New Renault Master, Vauxhall/Opel Movano,

[euroserv]

Hello All,

 

Yesterday I attended the launch of the new Renault Master. I was able to drive a total of 7 different vans with various power outputs and with front and rear wheel drive.

 

First, the cab. It is very dark and sombre but seems well constructed. There are influences of Iveco and Fiat there but overall the Fiat cab is a more cheerful place to sit. Everything seems 'harder' than in the Sevel cab and along with the darker hues this makes the Renault quite drab.

 

All of the vans were long wheelbase and were not loaded at all, so it is obviously not easy to predict how they will behave when fully loaded with a camper body; however there were some clear differences.

 

All use the same 2.3 chain driven engine which is a development of the current Master 2.5 unit. Odd, but aparrently true.

 

The 100hp engine is surprisingly sprightly, the 125 is considerably stronger and the 150 quite perky (not surprising) but the difference in the way that each pulls from low revs is significant. When comparing a euro4 version against a euro5 of the same output however, it was as if the engine is being strangled and most of the torque at low revs disappears.

 

I have seen trucks in the past that had an 'upshift' light on the dash which told you when to change up for better economy. The Renault has a 'downshift' light to warn you that you are labouring the engine and need a lower gear and more revs. That does not sound like progress to me.

 

The euro5 will need to be worked harder and therefore whatever the maker claims regarding fuel consumption you will use considerably more fuel in a euro5 than a euro4. This makes me angry because it is always the case! The makers should be incentivised to reduce the amount of fuel used, not necessarily the constituent parts of what comes out of the exhaust. Stupid europe strikes again.

 

The other most notable fact was that the front wheel drive gear changes were always notchy and not very pleasant while the rear drive set up was sweetness itself, while introducing a small amount of axle noise that is normal for a large rear drive chassis.

 

The vans were described as pre-production and 'first off the line' but in my experience of launch events, the vehicles would have been fettled wherever possible to be as good as they could be so I do not expect the front drive gearchange to ever be particularly good and is not up to the standard of the competition.

 

I have issues with the 'patchwork quilt' nature of the body panels rear of the cabin and the rear end is not very attractive either but for coachbuilts the front part is quite attractive in a sort of aggressive way. It looks better than most of the competition and has 'prescence' which I think is particularly important when you are spending a lot of money on a coachbuilt.

 

The floor of the load area of the rear drive vans is about 100mm higher than that of the front drive, and of course the wheel arches are wider to accomodate the twin wheels. You won't be getting any Al-Ko low floor versions of this chassis but that is the way it is supposed to be. Get yourself a ladder and enjoy lots of under-floor storage! The payload of RWD is stated as only 140kg less than the FWD equivalent, which is hard to believe but that is what they say.

 

As long as an extended test in one to France in a few weeks goes well I will be adding some rear wheel drive vans to my fleet in place of our Iveco Daily 3.5T vans in the near future. I will then have some fuel figures for comparison with the Fiat because we are taking Ducato 3.0 manuals and Auto's on the same trip.

 

The only concern that I have, in spite of how nicely these early vans drive is that this is a first for renault. The only previous form they have with RWD was the Mascott and RWD Master of a few years ago and they were basically Iveco Daily's underneath. There will be teething problems! We have 3 years and 100,000 miles to find them all.

 

For you camper folk I would suggest that if you want a large coachbuilt on a rear drive chassis you will probably find much to like, and I sincerely hope that this vehicle brings to an end the practice of making 30 foot long horror stories based on front wheel drive chassis. This solution should cost you about £5,000 more than the equivalent but will have a chance of working.

 

Nick

[Neil Hunt]

Nick,

 

Thanks for an exhaustive, warts an all and clear review of the new Renault.

 

We will have to see what transpires with converters.

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

Yes, thanks Nick. Good report.  BTW, did you try reverse?  :-D

[euroserv]

Hi Brian,

 

The test circuit was ironing board flat so not much potential for any problems there but the FWD was easy enough to engage as was the RWD after the characteristic clunk. I did not think rearwards progress was overly hurried and both seemed perfectly happy manouvering using just the clutch with no throttle forwards and backwards which is something I always look for in a diesel vehicle. It shows up any vibrations or rattles in the cab or drivetrain. There were none.

