More on Payload and Chassis Size

[Neil Hunt]

I recently bought an Autosleepers Nuevo Classic ordered at the NEC show in October 2009. Shortly after the initial decision I asked the dealer for a number of options including a change to a “3500kg chassis upgrade”. The option to the chassis was in a column in the AS 2009 brochure that included options on engine size, cruise control and cab air conditioning. This together with the upgrade price for the chassis of £1035 (Peugeot’s own upgrade on the van is £940 retail including VAT) meant there was nothing that might suggest to me that this was anything other than a Peugeot base vehicle factory upgrade. You will note also that the brochure refers to an “upgrade” not an “uprate”.

 

When I got the vehicle home I discovered amongst all the various bits of paperwork a certificate from SvTech uprating the payload to 3500KG. I contacted the dealer who suggested I speak to AS to see what had been done; they informed me they had fitted different “bump stops” to the rear of the van. I also spoke to SvTech who said that on the basis of the information they had received from AS (telephone call) they issued the certificate, they had not seen the van. I believe the bump stops come from a Canadian company called Timbren who sell them to restore tired rear springs and who also say they should not be used to increase payloads. The plate on the door pillar, the plate beneath bonnet and the vehicle registration document all still describe the van as 3300kg. I did find a paper certificate from SvTech next to the one the bonnet giving it 3500kg, when I later discovered the bonnet plate.

 

I felt outraged by what appears to me to be a complete con and after taking legal advice decided to claim a breach of contract. The dealer refuted the breach of contact and claimed the procedure carried out by AS was common practice in the motorhome industry and that the onus was on me to ensure I was getting what I required with upgrades. They were however, because of the confusion and as a gesture of goodwill, prepared to refund the additional payment. I would say that the dealer from this point on dealt with the matter speedily and graciously and I too was glad to be able to move on quickly.

 

There is a letter in PM this month that covers a similar area and it seems to me that base vehicle manufacturers plate their vehicles according to taxation and other license issues and there is a much wider capacity parameter over each category than at first appears to be the case. If this is so, it is I believe outrageous for the converter to be charging such a sum for a largely paper exercise. (The Timbren Aeon stops possibly used in my case by AS, would appear to retail for about £150 and according to the retailers in the US take 20 minutes to fit.)

 

Looking back I am still annoyed at being placed in the position I was and that I did not get the specification that I believe was very clearly being offered. Why would AS not simply offer the Peugeot factory upgrade with a few quid for themselves for the extra paperwork?

 

I was relieved and ultimately pleased that the dealer sought to resolve the issue very quickly and not let it fester.

 

I did seek, and was very grateful for, advice from a number of forum contributors when I first found myself faced with this issue including Derek Uzzell, flicka and, in particular, Brian Kirby whose well reasoned comments to my numerous enquiries were invaluable in helping me to resolve the matter.

 

[colin]

Neil Hunt - 2010-06-13 4:56 PM

There is a letter in PM this month that covers a similar area and it seems to me that base vehicle manufacturers plate their vehicles according to taxation and other license issues and there is a much wider capacity parameter over each category than at first appears to be the case.

 

The following is my guess on this.

How to tell if a chassis is 'downplated' for taxation reason, find out the max load per axle, on a maxi chassis you will see that max load for front and rear axles is same for 3.5t or 4t which would seem to indicate chassis is 'downplated', but if you look at 3.3t vs 3.5t they are not same which indicates some other differance.

[dwaviation]

The real bummer is that SVtech only charge £200 for the paperwork and even airride doesn't cost £800 let alone replacement bump stops.

[silverback]

just had mine uprated to 3500 kg, SV tech did it for £282 the price has gone up :-( thats including the vat

all you get is a new sticker and a letter saying they have informed vosa

bit expensive me thinks but had to have it done no payload

jonathan

[catinou]

Worse case scenario - for us anyway - was ordering and paying for a heavy chassis - 4,000 Kgs, only to find when we got it home the dealership had ordered the lighter one - 3,500 Kgs, which resulted in us ending up with a payload of about 300 Kgs! Negotations and problems still being sorted so I won't give too many details at present, but if the chassis the MH is built on is an Alko chassis, it is possible to ask Alko to deal with it - in our case, we found out for ourselves, from Alko, that it could be re-plated to 3,850 as a "paper excercise".

