Is 92 horse power enough for Autosleeper Symbol?

[Silver Lady Old]

I'm contemplating buying an Autosleeper Symbol, 2001 reg, Peugeot Boxer 1905cc. It has got 92hp - any advice on whether this would cope with long hills or will I get frustrated with lack of power? A friend said engine could be chipped..... Any advice or thoughts??

 

[Tea Bag]

Hi.
It is all down to you,in my opinion the engine may be a bit long in the tooth for "Chipping/boosting",can you sit and watch the lorries you overtook come by you,with all the hassle of another overtake manouver taking best part of half a mile on the next bank ?.
Some people can,but on a long haul you may find it irksome,it is all about todays technology,motors cruising up and down dale all day with modern engines,some only 1997 cc.
You may,if you buy it,come to name it,"Dragon Fly",why ?,Because you will Drag up hills and Fly down the other side. There is no substitute for cc's,if it is really nice and the price is right,maybe a bigger engine transplant could be an option. Best of luck with your decision,whatever it may be,hope you come out happy.
Tea Bag

 

[DBK]

I suggest doing a Google search for any reviews of the model. But if first gear is low enough it will be fine.
Overtake? I've got 180 hp in our 'van but overtaking anything is an event worthy of a postcard to relatives.

Did overtake a tractor last Wednesday though!

OK, I'll ' fess up, it was downhill.

 

[pappajohn]

Dunno....mine has 362bhp.....or it did when new.

But more importantly......it has 415ft.lbs of torque.

BHP is the ability to get to a given speed In a given time
TORQUE is the degree of ease it takes to get to, and maintain, that given speed

 

[dave newell]

AS Symbol is a MWB panel van conversion (3300KGs GVW?), 92BHP is plenty although no ball of fire. My Iveco is a 7 metre PVC with a 4.2Tonne GVW (actual loaded weight is around 3800KGs) and almost always tows a 1500KG trailer with a 100BHP engine. With the trailer on I generally trundle along at 50 MPH but it is quite capable of hoofing along at 60+ MPH even with the trailer.

D.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[dave newell]

Is the T5 in your avatar your current vehicle? If so you will definitely find a 2001 1900 Ducato to be lazy and unrefined. I think even the base level T5 had 130BHP, common rail technology and much more car like driving feel. A 2001 1900 is going to be sluggish and agricultural by comparison. 92BHP is "enough" but going backwards is never fun.

D.

 

[Johnnyb]

Is the T5 in your avatar your current vehicle? If so you will definitely find a 2001 1900 Ducato to be lazy and unrefined. I think even the base level T5 had 130BHP, common rail technology and much more car like driving feel. A 2001 1900 is going to be sluggish and agricultural by comparison. 92BHP is "enough" but going backwards is never fun.

D.

We sometimes hire T5s for work and the ones the hire company supply us with are 84bhp, quick they aint!

 

[dave newell]

We sometimes hire T5s for work and the ones the hire company supply us with are 84bhp, quick they aint!

You do surprise me, I thought the 130BHP was the base model. We live and learn.

D.

 

[rapido convert]

Hi there,
Our first motorhome was a 2001 autoroller 6 berth with a huge overcab overhang, it was fitted with the same diesel engine 1905cc td, my wife and i travelled many thousands of miles over europe including over the alps and several times over the pryenese. The van managed it ok but we went down to second gear on the steepest parts keeping up with lorrys and tankers in the crawler lane.
I looked into chipping the engine but there is nothing to chip as it has no ecu.
However the engine is bomb proof and will get you there and back, we could cruise at 56 mph all day long on motorways and the mpg was a reliable 26 mpg fully laden and with that brick like over head cab.
The syncro on 2nd was a major concern having to have the box rebuilt 3 times, however this failure was at the time caused by a design fault letting the front scuttle drain water into the gearbox breather filling it with water when it rained, once we had the mod made to the front scuttle drain the gearbox never failed again.
I hope this info helps
Andy.

