# Best engine size



## kp_nuts (Apr 11, 2011)

Hi all - my first post.

We're looking at buying an Auto trail Cherokee 2011 model.

Would appreciate any advice as to whether the standard 2200 cc (130 bhp) engine would be good enough for long journeys through France and Italy, including the Alps, Pyrenees etc ; or whether we should go for the upgrade to 3000cc (160 bhp)?

:?:


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

The larger engine will give you much higher torque (ignore BHP its not really relevant to "driveability") which makes for less gearchanging and a more relaxed drive. BUT the larger engine will cost a lot more to purchase. fuel consumption will probably be about the same (bigger engine has to work less to shift the vehicle)

Best bet would be to test drive both engine sizes !!


----------



## kp_nuts (Apr 11, 2011)

Cheers.

The cost is an extra £ 2k'ish so in terms of overall purchase price, it may be worth doing.


----------



## Mrplodd (Mar 4, 2008)

For that sort of money I would go for it!! The larger engine will often get you extra goodies !! (6 speed box etc)


----------



## Rosbotham (May 4, 2008)

It has a 6 speed box anyway (standard is 2.3/130BHP, incidentally, not 2.2).

You also need to remember that the 3.0 will eat into payload.

There isn't a right/wrong answer on this. 

The 2.3 is more than adequate solo, adequate if towing (my car's approx 1 tonne and only time I've been narked with lack of power is when I lost momentum overtaking a lorry on a hill on M74). The 3.0 will fly solo, be more than adequate towing. I stand to be corrected, but suspect that (at least if towing) you'd get better fuel consumption with the 3.0 than 2.3 because it's not working as hard.

However, you need to consider what you'd want to spend £2k on. E.g. you'd get an all-singing-all-dancing satellite TV system fitted for that money... Pays your money, takes your choice.

Paul


----------



## kp_nuts (Apr 11, 2011)

*Best Engine size*

Thanks.
All noted and interesting reading.

Thel ocal dealer has one with a 2.3l engine, so it may come down to what sort of deal we get on that when we suggest wem ay want to order a different one ! 8)


----------



## Wozzap (Jun 3, 2009)

the 3.0 is a fantastic engine especially with the comfortmatic box. We have it in our Chieftain and now it's run in it's a great drive. Peak torque is in the 50 to 75mph range so you have plenty of pull and the fuel consumption is >24mpg (and I don't hang about!)
It's only +50kg with the comfortmatic box, so go for it.


----------



## wp1234 (Sep 29, 2009)

I have the 3.0 ltr and I have to say its a great engine , never felt undepowered great uphills and never strains


----------



## wilse (Aug 10, 2007)

What about getting the 2.3 and having boosters remap it?

I've got a remap [renault 2.5] but my mate has the 2.3 Fiat [08 Reg] also with same remap, it's very good to drive can take most hills in 6th, and it returns 27/28 mpg. It is also plated at 3850Kg.

I have no experience with the 3L, but the remapped 2.3 gets no complaints from my mate and he's very pickky!

Plus you'll be saving the best part of £1500!

w

Forgot to say he's done around 15,000 with it.


----------



## ChesterfieldHooligan (Oct 26, 2008)

I think the resale value would be better with the 3.0 engine


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

wilse said:


> What about getting the 2.3 and having boosters remap it?


Invalidates the warranty I imagine?


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*Engine*

3.0


----------



## Knockluts (Oct 17, 2009)

I only wanted an automatic (comfortmatic) so had to have the 3 litre. Most impressed it is so car like to drive. I've never regretted the extra cash.


----------



## Jented (Jan 12, 2010)

Hi.
3L, There is no substitute for power,go for it.Re-map could make the warranty worthless,they can and do check,also insurance?unless you tell them.......oops.
Gearjammer


----------



## peribro (Sep 6, 2009)

Jented said:


> Hi.
> 3L, There is no substitute for power,go for it.


Not sure I totally agree with that otherwise if you took it to its logical conclusion we would all be driving around in 5 litre petrol cars, much in the way they did (and many still do) in the USA. I would argue it's a case of matching power to what's needed. For many a 3.0 litre is what is needed , for others not. The only way for the OP to be sure is to take a test drive on vehicles with similar weights and with both engine sizes. Ensure there are a couple of hills.

I have the 2.3 engine and it's more than adequate when not towing - I can't recall it ever feeling underpowered or the need for excessive downchanges. When towing, a 3.0 litre would be beneficial on hills and long slopes where it is necessary to downchange a couple of gears. It's never been a problem though and only last week I was going up a steep hill towing the toad in an overtaking lane going past several lorries and vans. My foot was flat down and I had dropped to 3rd but the power was there.


----------



## tviall (May 1, 2005)

If the funds can cover it, go for the 3.0 litre.

I have a Chieftain (5 tonnes) and even when close to fully laden it goes like a train. I don't necessarily mean fast but the available power just makes cruising completely effortless.

I did a long drive down to Italy a couple of years ago. The drive was a complete pleasure. Once the cruise control was on I could just sit there and relax while the van just soaked up the miles and the hills with complete ease.

As someone has said the resale value might be more positive on the 3.0l.

You may lose a bit of MPG. Mine gets 20 mpg (ave over 2 years) but I am usually heavy (the van that is, not me) and not driving as economically as i could. The current tank is showing 23 mpg.

Best advice is to repeat as above - take a test drive.

Good luck

Tony


----------



## rayse (Jul 17, 2009)

I have the 2.3 in the Autotrail Mohawk 2010 similar size i think to the cherokee. I had it remaped, took it to croatia last summer performance was excellent hardley had to come out of 6th gear on the motor ways and returned over 25 mph loaded up with bikes chairs etc. Pleased I did not shell out for the 3.0ltr.


----------



## teemyob (Nov 22, 2005)

*180*

If you are buying the 2011/2012 Euro IV Ducato, should not need a re-map. 3.0 Litre will be 180BHP

Here

TM


----------



## duxdeluxe (Sep 2, 2007)

I have just got a 3 litre a few weeks ago and it has so much torque that it is a superbly relaxing drive, even as a manual. Too early to say what the economy really is as the engine has done less than a thousand miles but the trip meter lied to me and said 27.5 so I would guess at about 24-25 if I checked properly. Superb engine!

And no, the clutch doesn't judder. It is a bit sharper than the old van but have got used to the difference and to goes forwards and backwards up slopes with no issues at all.


----------

