Mad Mitch Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 I'm putting together the spec for a new Hymercar Ayers Rock. It will be based on a 3500kg total weight. I'm interested for any views as to whether the 115 HP engine will be sufficient or whether I should consider spending £920 on the 130HP engine. The vehicle will be used on a daily basis and it may be that the extra torque of the larger engine will be useful. Cost is a big consideration! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 Can we assume that you have driven one or other of the suggested power output engined vans? What was it like for you? If cost is a big consideration does it have to be new? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike88 Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 Once I owned a 90bhp Transit and it was distinctly underpowered but at the time thought it was Ok until I bought something more powerful. However 90bhp got me over numerous mountains in Europe but given the choice I would always opt for something more powerful. My 160bhp Fiat was a far more relaxing drive and I would say, budget restrictions aside, 130bhp is well worth the extra money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mitch Posted August 5, 2018 Author Share Posted August 5, 2018 Thank you both for your replies. My experience so far has been an 8.76 metre Burstner with a 3 litre engine - so a huge contrast. The Hymercar is designed to be my wife's everyday vehicle, but has to haul a reasonable amount of kit during annual holidays and short breaks. We intend to buy new as we intend to keep it for a number of years, before and during retirement and with a specification to suit our needs. My inclination is that the larger engine would be a wise investment. We drove a hire van over the weekend with, I believe, the 115 HP engine, but we were not carrying any cargo. The power seemed adequate but we could potentially be carrying another 700kg. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted August 5, 2018 Share Posted August 5, 2018 If you are used to the torque of a 3.0 litre then my inclination would be to go for the more powerful variant as lower power might eventually frustrate you once the novelty has worn off? Have you considered the political effects on your money of an ever changing and unpredictable emissions regime - and the effects of out of warranty repairs on your pocket on an unproven Euro 6+? engine - chances are you could find yourself replacing the van in a few years and end up chasing the elusive end of the rainbow of a clean enough engine to be able to go where you want when you want? Not rying to be negative but I do have a very healthy sceptical distrust of both motor manufacturers and governments! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted August 6, 2018 Share Posted August 6, 2018 Mad Mitch The 2.0litre motor began to be fitted to left-hand-drive Ducatos when the model received Euro 5 powerplants in 2011. Although the latest version of the 2.0litre engine fitted to Ducato is Euro-6-compliant, it’s far from unproven as Euro 6 variants have, for several years, been fitted to Fiat Group cars, with an output (in Alfa Romeos) of up to 180bhp. A French motorhome magazine carried out a comparative test of the 2.0litre, 2.3litre (130 and 150) and 3.0litre(180) motors when fitted to four identical coachbuilt motorhomes ballasted to 3500kg. The conclusion was that the 2.0litre engine was most suitable for lightweight designs (eg. small panel-van conversions that would always be lightly loaded) but for heavier motorhomes (eg. those with a maximum overall weight of 3500kg and loaded to match) the 2.3litre powerplant would be the better choice. This view seems to have been generally accepted by manufacturers of coachbuilt motorhomes as, although the 2.0litre motor was often the ‘basic’ powerplant for such vehicles a few years ago, nowadays the basic motor will normally be the 2.3litre (130). Although the Hymercar “Ayers Rock” is short, it does have a 3500kg chassis. If it’s likely that you’ll exploit that weight-maximum, definitely opt for the 2.3litre powerplant. (What’s the extra cost for choosing the 2.3litre (150) motor instead of the 130?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted August 6, 2018 Share Posted August 6, 2018 The engine itself may be well proven but the continual tampering with emission gubbins to meet ever tighter controls ,isn't, and the unknown effects of the latest incarnation on engine longevity, particularly beyond the warranty, remains, as far as I am concerned, far from proven and I remain sceptical. Fiat's legendary track record of development and customer care also does not inspire confidence. Maybe I am over cautious, so splash the cash, enjoy, and hope that it will all be OK which it may well be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
