Primastar/Vivaro/Trafic

Top Dog

Looking for a little help from anyone familiar with these vans as to which would be the better choice in engine & manufacturer. I've been told that the Renault isn't bolted together as well as the Opel or Nissan version, and I've also been informed that the 2.0 115dCI is the engine to go for over the older 1.9 unit. Any truth to these claims?

I belive the 1.9 is a timing belt where the 2.0 has a chain?

Won't be changing for a while and hope to have a budget of about 4k when the time comes which should see me in a '07-'08 lwb with around 150-200k km on the clock based on whats currently on DoneDeal.

Before anyone says it, I don't want a Hi-Ace nor a Transit, and for the budget I'd probably be looking at a 4 years older Transporter which really doesn't interest me.

Thanks in advance.

bazz26

From what I know they are all the same van and built in the same factory with different badges put on so not sure how one brand would be screwed together better than the others really.

The only thing I've heard they have a bad rep for is gearboxes, apparently they are made of chocolate. Don't have much more info on them unfortunately.

Top Dog

One being screwed together differently had me baffled too, but a mate with a '07 Primastar was telling me how his brother's Trafic had bits of trim rattling and falling off way more than the Nissan so I dunno.

Have also heard about the gearboxes - but don't know if its the 5 or 6 speed that one is supposed to be wary of.

Have also heard of starter motors and injector issues on the 1.9's due to the drip rail position directly above the injectors which causes issues - something thats supposedly been addressed with the 2.0.

But most of what I've heard is hearsay and rumor - very little directly from those who've owned them.

bazz26

I could be wrong but isn't the 2.0 litre just an updated version of the 1.9 litre? Not sure whether it is a Renault or Fiat unit though.

I'd say a lot of it will boil down to the individual van and how it was cared for. Most vans get dog abuse by their drivers.

JohnBoy26

They are all pretty much the same van with the same build quality, all of them as sh1te as each other. And no the 2.0 isn't improved over the 1.9.

It still suffers from injector failure and injectors seizing into the head. Its also a more complex engine than the 1.9.

Nice vans to drive but that's where it ends Imo.

R.O.R

We used to have a customer with a large fleet of Trafic Vans (2.0DCi 115ps), and they gave quite a bit of trouble.

We've now a larger customer with a fleet of Vivaro's (2.0CDTi 115ps) and they are giving all the same issue's as the Trafic's did. Gearbox and injectors are the main issues.

Never had that many Primastar's on fleet, but I know we've had a fairly major issue with a new Primastar (2.0Dci 90) - already had an injector replaced, with only 2,500km on. That may be part of the problem though......

All just as bad as each other for reliability.

Top Dog

bazz26 wrote: »

I could be wrong but isn't the 2.0 litre just an updated version of the 1.9 litre? Not sure whether it is a Renault or Fiat unit though.

I'd say a lot of it will boil down to the individual van and how it was cared for. Most vans get dog abuse by their drivers.

I've since discovered that the 1.9 is a Renault unit with timing belt, while the 2.0 is a Nissan unit with timing chain. The 6-speed box is also Renault.

Cheers for the input folks.

Bpmull

Bear in mind none of the primastars had abs brakes a standard up until very recently the last two years. It was an 800 optional extra that no one took out. The trafic and vivaro had abs standard. For that reason my dad always bought vivaro or trafic back when he was buying vans. We found them fairly reliable although there were all 1.9s never had the newer 2.0dci. It's like any van if you buy one that wasn't minded chances are it will cost you a fortune to keep on the road.

JohnBoy26

Top Dog wrote: »

I've since discovered that the 1.9 is a Renault unit with timing belt, while the 2.0 is a Nissan unit with timing chain. The 6-speed box is also Renault.

Cheers for the input folks.

The 2.0 was co developed between both Nissan and Renault. Renault owns Nissan though and the 2.0 has pretty much the same faults as the 1.9

quattroboy

AFAIK, all are made in the same factory, our RHD versions all made in UK, be it Vauxhall, Opel, Nissan or Renault.
Essentially it’s a Renault design.
I had an Opel from new (2.0), and aside for some electrical stuff, it was a great van and I covered 150km on it. Serviced it myself after the dealer pulled my pants around my ankles for the first oil change.
I remember looking at the Nissan as they were cheaper, but after discovering that ABS was an option, as well as the 6 speed box, the price levelled off when these were factored in.
In my experience, they are the nicest of that size van to drive, but like all motors these days, have their shortfalls.
Ask many Transporter drivers for an honest review and the VW reliability perception gets shot down fairly fast. Same with the Transit (a personal hate of mine, esp. the RWD with the stupidly high floor that requires a forklift to load).
The 2.0 engine seems like a throwaway design, and the timing chain jumping teeth as a result of the tensioner failing seems commonplace.
At least the 1.9 engine is readily available having been fitted to several cars as well as the vans.
The 2.0 M9R is very hard to source used.
Ive seen some for sale for €2500 for used engines!!
At least these are fully recon. engines for less, no idea what they are like though?
http://www.renault-spares.co.uk/renault-trafic-reconditioned-20-dci-m9r-engine-vivaro-primastar-traffic-recon-1127-p.asp

