Fiats pre juddergate?!

[rolandrat]

I went onto the Fiat stand at the NEC show and was assurred by the reps that as from 2009 the transmission problems on the 2.3 have been resolved.

[Rayjsj]

rolandrat - 2011-03-01 10:08 AM

 

I went onto the Fiat stand at the NEC show and was assurred by the reps that as from 2009 the transmission problems on the 2.3 have been resolved.

 

 

Oh ! thats alright then ! after all they are to be believed totally,

this is exactly their same script from early 2007, when the fault stated to appear. DON'T buy without a Test Drive. *-)

 

Slightly 'off tack' if a Comfortamatic 'semi-Automatic' gearbox, failed because the Clutch had burnt out, (i don't think many,if any, have ?) would it be 'Automatically' covered by the warranty ?? after all, driver abuse could not be sited, as the driver doesn't operate the clutch. ?? but knowning that 'Fiats' warranty has more 'get out clauses' than a Politicians manifesto, would it ? and what about when the warranty expires ?

[Derek Uzzell]

Brian Kirby - 2011-03-01 12:20 AM

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

My Transit Mk 6-based Hobby has Continental Vanco-8 tyres like Brian's "Van", though its similar-design chassis's wheelbase is longer and the motorhome's front/rear weight distribution is less rearwards. It doesn't tramline, but it will torque-steer quite nastily if provoked.All Transit Mk 6 and Mk 7 FWD chassis with 5-speed gearbox have an uncomfortably high first gear and an even higher reverse. 'Commercial' 5-speed FWD Transits have a reputation for burning out clutches. I've never seen credible gear-ratio figures quoted for the original X250 Sevel chassis, but I've long suspected that the 2.2litre version's reverse-gear was no more extreme than my Hobby's. It's logical to assume that at least some of the 2.3litre-engined variants had a very high reverse ratio, otherwise Fiat/Peugeot would never have offered a lower ratio as a retro-fit. I've no idea what gearing 3.0litre chassis had/have but, if the gearbox design (different to that of the gearbox used on 2.2litre or 2.3litre X250s) matches conceptually that of the current FWD Transit's 6-speed 'box (and I think that's so), then the chances are nil that Fiat/Peugeot can retro-fit a lower reverse ratio as they were able to do with smaller-engined models.I'm always aware that, if I had to drive my Hobby slowly forwards on a steep slope for any length of time, I'd be seriously testing the vehicle's clutch. And I've no doubt whatsoever that, if I HAD to reverse the Hobby very slowly up a steep slope for more than a few seconds, the clutch would burn out. Such things are the inevitable consequences of overly high gearing.My Transit will 'judder' while reversing slowly as I try to minimise clutch slip, but that's what comes of high gearing and an engine-mounting design that will have naturally been prioritised for forward motion. It seems that (on the basis that Fiat/Peugeot replaced engine-mountings on some 'juddery' X250s) that the original X250 mountings allowed even more going-backwards powerplant/transmission movement than my Transit's - sufficient movement/vibration in some instances to damage the X250 gearbox.It's a shame with the X250 saga that (as far as I'm aware) no attempt was made to collate, summarise and 'archive' the huge amount of information that was obtained about the Judder Problem. It continues to be the case that relatively straightforward questions like pusscat's produce opinions, theories, arguments, statements (some right, many very questionable) that rehash forum threads extending back nearly 4 years but rarely take the matter usefully forwards.

[rupert123]

Rayjsj - 2011-03-01 10:27 AM

 

rolandrat - 2011-03-01 10:08 AM

 

I went onto the Fiat stand at the NEC show and was assurred by the reps that as from 2009 the transmission problems on the 2.3 have been resolved.

 

 

Oh ! thats alright then ! after all they are to be believed totally,

this is exactly their same script from early 2007, when the fault stated to appear. DON'T buy without a Test Drive. *-)

 

Slightly 'off tack' if a Comfortamatic 'semi-Automatic' gearbox, failed because the Clutch had burnt out, (i don't think many,if any, have ?) would it be 'Automatically' covered by the warranty ?? after all, driver abuse could not be sited, as the driver doesn't operate the clutch. ?? but knowning that 'Fiats' warranty has more 'get out clauses' than a Politicians manifesto, would it ? and what about when the warranty expires ?

