Base Chassis Advice

[Jackal]

Having outgrown our beloved low profile Hymer T575 on a Fiat 2.8JTD which I've found overly powerful yet hardly frugal, it's time to move on to a bigger van.

 

I realise that for most people the layouts of vans are much more important but I am faced with two probables that are complete unknowns.

 

The two vans we're looking at, have two completely different engines/chassis and I would appreciate advice, biased or not, on a couple of questions that I have.

 

The first van is a Dethleffs Fortero A6785 weighing in at a rather hefty 3295 kgs MIRO with a MAW of 3850 kgs powered by the old Ford 2.4 115BHP base with an automatic transmission.

 

Question 1 - Whilst I'm no boy racer, am I right in thinking that this combination may prove just a little sluggish in the Alps and yet still not give me any more miles to the gallon on the flat?

 

The second van is a more mundane standard 3500 kg MAW Rimor Superbrig 700TC which is powered by the Merc 2.2 150BHP motor with manual transmission.

 

Question 2 - Will the Merc cause me to incur higher service costs?

 

I'm going to test both vans tomorrow but I would really appreciate some more input than a 10 minute jolly around the undulating countryside of Shropshire.

[Guest peter]

I'd go for the conversion layout that suited me best. As it's the most expensive part of the combo'. I don't see a problem with the Merc' base I only wish I could afford one.

[Jackal]

Thanks for that, Peter.

 

To be honest the layouts are virtually the same (The Dethleffs has bunks at the back, the Rimor has the usual transverse bed) but inside the Dethleffs build quality is infinitely much better. Despite being virtually brand new the Rimor's door hinges are virtually hanging off on a number of interior doors and you get the idea that less attention to detail has been paid.

 

The only problem as far as I see it is that the Dethleffs is going to cost me £4000 more...

 

I suppose you are right on the fact the living space is more important overall.

 

I just didn't know whether the old Ford engine was the reason the Dethleffs hadn't sold.

 

 

[colin]

If you are talking the last model transit with auto box, then there is no extra loss throu transmission as it is a manual box with some fancy gubbins to change the gears for you, but 115bhp with 3850kg doesn't sound like much of a racer.

[Jackal]

Colin,

 

Yes, that it was just what I suspected, although having just checked, it appears that the Durashift Automatic is actually capable of 125BHP.

 

Of course, Dethleffs have since replaced the older 115/125BHP engines with the newer 130/140BHP models.

 

 

[colin]

I may be wrong but I think the earlier one's where 115bhp then changed to 125bhp

[Clive]

Is the Transit one rear wheel drive? (They do both).

The Merc will be sweeter to drive and would be my choice of the two.

 

 

[Jackal]

Clive,

 

The Transit is indeed the rear wheel drive version.

[davenewellhome]

The Transit will be every bit as good to drive as the Merc, my preference would be for the Tranny. Don't get hung up on BHP figures. Torque is every bit as important and overall gearing will make a difference too. Transits have quite a choice of final drive ratios some will be great for load lugging but too low geared for comfortable motorway cruising. A new Transit I recently fitted cruise to was doing nearly 3000rpm at 70MPH despite having a six speed 'box. The Durashift is a superb piece of kit in my humble opinion. Spares availability will be pretty similar for either brand but expect to pay more for Merc bits. drive both first to see which one YOU prefer, you spend quite a few hours behind the wheel of your motorhome so get the one that YOU find most comfortable.

 

D.

[Derek Uzzell]

Jackal:

 

You say that the Dethleffs Fortero A6785 you are considering is built on the "old Ford 2.4 115BHP base with an automatic transmission", but (based on the weight data you've provided and the information in the 2007 Dethleffs catalogue) you seem to be talking about a current model. In which case, the 115BHP motor (which my Dethleffs catalogue shows as standard) is the latest common-rail fuel-injected version of the Ford Transit motor that provides improved levels of 'civilisation' over its direct-injection predecessor.

 

All 2007 RWD Forteros have twinned rear wheels that should offer good stability if you plan to make full use of the 3850kg chassis' load-carrying potential. Twinned rear-wheel chassis are almost always combined with a lowish final-drive ratio, so I don't think you should be concerned over the vehicle's hill-climbing capability. However, you might find that the vehicle is a mite under-geared on the flat, meaning high speed motorway cruising could be tiring and overall fuel consumption could suffer. (In my view, the optional 140BHP version of the motor (with 6-speed gearbox) would be preferable, but there's no automatic gearshift available with this motor.) You'll just have to test drive the beggar (hard!) and draw your own conclusions.

 

I suspect that the reason the Dethleffs has not sold has little to do with the "old Ford engine" and a lot to do with the layout. Bunk-bed 'family' designs (while eminently practical) are just not hugely popular in the UK.

