duetto/symphony/symbol

It seems I am going to have to replace my 1996 Duetto after all.  I have been looking (mainly online) at the various models of Duetto, Symbol and Symphony.  What are the main differences between them?  From what I have seen there seems to be as many variations within one model as there are between one model and another.  E.g. a Duetto can be 2-berth, 4-berth, options of 2 single beds or one double or no option and so forth.  Also - much as I prefer the 1994 - 2000 interior, I think to avoid the rust problem I will have to go for 2004 give or take a year, and reckon that even 2001 is too risky.  What does anyone think on that score?

macvanessa wrote:It seems I am going to have to replace my 1996 Duetto after all.  I have been looking (mainly online) at the various models of Duetto, Symbol and Symphony.  What are the main differences between them?  From what I have seen there seems to be as many variations within one model as there are between one model and another.  E.g. a Duetto can be 2-berth, 4-berth, options of 2 single beds or one double or no option and so forth.  Also - much as I prefer the 1994 - 2000 interior, I think to avoid the rust problem I will have to go for 2004 give or take a year, and reckon that even 2001 is too risky.  What does anyone think on that score?

Engines mainly. Where the Symbol and Symphony used Peugeot, Duetto's used the Ford Transit. There was also a SWB version of (i think) the Symphony where the Duetto was LWB....until the end of the Mk5. The "4" berth was only a 2 + 2 to give it's correct term meaning it could sleep two adults and two children, though i'd say quite small children at that!! My Duetto is a 2 + 2 model and driving alone i do the same as most couples do who own the same model type......yank all the fittings (which include a ladder!) that are stacked at the front over the cab. This then provides extremely useful storage space! The interiors of each model are pretty much the same layout apart from SWB models.

As for rust, my van a 2000 reg, is on the Ford Transit so at 15 years old would now normally be rusting merrily away. But it's an LE model which was injected with extra anti-rust treatment from new....and it shows. All wheel arches, totally rust free, both doors also the same. I had some minor body work don to both bottom edges of the rear doors. The underside of the van is like new and the Garage who do my servicing and MOT work told me they had not seen a Transit in such good condition in a long time. So mine is proof that a 15 year old van can be rust free.....you've just got to search around though!

It's worth going for a later model as Mk5 body parts are becoming hard to source now, at least in UK. Germany hold the largest stock of Mk5 spares so it's not unusual for a dealer to have to import from Ford Germany. Poland also has a very good supply of both new and refurbished parts. Prices for Mk6/7 Transit parts will often be cheaper too due to large availability.

Thanks Bulletguy.  That clarifies things including, I suppose, why most of the vans I've been looking at only have a single cupboard below the sink - they must be SWB?  It also has bearing on the problem with the van - there is corrosion on the chassis beneath the driver's seat, at the "chassis extension" the Motorhome Repair man said - and he was unable to obtain the necessary part to do a repair, which is a pity as he was quite optimistic about the other bits of visible rust on the bodywork.

My 94 transit based amethyst is also seemingly in good condition underneath, id make absolutely sure the parts cant be sourced in Poland or somewhere before giving up. Seems a shame to give up, dare i ask if you have had a second opinion? 

Hi M8form8.  What I've had so far is: (1) the van is kept at a bodywork repair place where they deal with everything from buses downwards, and the man in charge wouldn't even look at the van as he reckons the rust that can't be seen is likely to be too serious to be worth repairing;  (2) the man at the garage where it is serviced and MOT'd says if it was his van he wouldn't repair it (specifically in this instance - possibly something to do with suspension which might be the same thing as current problem) and (3) motorhome repair centre which is the only specialist opinion I've had.  Before he checked out the spare part he kind of hinted that it could maybe be kept going for a few more years if I was prepared to spend, say, £4000 - £5000 doing  it up - which is a lot of money for a few years, but not as much as a whole new van would cost - but then you don't know what you're getting for your money till it's too late possibly.

Re the suspension thing - I find if I take a corner too fast (for the van) it feels as if it's going to keel over, however, when the motorhome repair man was driving it that didn't happen - so it could well just be me.  Stands to reason I suppose that a man will find it easier to drive a heavier vehicle especially if he is used to driving them all the time than I will.

I'd be a bit surprised if a '96 Duetto is "beyond economical repair". One of the problems is that many repair places don't realise the value of motorhomes.

When I had the rust on mine done 3 years ago, the man running the repair shop genuinely thought it was worth about £6k, but I actually sold it for twice that, less than a year later. So they have a tendency to "write off" a van well before that is justified.

In your position I would be looking to find a small to medium sized bodywork place - the larger places are no good at all because typically all they want is insurance work, where the "customer" seldom argues about the price...

