mathgears Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Comparing two vans im looking at over next couple days. Similar vans but one is a 7 meter 2006 mk6 transit (125bhp I believe) the other is a 6 meter 2008 mk7 transit cab. Any pros and cons I should be aware of? both sound like good engines from what I can find and should be similar in terms of performance. Anyone owned both ? which did you prefer. Thanks in advance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 To obtain tthe best feedback you'll need to provide the make and model of each motorhome you’ll be looking at. Mk 6 and Mk 7 Transits were available in front-wheel drive or rear-wheel drive format, with 5-speed or 6-speed transmission (plus a Durashift EST ‘auto-box’ for the Mk 6) and 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 and 3.2litre motors. Having owned a 2005 Transit Mk 6-based Hobby motorhome with 2.0litre 125PS motor and FWD, I could comment on that configuration, but there would be little point if the Mk 6-based motorhome you've mentioned has a different technical specification. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathgears Posted February 28, 2017 Author Share Posted February 28, 2017 good point, im not actually sure...... the 2.0 Transit is a eura mobil 675 VB 2006 cant find loads on the internet but this link (although in german) http://www.promobil.de/test/eura-mobil-profila-a-675-vb-103282.html suggests 125 ps 92kw 2.0 TDci FT 350 L and i'm sure I read somewhere its FW drive 125bhp..... the 2.2 transit is a eura mobil 580 this link suggests a 110 bhp https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/motorhomes/buyers-guide/motorhomes/details/a-580-ls/1164 thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 mathgears - 2017-02-28 3:21 PM ........................... the 2.2 transit is a eura mobil 580 this link suggests a 110 bhp https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/motorhomes/buyers-guide/motorhomes/details/a-580-ls/1164 thanks I can't answer for the Eura Mobil conversion but we had a 2007 Mk 7 Transit based Hobby Van (Low profile, 3.5 tonne MAM) from 2007 to 2013 and it was an excellent drive. It was, however 130PS, and only 2.07M wide, with 5 speed gearbox. If that Eura Mobil is 2.3M wide and 110PS then, combined with that huge Luton, I think it may well struggle with headwinds, and may well prove a bit of a handful in crosswinds. Our Van had a longish rear overhang, and could be quite "interesting" to drive in gusty crosswinds. The Transit is slightly narrower track than the Ducato/Boxer, so can roll a bit on bends/roundabouts (I fitted rear air assisters on ours which took care of the roll but, being low profile, it had comparatively little weight forward, or high up). Those I have seen advertised boast very low mileages, the implication of which is a lot of standing around, so have a good look at the top of the cylinder head around the injectors for corrosion. The scuttle tray is in two pieces and tends to allow water drip onto the top of the engine. The problem will arise should the injectors need work, as they may be impossible to remove, possibly involving a new cylinder head. A late member of this forum had a Luton bodied Eura Mobil that he traded against a PVC in Germany in early 2011. On testing the van for damp during the exchange, the Eura showed high readings (witnessed) that required remedy under Eura's warranty. The dealer commented that they had a lot of problems with damp Eura Mobils. So, I'd be inclined to have either van thoroughly damp checked before purchase, as neither will now have any residual Eura Mobil water ingress warranty. I think I'd also be inclined to ask to see the warranty damp check records before handing over any cash. Doubtless the German dealer was exaggerating, but he was reportedly extremely unhappy to have found the damp, and debated pulling out of the deal. Not trying to worry you, but forewarned is forearmed! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 There’s an example of a 2006 Euro Mobil Profila 675 VB here (and photo attached): http://tinyurl.com/hegab5e The model was built on a FWD platform-cab chassis (essentially a panel-van with its metal roof, side and rear body-panels removed). The 3.75m wheelbase is relatively short for the vehicle’s length and - as will be seen from the photos - this results in a fairly long rear overhang. It will also be noticed that the rear wheels are well ‘masked’ by the wheel arches, making wheel-changing very challenging. http://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Spare-tyre/15173/ Another forum-member who owned this Eura Mobil model reported that it could become very wayward in strong cross-winds, but he had successfully addressed this behaviour by having air-bellows added to the rear suspension. There was also a well-recognised and widespread problem with original-equipment tyre-valves on Transit Mk 6s, but the original valves (and tyres) of a 2006 vehicle should (hopefully) have been changed by now. I’ve never felt that the FWD Transit Mk 6 chassis was suitable for converting into large, quite heavy motorhomes, as much as anything because the vehicle’s overall gearing is high and the 2.0litre motor is unforgiving