FIAT DUCATO 2.3 130 M-JET Diesel

Discussion in 'Tech/Mech General' started by scotjimland, May 24, 2014.

  1. scotjimland

    scotjimland Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    28,934
    Likes Received:
    25,574
    Location:
    .
    Three engines offered by Ducato

    2.3lt - 130bhp , 2.3lt - 150bhp and a 3.0lt - 175bhp

    which do you have, why did you choose it and is it worth the extra for the 150bhp or 175 bhp options..how do they compare in regard to power, and mpg ..

    appreciate that the weight and size of the van will affect this, so just a general overview..is the 2.3 adequate for a 3.5t GVW van or is an upgrade to 150 bhp worthwhile or is there an unwelcome mpg penalty .. ?

    I don't want a drag racer, happy to cruise at 55 -60 mph but don't want to buy and wish I had gone the extra mile for a bigger engine.

    leaving cost to one side.. given the choice... which and why ?

    Just for interest there is a comparison chart here
    scroll down.. for the latest engines. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Ducato
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2014
  2. bungy

    bungy Funster

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    4,127
    Location:
    Welsh marches
    3ltr for in ours
    wastn a major factor in choosing the van at the time, but i think id definitely be making it a factor in future vans

    our previous van had the 2.2ltr, and in comparison there was a lot more gear changes, wasnt as good on fuel (but the shape of the other van is probably a big factor in that)

    our current van with the 3ltr is quite simply:-
    • a great drive with the 6speed box and never struggles and significantley fewer gear changes - almost like driving an auto in a lot of respects, as 6th can handle speeds down to 30ish with no problems
    • does good mpg - average 28 on 3.5t fully loaded up
    • no cam belt to worry about!!
    • very useful for overtaking as it has loads of power to get the manoeuvre done quickly
    • pootles along at 65 (seems to be the sweat spot on MPG) with no worries at all

    only slight down side...may have too much power on a 3.5t van...tends to spin a bit in 1st gear, but I rarely use first now..2nd is more than capable for pulling away (even done it in 4th a few times by mistake)

    PS...meant to add that the 3ltr does reduce the available loading you can put in...by about 60kg
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2014
    • Like Like x 2
  3. scotjimland

    scotjimland Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    28,934
    Likes Received:
    25,574
    Location:
    .

    thanks.. just the kind of report I'm after :thumb:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. bungy

    bungy Funster

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2010
    Messages:
    2,246
    Likes Received:
    4,127
    Location:
    Welsh marches
    just updated the post with the the reduction in load that you get with the 3ltr...circa 60Kg
     
  5. Terry

    Terry Funster

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    10,722
    Likes Received:
    6,224
    Location:
    South yorks
    morning Jim I would opt for the cheapest and have it chipped- cannot compare the vans but -Normally I would have said go for the bigger engine :thumb: but after driving this transit around which is a transit 350 2.4 115 bhp rwd (if stickers are right) v5 says so :Smile: it pulls like a train and has no problems accelerating up hills in 6th gear -very impressive to drive and with the 6 gears it's only doing 2400 rves at 70 mph with plenty of grunt left :thumb:The Ambulance with the 2.8 engine also pulls like a train etc but it may well struggle to keep up with the newer engined tranny.No doubt that the new Fiat/Seville family of vans will have similar grunt / engines so I would not be too concerned with the power to weight ratio
    Chipping costs aprox £500 ish so if you can get the bigger bhp 2.3 engine for less than the smaller one plus 500 you are on a winner either way I don't think you will go far wrong --who knows you may find the 130 fine :thumb:
    terry
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. Terry

    Terry Funster

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2007
    Messages:
    10,722
    Likes Received:
    6,224
    Location:
    South yorks
    After reading Bungy's bit of timing chain and not belt I may go for my normal big engined choice :BigGrin::Wink:
    terry
     
  7. scotjimland

    scotjimland Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    28,934
    Likes Received:
    25,574
    Location:
    .
    yes.. I agree ..

    downside is 60kg, slightly less MPG? and more wonga..

    buy heh.. can't beat a big lump.. :Laughing:
     
  8. Wyaye wires

    Wyaye wires

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2009
    Messages:
    3,831
    Likes Received:
    9,283
    Location:
    Berwickshire
    We have the 3.0 litre 175 bhp...

    Love it for what's been stated above...


    It was in there when we got it...


    Oh yes and +3.5 tonnes...
     
  9. robnchris

    robnchris Funster

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    1,332
    Likes Received:
    1,553
    Location:
    Chester
    We Changed our motorhome last year going from a Fiat Euro 4 3ltr to the new
    Fiat Euro 5 2.3ltr and have to say it was quiet a shock just how much less power the smaller engine had.
    Ok it was brand new and not run in but the lack of power and heavier fuel consumption was a surprise.
    We could average 27mpg on the motorway with the tag axle 3ltr, which had been remapped, the new unmapped 2.3ltr only manages 25mpg and we have now covered 5000 miles.
    We will certainly be paying a visit to Diesel Bob and have the engine remapped in the next few months.

    Incidently we were chatting with a mechanic and he said he would keep away from the 150 bhp Fiat engine, apparently there are issues with the recycle gas burning system.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  10. CHRI$

    CHRI$ Funster

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Messages:
    5,588
    Likes Received:
    7,084
    Location:
    england
    i do about 2-3 thousand miles a week in a 2,3 130 m-jet fiat ducato,half of that mileage is fully loaded(3,5T gross),must say i am impressed with its performance,will happily do 100 mph loaded,pulles up hill in sixth no problem,we have new merc vans as well but they are not a patch on the fiats,the fiats feel more planted when driven hard,since i have been working for this company i have done 45 thousand miles in 5 months mostly in a fiat that has 150.000 on the clock at just under 2 years old,with few problems,but they are serviced every 6 weeks:thumb:
     
    • Like Like x 2
  11. trophychap

    trophychap Funster

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    4,104
    Location:
    bedworth warks
    We have had two 130 multijets now. The first was a Euro 4 this one is a Euro 5 now, have never had any problems keeping up with the traffic or felt the need for more horsepower was needed.

