150hp Fiat Comfortmatic

[Mike88]

Brian......................In common with many threads this one has covered a couple of side issues including the 3 litre performance characteristics of the Comfortmatic gearbox. Without reading through the whole thread I recall at least one person reconsidering the possibility of purchasing a Comfortmatic on the basis of your comments.

 

I had of course read your comments before I posted but I gained the impression that you were disappointed by your gearbox to the extent that you have taken up your experiences with the PR people at Fiat. I took this to mean that you didn't like the gearbox but if that is not the case then I am clearly incorrect.

 

You also stated that you had never experienced being in the "wrong gear". You said this in your original post:

 

"Second, on hills, and especially when using cruise control, the system hangs onto too high a gear for far too long. Rather like an inexperienced driver, by the time it decides a lower gear is required it is losing speed, and by the time it has changed down it lands back in the same predicament, as the new gear is by then also too high".

 

Doesn't this mean the wrong gear?

 

Others have commented that it is a question of adapting to the new technology and to get used to what you have. My point was to suggest that the gearbox should not be given a bad name on the basis of your views as there are others who find the gearbox perfect for their needs. Even the above poster has interpreted your

comments as meaning the gearbox is schitzophrenic which it is not. As there are a few posts on here suggesting the gearbox is not that great then I thought it might be useful to give an opposing view based on my experience.

 

I take your point about the fact you have a larger vehicle.

[rolandrat]

Joking apart, the torque generated by the 3ltr Comfortmatic is far greater than the 2.3 and that's probably why Brian is noticing a strange going on with his. It might help if he could be given a go in a 3ltr just to compare the difference. I do agree with the fact that a Van conversion will definitely be different to a heavier coachbuilt. When the series 5 came out there was quite a few Auto-Trail owners mentioning that the earlier 3ltr 160 was far better than the 2.3ltr 150 and the delay in upchanging was very noticeable, so I think Brian has a valid point.

[grahamw]

A very helpful and informative thread. I posted earlier regarding my positive experiences with the Comfortmatic auto box coupled to a 3.0 litre engine. I will be shortly replacing my current motorhome with a new one and have been considering the essential Comfortmatic box but this time coupled to the 2.3 litre engine and save myself a little money. However, this thread has certainly raised some serious doubts as to whether that would be a good strategy as the issues raised with the 2.3 litre combination seems to suggest that it may be pushing the concept a little too far or that the Comfortmatic box when used with the 2.3 litre engine needs its programming reworked. I do not recognise the same problems with the 3.0 litre engine.

 

The use of the 2.3 litre engine coupled to the Comfortmatic box is a relatively new introduction and little is known in terms of its merits or otherwise so it's helpful that Brian has raised the issue. I shall certainly have a test drive with the 2.3 litre Comfortmatic to see what difference I can detect. Economy wise I find the 3.0 litre very economical returning 29mpg on average. I fear the 2.3 litre will do no better having to work harder.

[Sundowner]

rolandrat - 2013-11-20 3:47 PM

 

Many very large commercial fleet operators now specify fully automatic gearboxes for their HGV's. One of the first to appear was the Merc with the EPS (Electronic Power Shift).

 

 

The haulage firm that I drove for (for 31 years), had 4 Mercedes EPS trucks in the late 80's/early 90's. As I remember it, they were not full automatic boxes, but conventional gearboxes, electronically controlled. You still had to change gear with a small paddle gearstick. Sometimes it took several attempts to engage reverse gear which was quite frustrating when shunting around in a busy yard.

In the early 90's I was allocated the first Volvo Globetrotter in the UK to be fitted with a Geartronic gearbox. Once again this was a computer operated manual box, but as with the Fiat Comfortmatic, it could be used in full automatic mode. However, was also fitted with a "hold" button and a "power" button to give the driver more control to overcome some of the problems described by Brian. Running at 44 tonnes it really needed them. By using the power button combined with one of the most effective exhaust brakes I've ever experienced, it was possible to go down through the gears and bring the fully loaded truck to a halt without using the brakes! I recall that in mountainous country (the French/Italian Alps or going up to Andorra), the driver needed to continuously play a "tune" on the two buttons to get the best performance out of the truck. I understand that the latest Geartronics are much improved, but remember it was great fun at the time. The truck was also the subject of two articles in the "Commercial Motor" magazine in 1992 and 1993.

