Autotrail Unladen Weight

[Budgie823]

Hi all, no decision made yet but I am considering buying the Apache 634 although I have serious reservations about the payload of only 270kg and would be reluctant to increase the max gross weight to 3650 kg which is an option. Can anyone help by clarifying what is included in the Autotrail unladen weight i.e. driver, fuel, fresh water and fixed awning etc. I am unable to find any clear information by searching online so any help would be much appreciated.

[AlanS]

It will depend on what year the motorhome is or is it a 2015 as they changed the way the payload was calculated.

When we bought our AT Navajo in 2013 the Mass in Running Order (MIRO) was given in the brochure as the unladen weight of the motorhome including the weight of the driver at 75kg, allowance of 90% full fuel tank, allowance of 90% full gas bottles plus an allowance of 90% of a full fresh water tank.

 

We have on order for March 2015 delivery a new AT Savannah and noticed that they have now changed their weight definitions to align with the continentals. They don't now show individual figures in the 2015 brochure but you can use their on-line weight calculator which, where you enter the details for the motorhome you have or are getting. I notice on it that they now state that the weight for fresh water is only 20litres and call it a 'travelling capacity'. Their weight guide also includes for the number of passengers you add in at 75kg each and they give a 'personal allowance' which they calculate based on what occupants you input and is for food and clothing for you all.

 

As an example our Savannah is only for the two of us so the weight calculator shows :-

 

Maximum Authorised Weight 4260kg

Number of passengers 1

Weight of passengers 75kg

Weight of Personal Allowance 96kg

Weight of optional extras 16kg

Therefore Payload remaining 613kg

 

When we bought our Navajo we had the weight upgrade version to 3650 kg as we new that the payload could be on the small side.

 

I ran the figures through for your Apache 634 and allowed for 1 passenger, 3500kg standard and no options and it came up with a payload of only 104kg, which knowing from our caravanning days is quite low. With the upgrade to 3650kg you have a much better allowance of 254kg. As long as you have the correct licence the upgrade shouldn't be a problem.

 

The Apache 634 is a great motorhome and we almost bought one but changed our minds at the last minute to the Navajo.

 

Hope that helps.

Alan

[Budgie823]

Thanks Alan for your very comprehensive reply. It will be the 2015 model if I go for it so I can see how tight it would be without the upgrade. I would still consider the upgrade as my licence allows this but wonderered (possible wrongly) if it would have much of an impact on the road tax and insurance. I have also read recently that some French villages restrict access for vehicles over 3500 kg but don't know how common a problem this is.

 

A little more thought required before making the final decision but I'm still favouring it.

 

Many thanks,

 

Ian

[AlanS]

Budgie823 - 2014-12-15 6:02 PM

 

Thanks Alan for your very comprehensive reply. It will be the 2015 model if I go for it so I can see how tight it would be without the upgrade. I would still consider the upgrade as my licence allows this but wonderered (possible wrongly) if it would have much of an impact on the road tax and insurance. I have also read recently that some French villages restrict access for vehicles over 3500 kg but don't know how common a problem this is.

 

A little more thought required before making the final decision but I'm still favouring it.

 

Many thanks,

 

Ian

 

With the weight upgrade you have a little bit of a bonus as the Road Tax Class is 10 which is PHG (Private Heavy Goods) and the duty is only £165 ! Insurance will make no difference at all.

 

As for French villages we have gone through those with a 3.5 tonne weight limit with no problems - usually the restriction is more about width than anything else as many we have been through can be a little narrow but usually wide enough to get through with a motorhome and even a car/caravan combination. Some access roads to sites or Aires that we visit have a 3 .5 tonne limit but when you see the size of some of the TAG axle motorhomes on the sites, there is not a problem.

 

As for the motorhome weights at least AutoTrail do show them with everything on them, i..e. pull out awnings, spare wheel etc. When you look at the European vans everything added is a weight gain to the unladen weight plus a cost addition too. Not saying we wouldn't have liked a Cathargo that we saw at the NEC show but couldn't quite get my head around the almost £200k price.

