autocruise starburst

[malcy]

Hi there, Ive been looking at this forum for a week or so now & my question is this. Have any of you got any experience of running an Autocruise Stardream or Starburst, either one will suit me.My principle concern is the low chassis height, which to my mind at least, looks like it could be vulnerable to grounding e.g. ferry loading ramps,speed humps,wild camping etc, As you can tell I like a good worry, so if any of you out there can cure me of this one I would be obliged. As this is my first posting I can now sit back & worry if any of you are going to reply. Regards Malcy.

[colin weston]

Hi Malcy,

I have had a Starburst since June 2007. I had the same concern before we bought ours. The worst clearance point is the exhaust extension from the silencer. The only 'grounding' we have had was on the entrance to a site in Cornwall which had a sharp change in gradient, effectively giving a large hump. The problem was worse as the'U-bolt' clamp for the exhaust extension had the threaded portions pointing down. These extended some 3/4 in below the pipe itself. Turning the clamp through 90 degrees gave another 3/4 in clearance. The vertical clearance of this extension pipe is 51/2-6 inches if my memory serves me well. Since we bought our Starburst I believe the extension pipe was improved to give more ground clearance. We do quite a lot of wild camping. The only thing I would advise is to be a bit cautious when confronting a bit of rough ground. One thing you might want to consider is the advantage of the mid-lounge arrangement of the Starburst regarding loading. We previously had a 2001 Stardream with a rear lounge and although there was plenty of storage space one had to be careful not to exceed the maximum rear axle load. With the Starburst, most of the loading volume is within the wheelbase. We have found our Starburst ideal but I appreciate everyone's needs are different. Hope this helps you decision. Regards, Colin

[Guest Tracker]

We too have a Starbust although ours is labelled Starlet II (Marquis edition). Ours is 2006 on the old chassis and we have had it 15 months and covered almost 12000 miles including a 3500 mile trip to and around Morocco last February.

 

We like it. The ride from the Alko chassis is far far superior to the standard chassis ride and the longer wheelbase helps with stability and reduced pitching as well as better front wheel grip due to less rear overhang.

 

On the down side the longer wheelbase can make you look stupid if turning or parking in confined spaces when everyone else in standard SWB or MWB vans can swing their van in one go it sometimes takes three goes in the Alko chassis LWB vans!

 

Ground clearance can be an issue although we only grounded and bounced a couple of times in Morocco and some of that was pretty lumpy at times. The biggest problem I have is getting in and out of my own drive and I have had to make up a couple of shallow ramps to raise the back end whilst the front end lifts over the kerb!

 

There are very few trips where we don't bottom out at least once but we do sometimes tend to go where perhaps a van of that size didn't ought to! That said we have done no damage to date as the chassis rails are the lowest point - apart from the exhaust but as long as you are going slow enough it generally seems to just slide along the ground making a very dramatic noise but doing no apparent damage. Like Colin I too moved the exhaust clamp to gain clearance and also reduce the risk of it catching on a rock or summat.

 

All in all we like the Starlet and have no plans to change - and this from a guy that has had seven vans since 2003!

 

Be aware that many new vans, particularly those from Swift, have very low slung and, in my view, very vulnerable exterior fresh water tanks of which the very lowest point is the bung which is just as low as the chassis rails of the Alko - and being mid wheelbase does not help.

 

Also some of the latest Auto Sleeper vans have very low coachbuilt bodies which are also vulnerable to clouting.

 

Talking of clouting - I also managed to clout and damage the moulding that joins the cab step to the coachbuilt body - both sides - on roadside rocks whilst in Morocco but these are easy enough to repair with grp, polyester filler and a can of spray paint! My excuse was that they are not only very low but stick out too far. Real reason - carelessness on my part!

 

 

[Champstar]

I have had a 2006 starburst for only a few months so still getting to know it.

I do feel that the driving is fantastic and very stable compared to my last van. I have not grounded out so far..but do MCS rallying and wild camping...Scotland is wonderful and havent had any real problems yet except I have run over my waste water hose as I forget to clip it back into place.

 

I look forward to really getting to know my van and enjoying it in the coming months.

[malcy]

Thanks for your swift response, it seems you're all pleased with your vans & my concern over the low ride height although justified shoudn't be enough to put me off one. Colins reply though does bring up another question in my mind (sorry that's the worrier in me again) about the Alko rear axle. He quite rightly warned me about the risk of overloading the rear axle in the rear lounge version & whilst I realise that this is a very real possibility in any vehicle let alone a fully laden motorhome packed to the rafters with everything you never knew you couldn't live without. I'd have thought the long wheelbase would have made this difficult. My question is this. Does the Alko axle have a lower axle weight than than Fiats own leaf spring set up. The reason I ask this is because my own Ace Milano motorhome which rides on Fiats own leaf spring set up has got reasonable tolerances as regards axle weights, I can load it up to its max weight 3400 ks & still be comfortably within the limits which are 1750 front axle & 1900 rear. I hang two mountain bikes off the back of what is already a large overhang & have so far not overloaded, we do have a luton over the cab where we store some of our clobber which will of course make some difference to the weight distribution but not overly so as it is mostly bedding. With your experience to date, will I be able to do the same with a rear lounge starburst.

 

[colin weston]

The maximum front and rear axle loads for my Starburst are 1850 kg and 2000 kg respectively with a MPLM of 3500kg. Therefore there is some flexibility regarding loading. We carry 2 cycles on a rear rack, combined weight about 55 lb. Due to the small rear overhang the cycles have minimum effect especially when returning from France with 40 odd 3 litre boxes of wine distributed midships. I always make sure all my water tanks are empty on my return visit! I can only agree with Tracker's views regarding handling and stability. The new model Peugeot 2.2l drives like a dream. I average just over 30mpg. This is a genuine figure as I log all my fuel added. The electronic mpg readout tends to be a few mpg optimistic. Presumably you are aware of the 'judder in reverse' problem?

Just noticed your deliberate mistake regarding rear lounge Starburst. Should be Stardream? We used to carry 2 cycles on our 2001 Stardream and we were always near the max. rear axle load. Can't remember the individual axle loads but MPLM was only 3100 kg and wheelbase was shorter.

[malcy]

Thanks for that Colin & thanks for your time, you've satisfied my curiosity completely. I'm particularly impressed with your fuel economy figures which blow mine clean away, I get 25-27mpg.driving quietly at 60mph.

I,ve just had an overly large evening meal & a couple of sherbets & gravity seems to be attacking my eyelids,so on that note. Thanks again for all your help, been nice chatting with you.