 

[bolero boy]

grahamw - 2013-11-21 9:29 AM

 

A very helpful and informative thread. I posted earlier regarding my positive experiences with the Comfortmatic auto box coupled to a 3.0 litre engine. I will be shortly replacing my current motorhome with a new one and have been considering the essential Comfortmatic box but this time coupled to the 2.3 litre engine and save myself a little money. However, this thread has certainly raised some serious doubts as to whether that would be a good strategy as the issues raised with the 2.3 litre combination seems to suggest that it may be pushing the concept a little too far or that the Comfortmatic box when used with the 2.3 litre engine needs its programming reworked. I do not recognise the same problems with the 3.0 litre engine.

 

The use of the 2.3 litre engine coupled to the Comfortmatic box is a relatively new introduction and little is known in terms of its merits or otherwise so it's helpful that Brian has raised the issue. I shall certainly have a test drive with the 2.3 litre Comfortmatic to see what difference I can detect. Economy wise I find the 3.0 litre very economical returning 29mpg on average. I fear the 2.3 litre will do no better having to work harder.

I think this post capture where i am re the possibility of specifying the 150/Comfortmatic combo on my next van. I know that there are many users with the 160/180 bersions who love it.

Prior to Brians post, i had only read one report of the 150 auto and one criticism was the tendency to select second too early on roundabout exits etc. the test was not in depth enough to include the terrain that Brian describes and where he encountered the characteristics that seem odd to 3 litre users.

In days gone by, small engines and auto boxes didnt mix well, insufficient grunt to work with fewer ratios etc.

today, we have semi auto boxes woth the same number of gears, as there are automated manuals. However, put two different drivers in a 150 manual and they will drive it differently, some holding onto hears longer, some changing up or down earlier to keep the engine in the power band while others are less keen to change gear, allowing the torque of the modern diesel engine to take the strain.

I do t know, as i dont have a Comfortmatic, which driving style it leans towards. If it was towards the 'opposite' end of the spectrum from the way you would normally drive it manually, then this would frustrate.

Im guessing there are very few (none?) owners on this forum with the 150/auto combo like Brians and all the comparisons to his experiences have been with the 3 ltr version.

I will certainly be testing the 150 auto before i specify it, and will incorporate some good hilly country to boot.

[Guest JudgeMental]

From anything I have read its seems the 2.3 not as well suited to comfortmatic...Its not only Brian that says this, Magazines like the German Promobil who really test with forensic due diligence, said 150 is not a good match, as it kills the performance from the 150 motor (why I want a manual) and you must use manual intervention or it switches about all over the place, so no wonder some describe it as schizophrenic! So, lets get this straight its not just Brian who is experiencing this.

 

also lets remember the 3 litre version, in a panel van also a choice fraught with danger, as front axle can be easily overloaded, depending on layout, (tanks position) van length etc....

 

So.... engine remap may be worthwhile..Or adapt to the set up, may have to change your driving style, and put you foot down....and change gear more then you anticipated. Buying something like this without a decent test drive barmy to be honest.

[Chausson le mor]

hymer1942 - 2013-11-20 6:39 PM

 

Evening all does anyone know if the RENAULT auto box is any better or worse than the fiat one. Barrie

As posted earlier mine is a 125bhp 2.3l Renault Master PVC conversion with the Quickshift 6 auto transmission owned for nearly 2 years it is in my opinion SUPERB!!!!!!!!!

would be very reluctant to change to a Fiat ( had previously a Peugeot boxer with 6 speed manual so have used both brands) The other spin off is fuel the Renault Quickshift is more fuel economical than the Peugeot Boxer!

[Mike88]

JudgeMental - 2013-11-21 12:43 PM

 

 

also lets remember the 3 litre version, in a panel van also a choice fraught with danger, as front axle can be easily overloaded, depending on layout, (tanks position) van length etc....

 

 

The way this thread is going the implication seems to be that a Comfortmatic is better suited to a 3 litre engine but there is not enough evidence yet to suggest that the 2.3 is totally unsuitable. More comments from those with the 150bhp version would be of interest.

 

I disagree that a 3 litre engine with Comfortmatic is unsuitable on a panel van.. The layout of a panel van virtually prevents you from loading the front end so overloading should not be an issue. And if you load the rear does this not have the effect of moving the weight towards the middle and rear end.

