Any views on NEW Transit 115bhp w/ overcab motorhome?

[Nellie42]

We are considering buying a motorhome with the new Transit 115bhp 6spd engine with an overcab.

 

Has anyone experience of this format of van eg.Rollerteam 500?

 

MMM report in this month's mag said performance after 60mph was poor and the fuel consumption seemed high.

 

Can anyone offer any views / mpg numbers?

 

We have been Motorcaravanners for 30+years and this will be our 4thvan.We currently have a 98 2.5TD Ford Transit and have been very happy with this for the last 12years.

 

Thank you in advance. Nellie.

[colin]

The question would be, are you happy with performance compared to your present van?

We hired a similier o/cab on the Ford chassis this year, it wasn't too bad driving up to 60mph, but on motorways it definately felt like you where pushing it a bit hard if you wanted to go faster, I seem to recall it did around 24mpg.

 

[Brian Kirby]

I assume this is the FWD chassis, Roller Team's website is a little short on details?  It is perhaps a little underpowered which, coupled with the aerodynamics of a barn door, would explain its relatively high fuel consumption.  It is a nominal 5 berth van.  Do you need so many berths?  If not, you could achieve better fuel economy by not going the Luton cab route.

[Guest JudgeMental]

I think you would be better of with the next engine up, which used to be 130bhp but is now 140bhp. I have the 130bhp on a fair sized overcab camper and the engine pulls it like a train.....

 

I dont hang about and average I guess about 23mph? thats 4 people heavy loaded....

[hallii]

My Hymer 522 Van (2007) Mk7 Transit with the 2.2 engine goes very well, 80 mph is easy, and over 1200 miles in France recently it did 32 MPG.

 

Overcab bed and heavier body will take their toll on speed and fuel consumption of course, but I suspect that the 2.2 engine would be more than capable.

 

Hallii

[Derek Uzzell]

Nellie42 - 2010-08-01 3:35 PM

 

...We have been Motorcaravanners for 30+years and this will be our 4thvan.We currently have a 98 2.5TD Ford Transit and have been very happy with this for the last 12years.

 

Thank you in advance. Nellie.

 

Assuming your present Ford-based motorhome has a similar size/body-style/weight specification to what you are considering buying, then a replacement vehicle with 115bhp Ford 2.2litre powerplant should provide significantly better performance and potentially less fuel consumption than your current one...and the refinement of the motor and gearbox will be a very welcome revelation compared to your 2.5TD-engined model.

 

Andrew Bromley (who wrote the MMM test article you refer to) has a smallish, well run-in, Globecar panel-van conversion as his own personal motorhome. This vehicle is powered by the 140bhp version of the 2.2litre Ford motor, so it should really be no surprise if Andrew found the 115bhp engine, dragging along a larger, heavier overcab design, a mite weedy at higher speeds. Having said that, if the 140bhp motor is available on the model(s) you have in mind, it might be wise to opt for that engine as its overall performance is noticeably superior to that of the lower-powered 115bhp version and fuel consumption will probably be no worse.

 

It may also be worth adding that the platform-cab chassis on which all front-wheel drive coachbuilt Transit-based motorhomes have been built since 2004 is obsolescent. Ford has recently released a wider rear-track, 'ladder frame' chassis, apparently similar in concept to Fiat's Camping-Car chassis. Motorhome manufacturers are already beginning to employ this new chassis and the Trigano Tribute T-Series range of overcab motorhomes (being built in Auto-Trail's UK factory) is one example. For Tribute T-Series details see:

 

http://www.toddsmotorhomes.co.uk/online_shop/trigano_ranges/trigano_ranges.asp

[Bojitoes]

Hi, we have a Roller Team 500 which we purchased new in April 2009. We have already driven to France last September and Spain /Portugal this year as well as other, shorter trips, covering in total about 11,500 miles. Consumption has not dropped below28.5mpg and is normally just over 30mpg. On motorways I tend to drive at 60mph, 52mph on A roads. The only time I have noticed a handling issue was going through mountains in Spain with very high cross winds when, because the wind was so strong, we got blown into the adjacent lane, otherwise, touch wood, no problem at all. Like the gearbox, love the cruise control. Any further info required, come back

Bojitoes

[Mel B]

Derek Uzzell - 2010-08-02 9:31 AM

 

It may also be worth adding that the platform-cab chassis on which all front-wheel drive coachbuilt Transit-based motorhomes have been built since 2004 is obsolescent. Ford has recently released a wider rear-track, 'ladder frame' chassis, apparently similar in concept to Fiat's Camping-Car chassis.

 

We have a 2.2 140bhp FWD Chausson Flash 04 (low profile) goes like the wind! Not sure I'd go for an overcab motorhome with only the 115bhp version though - our previous vans were based on a 2.4 135bhp Ford RWD and a 2.3JTD 110bhp Fiat FWD, each of which was better than the predecessor - the simple answer is, you'll have to try it on a good run out and see what you feel about it.