breakaleg Posted August 6, 2018 Share Posted August 6, 2018 Our 2015 autoquest 115 is the smaller engine Peugeot 115 bhp or is it 110 bhp, now we have done 8000 miles it drives well, you have to be well ahead of the game on steep hills I.E drop down a couple of gears early otherwise you will be in second before you know it. I feel that this engine would be better suited to a five speed box rather than the six speed box. Overall it's okay but if I had the choice I would of opted for the 130 bhp but it wasn't an option. Pete Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deneb Posted August 6, 2018 Share Posted August 6, 2018 I would say go for the 130 HP Fiat/Iveco multijet as a bare minimum. If you intend driving anywhere hilly or mountainous I would recommend the 150 HP multijet. I have a 3500kg PVC with the 150 HP E5+ engine and it is excellent in hilly terrain. I know the OP says that cost is a consideration, but if going for a van that you intend to keep, my view is that it is worth spending the extra to get it right first time. I haven't driven a version with the E6 engines, but on paper they appear to have slightly narrower torque curves than their E5 equivalents, suggesting they may be slightly less tractable, which is another point in favour of going for at least the 130 HP version. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billggski Posted August 6, 2018 Share Posted August 6, 2018 Cost = buying price less selling price. A 130bhp model will be much more attractive when you come to sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mitch Posted August 12, 2018 Author Share Posted August 12, 2018 Thank you all for your thoughful contributions. My inclination is to go for the 130 hp engine, which offers the best compromise I believe. Whilst we will be using the campervan for holidays - with longer trips in retirement, the day to day usage will be more local, with a lower payload. Incidentally the various increases in engine costs with Hymercar are as follows: 130 HP £920 150 HP £2440 180 HP £4530 Thanks again. Mad Mitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billggski Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 Interesting, as they are all basically the same engine! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikefitz Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 Not quite the same as there are gearbox differences to handle the higher power options and modifications on the engines like turbochargers . What is interesting is the increase in price for the different power outputs. I am ordering a new van and the Fiat UK retail price difference Inc vat over the 115 engine are: 130 £900 150 £1800 180 £3720 However as a private buyer of a single van I get a 45% discount, the professional convertes get a bigger discount. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 Billggski - 2018-08-12 12:23 PM Interesting, as they are all basically the same engine! Then obvious choices for private 're chipping' £3720 extra is daylight robbery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billggski Posted August 12, 2018 Share Posted August 12, 2018 It's a bit more than a re-map, but the price differential still seems steep! https://www.fiatcamper.com/en/product/engines Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 mikefitz - 2018-08-12 1:40 PM Not quite the same as there are gearbox differences to handle the higher power options and modifications on the engines like turbochargers . What is interesting is the increase in price for the different power outputs. I am ordering a new van and the Fiat UK retail price difference Inc vat over the 115 engine are: 130 £900 150 £1800 180 £3720 However as a private buyer of a single van I get a 45% discount, the professional convertes get a bigger discount. Mike The 2.3litre 130 is clearly a different powerplant to the 2.0litre unit and, consequently, a premium of £920 for opting for the 130 is (perhaps) to be expected. There are differences between the 130 and 150 motor (the latter has a variable-geometry turbocharger) but I don’t think there are transmission differences to handle the 150’s enhanced power. So, Hymer’s extra charge of £1520 to opt for the 150 instead of the 130, seems like a lot. There are significant technical/nmechanical differences between the 2.3litre 180 and the 150 unit (hence the significantly augmented premium) but I don’t know if the transmission is beefed up to match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keith T Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 We have an Autotrail 610SE 2017 campervan, converted on the the 5.99m body, with 3.5ton weight limit. It has Euro 6 engine, The original spec showed 2.3 115 engine but we got a 'free' upgrade to the 130 bhp on, and I suspect nearly all - other than rental vans- will have this engine. It is just about adequate but compared to my 10year old Burstner with the 'same' engine, but an earlier variety it lacks acceleration, and whilst it has been back to the dealers on several occasions when I complain about the lack of power I am told this is par for this new engine, and is due to the emissions requirements IT is necessary to change gear much more, .and although I get marginally more mpg, I cannot think its actually overall an improvement. First gear is very low, and it doesn't seem easy to change up quickly enough to get any acceleration from traffic lights etc. On hills, it really does have to get much higher revs than on the old engine, and mostly change down from 6th to 4th or power very quickly. If I had know about this at the outset I think I would have been tempted to go for the 150bhp version, though the cost of doing that was very high. .. