Ford versus Fiat

[Poppy]

ell be had the choice and for the first time I can understand why motorhome manufacturers use Fiat.The cab is so much better.Makes the interior so much lighter.However we chose Ford because, quite apart from the reliability issues, on the same size van with an identica llayout we get double the payload.I am fanatical about payloads.

[Derek Uzzell]

It's not the vehicle size that's particularly significant when it comes to payload, it's the 'empty' weight of the vehicle and its maximum weight limits that matter.

 

I'm doubtful that there is much difference in basic weight between, say, an unconverted Ducato panel-van and a similar specification Transit panel-van. Assuming that's true and a motorhome converter installs the same layout/equipment in both vans, then the final weight of each vehicle should be much the same. However, if there are important specification differences between the vehicles - and an obvious one is that the maximum permitted weight of one is greater than the other - then, despite 'in running order' weights being similar, the payload will differ. If the Ducato had a 3300kg chassis and the Transit a 3500kg one, then the Transit would gain an immediate 200kg payload advantage. Similarly, if the Fiat had a spare wheel as standard and the Ford didn't, then that would be another 30kg or so in the Transit's favour.

 

'Essential habitation equipment' also needs to be considered. If the Ducato-based motorhome had a 100-litre fresh-water tank and the ability to carry two 15kg gas-bottles, while the Transit-based motorhome had a 50-litre tank and could only accommodate a pair of 4.5kg gas-bottles, then those differences would affect each motorhome's stated payload.

 

It would be interesting to know which motorhomes you are comparing. Not many motorhome manufacturers nowadays build on both Ford and Fiat chassis and, even when they do, it's hard to make a valid model-to-model direct comparison. For instance, looking at a couple of 2008 Hobby models that are much the same size and style, with one on a Fiat 3500kg chassis and the other on a Ford 3500kg chassis, the stated payload of the Fiat-based Hobby is 376kg and the Ford's payload is 504kg. But the chassis themselves are quite different in design and construction, with the Fiat's chassis offering significant (potential) technical advantages over the Ford's.

[Poppy]

Hobby 2010 Siesta exclusive T600GFLC and Toskana D615 AKGFLC

[Derek Uzzell]

Poppy

 

If the Hobby model references you've given are exact, then you are comparing a low-profile Ford-based motorhome with an overcab Fiat-based one. Consequently, even though both models have a similar floor-plan, it's hardly surprising that the Ford has more payload. And, as I said earlier, the Ford and Fiat chassis used by Hobby are quite different in design and construction.

[Brian Kirby]

I agree with Derek.  I wouldn't worry about that comparison.  Your like for like choices are, really, T600GFLC and T500GFSC, either Exclusive or Classic.  All are Ford Transit based, but the one you've chosen, although wider, also has the longer wheelbase, so will allow more effective loading of the garage with less loss of traction at the front.  Good choice, and good luck!

[Clive]

But you might expect a better level of service and reliability and lower costing spare parts from Ford.

 

C.

 

[Poppy]

Thanks Brian.

[bazooka]

Reguarding ford transits if buying new when you have it serviced make sure the dealer stamps the paint and bodywork section near the back of the service book,failiure to do so will invalidate this part of the warrenty.This only came out in june 2009 as i found to my cost. It can not be stampt retrospectivly.

bas

[davenewellhome]

Clive - 2009-11-16 4:59 PM

 

But you might expect a better level of service and reliability and lower costing spare parts from Ford.

 

C.

 

I don't see why Clive. With Ford's recent history of DMF failures that ruin starter motors first I don't quite see where you get a better level of service and reliability from Ford. Plus Ford's rust more!

 

D.

[Guest peter]

Quite so Dave. I'm getting fed up ith all this Fiat bashing. It's a marvelous base for a Motorhome. :D

[nowtelse2do]

peter - 2009-11-16 8:42 PM Quite so Dave. I'm getting fed up ith all this Fiat bashing. It's a marvelous base for a Motorhome. :D

It maybe a good base Peter, but it seems the base is either outside your house on the drive for 12 months or in one off the Fiat's Garage's :-D

Dave

[rupert123]

nowtelse2do - 2009-11-16 9:11 PM

peter - 2009-11-16 8:42 PM Quite so Dave. I'm getting fed up ith all this Fiat bashing. It's a marvelous base for a Motorhome. :D

It maybe a good base Peter, but it seems the base is either outside your house on the drive for 12 months or in one off the Fiat's Garage's :-D

Dave

Why would you leave one outside your house, whats wrong with using it thousands of others do.

[mirage]

I have the Peugeot X250 which has been trouble free so far, previous 2.8JTD had some teething problems and the 2.8TD no troubles. So I can`t complain about not being able to use them. The X250 beats the pants off the previous models for driveability, and noise level.

[nowtelse2do]

As you know Rupert, there are hundreds more who can,t use theirs with the full confidence that they should be able to and more coming to light every week. 

Up to now yours seems to be ok, and I truly hope that stays that way.

Dave

[rupert123]

nowtelse2do - 2009-11-16 10:04 PM

As you know Rupert, there are hundreds more who can,t use theirs with the full confidence that they should be able to and more coming to light every week. 

Up to now yours seems to be ok, and I truly hope that stays that way.

Dave

With full confidence maybe but it has not stopped even Andy much. Their is absolutely no reason not to use, the worst that can happen is you break down. I would assume most are still under warrenty so could even get Fiat assist to sort things out. It is plain silly to simply let the thing stand there, not only will you have no use out of it but it does no vehicle any good standing idle for long periods.

[Clive]

My preferance by far is rear wheel drive and no cam belt.