 

 

[Guest JudgeMental]

Mike88 - 2013-11-21 1:33 PM

 

JudgeMental - 2013-11-21 12:43 PM

 

 

also lets remember the 3 litre version, in a panel van also a choice fraught with danger, as front axle can be easily overloaded, depending on layout, (tanks position) van length etc....

 

 

The way this thread is going the implication seems to be that a Comfortmatic is better suited to a 3 litre engine but there is not enough evidence yet to suggest that the 2.3 is totally unsuitable. More comments from those with the 150bhp version would be of interest.

 

I disagree that a 3 litre engine with Comfortmatic is unsuitable on a panel van.. The layout of a panel van virtually prevents you from loading the front end so overloading should not be an issue. And if you load the rear does this not have the effect of moving the weight towards the middle and rear end.

 

 

Not what I said....

 

There was one disastrous example on here a few years back with a Murvi, and in German tests of various vans this comes up as a cautionary quite often *-)

[rolandrat]

JudgeMental - 2013-11-21 1:50 PM

 

Mike88 - 2013-11-21 1:33 PM

 

JudgeMental - 2013-11-21 12:43 PM

 

 

also lets remember the 3 litre version, in a panel van also a choice fraught with danger, as front axle can be easily overloaded, depending on layout, (tanks position) van length etc....

 

 

The way this thread is going the implication seems to be that a Comfortmatic is better suited to a 3 litre engine but there is not enough evidence yet to suggest that the 2.3 is totally unsuitable. More comments from those with the 150bhp version would be of interest.

 

I disagree that a 3 litre engine with Comfortmatic is unsuitable on a panel van.. The layout of a panel van virtually prevents you from loading the front end so overloading should not be an issue. And if you load the rear does this not have the effect of moving the weight towards the middle and rear end.

 

 

Not what I said....

 

There was one disastrous example on here a few years back with a Murvi, and in German tests of various vans this comes up as a cautionary quite often *-)

 

Very true, I remember it well. The Murvi owner went to great lengths to keep it road legal.

[pepe63xnotuse]

JudgeMental - 2013-11-21 1:50 PM

 

Not what I said....

 

There was one disastrous example on here a few years back with a Murvi, and in German tests of various vans this comes up as a cautionary quite often *-)

 

Nope! Sorry Eddie...but if something doesn't happen to apply to Mike's actual vehicle, then it's clear that, no matter how much it differs(layout/power/torque/body type),then it can't possibly happen to anyone's... (lol)

 

 

[Guest JudgeMental]

rolandrat - 2013-11-21 2:09 PM

 

JudgeMental - 2013-11-21 1:50 PM

 

Mike88 - 2013-11-21 1:33 PM

 

JudgeMental - 2013-11-21 12:43 PM

 

 

also lets remember the 3 litre version, in a panel van also a choice fraught with danger, as front axle can be easily overloaded, depending on layout, (tanks position) van length etc....

 

 

The way this thread is going the implication seems to be that a Comfortmatic is better suited to a 3 litre engine but there is not enough evidence yet to suggest that the 2.3 is totally unsuitable. More comments from those with the 150bhp version would be of interest.

 

I disagree that a 3 litre engine with Comfortmatic is unsuitable on a panel van.. The layout of a panel van virtually prevents you from loading the front end so overloading should not be an issue. And if you load the rear does this not have the effect of moving the weight towards the middle and rear end.

 

 

Not what I said....

 

There was one disastrous example on here a few years back with a Murvi, and in German tests of various vans this comes up as a cautionary quite often *-)

 

Very true, I remember it well. The Murvi owner went to great lengths to keep it road legal.

 

it was a horrendous and expensive learning curve for that member who had to spend 1000's upgrading front suspension to cope! any german mag review worth its salt of this combination, come with a caution that overloading possible..... *-)

[rolandrat]

I think that being able to compare like for like it would help if some owners who have gone from the 3ltr down to the 2'3ltr Comfort-matic could give their opinion of the difference. I can only give my opinion of the difference between them having owned a 3ltr and now a 2.3 manual and I can say in all honesty that the 3ltr is a far far better engine. It won't be long before I'll be back with a 3ltr Comfort- matic, I've been well and truly spoilt. The rev counter says it all.