 

Nick

[rupert123]

Looks like stick with Fiat then for most vans.

[fred grant]

euro, all very interestin my biddy. my garage man denzil also went to the lunch and e said that regie said that the engine wus a upgraded 2 litre not a down graded 2.5 liter. but dus it matter e said as parently the sprinter as a car engine for 2010 - 2143 not 2148 as brian says. now a longer stroke he says me ansums.

anyway, don won to start any arguments my luvvers, but what denzil don no about tractors aint worth knoing. proper job anyhow.

fordsonfred

[euroserv]

Hi Fred, me luvly (!)

 

Renault staff did make it absolutely clear that the engine was a downsized development of the 2.5 during the initial presentation and during 2 of the 3 workshops that we attended. However unlikely this seems, we only have that to work with. I suspect your man was eyeing up some of the female hosts during those bits.

 

Nick

[fred grant]

denzil as eyes in the back of is ead, and elsewhere u don want to know about my luvvers

 

f

[euroserv]

Hello Campers,

 

As pronised, now that I have spent some time with the New Renault Master I can tell you what the French have accomplished;

 

I have been driving the LWB High roof panel van with a 125hp Euro5 engine. It was fitted with an option pack that included air conditioning and reversing sensors. The standard specification also includes a factory fitted Tom Tom navigation unit which while useful was incredibly complicated to use (being remote control not touch control) and may not be standard in the markets where your potential vehicles are going to be built, so it is not that relevant.

 

The cab is a dark but pleasant place to be. Everything is black but seems well made and strong. There are many cubby holes and drinks holders and the glovebox can hold no less than two 2 litre bottles (chilled if you have air con), I do think that they have given much consideration to the living environment. This leads me to problem number one;

 

The drivers seat is not adjustable for tilt. Only reach and height are provided and many of the drivers that tried it said that they could not get comfortable and that the seat itself was not as comfortable as the Fiat Ducato's that they are used to.

 

Problem 2 (and by far the worst) is that the gear selector turret is of such a size and is suitably located so that you will bash your left knee against it constantly. I hoped that I would get used to it but it was impossible to avoid. I am 5'10'' and other drivers taller and much shorter than me had the same issue with it.

 

The load area was a mixed bag, the doors all seemed to close nicely and roll smoothly but there was a big problem with the 'check-straps' on the rear doors: Instead of the customary rollers that go inside the doors to control the extent of opening, there are a couple of curved rods that when the doors are closing intrude into the load area. This makes them vulnerable to attack by whatever you have loaded into the van and once bent, they would prevent the doors opening. Some sort of protection would have to be added in order to enclose them and this steals valuable space. Not a clever solution.

 

The load area was ply-lined as are our hire vans and although the load volume was supposedly identical to our Ducato's at 13 cubic metres, the Renault seemed smaller. It was definitely a little shorter and narrower and with the lack of any storage space above the cab that we have become used to on the Fiat vans, the carrying flexibility is compromised for those longer items.

 

Apart from the comfort issues raised above, driving the van was a pleasure due to an extremely quiet engine that while not exactly sparkling with performance was very flexible and rewarded a more relaxed driving style. This should have resulted in some decent fuel economy, and we had been told by Renault at the launch that the fuel consumption was 'class leading' but a detailed analysis showed that the economy is very similar to the 2.3 Ducato van and was around 26 to 27mpg in daily use with part and full loads on urban and motorway routes. This was the Euro5 version however and I from my experiences of driving the Euro4 I expect that it would be both more economical and give a bit more 'zip'.

 

There is a 150hp option but it costs £1600 more and is the same capacity (2.3) but has a variable rate Turbo and a few other minor changes. At least if you pay that much more for a more powerful Fiat you get a bigger engine that is technically superior and as such represents value for money. This is in my opinion a rip-off by Renault and a shameful one into the bargain.

