Symbol Owner Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 PCC - 2011-03-09 6:34 PM 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. You've been listening to Henry! (Rupert 123) No, they will all judder if you reverse them up a one-in five slope (or steeper) under a full load -- maybe some have never dared to try, so haven't proved it for themselves -- yet(!) Happy motorhoming, Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted March 9, 2011 Share Posted March 9, 2011 So will a fully loaded 38 ton truck. That's if it could do it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Our previous 2.2 100hp Peugeot,would struggle up our drive without a run at it...and ours' was only a 3t gross tiddler... ...and I don't think many of us want to be reversing 38t artics up our drives anyway... :D "Brand loyalties" aside,I think the simple question is...How come we've all owned/driven vehicles in the past that COULD reverse up our drives/slopes?..yet "some" examples of these later vehicles struggle? Now that can't be progress! :-S (..our 3.8t Renault reverses up our drive at just above tickover,by the way ;-) ) Personally,which ever the "brand"of vehicle,I don't particularly care how pretty the dash is..or if the rear axle is specifically designed 3-4" widder etc..I just want it to work. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rupert123 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 1footinthegrave - 2011-03-09 8:16 AM Not sure what safety devices would help in that scenario other than an ejector seat ! 8-) Airbags, crumple zones, pretension seat belts, collapsible steering columns etc, etc, etc. If you do not understand perhaps you should go and look some up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 rupert123 - 2011-03-10 10:43 AM 1footinthegrave - 2011-03-09 8:16 AM Not sure what safety devices would help in that scenario other than an ejector seat ! 8-) Airbags, crumple zones, pretension seat belts, collapsible steering columns etc, etc, etc. If you do not understand perhaps you should go and look some up. Blimey I did not just crawl out of a cave, it was a bit of humor, someone comes round a blind bend on your side of the road and your in trouble whatever the safety features you've got, my attempt at humor was the addition of an ejector seat in that situation would probably be the only thing to prevent you ending up with your engine in your lap, but I doubt you'd get time to use it in any event. Just for your information I did once work for MIRA ( and no not the shower people ) so I have got a handle on vehicle safety thanks very much :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rupert123 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 PCC - 2011-03-09 6:34 PM 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. Yes you are correct, I have one. Any van will shudder a bit under some circumstances, much will depend on the weight. Because of the publicity about this I feel every little shudder a Fiat gives people panic, it happens. Fords reverse is also high, not much mention of this. Have no doubt though that their were some failures with the 2.3 gearbox but this has been long sorted out. Some simply will not accept this and some are simply bad drivers. Because I have said from the start that mine has been no problem, now covered 26,000 miles it would seem certain people on here seem to think I am being less than truthfull or sticking up for Fiat. Neither is true I simply tell it as it is. The previous 2.8 in its last few years was a good engine, is it as good as the X250, no. People can ramble all they like about the past and quote the 'I used to get 200,000 miles' bit but this is a M/H forum not white van man. being able to get 200,000 miles with no problem does not matter, for the average van that is about 40 years, who cares. As for not being able to reverse up a vertical drive well go up forwards, perhaps they have not worked that out yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rupert123 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 1footinthegrave - 2011-03-10 10:53 AM rupert123 - 2011-03-10 10:43 AM 1footinthegrave - 2011-03-09 8:16 AM Not sure what safety devices would help in that scenario other than an ejector seat ! 8-) Airbags, crumple zones, pretension seat belts, collapsible steering columns etc, etc, etc. If you do not understand perhaps you should go and look some up. Blimey I did not just crawl out of a cave, it was a bit of humor, someone comes round a blind bend on your side of the road and your in trouble whatever the safety features you've got, my attempt at humor was the addition of an ejector seat in that situation would probably be the only thing to prevent you ending up with your engine in your lap, but I doubt you'd get time to use it in any event. Just for your information I did once work for MIRA ( and no not the shower people ) so I have got a handle on vehicle safety thanks very much :-| Sorry but do not see the humor in this issue. Incidently on any modern vehicle another safety feature is making sure the engine cannot do exactly that, are you sure it was not the shower people? I am not saying safety features are infallible but they work and cut down serious injury or death. To dismiss them is pretty stupid and to dismiss them, as Nick did, to save weight is beyond belief. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rupert123 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Symbol Owner - 2011-03-09 9:36 PM PCC - 2011-03-09 6:34 PM 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. You've been listening to Henry! (Rupert 123) No, they will all judder if you reverse them up a one-in five slope (or steeper) under a full load -- maybe some have never dared to try, so haven't proved it for themselves -- yet(!) Happy motorhoming, Colin. Colin are you saying I have been less than truthfull here? I assume you must have one and tried it. As for the the statement they will all judder under full load up a steeper than 1 in 5 slope under full load, so thats 1 in 4 then, anything will of any make. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 rupert123 - 2011-03-10 11:25 AM 1footinthegrave - 2011-03-10 10:53 AM rupert123 - 2011-03-10 10:43 AM 1footinthegrave - 2011-03-09 8:16 AM Not sure what safety devices would help in that scenario other than an ejector seat ! 8-) Airbags, crumple zones, pretension seat belts, collapsible steering columns etc, etc, etc. If you do not understand perhaps you should go and look some up. Blimey I did not just crawl out of a cave, it was a bit of humor, someone comes round a blind bend on your side of the road and your in trouble whatever the safety features you've got, my attempt at humor was the addition of an ejector seat in that situation would probably be the only thing to prevent you ending up with your engine in your lap, but I doubt you'd get time to use it in any event. Just for your information I did once work for MIRA ( and no not the shower people ) so I have got a handle on vehicle safety thanks very much :-| Sorry but do not see the humor in this issue. Incidently on any modern vehicle another safety feature is making sure the engine cannot do exactly that, are you sure it was not the shower people? I am not saying safety features are infallible but they work and cut down serious injury or death. To dismiss them is pretty stupid and to dismiss them, as Nick did, to save weight is beyond belief. ( are you sure it was not the shower people?) you seem determined to be antagonistic, why is that. There are so many variables to the outcome of a full frontal collision despite the millions in research that even with what is now state of the art design in vehicle safety a full frontal impact is not somewhere anyone wants to go. Hence my light hearted ejector seat comment, yes it is a serious matter, but don't take a light hearted comment on here to be anything other than what it was and launch into disparaging personal remarks that really are uncalled for. :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747 Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Maybe Henry used to work as a crash test dummy? If so, his comments should be listened to. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvin Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 1footinthegrave - 2011-03-10 12:09 PM rupert123 - 2011-03-10 11:25 AM 1footinthegrave - 2011-03-10 10:53 AM rupert123 - 2011-03-10 10:43 AM 1footinthegrave - 2011-03-09 8:16 AM Not sure what safety devices would help in that scenario other than an ejector seat ! 8-) Airbags, crumple zones, pretension seat belts, collapsible steering columns etc, etc, etc. If you do not understand perhaps you should go and look some up. Blimey I did not just crawl out of a cave, it was a bit of humor, someone comes round a blind bend on your side of the road and your in trouble whatever the safety features you've got, my attempt at humor was the addition of an ejector seat in that situation would probably be the only thing to prevent you ending up with your engine in your lap, but I doubt you'd get time to use it in any event. Just for your information I did once work for MIRA ( and no not the shower people ) so I have got a handle on vehicle safety thanks very much :-| Sorry but do not see the humor in this issue. Incidently on any modern vehicle another safety feature is making sure the engine cannot do exactly that, are you sure it was not the shower people? I am not saying safety features are infallible but they work and cut down serious injury or death. To dismiss them is pretty stupid and to dismiss them, as Nick did, to save weight is beyond belief. ( are you sure it was not the shower people?) you seem determined to be antagonistic, why is that. There are so many variables to the outcome of a full frontal collision despite the millions in research that even with what is now state of the art design in vehicle safety a full frontal impact is not somewhere anyone wants to go. Hence my light hearted ejector seat comment, yes it is a serious matter, but don't take a light hearted comment on here to be anything other than what it was and launch into disparaging personal remarks that really are uncalled for. :-( Just to add my penneth worth, would it not be very painfully to fit an ejector seat to a motorhome, bearing in mind most are fitted with overhead cabs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Melvin - 2011-03-10 2:42 PM Just to add my penneth worth, would it not be very painfully to fit an ejector seat to a motorhome, bearing in mind most are fitted with overhead cabs. Not if you make it eject through the cab door windows - all except for fat buggers that is - or is that policically incorrect - or summat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvin Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Unfortunately, I have the Fiat side window defectors fitted, I therefore very much doubt I will fit through the window especially considering the