Reversing Judder

[rupert123]

As usual Brian you put forward a well thought out argument. Now I am not sure I have a point to be honest but I get really irritated by comments and statements that are almost totally one sided and are made by people who obviously have no personal experience. I have sympathy for anyone badly affected and have said so many times. I have spoken with Andy on the telephone about his very real problems and if I could help I would. When someone asks if they should buy a new Fiat based van I would now say yes, however if they asked should they buy one that is say over six months old I would advise give it a good test first but I would say this about any vehicle. Can anyone say that Ford, Renault, Mercedes etc never have problems of course not. We have a recent post on here about a transit that judders and smokes it clutch, does anyone take any notice of this no they do not. Any vehicle loaded to its maximun as motorhomes usually are will shake/ judder if asked to reverse up a slope that is plainly to steep. I wonder how many Fiat owners have tried to do exactly this after reading on this and other forums about the problem. A sense of realism has to apply, yes a genuine problem has to be sorted but asking a van to do something it is not designed for is another thing entirely. If I had this problem my van would have been back on the dealers premises the next day as not fit for purpose, why are people not doing this?

[Rayjsj]

Rupert,

The Caravan Club Magazine and MMM have both now run articles about this problem, It does exist, OK they are not the Daily Mail but a significant number of people likely to be in the market for a new or nearly new motohome at least now know something about the fault. Which I for one think is a good thing,an informed decision is better than a uninformed one.

Thats what Forums are all about surely. AND we can ALL add our two penneth whether we own a 'New' sevel or are just thinking about it.

I did test drive one, a Trigano 650 but the salesman wouldn't let me back it up 'my hill' so I am still sitting on the fence counting my blessings.(and throwing stones !)

Long live free speech ! :D

[colin]

I've driven three of these in WVM versions, one didn't judder, a 5 speed Citreon.

If this problem only affected a small number of vans then it might be assumed that some had defective parts fitted, and you would expect Fiat et. al. to fix them as it would be mad to let a small sample wreack the reputation of a whole van range, if it was the way they where being driven then why don't Fiat offer to show/train drivers how to reverse? Well my guess is it affects a large number of vans and the fix is expensive.

[Brian Kirby]

rupert123 - 2008-07-25 10:40 PM .................. A sense of realism has to apply, yes a genuine problem has to be sorted but asking a van to do something it is not designed for is another thing entirely. If I had this problem my van would have been back on the dealers premises the next day as not fit for purpose, why are people not doing this?

Sorry to come back at you on this, and for abridging your post, but.............

Use as a motorhome base vehicle is exactly what this version of the Sevel vans has been designed for.  They developed a special low chassis, with widened rear track, just for motorhomes.  If it were only van conversions that are affected, albeit one has to assume the owners are sensible enough to keep the loading within the MAM, there might be some yardage to the argument that these vehicles are not designed for use as motorhomes.  (However, the chassis doesn't know whether its load is a motorhome, or coal, so the nature of the load should be irrelevant.)  Hills exist, generally on a grander scale outside UK that within and, of necessity, from time to time, vehicles have to tackle them in reverse gear.  Heavily laden vehicles will always struggle to start on hills, whether moving forwards or in reverse.  However, hill starts being a part of normal driving, executing this manoeuvre in a vehicle that is within its MAM really shouldn't fry the clutch or wreck the gearbox.  Maybe it's just me, but I don't recall hearing of such a defect on the earlier Sevel vans, nor on current or previous versions of the other available makes.  Yet many must have had to reverse up hills over the years.  I repeat, the purpose made Sevel chassis, as widely advertised by Fiat, was designed precisely as a motorhome base.  I know this because the adverts say so.  That chassis also exhibits the judder, so it is not a case of abusing the vehicle in some way, it is being used for exactly the purpose the manufacturer says he made it.  If a commercial vehicle cannot reasonably execute normal manoeuvres when within its MAM its design is, in my opinion, flawed.

