Guest JudgeMental Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 I have seen a van of interest...but its on citroen 110 kW (150 PS) what is the main difference between this and the Fiat 2.3 150bhp model please.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve928 Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 89cc less. Cam chain rather than cam belt. I find the Puma 2.2 to be the quieter, smoother engine but there was a post on here a week or so ago stating the exact opposite as being 'generally accepted'. However the posters in the current panel van conversion thread seem to like the Puma 2.2 too: "Also IMO the 2.2 engine in the Citroen is much smoother than the 2.3 Fiat engine." "Never tried the 2.3 Fiat, but the 2.2 Citroen is very smooth and quiet". I haven't tried the 2.2 engine at 150PS output though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Thanks Steve, it was the above comments that threw me........it is all very confusing :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Peugeot / Citroen have a long history of putting engines designed for cars into vans. This was not too much of a problem when the only did it with small vans and even the SWB Boxers were not too awful but when they started putting them in big vans I was not impressed. A commercial vehicle deserves an engine that is designed for the purpose. 2.0 and 2.2 car engines are not good enough. I have been driving a 2.3 Fiat this afternoon with 228,000 miles on the clock. It could not have been smoother or quieter. I don't think a 2.2 car engine would be sounding so good at that mileage; if indeed it would get there at all. VW reckon a 2.0 engine is big enough for their biggest vans now. Oh dear. I don't see that ending well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Thanks Nick....So the 2.2 is the Ford Mondeo lump? A shame as van a good deal :-S A I only average about 7-8K a year is that still a best to leave it *-) its a 636m 3500kg van conversion Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 This is where I disagree with Nick, I've driven several Citroen 3.5t 6m white vans with over 100,000 miles on the clock, and the engines always seem smoother than the Fiat to me, but these where the euro4 variant, so can't comment on how well the 150ps will stand up over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robinhood Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 ....I wouldn't confuse the two "Ford" 2.2 Diesel engines. The one used in the Transit, Boxer and Jumper is a Ford originated Duratorq engine largely designed for commercial use (Transit), and only used briefly in cars for earlier versions of the Mondeo and Jaguar X-type. The 2.2 Diesel used in the majority of Ford (and Peugeot/Citroen) cars is a completely different (PSA DW) engine (i.e. Peugeot originated). FWIW, my van (6.79m and 3500kg) has the Euro IV 140 version of the Duratorq, and I find it pretty smooth, very responsive, and exceptionally good on mpg. (...and, as outlined above, it is chain cam). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 I still think it's too small. I may be old fashioned but size matters. I also think the thread about the 2.2 that has killed itself while in France would be enough to scare me off that engine, especially since it's not the first time that sort of thing has happened. I also have a massive shortage of faith in the Ford/PSA small diesels that fill up with so much soot and other crap that the eat turbos and die before 60,000 miles. If you had ever removed an inlet manifold from a 2.0 or 2.2 Ford engine and seen the amount of sludge that accumulates and starves the engine of air you would not want one either. Do you not think that if I thought they were any good, in my industry I would buy them? I have seen what I have seen and would not touch them with a bargepole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Technical question :D......................does Smooth.................equal Reliable? ;-)........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 euroserv - 2013-11-26 6:32 PM I still think it's too small. I may be old fashioned but size matters. I also think the thread about the 2.2 that has killed itself while in France would be enough to scare me off that engine, especially since it's not the first time that sort of thing has happened. I also have a massive shortage of faith in the Ford/PSA small diesels that fill up with so much soot and other crap that the eat turbos and die before 60,000 miles. If you had ever removed an inlet manifold from a 2.0 or 2.2 Ford engine and seen the amount of sludge that accumulates and starves the engine of air you would not want one either. Do you not think that if I thought they were any good, in my industry I would buy them? I have seen what I have seen and would not touch them with a bargepole. I know sprinters can have rust issues but just out of interest what are you views on their engines especially when partnered with their proper torque converter auto box. Thanks for all you helpful posts in the past. Much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 euroserv - 2013-11-26 5:19 PM.........I have been driving a 2.3 Fiat this afternoon with 228,000 miles on the clock. It could not have been smoother or quieter. I don't think a 2.2 car engine would be sounding so good at that mileage; if indeed it would get there at all.................. I take you point, Nick, but the average motorhome only travels 5,000 or so miles per year. On which basis it would take 46 years