Jump to content

Worried about payload on Apache 632


kevandali

Recommended Posts

Hi Everyone

Been on another forum (sorry) and as we are picking up our Auto Trail Apache 632 in July, I mentioned it and asked for any views/info from anyone having  the same van.
Was hoping for some very positive replies, which I got, but the most worrying was the fact that it is stated on Auto Trail website that the payload available is 225kg which one reply suggested that this is an unworkable payload.
If the van is upgraded to 3,650kg the payload available would be 375kg but I am really concerned that this is still not enough for a longer trip where you would naturally be taking along things that you would not normally take on a 2/3 week trip.
Is 3,650kg the maximum we could upgrade our van to or am I worrying unnecessarily?
Thanks again for any advice.
Kev and Ali

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 145
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Have a look at this thread. Brian Kirby provides sound advice and it also covers some of the issues I faced as I go through the process of uprating my van.

 

http://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Where-is-my-fiat-ducato-model-number-on-a-hymer-/46611/

 

I would recommend you visit the SVTech webpage. By how much you can increase your axle/overall will be known by SVTech if you provide details about your current plates and tyres - its form is a bit of a pain to fill in on line. You might want to have a word with your dealer as it should have explained the payload issues to you.

 

225kg is not enough, 375kg is doable unless you want to tour with full water tanks and carry heavy objects such as bikes or other passengers. We tour as a couple using sites and CLs within 375kg.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The result of using Auto-Trail’s Weight Calculator for the Apache 632 model (3500kg version and no added options) is shown here:

 

http://www.auto-trail.co.uk/range/apache/632/weight-calculator?47#attributes

 

This Auto-Trail caveat should also be borne in mind

 

"Please note: All weights quoted are with all water tanks fully drained. Should you choose to travel with your fresh water tank full you must amend the other weights accordingly."

 

Opting for the 3650kg version would help

 

http://www.auto-trail.co.uk/range/apache/634/weight-calculator?48#attributes

 

though there would be driving-licence entitlements, vehicle-excise tax, speed lmits, (etc.) implications.

 

Payload limitations for an (earlier) Apache 632 model were raised in this 2011 forum discussion

 

http://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Observation/22742/

 

As was mentioned in that thread, ‘up-plating’ beyond 3650kg would not be authorised by Fiat and would potentially affect the vehicle’s Fiat warranty adversely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The OP does not mention his age but should be aware that increasing the wight above 3500 kg may affect his driving licence if he is over 70 years of age. The other factor to consider is that there are often restritions or extra charges for weights above 3500 kg. French tolls for example.

 

These are just observations but I do agree a payload of 225 kg is way too low.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kevandali - 2017-03-23 11:22 AMHi Everyone
Been on another forum (sorry) and as we are picking up our Auto Trail Apache 632 in July, I mentioned it and asked for any views/info from anyone having  the same van.
Was hoping for some very positive replies, which I got, but the most worrying was the fact that it is stated on Auto Trail website that the payload available is 225kg which one reply suggested that this is an unworkable payload.
If the van is upgraded to 3,650kg the payload available would be 375kg but I am really concerned that this is still not enough for a longer trip where you would naturally be taking along things that you would not normally take on a 2/3 week trip.
Is 3,650kg the maximum we could upgrade our van to or am I worrying unnecessarily?
Thanks again for any advice.
Kev and Ali

When we first took up motorhoming we were going for the AT 634 3500kg but the payload was totally unsatisfactory. I have had a look at the AutoTrail website weight calculator and for a 3500kg 632 without any factory options taken into account you would have a 'passengers personal allowance' of 93kg and a remaining weight allocation of 47kg giving you a total weight allowance of only 140kg and that is with both the fresh water and the waste tanks drained ! If your passenger is lighter than the 75kg allowance they include then you might gain a small amount from this but not a lot. However, the fuel tank is assumed to be I believe, 75% full as part of the kerbweight figures. All in all 140kg is not a lot at all, especially with no fresh water on board.We opted for a Navajo with the weight upgrade but this still wasn't brilliant with regards to weight allowance. We did tour with it regularly in France for 5 weeks or more at a time but had to be very careful with what we took with us. So check again and see if you can really live with this small allowance on a 632 - to gain a bit you can always leave your partner at home ! :-D
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not 70 yet, 17 years to go!