 

The pitfalls of buying MHs never cease to amaze me! Just glad I had read the threads about the price of road fund licences for plg and phg vehicles a while ago - the warning that all was not well was the price and "plg" status on the RFL...... >:-(

[Brian Kirby]

Just be careful with those "paper exercise" re-platings!  A number of these merely add together the maximum permissible axle loads, which invariably exceed the standard MAM, and merely re-plate to the result.  The problem this creates is that the additional MAM is not truly usable, because almost all motorhomes are heavier one end or the other, so run out of axle load, before they run out of MAM.  These "paper" replatings do nothing whatever for that situation.

If your order clearly shows that the vehicle was to be 4,000kg MAM, and the supplied vehicle is 3,500kg MAM, I have to say I don't really understand what there was to negotiate about.  A 300kg payload in lieu of 800kg as ordered is a substantial shortfall, and should not be open to argument.  They did not supply the vehicle you contracted to buy.

[catinou]

Alko have assured us it should be 3850 and we are having air suspension added on Saturday (at the dealer's expense) but will certainly be having it weighed to check the axle weights first. Thanks for the tip Brian - we had almost missed that point. We should end up with 3850 so only 150 short of what we expected. *-)

[Guest JudgeMental]

what does the air kit weigh? *-)

[Brian Kirby]

I assume that is an AlKo specific air suspension system, and that AlKo's comments re MAM take this into account?  I ask, because most air suspension systems do not upgrade axle load maxima, they merely provide better ride comfort and the ability to "trim" the ride height.

When you have it weighed, if you are seeking to establish whether the axles will have sufficient remaining capacity, make sure, if you can, that it is as near absolutely fully laden as possible.  Make sure the fresh water tank and gas cylinders are full.  As I see it, that may be rather difficult, since what you need to test is how much reserve you will have on each of the two axles when the van is at 3,850kg, and your present MAM is 3,500kg.  To see calculate the upgrade will be sufficient, you will need to weigh everything you would normally wish to take, but presently cannot, decide where in the van you will place it, and then work out the effect it will have on the axle loadings.  Alternatively, if feasible, and possibly easier, load everything else into a car and drive that to the weighbridge and then, once off the public roads, transfer it all into the right places in the van, and then weigh it.  Don't forget to get in yourselves!  :-)

[Guest JudgeMental]

I agree with Brian in that the individual axle capacity is the crucial thing here. with rear one probably more critical......No replating will change the fact that if on the plate your rear axle is less then say 2000kg replating can not I believe increase this.

 

So if you have a lighter rear axle then you contracted to buy I would not accept the van, not what you want to hear I know.

 

what does your plate say?

 

I would return vehicle and get your money back

 

 

[mike 202]

Agree with the Judge, make very sure where you stand and that you can accept any limitations (total and individual axle weight) that the upgrade leaves you with.

In my case weight limitation is causing us a headache as I only found out after having the van for 18 months. Weighing everything that goes into the van, after weighing it empty, is a total b*lls ache.

[catinou]

Many thanks for the advice everyone. We checked with Alko from the word go and the axle weights have been checked by them with Burstner - the extra 350 Kgs was "spare" on the rear axle - their book shows what the "normal" plate is and what the "replated " is (hope that makes sense) and the rear axle weight capacity can take the extra payload without a problem - we have a large rear garage so that's where we need it.

 

We will still check every inch of the way though before we sign this off. :-S

[Guest JudgeMental]

3 models from 3500 upwards I think, where is euroserve when you need him!

 

the Fiat Maxi Platform cab 40 (4000kg) has a rear axle capacity of a decent 2400kg

 

the standard 35 (3500kg) has only a 2000kg capacity.If this is what you have hopeless in an A class vehicle IMO

 

there is also a 3500kg Maxi chassis the Maxi 35 this also has the 2400kg rear axle, now if you have this you should be OK.....

 

What has it got on your plate please?

[Meadows Engine]

Interesting discussion this. I have a 3 litre automatic PVC motor home on a 3500kg fiat chassis with a quoted payload of 500kg. At the end of the first year after 8000miles I wanted to put a bike rack on it so took it to my local weighbridge upon return home from a trip to france, to check what I had in hand.