 

Come off it Raymond, Fiats warranty has no more get out clauses than anyone else, in fact having looked at Fords I would say it is better. Perhaps you can tell us what these extra get out clauses are. As Derek has pointed out the Transit gear ratio is just as high, I to mentioned this over a year ago, but people like you simply refuse to accept it. The Fiat reverse has been highlighted in M/H forums and I would agree that the 2.3 should, ideally, have a lower reverse, along with other makes. As I and many others have continued to say we have had no problem with the reverse gear, why are we not believed? You, as far as I am aware, do not own one so what is your experience of the x250 . Why do you continue to believe the negative and ignore the great majority who are perfectly happy. Common sense dictates that a large company like Fiat, who,s PR on this could have been better, would not do something about this when it was practical for them to do so. I drove a new van two weeks ago and it reversed with ease and certainly had a lower reverse gear.

[Rayjsj]

Henry,

You are correct, i don't own one, but I have driven several for short distances, and one in particular, a 2008 Adria PVC, I had for a Weekend, none of them reversed what i would call 'Satisfactorily' ie. reverse up my drive without high Revving and a lot of clutch slip. Because of the very high reverse gearing, I havn't tried a Ford Transit of the same year, but I did try a Renault Master based Devon Monaco, which reversed uphill fine,

In the End we bought Second-hand, a 2005/6 Peugeot Boxer based Autocruise Starburst on an Alko chassis, which we are very pleased with.

I'm not knocking the ergonomics of cab design, the X250 is streets ahead of the older Peugeot that direction, But this one DOES reverse up my drive without a fuss. Until a newer van can do the same, we won't be changing any time soon. Why didn't I get a Renault master based Van ?

I did try, but there aren't that many of them about.

[Melvin]

rupert123 - 2011-02-28 10:28 PM

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.

2008 Autotrail Cheynne 2.3 (towbar and ladder fitted) rear overhang including towbar 60% of wheel base. Tyre pressures front 58, rear 70 psi. However, I am still experiencing some bad tramlining, so I decided to weigh the motorhome on the public weighbridge.(a) Fully loaded 3975 kg, (b) front 1675 kg and rear 2300 kg© front 80% and rear 96% of axle limits(d) front 42% and rear 58% weight splitJudging from the results, I am not suprised it is tail happy.

[Guest Peter James]

Mel B - 2011-02-28 9:44 PM

 

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

 

Yes I suppose thats a valid point. In many cases the vans are leased with maintenance costs included, so clutch wear is of little concern to their boss either.

 

But I have spoken to about 15 X2/50 whitevanmen, usually when they were parked on motorway service areas having their break. Once they realised I was not trying to sell them anything all were happy to talk about their vans. Without exception, every one was happy with the X250 van.

Not one of the 15 or so X2/50 whitevanmen I spoke to had even heard of the reverse gear problem. Not one.

 

Although a higher ratio than would be ideal, I don't find the reverse gear a problem. But, lets face it, if you can get a new clutch, flywheel, and gearbox free of charge not many people would turn it down. So we can hardly blame Sevel for not encouraging everyone to claim.

 

Incidentally I read on another forum, people complaining of a rattling noise coming from the clutch. I couldn't reply because I am not a member there. It seems to me this was caused by loose springs, (coil springs in the centre drive plate which act as shock absorbers as the drive is taken up) which seems quite common in clutches and very rarely a problem as they cannot fall out of their holders unless they are actually broken.

[euroserv]

That is an interesting point about the rattling clutch springs...

 

All of the instances that we have had where clutches failed suddenly (without smells or slipping) and left us with no drive at all have been as a result of the springs rattling so much that they have cracked the housings around them and broken up causing small parts of spring to jam the clutch or strip off large patches of friction material.

 

This has happened many times at mileages ranging from 35,000 to 65,000.

 

It does not matter whether the clutch used is an original Fiat one or a Valeo. They all are equally badly affected.

 

In short; I would be concerned about clutches rattling at idle. In the old days it would have been a thrust release bearing and it might have gone on like that for years but not any more.

 

Nick

[Guest JudgeMental]

My Ford based camper does not like being reversed up the drive either......So I dont do it? I just drive up nose in and reverse out *-) whats so hard about that.....The older pre X250 is a tractor compared to latest Ford/Fiat cabs

[euroserv]

While you are correct about that your honour, The 2002-2006 was the most solid and reliable Fiat van ever and a considerably better van overall than the Transit at that time.

 

And tractors are reliable hard working tools; so what is wrong with that?

 

There are few faults that the Fiat could have that would leave you immobilised, and that to me is the only measure of a good van.

