# Best choice engine size?



## Motobanker (Sep 17, 2013)

Any advice on whether standard 2.3 130bhp engine on autotrail tracker Fb (plated 3650kg) is up to the job

Need to make an informed choice of whether to dip deeper into pocket for 148 or 177bhp options?

Also any comments on manual v auto transmission on this MH would e much appreciated as on verge of a purchase :?:


----------



## tonka (Apr 24, 2006)

I have an apache 700.plated at 4250kg with 2.3 engine...
Have done 16,000 miles in 20 months and happy with it...
No real problems.
My previous van had the old 2.8jtd and a remap. That was faster for "grunt" took off faster and climbed hills faster.. BUT. I think it also encouraged me to drive it harder and hence less MPG..

You can have the 2.3 re-mapped.... I havent had it done but lots have..


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

My last van was an Autotrail Cherokee plated at 4,250kg with the 2.3 X250 engine and I found it more than adequate. On about half the journeys we would tow a 1,000kg car and even with that extra weight, the 2.3 engine was fine. On longer uphills I would have to drop down a gear earlier than when not towing but never had any difficulties or complaints.


----------



## Bill_OR (Feb 6, 2010)

Motobanker,
I have an Apache 634 (plated 3650Kg) with the 147 engine & the comformatic gearbox. I'm very happy with the combination.
As you'll see, I live on the outskirts of Hastings (near Fairlight) so if you are anywhere near then I'm happy to take you out for a ride.
Bill


----------



## Charisma (Apr 17, 2008)

Hi

Like Bill, I also have an Apache 634 (3650KG) but with the 130 engine and find it absolutely fine. Depends on how you plan to drive I guess, but mine will cruise at 70 all day even up moderate hills on Motorways. I am sure the bigger engines will be a bit faster on acceleration and will probably perform better if you plan to tow a trailer of some sort.

Bill - do you know what average mpg you get? We have just got back from a 1400 mile trip around Scotland and averaged 27mpg for the whole trip which included about 900 miles at 70mph and the rest around the slower roads 30 -50mph.

Dave


----------



## Roadhogg (Oct 6, 2012)

We also have the 2.3 130bhp & are more than happy with it. 

We bring a 165kg scooter on a Hydra-Trail & have no problems cruising at 70+mph. The trick is to get on the power early when facing a hill or overtaking.

After all you will be on holiday & chilled out.


----------



## Bill_OR (Feb 6, 2010)

Dave,
Haven't done any proper calculations but the trip computer suggests we are getting about the same as you. I have now got an mpg app for my phone and will start to track the fuel consumption properly!

Incidentally, we chose the 147 engine when we ordered our Apache 700 and then, 2 nights later we both woke up with the view that it was't the layout we actually wanted! The dealer had already placed the order and we were able to change to the Apache 634 but were committed to the 147 engine. I am very happy with the 147 engine and delighted that we went for the comformatic gearbox - it's SO easy to drive!

Bill


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Not got an Autotrail and mine is only 3500kg. however I find that my 3.0l engine gives me very smooth driving and the ability to overtake from 60mph upwards with ease when needed, I believe combined with an auto box it would be the ideal set up. You are aware of course that it really is not a proper Auto box, just an assisted one. I also get 26/27mpg.

cabby


----------



## Sideways86 (Feb 25, 2009)

We have the new 2.30 150bhp in a Bolero 722FB and it is a great motor doing 27 to 28 mpg towing a motorbike trailer at legal limits


----------



## Annsman (Nov 8, 2007)

You could do what we did and get the 130 BHP, we've got a 2008 Cheyenne 660, up plated to 4.5 tonnes. After a few thousand miles to get it run in we had it re-chipped to a 150BHP and its been great. Cruises all day, up hill and down at 60 and the rev counter doesn't move off 2000 revs. It cost £365 to have it re-mapped compared to over a grand if it came that way, (robbing gits!)

That way you can see how you cope with your own driving style, touring weight and so on. It's a lot of cash to add on to your sticker price if you don't get out much or carry the kit.


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Annsman said:


> It cost £365 to have it re-mapped compared to over a grand if it came that way, (robbing gits!)


