rolandrat Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Whilst at the NEC show I took a close look at the Bessacarrs and was shocked to see the poor finish on all the body seams which had badly fitting infills which were lumpy and wavering and there was an excess of white filler in other joints. The internal furnishings looked well though and the underneath fittings were neat and tidy. One other thing that I noticed was that the E450 was built on a 2ltr chassis although it is a large fixed bed and front lounge model and the payload was very low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Just back from a long weekend in Belgium where we visited some dealers, giving the wife the opportunity to look at some panel vans. I went to Dusseldorf so had seen loads already. She preferred the Hymer Car 322 The Belgian Hymer dealer was explaining the difficulty in registering any van over 7 metres. It seems that most large vans are overweight, and the law in Belgium since 2011 means you only get seat belts authorised for the available weight.......Soooo a 7+ metre 6 berth van as of this year 2011 only has 2 seat belts! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 JudgeMental - 2011-03-01 10:59 AM ...and the law in Belgium since 2011 means you only get seat belts authorised for the available weight.......Soooo a 7+ metre 6 berth van as of this year 2011 only has 2 seat belts! Blimey! ..although I suppose thinking about it makes perfect sense... Not so long back we were shouting about the lack of seat belts in some layouts but I suppose it's obvious that if a manufacturer is producing something which can accomomdate(seat and sleep) a given number of people,then the vehicle should be able to legally carry their weight.. What with seat belts and payloads(..and in this case,a mix of the two),it really shows how MH manufactures have perhaps been getting away with marketing models that don't really do what they're meant to... :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Travelling Tyke Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Hello, Now this may seem as tho I am supporting these large MH manufs and what seems to be a silly situation, but is it possible that they consider that the owners of these MHs will expect that any of the "unbelted", occupants arrive in a different vehicle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ChrisB Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 rolandrat - 2011-03-01 10:23 AM ... One other thing that I noticed was that the E450 was built on a 2ltr chassis although it is a large fixed bed and front lounge model and the payload was very low. I too was disappointed with payloads. Came back having identified an Autotrail Apache 632 as a vehicle suitable for our needs but, without any "extras" (it is quite well specified) it has a MRO of 3260kg on the Fiat 3500kg chassis leaving just 240kg for 2 passengers and other essential equipment. Also in my case the standard 75kg allowance for the driver is a trifle optimistic and the 240kg does not allow for any variation in the MRO which could be +5% I believe. How is it that many continental coachbuilt 'vans appear to keep their MROs below 3000kg? I know many specify the 2.2 engine on the 3300kg chassis, but do they also use lighter (inferior?) materials? Do they leave out "essential" accessories - I'm happy to do without ovens etc. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 ChrisB - 2011-03-01 12:48 PM rolandrat - 2011-03-01 10:23 AM ... One other thing that I noticed was that the E450 was built on a 2ltr chassis although it is a large fixed bed and front lounge model and the payload was very low. I too was disappointed with payloads. Came back having identified an Autotrail Apache 632 as a vehicle suitable for our needs but, without any "extras" (it is quite well specified) it has a MRO of 3260kg on the Fiat 3500kg chassis leaving just 240kg for 2 passengers and other essential equipment. Also in my case the standard 75kg allowance for the driver is a trifle optimistic and the 240kg does not allow for any variation in the MRO which could be +5% I believe. How is it that many continental coachbuilt 'vans appear to keep their MROs below 3000kg? I know many specify the 2.2 engine on the 3300kg chassis, but do they also use lighter (inferior?) materials? Do they leave out "essential" accessories - I'm happy to do without ovens etc. Chris When it comes to payload, I don't believe Continental coachbuilt motorhomes are any better than UK 'vans on a like-for-like basis. Looking at the 2011 Hobby brochure, there are 3 Ducato-based models with a payload ranging from 293kg down to 276kg. All three vehicles are 7.465m in length and all are built on a 4.035m wheelbase 3500kg MAM chassis with 2.3litre motor. These motorhomes are sold in the UK at prices around the £66K/£67K mark. A chassis upgrade to 4000kg (extra cost around £2K) is offered on one of the models, but not on the other two. The simple fact is that, if you believe you can buy a new well-specified coachbuilt motorhome near to, or over, 7 metres in length with a MAM of 3500kg and still have a reasonable user-payload, you are living in Cloud Cuckoo Land. (At least the Auto-Trail website's 'weight calculator' offers the opportunity to discover that a motorhome that looks good in principle can easily go overweight when optional extras and realistic payload requirements are factored in.