Thanks Mojo.  The Motorhome Repair Centre is I think quite reliable advice-wise, but it may be he did not think it worth MY while going down the road of repairs - but it might be worthwhile for somebody else to take it on to restore it themselves.  However, I agree it is worthwhile investigating further.  I will go back to MRC and ask about sourcing spares elsewhere, and also whether he thinks that - major repair aside - the rest of the van is worth doing up.  A motorhome dealer down in Ayr or thereabouts now has the AS dealership so I might take it down there too for a specialist second opinion.  Another option would be to investigate Ford Transit fanatic websites.

Hard to say without actually seeing the van, but i agree with mojo garages generally don't know value of motor homes. One a year older than yours had a structural rebuild recently at a garage near here that specializes in car restoration. Do a search on here the details were posted, they managed to get suspension supports if i recall correctly. Dutto/ Ian found the garage on an internet search, shame your such a long way from here be interesting to see if they wanted to take on another one. 
Transits rust its true but then if you like driving them as i do its hard to find anything else that will replace them. I just think how much depreciation is greater on a new van than keeping an older one going. Mechanically older ones are far less problematic than the newer ones are. 

PS: the thread worth reading is... [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] especially the list of items needing replacement. Perhaps same as yours and then perhaps contact repairers and see if they can advise on supplier for parts for yours to be done. Cheers..

macvanessa wrote:Thanks Bulletguy.  That clarifies things including, I suppose, why most of the vans I've been looking at only have a single cupboard below the sink - they must be SWB?  It also has bearing on the problem with the van - there is corrosion on the chassis beneath the driver's seat, at the "chassis extension" the Motorhome Repair man said - and he was unable to obtain the necessary part to do a repair, which is a pity as he was quite optimistic about the other bits of visible rust on the bodywork.

Possibly. I couldn't say for certain as i've never actually looked inside a SWB AS build. I have owned a SWB but the conversion was Leisuredrive and they have a single under sink cupboard but it's quite large. Worth taking a tape measure to as i think you'd find there's very little difference!

-mojo- wrote:I'd be a bit surprised if a '96 Duetto is "beyond economical repair". One of the problems is that many repair places don't realise the value of motorhomes.

I couldn't agree more with this as i had the same experience....but with a '93 Transit so three years older! I took a big gamble on it as it came with no MOT. Internally it was fine and the bodywork didn't look too bad, but i couldn't see all of the underside and the guy selling had other callers breathing down his neck begging to sell to them....so it was a snap decision. Engine was the direct injection 2.5 so pretty much bullet proof.

I took it to a local Garage which a friend of mine had used but once they got it up on the lift and started poking around, they wrote it off as "a complete rust bucket". They told me it wouldn't be worth anything other than scrap. It quickly became obvious they simply didn't want to work on it. However they did mention the name of a small one man independent welding business in the next town. I went to see him and he spent ages looking it over. There was a considerable amount of welding needed to the sills, underside and one of the inner arches had virtually disintegrated! Also one of the brakes was seized on so there was a fair bit of work. He told me he'd need it for a week and cost would be £500......including an MOT. I snapped his hand off!!

That van toured the Outer Hebrides, Germany, Poland, Czech, Austria and Slovenia. Five years later i sold it for more than double what i'd paid (including the cost of getting it back on the road) and it's testament to the welder guy who did all the work that van is still in use today!  

Here is the current DVLA status on it; [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  

Dave 418 wrote: The issue of Transit rust problems is some thing that will rumble on forever. The amount the vehicle costs to repair against what its worth must be weighed up against being practical to repair.
I checked my 1996 Duetto with an MOT testers eye before buying it but got could not see the real problems without taking trim off. A simple thing like a cracked screen later on then meant taking trim off and revealed the real horrors. The body parts required were available but I could only find one body shop to take on the repairs and that was on the understanding that I was kept informed of progress and costs all the way through the job.

The bib reminded me of a simple job which became a nightmare! Cracked windscreen. No problem....run it into the nearest Autoglass centre and get it replaced. A 20 minute job as those guys don't hang around and know what they're doing.

When they came to yank the old screen out, the scuttle came with it as well!  

A common Transit problem they told me. So before they could fit the new screen i had to get my welder guy to pick the van up and weld new metal in.

Thanks Dave, M8form8, Bulletguy.  I have read all the posts in the MOT failure thread, M8form8, and they are quite encouraging.  The MRC man seemed to think that with the required part it  could be repaired, but the downside is, he also said that once it is up on the ramp and they start taking bits off, they may find more/worse rust, so that would be a rather worrying unknown factor.  I will ask him again re overall condition.  He does seem to know what he is talking about and it is a specialist motorhome repair centre - M/homes are not just in addition to ordinary garage work.  However, he does favour coachbuilt vans.  He recommended Romahome but I do not like the look of them.  The MOT is due about March/April, but I suppose I could have it checked out now at the garage and see if they agree that it would fail due to this particular bit of rust. 

Bulletguy - you have just reminded me that MRC man also said the handbrake is seized up

I am still keeping options open re repair or replace and today went to look at a (2002) Symbol.  It is the same as the last one I looked at and cupboard space is not as good as my own Duetto - it is a SWB, and I had to reach up to cupboards which isn't necessary in the D.  Quite nice looking inside, but high-ish mileage - 82,000+ -  Duetto is still only 56,000+ - and the gold "handles" on cupboard doors are well-worn (much more than the D) which doesn't do anything for it, and there is a water-mark on the fabric on the inside of the over-cab cupboard, so it maybe has/had dampness or water ingress - again, nothing like this in mine.  Annoyingly, they have another Symbol just in and not on website yet, a 2004 model, but he couldn't find it - possibly out on loan, so I don't know price or mileage.  I reckon if I do decide on replacement rather than repair it will have to be another LBW Duetto.

The one thing I would add from personal experience - in terms of cost, the worst place to go is a Motorhome specialist, because they ~do~ know how much the van will be worth when fixed up.

When I was getting quotes I took mine to a specialist (who specialised in VW campers mainly) and his estimate was £4k. The place that ended up doing the work gave a quote of £1200, and it ended up at £1500 because more rust was found (as you suspect might happen with yours) once they started cutting. I should add that in addition to that I supplied the panels, but they were only a little more than £100 (front and rear wing sections plus o/s side panel where the Carver Cascade had rusted out). It was just a general back-street body shop - the owner reckoned they had never done a camper van before, but they did a very good job.

-mojo- wrote:The one thing I would add from personal experience - in terms of cost, the worst place to go is a Motorhome specialist, because they ~do~ know how much the van will be worth when fixed up.

When I was getting quotes I took mine to a specialist (who specialised in VW campers mainly) and his estimate was £4k. The place that ended up doing the work gave a quote of £1200, and it ended up at £1500 because more rust was found (as you suspect might happen with yours) once they started cutting. I should add that in addition to that I supplied the panels, but they were only a little more than £100 (front and rear wing sections plus o/s side panel where the Carver Cascade had rusted out). It was just a general back-street body shop - the owner reckoned they had never done a camper van before, but they did a very good job.

Macvan......exactly this ^^^^^


The welder who sorted the van i mentioned in the previous posting was exactly this kind of place. Most would laugh if they saw his "body shop". It was simply a large single garage with a 4 post lift in and fortunately high enough to get a high top van in. He'd been there years and it showed! The place was crammed with tools and he had an old wood burner stove to heat the place. There was a small room where he had a table and chair, microwave, and sofa/bed. He was completely a 'one man business' working cash in hand. Sure, some like this can be rogues.....but there are some good 'uns out there and i was fortunate enough to find one of the 'good uns'.

I'd suggest you try looking around your locality for a little business like this and get some alternative quotes.

Bulletguy wrote:

......There was also a SWB version of (i think) the Symphony where the Duetto was LWB....until the end of the Mk5.

Just for the record, the Symphony and Symbol were on the Boxer MWB (medium) chassis rather than SWB. A limited number of AS models used the Boxer SWB chassis, most notably the Harmony in addition to the few Ramblers made.

I'm not sure it's possible to compare different manufacturers' wheelbase designations. I have no info on Transit dimensions, but Mk 1 Boxer wheelbases were as follows:

SWB     2850mm
MWB    3200mm
LWB     3700mm

Bartfarst

Bartfarst wrote:

Bulletguy wrote:

......There was also a SWB version of (i think) the Symphony where the Duetto was LWB....until the end of the Mk5.

Just for the record, the Symphony and Symbol were on the Boxer MWB (medium) chassis rather than SWB. A limited number of AS models used the Boxer SWB chassis, most notably the Harmony in addition to the few Ramblers made.

I'm not sure it's possible to compare different manufacturers' wheelbase designations. I have no info on Transit dimensions, but Mk 1 Boxer wheelbases were as follows:

SWB     2850mm
MWB    3200mm
LWB     3700mm

Seems the wheels on the Boxer must have been further apart than the Duetto then. My wheelbase is 3570mm and o/length 5560mm.

Bulletguy wrote:

Bartfarst wrote:

Bulletguy wrote:

......There was also a SWB version of (i think) the Symphony where the Duetto was LWB....until the end of the Mk5.

Just for the record, the Symphony and Symbol were on the Boxer MWB (medium) chassis rather than SWB. A limited number of AS models used the Boxer SWB chassis, most notably the Harmony in addition to the few Ramblers made.

