Major Fiat/Peueot/Citroen problems

[Derek Uzzell]

RonB:

 

I believe that the 2.3-litre motor used in the current Fiat Ducato and the 3.0-litre motor fitted to the current Citroen Relay and Peugeot Boxer (and also to Ducato) are Iveco SOFIM power-plants produced at the Foggia plant in southern Italy.

 

The 2.2-litre motor used in Ducato, Relay and Boxer is often referred to as the result of a joint venture between Ford and PSA. To the best of my knowledge there is no connection whatsoever between this motor and Iveco. I've been led to believe (and I've no reason to doubt this) that the PSA element of the arrangement was primarily one of demand - essentially Ford would manufacture these motors and PSA would buy them to install in SEVEL vehicles.

 

As you are probably aware, this 2.2-litre motor also powers Ford Mk 7 FWD Transits. My understanding is that the motor is, in fact, a Euro 4-compliant evolution of the 2.0-litre TDCi engine used in FWD Mk 6 Transits. Apparently the most significant physical change (aside from the increase in capacity) involves the fuel high-pressure pump being moved from the front of the engine-block to the rear of the head to allow a slimmer chain run. I've also been told that the 5-speed gearbox employed on the FWD Mk 6 Transit has been carried over to the Mk 7 with just minor modifications to the gear-selection mechanism and mountings.

 

The ratios of the 5-speed 'box mated to this motor in SEVEL vehicles appear to differ radically from those in the Mk 7 Transit. A 6-speed 'box is fitted to 120PS versions of the 2.2-litre motor used in Boxers and Relays, but a 6-speed gearbox has yet to be available for Transits with this motor. (The recently-announced Transit 140PS version + 6-speed 'box is said to be 2 months behind schedule.) From these data, I'd take an educated guess that the transmissions fitted to SEVEL vehicles with this motor are not Ford-derived.

 

I don't know whether SEVEL vehicles with the 2.2-litre motor exhibit the juddering-in-reverse tendency mentioned above. If it's a SEVEL steering-geometry/engine-mounting thing then it's reasonable to assume they should. Nor do I know if Transits with this motor do it. (Andy Stothert, Brian Kirby or JudgeMental may be able to comment on this as they all have experience of Mk 7 Transit-based motorhomes with the 130PS 2.2-litre motor.)

 

As Andy says, the need to reverse a vehicle up a severe incline has got to be a pretty rare requirement and I can't recall ever having to do it in over 40 years of driving. (Just lucky I suppose!) There's no doubt that road vehicles are designed to go forwards and perform differently when asked to go backwards. The entrance to my home is quite sharply sloped and I have re-started my Transit Mk 6-based Hobby (2.0-litre motor) on it and reversed backwards without any unusual drive-train reactions. On these occasions the motorhome was unloaded, but I don't think that factor would have been critical. If you asked me what would have been the result if the slope had been exceptionally steep, then I would guess that (given its gearbox ratios) the vehicle wouldn't have enjoyed the challenge one little bit.

[Brian Kirby]

In response to the point about juddering in reverse with my Hobby Van (Mk 7 Transit based) - no, not really.  It generally doesn't like the clutch being slipped, and will judder getting away uphill in either direction if I can't match the engine revs to the rate at which I engage the clutch.  As said before, that is a knife edge requirement, which I don't think is really relevant here.

However, this bit is relevant.  Letter to the reader's enquiries page of the December/January (no 197) edition of Le Monde du Camping-Car, liberally translated:

I own a Challenger Genesis on a Fiat 2.3 litre Multijet new in April 2007, and I have noted an fault in reverse gear.  My garage has changed the clutch, without any benefit.  He has now lodged a warranty claim with Fiat for authority to change the gearbox, without to date, any response from Fiat.  In practice my vehicle is unusable in reverse on hills of any severity, or when on either lock.  (He does not say whether full lock or less.)  Have any other readers experienced this problem?

Jean-Paul Toueri, 22 Rue Jean-Segala, 12300, Firmi.