to travel 228,000 miles. :-) I just wonder, therefore, if the PSA group engines, albeit car derived, would be so unsuitable for motorhome use? After all, they also tend to be cosseted compared to the average commercially used van, albeit many spend long periods static. I assume this would only be a PVC, so the weight and frontal area should not impose excess stress on the drive-train. Just a thought! :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tracker Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Brian Kirby - 2013-11-26 7:19 PM I just wonder, therefore, if the PSA group engines, albeit car derived, would be so unsuitable for motorhome use? After all, they also tend to be cosseted compared to the average commercially used van, albeit many spend long periods static. Cosseting is not necessarily good for an engine, and long periods of inactivity interspersed with light use when not fully warmed up certainly are not good news for longevity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flicka Posted November 26, 2013 Share Posted November 26, 2013 Sorry Nick - but many of us were running around happily with the previous (pre-2007) 2.0litre 84PS Fiat JDT engines & even the bigger lump Iveco 2.8 was only 128PS. I'm guessing you also had a fair proportion of 2.0litre JDT engines in your fleet at the time. So as for the 2.2litre Durateq engine being underpowered for PVC application seems a little unfair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve928 Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 And of course the very same 2.2L Puma is also the diesel powerplant in the current Landrover Defender, the vehicle that defines the word 'workhorse', with a train weight of just under 6 tons. Some car engine.. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billggski Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 .....and in the Jaguar xf, which I believe is quite smooth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Collings Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 There are two distict 2.2 engines shared by PSA and Ford. The car unit is produced in France and has a pair of ballance shafts to damp out some of the vibration inherent in an in line 4 cylinder engine. It uses a belt to drive the camshafts. The commercial unit is produced by Ford in the UK. It has no balance shafts and the camshaft drive is by chain as previously stated. I would not desccibe it as a car derived unit. I do not know if any components are common to both units. The most likely would be the crankshaft and perhaps connecting rods but the blocks and cylinder head must be very differnt. As a very satisfied 100,000 mile plus VW five cylinder diesel user i have absolutely no opinion on the PSA v Ford debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 flicka - 2013-11-26 11:22 PM Sorry Nick - but many of us were running around happily with the previous (pre-2007) 2.0litre 84PS Fiat JDT engines & even the bigger lump Iveco 2.8 was only 128PS. I'm guessing you also had a fair proportion of 2.0litre JDT engines in your fleet at the time. No flicka, I did not. That engine was ok in the Scudo vans (ours had 110hp) but was woefully under-powered for the Ducato so having tried a few decided against and had 2.3's as soon as they were available. They had at least 30% more torque and that is what counts. It is not all about horsepower. The 2.8JTD had plenty of guts. More cc's mean more torque with less turbo required. For motor caravan use a lesser powered engine, while having to work very hard and having it's life shortened as a result may suit a leisurely lifestyle. In a panel van; a lack of power will just result in drivers thrashing the pants off them to keep up with and pass other traffic all day and all night. It's a chance I can't take. We have to provide enough power for reasonable progress and long life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted November 27, 2013 Share Posted November 27, 2013 Both vans have the 150 bhp option, so surely power delivery similar :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 JudgeMental - 2013-11-27 3:02 PM Both vans have the 150 bhp option, so surely power delivery similar :-S Unfortunately, it's not that simple... If the transmission fitted to the 2.3litre motor of the Fiat and to the 2.2litre motor of the Citroen were identical, and the power/torque curves of the two motors were identical, there'd still be no guarantee that the driving characteristics would be the same as the motors themselves are significantly different. As has already been said, the Euro 5 2.2litre motors in the Citroen Relay are versions of the motor used in the current Transit. However, the power output of Relay and Transit motors differ. So, even though the 2.2litre motors in a Relay are close-relatives of the motors in Transits, they won't be identical. For example, I'd anticipate differences in exhaust and intake systems, electronics and fuelling. Such differences might be minor, but they might be important. Consequently, driving a FWD Transit with a 140bhp motor may be a different experience to driving a Relay with a 150bhp powerplant. I've some sympathy with Nick's "size matters" philosophy, but I can't see the small extra gain in capacity that a 2.3litre Ducato motor has over a 2.2litre Boxer/Relay/Transit motor being significant. And I'd definitely prefer a cam-chain to a cam-belt. It's worth adding, perhaps, that the 161bhp motor fitted to the Mercedes Sprinter has a capacity smaller than either of the