I'm not sure it's possible to compare different manufacturers' wheelbase designations. I have no info on Transit dimensions, but Mk 1 Boxer wheelbases were as follows:

SWB     2850mm
MWB    3200mm
LWB     3700mm

Seems the wheels on the Boxer must have been further apart than the Duetto then. My wheelbase is 3570mm and o/length 5560mm.

..but I don't think any AS van conversions used the Mk 1/2 Boxer LWB, so your Transit Duetto is longer wheelbase than Boxer MWB a la Symphony/Symbol.

Bartfarst wrote:

Bulletguy wrote:

Bartfarst wrote:

Bulletguy wrote:

......There was also a SWB version of (i think) the Symphony where the Duetto was LWB....until the end of the Mk5.

Just for the record, the Symphony and Symbol were on the Boxer MWB (medium) chassis rather than SWB. A limited number of AS models used the Boxer SWB chassis, most notably the Harmony in addition to the few Ramblers made.

I'm not sure it's possible to compare different manufacturers' wheelbase designations. I have no info on Transit dimensions, but Mk 1 Boxer wheelbases were as follows:

SWB     2850mm
MWB    3200mm
LWB     3700mm

Seems the wheels on the Boxer must have been further apart than the Duetto then. My wheelbase is 3570mm and o/length 5560mm.

..but I don't think any AS van conversions used the Mk 1/2 Boxer LWB, so your Transit Duetto is longer wheelbase than Boxer MWB a la Symphony/Symbol.

That's what puzzled me and why i emboldened just the LWB dimensions. I thought the figures you quoted did relate just to the Boxer hence my comment that it would seem the LWB Boxer van had a longer a wheelbase than the Transit.....irrespective of whether AS used them or not. That was the point i was making.

Thanks Bulletguy and Bartfarst.  Seems there are even more subdivisions than I thought.  I have looked again at the Duetto Ford Transit that ES Hartley has for sale at £17,995 and I see it is marked as MBW. It is also "TD" whatever that means.  I will have to pay more attention to all those letters after the names.  That there are both MBW and SWB might explain why the single cupboard in the Symbol (Peugeot) I went to see yesterday was even more cramped looking than one I saw a few months ago.

I have got the Duetto's log book and handbook in front of me - date of first registration was January 1996, and handbook is for "'95 model year vehicles" - so it's really a 1995 one.  The two versions in h/book are Combi/Tourneo 80-150 with SWB and C/T 100/150 with LBW; SWB length of WB is 2835mm; LBW is 3570mm

Surely TD means turbo diesel

macvanessa wrote:Thanks Bulletguy and Bartfarst.  Seems there are even more subdivisions than I thought.  I have looked again at the Duetto Ford Transit that ES Hartley has for sale at £17,995 and I see it is marked as MBW. It is also "TD" whatever that means.  I will have to pay more attention to all those letters after the names.  That there are both MBW and SWB might explain why the single cupboard in the Symbol (Peugeot) I went to see yesterday was even more cramped looking than one I saw a few months ago.

I have got the Duetto's log book and handbook in front of me - date of first registration was January 1996, and handbook is for "'95 model year vehicles" - so it's really a 1995 one.  The two versions in h/book are Combi/Tourneo 80-150 with SWB and C/T 100/150 with LBW; SWB length of WB is 2835mm; LBW is 3570mm

I've had a look at that particular Duetto on their website. TD is Turbo Diesel which will be the bottom spec engine giving 75ps (74bhp) but check that they haven't missed the "i" off because if a TDi then it will have the 100ps (98bhp) engine. It's on a MWB chassis so 3300mm wheelbase......270mm shorter than a Mk5 LWB which has a wheelbase of 3570mm. The reason AS began using the the MWB was purely down to cost (Ford are not cheap!) which in my opinion was a great shame as the Mk6/7 Transits were available in LWB and even the 'Jumbo'. 

You are right about the 'single cupboard' beneath the sink. That's where the sacrifice has been made due to shorter overall van length. They have shoe-horned a tiny little cupboard and small drawer which to me, looks neither use nor ornament!

Thanks for input, Daisymae and Bulletguy.  Latest is, I'm taking the van back to the Motorhome place tomorrow and they will take a more thorough look at it.  I've taken on board what has been said about going to a specialist, but it is at least a starting  point to get an idea of what needs to be done/if it can be done and cost.  Also - because this is a one-stop shop kind of place I can ask them to check it out on the mechanical side before they do anything too invasive on the  bodywork in case anything major in that department is likely to occur in the near future.  I will let you all know how it gets on.

Good luck with that, will be a great van if viable to do it up.