These forums are free and rely upon the goodwill of members to help and assist others. Any donations will be gratefully received.
| You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Buying new 35s13; Advice | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Feb 2 2013, 09:51 AM (2,546 Views) | |
| markthelark | Feb 2 2013, 09:51 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi All , Looking to buy a new 35S/C13. After any info for and against my choice. I currently have a Mk2 35C10 , been very reliable (av 2000mls/week) and av 28mpg. I know the 13 is a 2.3 , mine is a 2.8 , but the 2.3 has more BHP and Torque , but is economy simular. Any info would be great in helping me to decide. Mark |
![]() |
|
| radiotwo | Feb 2 2013, 01:48 PM Post #2 |
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi Mark. First point, you say 35 s/c 13 but you have not said what your using it for, but with your picture I assume you want is as a car transporter, if so the "S" model will carry more payload but suspect the other is poss more stable. you say you have the 2.8 at the moment, not sure what the power is on that but cannot see the 2.3 is more powerful than the 2.8. so I think its a matter of power v economy, I had a 35 s 18 with the 170 bhp but that was a panel van and I got 30/32 mpg. Radiotwo |
![]() |
|
| markthelark | Feb 2 2013, 02:32 PM Post #3 |
![]()
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Yes , It's going to be a transporter. My 2.8 is 100BHP and the 2.3 is 127BHP. I assume economy should be close. Having a "S" over a "C" will save a few KGs , but like the satbility the C gives. Was hoping someone was running a 2.3 who might give me some pro's and con's. |
![]() |
|
| Spooky_b329 | Feb 2 2013, 02:37 PM Post #4 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The most common 2.3 is the 12, 35c12. I think 13 refers to the equivalent 2.8L engine. The S saves around 120kg over the C, from memory. Also, the 3.0 engine is heavier so steer clear if you want the payload. |
![]() |
|
| markthelark | Feb 3 2013, 08:03 AM Post #5 |
![]()
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The new 13 is a 2.3cc engine of 126BHP , this is 26BHP more than my old 2.8cc. I'am going to arrange a test drive with my local dealer. Anyone had any reliability problems with this engine ? |
![]() |
|
| radiotwo | Feb 3 2013, 08:00 PM Post #6 |
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi Again Are you sure your 2.8 is only 100bhp, my 35 s 18 was a 3lt and 176 BHP Radiotwo |
![]() |
|
| markthelark | Feb 3 2013, 09:08 PM Post #7 |
![]()
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
My present Iveco is a Mk2 2.8 35C10 . Been an excellent machine ! Hope to put it into semi-retirement , maybe only 1000mls/week !!! |
![]() |
|
| radiotwo | Feb 3 2013, 09:27 PM Post #8 |
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
That did not answer the question |
![]() |
|
| Spooky_b329 | Feb 3 2013, 09:43 PM Post #9 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Engine power is not directly related to capacity. The 2.3L and 3.0L engines have several power outputs depending on tune/turbos/intercoolers, the 2.3 goes from (roughly) 100 - 150bhp, the 3.0 goes from around 150 - 200bhp. I've not looked these figures up but they are in the correct ballpark. I think the older 2.8 topped out at around 150bhp, but most are nearer 100bhp...it is an older engine and isn't common rail. The '10' in Markthelarks 35c10 denotes 100bhp, the '12' in my 35s12 denotes 120bhp, the '18' in radiotwos 35s18 denotes 180bhp. Its not exact but is rounded to the nearest 10bhp or so. Edited by Spooky_b329, Feb 5 2013, 08:17 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| markthelark | Feb 4 2013, 07:37 AM Post #10 |
![]()
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks for answering that for me. |
![]() |
|
| Spooky_b329 | Feb 5 2013, 08:21 AM Post #11 |
|
Administrator
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The 2.3 has been around since 2005ish and from the threads that have been posted since I started this forum, there doesn't seem to be any trend for problems other than the usual faulty sensors causing the engine management light to come on. Few issues over smoke/injectors etc on higher mileage engines but it doesn't seem to be a common problem
|
![]() |
|
| markthelark | Feb 5 2013, 07:20 PM Post #12 |
![]()
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Thanks Spooky , that's just the sort of info I needed. Will go to see Iveco Avonmouth again for a closer look. Mark |
![]() |
|
| ivecojoe | Feb 8 2013, 02:14 PM Post #13 |
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Hi Mark for max payload go for the S..single wheel model with the 2.3 engine, I have always prefered twin wheels for stability but for a while ran mercs and got on with them fine, if you think about it the spring is out another say six inches on the axle so from a point of leverage is actually slightly more effective,I will say I uprated springs on one of my mercs to seven leaf and that improved it even more. regarding the engines yes yours is ultra reliable I actually ran one for ten years with no problems it actually ran better when it got past 120.000 I only sold it because rust was starting to get hold.changed to a mk3 way quieter but slightly heavier although the ABS is an absolute must also get the traction control if possible great in bad winter conditions. saying that speaking to a transport guy recently changed his mk3 for a mk4 and is regreting it reckons the chassis twists more(?) and just not happy, it always takes time to get used to a differant motor. Either way go for a ultra light all alli body, ABS if poss..I can jam the brakes on in a muddy field still pulls up straight every time.!! The other option is air suspension on rear with twin wheels it is a usefull option to drop down for loading,the 3 litre engine is heavier but worth considering if going the o license route and dragging a trailer. The only other option worth mentioning is twin tanks ,had this on one of mine really usefull on long runs although you are adding weight when full you have the option of filling right up at the better price stations you tend to find when doing the miles saving monies. Enjoy the hunt to find the right truck you will be sitting in that "office" for a lot of hours ! regards Paul. |
![]() |
|
| markthelark | Feb 8 2013, 03:14 PM Post #14 |
![]()
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Cheers Paul , Taken on everything you said , thanks. I will stick with single tank - saves weight and I stop every couple of hours anyway, unless I go for the 70C17. Mark BTW , My truck weighs in at 2225KGS at the mo ! |
![]() |
|
| ivecojoe | Feb 8 2013, 04:44 PM Post #15 |
Member
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
So if you go for 7tonne model would you go for exlwb and crew cab to sleep over in? I had a 65c crew cab ,they certainly carry weight well it was a mk 2 version and comfy enough with rear seats removed and decent matress , only thing compared to the 5 tonne model is unladen weight jumps up nearly 500kg if memory serves me correct due to heavier axle,rims etc, thats why I prefer the 5 tonners unladen is only slightly heavier than 3.5 models, obviously you also have the speed restriction to 56mph ,that can be tedious........... Would it be possible to hire a model you are interested in for a week to give it a real world try? obviously you would probably have to use a dropside and long ramps to enable loading,but an error in choice would be prohibatively expensive.all the best and let us know,we have an extremely good dealership down here in Southampton(Pitters Commercials) best bet phone around for best prices its a tough economic climate and there are deals to be had! Paul |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Iveco Daily 2006-2014 (previously 4th & 5th gen forums) · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2






![]](http://z6.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)