Alan

[lennyhb]

Also bear in mind the Ex works weight is +/- 5%, my van came out 50kg under,but everyone else I know who has brought an new has been 50 to 100kg over, so your 270kg payload could only be 170kg.

[Billggski]

It is a common problem, as even using the auto trail list, there is always essentials such as extra battery, bikes, extra gas bottle, seats, table, pots and pans and even wine glasses, all of which eat into your basic "unladen" weight. So 3500K is unrealistic.

The road tax will be less if you increase your plated weight, private heavy goods is cheaper than private light goods for some reason.

The lack of the ability to enter French town centres is widely ignored, particularly by the French.

Some breakdown insurance companies want to know your weight when sending a truck, but I don't know if any that have actually been refused help.

Speed limits are lower.

You need a C1 licence.

3850 K is the usual upgrade to allow a reasonable payload, but rear axle and rear tyre loads can be marginal so air suspension and stronger tyres are often required.

3650K is presumably a compromise, and doesn't require any alterations to suspension or tyres, but takes you past the magic 3500K which triggers the driving licence, town centre and speed limit negatives.

At 3500K it is more marketable, and many keep it at that, load what they need, and take the risks it brings.

[Brian Kirby]

You need to be forensic in your approach to this because, if you get it wrong, your van simply won't work as you want it to.

 

Will you never need/want to travel with the fresh water tank full? IMO, forget to 20 litres nonsense, and add the weight of a full tank of water. Water weighs 1kg per litre, so simply add back the difference between the 20litres they allow and the tank capacity (about 100 litres?), say 80 litres/kg. Deduct the difference from the published payload.

 

Then make sure you know exactly how they are allocating the allowance for gas. Does the gas locker take 13kg, or 6kg, gas cylinders? Does the locker take one, or two? If one, the odds are that the calculation will be based on just the one. You may wish to travel with two and, at some time both will be full, not at 90%. An empty 13kg steel cylinder weighs approx 15kg, so the weight of a full one is about 28kg. I don't have the weight of an empty 6kg cylinder, but would expect it to be about 7kg, so maybe about 13kg when full. Simply add the allocation they make to the payload, and then deduct the weight of the number of full cylinders you expect to carry.

 

Check carefully the weights of any options you specify, as they also need to be taken into account. Discount the nominal 75kg driver/passenger and add back your actual weights, ditto any other passengers. If children will be carried remember that they grow, so allow for their increasing weight over the time you expect to continue carrying them. Again, deduct the 75kg allocations and add back the actual.

 

Does a spare wheel come as standard? If it is an option, it will weigh about 25kg, possibly plus the cradle etc to carry it.

 

Discard the 90% fuel tank allocation. The standard SEVEL fuel tank is 90 litres, and diesel weighs .85kg/litre. The tank @ 90% will weigh about 69kg, full it will weigh 76kg. So deduct a further 7kg from the payload.

 

Look carafully for what is stated regarding the tolerance on MIRO, as most include a 5% tolerance on the weight of the empty vehicle which, if yours turns out to be heavy, will further reduce your payload. Remember that this is 5% of the unladen weight of the vehicle, say 3 tonnes, so possibly as much as 150kg. Once you ahve done all that, and deducted the total from the plated MAM of the vehicle (3,500kg) you have arrives at a working, practical, payload. If it helps, for us, the combined weight of food, drinks, bedding, clothing, toiletries and camping gear is just under 300kg.

 

As ever we are all different, but my strong suspicion is that your proposed van will not work at 3,500kg, and I also suspect that will be true at 3,650kg, especially for the rear raxle. To be brutally honest, I don't think this van should be offered on anything less than the "heavy" chassis. There is simply insufficient payload to use it as anything more than a "weekender". Sorry! :-(

[Budgie823]

Good to hear that the fixtures and fittings are included but taking all other comments onboard (pardon the pun) it looks like the upgrade is inevitable. I'm fairly sure the limit is 3650 kg on the model I'm after but I think that should give me enough for my own needs.

 

P.S. Have just read your comments Brian after I posted this and I can certainly see increasing complications. Like you, I find it rather strange that AT sell it with such tight limitations.