 

The gear change was a bit 'notchy' but not so much that it spoiled the otherwise smooth progress. The Rear Wheel Drive vans that I have driven had much nicer transmissions and would be worth a look for the bigger coachbuilts (if you can be comfortable driving them) because for long vehicles, RWD is the way to go.

 

The warranty is competitive at three years (unlimited in the first two years) and Renault have gone to great lengths to strengthen their van service centres around the country.

 

After careful consideration I have concluded that the comfort issues and to a less extent the design of the rear door stays, the New Master is not for us. I carried out an extensive parts pricing excercise as well and revealed that the Renault would cost us a great deal more to run during an expected life cycle of 4 years and 180,000 miles to the tune of £2000 over that of the Fiat Ducato.

 

If on the other hand you have had your left leg amputated above the knee and get an automatic version, and you buy a coachbuilt so that the rear doors are not an issue for you; you may be pleasantly surprised to find an alternative to the X250 chassis. I so very badly wanted this to be the answer for us, but it sadly is not.

 

Nick

[Brian Kirby]

Thanks Nick, very informative.  Is the steering wheel adjustable for reach or rake?  There is supposed to be a "fully adjustable" driver's seat option, although it appears to include a suspension system.  Do you know if that allows the squab to be tilted? 

I guess if the driver could get his legs into the right position, possibly by tilting the squab, and then adjust the steering wheel to suit, it might get around the problem with the turret.  I also wonder if the problem is similar for LHD vans?

[colin]

Suprised about the comfort issue, IMO Renault have always been better then Sevel, infact this was one of the compromises we made going for a Sevel van! How did they manage to get that wrong I wonder.

[euroserv]

Be surprised by all means, but I am not making it up!

 

We are made differently and our posteriors lack compatibility but I strongly suspect that if you take a trip to your local Vauxhall or Renault dealer and ask to sit in the cab you will agree with me. I do not know what they were smoking or actually looking at while at the screens of their computer aided design stations or what breed or specifications of test dummies were used during early mock-ups or endurance testing but they got it wrong.

 

I recommend going to the Vauxhall dealer because their van is uglier, less well specified and more expensive, so their fleet salesperson will have more time available for you. Your knee will get bruised as efficiently in either version.

 

Brian,

 

I have checked and you get just the one adjustment on the steering.

 

The 'fully adjustable drivers seat' is pneumatic and appears to have tilt options but is a £250 plus vat option. The standard seat does not even have lumbar adjustment; this is a £50 plus vat option. Incidentally they are charging another £50 for 'one touch driver's window operation'.

 

For the record, this costs them absolutely nothing to incorporate.

 

The cheek!

 

Nick

[Brian Kirby]

Doubtless much will change when market reaction gets back to HQ!  This van is also being badged Opel, so with the French, German, and UK (and presumably Irish) markets to play for, and with a fat investment to recoup during a recession, I think a few minor tweaks in response to "popular demand" would probably sort the turret, and fixing the seat should be a weekend fag packet job.  Lordy, even the Tranny seats can be adjusted for squab tilt!  But what do I know?  :-D

[bobalobs]

Thanks Nick for your report on the new Renault. Very helpful to prospective owners but does it reverse? I ask this not as a windup on the long running Sevel topic but following a discussion with a Vw owner at Silverstone Classic which makes me think the "problem" afflicts campers across the board. He has a four month old 180 bhp Vw California with all the toys( list price £56000---yes no typing error!!!) and with no prompting and when discussing the Sevel saga states " this van does not like reversing either" Maybe the saga continues though the van was fairly heavily laden being on a six month trip round Europe following motor racing.

[rupert123]

Ah well, so Fiat it still is then.

[Symbol Owner]

Not if recent 'posts' on the "Fiat/ Peugeot/Citroen transmission defect" thread are anything to go by -- avoid them like the plague say I -- until they produce a totally new gearbox that doesn't have a reverse gear ratio higher than first -- simple really! At least Renault ought to be able to 'fix the in cab environment fairly easily and quickly if the production models turn out to be as dire as Nick's experience of them.

 

Colin.

