Ducato, 2.2 or 2.3?

[aandy]

After some helpful responses to previous questions, my search for a van narrows and I am shortly going to look at two that appear to suit - a Swift Bolero and an Ace Airstream. They are pretty much identical in terms of price, age, and mileage, with the only real difference being that one has the 2.2 engine and the other the 2.3. From reviews I have read of similar sized vehicles the consensus seems to be that either engine is up to the job (GVW 3500kg), but is there any reason to prefer one over the other?

 

Andy

[Billggski]

The 2.2 could be one of two engines. If it's a Peugeot badge on the front it is a 2.2 ford engine at 120bhp, if it is a fiat or Citroen is is a 100bhp multi jet Fiat engine.

The 2.3 is a fiat 130 or 150bhp multijet, which is the most common one on the 2006-2014 x250 motorhome base chassis.

The consensus seems to prefer the fiat 130. But both are robust van engines that will do astronomical mile ages.

[aandy]

Thanks. They're both Fiat. I've not done extensive searches, but have scouted around the internet and found nothing alarming about either. Thought it worth asking anyway, just in case anyone knows different.

 

I saw somewhere that the 2.2 has a chain-driven cam. Anyone know if that's correct?

[Billggski]

I've just been looking at the engines on Wikipedia and it's much more complicated than I thought, there are different 2.2 puma and fiat engines with different applications. Some chain, some cam belt.

I prefer a cam belt as it is quieter and has a known life, whereas chains can stretch and fail unexpectedly.

[euroserv]

The 2.2 is made by Ford/Peugeot. Fitted to a Fiat vehicle it is only available at 100hp at Euro 4

It has a cam chain. It also has a dual mass flywheel. 5 speed gearbox.

 

The 2.3 is a Fiat engine. It was and still is only fitted to Fiat vehicles. It was available as 120 or 130hp at Euro 4 and is available at 110, 130 and 150hp as a Euro 5.

It has a cam belt. It does not have a dual mass flywheel. All 6 speed gearbox.

 

The above is not speculation or conjecture. Factual.

 

For markets other than the UK you can buy a 2.2 engined Ducato and this is 115hp and is Euro 5.

 

Peugeot and Citroen offered 2.2 engines for Euro 4 and 5 with 100, 120, 130 and later 150hp All cam chain and all with dual mass flywheel. 100hp was 5 speed, all others 6 speed.

 

Fiat and Peugeot/Citroen have also offered the 3.0 engine made by Fiat. This was 160hp at Euro4 and 180hp at Euro 5. It has a cam chain and 6 speed gearbox.

 

6 speed comfort-matic gearbox was only available on Fiat vehicles, on the 3.0 engine until Euro 5 and now it is available on 130 and 150hp 2.3 engines also. Still a Fiat only option.

 

[Barryrj]

The Ford engine has a timing chain and in my opinion is better than a timing belt which needs replacing as a service item and is quite expensive. You don't have that service cost with the Ford engine.

[PCC]

I had the timing belt on my VW T4 replaced recently by a VW specialist.

 

When I said to the guy that did it "of course a timing chain would be better" he disagreed. He said that first, it's generally much easier to replace a belt and the fact that it's recognised as a service item means that it does get replaced; and second, when chains get worn they can jump with fairly disastrous consequences.

 

I must say I was very surprised by his comments.

 

No doubt others will take a different view.

 

Peter

[aandy]

They do like to complicate things. I tend to prefer a chain to a belt, probably because I have had a belt break (fortunately on a non-interference engine), but never a chain; and because I don't have to fork out every few years for a replacement. On the other hand, the dual mass flywheel sounds complicated and one more thing to go wrong.

 

Think I'll just go for the one with the nicest seat colour.

 

Makes me wonder how BMC managed for so long with pretty much the same engine in most of their range, from saloons and sports cars to light commercials.

 

Andy

[Billggski]

As many MH's are imported, do any have an engine spec that would not be available to a UK based manufacturer?

[Derek Uzzell]

euroserv - 2015-07-16 5:33 PM

 

...For markets other than the UK you can buy a 2.2 engined Ducato and this is 115hp and is Euro 5...

 

 

For the record, the Euro 5 “115 Multijet” 115bhp motor marketed for LHD Fiat Ducatos is 2.0litre (1956cc) capacity and only available with a 5-speed manual transmission.

 

It’s commonplace to find this powerplant offered as standard for even quite large LHD Ducato-based motorhome designs as it allows the manufacturer to specify a more attractive basic list-price. There will inevitably be the option to upgrade to the 130bhp 2.3litre motor (and probably to the 150bhp version), though those options usually carry a hefty surcharge.

 

Nowadays, for the UK market, motorhome manufacturers seem to ignore the 110bhp 2.3litre motor and specify the 130bhp version as the minimum specification.

 

(My understanding is that 2.3litre motors paired with the ComfortMatic transmission have a dual-mass flywheel.)

[StuartO]

Billggski - 2015-07-16 9:40 PM

 

As many MH's are imported, do any have an engine spec that would not be available to a UK based manufacturer?