size of my head and, I doubt anyone is capable of designing an ejector seat to propel my petite 15 stone plus frame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 rupert123 - 2011-03-10 11:25 AM Sorry but do not see the humor in this issue. Incidently on any modern vehicle another safety feature is making sure the engine cannot do exactly that, are you sure it was not the shower people? I am not saying safety features are infallible but they work and cut down serious injury or death. To dismiss them is pretty stupid and to dismiss them, as Nick did, to save weight is beyond belief. Enough. Stop being so damned rude. I have not read all of your 1117 posts but were they all so antagonistic? You seem to go out of your way to rub everyone up the wrong way! No need. I may be talking about 'white vans' but I can assure you that ANYONE who has injector problems with a 2.3 X250 van will be in for a world of pain, and they WILL have problems eventually. My experience should serve as an early warning system for the nice folk of the forum. My comments about the old 2.8 engines are valid; there was rarely any problem which could prevent you from completing your journey, and the injectors (though they were more fragile) were a doddle to extract, and no securing screws ever broke in the head. So to hell with a smarter cab and better suspension, wider bodies and all that stuff; I want reliability, and so does everyone else. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I am with Nick on this absolutely 100% on everything he has said! Thanks Nick - most of us value your input and experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 My take for what it's worth is these forums along with others would be a far better place without all the argy bargy that seems to go on, disagree with a view point, but leave out the personal attack stuff, there really is no justification. To return to topic I cannot ever recall my 1965 Commer camper juddering in reverse, nor any other vehicle I have owned come to that either. We should all remember that for the most part these are nothing more than delivery vans with probably a design working life of 4 years or so, maybe we expect too much from a utility vehicle designed for white van man. But newer does not always mean better, just traded in my missus for a 25 year old only to discover she can't cook :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I also would like to add my appreciation for Nicks contributions. Some may not be totally relevant to low mileage motorhomes which is why we have just taken delivery of a new Auto-Trail having balanced (we hope) the various comments on the forum and the experience of owners of new Fiat based motorhomes we have spoken too over the years. In the early years many we spoke to had experienced the judder problem but none of the dozens we spoke to in 2010 seemed to have had any problems. Having said that Nicks experience is unique on this site and he goes to considerable lengths to keep us all informed. I only hope the ungrateful comments of the few will not put him off. As regards safety I have an audible, intelligent active hazard warning system fitted. For those interested is called the W.I.F.E.! To be fair she has on the odd occasion warned me about possible hazards that have been outside my field of vision when I'm concentrating on the traffic in front. Given that I'm red green colour blind she also keeps an eye on traffic lights for me especially at night when it is difficult for me to pick out red lights amongst the sodium street lights. Off thread a little given that red green colourblindness is the most common for why do some charger designers think it is a good idea to have a single LED that changes from red to green when charging is complete? Those that have an LED that simply goes out when charging is complete are much more sensible. Finally I've solved and permissible load problems. I simply plan to have a gaint tailor made balloon filled with Helium in the living area thus reducing the vehicle weight and permitting heavier loads to be carried! Should help reduce any conversion rattles at the same time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Colin Leake - 2011-03-10 5:29 PM I also would like to add my appreciation for Nicks contributions Off thread a little given that red green colourblindness is the most common for why do some charger designers think it is a good idea to have a single LED that changes from red to green when charging is complete? Those that have an LED that simply goes out when charging is complete are much more sensible. Don't get me started, this is the bane of my life, and it defeats me that most designers of products it seems with few exceptions using coloured LEDs for on/off function ignore us. Red/Green colour blindness affects millions world wide, why is it they do not get it. >:-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 rupert123 - 2011-03-10 11:00 AM As for not being able to reverse up a vertical drive well go up forwards, perhaps they have not worked that out yet. We are not as stupid as you seem to think we are (who ! ME ??) Driving up a 1 in 5 (not a vertical drive, in my book) means that you then, have to reverse DOWN it, in our case into a busy road, with little view in either direction, not SAFE. So, reverse up it HAS to be. For whatever reason ? (I suspect 'smaller lighter gearboxes' are the driving force) Commercial vehicle builders are putting in Reverse Ratio's that are far too high, I don't