MMM Motorcaravanners' Report

[armstrongpiper]

Just got back from our Spring trip and catching up on MMM reading. In the May issue there is the summary of readers' experiences with the Autosleeper Nuevo. We had a 2006 Nuevo and spent an hour or two filling in the forms and reporting on our experiences. The report in MMM almost completely ignores (or rather doesn't reflect on) our misfortune in buying this 'van. I guess the idea behind issuing this kind of report is to make interesting reading to prospective buyers, but unless the 'warts and all' are disclosed, then the exercise is useless. I think I knew reports are biased in favour of those paying for the advertisements, but this one confirms it. Neil B

[Neil Hunt]

We too have recently acquired a new Nuevo and although we like its layout and general ambience as a whole, there are also aspects that are more than just a bit tatty. Worst of all (so far anyway) it is incredibly noisy, some fittings are functionally poor and of poor quality in a vehicle that is very expensive.

 

If the reviews were honestly critical of these aspects and treated product with the same scrutiny that cars are now reviewed it would in the long term be of benefit to the manufacturers competitiveness apart from the improved value to the customer. There is I think much in the nature of this particular market that prevents this happening.

 

An earlier post pointed out that MMM, in contrast to some of the other mags, is more honest in its reviewing but this is only comparatively so, given that the others offer little more than the manufacturers advertising spiel plus some. Any criticism is often in code (so you need to have a good knowledge of the product already to get it) or is softened, like the comments about the Nuevo bodywork rubbing on the tyres in the article referred to by armstrongpiper. An episode that demonstrates an unbelievable level of slapdash and complacency and of an amateurish production process more concerned about superficial appearance than substance.

 

Will things change, I doubt it.

 

 

 

[fred22]

I stopped my subscription to MMM and now only buy an occasional one off the shelf for the very reasons outlined here.

Whilst I appreciate that all reviews are only someones opinion, I found that they were economical with the truth and often glossed over or ignored obvious problems or shortcomings. One thing I remember was that a van had only one 13amp socket and that was next to the TV aerial plug. If you put your TV on the surface next to the socket, you had to unplug and move the telly to plug the kettle in. The reviewer did a live in test but no comment on the lack of sockets was mentioned. A minor problem maybe but never the less a problem.

I cannot ever remember reading a review that criticised any thing of relevance but then perhaps the reviewers wouldn't get much work if they did.

[Jonathan Lloyd]

Thank you for your reply to Motorcaravanners' Report.

 

I am sorry that you don't feel that your response has been given the copy it deserves. All responses are scored and the results independently analysed by qualified statisticians. I started the Motorcaravanners' Report many years ago as I thought it might help those thinking of purchasing to make a more informed decision. Sadly I have been subjected to many personal insults as well as threats from manufacturers regarding the publication of the results. I have lost count as to the number of times I've been threatened with those immortal words...You'll never work again.

 

I keep all responses and will be happy to submit them to a suitably qualified independent statistician of your choice. In the meantime I have to thank you for making my mind up to resign from my unpaid job as collator of these reponses. I only get paid per page for the resulting copy.

 

Finally I would wish to argue against the pre-conception that I am somehow in the pay of advertisers - if only that were true.

 

However I leave your road tests in the capable hands of Andy Stothert whom as you rightly say, is a consumer's champion.

 

Goodbye

 

 

Jonathan Lloyd.

[Mel B]

Hi Jonathan

 

Please do not let the negative comments above stop you from doing something which is very useful and informative. There will always be some who are not happy with articles, as I'm sure you are more than aware, but I suggest there are a heck of a lot more people who are.

 

Please do not let the ones who want to have a gripe because they didn't get their 'moment of fame' stop you from doing these reports - they are very much appreciated. You simply can't keep everyone happy but you do help an awful lot of people who don't grouse about it!

 

I have some experience of the amount of work that goes into writing articles for magazines etc and I would challenge anyone who thinks it is an easy job to have a go at writing informative, interesting and concise articles ... they might then re-think the, to some extent, quite insulting comments above.

 

I think Jonathan is owed an apology.

 

:-|

[Neil Hunt]

Hello Jonathan,

 

I know that you did not ask for an apology but if you feel that my words implied that you personally were "in the pay of advertisers" then I do apologise, as this was not remotely my intention. What I did intend was to make the general comment that the motorhome magazines are essentially about selling motorhomes in a way that newspapers are not essentially about selling cars.

 

I did note in your article that you had raised the issue of the ‘low slung’ bodywork yourself with the manufacturer and I thought that to be admirable. Unfortunately, comment, in a forum like this, tends to be very specific and limited in its focus.