 

When I had the engine of my 2006 2.8 JTD-based MH remapped, to optimise for towing a big trailer, it was done by the now-defunct TB Turbos of Lancaster, who gave me a before and after dynomometer record, to show what had been achieved. It turned out that my LHD Hymer, bought from Germany, had a more powerful engine than the standard UK 2.8 JTD model, but they still achieved a very worthwhile increase in power and torque and assured me that their boost had raised performance by the same amount as usual, so I was still both gaining and better off than a UK equivalent.

 

I certainly noticed an improvement and their dynamometer graph looks impressive, so on the face of it there was (is) something genuinely different about different versions of the same, 2.8 JTD engine. But I always understood that all 2.8 JTD engines were fundamentally the same in terms of metalwork and that it was purely engine mapping which determines performance.

 

Perhaps an expert like Euroserv could throw some light on the matter.

[euroserv]

StuartO - 2015-07-17 10:45 AM

 

Billggski - 2015-07-16 9:40 PM

 

As many MH's are imported, do any have an engine spec that would not be available to a UK based manufacturer?

 

When I had the engine of my 2006 2.8 JTD-based MH remapped, to optimise for towing a big trailer, it was done by the now-defunct TB Turbos of Lancaster, who gave me a before and after dynomometer record, to show what had been achieved. It turned out that my LHD Hymer, bought from Germany, had a more powerful engine than the standard UK 2.8 JTD model, but they still achieved a very worthwhile increase in power and torque and assured me that their boost had raised performance by the same amount as usual, so I was still both gaining and better off than a UK equivalent.

 

I certainly noticed an improvement and their dynamometer graph looks impressive, so on the face of it there was (is) something genuinely different about different versions of the same, 2.8 JTD engine. But I always understood that all 2.8 JTD engines were fundamentally the same in terms of metalwork and that it was purely engine mapping which determines performance.

 

Perhaps an expert like Euroserv could throw some light on the matter.

 

As far as I am aware the 2.8JTD has been 122hp and 127hp at one stage or another. There was a 2.8JTD 'Power' version that was theoretically available to buy in the UK but I have never seen or heard of one. I have seen it on continental campers though and it has a different turbo, inlet manifold and enhanced cooling. This one is supposed to give 148hp but to be honest a standard 2.8JTD can be 'chipped' to somewhere near that and with some improved turbo hoses and a bigger (stronger) intercooler would be a cheaper and cooler running option.

 

BTW; Well done Derek. The 115 is indeed a 2.0 and not a 2.2. I don't pay much attention to the ones i can't get, nor would i want if i could!

 

N

[Brian Kirby]

euroserv - 2015-07-17 3:05 PM........................There was a 2.8JTD 'Power' version that was theoretically available to buy in the UK but I have never seen or heard of one. I have seen it on continental campers though and it has a different turbo, inlet manifold and enhanced cooling. This one is supposed to give 148hp but to be honest a standard 2.8JTD can be 'chipped' to somewhere near that and with some improved turbo hoses and a bigger (stronger) intercooler would be a cheaper and cooler running option....................N

Strangely, Nick, out first van was a 2005 LHD Burstner T585, imported from France, and I specified the 146hp version. I understood the extra power was largely due to it having a two stage turbo. The local Fiat workshop foreman got quite excited about it!

 

I had hired the same van with the 2.3 litre SOFIM engine before buying ours, and was impressed with its quietness, smoothness, and general power. I thought the 2.8 JTD Power (also in France called the TGV! :-)), would be what all 2.8JTD's would become, so that selling later on with the less powerful engine would be a bit like trying to sell one without PAS. Wrong!

 

I believe the engine was used in RHD Iveco Dailys, but never on RHD Ducatos. By then X250 was only a couple of years away, so I assume Fiat decided not to introduce complications in advance of the new model.

 

It was fine, though not that spectacular to drive: noisier and rougher than the 2.3, and not noticeably more powerful. Went up hills fine with the extra torque, but acceleration didn't feel that much improved and it used more fuel. Overall, it was a bit of a disappointment as regards performance, and I subsequently wished I'd decided on the 2.3 which, on a 3.4 tonne van only 6.0 metres long, was in reality perfectly adequate.

[euroserv]

Hi Brian,

 

Your experience with the 'Power' engine rings true for ours. We have seen a lot of Iveco Daily vans with this 2.8 engine known as the .15 and it was the variable rate turbo that was the killer. The fuel economy was dreadful even when considering it was normally used for 6.5T vans, boxes and recovery vehicles. It was noticeably worse on fuel than equivalent 7.5T trucks with 6 litre engines! Iveco had to wait for the 3.0 F1C engine (also in Ducato) before their heavyweight Daily's became viable options again.

 

N

[candapack]

Seeing as how what I think of as the brains of this forum are all involved here (Nick, Brian and Derek), would somebody like to explain the difference, if any, between a 2.8 JTD engine, and a 2.8 HDi. I have the latter on a 2006 Boxer, quite happy with it, just interested.