 

Regarding the Rimor, this is a big motorhome (with a large rear garage) built on a 'single rear-wheel' chassis. If you fully exploit the garage's storage volume and fill it with weighty items, you are a) likely to hit the 3500kg limit pretty quickly and b) find that the vehicle's handling becomes unruly in windy weather or on twisty roads. Historically, the Mercedes Sprinter single rear-wheel chassis has enjoyed a reputation for providing a comfortable ride but floppy handling and I've read comments that suggest the latest models aren't much different.

 

Not sure how Clive can know that "the Merc will be sweeter to drive", if he doesn't know the Dethleff's is RWD! (Besides which Clive's disturbing devotion to all things Mercedes is well recognised by longstanding forum members, so such statements need treating with the proverbial pinch of salt.)

 

I don't think there's likely to be much to choose between the latest Ford 2.4 and Mercedes 2.2 motors on a like-for-like basis, but (obviously) if one compares a 115BHP Ford with a 150BHP Mercedes there should be a noticeable difference. Service costs can be high for normal replacement parts nowadays - the cost of a fuel-filter for my Transit TDCI motor approaches £40 - but I expect that's true whatever make one buys.

 

In terms of build quality the Dethleffs brand is generally perceived as being superior to Rimor. In your case you'll have to decide whether it's £4000 superior.

 

Clive:

 

You occasionally seem to have trouble knowing which end of a Transit-based motorhome gets driven, so here's a short crib-list based on (diesel) motor size.

 

2.5 litre (pre 2000) - RWD

2.4 litre (2000 onwards) - RWD

2.0 litre (2000-2005) - FWD

2.2 litre (2006 onwards) - FWD

 

Easy innit!

[Jackal]

Derek,

 

What a comprehensive reply. Thanks very much indeed.

 

I'd already started to discount the Rimor because of the shoddiness of its workmanship.

 

When I got there today, it turned out that the Dethleffs, strangely had become "on sale or return" on behalf of a customer over night and therefore not available at the price we had agreed!

 

Sounded very much like they didn't want to sell it to be honest, but instead wanted to get rid of another similar model.

 

I was then offered a new as opposed to "500 miles but new" manual transmission 135BHP TDCi Ford based model (which I felt happier about) as an alternative but without all the bells and whistles of the first one, for the same deal.

 

As I reckoned that I could do without a towbar, flat screen TV, alarm, BBQ gas point and a microwave but wanted an awning and safari room, reversing camera and CD Player, I asked them to throw these in or I'd walk.

 

They duly threw these in and I've now got a few days to mull everything over, before I commit.

 

I must say that I still hanker after the goodies/toys of the first one knowing that these can sometimes be a pain to add on later but kind of prefer the thought of the 6 speed manual 135BHP even if it's not the new 140BHP one.

 

The former drove well but felt undergeared, IMHO, with me having to really floor it in 6th to get much out of it. I have to also declare, however, that my initial thoughts are that I definitely prefer my existing Ducato 2.8 JTD, in terms of cab layout and gear change but unless I suddenly change my mind and go for an older A Class, it'll be the Dethleffs' overall quality that wins the day.

[Clive]

Its 5 pots versus 4 in the Trannie Dave, the Merc engine revs freely as the individual reciprocating masses are smaller and is less lumpy at low revs. But the new Tranny aint bad, I just like Mercs!

 

C.

[davenewellhome]

I know, and so do many others, that you just like Mercs Clive but I get to drive more motorhomes on more base vehicle variations than most people, even if it is just for a short road test and I still prefer the ride and handling of the Tranny over the Merc which I always found a bit soft and wallowy. Yes the Merc engine is a bit smoother, quieter and more powerful but there's more to the driving experience than just the lump and its reciprocating masses you know ;-) .

 

Strangely enough I actually prefer the Sevel range for ride and handling over all the others, my only real criticism used to be the driving position with offset pedals and too high seats relative to the windscreen but the new one is just so much better. Then there's the Renault, another absolute cracker to drive, one of the most comfortable vehicles I've ever driven and believe me when I say I've driven lots.

 

As I said before only Jackal can decide which one is right for him though.

 

D.

[Clive]

I agree, the Merc is a softer ride and the Sevel the most rigid. But the hard rides after a while hurt my back and I get out of the wife,s small car like a cripple after a 15 mile ride as a passenger, wheras my own two ton tank I can drive all day.

If I were in a great hurry then the Sevel would most likely go round corners the quickest, but some of its engineering (not the latest engines I understand) is very much down to cost than up to quality.

Tranny is not a bad compromise and spares are cheep and its better than the Sevel.

See you in Dusseldorf next week then ?

 

 

 

 

[Jackal]

Dave,

 

Thanks for your replies and passing on your experience. Unfortunately, it is not always the case that one can choose the preferred base vehicle to go with the preferred living space.