 

If you want the best of all worlds the 2.8idTD of 1997 to 2000 is the most reliable, economical and powerful of them all. No wheel bearing problems and easy gearbox fixes. No dodgy injectors and few electronics to argue amongst themselves. The 2.8 was a vastly superior engine to the new 2.3, only the 3.0 beats them both.

 

No doubt about it in my book; at one end of the market I would spend £60k on a 3.0 X250 comfort matic and the other end £15k on a 1999 Tag axle 2.8idTD (and i know which one represents best value and enjoyment of ownership). 30+mpg and a good reason not to be dashing about.....perfect.

 

Nick

[pepe63xnotuse]

euroserv - 2011-03-04 11:01 AM

 

....In short; I would be concerned about clutches rattling at idle. In the old days it would have been a thrust release bearing and it might have gone on like that for years but not any more...

 

Nick

 

Jeeez..so manufactures can't even make things rattle as reliably as they used to..!! *-)

Is there no hope..?! :D

[Guest Peter James]

euroserv - 2011-03-04 11:01 AM

 

That is an interesting point about the rattling clutch springs...

 

All of the instances that we have had where clutches failed suddenly (without smells or slipping) and left us with no drive at all have been as a result of the springs rattling so much that they have cracked the housings around them and broken up causing small parts of spring to jam the clutch or strip off large patches of friction material.

 

This has happened many times at mileages ranging from 35,000 to 65,000.

 

It does not matter whether the clutch used is an original Fiat one or a Valeo. They all are equally badly affected.

 

In short; I would be concerned about clutches rattling at idle. In the old days it would have been a thrust release bearing and it might have gone on like that for years but not any more.

 

Nick

 

Thanks for the update Nick. I was basing my comment about rattling clutch springs on my old Rover Maestro Van which had loose and rattling clutch springs at idle speeds, for about 10 years with no problems. (then I replaced the clutch because its a fairly easy home DIY job on the Maestro, got the full kit for £20 on ebay, and I was driving it down to Spain. But I probably needn't have bothered as the linings were still like new at 120,000 miles)

 

But that was in the days before dual mass flywheels...

[Guest Peter James]

deleted as appears to have been posted twice..

[euroserv]

Peter,

 

Ironically the 2.3 Ducato does not have a dual mass flywheel, and were one fitted it might reduce the incidence of spring damage! That would have introduced a whole set of other issues though so I am not complaining.

 

Nick

[rupert123]

euroserv - 2011-03-04 11:45 AM

 

While you are correct about that your honour, The 2002-2006 was the most solid and reliable Fiat van ever and a considerably better van overall than the Transit at that time.

 

And tractors are reliable hard working tools; so what is wrong with that?

 

There are few faults that the Fiat could have that would leave you immobilised, and that to me is the only measure of a good van.

 

If you want the best of all worlds the 2.8idTD of 1997 to 2000 is the most reliable, economical and powerful of them all. No wheel bearing problems and easy gearbox fixes. No dodgy injectors and few electronics to argue amongst themselves. The 2.8 was a vastly superior engine to the new 2.3, only the 3.0 beats them both.

 

No doubt about it in my book; at one end of the market I would spend £60k on a 3.0 X250 comfort matic and the other end £15k on a 1999 Tag axle 2.8idTD (and i know which one represents best value and enjoyment of ownership). 30+mpg and a good reason not to be dashing about.....perfect.

 

Nick

 

It must be nice to have this rose tinted view of the past, hope you are joking here Nick.

[euroserv]

No i am not.

 

While I am far from luddite regarding technology; I am very happy with my 3D TV, but the advances we have seen over the last 10 years have been anything but progress.

 

Common rail, EGR and Catalysts have brought nothing but aggravation and worse fuel economy. How can that be progress? It's because you have a comittee deciding what is best for the environment and setting targets for emissions without considering that a van that uses less fuel is going to pollute less. Idiots.

 

Safety is another matter though, and although not completely reliable, ABS, ESP and other devices probably keep people out of trouble and Air bags and pre-tensioners along with greater structural integrity help people survive the the accidents that active safety cant help with; but at what weight penalties? If you binned all that safety stuff and limited the speed of the vehicle to the prevailing speed limits you could carry another passenger in your camper van!

 

I stand by what I said... 2.8idTD about 1999 and tag axle. I would be cruising happily and reliably at 65mph doing 35mpg. Stability guaranteed, enough space to swing whatever i wish and enough payload to take a passenger and a crate of '98 Bolly. Beat that.

 

Nick

[Guest Peter James]

euroserv - 2011-03-04 3:44 PM

 

Peter,

 

Ironically the 2.3 Ducato does not have a dual mass flywheel, and were one fitted it might reduce the incidence of spring damage! That would have introduced a whole set of other issues though so I am not complaining.