    Economy wise both vans were/are plated at 3500 I think the Pilote we have now must be heavier than the Bessacar was, it is a meter longer anyway, the Bessie returned about 23MPG and so far the trip on the dash is showing the Pilote to be doing almost 26MPG, we don't worry about cruising at 56 MPH or anything to try to conserve fuel LOL.

    The Bessie was an overcab the Pilote is a low profile that's probably what accounts for difference in MPG.

    I occasionally, but not intentionally pull away in third personally I think they are good engines and the six speed boxes are a dream.

    I am sure the 150 multijet is the same engine just a different map to get the extra BHP.

    By the way don't worry too much about "Juddergate" on the earlier models it was never as bad as people claimed.

    We had the reverse gear changed by Fiat on our first van without any trouble getting it done at all, it is only one tooth smaller anyway, so the problem was much exaggerated in my opinion. Fiat do have records of any van that has had the mods done.

    Hope this helps

    Pete
     
    • Like Like x 1
  12. scotjimland

    scotjimland Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    28,934
    Likes Received:
    25,574
    Location:
    .

    thanks Pete.. much appreciated.

    May be wrong but according to Wiki.. the 150 and 3000 are the same Iveco engine.. Iveco F1CE3481E.. just different displacements.. have a butchers on the wiki link first post..
     
    Last edited: May 24, 2014
  13. SMB

    SMB Funster

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    588
    Location:
    north shields
    I have the 2.3L 130 multijet with the 6-speed box in my van, which is just over 4 tonnes, I find that I average about 26mpg but inclines slow the vehicle down quite significantly. I'm no boy racer but I don't like being overtaken by HGV'S on hilly stretches! For a van of this weight I would definately get a bigger engine, the 3L would probably be ideal. I will be looking at the mapping alternatives next year when my warranty expires.
    ps what is all that about timing chains and belts? I know nowt about engines which complements my lack of knowledge re electrics, DIY and most other things that are important :Doh:
     
    • Like Like x 1
  14. John Laidler

    John Laidler Funster

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2013
    Messages:
    8,564
    Likes Received:
    11,543
    Location:
    Plympton, Devon
    The smaller fiat engines have a belt turning the camshaft. The larger ones use a chain. The belt needs replacing, every 5 years according to the manual I think but there are also mileage criteria, which differ according to the specific engine. Belts can fail before the 5 years but it is not common I believe. If it does fail you could be looking for a new engine. Replacing the cam belt is not cheap either unless you can do it yourself.

    The chain in the larger engines does not need replacing.

    IIRC there is a Fiat 100 engine that has a timing belt which does not need replacing but I don't think this engine is used on many if any MHs.
     
  15. scotjimland

    scotjimland Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    28,934
    Likes Received:
    25,574
    Location:
    .
    engines either have a timing belt (rubber poly V belt ) or chain that drives the cam shaft off the crankshaft.

    belts require replacing at a set millage or time interval.. chains do not need replacing at such a regular frequency.. and have longer service intervals. ...depends on the engine..
     
  16. trophychap

    trophychap Funster

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2009
    Messages:
    697
    Likes Received:
    4,104
    Location:
    bedworth warks
    Jim I take your point about the different engine numbers, but would suggest its just their designation numbers, with regard to output.

    I would think from an economy of scale they would not produce two different engines the same CC just to gain 20 BHP, they do look the same externally if you lift the bonnet. perhaps someone like George could throw more light on it for us.

    There used to be a chap on here a couple of years ago who was extolling the virtues of having his van chipped, I seem to recall he eventually had it chipped to give 175BHP, it used to be in red on the bottom of all his posts, I seem to recall he then started to have transmission problems, IE clutch and drive train being torn apart by the extra horses.

    He disappeared some time ago someone I can't remember who posted about that happening

    I also think WOW Tuning charge about three hundred to chip the modern Euro 4/5 engines.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  17. scotjimland

    scotjimland Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2007
    Messages:
    28,934
    Likes Received:
    25,574
    Location:
    .
    no worries.. it was just out of interest I posted the link.. :Smile:

    I'd prefer not to tune.. not saying it's bad or good.. just not for me..

    If I need or want more HP I'd go for the 3.0 lt
     
    • Like Like x 1
  18. mitzimad

    mitzimad Funster

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,962
    Likes Received:
    3,300
    Location:
    walthamstow east london
    we have the 2.3 in a pvc and its more than adequate if i was hauling a big body around i would consider the bigger lump
     
    • Like Like x 1
  19. SMB

    SMB Funster

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2013
    Messages:
    663
    Likes Received:
    588
    Location:
    north shields
    Thanks Devonbeekeeper, but I struggle to fit a belt around my trousers never mind in an engine! More expense...:cry:
     
  20. DuxDeluxe

    DuxDeluxe Funster Life Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    9,332
    Likes Received:
    25,024
    Location:
    Planet Zog
    I had a 3 litre for three years and loved it. Picked up the 2.3 150 yesterday on about the same weight and it feels flat in comparison. Got 26.8 out of the 3 litre mostly towing a sailing boat and indications are the new van will be a bit more economical. Both vans (overcab and an A class) have brick like lines......

    I would go for the 3 litre every time, to be honest - the extra torque makes a huge difference
     
    • Like Like x 2
Loading...

Share This Page