[Keithl]

Billggski - 2014-12-15 6:47 PM

... but takes you past the magic 3500K which triggers the ... speed limit negatives.

 

Bill et al,

 

Going over 3,500 kg GVW/MTPLM does NOT trigger the reduction in speed limits.

 

The actual criteria is when your UNLADEN weight exceeds 3,050 kg. This is not a typo, I repeat 3,050 kg UNLADEN weight. This is a historical restriction based on 3 Imperial tons.

 

Unfortunately not many MH manufacturers quote a true unladen weight so you may have to calculate it for your MH or strip everything out and visit a weighbridge but this may be very difficult.

 

Keith.

[Brian Kirby]

Budgie823 - 2014-12-15 6:54 PM

 

Good to hear that the fixtures and fittings are included but taking all other comments onboard (pardon the pun) it looks like the upgrade is inevitable. I'm fairly sure the limit is 3650 kg on the model I'm after but I think that should give me enough for my own needs.

 

P.S. Have just read your comments Brian after I posted this and I can certainly see increasing complications. Like you, I find it rather strange that AT sell it with such tight limitations.

I'm sorry to be such a cynic, but AT are in the business of selling motorhomes, they aren't acting as a benign consultant to buyers. The watch-phrase is caveat emptor.

 

You don't have to buy this one, there are plenty of other fish in the sea (or motorhomes on forecourts!). IMO, you need to start with the weight of the van without any gas, water, or occupants on board, deduct that from the MAM, and if the answer is less than 600kg - keep looking!

 

Just the +/- 5% weight tolerance could reduce the actual available payload by 140+ kg, so with almost any coachbuilt van the 600kg will be liable to be reduced to 460kg. The reason for that tolerance is that many of the manufacturers, including AFAIK AT, still use timber framing in the coachbuilt structures, and timber is inherently variable in weight. It should represent the worst case, and the reverse may eventually prove true, but because of the effect on usability, if you end up with the heavy one, it is, IMO, the only safe assumption to make.

 

If you look at the vans that use newer construction techniques, they tend to be both lighter, and come in closer to their target weight. If you need to stay within 3,500kg, I'd suggest looking at smaller vans (less van = less self-weight) that are built lighter. Doubtless more of a compromise, but ultimately much more relaxed touring knowing that you have a load margin in your pocket, should you decide to return home with a stone garden ornament or the odd case of wine! :-)

[Steve928]

Brian Kirby - 2014-12-15 7:34 PM

IMO, you need to start with the weight of the van without any gas, water, or occupants on board, deduct that from the MAM, and if the answer is less than 600kg - keep looking!

 

I couldn't agree more; you need to find out the weight of the actual van in empty state and then even 600Kg for 2 people will be very tight.

 

As an illustration I recently helped a friend buying a van which had an advertised MRO of 3042KG which translated into an empty van weight of 2743Kg. on a MAM of 3500KG.

A pre-purchase trip to the weighbridge showed it to be 80Kg. or 2.6% over the published MRO and in fact it weighed 2823KG. empty.

 

That left 677Kg. for everything that the van needed to carry, which sounded generous enough especially as they travel quite light (no TVs, no awning, no dogs, 1 gas bottle, 1 leisure battery..). Having already sold his previous van my friend had a spare room full of basic van contents which we weighed bit by bit. The surprising result was that it was just and only just going to be possible to keep under 3500Kg. when full of fluids.

 

Said friend had looked at the Apache 634 previously and I'm afraid that we'd come to the conclusion that he couldn't make it work even at 3650KG. MAM and an accurate MRO. This was in 2014 and for 2015 the 634 has gained heavier 16" wheels - I don't know if AT's figures encompass this change.

 

[rolandrat]

Brian Kirby - 2014-12-15 6:48 PM

 

You need to be forensic in your approach to this because, if you get it wrong, your van simply won't work as you want it to.

 

Will you never need/want to travel with the fresh water tank full? IMO, forget to 20 litres nonsense, and add the weight of a full tank of water. Water weighs 1kg per litre, so simply add back the difference between the 20litres they allow and the tank capacity (about 100 litres?), say 80 litres/kg. Deduct the difference from the published payload.

