# Autotrail 2.3 130bhp



## tatsy

We are currently thinking of purchasing our first motorhome and like the Autotrail range, we are a little confused which engine size to go for. Can anyone give us some feed back on 2.3 or 2.8 pros and cons? Is the 2.3 130 under powered?


----------



## clodhopper2006

I can only comment on my own 2.3 130 multijet. It's by no means underpowered and will cruise a 70mph no probs. Left on cruise control on the motorway it runs up and down hill all day without any change in speed.

Bob


----------



## DJP

Hi tatsy
You do not say which Autotrail model you are considering.
Is it a pre 2007 or post 2007
If it is something like a Tracker, then 2.3 is perfect. If it is a Mohican or bigger then the 2.8 would be best choice (assuming it is pre 2007 as after 2007 it would be a 3.0 ltr)
Come back with more info and we will come back with more answers.
Dennis


----------



## zulurita

WE have a 2.3litre 130 multijet on an Auto Trail Cheyenne 660SE and find it more than adequate and our is a 4.05 ton.

We previously had the same model mh on a 2.8 jtd and also found that good. The 130 multijet has slightly more horsepower than the 2.8 jtd.

The only major issue with the new 2.3 130 is THE REVERSE JUDDER as the water ingress into the engine bay should be sorted on new mh's now. However the judder issue when reversing on even slight inclines remains a major issue so you would be well advised to drive a mh on a test ride first and make sure you reverse it up a slope.

We are waiting for Fiat to do a fix for this.


----------



## hblewett

We have an Apache 634U with 2.3 130bhp multijet. The performance is fine - I can't see why there would be any reason to go for the larger engine on a motorhome that size. We went over several passes in the Alps this year (not the motorways) including lots of 1 in 5s and we never went into first gear unless to keep a very low speed as we went round a hairpin at the same time as another motorhome. 

Ours is a year old (tomorrow!) and it came without the scuttle leak. The only issue is the reversing issue. It ought to be possible to get any fix done on it before accepting it, now they have the means to cure it; If it were I would make it a condition of the purchase contract from the outset - making sure I had it in writing.


----------



## peedee

If price is not an issue, go for the bigger engine especially if your GVW is >3.5tons. My thinking is it is less strain on the engine and you should get a longer life and better economy.

peedee


----------



## DJP

> The only issue is the reversing issue. It ought to be possible to get any fix done on it before accepting it, now they have the means to cure it;


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## tviall

I have the big Chieftain with the 160hp engine. It'll give the boy racers a run for their money even fully ladel but I guess the downside is the fuel economy if you choose to drive it that hard. Driven normally it goes like a dream. Once in the cruise at 60-65 I select cruise control and sit back; even up the hills.

As Peedee says, if you have the money go for the 160.

Tony


----------



## bigbazza

I have the 2.8lt on an Autotrail Cheyenne 634L and it just goes on and on.
I love the power it makes it so easy to drive and you can overtake etc without hesitation. It drives more like a car with the extra power.
My previous M/H had a Merc 208 engine and it was definitely underpowered, but that was a 1992 engine and in fairness they have improved enormously.


----------



## Broom

Hi tatsy

My motorhome is around 4 ton and the 2.3 pulls great recommend the cruise control.

You need to read 'New Motorhome 9 months on habitation defect free' in Motorhome Chit Chat it will help.

Best Regards
Broom


----------



## Annsman

I can say without fear of contradiction that my 2008 Cheyenne 660 SE 130bhp is the bestest van on the road. It has the best layout, is the best equipped and best looking van, (just like its' owner!) and is a dream to drive. It also goes in reverse without complaint! 

We have done 3195 miles since 1st June and the niggles we had have been sorted out by our dealer Spinney Motors with minimum delay and no fuss.

Have a trip to the factory and see the build quality for yourself.

In 2 sleeps we are due off on a 6 month tour of Europe, so it will be getting a full test then, but I have every confidence in it, (he said crossing his fingers!)  

