Large Language Models (LLMs) achieve impressive performance in a wide range of tasks, even if they are often trained with the only objective of chatting fluently with users. Among other skills, LLMs show emergent abilities in mathematical reasoning benchmarks, which can be elicited with appropriate prompting methods. In this work, we systematically investigate the capabilities and limitations of popular open-source LLMs on different symbolic reasoning tasks. We evaluate three models of the Llama 2 family on two datasets that require solving mathematical formulas of varying degrees of difficulty. We test a generalist LLM (Llama 2 Chat) as well as two fine-tuned versions of Llama 2 (MAmmoTH and MetaMath) specifically designed to tackle mathematical problems. We observe that both increasing the scale of the model and fine-tuning it on relevant tasks lead to significant performance gains. Furthermore, using fine-grained evaluation measures, we find that such performance gains are mostly observed with mathematical formulas of low complexity, which nevertheless often remain challenging even for the largest fine-tuned models.