Mel B Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Brian Kirby - 2011-03-06 12:44 PMRayjsj - 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! :-DNot sure about running ... dribbling a bit maybe .... :$ ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 rupert123 - 2011-03-04 6:16 PM 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. Thanks for that rupert123, What you read was my opinion, based on a great deal of experience with all of the drivetrains discussed. You may be surprised to know that this is still my opinion, and I am entitled to have one. Nick PS. I suppose you think that all of those concerned individuals with limited payload are making it up as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Personally speaking I would value Nick's multi commercial vehicle and high mileage experience and points of view far above the individual experiences of any one single motorhome owner - be they fortunate or unfortunate experiences. Nevertheless it's always good to get different opinions before making a decison. I've made my decision - our 2006 2.3 hdi Boxer based Starlet on Alko chassis won't be changed for a long while yet but I'll spend some money on a new set of tyres instead as mine are starting to crack on the side walls! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 due to an road accident (not my fault *-) ) the other side hired us a brand new Benimar camper for our trip to Spain for a month. this was around 2006 so pre x250. The van was powerful enough, but very noisey and a/c so poor the kids nearly died in the back! This was on a NEW 50k + van with 5000 miles on it. because of this experience we went for the new Transit the following year, and what a delight it was in comparison, you could hear yourself speak, listen to music comfortably, and although only 2.2 it pulls like a train.... I spent over £1500 on 12v/230v roof a/c to keep the kids comfortable. which turned out to be a complete waste of money on the road, and unnecessary as the Ford cab a/c is excellent...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 rupert123 - 2011-03-04 6:16 PM 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. I must caution you that anything you say will be taken down (ie copied) and used in evidence against you. So, I hope your van gives many years of trouble free service. BUT if you have any problems, your posting might come back to haunt you. Tractorman. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rupert123 Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Tracker - 2011-03-07 2:10 PM Personally speaking I would value Nick's multi commercial vehicle and high mileage experience and points of view far above the individual experiences of any one single motorhome owner - be they fortunate or unfortunate experiences. Nevertheless it's always good to get different opinions before making a decison. I've made my decision - our 2006 2.3 hdi Boxer based Starlet on Alko chassis won't be changed for a long while yet but I'll spend some money on a new set of tyres instead as mine are starting to crack on the side walls! OK Rich but Nicks opinions in that post are not based on facts. Are you seriously saying you agree with his statement about doing away with safety measures to save weight. How does he know these old clunkers of engines, by modern standards, are any more reliable. The X250 has so far been very good, we are talking engines here bear in mind, with very good reliabilty. Whether it will be better or worse no one knows yet but I would lay odds on it being more reliable. How does he come up with the bit about weights, their have always been vans with poor spare load. As for his fuel consumption thing that again makes no sense, read my post about that one. Me thinks his experience of M/H is not much, as I said rose tinted glasses. I am not doubting his experience of 'white van man' but even here go back a few months and you will see his views seemed to have changed a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Fair comment Henry but you do have to take what is of value from every posting and discard the rest so I too would never wish to dilute or remove any safety measures as the lives they save could be our own. I also accept and understand that built in safety should be better on a later model. At the risk of tempting fate, but by and large for our sort of use pretty well all modern engines are going to be reliable and that is not in doubt. However what does seem to vary is the reliability of the engine's crucial ancilliaries such as electronics, electrics, transmission etc. Given all motor manufacturer's passion to reduce costs and increase unit profit I have to wonder where else corners have been cut - such as less durable alternators or lighter starter motors maybe? I have no evidence to support that view it must be said and time alone will tell but I am yet to be convinced that Fiat's development of the newer units has reached the stage of reliability that the last model had reached by the end of it's production period and untill such time as I am convinced I still don't want one. The X250 is longer and wider than before so logically it must be at the very least no lighter than before and payloads have more to do with inept and devious converters giving inaccurate payload data than they do with the base vehicle makers. Fuel consumption - well in my experience a few mpg one way or the other don't make much difference when compared to the capital outlay involved in obtaining a few more mpg? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 You are right, There is some information missing between when I said I thought the 2.3 engine was reliable, and now when I don't think so. Have no doubt though that this is all based on facts. Lots of them, gained from a sample greater than your singular vehicle. I did not mention it because the problems that I have been having are at such high mileages that most camper owners will never reach unless they are fired off into space. The fact is though that none of these (very expensive) problems have ever occurred on the 2.8 engines and these have also been run by us and by our customers that buy them from us to well over 200,000 miles. I will go into detail if anyone wants to know about it, but for now I declare that the 2.3 engine used in Daily and Ducato is a dog. The electrical system is a joke and while they don't leak oil very often there is little other good news. Injectors are an absolute pig to get out; impossible without wrecking them and the screws that hold the injectors in always