Good luck in your search


----------



## averhamdave

As has been said you need to advise whether you are talking about pre or post 1997 (old or new cab, if you like)

The old cab had 2.3 and 2.8. The new cab (on larger motorhomes) is either 2.3 or 3.0.

The new and old 2.3 are completely different engines. The new 2.3 is more powerful than the old 2.8. OK so far?

I had my 2.3 multijet remapped by Chelston to about 155hp and am very happy with it. Since the power upgrade I have also benefitted from an improvement in fuel mileage.


----------



## satis

Hi Tatsy,I have just recently taken delivery of a new Apache Autotrail 634l Before purchasing I test drove the 2.3 then the 3 litre,The 3 litre won hands down,My father bought the 2.3 and in fairness it performs very well,But the 3 litre engine is in a class of its own and will pull like a steam train,Before you make your purchase try out the two different engines,you will see instantly the difference,Driving down to spain and back the 3 litre drank a little more than the 2.3 (Dad was following me,)in the 2.3, But the fuel used in the 3 litre wasnt that much more and i had heaps of power at my diposal if needed,Hope this post helps,Kind regards Satis


----------



## Regal

Tasty

I have to agree with Satis if you can go the extra I would recommend the 3ltr.

Our Autotrail is just a year old with 6000 miles on the clock and performed brilliantly for our trip to France, Spain & Portugal last year.

The only downside was the water ingress which can easily be rectified and the famous reverse judder. Personally I don't find the clutch judder much of problem but the clutch operation is fierce and of course the worry is what damage will it do in the future.

Other than that we are very pleased with the vehicle.

Steve


----------



## colonel

I think you need to look at fuel economy for both engines. I test drove two different 7.0 metre length MH's one with a 3.0 litre and the other a 2.3 litre engines before buying. The 3.0 is definitely the more powerful engine, more torque more BHP and you really notice it.

However, the 2.3 is adequate for a big MH (> 4,000 Kgs ) and when you consider that you will be cruising around 55 - 60mph most of the time, you will find that the 2.3 will use less diesel.

I can't remember the exact average consumption figures but it was around 23 mpg for the 3.0 and 27 mpg for the 2.3. As I am currently getting around 23 mpg from my 2.3 I suspect that the 3.0 would give < 20 mpg.

You need to decide what is most important for you. The bigger engine is more expensive and uses more diesel but if you don't do a lot of miles, this may not be an issue. Normally I would say the bigger the engine the better, but that is in terms of a car where I want the (1) best performance, (2) the quietest and most comfortable and (3) reasonable fuel economy. In my MH performance is not the most important issue. 8)


----------



## peedee

I don't go by engine size but by horse power. My engine in the Mohican develops 156hp and I think at 130hp it would struggle a bit especially towing a car or trailer.

peedee


----------



## colonel

I'm not sure what the BHP is on the earlier 2.8 litre engine is. Is this what you're referring to peedee?

FIAT say that the new 2.3 @ 130 BHP is better than the old 2.8 litre engine. Not sure if this is right or not.

Obviously if you are towing a trailer/SmartCar then the bigger engine will be better. You would already be used to higher fuel consumption. :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## peedee

I don't know what the HP of the 2.8 is either, I have a Mercedes 2.7 5 cylinder turbo diesel which develops 156hp. I just prefer HP as a better yardstick than engine capacity. I noticed very little change in fuel consumption towing my first tow car. I have recently changed to a slightly heavier one and not quite sure what the current effects, if any, are but it is a little more slugish on the long hills.

peedee


----------



## RichardnGill

I guess if you are getting a Tag Autotrail you would be much better of with the 3.0. If you are getting a smaller van the 2.3's are still very good (or the ones I have driven have been) 

But as already said the 3.0 will give you a more relaxed drive and still probally worth it on a 4000kg M/H. But if you are getting a M/H less than 4000kg I would just get the 2.3 

The old 2.8 is 127BHP 300Nm Torque 
The NEW 2.3 is 130BHP and 320 Nm Torque 
The 3.0 is 157BHP 400Nm Torque 

Torque is probally the best bit to judge an engine in a M/H as this is what you use to get up hills and just as important how many RPM it produces the Torque at. 