Regarding rejecting the vehicle as not fit for purpose, bold words!  If only............  Is the sole purpose of motorhomes to be reversed up hills?  If that is all it cannot do, is this an adequate ground for rejection?  The answer, sadly, as several people have found out, is that it is not.  It is a defect, which the supplying dealer is legally obliged to seek to remedy.  He, being a motorhome dealer, is obliged to turn to the base vehicle manufacturer for repair.  The base vehicle manufacturer keeps a straight bat, and says the vehicle is not exhibiting abnormal behaviour.  Thus, the judder is turned from being a defect, into a customer complaint which the dealer is unable to resolve.  The poor old customer then has to face the prospect of suing the dealer, and trying to enjoin the base vehicle manufacturer in the case so that he can get at them, the warranty merely being an extra contractual promise.  You'd need the wealth of a Branson to take that lot on!  Except that if you had, you'd simply take the van to another dealer and trade it for a Merc, because life is too short and the law too slow.  That is why this is so cruel for those affected.  They have limited resources, and limited time, and no real remedy.  It is solely and purely that risk which persuades me that no-one should contemplate buying a current Sevel van until the judder is demonstrably cured.

[david lloyd]

rupert123 - 2008-07-25 5:24 PM

 

.

 

Yes, Rupert - but some of us are in the market and have driven said vans - and I wouldn't call MMM a magazine with a 'small circulation' - in my case at least it has prompted me to turn away from the new x250.

 

David

 

Well fair enough David but you tend to make my point. You say you are in the market, but have you purchased yet, I suspect not, so why would Fiat care. You may not buy for another six months in that time Fiat fix the problem, would you then change your mind? When you tested the Fiat did it judder, did you point this out to salesman? You would not call the MMM a magazine with small circulation, well nor did I, in fact I do not recall metioning anything by name. I said small circulation and compared with tabloids, for example Daily Mail has around 2.3 million readers a day, MMM if you like has what 30,000 a month, do not really know but cannot be much more. this is not small it is completely of the radar.

 

Sorry to disappoint Rupert, BUT - I was looking at the new van because I was in the market AND did buy - I collect my replacement van on Friday 1st August and it is not on the new Sevel chassis.

[rupert123]

Brian Kirby - 2008-07-26 12:31 AMSorry to come back at you on this, and for abridging your post, but.........Use as a motorhome base vehicle is exactly what this version of the Sevel vans has been designed for.  They developed a special low chassis, with widened rear track, just for motorhomes.  If it were only van conversions that are affected, albeit one has to assume the owners are sensible enough to keep the loading within the MAM, there might be some yardage to the argument that these vehicles are not designed for use as motorhomes.  (However, the chassis doesn't know whether its load is a motorhome, or coal, so the nature of the load should be irrelevant.)  Hills exist, generally on a grander scale outside UK that within and, of necessity, from time to time, vehicles have to tackle them in reverse gear.  Heavily laden vehicles will always struggle to start on hills, whether moving forwards or in reverse.  However, hill starts being a part of normal driving, executing this manoeuvre in a vehicle that is within its MAM really shouldn't fry the clutch or wreck the gearbox.  Maybe it's just me, but I don't recall hearing of such a defect on the earlier Sevel vans, nor on current or previous versions of the other available makes.  Yet many must have had to reverse up hills over the years.  I repeat, the purpose made Sevel chassis, as widely advertised by Fiat, was designed precisely as a motorhome base.  I know this because the adverts say so.  That chassis also exhibits the judder, so it is not a case of abusing the vehicle in some way, it is being used for exactly the purpose the manufacturer says he made it.  If a commercial vehicle cannot reasonably execute normal manoeuvres when within its MAM its design is, in my opinion, flawed.

Regarding rejecting the vehicle as not fit for purpose, bold words!  If only............  Is the sole purpose of motorhomes to be reversed up hills?  If that is all it cannot do, is this an adequate ground for rejection?  The answer, sadly, as several people have found out, is that it is not.  It is a defect, which the supplying dealer is legally obliged to seek to remedy.  He, being a motorhome dealer, is obliged to turn to the base vehicle manufacturer for repair.  The base vehicle manufacturer keeps a straight bat, and says the vehicle is not exhibiting abnormal behaviour.  Thus, the judder is turned from being a defect, into a customer complaint which the dealer is unable to resolve.  The poor old customer then has to face the prospect of suing the dealer, and trying to enjoin the base vehicle manufacturer in the case so that he can get at them, the warranty merely being an extra contractual promise.  You'd need the wealth of a Branson to take that lot on!  Except that if you had, you'd simply take the van to another dealer and trade it for a Merc, because life is too short and the law too slow.  That is why this is so cruel for those affected.  They have limited resources, and limited time, and no real remedy.  It is solely and purely that risk which persuades me that no-one should contemplate buying a current Sevel van until the judder is demonstrably cured.

