ducato clutch/flywheel

[snail]

hi guys, just wanting some info on 2005 2.8 ducato clutch replacement, is it a standard cutch system and what sort of price to have it done would be fair?

 

the other question is does this van have a normal flywhheel or one of these fancy things which cost a fortune to replace?

 

just starting to get a bit of clutch judder on take up, 32,000 ish miles

 

thanks snail

[George Collings]

For info.

 

There are numerous companies offering vehicle parts. just do a word search for the part you want and usually just type in your vehicles Reg Number. If they have the clutch they will normally also list the DMF if the vehicle has one.

 

In your case it has a normal clutch with no DMF and I found one for about £175 which seems about the going rate for a 2.5 ish diesel from this sort of outlet.

 

 

 

 

[snail]

hi george, thanks for your reply my van is a 2.8, not 2.5? dmf is the special flywheel i take it, a friend of ours had to replace it in his jap 4x4 cost a £1000 odd!!

 

thanks snail

[George Collings]

I checked for the 2.8 and then my own VW LT 2.5 which has a DMF and the price of just the clutch was within a few pounds of the one for the Ducato.

[Brian Kirby]

It is a question of driving style, but 32,000 isn't much of a mileage for a commercial clutch (or even a car clutch). It's not a huge van at just under 7 metres, and I assume 3.5 tonnes or not much more MAM, so I wonder if that slight judder you are getting may possibly be the result of relatively little use over winter?

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Reading Euroserves post a little while back warned of the potential danger of crank oil seal leaks leaking with this specific engine if using fully synthetic low viscosity oil, this could cause clutch judder if the plate is contaminated, as a first I'd get under and look at the bell housing for any signs of oil. In any event should you be unlucky enough to have a failing clutch it would be wise to get them to change the rear crank seal in any event, and only use 10/40 semi synthetic as I do with my 2.8 jtd and can't see that it would hurt to change the oil if you're not sure of the grade put in it, and who knows it may help.

[snail]

thanks for all your replys, van is going to our local commercial garage next week for annual service and mot so will ask thier opinion, check for any sign of oil,

 

brian, we have just returned from spain and portugal, been out for seven months, 5000 miles so no it hasn't been stood still, uplated to 4.1 tons and usually fully loaded as we are long termers, manage about 10 months away each year

 

will see what garage say

 

thanks snail

[George Collings]

Probably the worst abuse dealt to motorhome clutches is mounting levelling blocks.

 

I avoid it unless there is a severe danger of falling out of bed but of course being a Devonian anything horizontal is considered a tad strange.

 

Ancient cheapskate remedies for oily clutches included some more abuse to burn it off and dosing with fullers earth. I have never tried them and don't blame me if it makes things worse.

[Brian Kirby]

snail - 2013-04-16 8:26 AM...............brian, we have just returned from spain and portugal, been out for seven months, 5000 miles so no it hasn't been stood still, uplated to 4.1 tons and usually fully loaded as we are long termers, manage about 10 months away each year

thanks snail

Oh well, bang goes that theory! In which case, I hope the garage news is good news. :-)

[euroserv]

1footinthegrave - 2013-04-16 5:54 AM

 

Reading Euroserves post a little while back warned of the potential danger of crank oil seal leaks leaking with this specific engine if using fully synthetic low viscosity oil, this could cause clutch judder if the plate is contaminated, as a first I'd get under and look at the bell housing for any signs of oil. In any event should you be unlucky enough to have a failing clutch it would be wise to get them to change the rear crank seal in any event, and only use 10/40 semi synthetic as I do with my 2.8 jtd and can't see that it would hurt to change the oil if you're not sure of the grade put in it, and who knows it may help.

 

I could not have put that better myself! I would just add that if you have bee on the Fully Synthetic oil you should consider changing the front oil seal when you get a cam belt change done too.

 

At 4100KG most of the time I am not surprised that the clutch is worn. If this is the case, the flywheel should be carefully checked for 'blueing' and anything more than very fine cracks. They are tough but can cause judder if they have had a hard life. Whatever anyone says this driveline was not designed for this kind of load and the end result will be accelerated rates of wear on all mechanical parts.

 

Nick

[Brian Kirby]

Can I add that if the up-plating was not by Hymer, it would be wise to check the actual laden axle loads remain within their limits. Some "desk" type up-platings raise the MAM, but do nothing for the axle loads. Wouldn't affect the judder, but might affect your safety.

[snail]

thanks for your reply, yes the van is loaded, but no worse on the drive train than many tag axles on the market?

 

in an ideal world i would have s7oo on a twin wheeled merc, but hey we have what we have, make the best of it

 

up plating was done through sv tech, air ride added as recommended by them, new weight on log book, are you saying they are not to be trusted?

 

i visit the local weighbridge twice a year, start of each trip and am under on gross by 150kg and under on back axle by 40kg usually, we now know what we can take and have to leave, we have done it so many times

 

my initial post was to find out if i had a dual mass flywheel, so i was prepared (mentally) for a possible expensive job!