[Brian Kirby]

Colin9591 - 2010-02-23 3:20 PM Someone posted a link to a new brochure a few weeks ago but the search function is dysfunctional at the moment, so I cannot find it. However, I recall that it showed an internal width no greater than the "old" version that I have, i.e. 1765mm. It seems strange that Renault may have missed an opportunity here although it depends on how it's measured, of course. Regards

Polite apologies for resurrecting an old thread, but I noted the Devon/Wildax tests in the Feb MMM. 

This older discussion about widths now has a little more substance based on measurements of an actual conversion, in the form of the Devon Monte Carlo.  This layout broadly follows the Adria Twin rear transverse bed layout in the New Master shell.  The Twin claims a rear bed length of 1,960mm (6' 5"), whereas the Monte Carlo bed, as measured by Dave Hurrell, is 1,880mm (which is then converted to 5' 9" instead of 6' 2"!).

So, the overall width of 2,070mm in the Master gives a 1,880 bed, losing 190mm, while the overall width of 2,050mm in the Ducato gives a 1,960mm bed, losing only 90mm.  How very odd!

[colin]

And when it comes to the longetudenal bed of the Wildax it's even worse! Max bed width of Wildax as large double is 4' 9" as opposed to 6'3" on Globecar, even allowing 6" (2x3") for seat backs so it becomes 5'3" thats a whole foot narrower.

[Derek Uzzell]

colin - 2011-01-18 8:40 PM

 

And when it comes to the longetudenal bed of the Wildax it's even worse! Max bed width of Wildax as large double is 4' 9" as opposed to 6'3" on Globecar, even allowing 6" (2x3") for seat backs so it becomes 5'3" thats a whole foot narrower.

 

MMM's rear-bed WIDTH data for the Wildax Europa's rear double-bed are a) notably incomplete, with no Metric figure provided and b) wrong.

 

In the same report, the rear-bed LENGTH data for the Devon Monte Carlo are 1.88m (5' 9"). Logically, the length of the Devon's rear-bed should be roughly equivalent to the width of the Wildax's double-bed. 5' 9" is still shorter than the Globecar datum you've quoted, but not by "a whole foot".

 

Visually, it's very apparent from the photo on MMM's Page 141 that the 4' 9" figure should be disbelieved. The width of the Wildax's "alternative singles" is stated as a credible 2' 1" - hence the overall width of the two single beds would be 4' 2". But the rear-backrest inserted between the two side-singles is clearly far wider than seven inches. 5' 9" minus 4' 2" = 1' 7", which looks about right for the width of the centre insert.

 

(Surely it's about time that MMM dragged its readers out of the Dark Ages and stopped providing both Metric and Imperial measurements in reports? MMM Buyers' Guide has been all-Metric for quite a while now and I'm confident MMM readers have the mental agility to handle that.)

[brom]

Sorry Derek - can't agree. Eventually, as the pre-metric generation hangs up its driving gloves, it will come to pass naturally, but as of now, I'm sure there are lots of folk who understand imperial measurements automatically, and who can't immediately visualise metric equivalents. Why make their reading of reviews more difficult? Making the conversions is tedious for the tester, but while demand exists, it's worthwhile.

 

Brom

[Rayjsj]

Derek Uzzell - 2011-01-19 9:26 AM

 

colin - 2011-01-18 8:40 PM

 

surely it's about time that MMM dragged its readers out of the Dark Ages and stopped providing both Metric and Imperial measurements in reports? MMM Buyers' Guide has been all-Metric for quite a while now and I'm confident MMM readers have the mental agility to handle that.)

 

 

 

 

 

It's not exactly the 'dark ages' only 30 years ago, everyone's(in the UK) concept of measurement were in Imperial measures, I agree they were not easy to learn, but once learnt they became 'second nature'. And many generations of UK citizens learnt them (and prospered). I am sure I am not alone in 'still thinking' in Imperial measurement and mentally having to convert it to Metric, and some metric measurements when 'fired at me' by some young 'carpet salesman/ motorhome salesman' etc., simply baffle me

and (as i am paying) my answer is 'What is that in Engish' ? if HE cannot convert it for me I go to a Salesman who can, If there isn't one I go elswhere. Don't worry all of US 'Old Ones' will be dead in 20 years or so, and the problem will be solved, BUT until then, while 'I am paying the Piper' i will call the tune. (albeit an 'out of date' one.) *-) *-) Ray

[Derek Uzzell]

I 'think' in all sorts of measurement units according to what most suits me at the time.