So, it is not just the RHD versions that are affected.  The apparent absence of shrieks of protest from the white van men may indicate the problem has much to do with the weight of motorhomes relative to light vans, and seems to me to suggest some better damped engine mounts may be required.

[Clive]

In the good old days reverse gear ratio was even lower than 1st. On very steep hills vehicles used to reverse up them.

 

 

[cronkle]

My Transit Mk 7 is the 2.2 litre. The entrance to our drive is quite a slope and at a funny angle and so that I maintain traction I do reverse into it.

If I do not give it enough revs to start with I can get 'judder' but, if I give it more welly the problem goes away.

I would agree, it is a sensitive clutch but, as we discussed in the thread about these vehicles stalling easily, my experience is that it required a change in driving style when I changed from a Fiat 1.9.TDI.

[fred grant]

can us get back to the original thred my ansums. andy the stothart was talking about new fiat not TRANSIT fur eavens sake. i is interested as me an alices farm as sum very steep ingradients and us as sum knowledge of climbing slopes both frontwards and backwards with our various tractors and other equipment. Sum of our tractors is actually made in the fiat factorys serprisinly. Anyway, all white van men that delivers ere are nearly always overloaded both coming ere and goin back. no names but us can assure forum members that white men would lose money if they ad no load in their white boxes. the fuller the better my biddies! a 3.5 ton van is just that - a van for pullin 3.5 tons constantly and safely - so a motorhome weghin say 3.2 tons will av a far lesser and more contant life than most white van mens vans whose will vary from 3 tons to 3.9 tonnes eapecially if hes not caught by the thorities.

 

foodferthotfred

[cronkle]

fred grant - 2008-01-19 8:00 PM

 

can us get back to the original thred my ansums. andy the stothart was talking about new fiat not TRANSIT fur eavens sake. i is interested as me an alices farm as sum very steep ingradients and us as sum knowledge of climbing slopes both frontwards and backwards with our various tractors and other equipment. Sum of our tractors is actually made in the fiat factorys serprisinly. Anyway, all white van men that delivers ere are nearly always overloaded both coming ere and goin back. no names but us can assure forum members that white men would lose money if they ad no load in their white boxes. the fuller the better my biddies! a 3.5 ton van is just that - a van for pullin 3.5 tons constantly and safely - so a motorhome weghin say 3.2 tons will av a far lesser and more contant life than most white van mens vans whose will vary from 3 tons to 3.9 tonnes eapecially if hes not caught by the thorities.

 

foodferthotfred

 

Transit and fiat engine are one and the same if I read derek Uzzell's post correctly.

[Maubern]

Hi Andy

We bought an Ace Firenze in October 2007 on a 130 Fiat Multijet We live in the Vallies in South Wales ( On a hill) . And we have sever reversing problems. We took it to the local Fiat dealer who said the engine mountings needed chainging which they did but it was still the same. We took it out for a test drive and they said it was as good as we were going to get. We took it back to the dealers who are Discover in Newport the manager drove it and agreed there was a problem with it so kept it on his premises to investigate. He had someone frome Swift to test it and they also agreed there was something wrong with it so they made arrangements with someone frome Fiat to come and test it. The fiat rep/engineer fail to reverse twice up the hill on the third time he changed his tecqunice and reverce it up over 3,000 reves which he said was acceptial. We did not agree with this so we are now in the situation where we are about to change it for an Auto Trail on a Mercedes chassis at a considerable loss to us

 

 

[Maubern]

Posts: 1

 