But then you don't have the same engine - just one that supposedly has the same power, but not the same bits.

The factory do not just remap an engine to get a higher power output.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Stanner said:


> [
> But then you don't have the same engine - just one that supposedly has the same power, but not the same bits.
> 
> The factory do not just remap an engine to get a higher power output.


Are there any substantial differences in the mechanics between the 130 and 150 bhp engines? How do Fiat achieve it?


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

Fit a variable geometry turbo for a start.................. :wink:


----------



## listerdiesel (Aug 3, 2012)

In our experience with the Renault vans, the older 2.8 turbo Master was very good at almost everything, but the newer 2.5 turbo 140hp and then the 2.5 turbo 150hp were a class above it in terms of driving and towing.

I'd always go for the largest engine available, it just handles ALL situations without fuss. The V6 diesels are very nice, but still a bit expensive for what you get out of them.

I'm not a big fan of remapping either, a remapped 2.0 diesel is not going to be as nice to drive as the 2.5, although we should remember that car diesels are a whole stage of power up on the van engines. a 2.5 turbo in a car these days is well over 200bhp, compared with the 150hp of the Trafic.

Peter


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

As I have said before all this talk of BHP is meaningless to the use and drivability of a motorhopme as it is TORQUE that really matters and not just torque but how and where in the rev range it is produced.

You can have all the BHP in the world but if it isn't back up by torque in the right place it doesn't matter one jot.

If you just want BHP just try fitting your motorhome with something like a tuned Fireblade engine and see how far you get. :roll:


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Stanner said:


> As I mhave said before all this talk of BHP is meaningless to the use and drivability of a motorhopme as it is TORQUE that really matters and not just torque but how and where in the rev range it is produced.


Exactly. I have the 3L 160bhp and it is what is happening at 2000rpm that matters to me and not the narrow peak bhp band upward of 3000tpm.


----------



## rayc (Jun 3, 2008)

Stanner said:


> As I mhave said before all this talk of BHP is meaningless to the use and drivability of a motorhopme as it is TORQUE that really matters and not just torque but how and where in the rev range it is produced.


Exactly. I have the 3L 160bhp and it is what is happening at 2000rpm that matters to me and not the narrow peak bhp band upward of 3000tpm.


----------



## Dill (Jun 3, 2010)

3.0 ltr engine manual gearbox any day.

Dill


----------



## grout20 (Aug 28, 2006)

Hi all,

Out of interest, does any MHF-er have any technical info, guidelines or views on the (standard, i.e. non-mapped) 2012/13 vintage 2.3 Fiat Ducato diesel engined motorhome. i.e where the maximum torque / rev range and or recommended cruise/ change-up-a-gear revs might be?

Well..... that's my entry for the poorest quality, longest, all the right words but not necessarily in the right order, incoherent question competition anyway! :lol: 

Happy motorhoming

John


----------



## Stanner (Aug 17, 2006)

I posted that in the graphs earlier.


----------



## Sprinta (Sep 15, 2010)

my 2.8JTD was chipped to 160 and went reasonably well pulling 3850kg, but that has now gone and just been replaced with a 2.3 130 and 3500kg

The difference between the 2 is chalk and cheese, I was amazed how well the new generation engine performs in contrast to one 10 years old. It was like driving a car and not a tractor.

btw - I do like bhp in the right place, but also wouldn't consider a tuned Fireblade engine - there's no substitute for cubes 8)


----------



## grout20 (Aug 28, 2006)

Stanner said:


> I posted that in the graphs earlier.


Thanks Stanner .... my eyes ain't what they used to be.....

You win the Most Succinct Response competition btw.... 

cheers!

John


----------



## inthezone (Oct 8, 2012)

*engine size*

It really is a personal preference, we have an autotrail comanche with the 3.0 litre engine and manual box, its great, smooth and plenty of torque, fuel econ is ok but I don't drive any faster than 65 -70 mph and when i tow 50 - 60mph, the clutch is stronger and its a chain drive camshaft which is reported to be better.
for any van I would personally go for the biggest engine I can afford.

I hope my opinion helps


----------



## Brock (Jun 14, 2005)

Have you tried Fiat Camper's 'Your ideal engine'?

Fiat Camper


----------