 

Nick

 

Ah, mine is the Citroen Relay 120, apparently with a Dual Mass Flywheel. I did not know they were not fitted to the Fiat Ducato. So thats something I've learned, Thank You.

[rupert123]

As I said Nick, rose tinted specs. The current X250 is smoother, quieter, better to drive, safer, and despite what you say it goes better and has more torque. I have owned a couple of 2.8 and they are certainly not as powerfull as either the 2.2 or 2.3 X250, sure the BHP may be more that the 2.2 but it certainly is not backed up by performance. You may dismiss the safety but I do not, how can you assume if you drive at 65mph all will be well. As for being reliable, well their was a time when if my car/van stopped I could jump out look under the bonnet and fix it. Now I would not even bother to look as I would not have a clue, but am I worried about this, no because they break down so rarely it is not worth bothering about. Do they do less to the gallon, well I cannot even agree with this, they are about the same. The 2.8, as Eddie said, is a rough crud old lump compared with the X250. Good in its day but its day has gone. tractors may be hard working tools but would you want one pulling your M/H along. I agree some measures taken to make pollution less have a small effect on consumption but engineering has made sure it has not got less but stayed the same. Their is a reason for this in M/H, they have the areodynamics of a small bungalow so no mater what you do the economy will not alter much. Look at cars especially petrol ones, have they suffered because of the measures, no, in fact they have just got better because the drag has not got the same effect. As for the diesel car 60/70 mpg is common now, the reason M/H have not improved is 99% the drag effect, and has little to do with anything else. My current van is only 3500kg MGW but has a payload of 700kg, not much wrong with that, so all the safety stuff has not done much harm.

[747]

I am of the same mind as Nick, although my 'Tractor' is the 2.8 JTD. I lose a few points over the earlier engine but get them back on the better gearbox. :-D

 

I could well have afforded the 2007 onwards models but one thing stopped me. A background in engineering. Idiotic design has crept in to other areas of engineering, it is not just autos. I cannot really grumble as I got plenty of hours in sorting out new equipment while the older kit just kept on going. It did my bank balance a power of good. :D

 

The icing on the cake is that the money I did not spend has increased in value. My only hope is that there will be a reliable vehicle to choose when I reluctantly decide to downsize at age 70. Although I doubt it. :'(

[rolandrat]

Nick, I agree with you entirely about the 2.8idTD it is a cracking engine. My experience of a 1.9tdi compared to a 2.0hdi is similar, I will always maintain that my old 405 was more powerfull than my 406 Pug.

[Guest pelmetman]

It will be interesting to see which vehicles hold their value better, the pre juddergate or the juddergate vehicles.............only time will tell :D

[Rayjsj]

Or whether ANY of them are still running in 20 years time ? as my old Talbot Express was until I sold it (losing very little real value after 6 years use). 20 years use for a 'Durable' is REALLY going 'green'. forget about an extra 10 mpg.

[Guest pelmetman]

Rayjsj - 2011-03-04 8:50 PM

 

Or whether ANY of them are still running in 20 years time ? as my old Talbot Express was until I sold it (losing very little real value after 6 years use). 20 years use for a 'Durable' is REALLY going 'green'. forget about an extra 10 mpg.

 

I reckon we are singing from the same hym sheet :D

 

As for my thoughts on the recent scrappage scam........I mean scheme 8-) ...or do I (lol)

[rolandrat]

PRE JUDDERGATE!!!!!!!!! you must be joking, I have road tested a new 2.3 motorhome today with a view to buying one and I'm totally disappointed with the reverse juddering which seems to still be alive and kicking, bear in mind it was new and unladen as well. The chassis number is ZFA2500000177039OJ. I was told by Fiat at the recent NEC show that the problem was now resolved but I have serious doubts. If the hill that I reversed up had been steep I could have damaged the clutch had I not severely slipped it with high revs. My present motorhome is a 3ltr and is trouble free so we are now hoping that we can place an order for a new 3ltr, I'm not prepaired to buy a load of trouble, I want piece of mind.

[Brian Kirby]

Rayjsj - 2011-03-04 8:50 PM Or whether ANY of them are still running in 20 years time ? as my old Talbot Express was until I sold it (losing very little real value after 6 years use). 20 years use for a 'Durable' is REALLY going 'green'. forget about an extra 10 mpg.

Cripes!  I'm far more interested in whether I'll be running in 20 years time!  :-D