 

Then make sure you know exactly how they are allocating the allowance for gas. Does the gas locker take 13kg, or 6kg, gas cylinders? Does the locker take one, or two? If one, the odds are that the calculation will be based on just the one. You may wish to travel with two and, at some time both will be full, not at 90%. An empty 13kg steel cylinder weighs approx 15kg, so the weight of a full one is about 28kg. I don't have the weight of an empty 6kg cylinder, but would expect it to be about 7kg, so maybe about 13kg when full. Simply add the allocation they make to the payload, and then deduct the weight of the number of full cylinders you expect to carry.

 

Check carefully the weights of any options you specify, as they also need to be taken into account. Discount the nominal 75kg driver/passenger and add back your actual weights, ditto any other passengers. If children will be carried remember that they grow, so allow for their increasing weight over the time you expect to continue carrying them. Again, deduct the 75kg allocations and add back the actual.

 

Does a spare wheel come as standard? If it is an option, it will weigh about 25kg, possibly plus the cradle etc to carry it.

 

Discard the 90% fuel tank allocation. The standard SEVEL fuel tank is 90 litres, and diesel weighs .85kg/litre. The tank @ 90% will weigh about 69kg, full it will weigh 76kg. So deduct a further 7kg from the payload.

 

Look carafully for what is stated regarding the tolerance on MIRO, as most include a 5% tolerance on the weight of the empty vehicle which, if yours turns out to be heavy, will further reduce your payload. Remember that this is 5% of the unladen weight of the vehicle, say 3 tonnes, so possibly as much as 150kg. Once you ahve done all that, and deducted the total from the plated MAM of the vehicle (3,500kg) you have arrives at a working, practical, payload. If it helps, for us, the combined weight of food, drinks, bedding, clothing, toiletries and camping gear is just under 300kg.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As ever we are all different, but my strong suspicion is that your proposed van will not work at 3,500kg, and I also suspect that will be true at 3,650kg, especially for the rear raxle. To be brutally honest, I don't think this van should be offered on anything less than the "heavy" chassis. There is simply insufficient payload to use it as anything more than a "weekender". Sorry! :-(

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The last paragraph that Brian has mentioned is very true, I have owned two 634's the first one was on a Merc chassis rear wheel drive and the second one was on a Fiat front wheel drive chassis and to stay legal we had to travel very light. The 634 on the Fiat chassis has a large locker at the rear and can easily be overloaded which can result in getting bogged down and loosing front wheel traction. The 630 and Tracker are a far better layout with the main lockers situated between the front and rear wheels.

[AlanS]

AT do use modern construction techniques. I think one of the reasons AT seem to come up heavier is that the use of the materials within the motorhome are of a much heavier quality than some of the continental and British motorhomes we have looked at, Have a look at the shelving units, cupboards, etc. and they use quite thick plywood. Also as stated previously AT do include a lot of items within their unladen weights, i.e spare wheel, wind-out awning, external storage lockers under the motorhome floor, etc. as they are part of the base specification. Perhaps also AT might be a bit more honest with the advertised weights of their motorhomes ?

Alan

[Budgie823]

Thanks for all the comments which will certainly help in making a final decision. I will closely consider all the advice given and certainly won't be buying before I am certain that the model is right for me. Cheers.

[Brian Kirby]

AlanS - 2014-12-15 8:12 PM

 

AT do use modern construction techniques.

I was under the impression that they still use timber framing in their external wall panels. Is this now incorrect? If so, hats off! :-)

 

I think one of the reasons AT seem to come up heavier is that the use of the materials within the motorhome are of a much heavier quality than some of the continental and British motorhomes we have looked at, Have a look at the shelving units, cupboards, etc. and they use quite thick plywood. Also as stated previously AT do include a lot of items within their unladen weights, i.e spare wheel, wind-out awning, external storage lockers under the motorhome floor, etc. as they are part of the base specification. Perhaps also AT might be a bit more honest with the advertised weights of their motorhomes ?

