Autotrail Tracker suspension on X250 3 ltr.

[armstrongpiper]

My vehicle is an A/T Tracker EKS, 2008, with 160 Multijet Comfortmatic. It has always appeared slightly 'tail up' on the road and when parked, and the ride is a little harsh (especially on rough French town roads). I have adjusted tyre pressures down to 65psi from door-post 79.5, without a noticeable change in ride. I wonder if beefier rear springs might been fitted at the factory to accompany the bigger engine. I will try to post a picture of the springs etc, which show that a bump rubber fitted is almost in constant contact with the spring - ie there is very small clearance to the spring.

Can I ask if anyone is having/has had this experience with their X250 based 'van? Maybe Mr Euroserv could comment, please. The vehicle is due its annual service in July and I've asked the agent to look at this, but some prior ideas would be helpful.

 

Many thanks, Neil B

 

 

Many thanks

[armstrongpiper]

Server error on trying to post picture. Will try again on a further reduced size!

[Rayjsj]

I think a lot of people have commented on the 'Harsh ride' of conversions onto the X250 chassis (and on the previous Fiat chassis). Most folk opt for removing the 'Bump stops' altogether and replacing them with an 'Air assisted suspension system'. Although Fiat advertise that the X250 is an 'Ideal base' for a motorhome it's suspension system is a straight commercial vehicle one, the bump stops are part of that system, and on a heavily laden vehicle (a motorhome is heavily laden 'most' of the time) they are in contact with the axle plate.

Probably not what you want to hear but, i would go for the exrtra cost of an 'Air system'. Ray

 

[Brian Kirby]

The suspension is as intended.  The items in question are not properly bump stops, but are part of the suspension intended to work in conjunction with the leaf springs.  They allow a lighter spring for lighter loads, but stiffen under compression with heavier loads to control vertical movement.  The result is a stiffer ride.  Fitting air assistance will give more compliance to the suspension which will reduce the inherent stiffness somewhat, and will also "taughten" the rear end to reduce any tendency to wallow on bends and roundabouts.  Short of replacing the lot with a full air system, it is about the most cost effective ride and roadholding improvement available.

[rolandrat]

I have a 3ltr manual Tracker EKS with the same suspension and I run with 60psi all round. I have previously run at 50 psi without having a problem and on normal road surfaces is very smooth. The road holding is about the best you can have with no roll at all, it's a well designed chassis.

[armstrongpiper]

Thanks for your helpful comments. Just checked tyre pressures again, and they'd gone up to 70psi (presumably with weather being a lot warmer), so have reduced them to 60psi for a try-out.

 

 

Ta, Neil B

[euroserv]

Hello,

 

On the 3.5T Ducato you can either have standard springs or heavy duty, which is a twin leaf set up. That is what you have, so we can assume that the builder opted for these from the factory. They are standard on the 4T chassis.

 

I run the standard springs on out LWB vans, but all of our 3.0 XLWB vans have been fitted with heavy duty. I have to admit that when I first drove one with no load, and only a partially filled fuel tank I thought it was a bit too harsh, bouncy and noisy, but with a little weight in there it is fine. The expansion joints on the concrete A50 near Burton on Trent are very tedious though!

 

My 'pet' comfort-matic is of the same spec and we have just got back from a very punishing trip to Paris supporting a cycling event. Loaded to about 3100kg it rode like a limousine with plenty of grip and agility during journeys that went well beyond anything you will ever ask of your campers. We took 3 of these vans to France and up against a very demanding timetable, they all averaged 26mpg and performed faultlessly. That is with climate control on and at high speeds.

 

I got out at either end of the 500 mile legs of the journey completely free of aches or pains, so I would say that the twin leaf suspension is absolutely perfect on the larger vehicles and if you would rather feel seasick; get yourself a nice bouncy Sprinter!

 

Leave the tyre pressures alone. 70PSi is required, correct and that is that.

 

Nick

[armstrongpiper]

Thanks Nick, that is very interesting, and confirms my suspicions about the springs. My 'van is MGW 3500Kgs, and on the MWB chassis. I would be interested to know the cost of changing to standard springs, but would guess this would persuade me that the ride is acceptible!! The tryes fitted are Continental Vancocamper 215/70R15, and are stamped max 69psi. I feel happier to not run at maximum pressure, so will leave them at about 62 and see how the ride goes.

 

Thanks again, Neil B

[euroserv]

Mmmm,

 

Ours are 3500 Maxi vehicles on 215 75 16 10 ply tyres, and that is what I assumed you had. Please disregard my comments about 70PSi unless you have the same set up.

 

On the other hand....... perhaps the Continental commercial tyres that we get give a more comfortable ride? The difference between 75 profile on 16" and 70 at 15" may seem small but it could make a lot of difference if as I suspect the heavy duty springs were intended to be used on Maxi chassis with 16" wheels and not really rested on the lighter versions with the smaller rims.

 

Nick

[rolandrat]

Nick, If as you say the twin leaf springs are rated at 4 ton, are the same chassis fitted with uprated front springs as well or are thay the same as the 3.5 ton. I have a 3 ltr manual fitted with twin leaf rear springs but I don't know if the front ones will be uprated as well. One thing is for sure it will never need an air suspension kit fitted.