know what the answer is ? But in this particular case 'older' designed vehicles were certainly 'better'. For more years than i can remember 'Reverse' was always the Lowest ratio in the box, and often if a vehicle couldn't drive up in first, it used to be turned around and Reversed up. I personally would welcome a 'Heavier Gearbox' that at least could reverse at a sensible speed, AND up a reasonable (1 in 5) incline. Ray And why is it that some folk on this forum seem to think that by not agreeing with THEIR viewpoint, that automatically makes you weak minded, some just love an argument i suppose ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 1footinthegrave Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Off topic I know, but your post brought memories flooding back of my Dad in our ( I think our Austin 10 ) having to make a six point or so turn on a hill here in Wales on the A479 dumping us all at the roadside, and reversing up to finish the climb. I can still smell the clutch and crankcase fumes.................................don't recall any clutch judder though (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Symbol Owner Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 rupert123 - 2011-03-10 11:33 AM Colin are you saying I have been less than truthfull here? I assume you must have one and tried it. As for the the statement they will all judder under full load up a steeper than 1 in 5 slope under full load, so thats 1 in 4 then, anything will of any make. No, Rupert,I am not questioning the truth of what you say, based, quite properly on your own knowledge and observations of your own (unique) 'van. The Quote/statement is my rendition of Andy Stothert's advice, taken from the 6 threads on the subject of the X2/50 Seval transmission defect -- starting in 2008 -- all of which I have read. I will accept that reports seem to say that the 5-speed box is less prone to serious failure/juddering than its 6-speed variant, but 3 recent reports/tests of new 'vans in MMM -- the latest this month,are still reporting juddering or smoking clutches -- and these journalists are fortunate -- they are not going to buy them -- but some poor sucker just might -- as I very nearly did -- it was another motorhome magazine and Andy's thread on this forum which prevented me ( at the last moment) from making a very expensive mistake!This is why you will find me (like Ray) sounding a warning to those (like the OP)who still wonder if they should take the risk of buying a second-hand X250 Fiat, Peugeot, or Citroen-based 'van -- and new ones don't seem to be completely fixed either! No, Rupert I don't doubt the truth of what you say, but you have been very lucky -- so far -- I do hope that it will remain so. Colin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 On our drive which is sloped and curved with a brick wall in the way the only way to get up and out is by reversing in. Trying to drive in would be like trying to parrallel park by putting the front wheels in first. You need the steering to bring the nose round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Our drive is uphill and curved with a brick wall on the outside of the curve. The only way to get up it is in reverse. Trying to drive up would be like trying to parallel park by putting the nose of the vehicle in first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Nickers double posting again. Sorry the compters fault not mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolandrat Posted March 16, 2011 Share Posted March 16, 2011 Well, surprise, surprise, as previous mentioned I roadtested a 2.3 x250 with a view to buying a new one. It was unregistered so we went out on trade plates, going foward it oozed plenty of power then I stopped on a hill and reversed it highlighting a judder and a high pitched whine, at this I said I wasn't happy so it was agreed that it should go to a Fiat main agent to have it checked out. Today I have been told that there is nothing wrong with it and that the technicians have over 20 years experience and I will have to accept their decision so I have decided not to go ahead with buying this particular motorhome. What concerns me is the fact that Fiat have said that all the chassis now coming off the production line have been modified and are OK. If I was a Joe Bloggs with limited mechanical knowledge I could have been sucked in big style but in all fairness to the dealer they were quite happy to forget about the deal that could have taken place. If at any time I can be convinced that the reverse judder has been well and truly resolved then I'll consider replacing what I have got. In the meantime my advice would be to anyone considering buying an X250 2.3 motorhome is thoroughly roadtest it, make sure you find a suitable hill and satisfy yourself that it will reverse to your satisfaction and not the salesmans. If you are asked to leave a deposit dont leave any more than £500 and make it subject to to seeing and an acceptable roadtest to your own satisfaction in writing on the order form so that there isn't any misunderstanding. A reputable dealer will do it in this manner like the one I dealt with. Discovery Leisure who I dealt with were very helpfull in every respect and it's a pity the motorhome transmission wasn't as I would have expected it to be. Bear something else in mind as well, you will be roadtesting an unladen motorhome and it will handle totally different when loaded up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.