Message Forums

We've got a Bailey Ranger GT60 540/6 and towed it with a 51 plate Galaxy 1.9tdi.  There may have been a problem with the engine as well but it really struggled when going uphill.  It didn't take much to persuade me and dh to upgrade to the newer shape 2.0tdi with a 140psi.  Not picked the car up yet so time will tell whether this will be a good tow car or not.  When we bought the old Galaxy we did try to find a 130psi but there weren't any available and my dh can never wait to buy his new car.  We decided on holiday that we needed the new Galaxy.  We got home Saturday, saw the Galaxy we wanted on Sunday and by Wednesday dh put the deposit down lol.

dh has read on another forum that the mark 2 Galaxy's did have problems with the turbo on the 115 but that it didn't happen on the 130's.  I'm not bothered with what make of car it is but dh has to have Ford's and i love both the mark 2 and 3 Galaxy's.  In the mark 2 i loved that you could take out seats if you didn't need them and really didn't think i'd like the mark 3 but the seats all slide forwards leaving enough room in the boot for the dogs to sit and lay comfortably when we go away and still have enough room for all 7 seats. 

Good Luck with your search

The 90/100/105/110/115/130/150 bhp engines are all based on the same block/head arrangement, the first to appear was the 90/110s, the 90 being lethargic and the 110 being something of a revelation at the time (compared with the old Peugeot and dreadful Ford lumps available back in the mid-90s). The 110 remains the most thermally efficient engine fitted to a production car.

The 115 was the first incarnation of the PD (Pumpe Deuse) engines using a separate pump for each injector. Increased available pressures resulted in a small (5bhp) power increase but a big wallop of extra torque (up from 177lbs/ft to 215 if memory serves), and an engine that revved more freely.

That was then updated and replaced with the 130 engine which produced either 215 or 229lbs/ft of torque depending on spec and which gearbox was fitted (the 5-speed had the lower torque). A 100 unit replaced the 90 unit at the same time.

The 150 engine was a development of the 130 but offered no increase in torque, its application in such as the Golf was questioned by some in the press as it was supposed to be considerably noisier than the 130 with little on-the-road performance benefit. This is the only unit I haven`t driven so can`t comment.

There are no specific weaknesses to look out for, but air-mass meters fail (replace with original parts - about £70.00 + VAT)  sticking turbo vanes are not unknown (particularly on higher mileage, short run cars), and be aware of the potentially suspect dual-mass flywheels, some of which failed early and were swapped under warranty and some may have been replaced with a `solid` kit.

I would tend towards a 130 if given a choice, the new 140 is smoother but has had fuel pump and oil-pump (resulting in scrap engines) problems. I have also found it a good 5mpg thirstier than a 130 pulling the same caravan.

Our daughter used to have the Sharan. It was the TDI 110 bhp engine.  She now has a Touran 2-litre TDI 140 bhp.  She and her family are not caravanners.

Having 3 children, the 7-seaters were always chosen.  She likes both cars, prefers the Touran but would still make the Sharan her second choice.

Sharan: Advantages are a properly stowed spare wheel.  Disadvantages are (1) seats 6 and 7 have to be taken out for any decent room in the luggage compartment. (2) tends to roll more on winding roads; it used to make one of the children sick.

Touran: Advantages are foldaway 6 and 7 seats.  Disadvatages are no spare wheel unless you (a) choose the 5-seater model, or (b) carry a spare in the luggage compartment.

My previous Touran was a 7-seater, and I carried a full sized spare. This course was taken when booking with C.C Red Pennant to go to France, I was told that, if you call out the rescue services for a flat tyre and have no spare, there was a £100 surcharge.

If you pull a caravan, a space saver is not advisable.

Best wishes with your choice, whatever you decide.

Bertie. 

I have a 2000 V reg Galaxy with the Ford Zetec 130bhp engine.

Before this we had a S reg 90bhp Ford fitted with the early VW TDI unit.

There is a very noticable diffrence between the two. The early Galaxy struggled uphill on the big hills of the A34 with just our camping gear! Newer Galaxy has no probs at all, even with our 570 ltr roofbox fully loaded, tent clothes etc in boot and 4 bikes on a Thule backpack!

Not towed with the new one yet - just looking for our first van as we speak so will report back

Quote: Originally posted by TheHootons on 27/8/2009

---

I have a 2000 V reg Galaxy with the Ford Zetec 130bhp engine.

Before this we had a S reg 90bhp Ford fitted with the early VW TDI unit.

There is a very noticable diffrence between the two. The early Galaxy struggled uphill on the big hills of the A34 with just our camping gear! Newer Galaxy has no probs at all, even with our 570 ltr roofbox fully loaded, tent clothes etc in boot and 4 bikes on a Thule backpack!

Not towed with the new one yet - just looking for our first van as we speak so will report back

---

 Your car is either unique or has had a very unusual engine transplant, as all Galaxys of that era and up to the shape change (in what was it 2006/7?) had VW diesel engines.

I`m really stunned by the number of people who own cars for years but don`t know what they are driving! Amazing.