Fiats pre juddergate?!

[terryW]

Just changed to a used x250 (08 plate) 140bhp and 3300kg. In my case with the lowish weight and length (<7m) I find it to be no worse than a couple of 04 & 05 vans I have owned.

 

In between these I slipped in a 57 LWB Ford and must say the longer wheel base caused me more problems than revering the Fiat.

 

But all this is based on how and where I drive and use the van. Also the weight and length may be a factor in my case.

[Robinhood]

Melvin - 2011-02-28 8:28 AM

 

Part of the blame needs to fall with the coach builders, our Autotrail Cheynne 660 overhang behind the rear axle is near on 50% of the wheelbase, not only does this amplify the reverse problem, it causes the rear end to 'snake' about on the dual/motorways when caught out by the deep tramline made by the heavy trucks.

 

Slightly OT, but:

 

I've had several 'vans with good-sized overhangs, but the only one that suffered greatly from this (tramlining) was an Alko-chassised Rapido.

 

Accordingly, I've always put it down to the difference in the front and rear track (the rear track on the Alko being somewhat wider than the front, and closer to the usual "tramline" width), and the fact that the rear wheel(s) being in the tramlines, but the front (steering ones) not, leads to some interesting handling characteristics.

 

Is your Cheyenne built on the Alko, or the widened rear track Fiat Camper base?

[Guest Peter James]

terryW - 2011-02-28 9:25 AM

 

Just changed to a used x250 (08 plate) 140bhp and 3300kg.

 

Has it been modified?

Sevel do not list an X2/50 with 140bhp

[euroserv]

Dave225 - 2011-02-27 8:40 PM

 

Fiats fitted with the 'automatic' gearbox are not affected as this already has a lower reverse gear ratio.

 

 

Hello gang,

 

Not much that I can add except that the above comment is incorrect.

 

The 3.0L Manual and Automated manuals have exactly the same gearboxes and ratios. There is some witchcraft involved in the operation of the clutch by a computer smarter than all of us though.

 

The 3.0L manuals are the ones to worry about most because although the number of reported issues is smaller; Fiat have never offered any regognition of a fault or any fixes for this engine.

 

A low mileage X250 2.3 is something to be wary of for a number of reasons.. ask yourself why someone would trade a late van in and lose so much money?

 

It could be that there is a problem with the gearbox or gear ratios that the owner has just had enough of or is scared of.

 

It could be that the weight of the vehicle leaves them with insufficient payload to be able to use the van as they would wish to.

 

The van was perhaps just not their cup of tae after all and they have abandoned motorhoming altogether.

 

Ask the dealer why they sold it and ask if you could speak to them.

 

If you are still keen on it, insist on a thorough test drive and check the points made above.

 

Nick

[Travelling Tyke]

Hello,

 

Now to be really devilish......If the engine has an "Electronic Brain" the mechanic you "need" in the "back of beyond" may not have the kit or the knowledge to fix it!

 

Sorry....... :D

[Rayjsj]

john&sue - 2011-02-27 9:00 PM

 

Hi

Not sure if this is of any help but we have a Fiat 2.8 with the comformatic gear box 2008 model, purchased new, have not experienced any reversing problems. :-)

 

You cannot buy a 2008 X250 Fiat with a 2.8 Engine AND a Comfortamatic (semi-Automatic) Gearbox. Are you sure it isn't a 3.0 litre ??

 

If you have a steep drive (as i have) then the X250 (late 2006 onwards) based motorhomes are a Non-Starter, reverse gear far,far too high for a commercial based vehicle, even the very latest gearboxes (that are supposed to be 'fixed' ) cannot back up my drive (20%) slightly less than 1 in 4 in 'Old Money' without 'Toasting' the clutch (no matter WHO is driving, just in case the sceptics out there doubt my ability) and that is a panel based van !!! a coachbuilt wouldn't have a hope.

Some say, 'I don't care, it goes foward lovely' i just hope they never get put in the posistion where they HAVE to reverse uphill, because these new vehicles are just 'not up to it'.

Until X250 Mk2 comes out I will NOT be buying one, and only then after testing it in reverse up a 20% hill, fully laden.

I did Buy a Peugeot a 2.2 ,last year, but a pre- X250. As I wouldn't 'take a gamble' with my money. ( This Coachbuilt one reverses up my drive Fine !) Just 'MY' experience. ;-) Ray

[Guest Peter James]

euroserv - 2011-02-28 11:22 AM

 

Dave225 - 2011-02-27 8:40 PM

 

Fiats fitted with the 'automatic' gearbox are not affected as this already has a lower reverse gear ratio.

 

 

Hello gang,

 

Not much that I can add except that the above comment is incorrect.

 

The 3.0L Manual and Automated manuals have exactly the same gearboxes and ratios. There is some witchcraft involved in the operation of the clutch by a computer smarter than all of us though.

 

The 3.0L manuals are the ones to worry about most because although the number of reported issues is smaller; Fiat have never offered any regognition of a fault or any fixes for this engine.

 

A low mileage X250 2.3 is something to be wary of for a number of reasons.. ask yourself why someone would trade a late van in and lose so much money?

 

It could be that there is a problem with the gearbox or gear ratios that the owner has just had enough of or is scared of.

 

It could be that the weight of the vehicle leaves them with insufficient payload to be able to use the van as they would wish to.

 

The van was perhaps just not their cup of tae after all and they have abandoned motorhoming altogether.

 

Ask the dealer why they sold it and ask if you could speak to them.

 

If you are still keen on it, insist on a thorough test drive and check the points made above.

 

Nick

Always a pleasure to read your posts Nick, and you may be right as usual.

But, looking round Brownhills Newark when I go in to change my gas bottle, I am amazed by the number of very nearly new secondhand Motorhomes there are, seemingly of all makes. I don't know why. Trading in to a dealer after a short time must be the most expensive way to run a motorhome.

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

rupert123 - 2011-02-27 11:32 PM

 

The X250 is the best M/H base vehicle their is at present and has been since it came out...

 

Well,is there a "best"? and I suppose it all depends on how you define "best"..?

Perhaps the "nicest",yes..with light steering and controls,airy cab and decent dash board(..I wish our Renault had our previous X250s' dash'!)

But does that make it "best"?..I'm not altogether convinced...

(..Oh! and it also has some of the widest windscreen pillars known to man,which results in quite serious blindspots. :-S )

 

 

Yes there's the MH "specific" model,lower and wider rear track etc ..but lets be honest,when driven as MHs and not being thrown around like the family hatchback,if it was not something that Fiats' "marketing" had pushed,would we really notice that much difference?..really? :-S

 

Having said all of that,which ever the manufacturer,I'm not altogether convinced that having vehicles, which from the cab,"feel" not to dissimilar to the family "Honda Jazz", is such a good idea anyway..

 

I think something 7-8m long and weighing 3.5-3.8t,should feel like it! (lol)

 

Edit: Apologies..Just realised, WAY off topic! :$

[Melvin]

Robinhood - 2011-02-28 9:33 AM

 

Melvin - 2011-02-28 8:28 AM

 

Part of the blame needs to fall with the coach builders, our Autotrail Cheynne 660 overhang behind the rear axle is near on 50% of the wheelbase, not only does this amplify the reverse problem, it causes the rear end to 'snake' about on the dual/motorways when caught out by the deep tramline made by the heavy trucks.

 

Slightly OT, but:

 

I've had several 'vans with good-sized overhangs, but the only one that suffered greatly from this (tramlining) was an Alko-chassised Rapido.

 

Accordingly, I've always put it down to the difference in the front and rear track (the rear track on the Alko being somewhat wider than the front, and closer to the usual "tramline" width), and the fact that the rear wheel(s) being in the tramlines, but the front (steering ones) not, leads to some interesting handling characteristics.

 

Is your Cheyenne built on the Alko, or the widened rear track Fiat Camper base?

 

The Cheynne is on a Fiat Maxi chassis complete with the cart springs, I have fitted some Airides which helps a little. The Wheel base on a Alko chassis is greater than the Fiat Maxi.

[Robinhood]

Melvin - 2011-02-28 3:18 PM

 

Robinhood - 2011-02-28 9:33 AM

Is your Cheyenne built on the Alko, or the widened rear track Fiat Camper base?

 

The Cheynne is on a Fiat Maxi chassis complete with the cart springs, I have fitted some Airides which helps a little. The Wheel base on a Alko chassis is greater than the Fiat Maxi.

 

Perusal of the brochure indicates that all the 2008 Cheyennes were built on the "Camper" version of the chassis, which would mean a wider track at the rear.

