Boxer 2.8HDI Symbol. Buying advice needed

Does anyone have any knowledge, and advice to give, about this seemingly rare van? I might go and buy it within the next day or two.
It's a 2001 model, but it's the 2.8HDI motor that makes it rare.
I'm trying to work out if this larger motor gives significantly more uphill pulling power, better motorway speeds, and reasonable economy.
We want to spend quite a few months pootling around the very steep and hairpinned roads of the Italian Dolomites and this is bound to be a better option than the petrol, the 1.9d (with or without Turbo), or the 2.5d (with or without Turbo)... isn't it?

We have had both a 2.5D and 2.8HDi Executive.

The 2.8 returned slightly more mpg, for essentially the same van, and was able to cope very well in terms of pulling power. It had oodles more grunt than the 2.5D
The 2.8 can also be 'chipped' for that extra little bit of power.

As an aside, our new van has the Fiat 130 Multijet, which is astonishingly good. You can set the cruise and (almost) never have to change down for a hill.
If anyone knows the long uphill out of Ashbourne/Fenny Bentley, it went up there last night in 6th gear at 55mph without a gear change. The 2.5D Exec would have been in 3rd and struggling, the 5 speed 2.8HDi would have probably managed 4th without struggling.

Not familiar with the Symbol but we have a 2002 Pollensa on the 2.8HDI and it goes like a rocket!
Our previous van was a Herald Castille on a Fiat 2.5 Turbo Diesel base and the Pollensa is much more sprightly around town and also copes with long uphill stretches on the motorway without fading.  

Our fuel consumption averages out at 24 mpg.

It's not such much about the size of the engine but the power output.Having said that I think the 2.5 was 100 bhp when new and the 2.8 127bhp. A few of those horses will have walked off over the years depending on the condition of the engine now!

The current 2.0 unit produces 160 bhp which illustrates the point, but I would expect the 2.8 to produce very adequate performance and a lot better than the 2.5

In actual fact ISTR that the normally aspirated 2.5D is 85 bhp and the 2.8HDi comes in various standard tunes
from about 120-145 bhp.

It is about engine size too, as the bigger engines produce higher torque.

Well,... I bought it!
Before I did though I did a shed-load of research... both online and by calling Peugeot dealers. All that happened is I got confused.
The current owner had assured me in advance that despite it having plenty of power, it wasn't the turbo version.
But every single bit of research, using both reg number and the vin number, was telling me it was the Turbocharged Intercooled Sofim 8140.43S, delivering 94kw/124.2BHP/126PS. Even the Vin-Check facility on the Peugeot website AND the main Peugeot dealer database said it was the Turbo version.
So I went to see the van with raised expectations and... not being a mechanic, yet not being a complete mechanical ignoramus, there was no turbo that I could recognise under that bonnet. There was what looked like a common rail system but that was it. 
So... what's that all about? Anyone?
Seeing no Turbo was a bit dissapointing to be honest but, I took it for a drive (with owner, so had to behave) and it was pretty pokey. Effortlessly up to 70mph doing what looked like about 2500 revs and, starting from 30mph, it went easily up an approx 300yard 25%ish hill in 4th gear. It really did make the 1.9 and 2.5 versions I'd driven feel like a waste of time. 
The bonus was that it started from a one degree dead cold with the tiniest and most discrete little baby-breath sized puff of blue-grey then a second later purred like a kitten. At no time on the 30 minute run did I see any smoke, nor even when I gave it a little wellie once I'd parked it outside the chap's house. 
Lovely engine... why should I care it don't have a turbo? But I'd be interested to know why even Peugeot thinks it is.

Did it have one of these?



Bottom left in this picture.

If there's a turbo, (and from your description of the effortless power, I'm sure there is), you can't see it from under the bonnet, it's tucked up behind the engine on the driver's side.

If you're going under there to look, get someone to rev the engine and check whether the actuator is moving and operating the wastegate.

They get stuck, ask me how I know this.

EDIT: Peter has posted a pic of the turbo and its location, have a look, you'll have one.

Tracing the air inlet back from what I guess was the Common Rail jobbie which was back of engine, between engine and bulkhead... that fat inlet pipe ran forward turned left and buried itself into the thickness of the front panel where, I presume the air filter is housed. I couldn't see down the front as its all a bit too tightly packed. I'll be able to check this all out properly when I take delivery in a couple of days. If it has a turbo, then it's a fairly low pressure one as there was no sense of kick or surge.... still, it's a van... and not empty... and I was trying to behave myself as the owner was giving me the feeling he was entrusting me with his virginal daughter.

