Arapaho Dave Posted July 11, 2023 Share Posted July 11, 2023 Hi, I have a 2003 ducato based motorhome. It's 100% as it should be, but it is completely and utterly gutless. 30mph up hills in 3rd gear, etc Has anyone engined swapped a ducato for a bigger diesel. Something over 200hp and significantly more torque? Would be very interested to hear what you used. If there's nobody out there, I guess I'll be the first 🤣😂🤣 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebishbus Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 If it is the 2.8, you must have a problem, as it should have plenty of power, turbo possibly ? Brian B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keithl Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 Dave, How long have you had this MH and has it always been gutless? I agree with Brian that something must be wrong, have you had it scanned for fault codes? Keith. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alanb Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 As hinted at by thebishbus, engine size needs to be stated before constructive advice can be given. The engine size can be obtained from the V5C registration document. May I add that you should not expect sports car performance from a motorhome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtravel Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 I don't know your van but a lot depends on the weight. The Ducato 2.5 Diesel (w/o turbo) took me to the top of 90% of the Alpine passes. Even on the Stelvio (9,000+ feet), certainly at the top it struggled in second gear and skyrocketing water temperatures. But it got there. When in 2003 I switched to the 2.8Jtd it felt like I was flying. Be careful though, there are two versions: 127 and 146 HP. One of the two could have been subjected to some factory environmental recall, here it is said that it has transformed the horses into donkeys, it is no coincidence that they call it "donkey syndrome". Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david lloyd Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 13 hours ago, Arapaho Dave said: Hi, I have a 2003 ducato based motorhome. It's 100% as it should be, but it is completely and utterly gutless. 30mph up hills in 3rd gear, etc Has anyone engined swapped a ducato for a bigger diesel. Something over 200hp and significantly more torque? Would be very interested to hear what you used. If there's nobody out there, I guess I'll be the first 🤣😂🤣 My 2006 Peugeot Boxer was graced with the same performance and I have had it properly remapped (on a rolling road with bespoke mapping not just a plug in box or download) which I reported in an earlier thread. my 2.8 HDI is supposed to be the 127 bhp version but the initial run on the RR showed it to be putting out 114bhp! That’s not great to start with but the remap has taken it to just over 143 bhp and the torque from 260nm to 327nm. As a result, the engine is quieter, smoother and has the power needed to get up hills with out sounding chronically asthmatic. It has had a good test this week around Nidderdale. I should add that the garage that did mine were careful to keep the mapping to within acceptable tolerances and also to ensure that the emissions would still meet MOT standards. In all respects they were very professional. At £465 it may be a somewhat more economic solution than a complete engine swap. David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arapaho Dave Posted July 12, 2023 Author Share Posted July 12, 2023 Thanks everyone. Engine is the 2.8 turbo intercooled. It's a low miler and has no fault codes. The problem is most likely the weight. The van is 5250 plus 250 on tow. I generally pull a jet ski which is more like 800. But who's checking 🤣. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mtravel Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 Ducato 5,250 ? What is the kingdom where everything is allowed? More than worrying about the climbs I would do it for the descents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onecal Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 I think it may be wise to buy a bigger machine or get rid of the weight and use the present one as intended without maybe overloading Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidmac Posted July 12, 2023 Share Posted July 12, 2023 Hi if the op drives what his name is then yes, six berth tag axle, a lot of motorhome to move. Won’t be agile or quick. Regards David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted July 13, 2023 Share Posted July 13, 2023 An advert for a 2003 Auto-Trail Arapaho is here https://www.motorhomedepot.com/vehicle/auto-trail-arapaho-3 The 2003 Auto-Trail brochure indicates that an Arapaho was marketed with a 4500kg maximum gross weight (as stated in the advert) and a maximum gross train weight of 5500kg. Those data conflict with Dave's figures for his motorhome, but the performance of a new 2003 Arapaho loaded to a 'mere' 4500kg would never have been earth-shattering. Replacing the motorhome's original 128PS /300Nm 2.8litre power-plant with a larger capacity motor is, realistically, a non-starter. As mentioned by mtravel above, a "Power" version of the 2.8JTD unit was produced (with a variable-geometry turbocharger and marketed from 2004) and this had 146PS and about 10Nm more torque. However, the simplest/cheapest way to gain more oomph would be to have the Arapaho's motor remapped as David Lloyd did. The motorhome would still not be a ball of fire, but it should cope with inclines better. In the 1960s - when I was mechanically fearless and financially daft - I replaced my sports-car's motor with a larger-capacity considerably more powerful engine. It broke the car's rear axle final-drive and, after I had replaced that with a higher-ratio unit, it regularly broke the drive shafts. At the end of the day, I'd spent a good deal of cash, the car was no faster (I'd over-geared it) and was less reliable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted July 16, 2023 Share Posted July 16, 2023 On 12/07/2023 at 13:34, Arapaho Dave said: Thanks everyone. Engine is the 2.8 turbo intercooled. It's a low miler and has no fault codes. The problem is most likely the weight. The van is 5250 plus 250 on tow. I generally pull a jet ski which is more like 800. But who's checking 🤣. To answer your question: your engine, your brakes, your entire transmission, your suspension, and your tyres including, apparently, your trailer tyres, are all checking - as you drive. Even had the MAM (4,500kg) been uprated (I assume it hasn't from the figures quoted), it seems inevitable that at least the rear axles must be overloaded (3,000kg max permissible), and, probably the trailer axle/s to boot. Ditto the max permissible trailer hitch downforce load. In addition, with the jet ski hitched, the GTW appears to be exceeded by 550 kg. So, with everything that has a legal weight limit (with the possible exception of the front axle) overloaded, and known to be overloaded, my surprise is not that the van is sluggish, it is that it is knowingly driven in that state. Try removing the 750kg of overload from the van itself, and keeping to the permissible 1,000kg trailer weight, and you just may find that your rig becomes somewhat more lively. Otherwise, if you get pulled into a weight check, you'll be in the soup! Also, this van is now 20 years old, and few vehicles, no matter how rigorously maintained, get to 20 without some loss of strength, if only through fatigue. Suspension components and mounts, springs, engine and gearbox mounts, plus tyres, and tow hitch mountings, have all been over-stressed, and are increasingly prone to failure. In addition to all of which, the brakes, originally designed to stop a maximum of 5,500 kg are now being asked to stop 6,050kg, nearly 10% over their limit, so I hope you don't often drive down steep hills! 😄 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.