above-mentioned powerplants. I'm assuming the vehicle you are interested in is a Globecar/Possl model, as that's the only motorhome manufacturer I'm aware of that offers a choice of a Fiat or Citroen base. I can't see either 150bhp motor having any trouble coping with this size/weight of motorhome, and it's probable that the standard 130bhp motor (2.3 or 2.2) would be plenty adequate. (As you have an Adria PVC with 2.3litre Fiat motor, you're in a good position to make a realistic value-judgement.) As has been mentioned in another forum thread Citroen-based Globecar/Possl models have lower list-prices than equivalent Fiat-based models. This may merely be because the Citroen 'van' can be bought more cheaply, or it may be because the Citroen van's standard specification is lower (though there's no indication in the Globecar/Possl literature that this is so), but I have wondered whether at least some of the extra cost of the Fiat relates to the Ducato Camping-Car service-package https://www.fiatcamper.com/en/home It might be worth you checking if a Globecar/Possl on a Fiat gets the Ducato Camping-Car service-package (and on a Citroen does not). Also whether the Certificate of Conformity for Globecar/Possls now carries a CO2 datum that would boost the UK-registration/VED fees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Thanks Derek interesting.....Yes an ex hire Possl but it has the spec I want including busbiker rack..only downside, as its mid 2013 it dont have the soft lock sliding door (2014 spec) and its not a Fiat. Yes I am more then happy with the 132 bhp Fiat..It flies up hill and down dale to be honest. very good point on the "fiat camper assist" as if that, or a version of it missing, it could account for price difference, as really it is a warranty scheme and you probably end up paying for it somehow Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 Besides the cam-chain (Citroen) and cam-belt (Fiat) difference - with a cam-chain probably considered by most people as being preferable - the Citroen's transmission will include a dual-mass flywheel (DMF) while a Fiat's would not. See Nick Fisher's comments here: http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Fiat-2-3-engines-and-Dual-Mass-Flywheels/32232/ Most people would probably consider the lack of a DMF as an advantage. If there were a problem relating to the Fiat motor's cam-belt (eg. the sprocket-jumping mentioned in an earlier thread and said to have been caused by ice) repairs could be expensive. Similarly, if there were a problem with the Citroen's DMF, it wouldn't be cheap to fix. If the 2013 Possl has the specification you want and you can obtain a good deal, I don't believe the fact that it has a DMF and doesn't have a Fiat motor is a show-stopper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 I agree......as my thinking is the sooty ones Nick refers to are probably from hammered delivery vans that are doing stop/start journeys for the whole of their sad lives:-D. Whereas we tend to do long motorway trips, quickly.....Will wait and see what happens in New year as away on holiday in a few weeks.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Peter James Posted November 28, 2013 Share Posted November 28, 2013 All these new fangled things like Dual Mass flywheel and computerised engine management are an expensive pain if they go wrong. But they are what makes modern diesels run so much better than old diesels Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 found this in a 3 van comparison on Promobil website..allowing for autotranslate idiosyncrasies I think they come to the opinion that although both were 150 bhp versions, the citroen was rougher but more eager...and the 132 bhp Fiat a good choice anyway.. thats how I read it "Driving & Safety Fiat to Citroën. That is, in this case, the interesting question. Specifically, because the Fiat-powered Karmann and the Pössl on Citroën same length, approximately the same weight and both engines with 149 respectively 150 hp are equally strong. The Citroën HDi FAP 150 runs rough, but also packs more determined to. The 150 Multijet from Fiat cozy mutters to himself, but even under 4000 trips it becomes tougher. But he is a little more frugal in consumption. A word on the shorter Rapido: He is motorized just right with the 130 Mulitjet by Fiat." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve928 Posted November 29, 2013 Share Posted November 29, 2013 JudgeMental - 2013-11-29 1:45 PM found this in a 3 van comparison on Promobil website..allowing for autotranslate idiosyncrasies I think they come to the opinion that although both were 150 bhp versions, the citroen was rougher but more eager...and the 132 bhp Fiat a good choice anyway.. thats how I read it "Driving & Safety Fiat to Citroën. That is, in this case, the interesting question. Specifically, because the Fiat-powered Karmann and the Pössl on Citroën same length, approximately the same weight and both engines with 149 respectively 150 hp are equally strong. The Citroën HDi FAP 150 runs rough, but also packs more determined to. The 150 Multijet from Fiat cozy mutters to himself, but even under 4000 trips it becomes tougher. But he is a little more frugal in consumption. A word on the shorter Rapido: He is motorized just right with the 130 Mulitjet by Fiat." They might be saying that the Citroen is the rougher at tickover while the Fiat becomes the noisier 'even under 4000rpm'. Do you have the original German text? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.