I suppose its either buy new with full warranty or buy used and factor in a worst case scenario…

Top Dog

Really sounds like the 1.9 and 2.0 are equally reliable/unreliable.

Anyone any opinion on the 2.5 140dCI unit? Or is it more of the same?

Bpmull

Top Dog wrote: »

Really sounds like the 1.9 and 2.0 are equally reliable/unreliable.

Anyone any opinion on the 2.5 140dCI unit? Or is it more of the same?

From what I heard there worse. But I never had any experience with one so I could well be wrong.

quattroboy

The 2.5 is a Nissan engine, also used in the Navara and Pathfinder, a much better engine.
Tends the be a much more reliable unit than the 2.0, and also fairly easy to find a second hand one, unlike the 2.0...
Depending on your driving style it will use more fuel but if you can find a clean van with one and dont do many miles could be a good option.
basically if it was my money its either the 1.9 or the 2.5.
BTW, stay MILES away from the semi auto offering, its total muck!

JohnBoy26

quattroboy wrote: »

The 2.5 is a Nissan engine, also used in the Navara and Pathfinder, a much better engine.
Tends the be a much more reliable unit than the 2.0, and also fairly easy to find a second hand one, unlike the 2.0...
Depending on your driving style it will use more fuel but if you can find a clean van with one and dont do many miles could be a good option.
basically if it was my money its either the 1.9 or the 2.5.
BTW, stay MILES away from the semi auto offering, its total muck!

Is that the engine fitted to the d22 Navara? If so it's a terrible engine that's well known for its failures.

Top Dog

quattroboy wrote: »

The 2.5 is a Nissan engine, also used in the Navara and Pathfinder, a much better engine.
Tends the be a much more reliable unit than the 2.0, and also fairly easy to find a second hand one, unlike the 2.0...
Depending on your driving style it will use more fuel but if you can find a clean van with one and dont do many miles could be a good option.
basically if it was my money its either the 1.9 or the 2.5.
BTW, stay MILES away from the semi auto offering, its total muck!

Probably looking at 25k miles a year anyway tbh so the 2.5 might not suit in that regard. It'll be fairly empty 85% of the time (well - weight wise). Maybe 4k of that mileage will be with a 1350kg caravan on the back.

Semi-auto was never on the table either as herself simply won't drive it if its not manual - she never warmed to the auto in our Shogun in the 3 years we've had it.

So maybe I should be focussing the search on the 115dCI 1.9 then?

JohnBoy26

I know its probably not what you want to hear but perhaps look at other vans.

Those Renaults are nice to drive granted but if, or should I say when the start acting up they can be difficult and sometimes expensive to put right.

Top Dog

JohnBoy26 wrote: »

I know its probably not what you want to hear but perhaps look at other vans.

I like honesty

Older Transporter? I've heard they're just as expensive - parts even moreso. Anything smaller won't be able for the towing so its the mid-size I have to be looking at.

All I know for absolute certain is that I won't be buying a Transit or Hi-Ace.

Just want something fairly reliable that will have a pretty soft life in my ownership, and a crew-cab would be a bonus.

kilianmanning

My father has a 1.9 primastar & a 2.0 vivaro. Both are good vans, they haven't given a major amount of bother. The vivaro has 340,000km & has never given any injector, gearbox or engine trouble. The slave cylinder in the clutch goes & starts leaking so watch out for that. Also the 1.9 is much slower than the 2.0, personally I'd go for a 2.0. The 1.9 isn't any more reliable

R.O.R

Top Dog wrote: »

I like honesty

Older Transporter? I've heard they're just as expensive - parts even moreso. Anything smaller won't be able for the towing so its the mid-size I have to be looking at.

All I know for absolute certain is that I won't be buying a Transit or Hi-Ace.

Just want something fairly reliable that will have a pretty soft life in my ownership, and a crew-cab would be a bonus.

I've never driven one, and we never had any on our fleet, but I've never heard a bad word said about the Hyundai H1.

Might be worth having a look at - similar in size to a Hi-Ace, but without the stigma that comes with driving a Hi-Ace :pac: