New Renault Master, Vauxhall/Opel Movano,

[Brian Kirby]

Anticipated launch: April 2010.

Available lengths: 5.048M, 5.548M, 6.198M, 6.848M.

Overall width (excluding mirrors): 2.07M.  (Sevel vans 2.05M.)

Engine size 2.3L (2,298 cc Actual)

Available HP: 100, 125, 150.

Wheelbase options: 3.182M, 3.682M, 4.334M.

Available MAM:

Vans; 2.8T (FWD), 3.3T (FWD), 3.5T (FWD & RWD), 4.5T (RWD).

Chassis/cabs; 3.5T (FWD & RWD), 4.5T (RWD).

Platform/cabs; 3.5T (FWD).

Manual gearbox: 6 speeds.  Automatic: no detail.

RWD versions can have twin, or single, driven wheels.

If you’re considering a new van for 2011, this may be one to look out for.  The added width should also be beneficial to PVCs, allowing just that bit more length to the popular transverse bed layouts now available on many Sevel vans - which neither the Sprinter, Crafter, or Transit, presently equal.  Oh, and it not a you know what!  :-)

[colin]

Off the top of my head, the internal width of new Master/Movano is some 4" less than X250 last time I looked.

p.s. yes just checked Master/Movano 1765mm, X250 1870mm.

this is why I'm reluctantly getting an X250

[Brian Kirby]

Odd that, because the overall width is claimed to be greater, and 120mm is a lot to lose.  I wonder whose figures are wrong, Fiat's or Renault's? 

Certainly Renault are claiming the new Master is wider, and that it will be better suited to motorhome conversion that its predecessor (at 1.99M) or the Sevel vans at 2.05M.  Could your quoted interior width, possibly, be for the old Master?  That would seem more consistent.

[Alan D]

Good news to see a new renault, our 2007 renault lunar has been faultless and has just sailed through its 1st MoT. We simply would not consider anything else but renaults have been thin on the ground. Fiats seem to have most of the market and we suspect it could be a price issue , as renaults are better they probably cost more.

The only caveat is any new one for us would have to have the fabulous 6 speed automatic gearbox which makes driving a joy and now could not do without.

alan.

[Guest JudgeMental]

Nice looking van. looks wide to me, maybe this could be a good PVC if enough decent company's adopted it.

 

http://www.renault.co.uk/vans/range.aspx

[tazdog6007]

no more renaults for me!the problem with the gearbox staying in man still happens,but after a run sorts itself out.so not fixed with confidence. and renault agents(we dont give a toss ,company logo.)are the most apathetic bunch you could meet >:-)

[Colin9591]

Someone posted a link to a new brochure a few weeks ago but the search function is dysfunctional at the moment, so I cannot find it.

 

However, I recall that it showed an internal width no greater than the "old" version that I have, i.e. 1765mm.

 

It seems strange that Renault may have missed an opportunity here although it depends on how it's measured, of course.

 

Regards

[euroserv]

Hello All,

 

Had my meeting with Renault this afternoon, not much to add except that the engine is an all new unit of 2298cc and it has a cam chain. Auto version is due mid 2011 and the twin rear wheel 3.5T and 4.5T will not be available to order until the autumn of this year. There is also going to be a 4.5T single rear wheel version for anyone that thinks that is a good idea!

 

I have seen a detailed video showing details of the cab and it looks very nice (if a little industrial) with certain parts clearly nicked from other vans such as the ash tray is from a Fiat Ducato and the the air vents are from an Iveco Daily! Got to save money somewhere.

 

It seems a fair bit more expensice than comparable Fiats but at least on the vans there is lots of kit being included as standard like sat nav for instance.

 

It is a pity they decided to make it narrower than the Fiat though, because i think it looks quite pretty and I might be tempted to forgive Renault for thier awful vans of the past....

 

Nick

[Brian Kirby]

"According to my sources", the engine is a development of the Laguna engine, so maybe not strictly new.

[euroserv]

Brian,

 

If that is the case it rules out the Master for me.

 

No way am I going back to the bad old days of car engines trying to pull vans. Not suitable, not designed for it and stupid, stupid, stupid. They are using exactly the same engine right up to 4.5T albeit at 100, 125 and 150hp but that size of vehicle needs a strong engine and one that was designed with torque as a priority. Not a car engine.

 

Nick

[Guest JudgeMental]

Th Ford unit was developed from a Mondeo........

[Bazza454]

But - the Mondeo has always been a steady, reliable car, if a little bland, whereas the Laguna was an absolute pile of junk with numerous engine and electrical faults...

[euroserv]

Judge,

 

Yes, the Ford engine was developed from the Mondeo, and in the Mondeo it is fine and does not have issues with clogged egr valves, furred up inlet manifolds, persistent oil cooler failures and a lot of other expensive and annoying faults that they built into the van!

 

In Ford's defence, your Honour, they don't try to use a car engine in anything bigger than a MWB FWD van, which is my issue with Renault. Ford use a 2.4 engine that while built for a commercial vehicle has the same annoying faults as above.

