# Compactline i145QB - engine selection ?



## greybeardkma (May 20, 2014)

We are seriously checking out the Compactline i145QB as the vehicle for our planned escape to full time motorhome travel through Europe.

The choice of this model is based on trying to stay under 3.5T to avoid unnecessary running costs from being heavier and bigger on ferries, tunnels, etc.

Whilst I am told that the 2.3 150hp Fiat engine is fine for normal use I do not want to put it under severe stress if we decide to hop over the Alps or Pyrenees one day or trek from Scandinavia to Spain without too many stopovers.

Can anybody offer any experience or advice please ?

We are also inclined to go with Comfortmatic gearbox - does that affect the engine choice in your humble opinions ? 

Looking forward to hearing from anybody, GreybeardKMA


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

I think you will find that you can only have the Comfortmatic with the 3 litre engine option.

At a MAM of 3500kg the smaller engine should prove more than adequate. The 3 litre costs a lot more initially! I would weigh up the necessity of staying under 3500kg as it makes very little difference to ferries an tolls. They almost invariably use length and height to determine costs.


----------



## trevorf (May 16, 2005)

> I think you will find that you can only have the Comfortmatic with the 3 litre engine option.


Not correct. You can now have the comfortmatic with any engine.

Considering the most powerful engine you could have with the previous generation Ducato was 128bhp I would think the new 2..3 150 bhp is more than adequate for a 3.5T van.

Trevor


----------



## hogan (Oct 31, 2006)

We have the 3 L on a 4.5 ton HYMER weights are running at about 3.7 ton. Never struggles over the mountains 1800 rpm cruising returning 26.8 mpg.


----------



## weldted (May 1, 2005)

*What engine?*

Hi my last van a Bessacar 765 3 litre manual 4700kgs mam went like a rocket always fully loaded, new van Elddis Aspire 255 on a Boxer 2.2 litre all up 3700 kgs pulls well usually fully loaded been all over Europe avg 30 mpg plenty enough power this is motor homing not motor racing.
I would go with the 2.3 the 3.0 was nearly 50 kgs nervier on the 2008 model


----------



## McGeemobile (Jun 10, 2010)

I would agree that for fulltiming staying under 3.5 tonne could be uncomfortable.


----------



## cabby (May 14, 2005)

Full timing, larger than 3.5t is needed, so 3.0l engine. 

cabby


----------



## selstrom (May 23, 2005)

Our 3l, 6.7T mh has plenty of power, been over Alps and Pyrenees several times with no problems.

Weight is more important than power.

I would not want to fulltime in a smaller motorhome but many do so. Each to his own.


----------



## TheNomad (Aug 12, 2013)

Just a thought, but are you maybe looking at this from the wrong end?



If you're serious about fulltiming (either literally all the time, or for months and months at a time), then it ain't the going along that's the issue. It's the staying still.

You'll spend a microscopic part of your total time in the MH on the road. 
99.9% of your time in/with it will actually be spent living in it whilst parked up somewhere.

Any sized engine will chug you around, a little quicker or more slowly depending on how hard you put your foot down.

But if full-timing, the speed of travel becomes irrelevant.
So what if you chug along at 50mph rather than 65mph (except that you'll save a bucketload of money in fuel costs by driving slower regardless of engine size).





If it was me, I'd pay very little attention at all to the engine/gearbox side of things, and focus all my attention on length, layout and payload. 
That's the bits that are going to be affecting you for day after day, month after month.

Whether the right combination of those habitation factors comes along in engine form X or Y doesn't seem to me to be important in such a scenario.


----------



## Wizzo (Dec 3, 2007)

> If it was me, I'd pay very little attention at all to the engine/gearbox side of things, and focus all my attention on length, layout and payload.
> That's the bits that are going to be affecting you for day after day, month after month.


Spot on advice. The issues of driving a slightly longer and heavier vehicle are almost non-starters in the grand scheme of things. We were advised by the 'experts' to have a fixed bed layout as "we would not want to make up the bed every night." In reality it only takes 3 minutes but the big advantage for us is that it gives us a large lounge to use during the day, and a very open and spacious van to live in.
Now I'm not saying that we are right and everyone with a fixed bed are wrong, it's down to personal preference and that's what you need to get right - your own personal preferences for living. The engine comes a poor second.

Our 3850kg van has the 2.3 engine. It has been 'chipped' so is very similar to the 150bhp version now on offer from Fiat. It is more than capable over any terrain. Over the last 18 months the fuel consumption has been calculated at around 26mpg.

JohnW


----------



## readyforoff (Dec 28, 2013)

2.3 150 bhp at around 4 tonne. It pulls like a steam train. :wink:


----------



## rogher (Dec 17, 2006)

If full-timing, I think your payload is likely to be a bigger issue than the power of the engine. The 150hp will be adequate, anyway, and will save you a valuable 50kg. You will need to make compromises. If you are able, I’d look at a C-Tourer or Chic, these are wider and gain a cross-bathroom with the island bed. They are impractical if you want to duck 3.5t, though. Go for front cupboards, rather than the drop down bed. That will give you more headroom, space, and payload.


----------



## nicholsong (May 26, 2009)

Mrplodd said:


> I would weigh up the necessity of staying under 3500kg as it makes very little difference to ferries an tolls. They almost invariably use length and height to determine costs.


Andy

There are quite a few countries where the toll charges differ for over 3500, - Switzerland, Austria, Czech Rep., Slovakia and Poland to my knowledge. In the last four one has to have a 'box' in the windscreen from which is deducted credit via an automatic system on gantries. The roads which are charged include motorways and in some countries other trunk roads.It is also an added pain that each county's system is different, requiring a separate box and credit.

Switzerland charges for each day in the country, whether moving or not, but considerably more expensive than under 3500kg.

One Europe - humbug

Geoff


----------