 

regards snail

[Guest Peter James]

The only van clutch I have known to fail at such a low mileage was because the owner overfilled the engine oil causing it to leak through on to the clutch. (But the clutch didn't judder - it just slipped, and it was Rover not a Fiat )

[Wooie]

euroserv - 2013-04-16 4:24 PM

 

 

At 4100KG most of the time I am not surprised that the clutch is worn. If this is the case, the flywheel should be carefully checked for 'blueing' and anything more than very fine cracks. They are tough but can cause judder if they have had a hard life. Whatever anyone says this driveline was not designed for this kind of load and the end result will be accelerated rates of wear on all mechanical parts.

 

Nick

 

 

 

Nick,

i have a question please.

 

Would a Cheiftain or Hobby on a tag axle of a similar vintage 2005 2.8 Ducato at 4,500KG

be on a standard clutch or would it have been " Uprated " at some point during manufacture ?

 

The reason i ask is that i know someone with one that has had one from new and is

coming up to 60,000 miles now and it`s absolutely fine.

 

They admit to running at or slightly above the 4,500KG weight all of the time.........LOL

 

I appreciate that every body is different and clutch wear depends on how it has been used and abused with their style of driving.

 

I`m not asking for you to " stand in a court of law " or anything silly like that, i`m just curious.

 

If you`d rather not comment i`ll understand seeing as a lot of people these days seem jump

down your throat for something as simple as a Typo or the like.

 

Regards.

 

Graham.

 

[Guest Peter James]

They don't produce a special clutch or flywheel for motorhomes, I can tell you that.

My 3.5 tonnes X2/50 commercial van has a plated train weight (towing) of 6.5 tonnes.

This is how they can put a tag axle on them and increase the weight - the tag axle is just regarded as towing weight.

[Brian Kirby]

snail - 2013-04-17 9:24 AM

 

.....................yes the van is loaded, but no worse on the drive train than many tag axles on the market? .............................

 

up plating was done through sv tech, air ride added as recommended by them, new weight on log book, are you saying they are not to be trusted?

 

..................................regards snail

The first point is true, and I think Nick's comment is to be taken to apply equally to all such vans. The maxi chassis and drivetrain are beefed up to take loads up to (from memory, but Nick will know) 4 tonnes. The lighter chassis are not, and are being worked beyond their ideal design parameters at this weight. It is at least debatable whether an up-plated motorhome, if subjected to the rigours of a commercial van's life, would survive in the way commercial vans do. Personally, I think not. Such motorhomes generally survive because they have much more cosseted lives, despite being continually loaded beyond their design target. So, too, with the heavier tag axle models on the maxi chassis. In effect, they are trading load carrying for some of the design factor of (non-critical) safety.

 

On the second point, of course I am not saying SV Tech, or anyone else is not to be trusted. All they do is examine whether the up-plating will be safe and, if in their expert view it will, they authorise the extra load. What I am saying, however, is that there is a difference between the narrow judgement that a vehicle will be safe to drive, and the much broader assumption that operating it in that state will have no consequences for its longevity and maintenance. The safety issue is SV Tech's risk, its longer term maintenance impact is the vehicle operator's risk.

 

As above, I hope what you are experiencing with your clutch does not signify imminent failure, and that this is not a consequence of operating the vehicle some 14% above its original design MAM. However, if it is clutch wear, it may be worth exploring the possibility of having an up-rated (if available) clutch fitted, if you intend keeping the van for a few years yet.

[euroserv]

Hello Folks,

 

I am happy to provide information from my own fleet experience and specific details of parts used in the construction of these vehicles. Other things are more subjective but are always to be regarded as 'opinion' albeit based on a lot of experience so I have no qualms about answering these questions.

 

First I should say that there is no difference at the time of leaving the factory between any versions of vehicles with 2.3 or 2.8 engines. The clutches are deemed to be adequate for all perceived applications. The gear ratios are however different between standard and Maxi versions and these different ratios are definitely going to be targeted towards easing the stress on the clutch at the higher weights. There are no after-market 'heavy duty' clutches available either, so all you will end up with is a higher rate of wear on a heavier vehicle that with a lighter one. If, for example a 3200kg vehicle runs for most of it's life at about 2800kg and it manages 100,000 miles on a clutch, the same driver (consistent driving style) in a 4200kg vehicle that is at or near it's maximum weight for most of the time might only get 40,000 miles. It's not rocket science!

 

Going on from what Brian said....

 

I have noticed that many of the heavier 'up-plated' and tag axle vehicles are based on the lighter chassis. Obviously the designers at Fiat made light vehicles plus medium weights and finally the Maxi versions. The later X250 had a 'light' 3500kg vehicle plus a 'heavy' 3500kg and a 'heavy' 4000kg.

 

For reasons of economics, I can only assume, the coachbuilders seem to favour the light 3500kg vehicle for conversion. They then up-plate them which might be all well and legal but they do not have the up rated drive-shafts, suspension and brakes that the 'proper' 'heavy' chassis would have. They also push the boundaries of the axle loadings that were adequate for the original application but have less lattitude than the full fat Maxi chassis would have had. This bothers me a bit.