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Colin Leake Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 We have a Auto-Trail 632 on order and whilst the available payload is far from generous it is worth noting that the 632 has many heavy extras as standard such as the wind out awning which would have to be added to the load on many continental rivals. It has to be said also that Auto-Trails are somewhat solidly built. Its simply a question of adding up what you need/expect to take and seeing if you can manage. Like you I have never been very impressed with the build quality of Swift built motorhomes. The Auto-Trail looks better built and comes highly recommended by owners we have talked to. We presently have a Rapido which has been very reliable but this time I in the mist of a campaign to buy British and support British workers as far as possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Surely, both converters and us customers are going to have to come to terms with the fact that there's no such thing as a free lunch, or a weightless "berth?" We've been misled for years into thinking we can go on adding more and more "kit" to our vans, and/or making them bigger and bigger, with more and more berths and travel seats, and still be able to drive them on modern licences with a 3500kg limit. I know I'm one of those fortunate enough to have "grandfather rights" on my licence, but we're a shrinking minority. The industry has to learn (and start eduating its customers!) that if we REALLY need that tag-axle 6-berth with all the trimmings, we need to get the right licence for it. And for those who mainly use their vans for a few weeks in the summer, it's just not worth doing that, so they need to get used to lighter vehicles. But of course, they don't provide as much profit for the industry! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolandrat Posted March 1, 2011 Author Share Posted March 1, 2011 Just for info, Svtech at Leyland can uprate chassis, the 3500 x250 lightweight can be increased to 3700 as a paper exercise but after that you are looking at air suspension mods to go higher, this is according to Graham at Svtech who I spoke to yesterday. Phone 01772 621800. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JudgeMental Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 rolandrat - 2011-03-01 7:39 PM Just for info, Svtech at Leyland can uprate chassis, the 3500 x250 lightweight can be increased to 3700 as a paper exercise but after that you are looking at air suspension mods to go higher, this is according to Graham at Svtech who I spoke to yesterday. Phone 01772 621800. Yes.... but you MAY find your Fiat warranty flys out the window!(may be invalid) *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted March 1, 2011 Share Posted March 1, 2011 Having looked at many new vans over a two year period ending in 2009 we came to the conclusion that the vast majority were poorly designed and poorly built out of cheaper and less durable - they call it lighter - materials than ever before. Not being lovers of the half dinette form of lounging we didn't look at many 'foreign' vans but, and it breaks my heart to say it, when we did their build quality did appear better than most UK built vans? Of the UK built vans Swift came across as the worst both in terms of design and build at it was sad to see Autocruise also being dragged down to the same level at that time. I hope things have improved but I am as ever cynical enough to doubt it! Auto Trail seemed better made as did Auto Sleeper although even Auto Sleepers are not as sturdy as they once were. There are some shining example of good UK based design and build but they come at quite a price - Timberland and IH being two that spring to mind. Add to that the woes of the Fiat x250 and we decided to opt for an older Autocruise on the well proven previous model Boxer and we have absolutely no regrets whatsoever. Not only that, but also the money we saved buys a hell of a lot of diesel for our travels! I don't quite follow how a van's internal structure can seem to get flimsier and lighter and yet their payloads are falling? Perhaps the base vehicles are getting heavier - certainly they seem to be getting bigger? Just my observations! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rolandrat Posted March 2, 2011 Author Share Posted March 2, 2011 I for one think your views are bang on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 Progress eh? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred grant Posted March 2, 2011 Share Posted March 2, 2011 gon our the days when weighing a scale model on the bathroom scales wood do, tracker my luvver. these days the tipe aprooval people wooden av that my biddy. fullofs**tefred Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvin Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Our Autotrail Cheynne 660 2008 MRO 3250 kg, I recently weighed the van 3/4 full diesel (approximately 80 kg), allowing 100 kg for towbar, Driver a petite 97 kg, no water, supplies and food for a long weekend. Weigh bridge reading 3880 kg, if I subtract the MRO 3250 kg and the above, either our clothes and food supplies weigh 350 kg, or Autotrail are telling porky pies. If I take the missus and my two dog, I would be right on the 4000 kg limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rosbotham Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Bang on there. Our 696G is plated at 4005kg, and we're close to it with the pair of us and our belongings. Anything more than approx 6-6.5M van with normal size people/belongings isn't realistic on a 3.5 tonne chassis. Until I read this thread, I didn't even realise the 632 was built on that chassis. I don't really buy the argument that those of us with grandfathered C1 rights are a minority. Assuming the "most common" profile of taking driving test at 18, the youngest drivers with only B are now 32. I'm 42 and know few people younger than me with motorhomes....quite a few who would like one, but their money's going on paying the mortgage. Yes there are some who are losing C1 rights as they get to 70, but I'd wager that the vast majority of the motorhome market currently has C1, and that won't really start to tail off for another 15 years. I can understand why people don't want a heavier van for other reasons, but I don't think licensing is at the core of it. Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted March 3, 2011 Share Posted March 3, 2011 Paul, You make a good point, and I would just add that anyone with lots of money to spend on a large camper that does not have the appropriate licence could take a test for less than 1/50th of the price of the vehicle! So many advantages for so (relatively) small cost. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.