Multijet engine

[tezza]

Before the multi jets the not so old 2.0 JTD was considered by many as being under powered, am I right in thinking the new 100 MJet is as good as the not so old 2.3JTD?

As I am not engine minded, how has the 100 MJ's power been in creased to the power of the 2.3, does it really have the pulling power?

 

I am looking now for my next van on a 130MJ, but there are some good deals to had on the 100 MJ.

 

I would be very interested in your thoughts/ideas.

 

Tezza

[davenewellhome]

As long as the motorhome its pulling is under 3500KGs I'd say 100BHP should be adequate. Mine weighs in at 2900KGs and its only got an 85BHP petrol engine. Granted it loses speed on hills but hey, I'm on holiday so what's the rush (lol) .

 

D.

[euroserv]

I run a vehicle rental company operating only Fiat and Iveco vehicles so I have to research this sort of thing all the time. The 100M-jet engine is a 2.2 litre and is essentially the same Ford/Peugeot Puma engine fitted to the latest Transit. Peugeot and Citroen offer this engine at 120hp and do not offer the 2.3 120M-jet, or the 2.3 130M-jet that Fiat use in vans and camper chassis. The 2.2 engine is in our opinion underpowered for all but the lightest vans, and would suggest the same would be true of a camper. The 2.3 engine has almost the same pulling power as the old 2.8JTD and we are using that engine in Fiat Ducato and Iveco Daily vans with no issues at all. Hope that helps.

Nick/euroserv

[bigal55]

i have the 100 mutijet in a ace milano, maintains 70 on m/way, being a hightop i stick to 60, 30 mpg, if i do 70 it,s 20 mpg

[Minnie]

I have an Auto sleeper (Orian) Zeta aka Nuevo which I bought new in Jan 2007. This comes as standard with the 100 multijet badged as a Peugeot. I did wonder as I had a Bessecar 760 with a 2.8 Fiat which I had upgraded by TB Turbos as its a 3.8 tonner. To be honest the Zeta is quicker off the mark, is quieter and my goodeness does it use less fuel. We recently did a 500 mile round trip to Southampton, then Solihull and returned over 35mpg. I cruise on the Motorway at 60 with pccasional bursts to 70 or more and whilst I hustle along I do tend to try and anticipate hold ups and slow down rather than stand on the brakes. By comparision I used to get about 26mpg from my Bessie. To answer your ariginal question, you cannot have too much power, but I feel the 100 multijet is a very smooth operator. You could always have it chipped up to 120 or 130 for a few hundred pounds if you did feel short changed but unless you are buying a tall overcab I dont think you will be short on power. Hope that helps!

 

Mike

[tezza]

Thanks everyone, I guess it's time to hit the Autumn dealer shows and see what's available.

 

Terry

 

[breakaleg]

Hi Terry, we have just had a new (2006) marquis lancashire aka auto-sleeper neuavo, with the 2.2 120bhp engine, and it flies, our previous van was a auto-sleeper clubman 2.4 which was very slow in comparison. were gettin 32mpg at the moment, but there is only 4000 miles on the clock, so i would expect this to improve.

pete

[RonB]

I'm also in a dilema over the 2.2 HDI engine.

 

I had in mind buying a new 3500kg van with this engine but have been put off by several owners suggesting that it is underpowered. All reported good fuel consumption but is this at the expense of performance?

[breakaleg]

hi, as i posted above, i have the 2.2 120bhp, and it's no slouch, ask for a test drive of the van you fancy.

pete

[Guest starspirit]

It all comes down to driving one of each and seeing how the performance and pulling power suits your style.

There is much more than pure bhp to a van engine and torque at low revs is a much better guide to usable power.

What suits one style of driving may not suit another but, personally, having been very happy for years with the old 85 bhp 2.0 Peugeot hdi there is no way I could now go back to it having driven a few thousand miles with a 2.3. 110 bhp Fiat.