Brian, no apology needed, as you may have gathered by now I love a good argument. however you should read my post properly. I did not say they should not be able to reverse but cannot be reasonably asked to reverse up anything without some vibration. You have to draw a line somewhere even if it is a vertical wall and I would suggest a 1 in 4/5 hill is not reasonable for any distance and clutch problems may occur if this is a regular feature of anyones driving. What happened to Andy,s gearbox is differant and certainly a design fault which has to be corrected, I suspect it may already have been but Fiat are keeping quiet because of obvious expense involved. The process of fit for use is nowhere near as hard as you make out, I have done it with a car, but you have to be persistant and of course lose the use of your van. One final point I have already made, why a Mercedes a company who over the last ten years have one of the worst records of any motor manufacturor both for reliability and customer service.

[fred grant]

this aught to be on match of the day me ansums.

 

from were i'm standing (talbot owner) its brian 10 rupert 0. rupert is making no sense. he really needs to read andys article in the new mmm. its not the judderin thats the problem, its wots going to happen over the next three yers thats the real problem. i'll speek to thee in 3 yers rupert my biddy, there will be no argument then!

 

fiatfanclubfred

[Elliot]

The whole point is this is not a discussion about what is best Ford, Mercedes or any other manufacturer.

It is about Fiat and Peugeot ignoring the fact they have a major problem on a particular product at this present time. That is a fact! It has no bearing if you have never driven one, tested one or owned one.

 

It is not a case of drawing a line. It is my judgment the people who have these issues are normal owners with normal expectations of what a vehicle is capable of. They are obviously not trying to reverse up the side of a cliff.

 

Even though it is not until December I will not be spending my 40 odd thousand pounds on a Fiat or Peugeot because I have no faith in the customer aftercare they are providing over this matter and that makes me doubt the commitment to quality and customer care they will have over any other issues that may arise in the future.

 

Yes they will care because it is the customer of the future who will pay their bills in the future. They are Multinational Companies and if they want to remain Multinational Companies they will listen because without satisfied customers they will have upset the shareholders due to lack of sales.

 

MMM is dedicated to the Motorhome industry people who read the Mail are not people who buy Motorhomes (well not all of them) so it is the Mail that is irrelevant in this instance. MMM is a base for information and research, people who are in the market will read it and will take note of what is going on, it should not be ignored.

 

Why am I on my horse about this? Because I can, I will not be dismissed by people who say my opinion is irrelevant because I don’t own a motorhome or have not driven one of these vans

 

 

[spospe]

Just a quick note to say how well put I thought the piece was on pages 27 and 28 of the March MMM.

 

For my part, I have little complaint regarding the design, or construction of these vehicles, instead my personal gripe is with the dismissive att*tude of the manufacturers to any complaints made by owners. This att*tude extends not just to motorvans, but, from personal experience to cars also and seems company wide in extent.

 

The contrast with, say Toyota, is huge; they care about customer relations and FIAT do not.

 

On a totally separate note, why does this website insist on putting a "*" instead of an "i" in the word "att*tude"?

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

spospe - 2008-07-26 9:57 PM

 

On a totally separate note, why does this website insist on putting a "*" instead of an "i" in the word "att*tude"?

 

 

This, I'm afraid is the effect of the peculiar software 'offence editor' that now appears to be overseeing postings on these forums. I don't recall it happening in the past, but if you now use a word that includes the letter-sequence 'T', followed by 'I', followed by 'T', the 'editor' suppresses the 'I' and replaces it with an '*'. Hence "t*t", "t*tillate", "t*tle", "Blue t*t", "Great t*t", "att*tude", etc.