 

I can well imagine the personal insults and threats you have received from manufacturers and how difficult an environment it must be to seek to offer honest and critical opinion.

 

Maybe it is naivety on my part to complain of the lack of objectivity and analysis rather than the equivalent of hagiography as the norm in these publications.

 

Speak to a journalist privately and you often get a very different perspective and tone.

 

 

 

[armstrongpiper]

Jonathan, I am sorry that I have caused you some anguish by raising this thread. It wasn't my intention to be insulting. However, I would like to counter the suggestion that I was looking 'for a moment of fame' (anonymously??). In fact, owners of Autosleeper Nuevos, on this occasion, were invited to obtain the survey forms and report on their experiences. I actually thought that it should be known that our vehicle had been back to the Manufacturers three times in its first two years to have water ingress through the roof corrected (and the first of these leaks was really serious), half the upholstery had to be recovered as it had started to fall apart after only a year of careful use, the washroom handbasin cracked and had to be replaced, and there were lots of things for the Dealer to sort out. These things weren't mentioned in the MMM report, and perhaps they should have been. Neil B

[Brian Kirby]

How easy it is to fire off unbalanced and uncorroborated opinions into the internet ether!  It seemed clear to me that nothing short of a verbal cudgelling of the manufacturer, exactly mirroring their particular experiences, would have satisfied the above complainants.  No response in defence of reason seems possible: nearly 100 responses were returned and synthesised into a perfectly cogent report.  Quality issues were raised, for those who chose to read them. 

Doubtless there were some defects more serious than others, but within an overall response, if those registering dissatisfaction are few in number, their impact, no matter how acutely felt by the complainant, can only have a marginal effect on the outcome.  It is an inherent drawback of such reports that they can only reflect the average of all the responses and, if most users are satisfied and only a few dissatisfied, those dissatisfied will feel their sentiments have not been represented.

However, what else, in practical terms, can be done, and are we ultimately better off with some report, or with none?  My vote, accepting their inevitable shortcomings is, very firmly, in favour of having these reports, and I very much hope Jonathan will reconsider.

Jonathan has suffered the fate of far too many innocent messengers, he has been grossly unfairly shot and his integrity questioned!  Even now one of the posters is still complaining that the outcome of the survey should have reflected his personal experiences.  That he is angry at the failings in his van is clear, and justifiable.  However, he is completely unrealistic in his expectation of this being statistically significant within such a survey.  It seems the faults were put right, which does not justify or excuse their existence in the first place, but is at least the proper outcome.  Beyond that, what does he want: for the manufacturer to suffer such bad publicity that he is put out of business?  Would that help?  Really?

[armstrongpiper]

No one wants to put any manufacturer out of business, particularly a British one. However, do we really have to be satisfied with average everything? Is it not possible to say of a manufacturer that some of his goods are a long way below an average so that he may listen and take action? Look what happened to our British car industry. When I spoke with Charles Trevelyan (in charge of service and repairs at AS) he acknowledged that the materials used to seal roof seams were not as good as earlier years' mastics, but the modern stuff was more economical!! I note that the 'vans owned by the forum posters who have firmly tried to squash me are foreign made. Of course I wouldn't want to suggest that freedom of choice is denied anyone, but could it be that British made vans weren't good enough? Neil B

[Jonathan Lloyd]

Hello Everyone

 

I shouldn't have taken the criticism of the Motor Caravanners' Report so personally. Due to difficult personal circumstances, fatigue and pain - I may have over-reacted. Sorry.

 

To those who suggested to me at the Peterborough Meet the Team that Andy Stothert should take over the Motor Caravanners' Report, if I decide to call it a day, the Editors will aready be up-to-speed as they read all postings. Andy's fan base should be aware though that he is very busy taking landscape photographs of such high quality and exquisite composition that he shows me up for what I am! A freelance jounalist who takes accompanying pictures and not a photographer.

 

I should also point out that I am not, and never have been, on the staff of MMM or Warners Publications. I'm just an enthusiastic motorcaravanner with dubious typing skills.

 

Regards

 

Jonathan

 

 

 

[Neil Hunt]

Hello Brian

 

It think it is mistaken to expect with forums, which are little more than a series of entertaining (or otherwise) off the cuff conversations, that they should deliver content that would pass academic muster or even that of competent journalism.

 

My response to the initial post on this topic was about the way the published media avoid the ugly, rather like families avoid a clear look at the mad and the bad in their midst. Mine was not a thoughtful and balanced critical response to Jonathan’s piece, it was comment at the pub bar. I will try and do better.