Hi Andy

We bought an Ace Firenze in October 2007 on a 130 Fiat Multijet We live in the Vallies in South Wales ( On a hill) . And we have sever reversing problems. We took it to the local Fiat dealer who said the engine mountings needed chainging which they did but it was still the same. We took it out for a test drive and they said it was as good as we were going to get. We took it back to the dealers who are Discover in Newport the manager drove it and agreed there was a problem with it so kept it on his premises to investigate. He had someone frome Swift to test it and they also agreed there was something wrong with it so they made arrangements with someone frome Fiat to come and test it. The fiat rep/engineer fail to reverse twice up the hill on the third time he changed his tecqunice and reverce it up over 3,000 reves which he said was acceptial. We did not agree with this so we are now in the situation where we are about to change it for an Auto Trail on a Mercedes chassis at a considerable loss to us

 

[Derek Uzzell]

fred grant:

 

Early in Andy Stothert's initial posting he opined that the juddering-in-reverse phenomenon appeared to be endemic to New Ducato. Andy's (unidentified) motorhome has a 2.3-litre motor/6-speed gearbox power-train and RonB subsequently inquired whether SEVEL chassis fitted with the 2.2-litre motor exhibited similar unwelcome characteristics. The 2.2-litre motor fitted to current SEVEL vehicles is also used in the Mk 7 FWD Transit and motorhomes based on this Ford chassis were known to be owned by several forum contributors.

 

It's admittedly rough science to compare the reversing performance of a Ford Transit with a Fiat Ducato (or Citroen/Peugeot clone) purely on the basis that they have a motor in common. Nevertheless, I still think the exercise was useful as potential buyers of FWD Transit Mk 7-based motorhomes can now be fairly confident that (with a degree of delicacy when matching clutch take-up to engine revs) the vehicles should be manageable when reversing up steep inclines.

 

While the Transit-related comments may, perhaps justifiably, be considered to be 'off topic', I'm going to suggest to you (with all due respect) that they are more 'topical' than observations on stomach maladies and Fiat agricultural equipment.

[chas]

On a lighter note, Fiat being italian built, seems strange that their WW2 tanks had 6 reverse gears, or so I am lead to believe, and they had no problems :D sorry, its this damm wet weather !

[Clive]

Sorry Chas I am advised you are wrong,

Aparently Italian tanks had the gearbox fitted backwards by design for self preservation. There was no effective forward gear at all!

 

 

 

[Syd]

It is interesting to note that one has to carefully match engine rev's with clutch bite in order to get away cleanly.

I always thought vehicles were designed to be easy to drive.

Since when have vehicle manufacturers been making vehicles where one has to learn to drive again in order to pull away cleanly??

Even the famous "T" Ford didnt have half the problems mentioned here

 

Where would we be without this "progress"

[cronkle]

When I say that I changed my driving style to compensate for the clutch I wouldn't want people to think that it was too dramatic. I just accepted it as the consequence of moving from one vehicle to another and hadn't thought it significant until the various discussion threads came up. Some clutches are more sensitive than others.

Equally, this level of clutch variation does not seem to be the issue with the current Ducato etc.

[Brian Kirby]

Syd - 2008-01-20 11:26 AM It is interesting to note that one has to carefully match engine rev's with clutch bite in order to get away cleanly. I always thought vehicles were designed to be easy to drive. Since when have vehicle manufacturers been making vehicles where one has to learn to drive again in order to pull away cleanly?? Even the famous "T" Ford didnt have half the problems mentioned here Where would we be without this "progress"

You ever driven a "T" Syd??  The experience might alter that opinion a bit!  :-)

[Syd]

Yes the "T" was sharp but it didn't come with the costs and "sophisticated" deveolpment that we are supposed to be provided with these days.

 

How do these pretty awful faults get past their development engineers during their testing

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Syd - 2008-01-20 4:31 PM ........... How do these pretty awful faults get past their development engineers during their testing

I bet there are a few people at Fiat asking that as well!

However, the normal approach to the test hill is forward.  Maybe no-one has yet thought about trying it is reverse.  I wonder if it will be added to the standard test routine in future?

[Clive]

"T" Before my time!.

 

[Guest JudgeMental]

Syd - 2008-01-20 4:31 PM

 

How do these pretty awful faults get past their development engineers during their testing

 

 

test/engineer? probably of on holiday.....