shear off in the head. I have spent over £10,000 on 3 engine problems so far, and I have been getting emails from members of this forum telling me of their tales of woe too. I am shortly to register another 3 Fiat Ducato vans and if there was any other viable alternative I would be buying that instead. For the work that our customers do, there is no alternative. They do not have to pay for repairs! So; when i suggest that old, and simple is good and that i yearn for a bygone age it is not because I am talking out of my rear, more that I have had that rear severely spanked since December and I have had enough of it. I also stand by my view that most safety devices are irrelevant if you keep your eyes on the road and drive at an appropriate speed so that you could easily stop if somebody did something stupid. That is called driving WITH due care and attention and it is mandatory. My opinion regarding the x250 van has changed somewhat in recent months, but for the record, following the disgraceful conduct of Fiat in the face of many complaints about the gear ratios and failures I did say that nobody should buy one for use as a camper. I now think that nobody should buy one at all. Nobody should have to feel this foolish. For my regular readers...... The 3.0 Comfort matic is still perfect. (Don't worry). I am going to the pub. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Surely the problem lies with the converters choice of vehicle being determined by price, otherwise I'm sure we would all be driving Merc based vans. As for reliability, whilst modern vehicles are light years ahead in many respects, I still mourn the bombproof reliability of a good old fashioned BMC diesel as was fitted to FX4 cabs that I owned through the seventies/eighties. 500.000 miles and only the occasional injector service and oil change, and of course a few oil leaks that were ignored because that acted as Waxoil on the chassis ! oh well progress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolandrat Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 Nick, you are not alone with your views, operating and servicing on a fleet basis and where you keep maintainance records, what you are relaying back to us on this forum is fact and it is undisputable. United Utillities operates a very large and varied fleet and the engineers are all to aware of certain weaknesses within the fleet but at the end of the day they still have to be kept in a servicable condition irrespective of the cost. As you say there are motorhome owners who are giving their view of their own personal experience of only one vehicle because it's probably the only one they have ever owned with no experience like you have or ever will have. If any of those owners choose to dispute your valued input,and it will happen then just pass it by. There is nothing wrong with friendly banter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Tracker - 2011-03-07 2:10 PM Personally speaking I would value Nick's multi commercial vehicle and high mileage experience and points of view far above the individual experiences of any one single motorhome owner - be they fortunate or unfortunate experiences. Nevertheless it's always good to get different opinions before making a decison. I've made my decision - our 2006 2.3 hdi Boxer based Starlet on Alko chassis won't be changed for a long while yet but I'll spend some money on a new set of tyres instead as mine are starting to crack on the side walls! I made the same decision as you but then I'm not the boss in our household so we finished up with a new van on order regardless. We only put about 20,000 miles on ours in five years and then sell them so I'm hoping we will get away with it. If yours is 2006 and you intend to keep it for a few years you may like to consider that a new timing belt is recommended at 5 years. If we had kept ours I would have had one fitted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhorsf Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Thank you Nick for very informative posts as usual your input here is highly valued on all things Fiat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Tracker - 2011-03-07 2:10 PM Personally speaking I would value Nick's multi commercial vehicle and high mileage experience and points of view far above the individual experiences of any one single motorhome owner - be they fortunate or unfortunate experiences. Nevertheless it's always good to get different opinions before making a decison. I've made my decision - our 2006 2.3 hdi Boxer based Starlet on Alko chassis won't be changed for a long while yet but I'll spend some money on a new set of tyres instead as mine are starting to crack on the side walls!Come on be honest Richard. You know you secretly hanker after an X250. Otherwise why would you keep banging on about them all the time, ad nauseum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rupert123 Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 jhorsf - 2011-03-08 9:27 PM Thank you Nick for very informative posts as usual your input here is highly valued on all things Fiat Informative, I quote 'we do not need safety devices it is called driving with care and attention'. If you believe that you probably have fairies at the bottom of your garden. How would driving with due care and attention help if some daft bugger decides to overtake on a blind bend when you are coming the other way, this is dangerous drivel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted March 8, 2011 Share Posted March 8, 2011 Colin Leake - 2011-03-08 9:27 AM If yours is 2006 and you intend to keep it for a few years you may like to consider that a new timing belt is recommended at 5 years. If we had kept ours I would have had one fitted. Good point Colin thanks - I'll check the handbook as it's about due for a service anyway - and MOT - and Tax - and tyres - oh dear there goes thick end of another grand!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 rupert123 - 2011-03-08 10:11 PM jhorsf - 2011-03-08 9:27 PM Thank you Nick for very informative posts as usual your input here is highly valued on all things Fiat Informative, I quote 'we do not need safety devices it is called driving with care and attention'. If you believe that you probably have fairies at the bottom of your garden. How would driving with due care and attention help if some daft bugger decides to overtake on a blind bend when you are coming the other way, this is dangerous drivel. I did not know ejector seats were fitted, must look for mine :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Not sure what safety devices would help in that scenario other than an ejector seat ! 