 

[carolyn]

We had a 2003 autosleeper smbol ES until our recent trade in, travelled to the south of France in it via Milau viaduct and there are some pretty high and steep bits. We certainly didn't speed up the hills but happily chugged up them. These were long stretches but we managed OK around the hilly bits of Devon and Cornwall alright as well. Check it carefully for rust as we had one quite large bill for rust under the wheel arches but the previous owner lived on the coast and it was his daily runaround so perhaps not surprising. Ours was a Peugeot but I think they all are.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[injebreck99]

In 2002 we bought a new Elddis Autoquest 300 which had a luton, in was aTurbo diesel but with no Intercooler, it was quoted at 85bhp, which I was concerned about at first, I found it was good to use, Ok for overtakes but was a bit lacking on long inclines, ie, motorways, mpg was Ok at about 26-28mpg, try it before you buy is the answer.

 

[jockaneezer]

Take it for a try out on a sunny day and when you get back, if all the dead flies are on the back, walk away

 

[appydaze]

I'm contemplating buying an Autosleeper Symbol, 2001 reg, Peugeot Boxer 1905cc. It has got 92hp - any advice on whether this would cope with long hills or will I get frustrated with lack of power? A friend said engine could be chipped..... Any advice or thoughts??

Far as I understand it chipping the engine only allows the max. revs to be exceeded where as remapping raises the horsepower

 

[7735]

Horsepower is a funny old thing, very often whats more important are the gear ratios. To much gap between and you are constantly changing up and down.

spongy

 

[pappajohn]

Horsepower is a funny old thing, very often whats more important are the gear ratios. To much gap between and you are constantly changing up and down.

spongy

Unless you have a big bag full of torques.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[funflair]

Far as I understand it chipping the engine only allows the max. revs to be exceeded where as remapping raises the horsepower

As far as I know chipping and remapping are effectively the same thing, remapping flashes a new map of engine parameters to the ECU whereas chipping replaces the standard ECU chip with a modified one, plug in tuning boxes are different again but still do more than just alter the maximum revs, indeed on most engines increasing the revs would not increase power as the torque curve would be on its way down so thereby not producing any more BHP.

 

[1_man_and_his_dob(lo)]

We sometimes hire T5s for work and the ones the hire company supply us with are 84bhp, quick they aint!

Murvi T5 PVCs now start with the 84bhp version. I'm sure this was the engine they only offered with their special budget model a few years ago, but it seems to be standard now.

 

[dave newell]

We've had to borrow a motorhome for this weekend's P'boro show, its a '99 2.5 td Ducato (90bhp I believe) with a 7 metre a class body and it pulled our exhibition trailer here yesterday with no big problem. 90kmh was easily maintained on all but the steeper hills.

D.

 

[funflair]

Its not really the BHP that matters as much as the torque as that is what gets you up the hills, nobody really bothers or thinks about torque numbers, BHP is simply a product of torque and engine revs so a low BHP engine that does not rev much could be pulling like a train.

 

[DBK]

It is the revs against which the torque is delivered and how flat the torque curve is which makes for relaxing driving.

Two engines of exactly the same BHP, one high-revving, low torque, the other low-revving but with a high torque figure spread over a wide rev range would both climb a hill in exactly the same time, assuming they had the right gear ratios. This is because raising the mass of the vehicle the same hight in the same time takes the same power (BHP). The difference from the driver's perspective would be the low revving engine would seem to do it in a more relaxed manner and importantly, with a lot less gear changing, which is the benefit you get with a wide, flat torque curve.

^{_{Subscribers  do not see these advertisements}}

 

[Silver Lady Old]

Thank you for all your advice and comments. I am sticking with the VW for the time being (which I love but winter camping in it is its downside for me) and then upgrade to something more comfy when I retire in a year or so.

 

[funflair]

It is the revs against which the torque is delivered and how flat the torque curve is which makes for relaxing driving.

Two engines of exactly the same BHP, one high-revving, low torque, the other low-revving but with a high torque figure spread over a wide rev range would both climb a hill in exactly the same time, assuming they had the right gear ratios. This is because raising the mass of the vehicle the same hight in the same time takes the same power (BHP). The difference from the driver's perspective would be the low revving engine would seem to do it in a more relaxed manner and importantly, with a lot less gear changing, which is the benefit you get with a wide, flat torque curve.

Quite agree, possibly the point I was trying to make is that 92 BHP might not sound much but can still feel quite powerful if the engine is a slogger.

Your explanation basically highlights the difference between a Petrol and a Diesel engine.

After saying that I would'nt fancy the chances of my 120BHP bike engine getting the motorhome over the M62, "nuts off" and "revving" would come to mind. Horses for courses.