Thanks,

[Brian Kirby]

candapack - 2015-07-17 5:58 PM

 

Seeing as how what I think of as the brains of this forum are all involved here (Nick, Brian and Derek), would somebody like to explain the difference, if any, between a 2.8 JTD engine, and a 2.8 HDi. I have the latter on a 2006 Boxer, quite happy with it, just interested.

Thanks,

No! :-D

[Derek Uzzell]

candapack - 2015-07-17 5:58 PM

 

Seeing as how what I think of as the brains of this forum are all involved here (Nick, Brian and Derek), would somebody like to explain the difference, if any, between a 2.8 JTD engine, and a 2.8 HDi. I have the latter on a 2006 Boxer, quite happy with it, just interested.

Thanks,

 

You’ll see from this Wikipedia entry

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Ducato

 

that the 2.8litre Iveco motor (with 128PS or 146PS output) was fitted to 2001-2006 Fiat Ducatos and to Citroen Jumpers/Relays and Peugeot Boxers. For Ducato the motors were called “2.8 JTD” or “2.8 JTD Power”, while for the Citroens and Peugeots the motors were called “2.8 HDI” or “2.8 JHDI Power”. But there were no significant technical differences.

 

The present position is similar with the 3.0litre Iveco motor. When fitted to a Ducato it’s called “Multijet” and when fitted to a Boxer or Jumper/Relay it’s called “HDI”.

[candapack]

Derek Uzzell - 2015-07-18 8:58 AM

 

candapack - 2015-07-17 5:58 PM

 

Seeing as how what I think of as the brains of this forum are all involved here (Nick, Brian and Derek), would somebody like to explain the difference, if any, between a 2.8 JTD engine, and a 2.8 HDi. I have the latter on a 2006 Boxer, quite happy with it, just interested.

Thanks,

 

You’ll see from this Wikipedia entry

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Ducato

 

that the 2.8litre Iveco motor (with 128PS or 146PS output) was fitted to 2001-2006 Fiat Ducatos and to Citroen Jumpers/Relays and Peugeot Boxers. For Ducato the motors were called “2.8 JTD” or “2.8 JTD Power”, while for the Citroens and Peugeots the motors were called “2.8 HDI” or “2.8 JHDI Power”. But there were no significant technical differences.

 

The present position is similar with the 3.0litre Iveco motor. When fitted to a Ducato it’s called “Multijet” and when fitted to a Boxer or Jumper/Relay it’s called “HDI”.

 

Thanks Derek.

[Guest Peter James]

PCC - 2015-07-16 6:01 PM

 

I had the timing belt on my VW T4 replaced recently by a VW specialist.

 

When I said to the guy that did it "of course a timing chain would be better" he disagreed. He said that first, it's generally much easier to replace a belt and the fact that it's recognised as a service item means that it does get replaced; and second, when chains get worn they can jump with fairly disastrous consequences.

 

I must say I was very surprised by his comments.

 

No doubt others will take a different view.

 

Peter

 

He makes money from fitting belts. :-D - Never ask a barber if you need a haircut ;-)

Chains can fail but so can belts even if they have been replaced at the recommended intervals.

I don't find my timing chain at all noisy. If its noisy it needs looking at, wheras a belt doesn't give any warning.

[aandy]

One last question (I hope).

 

I have found a van that looks promising, though I have not yet seen it. It is a 2008 Ducato with the 2.2 engine. From what I can find in old posts the clutch judder problem only affected the 2.3, so that will not be a problem.

 

As to the other Ducato issue - leaky scuttles - the engine obviously has no bearing on whether or not the scuttle leaks, but the potential for damage must be dependent on the position of the various components, which I assume differs between the various engines in the range. I understamd that the injectors and alternator are particularly vulnerable on the 2.3, but is there anything in particular I should look for on the 2.2?

 

Andy

[Derek Uzzell]

This early-2014 discussion may be of interest

 

http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Reverse-judder-clutch-problem-all-Sevel-models-/33863/

 

You’ll see that Steve928 said that his 2008 Peugeot Boxer motorhome with 2.2litre Ford-built motor and 5-speed transmission (which should be the same specification as the Fiat-badged vehicle you have mentioned) was afflicted by the ‘judder’ and was modified to address this. Having said that, if a 2008 Ducato currently shows no transmission-related pecularities, who cares what was going on 7 years ago?

 

I’m not familiar with how the 2.2litre motor was installed in Ducatos/Boxers/Relays, but rainwater used to get into the engine compartment of my 2004 Transit (with 2.0litre TDCI motor) and pool around the injectors. It didn’t seem to produce any negative effect, though I never had cause to remove the injectors so they might have been corroded in for all I know.

 

You really need to inspect the motorhome carefully. After 7 years, if rainwater has been pouring in to its engine-bay and on to the motor and alternator, there should be visible signs of this having happened.

[4cls]

We have an Ace Airstream 2.3 130 multijet, Almost bullet proof! Needed the injectors and related electrical gubbins sorted. In the south of France it pulled well on the hills, I would recommend the 2.3 engine every time.