Have spoke to the dealer and they have said I can upgrade to the 3650kg at no extra cost. Didn't think about speed limits and tolls.
I think the 375kg would be ok as we rarely travel with a full tank of water unless wild camping for a short while. 
Our heaviest things we carry would be the two mountain bikes so really just got to read up on what changing to 3650kg would mean cost wise, i.e. road tax, tolls, insurance etc.
I don't want the payload issue to overshadow our excitement when we eventually pick our new van up.
If 375kg is do-able then as long as we are careful I think we should be ok, plus it will stop the better half packing everything she can think of :-)
Will take a look at the other threads and try and convince myself that all is ok.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With an upgraded weight of 3650kg it puts you into the PHGV class and road tax is only £165 per year - so that is a bonus.

I see that the new 632 is now almost 7.4 metres in length (yes, AT have gone silly this year and have changed the length of a lot of their range, mine for instance has gone up from 7.6 metres to just over 8.0 metres) which is quite a long overhang on the rear axle. If you are considering hanging 2 mountain bikes on a bike frame on the rear of the MH make sure you will not be overloading the rear axle. Most of the weight is either amidships or over the rear axle as it is and it is tempting to put a lot in the garage.

I am not trying to rain on your parade but think carefully about how you are going to use the MH and what you will be carrying.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kev

 

You mean you decided not to check before buying.

 

I never see a problem with payload. One change of clothes, washed and changed once a week. Minimum food for 3 days. Some reading material. Hot water bottle. Radio. Buy all else as you travel.

 

PS. Cutlery cups and plates, no spares, break one, buy one. No dogs, cats or squirrels. No TV.

 

What are you going for ... to view the scenery or see how much you can cram into a small space. Just in case its needed ... well it mostly is not !

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've just been throu the weight checker adding a couple of 'normal' options including seatbelts for up to 4 including driver, gone over the top. Cannot see any option for Maxi chassis, if this is so WTF do autotrail think the're up to?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derek Uzzell - 2017-03-23 2:00 PM

 

The result of using Auto-Trail’s Weight Calculator for the Apache 632 model (3500kg version and no added options) is shown here:

 

http://www.auto-trail.co.uk/range/apache/632/weight-calculator?47#attributes

.

 

Derek,

 

You may be able to answer this please (this point may be useful for Kev too),

 

I've had a play with the AT Weight Caluclator link which you provided and I note that when I tick the 150 BHP engine upgrade option then it does not add any weight to the final calculation.

 

The reason why I am asking this question is that I've just ordered a new Pilote MH, with the 2.3 Ducato engine, and to upgrade said MH from 130 to 150BHP adds 11kg to the overall mass of the van.

 

Why would AT be different if the engine is the same?

 

Cheers,

 

Andrew

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andrew

It is not only AT that the weights are the same in their specification. I have looked at the data for Euro 6 engines on Fiat Commercial vehicles and McLouis Motorhomes and they show no difference in the overall weight of the vehicle when using either engine.

I have the Euro 5+ Ducato engine and there was no difference in weight between either the 130 or 150 engine, however there was with the 3 litre 180 version (now retired). Basically the 130 and the 150 versions are the same engine but in a different state of tune.

I see on the Pilote 2017 catalogue data that the 150 and 180 engine seem to be the same weight, i.e. as you say 11kg heavier than the 130. Also, the auto gearbox adds another 15 kg, something that the others do not show either.

Alan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlanS - 2017-03-23 11:48 PM

 

Andrew

It is not only AT that the weights are the same in their specification. I have looked at the data for Euro 6 engines on Fiat Commercial vehicles and McLouis Motorhomes and they show no difference in the overall weight of the vehicle when using either engine.

I have the Euro 5+ Ducato engine and there was no difference in weight between either the 130 or 150 engine, however there was with the 3 litre 180 version (now retired). Basically the 130 and the 150 versions are the same engine but in a different state of tune.

I see on the Pilote 2017 catalogue data that the 150 and 180 engine seem to be the same weight, i.e. as you say 11kg heavier than the 130. Also, the auto gearbox adds another 15 kg, something that the others do not show either.

Alan

 

Thanks Alan, so I wasn't dreaming it and I haven't gone mad. It is quite intruiging how the various manufacturers show things differently but I am still left wondering why a Pilote MH mass will increase by 26kg (using your auto figures)and an AT van will remain the same.