at low revs. I was forever stalling my Hobby (even after 9 years of ownership) and was paranoid about starting from rest on a steep slope. Reports of burnt out clutches are pretty common. The operating mechanism of my Hobby’s motor’s variable-geometry turbocharger seized up and the cost of removal, cleaning and replacement was over £800. Much the same motor and turbo was used in other vehicles (eg. Jaguars) and the problem was not just on Transits. There’s an example of a 2009 Euro Mobil Profila 675 VB here (and photo attached): http://tinyurl.com/zts8vy4 As will be apparent, this has a much shorter rear-overhang and the rear wheels are no longer masked by the wheel arches. The 2.2litre motor might have been offered in 110PS form (and should be avoided) for the basic specification, but it would have been more usual for the output to be 130PS (earlier Mk 7s with 5-speed transmission) or 140PS when the 6-speed gearbox was standardised on later models. The gear ratios of the 5-speed transmission are the same as the Mk 6s (too high in my view), but the 6-speed box ratios were revised and are much more user-friendly when it comes to hill-starting. If the extra space provided by the Mk 6 675VB is not vital, a Mk 7 580 model (preferably with the 140PS motor and 6-speed ‘box) would be much the better choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keithl Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 Mathgears, My personal view of a MH the size of the coachbuilts you are looking at is that I would only ever buy a Rear Wheel Drive. I know the majority on the market are FWD but to me that is all wrong and it is hardly surprising they get stuck on grass as soon as it gets damp. Do make sure you include MB Sprinters in your search. A lot of MH's around the years you are looking at where built on them and they are very good base vehicles. Keith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muswell Posted February 28, 2017 Share Posted February 28, 2017 I can't comment on the particular models but I have the 140ps 6 speed Transit and it's very nice to drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yeti Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 Most important that all Transits are very easy to steal! Beef up the locks and even change the Tibbe ignition lock for a Hyke one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mathgears Posted March 1, 2017 Author Share Posted March 1, 2017 Brian, thanks for the tips on checking for the injectors and damp warranty records, il do both of those before handing over cash. I actually found a 580 posted online last night from a dealer with full Service history and promises mot service and habitational check/report before hand over. MAybe that could be the way forward, it's the same price as the other one anyway so seems like it can't hurt to have that extra possibility of having somewhere to claim help on any problems. Derek I did notice the rear over hang, and I am leaning towards the 580 for drivability, I guess il see when I check them inside how the space works for us. I'm always surprised how spacious vans are compared to photos. However the two photos you posted are the mk6 675 and mk7 580 I believe, maybe not a fair comparison for overhang length ? :) Will be doing some upgrades when I finally purchase van such as lock beefs,gaslow and maybe solar panel. I actually need to put a roof rack on the 580 if purchased as there won't be enough storage room for my surfboards without a garage. Anyone got any idea what that costs with install? I think 500 ish maybe. Again all compromise hey, love the habitational space of these vans so I'm prepared to deal with a bit less of a stunning drive to have a nice space to live out of Cheers guys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted March 1, 2017 Share Posted March 1, 2017 mathgears - 2017-03-01 6:33 AM ...However the two photos you posted are the mk6 675 and mk7 580 I believe, maybe not a fair comparison for overhang length ?... Cheers guys I understood from your earlier postings that you were looking at a 2006 Eura Mobil 675VB based on a Transit Mk 6 and a 2008 Eura Mobil 580 based on a Transit Mk 7 - hence the two photos. The photo of the 580 model suggests that it was built on Ford’s medium wheelbase (3.30m) FWD platform-cab chassis (like Brian’s Hobby Van) but it clearly has a shorter rear overhang than the 675. How the relative differences in wheelbase/overhang play out when it comes to cross-wind sensitivity is anybody’s guess, but a tall (2.99m) lightish motorhome with a massive over-cab bulge will never slip smoothly through the air like a low-profile design. Eura Mobil’s construction methodology with “Profila” was unusual, with aluminium angle connecting the floor to the side-walls. ‘Alcove’ Profilas had a double-floor on ’stilts’ (photo in this 2006 review of a Mk 6 580LS) http://www.practicalmotorhome.com/reviews/motorhome/30228-eura-mobil-profila-alcove-580ls making them well-winterised. As I said earlier, if the choice is between a Transit Mk 6 or a Mk 7, opt for the Mk 7 - better brakes, better lights, gear-lever on dashboard, etc. - and get the 140PS 6-speed version if you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.