 

It's intriguing what the 'offence editor' will allow and what will be modified. So "suck" is OK, but the editor insists on modifying with an "E" the anglo-saxon 4-letter word we are all familiar with. "Bugger" is happily ignored, but, unlike John Thomas, the editor really does not like "****".

 

Try creating a posting with lots of 'swearies' in it, then preview the result. It's great fecking fun and much more fecking entertaining than the serious technical fecking stuff.

[fred grant]

does a fokker become a fekker then derk???

 

flyingfred

[Elliot]

OK do you people really work for Fiat or Peugeot because this is the best way to finish a thread that could embarrass a company by filling it up with rubbish. I hope you have had fun "*******"

[AndyStothert]

As ever things tend to wander away from the real issue.

The issue is that there (at least) 300 motorhome owners who are very very unhappy with the reversing performance of their Fiat or Peugeot based motorhomes. Many have had gearbox and failures, many more will have in the futrure.

And if we have actually heard from 300 then this will be just the tip of the iceberg.

We have gone through all the real issues in the last few months, as to which models are affected or indeed why, and what the cause may be, but all that matters is that it IS sorted out, because all these duff vehicles will end up on the second hand market.

If we allow a solution is put in place quietly by Fiat and not press for a solution for all of these vehicles then the used market will be a lottery.

Those who defend the Fiat and their disgracefully evasive behaviour are, in effect, helping them. Those who say what a marvellous vehicle it is (and it could be) are in fact helping them hide from their responsibilities.

If you have one and are satisfied, just find a steep hill and try reversing it up. Or slightly less steep one with long wet grass on it.

It's hard enough battling with a huge copmany without attempts by smug self satisfied folk attempting to undermine our efforts.

Even if its just because they like a good argument.

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Just a little something I spotted the other day, that may or may not be significant, but I thought some may find interesting.

Fiat have been advertising their Ducato Motorhome chassis wares in MMM for some time past.  Recently the ad has changed, along with some of the wording. 

The bit that caught my eye in the older ad is the wording: "130 Multijet and 160 Multijet Power engines with gear ratios specially tailored for motorhomes.  More power and driving comfort."  That wording last appeared in MMM in May 2008.

The new wording, as of June 2008, reads: "Multijet engine with a special motorhome gearbox.  Excellent and comfortable performance in all conditions, with a full load or uphill."

Now, I realise this is just advertiser's copy, but it has now appeared three times in MMM (June, July and August), so I assume it must have been approved by Fiat for publication.  If this is so, the change in wording has come at an interesting time, when Fiat are fully aware of the problem with reversing these vehicles uphill.

So, I just ask myself, would a reasonable person construe "all conditions" to include reversing manoeuvres?  Uphill seems to speak for itself.  Is this "special motorhome gearbox" different to the previous one with "gear ratios specially tailored for motorhomes"?  It seems it must be, since a gearbox is a discrete and all inclusive unit, whereas the ratios are just individual elements within a gearbox.  Is this a clue?  Have they, in fact, changed the box to fix the judder problem, or is this just a bit of overenthusiastic copywriter's puff?

Notwithstanding any significance of the wording change in terms of implied engineering changes, doesn't the new wording make a claim as to the performance of the vehicle that sits uneasily alongside the known defect?  Bit rash of Fiat, if they haven't actually changed anything, wouldn't you think!  Just wondering, of course, but might the Advertising Standards Authority be interested in this new claim.  :-)

[fred grant]

bit slow at the moment bri me ansum? taken u a whole two months to notice this. u is normally a bit quicker on the uptake my biddy. or is it old age, a bit like freds advancing yers? anyway, thanks for pointing this anomoly out, nothin gets past bri eh!

 

fartinacollanderfred

[Mel B]

Fiat are saying:

 

"... with a full load OR uphill."

 

What they don't say is:

 

"... with a full load AND uphill."