 

This is where Kev tells us all that he's ordered the 150 Auto version :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are four Euro 6 Ducato powerplants - a 2.0litre 115hp unit and three 2.3litre motors with 130hp, 150hp or 177hp.

 

The weight increase going from the 2.0litre motor to the 2.3litre 130hp is around 35kg. Rapido quotes a 20kg increase for going from the 130hp unit to the 150hp, and a zero increase for going from the 150hp to the 177hp, with ComfortMatic transmission adding 15kg when chosen for any of the 2.3litre motors.

 

The 150hp and 177hp motors have a variable-geometry turbocharger instead of the 130hp motor’s ‘fixed vane’ turbo. This factor should be expected to produce a weight increase when opting for the 150hp or 177hp motor instead of the 130hp one, but I woud have thought the increase to be small (say 2kg) not 20kg. Rapido’s 2016 technical data (Euro 5+ Fiat powerplants) showed no weight increase for opting for the 150hp motor instead of the130hp unit.

 

I believe it’s safe to conclude that, although choosing the 150hp or 177hp motor over the 130hp will result in a weight increase (because of the turbocharger difference) it will not be significant enough to matter when calculating a motorhome’s weight values.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi all,

I had this trouble with a Bessacarr 630, the van came with lots of nice cupboards etc. but god knows what you could put in them as the least thing took the van over limit. I believe the payload was 225 as yours. We changed up after 18 mths or so to 4ton, very expensive experience.

good luck

derek

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an assumption that the van, when delivered, will weigh in "as advertised". IIRC the manufacturers quote the MIRO with a +/- 5% caveat, so your 3275 kg van could be delivered at 3438 kg & still be "within spec" ! I have not heard of any vans being delivered with the - 5% having been applied, but there are references to vans having beeen delivered taking advantage of the +5 %

 

I would want to see weighbridge certificates for axle & total weight of the "as delivered" van to ensure that it does actually have the published payload available before taking delivery.

 

Is 375 Kg "workable" ? My Welcome 610 comes in with 370 kg available - but a big difference is that mine is an actual working payload derived by taking the van (fully fueled, fully gassed, with 30 L water, all accessories fitted & both of us in winter clothing) over a weighbridge. From the individual axle weights I know I can put all that 370 Kg over the back axle alone and still be well under the limit. This is quite a lot less than the Roller Team T-Line 670 I had previously (over 600 kg available under my payload calculation method), but probably workable, as the bikes sit a lot further forward inside the garage on the Chausson rather than being hung on the back as was the case with the RT. Both vans are 6.7 metres overall, so are lot shorter than yours. The rear axle limit was the limiting factor on the RT, not the gross vehicle weight. I am still expecting to have to make some compromises on what I take to stay legal while carrying a larger quantity of water (I need to be self-sufficient for 4 nights for some events I visit).

 

Worrying unnecessarily ? I don't think so !

 

Nigel B

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mgnbuk - 2017-03-24 10:26 AM

 

There is an assumption that the van, when delivered, will weigh in "as advertised". IIRC the manufacturers quote the MIRO with a +/- 5% caveat....

 

That's a valid point. My own new van when weighed was 2.5% heavier than stated, so 80+kg of payload down the Swanee before starting to load it.

 

A UK manufacturer was until recently advertising some of its vans with an 'estimated MRO'. The word 'estimated' has since been removed but the figures remain the same, so either they were really good estimates or they are fantasy. I wonder which.... :-)

 

Make any purchase subject to a weighbridge visit with the proviso that you can pull out cost-free if the actual weight is above a certain figure. I just got in under my critical weight at the 2.5% error in MRO, having rejected an earlier one and cancelled the purchase.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hi if you are still in the realms of rejecting the van with a full refund i would reject it if not ask if you could choose a different van .The van is just too heavy as is ..... it can be upgraded to 3850k but will require larger rear tyres and air suspension on the rear
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Uprating from 3500Kg to 3650Kg won't increase the permissible axle loads, it just gives you more flexibility on how you distribute the load within the van.

 

The OP mentions carrying 2 mountain bikes. If these are carried on a rack at the back, these will add approximately 70Kg to the rear axle (assuming they weigh 20Kg each). This doesn't include the weight of the rack itself.