 

Whilst it certainly doesn't prove my point, it is at least consistent with the theory. B-)

[Brian Kirby]

Both ours have tramlined, both were cured. 

First was a 6 metre van on a 2005 LWB Ducato (so very little rear overhang, and near 50/50 front/rear weight distribution - resulting in front axle at 98% of limit when loaded). 

Present van is 6 metre long on a 2007 MWB Transit (consequently near 50% rear overhang, 40/60 front/rear weight distribution, and rear axle at 87% of limit when loaded).  Both had standard chassis with equal front and rear track.

The remedy in both, quite dissimilar, cases (thanks to advice from one George Collings, occasionally of this parish :-)) was to weigh the van and note the laden axle loads, then contact the tyre manufacturers (Michelin and Continental respectively) with the laden weights, and reduce the tyre pressures as recommended. 

Sensitivity to tramlines etc was virtually eliminated except where severe, with ride quality, and general handling, also greatly improved.

So, my take is that whereas the wandering is undoubtedly primarily due to the grooves in the roads, it can almost be eliminated by getting the tyres, particularly the front tyres, down to pressures appropriate to the actual loads.

Sorry for OT, but in the hope it may be of interest to the afflicted!  :-)

[DJP]

JudgeMental - 2011-02-27 10:13 PM

 

I think you will find the factory started producing modified vans from first quarter of 2009. so going by that any mid 2009 van onward SHOULD be OK? *-) But please do not take my word for it I know little? Please await expert opinion.........

 

I am buying a new Fiat based panel van and feel it should be OK now :-S

 

The gearbox, irrespective of whether it was built in 2007 or 2011or is a manual or a Comfortmatic is the same in all 3.0 ltr models. NO modifications have been made. The ONLY modification was a new softer clutch material which was introduced in May 2009. This was part of an ongoing product development. NOT to replace a faulty item THEY say!

The Comfortmatic clutch is operated electronically and actually slips the clutch to avoid the judder. It will only be a matter of time, in my opinion before these clutch begin to fail. They will slip under load.

The judder on the 2.3 models is fixable by Fiat under warranty. If some older models have not been modified it is down to the owner. The fix was a lower reverse gear, new clutch and new engine mounts. It does cure the problem.

Hopefully the new X250 replacement (due mid year) will have a judder free gearbox!

*-)

 

 

Quote

However, was I pleased with the results, the answer 'no'. The reverse gear should have been much, but, due to the internal dimension of the gearbox casing this proved not possible.

 

Part of the blame needs to fall with the coach builders, our Autotrail Cheynne 660 overhang behind the rear axle is near on 50% of the wheelbase, not only does this amplify the reverse problem, it causes the rear end to 'snake' about on the dual/motorways when caught out by the deep tramline made by the heavy trucks. unquote

 

 

 

The overhang has nothing whatsoever to do with the judder. The judder happens in reverse!

The reverse gear should have been much??? Not sure what you mean?

The ratio should have been changed on the 2.3. It is only on the 3.0 ltr where the dimension of the gearbox casing prevents the change. (>)

[Robinhood]

Brian Kirby - 2011-02-28 7:04 PM

 

So, my take is that whereas the wandering is undoubtedly primarily due to the grooves in the roads, it can almost be eliminated by getting the tyres, particularly the front tyres, down to pressures appropriate to the actual loads.

 

I've run my last 4 vans at pressures recommended by the tyre manufacturer for actual axle loads (and for the quality of ride alone, I'd recommend this to everyone).

 

The only one where I have noticed what I would consider to be overt sensitivity to "spurrillen" as the Germans term them, is on the Alko-chassised Rapido, with a wide rear track. I've noted other comments about similar set-ups.

 

Various theories have been expounded about the effect, one of which I've set out above; the other I've seen is that the wider track at the rear is sufficient for the vehicle to have opposing wheels each in a rut, exacerbating the effect. It certainly is a fact that, when you're steering, you've effectively got to consider the track of each axle separately to stay out of them!

 

So, whilst I support the action of running with correct pressures, I can't agree that it removes the issue in this case.

 

(I do, of course Brian, only have empirical evidence, much like yourself, so most likely one or both of us is right (or wrong)) B-)

[terryW]

Peter James - 2011-02-28 10:02 AM

 

terryW - 2011-02-28 9:25 AM

 

Just changed to a used x250 (08 plate) 140bhp and 3300kg.

 

Has it been modified?