Richard...


----------



## jimmurray

Find the 2.3 in my Apache 700 to be underpowered, I should have gone for the larger engine.


----------



## jimmurray

Booked it in for the 'wowpower' re-map at Cheslton. Hoping this will give it a bit more oomph.


----------



## ytank

i have the 2.3 in mine and have had it remaped as it was a bit flat on a long hill but its spot on now and its better on fuel now its about 8.00 better per tank than my mites van he has the 3 ltr one


----------



## Motorhomewales

A decent re-map on a 130 multi jet should see more power/torque than a standard 160 multi jet. Useful mod if the MH you want is not available in 160 guise, or if you plan on towing with it?


----------



## buttons

RichardnGill said:


> The old 2.8 is 127BHP 300Nm Torque
> The NEW 2.3 is 130BHP and 320 Nm Torque
> The 3.0 is 157BHP 400Nm Torque
> Torque is probally the best bit to judge an engine in a M/H as this is what you use to get up hills and just as important how many RPM it produces the Torque at. Richard...


Apologies for being a bit off topic and probably a bit thick. Could you please explain why the 3ltr version only manages 160bhp.
I drive a 2.5 vw that produces 174bhp with 400Nm Torque. It weighs 3000kg and still returns >40mpg.
Am I missing something here? Why such a difference in power from the same size engine?


----------



## RichardnGill

I am no expert but the 3.0 engine is used in the Iveco at 180 Bhp not sure of the torque but guess it will be more than 400nm. 

I presume that as a few people use the engine they make an agreement as to what power they will use it at so as not step on each other toes. 

Think of a car. in a Golf you can get 110BHP 140 bhp and 170 Bhp out of the same 2.0 TDI engine. Now you carnt get the 140 or 170 in the base model, this is to encourage people to buy the posher models. 

For what its worth the 3.0 at 160 feels very unstress and IMO could produce a lot more power.

Has any one chipped a 3.0 yet? and what the diffrance?

As for MPG you are doing very well to get 40 MPG out of a 2.5 VW TDI a friend has the 2.5 TDI in an Audi A4 and can only get 35 MPG tops.

Our van weighs 5000kg but is 3.1 meters high which makes a huge diffrance to MPG. But so far we are getting just over 20 MPG out of a new engine (hoping it will get a bit better)



Richard...


----------



## buttons

RichardnGill said:


> I am no expert but the 3.0 engine is used in the Iveco at 180 Bhp not sure of the torque but guess it will be more than 400nm.
> 
> I presume that as a few people use the engine they make an agreement as to what power they will use it at so as not step on each other toes.
> 
> Think of a car. in a Golf you can get 110BHP 140 bhp and 170 Bhp out of the same 2.0 TDI engine. Now you carnt get the 140 or 170 in the base model, this is to encourage people to buy the posher models.
> 
> For what its worth the 3.0 at 160 feels very unstress and IMO could produce a lot more power.
> 
> Has any one chipped a 3.0 yet? and what the diffrance?
> 
> As for MPG you are doing very well to get 40 MPG out of a 2.5 VW TDI a friend has the 2.5 TDI in an Audi A4 and can only get 35 MPG tops.
> 
> Our van weighs 5000kg but is 3.1 meters high which makes a huge diffrance to MPG. But so far we are getting just over 20 MPG out of a new engine (hoping it will get a bit better) Richard...


Thanks that makes a bit of sense I guess, still surprised that the 3ltr is then not offered with a higher output, there are some very upmarket vans that would benefit from such a package.
The vw 2.5ltr can be off the shelf chipped to over 200bhp if required so it probably has something in hand. I think this much power would be a bit of a handful in my small van though.
I think that your friend could treat himself to some plimsolls.