 

Suggest the OP gets the dealer to advise both the front and rear actual axle weights with the van in running order. It is then just a simple calculation to determine the effect of any additional loads on the permissible axle loads.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have weight records for four of the vans I've purchased. The first two were Swift Royales in the mid-late 1990s on a 3300kg chassis. One had a payload of 585kg when delivered, the other slightly longer van with a turbo engine had a payload of 530kg. Both weighed in well within Swift's +-4% allowance. When loaded with a family of 4 plus dog and 4 bikes, the first was just within 3300kg, the second on the limit so we travelled without water.

 

Our rock solid Hymer 544 on an 05 plate was dead on the Hymer figures and even with a double floor, the 3500kg chassis gave us 430kg payload [MIRO then included full water tanks]. Our shorter 13 plated Hymer 504 which does not have as extensive double floor of old nor is the build quality rock solid had a 410kg payload on delivery allowing for 20l of water. In 8 years, a Hymer put on 100kg+ with the additional 'driver aids and safety cells' not being compensated for by the lower build quality.

 

My history suggests that motorhome manufacturers are quite capable of building lightweight habitation areas but to get down weight, there has to be build quality compromises. The finger should then point to vehicle legislation and the base vehicle manufacturers. I don't have weights for Ducato cabs over the years so maybe I'm wrong. I am often!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kevandali - 2017-03-23 3:32 PMNot 70 yet, 17 years to go!
Have spoke to the dealer and they have said I can upgrade to the 3650kg at no extra cost. Didn't think about speed limits and tolls.
I think the 375kg would be ok as we rarely travel with a full tank of water unless wild camping for a short while. 
Our heaviest things we carry would be the two mountain bikes so really just got to read up on what changing to 3650kg would mean cost wise, i.e. road tax, tolls, insurance etc.
I don't want the payload issue to overshadow our excitement when we eventually pick our new van up.
If 375kg is do-able then as long as we are careful I think we should be ok, plus it will stop the better half packing everything she can think of :-)
Will take a look at the other threads and try and convince myself that all is ok.

Kevin, go back to the dealer pronto, and say you want to change your order to a different van that has a realistic payload. Doubtless they will say you will have to pay extra to do so, and the extra may be more than you are willing to pay. However, as the van isn't due to be delivered until July, I doubt it has any more than a production slot as yet, so apart from the chassis (that will be presumably usable on other vans), there should be no loss to AT from a change.Then, do carefully check the way the payload is calculated before you sign up for its replacement. If you want to do occasional wild camping you will want to carry some water and, unless you fill via a meter, or some other means of measuring what you put in, you will have little idea of what weight you have added, and so whether or not you are overloaded.Looking at AT's weight calculator, I have to say it is one of the more misleading such devices I have yet encountered. The statement regarding water content of the tanks is a disgrace, it wouldn't even allow en-route toilet flushing! 135 litre fresh water capacity = 135kg of added weight which, even on the basic specification, would put the van 88kg overweight. You will carry bikes. In the van, or on a rack? If on a rack, what is the weight of the rack? That, again, will reduce payload. Everything that is attached to the van in addition to AT's standard spec. reduces usable payload.This van is advertised as "A versatile long distance tourer." With that payload, it isn't! Remember that the allowance for the driver is also 75kg. If you and Ali weight more than 150kg between you, the extra also comes off the payload (if less, you get the difference back :-)). I also note that AT state the MTW as 4.75 tonnes, and go on to say this will be increased to 4.9 tonnes if the MAM is increased to 3,659kg. This should be challenged, as my understanding is that the MTW figure derives from the chassis and power train (so is established by Fiat), and AT would seem unable to alter it as claimed.All that is done to raise MAM to 3,650 is the application of a new VIN plate. Nothing is done to enhance the permissible load on either axle, so unless that load is very carefully distributed between the axles, the chances are that one (probably the rear) will become overloaded before the full revised MAM is used. This is a gamble, the outcome of which is extremely difficult to forecast until you have the actual vehicle and can take it to a weighbridge empty and get the unladen weight, and the unladen axle weights.You are skating on the thinnest imaginable ice with this van. I'd be inclined to tell the dealer that on further investigation you have found it is not as advertised, is not fit for its stated purpose, and you want to change to a van that is compliant on both counts. To illustrate my point: our van weighs, unladen (not the legal definition: but with no driver or passenger, no water or waste, empty cassette, no fuel, no gas cylinders, but with habitation battery, spare wheel and standard jack and tools), 2,825kg. We add, in terms of liquids (full fresh water tank, 100kg), food, fuel (full tank, 76kg), clothing, camping gear, bikes, gas cylinders (2 x 13kg steel @ 56kg), books, computers, phones, cameras, chargers, etc. 670kg. The full load in that state is 3,492kg. Bearing in mind that this condition is only true on departure for a trip, because fuel, water, and gas, will all be consumed as we travel, so the van lightens as we go, I'm confident that it stays legal (and is legal on both axles) at all times. You will probably add differing weights, and I have no idea how heavy your van would be in the same trims as I first weighed ours to get to my "unladen" weight, but would strongly urge you not to consider anything that would not be legal with a full fresh water tank. To achieve this, you will need to closely interrogate the AT extras and accessories list, and make an allowance for the possible 5% upward variation on the claimed MIRO as quoted by AT, and do the maths. Then (and I'm tempted to say only then), will you get a truly usable van suitable for "long term touring". Apologies for the length - written in some haste. :-) The very best of luck, and don't waste any time in getting back to the dealer to change your order. The van represents a lot of money and, IMO, you'd be nuts to buy something that would start its life so seriously compromised.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will86 - 2017-03-23 7:27 PMKevYou mean you decided not to check before buying.I never see a problem with payload. One change of clothes, washed and changed once a week. Minimum food for 3 days. Some reading material. Hot water bottle. Radio. Buy all else as you travel.PS. Cutlery cups and plates, no spares, break one, buy one. No dogs, cats or squirrels. No TV. What are you going for ... to view the scenery or see how much you can cram into a small space. Just in case its needed ... well it mostly is not !

Well, so much good information, I /we didn't check the payload because I wrongly assumed a new motorhome  would be able to be used as a motor home.
I now realise that the payload is minimal and I could uprate to the 3650kg which I probably will.
However, we have always travelled light, taking just what we need, the biggest weight will be a bike rack and two quite lightweight mountain bikes. We don't stock up with food, just buy as required and other gear is mainly a few changes of clothes, cycling gear and occassionally a kayack.

The layout of the van suits us perfectly and apart from the payload, manages to tick nearly every box regarding our requirements.

I know of two other people who have the same van and they are totally happy with it (not sure if they think about payload)

Cutting a long story short, with the amount of gear we take with us we will just have to just adjust as neccessary.

I raised the subject with the supplier and they informed me of the option of going for the free paperwork exercise and upping to 3650kg, which will help slightly.

I don't want the payload or lack of it, to overshadow our excitement of picking up our new van in July, so it will be a case of filling up, diesel and water, loading up everything we usually take with us and then off to the weigh bridge followed by a removal of non vital gear.

I am still going to contact Auto Trail as I think that this is an issue that a lot of prospective buyers like myself are or were totally oblivious to.

Thanks again for all the information, bottom line is, we will have to drink all the wine and beer instead of storing it and adapt how much and what we take with us.
Will keep everyone informed what Autotrail say, if I get a reply.
Cheers
Kev and Al :-)

(Christ, just read your post Brian, need to think again!!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whilst you will be contacting Autotrail, ask them to provide the ACTUAL axle loads in "mass in running order" state. They should have this information at their finger tips. If not, I'd be very surprised.

 

My relatively light weight mountain bike is 15Kg so expect yours are about the same or maybe slightly less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brian Kirby - 2017-03-24 12:09 PM

 

...I also note that AT state the MTW as 4.75 tonnes, and go on to say this will be increased to 4.9 tonnes if the MAM is increased to 3,659kg. This should be challenged, as my understanding is that the MTW figure derives from the chassis and power train (so is established by Fiat), and AT would seem unable to alter it as claimed...

 

My Rapido 640F (like the Auto-Trail Apache 632) is built on a Ducato ‘light’ camping-car chassis. The Fiat VIN-plate has 3650kg as the MAM, 6150kg as the GTW (Gross Train Weight), 1850kg for the maximum front-axle loading and 2000kg for the maximum rear-axle loading. I chose the 3500kg MAM option and the Rapido VIN-plate has MAM=3500kg, GTW=5500kg, with the axle-loadings unchanged at 1850kg/2000kg. Rapido’s technical brochure indicates that, if the 3650kg MAM option is chosen, the GTW increases by 150kg to 5650kg. It would appear from this (and from the Auto-Trail data) that, as long as the GTW does not exceed the limit set by Fiat for the base-chassis, the motorhome converter may increase the GTW when the 3650kg MAM is chosen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...