AlanMos Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 I am going to purchase a Ducato X290 based PVC and am unsure about selecting the 130 or 148 Bhp engine. Is there a significant difference in power/torque on the road?. It will be close to 3.5 t and I like to get a move on when appropriate. Anyone got experience/advice please? Best wishes, Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest machra Posted January 18, 2015 Share Posted January 18, 2015 While I have no experience with the x290 yet, my new van arrives in march, I have had 2x x250s. One was a pvc with a 120 engine and the other, my current coachbuilt 6m burstner 585 with a 130 engine, and I have to say I found the 120 sluggish compared to the 130. 130 will hold its own in traffic and will cruise comfortably at 70 mph all day. You have to use 5th when going up a long incline on the motorway but I have never thought that I wished it had more power. I would save the money and put it towards some extras to be honest. However as I said at the start I have never owned a 148bhp model Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike88 Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I would always opt for the higher powered engine especially if a vehicle is used in mountainous areas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muswell Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Me too. My PVC has 140bhp and weighs 2.8T. I use it as a second vehicle and that power to weight means I can easily keep up with the speed of traffic on country roads and overtake safely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Fiat’s data for the X290’s 2.3litre powerplants are Power: 130 HP at 3600 rpm Torque: 320 Nm at 1800 rpm Power: 148 HP at 3600 rpm Torque: 350 Nm at 1500 rpm Comparing two motorhomes fitted with those motors on a like-for-like basis (ie. the vehicles are identical except for one having the 130 Multijet powerplant and the other having the 150 Multijet) the greater power/torque of the 150 MJ should be noticeable during normal driving, and the heavier the motorhome is and the faster it is driven the more noticeble the power/torque difference will become. I also have an X290-based motorhome on order and I’ve specified the 150 MJ motor rather than the standard 130 MJ. I don’t think the 130 MJ motor would be inadequate, but - as I’ve always sworn I’d never buy a ******* SEVEL-based motorhome - I’ve decided that I might as well have a quickish one as a sort of ‘consolation prize’. (Don’t suggest I should opt for the 3.0litre motor. It’s not an option on the model I’m buying.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanS Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 AlanMos - 2015-01-18 11:06 PM I am going to purchase a Ducato X290 based PVC and am unsure about selecting the 130 or 148 Bhp engine. Is there a significant difference in power/torque on the road?. It will be close to 3.5 t and I like to get a move on when appropriate. Anyone got experience/advice please? Best wishes, Alan Hi Alan We have at present an AutoTrail Frontier Coachbuilt on an x250 with130BHPengine, weighing almost 3800kg and it pulls well and we get about 30 MPG. We do tour in the UK but mainly in France and never found it lacking. Our new AutoTrail, which we hopefully pick up in March, is heavier (4250kg) and we have gone for the new x290 with the 150 BHP engine - hopefully it should be as good or better than the x250. I think that if you are going for a PVC then the 130 BHP should be good but if you can get the upgrade engine for the same price then go for it. Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Last van was a low profile Hymer we were always on or a bit over the 3500kg, had 130 never short of power, in a PVC the 130 will have more than enough power. Current van is A Class again always running at the limit & have the 150 engine with Comformatic box, only went for the 150 as we were having the auto box, certainly has a lot more oomph than the 130. With both engines being so good it's hard to advise which one is best for you, a lot depends on your driving style, if you are a foot to the floor man go for the 150 or if having the auto go for the 150 (from reports in German mags 130 a bit slow changing) otherwise the 130 would probably be more than adequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Unless you are really needing to keeping the purchase cost down, motorhomes are mostly running at or near maximum allowable mass, so it makes sense to have the most powerful engine available. Lots of MH owners end up having their engine remapped to increase power because it is inadequate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gocro Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 If you can afford it bigger engine every time, it gives you the capacity to tow if at a later day you fancy a motorbike, boat or even a caravan! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Admittedly we have a Peugeot engined PVC an Autosleeper which now all come as standard with the 150 engine. We were going up hill on dualcarage way that used to test the ability of,our old 130 engine. We came across a lorry I wished to overtake and I must say I was amazed how quickly the new one picked up speed to seventy and swepted past. I'd go for the more powerful engine. You'll not be using the extra power most of the time but its nice to have if and when you need it. I have heard claims that the 150 is more economical but I rather suspect it's because people have previously had Euro 4 spec engines and replaced them with Euro 5 spec. