# How much power with a 2.3 engine?



## jiwawa

As some of you will know I'm looking at the Hymer Exsis-i 504.

It's 3.5T with 740kg payload - but that's before any additions like awning etc.

The engine is the 2.3 Fiat engine with 130/150/180HP options and I will be going for Comfortmatic. I know nothing at all about the Fiat engine; my own is the Ford 2.4, 148HP which pulls our 4.2T van quite nicely.

If the van were fully loaded - as it probably will be - would the 130HP be sufficient?

I also noticed in one version of the specs: "100 litre fresh water tank with 20 litres available while in transit". Does that mean that you physically can't carry more than 20l when driving?? - as in some kind of automatic drain. Seems an odd thing to say.


----------



## siggie

I have the Fiat 2.3 150BHP on a 4.2T van and it is great. I would have thought the 130BHP on a 3.5T van would be just as good.


----------



## peribro

My last van was 4.25 tonnes and we routinely towed a 950kg car behind - so a little over 5 tonnes in total. The engine was the 130bhp 2.3L and we never had any problems. On long uphills on motoways it was sometimes necessary to drop down to 4th but other than that no problems. Acceleration and pulling power were also always perfectly acceptable and cruising at maximum permitted speeds on motorways and the like was never a problem.


----------



## TeamRienza

Hi Jean,

Our van is a Hymer B598PL which is the same shape and weight as the one you are considering. It is a 2.3 130BHP version. Our unladen weight is 3150kg with a 350kg payload. In France this year we were running at 3700 kg partly because we carried water at up to 140 kg if full. I am considering updating to 3850kg which I am assured is a simple paper exercise.

We did over 3000 miles in France this year and have done a total of about 6000 so far. I find that it drives well and has a slightly higher natural cruising speed with its 6 gears (manual) than my mk6 Transit had with 5 manual gears. The transit ran well at about 55mph, whereas the Fiat is happy at 60mph. It feels like there is more power available although 60mph is plenty. I like to look around as we travel and consider the driving as part of the experience. Fuel consumption is similar. I am consistently getting 30 mpg from the fiat. The Transit gave 28 mpg.

The proper test of the power for me was some of the Pyrenees colls that we visited this year. We took ours up the Col d'Aspin, the Coll de Tourmelet and also up to Gavernie. Considering that we were running quite heavy the van performed well and without effort.

I am not sure what height you are, I am 5'10" and I do find that my left knee is frequently in contact with the side bulkhead. It is not as comfortable in that respect as the Transit. This is not a criticism of the seats which are very comfortable. 

As for the water capacity, ours can carry 140ltr and about 100 ltr waste. I always travel with an empty waste tank, but the 20 litres for driving is ridiculous. It simply allows them to boast a greater payload. If you don't use sites then this is impractical. The access point for the water tank is under one of the floor hatches. A 6 inch screw lid allows easy access (same with waste, good for cleaning purposes) but beside it is a triangular valve wheel. This has 3 positions, closed to retain all the water, 3/4 turn which will drop all but 20 litres and fully open which will completely drain the tank. The waste tank on ours has an electrically operated valve with a switch located in the garage.

Hope this gives a little insight for your consideration, though it sounds like you have nearly made up your mind.

Davy


----------



## Sgt411

Hi Jean- I have a CI 705 with a mam of 3500 KG equipped with the Ducato Multi Jet 130, 2.3 engine. I have had this van for 7 years now and regularly use it for trips abroad staying on airs and stelplazis. Sometimes I am a little overloaded but it performs well and is very economical (averages 30 mpg). This engine is perfect for your new Hymer. Good luck - go for it. 

Keith


----------



## rayc

jiwawa said:


> I also noticed in one version of the specs: "100 litre fresh water tank with 20 litres available while in transit". Does that mean that you physically can't carry more than 20l when driving?? - as in some kind of automatic drain. Seems an odd thing to say.