 

A 2.3 litre car derived engine in a RWD twin wheel van at 4.5T..... no thanks.

 

Nick

 

PS. The Laguna was a pile of crap, agreed.

[Brian Kirby]

Well, yes but..........  I didn't report that it was a Luguna engine, just that it was stated to be developed from a Laguna engine.  I have no details as to what those developments may have been.

However, we once had a Peugeot 205 diesel.  1.9 litres, no turbo.  Then a Renault Clio diesel, 1.9 litres, no turbo.  Two Citroens came next: a 1.9 litre diesel turbo ZX.  Lots more power, much higher consumption.  A development of the Peugeot 205 engine, with added turbo and a few other gizmos.  Then a 1.9 litre diesel Xsara, 1.9 litre turbo with electronic injectors.  Similar power to the ZX, much lower consumption.  A further development of the original 205 diesel "lump".  Next up was a Renault Scenic 1.9 dCi, a development of the Clio 1.9 diesel "lump" with turbo and electronic injection.  Same power as the Xsara, heavier car, higher consumption.  As to relevance, m'Lud?

Well, that PSA diesel lump is the engine that sat for years in the Peugeot Boxer/Citroen Jumper 1.9 litre diesel variants, (and now pops up powering the Peugeot Expert) and was pretty well regarded as a tough little engine.  The Renault 1.9 diesel is the same basic engine as propels many Renault Traffic vans.  Same story.  Broadly, so far as I know, same block, same bore, same stroke.  Different compressions, different cooling systems, different pistons, different head configurations, different engine management programmes.  Don't know about cam and crank shafts, con rods, bearing shells, etc, but suspect they also differ between the variants.

Mercedes currently offer 4 "4 in line" engine variants, all 2.2 litres (2,148cc actual), rated at 88, 109, 129, and 150hp.  I assume, as Renault propose, the differences will mostly be in the turbo designs and the EMS.

All I'm saying is, I don't think the ancestry of an engine should be too much a source of concern, it is how it is re-engineered to do what it does, in the place it is installed, that really counts.

With new vehicles, there is always the risk that something hasn't been properly de-bugged before they hit the streets (enter Fiat, incandescent, stage left!  :-)) so, the proof of the proverbial pudding etc.  However, the Renault engines themselves seem generally to have been sound enough, and durable, albeit they have too often been let down by unreliable peripheral electrics and electronics.  On this basis, I wouldn't rule them out before they get into the starting traps.  Lets see what they can do.  If they are unreliable, commercial use will soon reveal it!

[Freewheeler]

euroserv - 2010-02-24 10:40 AM

 

Brian,

 

If that is the case it rules out the Master for me.

 

No way am I going back to the bad old days of car engines trying to pull vans. Not suitable, not designed for it and stupid, stupid, stupid. They are using exactly the same engine right up to 4.5T albeit at 100, 125 and 150hp but that size of vehicle needs a strong engine and one that was designed with torque as a priority. Not a car engine.

 

Nick

 

My first motorhome was a 1978 Mk1 Ford Transit with a 1600cc ohv valve engine, the same as in some Cortina's of the time, but with a different camshaft.

It was so reliable that I thought that I would be disappointed if I replaced it with anything other than a Transit, although eventually I did, and had a Peugeot Boxer. This too was reliable, as is my current Renault Master based motorhome. Perhaps it is all down to how they are driven/serviced!

[tonyfletcher]

Hi All,

 

It would be interesting to see if any current sevel based manufacturers jump ship to Renault in light of the problems well documented on this forum

 

Cheers

 

Tony

[Steve928]

Brian Kirby - 2010-02-24 3:10 PM

However, the Renault engines themselves seem generally to have been sound enough, and durable, albeit they have too often been let down by unreliable peripheral electrics and electronics.

The Laguna DCi engines were notorious for turbo and intercooler failures too, often destroying the engine as it ran on until all the sump oil had been consumed through the ruptured oil galleries.It was a saga of X250 proportions, with Renault eventually extending 100% parts and labour warranties to 5 years/90,000 miles for dealer-serviced FQ9 engines suffering this fault.(X250 and Laguna owner 8-) )

[colin]

Brian Kirby - 2010-02-22 11:09 PM

  Could your quoted interior width, possibly, be for the old Master?  That would seem more consistent.

 

Thats from the 'new master' minisite, it is possible that renault have used the old figures by mistake, but the new Movano looks narrower than the X250, this could be an optical illusion though.

[Tomo3090]

The premier test as to whether any motorhome manufacturer turns to Renault is surely going to be based on the cost per unit for the chassis. Any other considerations for them will then be based on how their body shape will join the vans cab area and whether they need to re-train/re-tool their production teams and methods and any costs involved in that. I don't think what we feel as consumers will enter into any decision making process in any other way at all.

 

What we think of engine sizes, gear box ratios or can belt fastenings will be nothing more than background chatter I suspect!

 

It does look an nice van though.

