# Engines 1.9 TD versus 2.0 JD (Bessacarr 435)



## 88967 (May 11, 2005)

I have been informed that the later engine is far more poweful , equivalent to almost a 2.5 TD (in old money !! ). 
Can any kind diesel " Ace" shed light on this topic before I let go some of my hard earned Pension, buying the Bessacarr. 
The 1.9 was rugged enuf, if a litlle underpowered, for what I lug about.
Have also heard stories about the problem of starting the later engine.. !!

Help and advice would be appreciated..
Regards Graham & Judith


----------



## 88741 (May 9, 2005)

I have got a 2litre JTD engine and have no starting problems what so ever, she always fires up first time. Find it plenty powerful enough for my van, which is only a 2 berth 5.3m Fiat but she sails along the motorway,
OK I agree it is not the fastest acceleration for overtaking on ordinary roads, but you come to live with this I have found.


----------



## Pusser (May 9, 2005)

I have a 1.9TD and was quite suprised at the performance.No trouble getting mine going, always first time but even so, I don't know the answer. Have to wait for a guru. I do sometimes hear the turbo which sounds like an irrate policecar coming up from behind which would never be a suprise to me if it did.


----------



## nobbythehobby (May 9, 2005)

I find the biggest advantage of the new common rail engines is that they are very much quieter in cab - important in a motorhome.

Other people's views are interesting but have you tried both engines to compare?

nth


----------



## Boff (May 10, 2005)

GraNJud said:


> I have been informed that the later engine is far more poweful , equivalent to almost a 2.5 TD (in old money !! ).
> Can any kind diesel " Ace" shed light on this topic before I let go some of my hard earned Pension, buying the Bessacarr.


Hi Graham and Judith,

as far as I can see from their web site the Bessacarr 435 is a C-class with an MTPLA of 3.4 tons and a length of over 6 metres.

For such a van I would consider _both_ mentioned engines as underpowered, but at least the 1.9TD definitely is. I once had it in a rental van (also C-class, but only 3.0 tons MTPLA and 5.5 metres) and already there the lack of power was more than a nuisance. Setting it in motion even on level ground was only possible with heavily grinding clutch and almost floored throttle.

A van of this size and weight should have at least the 2.3JTD, if not the 2.8 in my opinion. But if there is no other choice for you, then take at least the 2.0JTD. The difference in noise level is also very much in favour of the JTD.

There are no specific issues known regarding starting a JTD. Mine (OK, it's the 2.8JTD) always starts at first try.

Best Regards,
Gerhard


----------



## 89088 (May 13, 2005)

Hello Granjud, the 2.0JTD produces 84bhp. I run a vehicle with the Peugeot 1.9TD and this produces 92bhp. The 2.0JTD does not have an intercooler fitted as standard whereas the Peugeot 1.9TD does.

Regards trig


----------



## nobbythehobby (May 9, 2005)

I think BHP figures are largely academic and not especially relevant to a heavy vehicle such as a motorhome ( not even in many cars even though the advertising people love to push high bhp).

If you wish to study performance figures, then a look at torque figures across the rev range will give better indication. Many newer technology engines have a better range of torque than their predecessors, even though their BHP may be lower.

nth


----------