 

As for the wider track that Derek mentions, we have the standard track version and we were very glad we had when we were in Wales in July on holiday, some of the single track roads' surface tarmac was very narrow and even with passing places, we had to take our wheels right to the very edge sometimes with the body overhanging - had we had the wider track it would have been problematic.

[Nellie42]

Thank you to everyone for their comments.It really helps with this big decision. Nellie

[Derek Uzzell]

Ford’s latest FWD chassis offers a number of potential advantages.

 

The move from platform-cab to ladder-frame breaks the link between the Transit panel-van and coachbuilt motorhomes, so (in principle at least) there should be more flexibility in terms of optimum wheelbase length and we won’t see any more long FWD Transit-based coachbuilt designs married to relatively short chassis. Ladder-frame chassis are also less challenging for motorhome manufacturers to build on regarding rational installation of large water tanks, underfloor-mounted heaters, etc.

 

The wider-track rear axle should improve road-holding and reduce roll during hard cornering. It will definitely improve aesthetics, as the motorhome’s rear wheels will be closer to the sides of the bodywork, not inset deeply within the wheel enclosures (see the Hobby photo on page 142 of MMM June 2010 for an example of ‘buried’ rear wheels). It will (or should!) also inhibit motorhome converters from producing ‘stylish’ coachbuilt bodywork that masks the rear wheels and makes wheel-changing a nightmare.

 

Downsides? A need to be more careful on tight corners to avoid the rear wheels hitting the kerb and Mel’s unusual scenario. I can’t remember reading any complaints about such things from people with motorcaravans having a wide rear-track Fiat Camping-Car or Al-Ko chassis, or having a wider-than-the-front twinned-wheel rear axle, so I wouldn’t think it will be considered much of a problem with the new Transit chassis.

 

August’s MMM reports that Transit-based 2011 FWD Chausson “Flash” models will be on the new chassis, so I guess other manufacturers will be following suit, either by choice or (perhaps more likely) because that’s the only type of coachbuilt-suitable FWD chassis Ford will be producing in future.

 

[JohnP]

Would certainly recommend the Transit 2.2 140bhp FWD. Around 29 mpg and no problems on Motorways or hills.

The 115bhp version may be a little under powered with an overcab bed design.

[Brian Kirby]

Derek Uzzell - 2010-08-03 8:16 AM .................and Mel’s unusual scenario. I can’t remember reading any complaints about such things from people with motorcaravans having a wide rear-track Fiat Camping-Car or Al-Ko chassis, or having a wider-than-the-front twinned-wheel rear axle, so I wouldn’t think it will be considered much of a problem with the new Transit chassis.

August’s MMM reports that Transit-based 2011 FWD Chausson “Flash” models will be on the new chassis, so I guess other manufacturers will be following suit, either by choice or (perhaps more likely) because that’s the only type of coachbuilt-suitable FWD chassis Ford will be producing in future.

'Afternoon, Derek.

Re the above, I have wondered from time to time about the wisdom of the wider rear track, not so much on the basis Mel encountered, but on similar experiences on French "D" roads.  Many of these have now been re-surfaced so many times (unlike in UK where they seem to be left to fall apart before even being patched!) that the tarmac is, in places, a good six inches above the surface of the verge.  Needless to say, the edge of the tarmac is rough and uneven, and verges are not always "stabilised".  You do not want to go dropping a rear wheel off the tarmac, especially if travelling at any speed!  The problem with the Ds, is that they are not all particularly wide, and a surprising number turn out to be truck rat-runs along which artics hustle merrily.  I have teetered along the edge of the tarmac a few times to allow trucks to pass, not always as slowly as my underwear prefers - especially when the truck approaches round a blind bend, as they do, at a fair clip.  Under these circumstances I dread to think what might be the consequences for a van with a wide rear track, but the ditch seems a distinct possibility!

Re the ladder frame Transit chassis, I understood from the August Le Monde du Camping Car, that it was jointly developed with Trigano - which may indicate its appearance under quite a few more of the Trigano brands.

[Mel B]

Howdy Derek

 

As you may recall our previous van was a Rimor Sailer 645TC on a twin rear wheel drive Transit and there were times when the wheel nearest the verge was a little bit too close for comfort on some roads, but we did have the benefit of the second wheel further in to keep the 'van on the road so it wasn't a major worry, but if we only had the one 'wider' wheel I think our underwear may have resembled Brians! 8-) (Pink polkadots eh Brian? :$ )

 

We like to tootle down smaller roads to get to out of the way places, and on our more recent holidays in Scotland and Wales we definitely were going down some very narrow ones with a nice 'lawn' growing down the middle ... not for the faint hearted! *-)

 

I take your point about some of the benefits but for us there would be disadvantages too. ;-)