Apart from the small cost advantages it seems likely that because the lighter chassis has 15" wheels whereas the heavier ones has 16". This may raise the height of the finished article too high and is considered undesirable?

 

I don't know.

 

While up-plating and modifying light vehicles into heavy ones is possible and legal; that does not necessarily mean that it is good, clever or in fact advisable.

 

Nick

[Dave Newell]

Just a random thought but would the clutch for a 2.8 Iveco turbo daily fit? The question mark would be over the first motion shaft diameter and number of splines but if it did match then this might well be a route to a heavier duty clutch as the Daily was built in a variety of weight categories all the way up to 6.5 tonnes with large towing capacities.

 

D.

[euroserv]

Hi Dave,

 

I will look into it but from memory the Daily used a larger diameter clutch and the friction plate was a good deal thicker too. There was a spacer between the bell housing and the block if I remember correctly and of course the earlier Turbo Dailys that went up to 5900kg had a cable clutch so it's rather unlikely.

 

Like your thinking though.

 

At the end of the day Mr White Van gets more miles but a clutch lasts a year or two. Mr Camper might have to do it after 35,000 miles but it lasted 7 years! (for example)

 

Is it a big deal?

[Dave Newell]

Cheers Nick, I wasn't actually thinking of you checking it out but if you can and don't mind then all to the good. My Iveco doesn't have a spacer between the bellhousing and block as fr as I know although its a month or two since I last had it up on the lift and I wasn't really looking closely at that aspect of it. Still its got to be worth a bit of investigation.

 

D.

[Derek Uzzell]

euroserv - 2013-04-17 2:47 PM

 

...I have noticed that many of the heavier 'up-plated' and tag axle vehicles are based on the lighter chassis. Obviously the designers at Fiat made light vehicles plus medium weights and finally the Maxi versions. The later X250 had a 'light' 3500kg vehicle plus a 'heavy' 3500kg and a 'heavy' 4000kg.

 

For reasons of economics, I can only assume, the coachbuilders seem to favour the light 3500kg vehicle for conversion. They then up-plate them which might be all well and legal but they do not have the up rated drive-shafts, suspension and brakes that the 'proper' 'heavy' chassis would have. They also push the boundaries of the axle loadings that were adequate for the original application but have less lattitude than the full fat Maxi chassis would have had. This bothers me a bit.

Apart from the small cost advantages it seems likely that because the lighter chassis has 15" wheels whereas the heavier ones has 16". This may raise the height of the finished article too high and is considered undesirable?

 

I don't know.

 

While up-plating and modifying light vehicles into heavy ones is possible and legal; that does not necessarily mean that it is good, clever or in fact advisable.

 

Nick

 

ALL motorhomes using an X250 (or earlier) SEVEL base and AL-KO tandem rear-axle chassis ("tag axle" is technically incorrect) will employ the 'Maxi' version (ie. the one with 16" diameter wheels).

 

As I understand it, coachbuilt motorhomes now built using an X250 35-light 'camping-car' chassis (ie. one with 15" wheels) can officially go to 3650kg MAM, while coachbuilt motorhomes using an X250 40-heavy 'camping-car' chassis (ie. one with 16" wheels) can officially go to 4250kg MAM. However, for driving-licence reasons, it would be more normal for the former to be marketed at 3500kg MAM, and (for the same reasons) not unknown for the latter also to be made avaliable at 3500kg MAM.

 

Historically, it was very rare for a motorhome manufacturer to offer a model based on an 'up-plated' 3500kg MAM chassis. Nowadays, motorhome manufacturers apparently have the option with the X250 35-light 'camping-car' chassis to offer models at 3500kg or 3650kg MAM. Presumably this approach has Fiat's approval, so should not be considered 'up-plating' as such.

 

Coachbuilt motorhome manufacturers have a problem and it's the buyers. Motorcaravanners want all the comforts of home, but (particularly abroad and increasingly here) also want to be able to drive their motorhome on an ordinary 'car' driving licence. The result is large motorhomes that commonsense should tell one should really be on X250 40-heavy chassis being built on 35-light chassis with minimal useful payload. These vehicles will always be driven close to (or beyond) their MAM, which will inevitably maximise the stress placed on their transmission.

 

Wheel-diameter isn't a significant factor, but the extra basic weight of a '16"-wheel chassis' compared to a '15"-wheel chassis' is. While it may be practicable to build a socking great 3500kg MAM motorhome on a 35-light chassis and still have a bit of useful payload left over, transferring the design to a 40-heavy chassis will almost certainly be the final straw payload-wise.

 

Choosing to build at 3500kg MAM is indeed a matter of economics, though not just because the lighter chassis is cheaper but because potential buyers limited to a 3500kg-MAM car driving-licence won't purchase a vehicle over that weight limit.

[BrianBW]

Can I do some boasting here. Been a car owner/driver for 50 years, 'White van' driver for 35 years, motorhome owner for 17 years. My van is 16 years old, 93,000 miles on the clock. Never had a clutch failure. Yes, I know its got to happen now!!

My father taught me to drive, he enfasised, never ride the clutch.