FIAT DUCATO 2.3 130 M-JET Diesel

scotjimland

Free Member
Jul 25, 2007
0
6
.
Funster No
15
MH
.
Exp
.
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:

bungy

Free Member
Jan 24, 2010
2,412
4,771
Funster No
10,065
MH
alas, no more
Exp
Since 2007
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:
OP
S

scotjimland

Free Member
Jul 25, 2007
0
6
.
Funster No
15
MH
.
Exp
.
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)


thanks.. just the kind of report I'm after :thumb:

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

Terry

LIFE MEMBER
Dec 27, 2007
11,375
7,461
Lincolnshire
Funster No
1,075
MH
A class
Exp
Can't remember ;)
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
 

Terry

LIFE MEMBER
Dec 27, 2007
11,375
7,461
Lincolnshire
Funster No
1,075
MH
A class
Exp
Can't remember ;)
After reading Bungy's bit of timing chain and not belt I may go for my normal big engined choice ::bigsmile::winky:
terry

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
OP
S

scotjimland

Free Member
Jul 25, 2007
0
6
.
Funster No
15
MH
.
Exp
.
After reading Bungy's bit of timing chain and not belt I may go for my normal big engined choice ::bigsmile::winky:
terry

yes.. I agree ..

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

buy heh.. can't beat a big lump.. :roflmto:
 

Wyaye wires

Free Member
Sep 13, 2009
3,335
9,258
Berwickshire
Funster No
8,441
MH
A class Neisman Bischoff
Exp
since July 2009
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...
 
Jan 11, 2010
2,185
4,900
Chester
Funster No
9,901
MH
Auto-trail
Exp
Well that`s our 12th year & still loving it.
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.

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

chrisgreen

Funster
Jul 26, 2009
5,878
10,568
england
Funster No
7,663
MH
c class
Exp
since 2004
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:
 
Dec 24, 2009
1,034
15,548
bedworth warks
Funster No
9,712
MH
c class
Exp
2009 previously a tugger for thirty years
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
 
OP
S

scotjimland

Free Member
Jul 25, 2007
0
6
.
Funster No
15
MH
.
Exp
.
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


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..

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Last edited:

SMB

Apr 26, 2013
1,140
1,111
Spain
Funster No
25,710
MH
Coachbuild
Exp
Fulltiming since February 2013
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:
 

DBK

LIFE MEMBER
Jan 9, 2013
15,957
36,079
Plympton, Devon
Funster No
24,219
MH
PVC, Murvi Morocco
Exp
2013
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:

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.
 
OP
S

scotjimland

Free Member
Jul 25, 2007
0
6
.
Funster No
15
MH
.
Exp
.
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:

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..

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Dec 24, 2009
1,034
15,548
bedworth warks
Funster No
9,712
MH
c class
Exp
2009 previously a tugger for thirty years
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.
 
OP
S

scotjimland

Free Member
Jul 25, 2007
0
6
.
Funster No
15
MH
.
Exp
.
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.

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
 
Jan 28, 2008
7,622
10,978
walthamstow east london
Funster No
1,353
MH
renault burstner delphin
Exp
7 years campers before that
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

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

SMB

Apr 26, 2013
1,140
1,111
Spain
Funster No
25,710
MH
Coachbuild
Exp
Fulltiming since February 2013
Thanks Devonbeekeeper, but I struggle to fit a belt around my trousers never mind in an engine! More expense...:cry:
 

DuxDeluxe

LIFE MEMBER
Jul 10, 2008
12,174
40,852
Planet Zog
Funster No
3,243
MH
A Class Le Voyageur
Exp
since 2008
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
 
Dec 6, 2011
6,854
10,358
South Wales
Funster No
19,136
MH
Coach built Adria
Exp
Since 2007
we have the 2.3 130bhp Euro V, great torque and better economy than the Euro 4 2.3, i am getting an average of 26.2mpg and i drive to the speed limits including 69 mph on cruise control on motorways. acceleration is good, can get 28 mpg if i reduce motorway cruising speeds.

the 2.3 150 was just out when we bought and would have had to wait 6 months if we choose one. iits the same motor remapped.

the 3.0 is several 100 £'s more and takes a chunk out of your payload, also less mpg.

overall very happy.:thumb:

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 
Dec 6, 2011
6,854
10,358
South Wales
Funster No
19,136
MH
Coach built Adria
Exp
Since 2007
I had a 3 litre for three years and loved it. [HI]Picked up the 2.3 150 yesterday on about the same weight and it feels flat in comparison[/HI]. 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

is this a new engine? i.e. delivery miles. our 2.3 130 has been improving with every 100 miles under its belt ( 10,000 now ):thumb: and is certainly not flat in any way in its performance.
 
Last edited:

mikebeaches

LIFE MEMBER
Feb 22, 2010
3,781
4,109
Bristol
Funster No
10,377
MH
Rapido V68 Van Conversion
Exp
Since 2009
We've got a 2.3lt 130 (Euro 4) with six-speed manual gearbox and cruise control in our compact low-line coachbuilt, which is plated at 3,500kg.

We generally run at between 3,300kg and 3,500kg laden. The power strikes me as perfectly adequate, though I haven't had a a 3lt to compare it with. I'm sure the latter would add a bit more fizz to the drive, but quite satisfied with what we've got. No problem hill-climbing and certainly cruises at more-or-less whatever speed we want, up to the legal limit and beyond.

According to the fuel computer we get an average of about 29mpg, though I find the type of fuel (and of course the wind and speed) makes a significant difference to the consumption.

I'd like the comformatic gearbox on our next van and will need to give very careful thought as to the size of engine to specify. The 3 litre is a LOT more money, as well as a bit of extra weight.

Mike
 

DuxDeluxe

LIFE MEMBER
Jul 10, 2008
12,174
40,852
Planet Zog
Funster No
3,243
MH
A Class Le Voyageur
Exp
since 2008
is this a new engine? i.e. delivery miles. our 2.3 130 has been improving with every 100 miles under its belt ( 10,000 now ):thumb: and is certainly not flat in any way in its performance.

Oh yes, it is new (now a whole 300 miles) but it is the lack of torque ( looking at the spec numbers) that is the big difference even allowing for the fact that the engine is still tighter than a duck's bottom :winky:

Subscribers  do not see these advertisements

 

DuxDeluxe

LIFE MEMBER
Jul 10, 2008
12,174
40,852
Planet Zog
Funster No
3,243
MH
A Class Le Voyageur
Exp
since 2008
the 3.0 is several 100 £'s more and takes a chunk out of your payload, also less mpg.

overall very happy.:thumb:

Yes - if we wanted the 3 litre (which we did - a lot) it would have been October, less payload and quite a bit more money, so the bullet was duly bit and the 2.3 150 it was.......... (Happened to be one of a couple in stock)

We got better economy by quite a margin out of the 3 litre Euro 4 lump 26.8 towing a boat) than the 2.0 JTD (24.1) and would have expected the same sort of improvement from a new 3 litre. However, when spending 60k or more on a van then a couple of MPG on economy really becomes secondary to the driving experience itself.
 
Top