, earth strap faults and wiper motors and washer jets to throw into the mix. Don't worry about the water ingress issue under the bonnet; it does little harm and the injectors are impossible to remove without the right equipment (as on many other vehicles) anyway. You can piddle about with fixing it yourself or fit a cover if there is not already one fitted over the top of the engine. My verdict? If you are travelling far but will normally not be too far from civilisation go for the X250. It will save you money on fuel and will allow more space in the cab and living space if the most has been made of the extra width. Make sure it reverses nicely though. You know the score. It's more refined and quiter when cruising. In theory it should be more economical than the 2.8JTD but I have seen no evidence to support that. If you are going to remote places and might need the help of a village mechanic if the worst happens; go for the 2.8JTD. Have the 146hp if you like; but not if climbing mountains is high on your list of desires, and remember that the fuel consumption can be pretty scary at times. Do not let anybody put 5W40 oil in it! 10W40 is fine and will save you the expense of fixing oil leaks, which were never a problem until Fiat changed the spec. In fact I have had vans with the same engine do 300,000 miles on 15W40, so there was clearly nothing wrong with that either. Carry a clutch slave cylinder with you on your travels. You never know! Hope that helps. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rupert123 Posted September 3, 2012 Share Posted September 3, 2012 I have had both, last 2.8 I sold late 2007, first x250 bought in 2008, for me it is 'no contest.'While I take note of Nicks points purely from a driving point of view the x250 is differant class. The driving postion is much better, the old model had a much flatter position for the steering wheel, the x250 the wheel is angled more like a car. The gearbox, despite some early problems is a delight and the engine is very quiet on the x250. I got more mpg on my last coachbuilt and my current panel van than I ever did on the 2.8 and I reckon my first x250 which was the 100bhp one was better than the 2.8 ltr. old model. Cannot think of a single thing where the 2.8 is better. As to repairs and serviceing do not know, never had a single problem with the two x250 based vans I have had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted September 3, 2012 Author Share Posted September 3, 2012 All useful stuff. Many thanks chaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tazdog6007 Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 had a 2.8 jtd on a burstner for six years,never missed a beat. my 2.2 pug is o.k but seems flimsy in comparison. :'( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted September 4, 2012 Share Posted September 4, 2012 I was expecting your response Derek, what you state is true and perhaps I should have said "when manufactures build on the camping car chassis they nearly always produce models with less ground clearance" Hymer's for example on the camping car chassis have 100mm less clearance than on other models with either the standard chassis or the Alko with 15" wheels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rupert123 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 tazdog6007 - 2012-09-04 5:40 PM had a 2.8 jtd on a burstner for six years,never missed a beat. my 2.2 pug is o.k but seems flimsy in comparison. :'( What do you mean 'seems flimsy.' It either is or is not, has it given problems or broken down? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crinklystarfish Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 For the years specified and with greater choice, with the X244 I'd go for the 2.8 127BHP version (less stress on the old girl) and with the X250 I'd go for the 3.0 mechanically driven cam and enough-torque-to-overcome-most-potential-judder version. If it were a straight toss-up between the actual models in question, I'd probably go for the X244. I prefer relative simplicity and think they were pretty refined. Though the X250 is undoubtedly more like driving a car, I have more mistrust of the 2.3 version of X250s of that era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
derek500 Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 BGD - 2012-09-02 9:19 AM A question for you good people.............. If all other things were equal about your Motorhome, which power train would you guys go for, given the choice between: a) 2005 or 2006 Fiat Ducato 2.8 "maxi power" 146bhp JTD, with 5 speed manual box. Only 29,000 kms in one case and only 51,000 kms in another case. My McLouis is on a 2006 2.8 146bhp. Done 70,000km since new and no major problems at all. Averaged 28mpg. Lovely to drive, good acceleration when needed. Off to the UK again on Friday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laimeduck Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 This has set me pondering...... what version 2.8 JTD I have got? I have looked on'tinternet and am none the wiser. The engine version is quoted as being M15/2800JTD & MVS =(whatever that is?) 245.0(0)/Cabina Motrice 2.8JTD 4x2 (18Q) Please can anyone tell me what I've got? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 Hello. M15 is the 127hp 2.8JTD Q18 means Maxi 3500KG chassis 245 is a 2002 to 2006 Maxi Cabina Motrice means a chassis cowl (no roof) so must be a coachbuilt. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laimeduck Posted September 5, 2012 Share Posted September 5, 2012 euroserv - 2012-09-05 6:07 PM Hello. M15 is the 127hp 2.8JTD Q18 means Maxi 3500KG chassis 245 is a 2002 to 2006 Maxi Cabina Motrice means a chassis cowl (no roof) so must be a coachbuilt. Nick Thanks Nick! I am pleased it's the 127HP version......... simple.... like me *-) *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BGD Posted September 5, 2012 Author Share Posted September 5, 2012 euroserv - 2012-09-05 7:07 PM Hello. M15 is the 127hp 2.8JTD Q18 means Maxi 3500KG chassis 245 is a 2002 to 2006 Maxi Cabina Motrice means a chassis cowl (no roof) so must be a coachbuilt. Nick Awesome stuff Nick. Brill info as ever. Well done that man! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.