Imagine my surprise when with no passengers on board and only 225kg of personal effects I was over the max permitted weight with only a few kg left in the front axle. This meant that with my wife on board we only had left an available pay load of 108kg. and the front axle was right on its limit.

“Discussions” with the manufacturer proved fruitless, they just did not want to know. In the end in order to use the vehicle I have had to have the front axle up rated with an automatic air kit costing £3K (only available for the Ducato from March this year) and re plate it to 3850kg.

 

This has given me sufficient capacity to use the vehicle and its seats within the legal limits but unfortunately has taken me into the next taxation class bracket of PHG ,a pain, as I shortly reach 70 , hence my choice of a 3500kg base in the first place but as they say needs must when the devil drives.

 

My advise for what its worth to those about to buy a new or SH motor home is weigh it before you hand over the cash, and for those who have not yet weighed their existing motor home do as Brian Kirby and his fellow experts suggest Weigh it now better to be safe than sorry or for that matter fined

 

[Brian Kirby]

Jenny

Are you saying your van was, in effect, downplated by Burstner to 3,500kg from 3,850kg, so that all you now need to do is plate it back up to 3850? 

It's just that you originally said it was to be 4,000kg, so I'm still unclear where the 150kg difference between what you apparently ordered, and what you appear to have (assuming a 3850kg chassis) has gone.

Is it the case that Burstner use the same AlKo rear chassis with both a "maxi", and a "midi", version of the Fiat chassis, and what you ordered was the maxi, but what was delivered is the midi, meaning you can release the full load carrying capacity of the AlKo rear, if the vehicle plate and the V5C are altered, but leaving just the front 150kg lighter than your order?

I just don't understand that 350kg "spare" on the rear axle.  Are you sure this is not just the difference between the current MAM, and the sum of the individual plated permissible loads for the front, and rear, axles?  If it is the latter, your van will remain quite badly compromised compared to what you ordered.  If the former, you do lose 150kg of overall payload, but end up with a usable, and more or less workable, 650kg payload.

However, if you're happy with the outcome, it's no skin off my nose either way!  :-D

[Guest JudgeMental]

It really is this simple...

 

if rear axle is 2000kg and not 2400kg (it is one or the other) you are in deep trouble and van is unusable IMO :-S

[Mickydripin]

Brian Kirby - 2010-06-16 6:04 PM

Just be careful with those "paper exercise" re-platings!  A number of these merely add together the maximum permissible axle loads, which invariably exceed the standard MAM, and merely re-plate to the result.  The problem this creates is that the additional MAM is not truly usable, because almost all motorhomes are heavier one end or the other, so run out of axle load, before they run out of MAM.  These "paper" replatings do nothing whatever for that situation.

If your order clearly shows that the vehicle was to be 4,000kg MAM, and the supplied vehicle is 3,500kg MAM, I have to say I don't really understand what there was to negotiate about.  A 300kg payload in lieu of 800kg as ordered is a substantial shortfall, and should not be open to argument.  They did not supply the vehicle you contracted to buy.

You are right Brian look at the problems that I am going through with the same thing almost three years and it is still not finnished

[dwaviation]

Brian Kirby - 2010-06-16 6:04 PM

Just be careful with those "paper exercise" re-platings!  A number of these merely add together the maximum permissible axle loads, which invariably exceed the standard MAM, and merely re-plate to the result.  The problem this creates is that the additional MAM is not truly usable, because almost all motorhomes are heavier one end or the other, so run out of axle load, before they run out of MAM.  These "paper" replatings do nothing whatever for that situation.

If your order clearly shows that the vehicle was to be 4,000kg MAM, and the supplied vehicle is 3,500kg MAM, I have to say I don't really understand what there was to negotiate about.  A 300kg payload in lieu of 800kg as ordered is a substantial shortfall, and should not be open to argument.  They did not supply the vehicle you contracted to buy.

Quite right, I had my rear axle uprated but to fully utilise the total 200kgs uprate I had to fit a shelf on the cab area simply so I could transfer some weight up front else the back end simply overloaded...