[Harvey]

There are advantages to having a narrower 'van. I have one of the original 'proper' masters and it is 6' 6" wide: just perfect for those 6' 6" width restricted roads. :-D

 

Harvey

[Guest JudgeMental]

has anyone found out the width yet?

[davenewellhome]

Steve928 - 2010-02-24 5:07 PM

Brian Kirby - 2010-02-24 3:10 PM

However, the Renault engines themselves seem generally to have been sound enough, and durable, albeit they have too often been let down by unreliable peripheral electrics and electronics.

The Laguna DCi engines were notorious for turbo and intercooler failures too, often destroying the engine as it ran on until all the sump oil had been consumed through the ruptured oil galleries.It was a saga of X250 proportions, with Renault eventually extending 100% parts and labour warranties to 5 years/90,000 miles for dealer-serviced FQ9 engines suffering this fault.(X250 and Laguna owner 8-) )

Way back in the seventies the Ford Pinto engine developed a bad habit (and therefore a poor reputation) of eating camshafts due to the oil rail clogging up with swarf from the machining processes. Fast forward to 2010 and behold the venerable Pinto is now one of the engines of choice for kit car builders, why? Because it is in plentiful supply in breakers yards? Well possibly but more because it is now seen as a reliable and easily tunable motor.Personally I've always been biased against French motors of any breed simply because they have tended in the past to be strange animals that have a higher than normal propensity for removing knuckle skin when trying to do the simplest of mechanical tasks. Ask anyone who has changed spark plugs in a Citroen DS, done a head gasket on a Renault 16 or tried to change front wheel cylinders on a 2CV.However, several years ago I was invited to test a (then) new Renault Master based Italian motorhome. I'll skip the details on the Italian bits but the Renault part was superb to drive and having since carried out servicing work on quite a few I have to say I've softened my viewpoint on Renault motors a bit :D .D.

[colin]

davenewell@home - 2010-03-05 8:29 PM

Way back in the seventies the Ford Pinto engine developed a bad habit (and therefore a poor reputation) of eating camshafts due to the oil rail clogging up with swarf from the machining processes. Fast forward to 2010 and behold the venerable Pinto is now one of the engines of choice for kit car builders, why? Because it is in plentiful supply in breakers yards? Well possibly but more because it is now seen as a reliable and easily tunable motor.

They had to enlarge the feed to cam shaft, 20 years later made same mistake on the 8v DOHC version of engine.

 

Personally I've always been biased against French motors of any breed simply because they have tended in the past to be strange animals that have a higher than normal propensity for removing knuckle skin when trying to do the simplest of mechanical tasks. Ask anyone who has changed spark plugs in a Citroen DS, done a head gasket on a Renault 16 or tried to change front wheel cylinders on a 2CV.

 

Early Renault 5, first step to change clutch, remove headlamps 8-) , from there basicaly dismantle front end of car >:-(

[davenewellhome]

colin - 2010-03-05 8:38 PM

 

davenewell@home - 2010-03-05 8:29 PM

Way back in the seventies the Ford Pinto engine developed a bad habit (and therefore a poor reputation) of eating camshafts due to the oil rail clogging up with swarf from the machining processes. Fast forward to 2010 and behold the venerable Pinto is now one of the engines of choice for kit car builders, why? Because it is in plentiful supply in breakers yards? Well possibly but more because it is now seen as a reliable and easily tunable motor.

They had to enlarge the feed to cam shaft, 20 years later made same mistake on the 8v DOHC version of engine.

 

Personally I've always been biased against French motors of any breed simply because they have tended in the past to be strange animals that have a higher than normal propensity for removing knuckle skin when trying to do the simplest of mechanical tasks. Ask anyone who has changed spark plugs in a Citroen DS, done a head gasket on a Renault 16 or tried to change front wheel cylinders on a 2CV.

 

Early Renault 5, first step to change clutch, remove headlamps 8-) , from there basicaly dismantle front end of car >:-(

 

 

I rest my case M'Lud :D

 

D.

[quarryjmiller]

We run a small business and I have three Masters, the oldest is a 2005 LWB High Top with 181,000, the newest is an 08 (Euro 4) LWB with 50,000 miles, the third is a 2006 Lunar Premier with 25,000 miles, the vans are driven hard by drivers who give very little quarter, the last time we decided to change they were given the choice of what to replace an Iveco with, Sevels and LDVs (they still existed then) were not even on the radar, horror stories from everybody who runs a Transit seriously (sensors and valves), too many Sprinters spotted on the hard shoulder, it came down to a Crafter (we run a very reliable T5 and trust VW mechanicals more than Mercedes) but the lower floor height of the Master won out.

I just wish the Lunar conversion had been as reliable as the Renault part of the motorhome, between them our Masters have covered over 250,000 trouble free miles and I am looking forward to trying the new Master.

I cannot speak for the figures which Renault are giving for the new van but the vehicle specifications on their website for the old Master have always been completely inaccurate - not just understated - completely wrong.