[euroserv]

Hi there,

 

I have had a quick look, and it would take a considerable time to produce the definitive guide to X250 suspension (that you have come to expect!) but I have established that there are about 8 different front springs for the various different wights and configurations of everything from SWB vans to Double cab chassis. The 3500kg vehicles have different springs to the 3500kg Maxi vehicles and there is no difference at the front on the 4000kg Maxi. Some weights of vans even have different springs depending on whether they are 'window vans' or not (presumably destined to be mini-busses)

 

Although there is a listing for front springs when option 4GM is called for (twin leaf rear springs) the part number is the same for all Maxi versions.

Therefore there will not automatically be any difference at the front just because there has been the fitment of the uprated rear springs. BUT because there seems to some lighter (3500kg non-Maxi) vehicles out there with heavy duty suspension that is not supposed to be available it is too hard to say. Without a chassis number to work with, I do not really know what you have had fitted at the factory, because it appears that there are some variations to the standard specs being requested by the builders.

 

If you would like to PM your chassis number, it will help me to establish what is going on, and I will of course answer any other questions that you may have.

 

Nick

[colin]

Running the tyres at a little over 3/4 of the recommended pressure doesn't sound like a good idea to me, if the 79.5 is anything like correct that is. You will greatly increase the risk of tyre failure.

[armstrongpiper]

I must admit to being a little puzzled. The tyre pressure info on the 'van door pillar placed there by Fiat gives their figures at 72psi Front and 79 Rear, yet they fit tyres with a max pressure moulded on them at 69psi. I am guided (and so it seems are Motorcaravanners who contribute to this Forum) by a document called 'TyreSafe', originating from the British Tyre Manufacturers Association, www.btmauk.com. In there, a lot of information on Tyres is given along with tables for pressures at various axle loads.

 

 

Neil B

[roger20]

Just picked up on this whilst in Venice.

 

We have a 2008 Tracker EKS with a 130 2.3l engine and have currently done nearly 15000 miles. I think the nose down attitude is fairly common (to the Camper chassis?) because I have noticed it on a number of Continental vans as well. The only real problem it seems to cause is when pitching on site but sometimes this works to your advantage because you don't need ramps on a slightly sloping site!

 

I wondered whether it is because some of the bigger heavier vans are built using the same spring rates so don't appear quite so nose down. There seems little if any clearance between the buffer and rubber but I believe that the bump stop may be part of the suspension itself - perhaps someone else might be able to comment on this.

 

Having changed from a 2004 A/T Cheyenne I kept the Airride spring assisters for a time but eventually decided not to fit them because the new Ducato is so much better sprung. With front and rear anti-roll bars it handles so well I have to be careful at times to remember that I'm actually driving a 3.5T van and not a car!

 

As far as tyre pressures are concerned I run at 53 front and 65 rear. I check these regularly after driving on the motorway and even today when it was 80F they were warm but not too hot.

 

You may also find this interesting. Having been irritated by squeaks and rattles this holiday, particularly when hot I traced the problem to the window frames. Carefully prizing off the perforated covers on the Remis blinds reveals the screws holding inner and outer frames. They were all rather loose and by screwing them up firmly, and also tightening the front door frames I have now, for the first time in 2 years got a completely silent van which is a real pleasure to drive.

 

[Neil Hunt]

Hi Roger

 

 

"I traced the problem to the window frames. Carefully prizing off the perforated covers on the Remis blinds reveals the screws holding inner and outer frames. They were all rather loose and by screwing them up firmly, and also tightening the front door frames I have now, for the first time in 2 years got a completely silent van which is a real pleasure to drive. "

 

Our Autosleeper is also incredibly noisy in the rear, and consequently gruelling on even short journeys, and I have noticed the frames are screwed tightly at the bottom and are loose at the top, you can easily see the screws standing proud.

 

I did wonder whether the material they are screwed into is unable to hold the screw and had worked itself loose rather than poor workmanship. I also find different road surfaces cause different parts of the van to resonate but your is tip definitely worth a try and if it eliminates some of the cacophony it would be a blessing.

[armstrongpiper]

Thanks for those observations Roger, and I'll check those Remis Blinds. I have also decided to remove the cab window blinds as I just cannot stop them squeaking and rattling. I will get some interior 'Silver Screen' type of blinds.

 

Neil B

[roger20]

In my haste I said they were Remis blinds on the windows. This may be true for the Fiat door blinds but I believe the main side windows are Seitz. Its a few weeks now since I tightened the screws but thinking back this didn't immediately fully cure the squeaks.

 

My wife identified that the window catches themselves were also noisy and chattering on the frames whilst we were travelling and a liberal spray with Castrol DWF (from Mostar of all places!) finally sorted it out properly.

 

I would still try and persevere by tightening the screws on the door frames as much as you dare before abandoning them because mine are quiet now. Also try turning the black rods around a bit until they feel tightish.

 

We also sorted out a very irritating chattering from the bathroom door following a factory visit when I mentioned that the body twisting was wearing a groove in the sliding brass door catch. I was given a new catch plate which has additional metal bent back into the recess for the brass catch and this seems to have been a complete cure - they are probably standard on current vans now.

 

So far as the tyre pressures I have adopted these are obviously specific to my 2.3l rather than your heavier 3l but they came about from 3-4 trips to our local (free) weighbridge, measuring front and rear axles when fully loaded, which for this trip was only 20kg shy of the MGVW of 3.5t.