The 20L on road limit is the manufacturers way of gaining additional payload. There will be a 'tap' on the fresh water supply that allows all but 20l to be drained off. You can physically carry the capacity of the water tank if you wish to but all except 20l of it will eat into the quoted 740kg payload. { Payloads are quoted in accordance with an EC directive. it used to be 90% water but has been changed to allow manufacturers to use a stated figure e.g. 20L. This becomes very important where there is a measly payload quoted as per many a new motorhome I saw at the NEC recently}.

As per the engine power my last had a 3L engine and I came down to the 2.3 130 on my current one. At first it seemed very sluggish but has improved with mileage, or perhapsI have adjusted to compensate. If it were me buying new now I would go for the 150. I suspect there will be a slight drop in perceived power for euro6 engines compared to euro5, as there was for euro5 compared to euro4.


----------



## cabby

I am with ray on this one, also having a 3.ol. I personally would go for the 150.

cabby


----------



## Dougaitken

Can I suggest that the reference to 20ltr capacity could be being mentioned as this is an amount they would recommend to be in the tank whilst travelling so that the Toilet flush would then work.


----------



## nicholsong

Dougaitken said:


> Can I suggest that the reference to 20ltr capacity could be being mentioned as this is an amount they would recommend to be in the tank whilst travelling so that the Toilet flush would then work.


I am not familiar with the details of this new EU regulation but maybe it specifies 20lt as the minimm for the calculation. Even if not, a Manufacturer using 0lt might be seen to be taking the p*ss.

However, if 20lt were needed for flushing - see a doctor:grin2:

More seriously, if the model has a submersible pump the plastic pipes sometimes tend to bend up in the tank, so the reason for the 20lt could be to ensure that, even if so, the pump would still stay submerged.

What I find unacceptable about the pratice, even if legal, is it catches out the newcomer - the ones who most need consumer protection, because those of us who know would simple calculate the difference between 20lt and full tank and mentally deduct it from the stated payload, which we don't believe anyway:wink2::smile2:

As has been said, for us wildcampers 20lt is as much use as the proverbial 'chocolate teapot'

Geoff


----------



## jiwawa

Thank you all for your input -very helpful.

My initial reaction is I'd be fine with 130 then, but I do wonder about stepping up 3 places in the Euro emissions rating - I'm currently 3 and would be stepping to 6. I didn't realise there was a loss of power between as rayc says. But there again, if the pulling is perceived to be fine it doesn't really matter if there's a bit of a drop; I think I'd soon get used to that.



TeamRienza said:


> I am not sure what height you are, I am 5'10" and I do find that my left knee is frequently in contact with the side bulkhead. It is not as comfortable in that respect as the Transit.


I used to be (!) 5'9 and yes, when I test drove the van I found my left shin was quite tightly against the lower part of the dash. We altered the seat after coming back and I think that would be grand but I didn't actually drive it again.



TeamRienza said:


> As for the water capacity, ours can carry 140ltr and about 100 ltr waste. I always travel with an empty waste tank, but the 20 litres for driving is ridiculous. It simply allows them to boast a greater payload. If you don't use sites then this is impractical. The access point for the water tank is under one of the floor hatches. A 6 inch screw lid allows easy access (same with waste, good for cleaning purposes) but beside it is a triangular valve wheel. This has 3 positions, closed to retain all the water, 3/4 turn which will drop all but 20 litres and fully open which will completely drain the tank. The waste tank on ours has an electrically operated valve with a switch located in the garage.
> 
> Hope this gives a little insight for your consideration, though it sounds like you have nearly made up your mind.
> 
> Davy


That is very good to know Davy - just a pity they didn't have the facility to go three-quarters or half-full as that would be sufficient for me most times - we once made a full tank (90l) last nearly a fortnight off-grid!

Re the 20l for flushing - I'm a spray-bottle person myself; the toilet cassette lasts much longer that way!


----------



## TeamRienza

If there is an electrical control panel showing a little silhouette of a motorhome, situated at the entrance on my van, then it has the function of showing battery voltage of either vehicle or hab battery. It also has columns which illuminate to show approx how much water is in either clean or waste tanks. I find it sufficiently accurate for judging a half fill if we are going away for just a few days. The filler point is on the same side of the vehicle as the door so monitoring is easy. You also have the option of unscrewing the tank lid and as the tank is translucent, you can physically see how much you have put in.