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I have an X250 Ducato with the 148 engine,6 speed manual gearbox , the van is 4250 kgs, and tows a 1040 kg Toyota Yaris, most of the time, up hill and down dale, no hesitation and no restraint on acceleration, noticeable to me anyway. I'd say go for the bigger engine. Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolandrat Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 If finance isn't a problem why not consider a 3ltr, you wouldn't regret it, it's a far better engine than the 2.3 and doesn't have a timing belt as the camshafts are chain driven. A prancing horse oozing power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rayjsj Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 rolandrat - 2015-01-19 5:57 PM If finance isn't a problem why not consider a 3ltr, you wouldn't regret it, it's a far better engine than the 2.3 and doesn't have a timing belt as the camshafts are chain driven. A prancing horse oozing power. Doesn't it have a Dual mass flywheel though ? just asking. Ray Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lennyhb Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 With the 2.3 engine the 130 has a solid flywheel, I think the 150 & all the autos have the dual mass flywheel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolandrat Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 Hi Ray, I can't answer that question but what I can say from personal ownership of 3 3ltr engined motorhomes I've never had a clutch problem. I've mentioned on here before about the comments made by the service manager of Walton Summit Trucks at Bamber Bridge about the servicing of a fleet of Fiat 3ltr Comfortmatic Ambulances that are in service 24hrs a day. The clutches do at least 100,000 miles before they need changing and the engines run trouble free for at least 250,000 miles. I think that in view of what he has said the Fiat 3ltr is a sound investment. OK the ambulances aren't running fully freighted all the time like a motorhome is but I think they are a very still well on top of the job. Anyone who has had a 3ltr will find it very hard to accept a 2.3 no matter what power output it's rated at, it's a totally different animal altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StuartO Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 lennyhb - 2015-01-19 7:40 PM With the 2.3 engine the 130 has a solid flywheel, I think the 150 & all the autos have the dual mass flywheel. Now that it a good point! If you can avoid a dual mass flywheel that might well be worth sacrificing a few BHPs. But why would Fiat have ispensed with a dual mass flywheel on a 2.3 and not the others? Is it that the smaller engine is gentler on the gears anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolandrat Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 I only wish that the Auto-trail bodies could be as good as the chassis's they are built on but that would be asking to much wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brock Posted January 19, 2015 Share Posted January 19, 2015 If you go on the Fiat Camper website, there is a basic guide to choosing the right engine. I have the 130bhp on a 3.5 ton. It's enough for us because we don't seek rapid progress or mountainsides. If I was looking to tour Europe for extended periods and spending time clambering over mountains, I'd go for the 150 and think about mating it with a Comfort-matic box. The 150 will also let you get a move on. That said, I've always fancied the 3.0L. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike88 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 The 3 litre is a flyer. As I climbed mountains I was able to overtake many cars. I would always opt for the higher powered engine but the 3 litre does come with a fuel penalty which for some is a consideration. Mine was a 160bhp mated to a Comfortmatic but I guess the 150bhp engine should give broadly similar power. I wouldn't be over bothered by the dual mass fly wheel issue as most motorhomes don't run for more than 6000 miles per year so clutch problems should not occur for at least 5 years by which time the vehicle will probably be sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Nick Fisher mentioned the Ducato 2.3litre motor and DMFs in this 2013 thread http://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Fiat-2-3-engines-and-Dual-Mass-Flywheels/32232/ As far as I’m aware nothing has changed since then. X290 Ducatos with 2.3litre motor (130MJ or 150MJ) and manual transmission have a ‘solid’ flywheel, while those with the ComfortMatic transmission have a DMF. Ducatos with the 3.0litre motor (whatever their transmission type) have always had a DMF. In mid-2011 the German motorhome magazine "pro-mobil" tested Euro 5 manual-transmission Ducatos with the four motors available outside the UK. Four TEC 6.99m-long low-profle motohomes, identical except for their powerplants, were ballasted to 3500kg and data for top-speed, acceleration, fuel consumption, etc. were obtained. Nothing startling emerged and it’s likely that a similar test of X290s would produce similar results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlanMos Posted January 20, 2015 Author Share Posted January 20, 2015 Many thanks for all your very helpful advice. On balance I have decided to order the larger Bhp I am now going to ask advice on the comfort matic Again, many thanks and best wishes, Alan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.