X250 Euro 5 (only) Engines -> 150 vs 150 with Remap vs 180 bhp

[7Hvn]

I've read the other thread on the go with regards to engines but this is to be more confined. I'm only looking at Euro 5 based X250's so the new Euro 6 engines and their capabilities are off the table for me. I realize the 180bhp also has a timing chain over the belt in the smaller engines.

I'm currently looking at a few Swift tag axles (2013 to 2016 years @ 5t GVW) and typically they have the Euro 5 3.0ltr 180bhp. I've found one however where the previous owner didn't stump up the cash (rightly or wrongly) and go for the 180bhp upgrade.

The last motorhome I looked at was a 180bhp 3.0ltr and the owner told me he was getting about 16mpg with a manual box which I thought was rather low. Or maybe he had a heavy right foot??

So the question is - Would the 150bhp be gutless in a 5.0t GVW or is the 180bhp a must?
Or maybe a compromise - Have any of you remapped the 150bhp - It looks like it comes out with similar torque and bhp as the 3.0ltr but maybe it would be more fuel efficient??

Really interested to hear from those of you that have gone from 150 to 180 in similar sized motorhomes and those that have either owned or driven a remapped 150 and a standard 180.

Thanks in advance...

 

[Speve]

We have had two vans with Euro 5 150 fiats manual and towed with the second one being GTW 6000 kg it was really good just lost a bit of momentum on long climbs.
Now have a new Fiat Euro 6 180 with tiptronic box and it’s excellent just that little more torque makes all the difference.
The new 180 does not have a chain it’s the same as the other two 130 &150.

 

[Steve and Denise]

We have had 3 Fiat 3.0 first one was 160bhp 5t around 26mpg second was 3.0ltr 180bhp Eu5 about 23 mpg the third 3.0ltr 180bhp is Auto/comfort matic about 23mpg all tag axle and sometimes tow a car never do much over 65 (speedo) all mpg readings were fill to fill and record the mileage over the year so true reading.

 

[Snowbird]

My take on this is that 180BHP from a 3 litre diesel engine is expecting more than should be given.
Diesel engines are becoming smaller and more powerful in recent years and something has to give.
The finest and most reliable diesel engine ever built was the Gardener 6LXB and only produced 180BHP, but was almost 10.5 litres. I am not a fan of high revving, high output diesel engines, preferring a long stroke high torque plodder that requires little high value maintenance. Leave the high revving engines to the petrol brigade. Just the thoughts on an oily rag man .

 

[Gaston aires]

Change gear more often. It works for me.
Phil

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

 

[Steve and Denise]

My take on this is that 180BHP from a 3 litre diesel engine is expecting more than should be given.
Diesel engines are becoming smaller and more powerful in recent years and something has to give.
The finest and most reliable diesel engine ever built was the Gardener 6LXB and only produced 180BHP, but was almost 10.5 litres. I am not a fan of high revving, high output diesel engines, preferring a long stroke high torque plodder that requires little high value maintenance. Leave the high revving engines to the petrol brigade. Just the thoughts on an oily rag man .

The only slight problem you may have with a Gardiner 180 in a camper is you have used up all your payload and you would have a long que of traffic behind you.

 

[MikeD]

I personally do not think it matters how many HP the engine has.

It's what the Torque figure is and whether it appears nice and fat at you favourite touring speed.

I have only owned a 130hp and 150hp Fiat based motorhome but I preferred the 130hp version because at the speed I liked to cruise it was running right in the middle of its torque curve.

The higher gearing of the 150hp version means the engine wants me to cruise at around 10mph faster than I am happy to want to go. Great for white van man but not for me.

This means a change down on the hills as I always seem to be out of the fat of the torque curve. Never had to do that on the 130hp version.

The published figures for the engine don't agree with the above but in real world use that is how it is to me.

 

[Snowbird]

I personally do not think it matters how many HP the engine has.

It's what the Torque figure is and whether it appears nice and fat at you favourite touring speed.

I have only owned a 130hp and 150hp Fiat based motorhome but I preferred the 130hp version because at the speed I liked to cruise it was running right in the middle of its torque curve.

The higher gearing of the 150hp version means the engine wants me to cruise at around 10mph faster than I am happy to want to go. Great for white van man but not for me.

This means a change down on the hills as I always seem to be out of the fat of the torque curve. Never had to do that on the 130hp version.

The published figures for the engine don't agree with the above but in real world use that is how it is to me.

I have to agree with this. Having owned 2 American RVs, with the Cummins 6BT and Allison transmission but both with different rear axle gearing. One would happily cruise at 56 MPH up hill and down with power to spare going up hill. The other wanted to run at 62 before finding its sweet spot. The lower geared one gave better fuel consumption which you would think the higher geared one should have given a better MPG. A lot depends on what type of roads you intend travelling on. Flatlanders who use motorways mainly will get away with a high geared, low powered vehicle, but a hilldweller using N roads in Europe need a bit of grunt and a lower ratio gearing to cope with the constant start and stop.