 

Your comment about reflecting the average is a valid one but it would also be helpful to know what the extremes are that make that average. Jonathan to his credit did in fact mention the rubbing wheels, but, and this is not remotely a comment on Jonathan’s journalistic integrity, you would need to know from one of the horses’ mouths the full appalling story to get a properly weighted sense of the fact.

 

Your comment, “How easy it is to fire off unbalanced and uncorroborated opinions into the internet ether!” is a true one and it is difficult to corroborate information found on the internet. As you say contributors may well be open to a lack of balance as I know from personal experience, however people who go to great lengths in time and effort to record their experience I feel are unlikely to be doing so as a hobby to denigrate motorhome manufacturers. I maybe wrong, there may a new compulsive order out there yet to surface. Much more likely I think that they are people with limited funds who have saved hard for a dream that has turned sour, at worst to have nightmarish qualities or at best significant disappointment. Below is a link to one such.

 

http://motorhomemeanderings.blogspot.com/2009_12_01_archive.html

 

You ask, “Do we want manufacturers put out of business”, clearly no, but that does not mean we should turn a blind eye to unsatisfactory producers. Who bemoans the fact that cars of the quality of the British car industry of 70s are no longer with us? What I would like is that manufacturers who consistently produce vehicles fit for purpose and of good quality across a range of accepted benchmarks prosper and are clearly visible to me as a purchaser and those who fall below those standards take the consequences of their lack of care or expertise.

 

I did not question Jonathan’s integrity, I made a comment about the general tenor of what are presented as reviews in the published media, if others read this as a challenge to his integrity I apologise and plead the defence in my Para 1 above.

 

The original post complained that details he had supplied had not been presented, this would appear to be a fact, and I cannot understand why commenting on this is a problem.

 

[Losos]

Jonathan Lloyd - 2010-06-03 1:27 PM Hello Everyone I shouldn't have taken the criticism of the Motor Caravanners' Report so personally. Due to difficult personal circumstances, fatigue and pain - I may have over-reacted. Sorry. To those who suggested to me at the Peterborough Meet the Team that Andy Stothert should take over the Motor Caravanners' Report, if I decide to call it a day, the Editors will aready be up-to-speed as they read all postings. Andy's fan base should be aware though that he is very busy taking landscape photographs of such high quality and exquisite composition that he shows me up for what I am! A freelance jounalist who takes accompanying pictures and not a photographer. I should also point out that I am not, and never have been, on the staff of MMM or Warners Publications. I'm just an enthusiastic motorcaravanner with dubious typing skills. Regards Jonathan

Jonathon, I'm glad that you feel you can continue, I read your AS Nuevo report and going from memory I thought it did mention some problems with the MH as it happens I had already decided the Nuevo was too small for us but I still found the report useful.

I was contemplating contributing to the next one which (Again going from memory) is about panel van conversions. I had a bit of a horror story with one I hired last year which I thought might be relevant, however, if I do send in a report it will not be for any 'moment of glory' just to help with the statistics. Maybe it's only owners and not hirers who can send in reports anyway.   

[Mel B]

armstrongpiper - 2010-06-03 11:44 AM

 

I note that the 'vans owned by the forum posters who have firmly tried to squash me are foreign made. Of course I wouldn't want to suggest that freedom of choice is denied anyone, but could it be that British made vans weren't good enough? Neil B

 

Hi Neil B

 

I have no wish to 'squash' you at all, you are entitled to your opinion of course, it was just the accusation that the article was deliberately biased in favour of manufacturers that was unpalatable and IMV derogatory to Jonathan and other contributors to the magazine. I appreciate that this may not have been your intention though. :-S

 

As for my owning a foreign van, there is nothing underlying which prevents me from buying a British built one - in the past we have had an Elddis 320 (British) a Swift Suntor 590RS (British), a Rapido 709F (French), then a Rimor Sailor 645TC (Italian), and now a Chausson Flash 04 (French), so have not stuck strictly to ‘foreign’ vans. However our reason for having a non-UK van is simple - at the time of our purchases, the layout we wanted wasn’t available to us in a British van and/or at a price we were willing (or able) to pay.

 

The Rapido was the smallest (5.53m) ‘euro layout’ we could find and at the time it was perfect for us and there was no UK built version, similarly we had been looking at both mainland European and British vans (a Stardream if memory serves, and an Autosleeper Rienza) when we ‘found’ the Rimor and chose to go for it instead as it met our needs much better. Similarly the Chausson now suits our needs perfectly - there isn’t a British version that I’m aware of for the price or with the features that we wanted and, as we had make the conscious decision NOT to get a Fiat/Peugeot/Citroen based van due to the ongoing problems, this limited our choice further. There are pros and cons for both UK and non-UK built vans and these have to be weighed up when purchasing. If there had been a UK built version, for the same money, which met our requirements as well as the Chausson we would obviously have given it serious consideration.