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted August 13, 2018 Share Posted August 13, 2018 Derek Uzzell - 2018-08-13 9:02 AM There are differences between the 130 and 150 motor (the latter has a variable-geometry turbocharger) but I don’t think there are transmission differences to handle the 150’s enhanced power. AIUI, the transmission on the 130 has different ratios depending on the combination of Manual/Comfortmatic, and standard or Maxi, the individual gear ratios being different for the former, and the final drive ratio different for the latter, giving 4 different overall combinations on the 130. For the 150, however, both the manual and comfortmatic ratios and final drive (i.e. the full drivetrain) mirror those for the matching comfortmatic version of the 130 (maxi or non-maxi), giving only two variations for the 150. Confusing, isn't it ;-). Put another way: The 130 manual gearbox ratios are unique to the 130, and carry a different final-drive ratio depending on maxi/non-maxi. The 130 comfortmatic shares ratios with both the manual and comfortmatic box in the 150 (and incidentally the 180), and again these have a different final-drive ratio depending on maxi/non-maxi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 When the Euro 5 Ducato was introduced, and 130 and 150 versions of the 2.3litre powerplant became available, Fiat’s Ducato ‘motorhome’ advertising brochure (publication date 07/2013) included a Technical Details page. This page listed the transmission ratios for the two 2.3litre variants and the 180 3.0litre motor. Only data for manual transmissions were provided, with Comfort-Matic and ‘MAXI' chassis not being mentioned. The transmission ratios given for the the 130 and 150 powerplants were identical. The following ‘conversion vehicles’ document (09/2014 publication date) lists ratios for Ducato X290 ‘Euro 5+’ models introduced in 2014. https://www.fiatprofessional.co.uk/uk/CMSEN/Pdf/Ducato_Conversion_Tech_Spec_nov14.pdf If a Ducato X290 had a 130 Multijet II powerplant and manual transmission, the same intermediate ratios would be used for ‘light’ and ‘heavy’ (ie. MAXI) chassis, but (as one might anticipate) a ‘heavy' chassis version would have a lower (higher numerically) final-drive ratio. When a Comfort-Matic transmission was fitted to a ‘light’ chassis version, all the ratios differ from those of the manual transmission. When a Comfort-Matic transmission was fitted to a ‘heavy’ (MAXI) chassis version, the lower three ratios and the reverse-gear ratio remain unchanged with respect to the ‘light’ chassis Comfort-Matic transmission, but the 4th, 5th and 6th gear ratios and the final-drive ratio alter. The transmission-related data provided for the 150 Multijet II motor are identical to those for the 130 Multijet II powerplant. I can’t find on-line a similar listing for the Ducato Euro 6, and it is of course possible that Ducatos fitted with Euro 6 Multijet 2 130 or 150 motors have transmission ratios that differ from the Euro 5+ 130 and 150 motors listed in the 2014 document (and I would not be too surprised if the Euro 6 180 2.3litre motor’s transmission ratios differed from those of the 130/150). However, as the 150 motor has never had a huge power/torque advantage over the 130 - and historical data suggest that the same transmissions/ratios have been used with Euro 5 130 and 150 motors and Euro 5+ 130s and 150s - it would seem odd to change past practice for Euro 6 130s and 150s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 The torque characteristics of the Euro VI 150 engine are different to those of the Euro V 150, and the maximum figure is higher. I suspect this has driven the change to the gear ratios in the newer version. The current Euro VI ratios (extracted from the current German version of the similar Euro V document you reference) are as below. What isn't obvious is whether those versions delivered on the "Libero Tempo" version of the light chasiss (which has 16 inch wheels like the maxi) benefit from the revised final drive ratio of the latter, or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 Thanks - interesting stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikefitz Posted August 14, 2018 Share Posted August 14, 2018 A point that seems to have been missed over the pricing structure, is that the converter gets a huge discount on the price increases over the basic engine cost. If you remove the vat element the upgrade to 130 engine costs the converter less than 400 pounds/euros, yet the full retail price is passed on to the customer. Regarding gearboxes there are two types used, a 6 speed 2 shaft MLGU and a much stronger 3 shaft M40. The M40 is also robotized for all Comfortmatic versions. The design maximum torque capability of the MLGU is 350 Nm, where engines develop more, the M40 is/ (should be) used. There are two optional final drive ratios fitted to the MLGU and the M40, usually depending on 15 or 16 inch wheels. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.