[hughman]

hughman - 2013-11-11 9:12 AM

 

I've got one of these and I agree generally with comments. I found the slowness to shift from 1st to 2nd really annoying until switching on the 'up' button, which more or less sorted the problem.

 

As to downhills etc, a bit of manual intervention is easy and does the job, and for me, the advantages of auto, especially in towns or traffic jams, still outweigh the minor inconveniences that come with it.

 

It does also help with Cruise control, which, whilst it can be slow to respond on uphill stretches, still beats manual for me on long runs.

 

As I said earlier, I've found using the 'up' button resolves the 1st/2nd change problem. Before, it was actually changing too soon and then labouring in 2nd on uphill stretches - it's OK now.

 

Again, downhill, it has a tendency to stay in a lower gear, which is good from the safety angle but can be annoying if you want to reduce engine revs a bit. In that case, I just go manual instead.

 

Cruise does hang on to a high gear longer than desirable, sometimes, but again, manual intervention sorts it.

 

Overall, it may be case of what you're most comfortable with. I used to like manuals, but have come to prefer autos - perhaps old age is setting in :'(

It's far easier in towns and traffic jams, having cruise is great on long runs and where you need to be sure of not exceeding speed limits (e.g. roadworks with average speed cameras), and you can always go manual if you want. You don't have the options with a manual.

 

Before the current Fiat 150 Comfortmatic, we had an old Burstner, also auto, with the 2.8 engine. It was no better or worse to drive, although it was of course bigger, heavier and slower.

 

 

[Alan D]

Brian you are a very experienced guy, did you test drive this vehicle before you bought it? Did anything untowards show up then?

 

Barrie see my earlier post and Chausson le mor for Renauult auto experience.

Alan

[euroserv]

Just to add a little more technical stuff to the equation... I am trying to drip-feed the boring stuff!

 

Comparisons between 2.3 and 3.0 engines is for now, at least, not really going to be very productive.

 

The only 2.3 engined vehicles that have got auto's are Euro 5's. The option was only previously available on 3.0 Euro 4's and now the 180hp Euro 5.

 

That is not to say that the arrangement was un-tested because it certainly was; Iveco Daily vans could be fitted with their 'Agile' box (exactly the same just rear wheel drive) on either 2.3 or 3.0 engines since about 2005.

 

The thing is, I have driven a lot of 2.3's on Euro 4 and now some that are Euro 5 and they are very different animals. The older 120hp engines were very torquey from low revs and would pull very well in 3rd from almost a standstill. There was absolutely no point in trying to rev much above 3000 rpm because it did not go any faster and quite obviously was not happy to do it but the Euro 5 with 130hp seems much happier to rev to 3500 rpm or a little more ) and it still gains speed) although it seems to lack the low end urge of the older unit. The newer engine is appreciably noisier than the old one too.

 

Now, if there is a difference like this between old and new 2.3's it is quite conceivable that the character of the 3.0 has also changed. I don't know because i have not driven one but it is a reasonable assumption.

 

Are these gearboxes optimised for Euro 4 and not Euro 5? Would the character of the 120hp engine be better suited to the programming? I have my suspicions. Until someone can test a 3.0 Euro 5 with comfort-matic and share their experiences I doubt we will ever know.

 

If you wanted my educated guess I would offer that there is no difference in the programming between Euro 4 and Euro 5 auto's and the 2.3 program is probably lifted from an Iveco Daily. I suspect that there will be no change to that situation until the Euro 6 engines are finalised because they will be here in a year or so and will be around for a while. I expect some significant cosmetic changes, if not a completely re-designed vehicle in 2015 as well because it is due around 2016 and to do this early makes a lot of sense. The current Ducato is being sold now in the USA as a Dodge with either the 3.0 Diesel or 3.6 V6 Petrol. Both have the comfort-matic gearbox. I wonder how that is going? These models are being built in Mexico by the way....

[Brian Kirby]

Thanks for this, Mike. I'm adding comments below. Not arguing, but there seem to one or two misunderstandings, and I think we may be somewhat at cross purposes.

 

Mike88 - 2013-11-20 7:34 PM

Brian......................In common with many threads this one has covered a couple of side issues including the 3 litre performance characteristics of the Comfortmatic gearbox. Without reading through the whole thread I recall at least one person reconsidering the possibility of purchasing a Comfortmatic on the basis of your comments.