Alan

At the risk of splitting hairs, weight is not a reliable (or any) indicator of quality. Building heavy robs the van of payload, and increases fuel consumption. Light-weight constructions can be of any quality the manufacturer determines appropriate, as can heavy-weight constructions. AT have gained a reputation for generally good quality, and they do, indeed, include many of the otherwise bolt-on extras within their standard specification, which are both good things.

 

I don't think they mislead with their weights any more or less than any other manufacturer; they all conform to the relevant codes of practise. They are in a competetive market, and if one manufacturer gains advantage from taking liberties with the codes, the others are more or less compelled to do likewise, or lose sales.

 

The problem lies with the codes, IMO, which more or less dictate (at least facilitate) a misleading presentation. Their original intention was to eliminate widely varying methods of calculating payloads, which rendered intelligent comparison on a like-for-like basis near impossible for an untutored buyer. Reasonably fair comparisons are now possible, but the figures used do not tell the full story, still leaving the untutored buyer confused when trying to determine if the payload will be sufficient for his particular needs.

 

The main problem is that few folk know, or believe if told, that they will need at least half a tonne of payload, until they have bought, weighed, fully loaded, and again weighed, a motorhome - by which time it is a bit late for them to discover that they did!

[Billggski]

I know we keep repeating the same information, but it is useful for new members.

The 3500K limit DOES limit your speeds on the continent, it is only in the UK that we use the bizarre unladen weight measure.

[lennyhb]

Keithl - 2014-12-15 7:12 PM

 

Going over 3,500 kg GVW/MTPLM does NOT trigger the reduction in speed limits.

 

It does, over 3500kg most countries in mainland Europe have much lower limits.

 

The actual criteria is when your UNLADEN weight exceeds 3,050 kg. This is not a typo, I repeat 3,050 kg UNLADEN weight. This is a historical restriction based on 3 Imperial tons.

 

Only applies to the UK

 

Unfortunately not many MH manufacturers quote a true unladen weight so you may have to calculate it for your MH or strip everything out and visit a weighbridge but this may be very difficult.

 

True not even shown on the C of C, it only shows Mass in running order and Technical mass in running order, both of which include allowances for fuel, gas, water, driver etc. The "Technical" figure includes factory fitted options.

[Keithl]

OK. Sorry, I should have qualified my post with "UK speed limits".

 

Keith.

[Brian Kirby]

Keithl - 2014-12-15 7:12 PM..............Unfortunately not many MH manufacturers quote a true unladen weight so you may have to calculate it for your MH or strip everything out and visit a weighbridge but this may be very difficult.

 

Keith.

In fairmess, Keith, I don't think they ever could, in practical terms. First, because they would have to weigh each vehicle individually as it comes off the production line, but mainly because any such figure, if quoted, would be liable to mislead, because anything subsequently attached to it, by a dealer or its owner, then counts toward its unladen weight. So adding an awning, bike rack, sat dish, solar panel/s, camera system, racking in garage, etc etc, if fixed to the van, all push up the unladen weight.

 

Getting a figure that should be adequate for legal purposes, if challenged, though not strictly in accordance with the definition, is not actually that difficult.

 

If all loose equipment, including jack, wheelbrace, spare wheel, camping gear, food, water, gas cylinders, clothing, etc. etc., are all removed from the van and it is then weighed with a full fuel tank, the only item that is additional to the legal definition of unladen will be the tank of fuel. If one knows the nominal maximum capacity of the fuel tank (90 litres for the standard Ducato etc. tank) and multiplies that by 0.85, one will have the weight of the fuel on board in kg. Deduct that from the weighbridge total and one will have, as close as is practical, the unladen weight.

 

However, if the vehicle weighs under 3,050kg when the tank is full, the weighbridge ticket alone should be sufficient to demonstrate that is not subject to the lower speed limits. After all, if a weighbridge ticket, carrying the registration number of the vehicle and the date when it was weighed, shows it as under 3,050kg, how could it now be heavier (unless it has been lead lined in the meantime! :-D)? Just carry that ticket to use if stopped and challenged.