 

Tata nano the new model T *-)

 

I have been watching the reported problems with new Fiats on a number of forums. MHF has one thread with over 50000 hits and over 1000 contributions.

 

was fully intending to go for a euramobil terrestra on fiat next, but will probably forget about that now and stick with Henry :-D

 

 

[Guest Tracker]

I believe they call it cost to benefit ratio?

 

If it will cost more to re-engineer parts from the existing 'parts bin', or to create new parts specifically - apart from than those planned as part of the original design - someone with a degree in accountancy will look at the sums and say 'NO - it will suffice as is'.

 

Until enough people campaign to get things changed such that the cost to benefit ratio alters, that is to say they start to seriously lose sales, then nothing will happen.

 

They will try to avoid recalls like the plague as recalls cost lots of money and lose credibility - without any perceived benefit to the manufacturer.

 

It will be a bloody long time - might even have to wait for the mid life face lift - before I even consider buying a new Sevel based 'van!

[colin]

Fiat etc. seem not to realise that there is such a thing as the Internet, if they did then there might be some sensible answers from them for problems like this. As someone that is about to buy a new van I see a thread such as this and think 'hold on' do I realy want to buy a Fiat, for a small comprimise on width I can get a similier layout on a Master base, and of cause for those getting a coach built then there is proboly not any compromise to be made.

A rough calc shows Fiat believe it is aceptable that a van should be reversed up a slope at a minimum of 13mph with clutch out, this is ridiculas.

[dshague]

help here please is there a problem or what .been out to day and looking at spending 40k fiat 103 2.3 multijet  6 speed lunar goldstar 620 ...whats the 5 speed 100 like if we get a smaller van say 580 moonstar any advice please .   thanks

[bigal55]

Tracker - 2008-01-20 6:04 PM

 

I believe they call it cost to benefit ratio?

 

If it will cost more to re-engineer parts from the existing 'parts bin', or to create new parts specifically - apart from than those planned as part of the original design - someone with a degree in accountancy will look at the sums and say 'NO - it will suffice as is'.

 

Until enough people campaign to get things changed such that the cost to benefit ratio alters, that is to say they start to seriously lose sales, then nothing will happen.

 

They will try to avoid recalls like the plague as recalls cost lots of money and lose credibility - without any perceived benefit to the manufacturer.

 

It will be a bloody long time - might even have to wait for the mid life face lift - before I even consider buying a new Sevel based 'van!

i agree, when i was trying to get an answer on the water ingress problem, i was told by a independant fiat m/home specialist.

quote "fiat seem to be taking the AMC approach, exploding fuel tanks,cheaper to pay compensation to a few incinerated people than fixing millions of cars.

as you say until the cost of lost sales outways the cost of repairs nothing will be done,i don,t think fiat are alone in this, it,s standard business practice for large corporations.

i hope fiats spares supply improve, i,ve been waiting for a E.G.R. valve for 3months

 

[fred grant]

ow a 2.3 litre fiat going backwards can get confused with a 2.2 litre ford going forwards is beyond me derk and fellow forum members,

 

if us all kept to the thread than it mite offer the stoth sum help. as it is he don know weather he is coming or going my ansums. having to av a new gearbox fitted everytime he goes backwards up a slope is no jokin matter.

 

im off to write to wotchdig as this is gettin beyond a joke.

 

fieryfred

[Syd]

Clive - 2008-01-20 5:16 PM

 

"T" Before my time!.

 

Before your time eh Clive

It was my first car ha

[colin]

Not that it has any relavence to this thread, but, a T going up or down long inclines has problems with either oil starvation or over oiling of engine due to it being splash oil feed, I wouldn't be overly woried about a gearbox failure as we have 2 spare boxes at work, but a Ton Truck T can travel a damn sight slower in reverse than the 13mph recommended by Fiat.

Here's one I made earlier on a car chassis, also built one on a Ton Truck chassis

http://www.skysportengineering.co.uk/hucks_video.html