Sorry... had to repost this one as I did it on an android and screwed it up.
Cant seem to edit or delete it, so duplication the only option.

Welly welly well well... what a prize twonk I am. Ive just discovered this plan of hoses ... see below. 
It's exactly what I saw under the bonnet.
There is the common rail jobby up top of the with the hose shown (no 13) snaking foreward then left, then disappearing into the front panel. This is of course an INTERCOOLER HOSE. Hiding out of sight in the front panel is the intercooler, not as I had assumed the air filter. All other pipes and turbo are hard to see in situ. So... looks like I've answered my question. It does indeed have a turbo.
I can't understand how the current owner could not know.
Anyway, what a pleasant surprise!
Where can I get it all remapped and turn me back into a boy-racer?

I did say that there's a turbo.

Yes, I know you did. I thank you and bow to your superior knowledge. But when someone that's owned it for a number of years tells me that the engine, of which I have no prior knowledge, has no turbo... I'm inclined to believe him.

pilchard wrote:Yes, I know you did. I thank you and bow to your superior knowledge. But when someone that's owned it for a number of years tells me that the engine, of which I have no prior knowledge, has no turbo... I'm inclined to believe him.

Easy enough to believe with this engine when, as you say, there's no kick up the backside from the turbo, just oodles of torque.

They can be remapped, and I'll bet that the fuel consumption would stay roughly the same with a good remap, as opposed to our 2.3 Multijet which has one of those fuelling boosters fitted, which increases the power but also fools the fuel computer.
It's coming off once I've researched it properly.

Well it managed the first hurdle with no probs; that's the 150 mile journey home. Done I might add, under strict instruction from my co-pilot, at 60mph. I crept it up from time to time when she wasn't paying attention, but as it's ready for a new cambelt kit, keeping a lid on it seemed a wise precaution.

The guy we bought it from, in his 4.5 years and 47.000 miles of ownership, never took it over 60mph. While on our test-drive he was a nervous as a kitten, advising re throttle clutch and gear use, cringing as I negotiated heavy rush-hour traffic, so I was inclined to believe his 60mph claim. This morning I also noticed that not only was the throttle-pedal limiter screw, attached to the underside of the pedal, fully screwed out; but there was also a large circular pad of rubber screwed to the floor beneath that. This guy really didn't want his van revving high or going fast.
Considering this guy was so fastidious... driving slow and two services per year... I couldn't understand how he ignored the fact that the steering wheel is about 15 degrees off centre. That would drive me nuts!

All seemed good on the drive back apart from the steering feels just a little baggy. Either that's typical or it can be fixed and I'll ask for it to be looked at when it goes in for the cambelt.
The infamous gear-change really takes getting used to and needs nursing when dropping down the gears... but I'm hoping it'll fix with either greasing, adjustment, or the odd change of rod linkage or whatever it uses. No sign of difficulty going into first, or popping out of top.
The other slight niggle is I thought I detected a faint smell of diesel. Co-pilot's nose is better than mine but couldn't smell it. I had a bit of a look-see with a torch this morning and there is a just slight touch of wetness round the back there... but not sure what it is or where its from. It seems that fuel pump, injectors, and poss even glowplugs are all round the back of the engine (lunatic layout design), which potentially means it's all a nightmare to get at. Will have to wait and see.

I do think I got this 2001/70,000 miles van for very little considering it's a rare 2.8HDI (Turbo) which has sailed through every test, had only a couple of minor advisories, never welded, has all it's original pristine underseal intact, wheel arches and sills all perfect, body without fault, and interior well looked after. The first owner was quite well-orf, did only approx 2k per year, and kept it in dry storage for 9 years of it's life, and it's quite obviously never been stored on grass. So, all in all... it'll stand a bit of money spending on it. Let's hope not too much though.

This is the first ever Boxer I've owned, so any advice gratefully recieved.

Will need solar panel(s) and poss inverter for our intended off-grid wild camping sortees, so any recommends gratefully recieved.
Oh yeah... nearly forgot... re-mapping. Is it a plug-and-play jobbie, or better to take to professionals? Either way, who... what... and where? I'm near Cockermouth, Cumbria.

Congratulations, now that you are a proud Auto-Sleeper owner you can complete your profile with model and year, so that potential advice is more accurate.