 

In my case, I'm going to have to go with the Ford because that's what's on offer on the van with what seems for now, the most appropriate floorplan.

 

Although I come from a RWD and Ford background and have allegiances towards both, today's experience with the manual 135BHP (or should that read 137/140?) TDCi was definitely not as favourable as I would have liked.

 

The cab felt more plastic than my Fiat, if that's possible and I didn't really like the oversized gear stick - it felt much more imprecise. It also felt relatively under-geared which should help me in the mountains but as has been stated doesn't bode well for the usual ferry dash. Noise levels seemed comparable if not better, however. And of course, it's always a bonus that the doors actually shut properly, unlike the Fiat!

 

[Guest JudgeMental]

I have the new Ford 2.2 130bhp model with standard traction control and cruise control. I suggest you try these latest models first before committing - as they are a big improvement on earlier variants.

 

If happy with LHD save a bundle and order new from Europe of source an existing new or nearly new from a dealer via www.mobile.de you will be surprised at the prices.

 

It is coming to the end of the season and a good time to get a deal as well.

 

Dethleffs may be better then Rimor but they have not the greatest reputation both are old technology with aluminium outer skin ( GRP is stronger and less prone to damage) and there are better manufacturers around...

[davenewellhome]

Jackal I'd say shop around a bit more before committing to purchase anything. If you're not completely happy with the base vehicle it will bug you every time you get behind the wheel. I found the rear wheel drive tranny with twin wheels to be a bit busy under the bonnet at motorway speeds and noisy because of it. Is there not a workable layout for you available on either the new Fiat/Peugeot or the Renault Master? Why not visit Dusseldorf Salon next weekend and see what's on offer there?

 

Hi Clive, might see you there but we're only at the show for next Saturday, Friday and Sunday will be taken up with driving.

 

D.

[Derek Uzzell]

Clive:

 

The latest incarnation of Mercedes Sprinter has a choice of 6 motors, but none of them has 5 cylinders. Those motors are:

 

- a 2148 cc four-cylinder CDI with 88, 109, 129 or 150bhp output.

- a 2987cc six cylinder CDI with 184 bhp.

- a 3498cc six cylinder petrol with 258 bhp.

 

The 6-cylinder Sprinter motors (particularly the petrol one) should definitely be smoother than any of the current 4-cylinder power-plants fitted to Transit. But there's no reason to assume the Mercedes 2.2 litre unit will be any more civilised than Ford's recently revised 2.4 litre 4-pot motor that now has common-rail fuelling across all power output variants.

 

Jackal:

 

I'm not sure what differences there are between the present Transit 2.4 litre140PS motor and its 137PS predecessor - not much I suspect. The 137PS unit was always common-rail fuelled and its maximum torque of 375Nm is, apparently, unaltered. My understanding is that the output of the 137PS motor was heavily 'governed' electronically in 1st and 2nd gear (presumably to increase transmission reliability) and I expect the present motor is similarly pacified. Shouldn't affect 6th gear performance, but might inhibit traffic-light Grand Prix getaways if you are that way inclined. Vehicle performance can be deceptive, particularly when a motor is relatively quiet. With my 125bhp 2.0 litre Transit-based Hobby I sometimes think it's dragging its heels on a hill, then I notice it's in 5th gear with only 1200 or so rpm on the rev-counter. Conversely, it sometimes sounds a tad distressed on the motorway and I find it's whizzing along in 4th!

 

Interesting that the 'new' vehicle you are being offered has an "oversized gear stick", as current Transits have gear selection via a perfectly-placed, stubby dashboard-mounted lever with perhaps the slickest action in the commercial vehicle world. Sounds like this is a previous-model motorhome that's been hanging around on a dealer's forecourt.

 

I agree that there's plenty of hard, grey, unappealing plastic in the Transit's cab, but at least it's tough plastic that looks like it will last. Personally, having changed from a 1996 Transit motorhome to one built on a 2005 model, I feel that, for every step forward Ford took in improving Transit cab ergonomics, the company took one step back. For example, on the very latest Transits all the vehicles I've sat in have had accelerator-pedals with a minimal-travel made-of-wood movement (just like Mercedes cars had 40 years ago). It's no wonder Transit now has the option of cruise control with a horrible pedal action like that.

[Jackal]

Thanks for the advice Dave and Judge.

 

My problem is that I want to part exchange my existing vehicle and I'm being offered a relatively good deal compared to other dealers I have approached. £28,500 rather than £26,000 and less elsewhere.

 

Obviously I know I'm not getting something for nothing but the guy has also reduced the windscreen price of by over £4,000, because it's a 2006 model.

 

If I go to a show or import one, do they do part exchange? I had always presumed not.

 

I know it's slightly off topic but one of my only real quandries at the moment is whether to buy such a large van or whether to go for an older (03/53) A Class, for the same money or may be sommething even older where I don't have to have much of a loan.