Sevel do not list an X2/50 with 140bhp

 

Sorry for delay in responding the answer is no mod to engine nor gearbox. Assuming you are referring to the 140bhp then perhaps 140 bhp was an option, the previous owner added a lot of high spec accessories when he purchased it.

[Guest Peter James]

DJP - 2011-02-28 8:35 PM

The overhang has nothing whatsoever to do with the judder.

 

Then why do nearly all the complaints come from motorhome owners?

 

 

[Guest Peter James]

terryW - 2011-02-28 9:32 PM

 

Peter James - 2011-02-28 10:02 AM

 

terryW - 2011-02-28 9:25 AM

 

Just changed to a used x250 (08 plate) 140bhp and 3300kg.

 

Has it been modified?

Sevel do not list an X2/50 with 140bhp

 

Sorry for delay in responding the answer is no mod to engine nor gearbox. Assuming you are referring to the 140bhp then perhaps 140 bhp was an option, the previous owner added a lot of high spec accessories when he purchased it.

 

Thanks for the reply. Where does it say that it is 140bhp though, the manuals I have only list 100, 120, 130 and 160 (?)

[Mel B]

Peter James - 2011-02-28 9:38 PM

 

DJP - 2011-02-28 8:35 PM

The overhang has nothing whatsoever to do with the judder.

 

Then why do nearly all the complaints come from motorhome owners?

 

 

Probably because motorhome owners take their vehicles to places that most white vans don't go to and most white vans are driven by employees who haven't shelled out £30,000+ on a motorhome! :-S

[Mel B]

terryW - 2011-02-28 9:25 AM

 

Just changed to a used x250 (08 plate) 140bhp and 3300kg. In my case with the lowish weight and length (<7m) I find it to be no worse than a couple of 04 & 05 vans I have owned.

 

In between these I slipped in a 57 LWB Ford and must say the longer wheel base caused me more problems than revering the Fiat.

 

But all this is based on how and where I drive and use the van. Also the weight and length may be a factor in my case.

 

Are you confusing the bhp of your Ford which could have been the 140bhp version with your Fiat?

 

This explains what engines Fiat did/do depending on the year of the vehicle...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Ducato#Engines_second_generation_.28facelift.29

[terryW]

Peter James - 2011-02-28 9:43 PM

 

terryW - 2011-02-28 9:32 PM

 

Peter James - 2011-02-28 10:02 AM

 

terryW - 2011-02-28 9:25 AM

 

Just changed to a used x250 (08 plate) 140bhp and 3300kg.

 

Has it been modified?

Sevel do not list an X2/50 with 140bhp got confused with our last Ford van.

 

Sorry for delay in responding the answer is no mod to engine nor gearbox. Assuming you are referring to the 140bhp then perhaps 140 bhp was an option, the previous owner added a lot of high spec accessories when he purchased it.

 

Thanks for the reply. Where does it say that it is 140bhp though, the manuals I have only list 100, 120, 130 and 160 (?)

 

Oops sorry for the confusion, just checked and you are correct it is 130. Got confused with our last Ford van.

 

Think another scotch and away to bed is in order :$

[rupert123]

Brian Kirby - 2011-02-28 7:04 PM

Both ours have tramlined, both were cured. 

First was a 6 metre van on a 2005 LWB Ducato (so very little rear overhang, and near 50/50 front/rear weight distribution - resulting in front axle at 98% of limit when loaded). 

Present van is 6 metre long on a 2007 MWB Transit (consequently near 50% rear overhang, 40/60 front/rear weight distribution, and rear axle at 87% of limit when loaded).  Both had standard chassis with equal front and rear track.

The remedy in both, quite dissimilar, cases (thanks to advice from one George Collings, occasionally of this parish :-)) was to weigh the van and note the laden axle loads, then contact the tyre manufacturers (Michelin and Continental respectively) with the laden weights, and reduce the tyre pressures as recommended. 

Sensitivity to tramlines etc was virtually eliminated except where severe, with ride quality, and general handling, also greatly improved.

So, my take is that whereas the wandering is undoubtedly primarily due to the grooves in the roads, it can almost be eliminated by getting the tyres, particularly the front tyres, down to pressures appropriate to the actual loads.

Sorry for OT, but in the hope it may be of interest to the afflicted!  :-)

This is spot on with my experience, lots of coachbuilts especially running around with front tyres to hard.