Yes they did. They may now choose to evaluate its performance before buying, or not to buy. Had someone posted similar experiences to mine in relation to this box, I think I should also have at least wanted to test drive an auto before deciding. As it was, all reports said how good it was, and I was reassured by that. However, I think my appraisal, if taken overall, is reasonably balanced and does not amount to condemnation. If you look, I praise its good features, and criticise it shortcomings - as a automatic. I have not criticised it performance in manual mode, because in that more it is merely a "clutchless" transmission, and works fine. However, what I bought was an automatic, and not a clutchless transmission.

 

I had of course read your comments before I posted but I gained the impression that you were disappointed by your gearbox to the extent that you have taken up your experiences with the PR people at Fiat. I took this to mean that you didn't like the gearbox but if that is not the case then I am clearly incorrect.

No Sir! What I have said is that I don't like the way the gearbox responds to hills in auto mode, and particularly when the cruise control is activated. I would invite you to read again those comments.

 

You also stated that you had never experienced being in the "wrong gear". You said this in your original post:

 

"Second, on hills, and especially when using cruise control, the system hangs onto too high a gear for far too long. Rather like an inexperienced driver, by the time it decides a lower gear is required it is losing speed, and by the time it has changed down it lands back in the same predicament, as the new gear is by then also too high".

 

Doesn't this mean the wrong gear?

No Sir. Your first sentence above was me quoting you, not me. The second paragraph is me, and it does, indeed, mean that the box almost invariably selects the wrong gear on hills, AND that it eventually finds the right gear, but with the emphasis on eventually.

 

Others have commented that it is a question of adapting to the new technology and to get used to what you have. My point was to suggest that the gearbox should not be given a bad name on the basis of your views as there are others who find the gearbox perfect for their needs. Even the above poster has interpreted your comments as meaning the gearbox is schitzophrenic which it is not. As there are a few posts on here suggesting the gearbox is not that great then I thought it might be useful to give an opposing view based on my experience.

But I maintain that mine is schitzophrenic (my term). I am happy to accept that yous is not. Just puzzled as to why you are unhappy to accept that mine is. If you want a trip up from Devon, you are welcome to try it out!

 

I take your point about the fact you have a larger vehicle.

IMO it is not so much that it is larger; as that it is heavier, has 10 less HP, and 50Nm less torque; which contributes to (but IMO does not cause) the difference between your driving experience and mine. In manual mode it has ample power under all circumstances - if the right gear is selected. So, whereas these weight and power differences must make it a less lively vehicle than yours, the problems arise only in automatic mode. So, the real fault, it seems to me, is the way the TCM (transmission control module) allows the gearbox to exploit the power when in auto mode. It seems a good engine, coupled to an apparently well staged six speed gearbox. Taken individually, both elements seem more than adequate, and in manual mode they prove so but, when under auto control, they prove the opposite.

 

However, I now have a case number from Fiat, and at their suggestion will be booking the van into a Fiat dealership for assessment. I will update once I have their verdict.

[Brian Kirby]

Alan D - 2013-11-21 3:35 PM

 

Brian you are a very experienced guy, did you test drive this vehicle before you bought it? Did anything untowards show up then?

 

Barrie see my earlier post and Chausson le mor for Renauult auto experience.

Alan

No Alan, I didn't test drive the vehicle we have before buying. I was persuaded by the reports of other's experience of the Comfortmatic that it was good. The van itself is a relatively new model, and autos on dealer's forecourts are like hen's teeth.

 

But, even had I test driven one, I doubt that the shortcomings I am experiencing would have shown up. First, the test would have been in an unladen, so considerably lighter, vehicle. Second, the shortcomings require hilly, twisting, roads to fully manifest, and I doubt there are suitable test routes to exploit. Finally, I had not, at the time I was ordering, seen any comments, in magazines or forums, to alert me to possible problems with the 150 Comfortmatic.

 

Even now, those I have read are very anodyne and somewhat veiled critiques. It is only after experiencing its performance for myself that these comments chime. I know now what they are alluding to, but would have been unlikely to have fully understood what they meant in the absence of personal experience. It is very difficult for journalists to be overly forthright in criticism, in the face of the legal and advertising pressures exerted by major manufacturers. Hence, I guess, the best they can serve up are anodyne and veiled hints!