Davy


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

Whatever you do, before adding anything to it, put it on a weighbridge, and do front and rear axles and total weights, you will then know what you can or can't carry with certainty.


----------



## rayc

nicholsong said:


> I am not familiar with the details of this new EU regulation but maybe it specifies 20lt as the minimm for the calculation. Even if not, a Manufacturer using 0lt might be seen to be taking the p*ss.
> Geoff


Geoff see the link which appears to be saying what UK manufacturers may do. 
https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/m...an-rule-changes-means-more-motorhome-payload#

Whilst at the NEC I checked vans I was interested in from European manufacturers and they were using a 20l figure and had a drain down on the fresh water system to facilitate this. The photo is of a Burstner which as the 20l drain down facility.

Ray


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

rayc said:


> Geoff see the link which appears to be saying what UK manufacturers may do.
> https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/m...an-rule-changes-means-more-motorhome-payload#
> 
> Whilst at the NEC I checked vans I was interested in from European manufacturers and they were using a 20l figure and had a drain down on the fresh water system to facilitate this. The photo is of a Burstner which as the 20l drain down facility.
> 
> Ray


I like the all in one place thing apart from having the 230v in there too, it should be separate IMO so the door can be closed, unless there is provision for the cable.


----------



## nicholsong

rayc said:


> Geoff see the link which appears to be saying what UK manufacturers may do.
> https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/m...an-rule-changes-means-more-motorhome-payload#
> 
> Whilst at the NEC I checked vans I was interested in from European manufacturers and they were using a 20l figure and had a drain down on the fresh water system to facilitate this. The photo is of a Burstner which as the 20l drain down facility.
> 
> Ray


If the AOL article is correct then a manufacturer can quote with 0lt.

If so, the legislation should require them to give a prominent warning in their literature about running with full tanks. I shall not cross my fingers:surprise:
A minefield for a Newbie and the uneducated MHer, i.e one who has not understood the problem.

Geoff


----------



## rayc

Kev_n_Liz said:


> I like the all in one place thing apart from having the 230v in there too, it should be separate IMO so the door can be closed, unless there is provision for the cable.


There is either a slot in the door surround as per caravans or it comes up through the floor of the compartment


----------



## rayc

nicholsong said:


> If so, the legislation should require them to give a prominent warning in their literature about running with full tanks.
> 
> Geoff


My recent NEC experience show the opposite on the manufacturer stands I visited. They were the foreign ones so I cannot speak about the UK ones. Most had notices outside the vans with layouts, dimensions weights etc. Where the payload was given there was no explanation of how this was derived and what the MIRO was. A check of the brochures would have a notice such as 'refer to Technical Specification for weighs etc'. This was a different document which attempted to explain the EU directive but it was painful to extract the detail. Most salesmen were either vague, possibly on purpose or had far less understanding of the subject than I had.

I was interested in the Adria Platinum S690SC. On 3500kg it has a displayed payload of approx 460kg. It was embarrassing trying to gain information on how the payload was actually derived. Similarly on the Burstner stand. It is definitely a case of buyer beware. Having a nice shiny NCC approved label stuck on them does not guarantee a usable payload.


----------



## nicholsong

rayc said:


> My recent NEC experience show the opposite on the manufacturer stands I visited. They were the foreign ones so I cannot speak about the UK ones. Most had notices outside the vans with layouts, dimensions weights etc. Where the payload was given there was no explanation of how this was derived and what the MIRO was. A check of the brochures would have a notice such as 'refer to Technical Specification for weighs etc'. This was a different document which attempted to explain the EU directive but it was painful to extract the detail. Most salesmen were either vague, possibly on purpose or had far less understanding of the subject than I had.
> 
> I was interested in the Adria Platinum S690SC. On 3500kg it has a displayed payload of approx 460kg. It was embarrassing trying to gain information on how the payload was actually derived. Similarly on the Burstner stand. It is definitely a case of buyer beware. Having a nice shiny NCC approved label stuck on them does not guarantee a usable payload.