 

I am of the pre-metric generation but, as far as motorhome dimensions are concerned I think in metric. Although I can mentally convert to imperial units easily enough, feet /inches don't automatically mean anything to me when it comes to a motorhome's size. In different circumstances - female 'vital statistics' for example - I still think in imperial units and equivalent metric measurements are initially meaningless.

 

Perhaps Mr Attwoods' planned readership questionnaire should explore this, as it would surely be preferable to have one set of accurate data in motorhome test reports than have two sets of information that encourage error.

 

 

[colin]

Derek Uzzell - 2011-01-19 9:26 AM

 

colin - 2011-01-18 8:40 PM

 

And when it comes to the longetudenal bed of the Wildax it's even worse! Max bed width of Wildax as large double is 4' 9" as opposed to 6'3" on Globecar, even allowing 6" (2x3") for seat backs so it becomes 5'3" thats a whole foot narrower.

 

MMM's rear-bed WIDTH data for the Wildax Europa's rear double-bed are a) notably incomplete, with no Metric figure provided and b) wrong.

 

In the same report, the rear-bed LENGTH data for the Devon Monte Carlo are 1.88m (5' 9"). Logically, the length of the Devon's rear-bed should be roughly equivalent to the width of the Wildax's double-bed. 5' 9" is still shorter than the Globecar datum you've quoted, but not by "a whole foot".

 

 

It may be wrong BUT as has been discused before the availible width lower down where the Wildax bed is, is much less than the higher position of the Devon bed, my estimate of 5'3" taking out the seat backs is proboly not far out.

 

p.s. if there is a minimal thickness of 'lining' then the 4'9" quoted in MMM should have been 5'9", which is 6" less than Fiat.

[Tomo3090]

I don't know if this helps the discussion. According to the Wildax brochure for the Europa the bed is 6'4" long and the vehicle is 6.2M long, 2.07M wide, (before conversion) and 2.49M high, so even the constructor uses dual measurments!

[euroserv]

Hello folks,

 

Since Brian re-activated the thread, I thought I would share my experiences of another version of the Master van that we had on test in November;

 

The vehicle was a RWD (single rear wheels) Medium wheelbase with a long over-hang behind the rear wheels which strangely gives the same load volume as the FWD long wheelbase/short overhang model.

 

It still has the same gear selector turret (and the discomfort that this brings) and the same rear door stay intrusion but it was the driving experience that I was interested in.

 

The van feels 'over-tyred' in that it tran-lines very badly and the steering is a bit wobbly due to the immense 235 75 16 tyres. I don't understand why they do this, because it ruins the handling and if it is ok to have skinny 195 tyres all round on the twin wheel version then something less wide would have been fine for the single wheel van and would have driven more nicely.

 

The 125hp Euro4 engine was wheezy at best with a load on and I still feel that the van needed a bigger engine. Our recent studies of the Merc sprinter, VW Crafter and Iveco Eco Daily showed that this was typical of the latest batch of Euro4 and Euro5 engines, ALL of the engines that were not sourced from Iveco seemed lacking in torque for the given output of 125 to 150hp that we tried, and it is important to note that only Renault and Iveco/Fiat are going to be able to acheive Euro5 AND EEV (a higher level of emissions control still) without having to use Ad-blu exhaust gas treatment. Fuel consumption was reported and checked by me at about 23-24mpg during our tests which is about average these days, some way short of Renault's 'industry leading' claims.

 

The drivetrain is absolutely fine when you are moving but I experienced some significant 'shunting' when engaging 1st or 2nd while moving slowly, and the rear axle/propshaft is quite noisy with a whine audible at all times. I still think that this is a very good first effort at RWD and I am sure that it will be refined over the years. Even now though I think that it is just as refined as the Merc Sprinter drivetrain, the VW Crafter or indeed the Iveco Daily.

 

 

Nick