[euroserv]

Brian Kirby - 2013-11-21 6:07 PM

 

 

Even now, those I have read are very anodyne and somewhat veiled critiques. It is only after experiencing its performance for myself that these comments chime. I know now what they are alluding to, but would have been unlikely to have fully understood what they meant in the absence of personal experience. It is very difficult for journalists to be overly forthright in criticism, in the face of the legal and advertising pressures exerted by major manufacturers. Hence, I guess, the best they can serve up are anodyne and veiled hints!

 

It certainly makes you wonder why they bother, and why we read them.

It makes us look stupid and self serving when we try to relate real experiences.

[Derek Uzzell]

euroserv - 2013-11-21 5:03 PM

 

... The current Ducato is being sold now in the USA as a Dodge with either the 3.0 Diesel or 3.6 V6 Petrol. Both have the comfort-matic gearbox. I wonder how that is going? These models are being built in Mexico by the way....

 

As you rightly say, the motors fitted to the Dodge-badged 'Ducato' are 3.0litre (Fiat) diesel or 3.6litre (Chrysler) petrol, both with automatic transmission. The Fiat 174bhp powerplant is teamed with a Comfortmatic automated-manual gearbox, but the 280bhp V6 petrol motor has Chrysler's own 62TE 6-speed transmission that incorporates a torque-converter.

 

http://www.allpar.com/mopar/transmissions/62TE.html

[Guest pelmetman]

Reading your original post Brian............I see Fiat has managed to complicate something that was invented nearly a century ago to make life easier *-)..............Progress eh? (lol) (lol)......

[Hawcara]

When at the Nec show recently, I asked the salesman on the Hymer stand if the Mercedes version was Euro 5 or 6. He stated that all Mercedes Hymers would be Euro 6.

It would be interesting to know whether part of the emission compliance in Euro 5 engines means that there must be less torque or whatever and that this can have a 'negative' effect when coupled with an auto box.

Must admit this is an interesting thread, since if we were in the market to buy another van at the moment then an auto would certainly be compelling.

I will be interested to read of any updates to Brian's Hymer :-D

[Den]

It's great to see I'm not on my own and stating that the Renault quick shift 6 is No 1.

No problems, changes when it should every time.

Been using renaults for several years and cover 250,000 in 3 years normally. No replacement clutch's, no gear box problem and run at max weight all the time.

One should not have to compromise after spending any amount of money, but spending MH mega bucks is unbelievable that fiat supply vehicles with...

FAULTY GEAR BOX's

WATER INGRESS INTO ENGINE COMPARTMENT.

AND NOW A ROBOT GEAR BOX, THAT DOESNT DO WHAT IT SAYS ON THE BOX.

I'm not saying fiat are rubbish, but I'm surprised that so many have issues with the most widely used MH chassis.

You must ask yourselves why Renault , merc and ford rule the commercial market.

I did run a fiat for 2 years and got bitten for signing on the dotted line.

 

[Brian Kirby]

euroserv - 2013-11-21 6:14 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2013-11-21 6:07 PM

 

 

Even now, those I have read are very anodyne and somewhat veiled critiques. It is only after experiencing its performance for myself that these comments chime. I know now what they are alluding to, but would have been unlikely to have fully understood what they meant in the absence of personal experience. It is very difficult for journalists to be overly forthright in criticism, in the face of the legal and advertising pressures exerted by major manufacturers. Hence, I guess, the best they can serve up are anodyne and veiled hints!

 

It certainly makes you wonder why they bother, and why we read them.

It makes us look stupid and self serving when we try to relate real experiences.

I think they go as far as they dare, or their publisher's legal departments will let them. Major manufacturers are somewhat inclined to use the law to muzzle criticism of their products. When did anyone read a review that ended by saying "In conclusion, this product is under-developed, and should be avoided until it is fully functional"? See what I mean?

[Brian Kirby]

Hawcara - 2013-11-21 8:21 PM................It would be interesting to know whether part of the emission compliance in Euro 5 engines means that there must be less torque or whatever and that this can have a 'negative' effect when coupled with an auto box....................I will be interested to read of any updates to Brian's Hymer :-D

On the face if it, Alex, no. If you look above at Nick's chart of HP vs torque figures for the various generations of Fiat engines, you will see that both HP and torque gain on the E5 engines, compared to the E4 equivalents that preceded them.