Ray

You and I are obviously in paralell on the subject of payload.

How we can get the industry to change its attitude to giving more information is a difficult one. They seem to get away with it too much.

If I were buying from a dealer, whether a new or secondhand MH, I would make it a condition of the contract that they had to declare the weight of the vehicle and the loading of the tanks(Fuel/fresh/waste), and demand at handover we go to a weighbridge to confirm conformity before money changed hands. But then I am a lawyer.

Maybe if more buyers started to take the same approach things might change.

I think if payload were an issue in normal cars there are enough careful buyers in that market to inaugurate change, but in MHs 'They are selling the Dream' - as in 'I like the kitchen and the colours in this one Darling - now just get your chequebook out! '

It took me 4 years (while working) to find my MH. I went round with a detailed spec and showed it to salesmen - all but the best, lost interest immediately, which says it all doesn't it? If they were selling Financial products the Financial Conduct Authority would be on them like a ton of bricks.

Forget the extras and gizzmos, Payload is probably the most important factor in enjoyment of a MH, but it is increasingly an issue for many young(Post 1997) and over 70 drivers with medical disqualifications. I come up for my second renewal of 70+ next year and do not anticpate a problem, but who knows?

I wonder if there is a solution with the chassis manufacturers. They are producing a chassis now capable of sometimes 4250kg so for 3.5t are over-engineered. Maybe they can reduce the weight, but splitting the volumes between the two categories might not be commercially viable.

I do not get the feeling that the industry is taking this problem seriously, maybe because the dealers just want sales and the manufacturers do not want to deal directly with the end-user, so there is a disconnect.

Enough for a Sunday evening.

Geoff


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

nicholsong said:


> Ray
> 
> You and I are obviously in paralell on the subject of payload.
> 
> How we can get the industry to change its attitude to giving more information is a difficult one. They seem to get away with it too much.
> 
> If I were buying from a dealer, whether a new or secondhand MH, I would make it a condition of the contract that they had to declare the weight of the vehicle and the loading of the tanks(Fuel/fresh/waste), and demand at handover we go to a weighbridge to confirm conformity before money changed hands. But then I am a lawyer.
> 
> Maybe if more buyers started to take the same approach things might change.
> 
> I think if payload were an issue in normal cars there are enough careful buyers in that market to inaugurate change, but in MHs 'They are selling the Dream' - as in 'I like the kitchen and the colours in this one Darling - now just get your chequebook out! '
> 
> It took me 4 years (while working) to find my MH. I went round with a detailed spec and showed it to salesmen - all but the best, lost interest immediately, which says it all doesn't it? If they were selling Financial products the Financial Conduct Authority would be on them like a ton of bricks.
> 
> Forget the extras and gizzmos, Payload is probably the most important factor in enjoyment of a MH, but it is increasingly an issue for many young(Post 1997) and over 70 drivers with medical disqualifications. I come up for my second renewal of 70+ next year and do not anticpate a problem, but who knows?
> 
> I wonder if there is a solution with the chassis manufacturers. They are producing a chassis now capable of sometimes 4250kg so for 3.5t are over-engineered. Maybe they can reduce the weight, but splitting the volumes between the two categories might not be commercially viable.
> 
> I do not get the feeling that the industry is taking this problem seriously, maybe because the dealers just want sales and the manufacturers do not want to deal directly with the end-user, so there is a disconnect.
> 
> Enough for a Sunday evening.
> 
> Geoff


Geoff, maybe a silly question, but do the weight/licence restrictions apply to you in Poland, or is it that you need the 70+ to drive over here only?


----------



## nicholsong

Kev

I have a UK driving licence with C1 entitlement. To renew that at 70, when all licences expire, and every 3 years over 70 one has to take a medical. Without renewal, the date of expiry, displayed on the licence, makes it invalid - I then do not have a valid licence, which is a requirement in any country.