 

The only thing I will admit to, though is that I would be very unlikely to ever purchase another Swift built motorhome. We had a very bad experience with our Suntor and have knowledge of others who still have problems with the build quality of their new acquisitions, both with motorhomes and caravans (my boss has just got a new caravan and has a problem with the water and the electrics).

 

 

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

armstrongpiper - 2010-06-03 11:44 AM No one wants to put any manufacturer out of business, particularly a British one. However, do we really have to be satisfied with average everything? Is it not possible to say of a manufacturer that some of his goods are a long way below an average so that he may listen and take action? Look what happened to our British car industry. When I spoke with Charles Trevelyan (in charge of service and repairs at AS) he acknowledged that the materials used to seal roof seams were not as good as earlier years' mastics, but the modern stuff was more economical!! I note that the 'vans owned by the forum posters who have firmly tried to squash me are foreign made. Of course I wouldn't want to suggest that freedom of choice is denied anyone, but could it be that British made vans weren't good enough? Neil B

No, of course you don't have to accept poor quality, nor should you be expected to do so, but that was not my point.  I winced when I read the criticisms of the article, but bit my typing finger - until, that is, I read Jonathan's response.  I have no idea, in fact, how many bad Autosleepers have left the assembly line, but from the article it seems they must be relatively few, or the results would not have come out as they did.  That yours was a shocker I do not doubt, and I am hugely sympathetic that is was so, but I'm afraid I think it quite unrealistic to expect this to emerge from such an article, and very unreasonable to impugn the integrity of the author because it did not.  This is my point of view, so I don't expect you to accept it, but I have no apology to offer for holding it.

Our van was bought because it offered a layout that was not available from a UK maker, and because it was not SEVEL based.  We looked long at all manner of vans first, as we did before we bought our first, which was also made in Germany.  Part of the outcome of our researches was that the German vans appeared more consistent in quality, though still prone to failings, but that overall what we wanted was not being made in UK.  Had it been otherwise we might have bought from a UK maker, but the overall reputation of the Germans for more consistent quality would have remained a major factor.  This is a major disappointment to us, and we take no great pleasure in buying elsewhere.  UK manufacturers generally have not had great reputations for consistent quality, though I think they are now beginning to get the message, and I am pleased that is the case.  Whether they will ever make the layouts we favour I doubt, but no-one would be happier than me if they began earning a reputation for the highest and most consistent quality of build in Europe and for the best value for money of all.  However, with all due respect to Mr Trevelyan, that won't happen while he issues silly statements about sealant quality.  Modern sealants are highly sophisticated products, with great durability, and substantially out-perform earlier products.  What on earth does he think German makers seal their joints with?  It seems they just have the sense to appreciate that leaking vans annoy customers, so pay for better products.  After all, it ain't rocket science, is it?

[Shell181]

Hi Jonathan

 

We have been looking for a motorhome for some time now and I just wanted to say that we appreciate and value your opinions and it is helping us so please carry on with your good work and do not leave.

 

Shell

:-D

[Rayjsj]

Jonathon,

I have been looking foward to your report on Renault Panel Van conversions (as I fancy getting one). I have long been an avid reader of your 'Readers reports long term tests' No. 9 on the Autocruise Starfire back in 2005 was excellent, even giving us a history lesson on Autocruise CH.

Your experience shows in your reports, we appreciate it, even if we don't often get a chance to tell you directly, don't give up !

Also what has happened to The Batten-Hills, Suzanne Dilley who used to test with Dave Hurrell (always thought his tests were more 'balanced' with her aboard), and we havn't heard much of Di Johnson and her 'hubby' lately ?? Of course I like Andy and Marion Stothart's tests too,

(bet he has been told 'He will never work again' by Fiat many times !!) we just appreciate being told 'the Truth' however unpleasant (without slander !! of course) in short Jonathon we like your Tests, espepecially when your wider family join you on the trip. Regards Ray ;-)

[lizken]

On the subject of build quality, I regret the demise of AutocruiseCH, as we cannot find another van with the quality of manufacture of our current vehicle, or our previous Vista. Customer after care was also lost.

Current Autocruise vehicles are of Swift quality!!!!!!!!

Another difficulty we find is that there are no coachbuilt models as short as our Valentine, and most panel vans are also longer.

When parking space is very restricted, a short vehicle is essential, but vans seem to be bigger and bigger