austin man
|
| posted on 7/8/11 at 10:18 PM |
|
|
VW Transporter which one
thinking of buying a Transporter couple of questions
which on LWB, SWB 1.9 0r 2.5
What MPG can be expected. Main thoughts are to convert to a campervan
What problems should I look for etc
[Edited on 7/8/11 by austin man]
Life is like a bowl of fruit, funny how all the weird looking ones are left alone
|
|
|
|
|
mistergrumpy
|
| posted on 7/8/11 at 10:36 PM |
|
|
Take a look on VW T4 here. There's loads of reading and pictures.
|
|
|
orton1966
|
| posted on 8/8/11 at 05:39 AM |
|
|
I'm on my third
I’m now on my third Transporter. I own my own business and a van is the most practical vehicle for me to run but it is also my dally driver outside of
work. Before the van I followed the crowed with a posh “lifestyle” pick up, having been told it was the most tax efficient way of running a nice
motor. Truth is the Transporter is better in every department; it carries more, is quicker, more economical, handles better, drives more like a car,
is more comfortable to do miles in. Every year we do a trade show in Germany, each year, loaded to the hilt, including roofrack and/or trailer my
Transporter does this journey in a time any luxury car would be proud of.
Regarding models, T5’s are nicer to drive and more like a car than T4 although I think T4 were better put together and the body/paintwork was tougher.
I’ve only ever the bigger engine models although my T4 was the lower HP version, T5 I know people who’ve had the 170hp version but most, including the
dealers think the 140 (used to be called the 130) is a better all-round package. Interestingly the new face-lift models are 180&140 only use a 2
litre engine. Although these are quoted as having 10hp more, I still think the old engine was better, in fact I was actually disappointed driving my
new one home having just chopped in a nice loose 130
20k miles on my 140 is now loosening up but I still think my previous 130 had marginally more grunt. The other thing is the service interval is now
approx 20k miles, I even used to think the old ones 13k miles was a big ask for the oil etc. So if I was running privately and was planning to keep
for a while I’d have the oil changed more frequently.
My old 130 was a swb my new 140 a lwb for me it makes a massive difference. Both were/are window/combi vans so have the removable rear seats. With the
swb most of the time I had the seats out for work, with the lwb I can generally keep them in because you still have approx 6ft of load space even with
them in. Another bonus of the window/combi van is that it is treated as a car for bridge/tunnel tolls etc as long as seats are in. Basically the
difference in load space seems disproportionate to the extra 18” or so in vehicle length
|
|
|
Stott
|
| posted on 8/8/11 at 06:47 AM |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by orton1966
140 (used to be called the 130) is a better all-round package. Interestingly the new face-lift models are 180&140 only use a 2 litre engine.
Although these are quoted as having 10hp more, I still think the old engine was better, in fact I was actually disappointed driving my new one home
having just chopped in a nice loose 130
20k miles on my 140 is now loosening up but I still think my previous 130 had marginally more grunt.
They did the same in the VAG car range.
1.9 PD 8v 130 became 2.0 CR 16v 140.
The 16v build power slower as is true of most 16v's and doesn't make the same initial torque due to the head and the lower fuel
pressure.
They are loads quieter though, that's why the 130s bit the dust, because the injection was mechanically timed and the only way to shut them up a
bit was to go with electronic injection so it could be pulsed/staggered.
I think the 140s in cars were more fuel efficient than the old 130 pd too.
HTH
Stott
|
|
|
Danozeman
|
| posted on 8/8/11 at 08:37 AM |
|
|
Are you talking T4 or T5. There is hell of alot of difference. Theres nothing wrong with either but as said the T5 is more car like to drive, the T4
is very van like. For both get the 2.5. The power is so much better and theres not alot of difference in mpg. Theyl both do 40 mpg, more if your
careful. We have people come in to work that achieve way more. The T5 2.5 is all gear driven so no belts to worry about. The only thing they have
is a rubber Gates coupling for the alternater drive and aircon if it has it. If your gonna convert it you want air con. LWB gives you so much more
room for the conversion. Its surprising how much space the extra foot or 2 length gives you. If you want to convert and can stretch a bit more cash.
then a kombi is better so you get the rear side windows and removable rear seats.
The new shape 2 litres are slow even the 180 biturbo isnt that quick. Although that said we have bloke come in to work with a 2 litre 140 which has
been remapped to about 190 and that flies and he reckos the extr mpg he gets from it since the remap has payed for the map. 1 Bigish turbo is better
than 2 small ones, ie the 180. They suffer with egr coolers going down like no bodies business but they have a new modified one now which doesnt go
wrong which are warranty still so no cost.
As for problems on T5 2.5's theres not many. The main one being sludge on the oil filler cap and neck which appears to be head gasket but it
isnt. Its the water pump. Theyr inbuild in the back of the head and leak oil past the seals. Easy change and might swing you a cheaper deal if they
dont know what it is.
Im a tech for VW commercial so if you want more info feel free to PM me. google will reveal loads.
Dan
Built the purple peril!! Let the modifications begin!!
http://www.eastangliankitcars.co.uk
|
|
|
hillbillyracer
|
| posted on 8/8/11 at 07:08 PM |
|
|
I agree with much of the above, I own a T4, worked on a few & have worked on a couple of T5s aswell. I did think the folk saying the build on the
T5 being a step backward from the T4 were just trying to make out a van they could'nt afford was not as good, now I've done a few jobs on
them I think they're right. But as said the later van is much more car like to drive, the T4 is good to drive in it's own right but
you're never in any doubt that it's a van.
The comments on engine size are very true, mine is a 102bhp 2.5 TDI (as powerful as the T4 got in the UK) & it feels effortless in comparison to
the 1.9TD & no-one says the smaller engines are any better on fuel. I get 30-35mpg but that's on country roads & on a decent run over
40mpg isn't too hard to get.
The 2.5 TDI comes in two power ratings, 88 & 102bhp. Easy to tell the difference as the more powerful one has an intercooler & lesser one
doesnt.
|
|
|
.jpg)