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Tracker - 2011-03-08 10:37 PM Colin Leake - 2011-03-08 9:27 AM If yours is 2006 and you intend to keep it for a few years you may like to consider that a new timing belt is recommended at 5 years. If we had kept ours I would have had one fitted. Good point Colin thanks - I'll check the handbook as it's about due for a service anyway - and MOT - and Tax - and tyres - oh dear there goes thick end of another grand!! I am in the same posistion late 2005 2.2 HDI Peugeot, only 15,000 miles, i asked the Dealer about the Cam-belt, they said recomendation from Peugeot is NINE years or every 100.000 miles ? (they hadn't changed it !) are they correct ?? The Handbook doesn't state a 'change by' date . Should i start saving my pennies for a belt change? On here everyone says 5 years maximum. (any comment Nick ?). I know that a 'Belt breakage' is a 'Catastroph' but is it likely ? I have NO desire for an X250 based van, and 'Ad Nauseam' keeps the unsuspecting aware, that a problem DID exist and is not just a tale put about by 'nasty' anti Fiat folk. *-) Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Ray, Although I suspect that 9 years and 100,000 miles seems perfectly reasonable let's not forget that this is only a 'recommendation' from the manufacturer and therefore let's them off the hook if everything goes wrong. With regular use and no harsh, dusty environments a cam belt should be good for 100,000 miles on that engine and 9 years is largely irrelevant but what if one of the tensioner bearings packs up... and they do! My advice, for peace of mind would be to stick to the 5 year time limit, since you are not going to get near to the mileage limit. In addition to that, if you ever hear any whirring or squeaking noises, get a mechanic to run the engine briefly with alternator and air con belts removed and make sure it is not something more sinister. Remember that the reason for many of the claims of high mileage and long periods of time for cam belts is driven by the need to be seen to keep the running costs low for fleet vehicles and make certain vehilces appear cheaper to run during the anticipated 100,000 mile lifetime of a van. Peugeot have always been the worst advocate of this; they introduced insane service intervals of 20,000 miles and two years on their cars in the mid-nineties just to get their cost per mile down for the leasing companies and thereby off-setting their heavier depreciation which factors as a cost in the calculations. They did not give a toss that because thier brake linings would not last 2 years or 20,000 miles and as such many company car drivers were at the wheel of potentially dangerous vehicles for months on end. It is your money; spend it wisely. Get the cam belt and tensioners changed. Also 10-12,000 miles is about right for an oil change with checks on brakes etc twice as often. That is what we do. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 rupert123 - 2011-03-08 10:11 PM Informative, I quote 'we do not need safety devices it is called driving with care and attention'. If you believe that you probably have fairies at the bottom of your garden. How would driving with due care and attention help if some daft bugger decides to overtake on a blind bend when you are coming the other way, this is dangerous drivel. rupert123, If you are going to quote me, you really should read what i said and quote me exactly. I did not say 'we don't need safety devices', what i said was that if driven with due care, most safety devices are irrelevant. Not the same, and certainly not dangerous drivel. This statement could not be confused with the facts stated elsewhere. It is my opinion; nothing more. I believe that accidents don't just happen and that if drivers are aware of what is going on around them and are not distracted they are able to drive defensively and predict and deal with incidents as they arise. If everyone drove like that it would be a safer world for everyone. If something freakish happens then as suggested, only an ejector seat could save you. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 euroserv - 2011-03-09 1:24 PM I believe that accidents don't just happen and that if drivers are aware of what is going on around them and are not distracted they are able to drive defensively and predict and deal with incidents as they arise. If everyone drove like that it would be a safer world for everyone. If something freakish happens then as suggested, only an ejector seat could save you. Nick Sorry Nick - can't agree with you there. Whilst it is true that almost every accident would be avoidable with good hindsight it is also true that many drivers are poorly trained or just plain awful. If one of those pulls out in front of you or swerves in front when you are driving responsibly there is sometimes nothing that cyou can do to avoid a crash - and even if you could will you do it in the heat of the moment?. Usually probably if you are a half decent driver - but not every time perhaps? And that is when I suggest you would be glad you have all the latest life and injury saving gizmos that money can buy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Tracker - 2011-03-08 10:37 PM Colin Leake - 2011-03-08 9:27 AM If yours is 2006 and you intend to keep it for a few years you may like to consider that a new timing belt is recommended at 5 years. If we had kept ours I would have had one fitted. Good point Colin thanks - I'll check the handbook as it's about due for a service anyway - and MOT - and Tax - and tyres - oh dear there goes thick end of another grand!! Better than the 22 grand we spent on changing our Motorhome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Absolutely Colin! Or even worse - Star trekin' across the universe Always goin' forward 'cos we can't use reverse! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCC Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 Just a thought on the original question. Am I right in thinking that the 100hp version with the 5 speed gearbox doesn't suffer from judder? So how about chipping the 100hp engine up to 130hp? Probably cheaper as well than specifying the larger engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dshague Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 when i had a 2008 100 x250 coach built it juddered like hell. also had it chipped better mpg . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.