[pusscat]

DJP - 2011-02-28 8:35 PMThe judder on the 2.3 models is fixable by Fiat under warranty. If some older models have not been modified it is down to the owner. The fix was a lower reverse gear, new clutch and new engine mounts. It does cure the problem.. (>)

Corky 8 - 2011-02-27 9:28 PM

My Motorhome went in and had the first fix with no positive results ,it then went back in and the full so call fix, that did help but to my reckoning,it did not cure it ,

So it's the luck of the draw if when you have mod 1 & 2 for post 2006 models if it actually fixes the problem completely then?! Looks like I'm going to be doing an awful lot of test driving and questioning of dealers..Incidentally, was Mod 1 something to do with engine management...and does that mean if you subsequently get it chipped, you lose the benefits of Mod 1? Sorry for the questions but I just want to learn as much as I can from you all and weigh up which way to go.Ta

[rupert123]

pusscat - 2011-02-28 10:53 PM

DJP - 2011-02-28 8:35 PMThe judder on the 2.3 models is fixable by Fiat under warranty. If some older models have not been modified it is down to the owner. The fix was a lower reverse gear, new clutch and new engine mounts. It does cure the problem.. (>)

Corky 8 - 2011-02-27 9:28 PM

My Motorhome went in and had the first fix with no positive results ,it then went back in and the full so call fix, that did help but to my reckoning,it did not cure it ,

So it's the luck of the draw if when you have mod 1 & 2 for post 2006 models if it actually fixes the problem completely then?! Looks like I'm going to be doing an awful lot of test driving and questioning of dealers..Incidentally, was Mod 1 something to do with engine management...and does that mean if you subsequently get it chipped, you lose the benefits of Mod 1? Sorry for the questions but I just want to learn as much as I can from you all and weigh up which way to go.Ta

No not luck of the draw, again this is old information. The mod now and has been for some time, is as DJP states and all vans that have gone in under complaint should now have had this but just as well to ask the question. Some are still saying it does not work but I simply do not understand this. I have one, a nearby neighbour has one and neither of us has even bothered to have it done. I have done 25,000 miles he has done more, I live in North Wales, not exactly flat and my wife and I spend a lot of time in the mountain areas of europe. Their is no doubt the reverse gear, on the 2.3 especially, was a little to high for some but most did not have a problem with it. With the new lower reverse it will be fine. You should note that several people who say would not buy one have done just that and never owned one so are just repeating second hand experience's.

[Brian Kirby]

Robinhood - 2011-02-28 9:27 PM ............. (I do, of course Brian, only have empirical evidence, much like yourself, so most likely one or both of us is right (or wrong)) B-)

Agreed.  Besides, I still got/get some slight tramlining in extreme cases, and would be surprised if the wider rear track didn't have some impact on directional stability where the grooving is pronounced. 

There's a bit of well grooved dual carriageway near here that gets even double decker buses doing interesting shimmies once the drivers welly goes down!  :-D

[Melvin]

Brian,

 

It looks like I need to visit my local weighbridge, I used to run the Motorhome at 79/79 psi, this was short lived, I dropped these down to 58 front/ 70 psi rear which improved things.

 

However, running down to Cornwall I have noticed all the Autotrails on Alko chassis (assuming they are still running Michelins) fly passed me, were as our Autotrail motorhome on the camper maxi 40 chassis complete with Continentals are left behind.

[david lloyd]

DJP - 2011-02-28 8:35 PM

 

The gearbox, irrespective of whether it was built in 2007 or 2011or is a manual or a Comfortmatic is the same in all 3.0 ltr models. NO modifications have been made. The ONLY modification was a new softer clutch material which was introduced in May 2009. This was part of an ongoing product development. NOT to replace a faulty item THEY say!

The Comfortmatic clutch is operated electronically and actually slips the clutch to avoid the judder. It will only be a matter of time, in my opinion before these clutch begin to fail. They will slip under load.

 

 

Sorry DJP, but the evidence of the vans operated by Nick (Euroserve) with the Comfortmatic gearbox shows they do not seem to have suffered with many, many miles on the clock. I can't quote the figures they have done (without trawling through pages and pages of posts) but he has repeatedly said that the Comfortmatic is superb and, to date, faultless.

 

I'm sure Nick will forgive me if I have misquoted him but will also be able to clarify the situation with clutch wear on the Comfortmatic for those who are thinking of this as an option.

 

David