----------



## boosters

*I guess, still surprised that the 3ltr is then not offered with a higher output, there are some very upmarket vans that would benefit from such a package. *
This is the benefit of remapping,in fact our own modification for the 2.3 multijet is 35% more bhp and torque ie 175bhp,making it more powerful than the 3ltr and approx 5 mile better mpg.Many of my customers who were changing from the old 2.8 jtd asked my advice wether to buy the 2.3 or 3.0,after remapping the 2.3 it is more powerful than the 3.0,better on fuel economy and also the price saved in buying the vehicle.
Most manufacturers especially vw/audi offer different versions of bhp in models of vehicles,this is mostly purely the software in the ecu.
If anybody elese would like advice on remapping please feel free to contact me or vist our stand at the motorhome shows.
Regards
Alex


----------



## RichardnGill

hi Alex

Do you have any figures for the 3.0 after a remap?

I am more intrested in tourqe at a given RPM the outright BHP.


Richard...


----------



## satis

Hi There,Go for the 3 litre if you can afford the bit extra,The 3 litre pulls very well on the hill climbs and the bonus is the engine doesnt have a cam belt,Cheaper later on for servicing,My father followed me down to spain last year in his 2.3 but there is such a difference in the 2 engines,Ask your dealer to let you have a test drive of each,You will see instantly where i am comming from,Kind regards Sats


----------



## RainDancer

Hi Satis

You say that the 3.0 Ltr does not have a cam belt. So I assume they have a chain instead?? Can you confirm?

If that is the case does anyone know how long a chain will last??


----------



## satis

Hiya Rain dancer  

Just googled ducato 160 multijet timing chain,Here is the result,But on choosing my 160 or 3 litre,i was informed by the dealer Tyne valley motorhomes that the 3 litre has a timing chain and not the cam belt,Hope this post helps,kind regards Satis  

The special Fiat engine is particularly worthy of note: a 2.3 Multijet 16 valve Euro 4 engine offering 120 bhp of power and 320 Nm of torque. The unit offers fuel consumption 23 percent lower than the previous generation of Ducato vehicles, servicing at 45,000 km intervals and a particulate filter available as an option.
The top-of-the-range power unit, the 160 Multijet Power (157 bhp and 400 Nm), is remarkable for offering great driving satisfaction, due to its extraordinary attributes of flexibility, perennially prompt response to power demands and outstandingly low noise levels.

The innovative mechanical and engineering features on this engine have made it possible to increase the oil change interval to every 45,000 km or 24 months, to offer a ‘for life’ timing chain – and to offer an exclusive 6-speed robotised gearbox known as the Comfort-Matic - plus a particulate filter as an option.


----------



## boosters

Drive a remapped 2.3 against a standard 3.0
No comparison the 2.3 will leave the 3.0 ltr standing and outpull on any hill


----------



## boosters

RichardnGill said:


> hi Alex
> 
> Do you have any figures for the 3.0 after a remap?
> 
> I am more intrested in tourqe at a given RPM the outright BHP.
> 
> Richard...


Hi Richard
The modification we have for the 3.0 is 30% more bhp and torque,also we can tailor the torque band to what rpm you require.
Regards
Alex


----------



## RainDancer

Hi Satis

Thanks for info. I did not realise that the oil changes could be every 24 months.

My van is 2 years old it has done 10,000 miles and is booked in for it's fourth services.This is on the recommendation of a dealer that it should be serviced on a regular basis.

No doubt you can guess what my next query with the dealer will be about.


----------



## satis

Hi Rain Dancer  

Glad the information was of help to you,Yes having a timing chain rather than the cam belt sure helps with the future sevice charges,(There is nothing worse than hearing,You need a new cam belt fitted mate)Then the big charge for supply & fitting  Kind regards Satis


----------