 

Having done side by side (actually parked side by side with all the bonnest up) comparisons I have to say that the flimsiest construction was the Fiats. Stoutest were Merc and VW.

[nowtelse2do]

Rupert,  Andy's van is not only for leisure use but also his work tool, up to now it's gone through 5 gearboxes, I'll repeat that in case you misunderstood, 5 gearboxes.

I don,t know his  mileage but if asked i'm sure he will tell you, then you can divide it by 5 and then ask him if he is happy with his choice of base vehicle

Dave

[rupert123]

nowtelse2do - 2009-11-16 10:32 PM

Rupert,  Andy's van is not only for leisure use but also his work tool, up to now it's gone through 5 gearboxes, I'll repeat that in case you misunderstood, 5 gearboxes.

I don,t know his  mileage but if asked i'm sure he will tell you, then you can divide it by 5 and then ask him if he is happy with his choice of base vehicle

Dave

Dave you are missing the point. I never said he, or anyone else who has had problems, was happy, have spoken to him on several occasions. It was you who made the remark about van standing outside your house or on drive for twelve months, that is all I was commenting on.

[nowtelse2do]

Rupert, 

 I don't think i missed any point, in fact my post to Peter made  3 points.

First>> That it was a good base, meaning it is a good      base for building a M/H body on and as a panel van conversion.

Second>> More tongue in cheek than anything about it standing on the drive. But if you look back through the posts on Andys thread, you will see that this as occurred to one or two people. As recent of Moyne's latest post.

Third>> The vans that have had this problem have all had to go back at leased twice or more for the same fault.

As for having to rely on Fiat for anything, I don't think i could trust them one bit, after the disgraceful treatment of what they call their customers.

Finally Rupert, if you reply to the above (I'v no doubt you will) I will answer them over on Andys thread, as I feel it should be kept bumped up and would be more appropriate.

Dave  ;-)

[neil malcolmson]

I would go for the ford every time,why go for a van with so many

problems and unhappy owners.. (^)

[Derek Uzzell]

2005 FWD Transit-based Hobby

 

1. Poor cab ergonomics - seats much too high to begin with and ludicrously high when the inevitable seat-swivels are fitted. Handbrake in door-well only operable by people with ape-length arms.

 

2. Bottom gear worryingly 'tall' for a motorhome that will always be operated at around 3 tonnes weight, and reverse gear even higher. (It's received wisdom in the UK motor trade that FWD 5-speed Transits are prone to clutch failure as a result of the gearing.)

 

3. Impossible to jack up rear wheels using Ford's handbook advice. Spare-wheel raising/lowering mechanism startlingly fragile.

 

4. Underside of chassis's sheet metal floor-pan shows evidence of early rusting.

 

5. At around 7k miles strong vibration from left front wheel develops during heavy braking. Pads are swapped for different make, which seems to cure the fault. (It would appear that wonky brakes are commonplace on Transits as a breed.)

 

6. At two years of age and around 9k miles both rear tyre-valves suddenly fail - something seemingly well known about by UK tyre fitters but (strangely) not by Ford.

 

7. Recent £700+ bill for turbocharger disassembling and cleaning at 18000 miles. Apparently a widespread problem with variable-geometry turbochargers (and not just those used on Transits). No real way of guarding against it happening in the first place, nor of preventing its reoccurrence.

 

Other than the above it's marvellous (for a cut-down delivery van with a caravan glued to its back!)

[Clive]

I will stick to Mercs then!

 

Only problem so far with the current one was a cracked flexible pipe at the low pressure fuel inlet to the fuel filter, it drew in air and made it a bugger to start. Now sorted its once again "the business".

 

Aparently there is a correct procedure for replacing the fuel filter but most garage mechanics take a short cut to save time and bend this pipe back rather hard to make space to remove the filter. This is why it was cracked. (Sounds plausible and is what I was told as it was fixed under waranty)

 

Dissapointed with Dereks history of problems with his Tranny Hobby.

 

But the Fiats as history will show seem to go from one design with problems, (5th gear) eventually get that sorted, then change to a new design and a different set of problems. (Reversing and water ingress) They are quite consistent in this.

 

But the new Fiat 500 lookalike is a smashing little runabout and significantly greener than the Prius from Toymota.

 

Will Santa put one in my stocking?

 

C.

 

[Mike88]

My experience with my 2002 "unreliable" Ford Transit MK6 in 7 years of ownership and 38000 miles is as follows:

 

One set of brake pads.

 

One fuel and air filter.

 

Annual Oil and filter change with fully synthetic oil by ATS Euromaster plus level check.

 

No other servicing other than free annual tyre and brake safety check by ATS Euromaster.

 

 

[rupert123]

Mike88 - 2009-11-18 10:26 AM

 

My experience with my 2002 "unreliable" Ford Transit MK6 in 7 years of ownership and 38000 miles is as follows:

 

One set of brake pads.

 

One fuel and air filter.

 

Annual Oil and filter change with fully synthetic oil by ATS Euromaster plus level check.

 

No other servicing other than free annual tyre and brake safety check by ATS Euromaster.

 

 

My experience with a 2008 X250 over 19,000 miles is one service and one nearly due, nothing else. This sort of post is a waste of time their are good and bad vehicles of all makes. Clive likes Mercedes, after two of their cars never again, their reputation is based on the past, now no doubt someone will tell me they have a faultless Merc. Well I have no doubt their are some, but face it all our opinions are naturally based on our own experience but this does not mean all of that make of vehicle are bad.

[Clive]

Totally agree with Rupert, we can only speak as we find.

C.