Geoff


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

nicholsong said:


> Kev
> 
> I have a UK driving licence with C1 entitlement. To renew that at 70, when all licences expire, and every 3 years over 70 one has to take a medical. Without renewal, the date of expiry, displayed on the licence, makes it invalid - I then do not have a valid licence, which is a requirement in any country.
> 
> Geoff


Thanks Geoff, I wasn't sure if it was EU wide or just in the UK


----------



## nicholsong

Kev_n_Liz said:


> Thanks Geoff, I wasn't sure if it was EU wide or just in the UK


It is practically worldwide under the 'Vienna Convention', signatories of which there are very few exceptions, three of which are signatories to a slightly different convemtion.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

nicholsong said:


> It is practically worldwide under the 'Vienna Convention', signatories of which there are very few exceptions, three of which are signatories to a slightly different convemtion.


Are we still talking about the 70+ driving licence limitations and to 3.5t Geoff?


----------



## nicholsong

Kev_n_Liz said:


> Are we still talking about the 70+ driving licence limitations and to 3.5t Geoff?


It is a requirement under the convention, which permits people to drive in those countries with a *valid licence,* and explained to you earlier what are the requirements to keep C1 entitlement ovet 70 - if you still don't understand I can do no more. End.


----------



## Pudsey_Bear

nicholsong said:


> It is a requirement under the convention, which permits people to drive in those countries with a *valid licence,* and explained to you earlier what are the requirements to keep C1 entitlement ovet 70 - if you still don't understand I can do no more. End.


Thanks Geoff I get it now, I read back through the thread


----------



## jiwawa

nicholsong said:


> Kev
> 
> I have a UK driving licence with C1 entitlement. To renew that at 70, when all licences expire, and every 3 years over 70 one has to take a medical. Without renewal, the date of expiry, displayed on the licence, makes it invalid - I then do not have a valid licence, which is a requirement in any country.
> 
> Geoff


As I read this, Geoff, you're saying that you have to take a medical to renew the C1 - agreed.

But I thought one could renew the licence _without_ a medical, though losing C1 in the process. Am I wrong?

I will do the medical anyway and hopefully keep the C1 - you never know what situation you might face in the future.


----------



## nicholsong

jiwawa said:


> As I read this, Geoff, you're saying that you have to take a medical to renew the C1 - agreed.
> 
> But I thought one could renew the licence _without_ a medical, though losing C1 in the process. Am I wrong?
> 
> I will do the medical anyway and hopefully keep the C1 - you never know what situation you might face in the future.


Jean

All you say is correct, but renewing at 70, which everyone has to do, without C1 still requires a declration on the form that one is fit to drive .

I think you are wise to decide to keep the C1 - you need Forms D2 (Application for renewal) and D4 (Medical form)

Geoff


----------



## weldted

I notice at the nec some vans water tanks had a drain valve you turn part way to drain all but the last 20 or so litres or all the way to drain completely. So to reduce weight when travelling but enough for a cup of tea.


----------



## rayc

rayc said:


> As per the engine power my last had a 3L engine and I came down to the 2.3 130 on my current one. At first it seemed very sluggish but has improved with mileage, or perhaps I have adjusted to compensate. If it were me buying new now I would go for the 150. I suspect there will be a slight drop in perceived power for euro6 engines compared to euro5, as there was for euro5 compared to euro4.


Well the thread seems to have be resurrected so to update I did buy new and I chose a euro6 150bhp model. The 150 engine is in my opinion very good and out performs the euro 5 130bhp I had in all aspects. My advise for what it is worth is go for the 150 if there is a choice.


----------



## Sprinta

Just to add my twopennorth. I have a 2.3 with the 130 output. I've subsequently had it remapped to 160 and it has transformed the driveability, its smoother, quicker to pick up, and is marginally more economical over the past 10,000 miles.


----------



## LT Man

My 130hp Fiat has had this box plugged in http://www.energy-tuning.co.uk/tuningbox.php and now does avg of 32mpg and i am at 3850 kg and weight is always maxed out 
Also I now never have to drop a gear on the french tolls and main roads going up the hills at 60mph

I would say 2.3 will be fine

LT Man


----------



## jiwawa

That looks interesting LT. What mpg did you get before. Can that sort of thing be fitted to an automatic?


----------