 

To be honest, the reason I bought a low profile was that I just don't like the big bulbous overcab design. However, it may prove more practical with another child.

 

In terms of resale 5 years onwards, would it be harder to sell the Dethleffs overcab, or is the many A class vans around testament to the attraction and therefore saleability of such vans?

 

 

 

[BGD]

If engine is the only consideration - get the Merc with manual box.

Every time.

Much higher quality control in engine and gearbox design and manufacture.

 

 

 

Two big problems with automatic geaboxes:

 

They DRINK fuel.

Others may disagree, but in my experience as a person responsible for several company car fleets in years gone by, you'll use at least 15% more fuel like-for-like than with a manual gearbox.

 

They really are an utter bitch to repair if anything should go wrong - remember, it's virtually impossible to get a tow if you break down with an auto box, neither is it possible to push-start it (although you'd need a lot of bodies to do that in a Motorhome anyway!!), and costs of strip-down and repair of an auto box are generally horrendous.

 

I reckon a manual box gives you far more flexibility to use the revs and torque when YOU need to, rather than when the box thinks you do.

 

 

 

 

[Dave Newell]

Bruce, everything you say is true of conventional auto boxes but the modern versions are actually auto shifted manuals. fuel consumption is no worse with an ASM box than a normal manual and you also have the facility to operate it as a manual but without the hassle of a clutch pedal to keep pumping up and down.

 

D.

[Guest JudgeMental]

We wanted a low roof model which are ideal for two but because we are four ( 2 adults plus 2 young teenagers) they are too much of a squeeze and are for the future when kids stop coming . My EuraMobil 660HB. is 6.6 m long. and a big van at over 3 m high – 3.1 something with A/C.. but these new fords on the 2.2 130bhp chassis are a revelation, they fly along and are quite as well and are far less agricultural then the old 2.8 Fiat.

 

Our layout with to massive beds and a large garage allows both beds to be occupied while leaving the lounge and kitchen area free - this was the reason we went for it.

 

We thought long and hard before getting this van - just back from a month long trip to Italy and all went very well. I believe people get raped up in part exchange for various reasons and if you sell privately and buy from Europe you will be better off - particularly when you come to sell on the new/already old van? - which has been out of production for 18 months?

 

these commercial vehicles need to be used or problems start to appear - transmission/brakes/suspension/engines. I would insist on a service and complete oil change at least.

 

The dethleff you are interested in was the main van I was considering as well before we went to the Düsseldorf show and did some homework. They are flash and impressive to look at but are heavy, old technology and not suitable for winter camping in standard form.

 

The large over cab: It seems to cause problems with GPS reception, but this can be remedied with an external aerial. I nearly came unstuck on site where you tend to look at lower corner when negotiating your way around trees and forget to look up and I nearly bashed the overcab – but you get used to it. on the road its fine but mine is a lighht weight design and behaves reasonably well. have followed others and you see them wallowing about - one thing to test drive an empty van another a fully loaded one *-)

 

Happy camping! :-D

[Clive]

My Merc experience is with the 5 pot engines. According to the MMM chief test pilot the new 6 cylinder diesel is in a world of its own in a new league.

It would be my first choice as I like quality engineering.

 

[Mr. Grumpy]

I drive a Merc Sprinter for a living (a bus conversion) and a Ducato 2.3jtd for "pleasure" and I certainly prefer the Fiat. I have not driven the latest Merc or Ford but judging by the previous models I would prefer the Ford to the Merc although I will concede the Merc I drive has been very reliable with 195000km recorded in 30 months with no serious problems. That's my 2d worth.

[Mel B]

We had a Rapido 709F on a Fiat 2.3JTD, it went like the proverbial s..t of a shovel! We then changed to our current van a 2006 model Rimor 645TC on a 2.4 twin RWD Tranny with the floor mounted gearlever, it is a much bigger van (7.14m as opposed to 5.53) but it beats the Fiat pulling power without any trouble at all.

 

It's our van Dave N is referring to about fitting cruise, and the 3000rpm he comments on at 70mph, although I thought it was more like 2700? Anyway, we've had 2 long trips to France this year and it was an absolute gem to drive and not a problem at all. On the first of these trips I had to drive it back whilst suffering from severe sunburn from Milau near the south Atlantic coast (search for the "night night" thread for more info), it was hard due to the pain, but I managed it, if it had been the Fiat I don't know if I could due to the driving position. I've not driven a Merc based 'van so unfortuately can't help with the comparison.

 

However, on the caravan part, our Rimor hasn't got the problem with hinges or quality that you mention so I'm intrigued as to why the one you've been looking at has? Has it been 'on show' somewhere and been crawled over by the massing hordes and damaged in the process? Might be worth finding out a bit more of all of the 'vans histories before commiting.

 

Mel B