 

So does that mean it's either a full load or it's uphill, but NOT both .. perhaps they are expecting everyone to partly empty their vans before going uphill, either forwards or backwards, in which case ... me thinks Andy should've shoved Fag Ash out and made her walk up the hill!!! :D

 

Andy ... tell Marion I'm only joking ... honest! :->

[Rayjsj]

I think that quite a few that already own X250 based M/h's are trying to be a bit 'protective' of their invested cash (and who can blame them !) by insisting that the 'Emperor's new clothes' really are 'Grand' , 'fine' 'the best-ist in the land', when we all know that they AIN'T, not yet anyhow.

We need to see that the second user market doesn't get tainted by loads of 'un-upgraded' X250 m/h's with dodgy gearboxes or clutches or Both .

If Fiat/Peugeot don't come foward and and up-grade them with 'the Fix'

them i'm afraid whatever is said to talk up the market wont work. They will be unsaleable to any one with any sense.

A motohome can have the best layout in the world,but if the base vehicle is Suspect, forget it,it's still a road vehicle after all. :D

[colin]

I would like to remind every one (or advise newer members) some time back we had several threads on judder, by consensus it was decided to only leave the "major problems" thread open as it was causing info and comments to be diluted around the threads.

The "major problems" thread directly refers to Fiat/Pug/Citreon and is much more likly to be found by anyone searching for info on base vehicle

[Elliot]

Colin: I do have to disagree, by limiting the amount of threads running you are polarising peoples thought process. By doing that you are limiting the free flow of information and ideas. That is censorship. I find it abhorrent that this is even being suggested on a site of this nature. This is not a data collection site it is a forum to discuss issues that are topical at the time.

 

The more threads concerning any major issue such as this can only be beneficial to them being resolved. I would also question the legality of this demand

 

[colin]

NO CENSORSHIP

NO LEGALITY

NO DEMAND

That was just a reminder to people what was discussed some time back, we had three threads running, which I was happy with, but different information was being posted on the threads and people where getting confused as to what was posted where, so a proposal was posted that one thread be maintained so that info wasn't lost, as it happens because thread had to be bumped up it run into difficulties due to it's size, thats why andy has started a new thread and hopfully is editing old one.

We are in for the long run on this problem, and will have to keep a thread going for many months to come, part of this may well be some 'jokey' posts but they are done to keep the thread on front page.

[Elliot]

I still do not understand your motives

you have closed a thread and that is censorship in my book No more to be said

[Brian Kirby]

Mel B - 2008-07-29 7:31 PM Fiat are saying:

"... with a full load OR uphill."

What they don't say is:

"... with a full load AND uphill."

So does that mean it's either a full load or it's uphill, but NOT both .. perhaps they are expecting everyone to partly empty their vans before going uphill, either forwards or backwards, in which case ... me thinks Andy should've shoved Fag Ash out and made her walk up the hill!!! :D Andy ... tell Marion I'm only joking ... honest! :->

Ho, ho, indeed.  However, I'm not aware that the judder only affects fully laden motorhomes.  Since most tip the scales at around 2.75 tonnes even when "empty", which is substantially heavier than the empty panel van on which they are based, and since Fiat claim the "special" chassis was specifically developed for motorhome use, I don't think load has any bearing on this. 

So let's look again at this.  The use of "or" in the ad seems to me to be in the inclusive, rather than the selective, sense.  Mel B's wording, substituting "and" for "or", would seem to alter the meaning to make it a proviso that in order to obtain "excellent comfort in all conditions" from a Ducato, it must be fully laden and going uphill.  All joking aside, I don't think that is quite what they are claiming, either.  I still think the change to the ad interesting, though. 

All I can say to Fred, is that he's waited even longer than me before pointing out this change.  Too cautious by far Fred, "to the bold, the spoils", I say!  :-)

[michele]

Slowlydoesitfred ..

[fred grant]

fred avoids hills these days. thats no reflection on fiats abilities to tackle gradiants - its the old legs givin out my biddies.

 

fitfulfred

[SAS]

If I was looking to buy a new motorhome at the moment I wouldn`t buy anything on a Peugeot or Fiat but that`s because I know about this problem. How many people don`t know though and are thinking about buying one and about to part with a load of cash for a possible dud vehicle. It makes ya wanna weep! :'(