DJP Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 Anyone read the latest magazine with the road test report on the Auto Trail Commanche v the A class? The tester reported that the A class "suffered from the dreaded reverse gear judder" BUT went on to say that if owners had this problem to contact Fiat and arrange for the vehicle to be modified! As far as i am aware there is definitely NO FIX for the 3.0 ltr models. He also said that the A class may have been an "early" chassis cab. Again, as far as I am aware the gearbox, whether it be on a May 2007 or May 2011 they are identical in construction and ratios, only the clutch is different (softer material). My judder is so bad, even after a new later, softer clutch has been fitted, I did consider buying a new gearbox. The dealer said not to waste my money as they are no different. What does he/you know that I don't? Or is it outside forces again *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euroserv Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 That is as I understand it. There is officially no problem with this drivetrain as far as Fiat are concerned. Did the author therefore conclude that the vehicle was obviously not fit for the purpose that it was intended and that you should not risk buying one? Did he also mention that if you did buy one; fully aware of the problem you would likely face that you may have less recourse under the sale of goods act? Thought not. That would have been responsible journalism. Nick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted May 24, 2011 Share Posted May 24, 2011 How long before this thread gets pulled? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 I have never driven one of these "Sevel" vans with the reversing problems :D ......But last week we were on a site at Much Wenlock where I watched a PVC version reverse onto a pitch...... I was shocked at the speed that he seemed to need to get up what was a slight incline 8-) .............It would certainly make me want to try reversing one before I paid a penny, and if I was buying one new I'd want a clause in the contract that allowed me to refuse to accept the vehicle if it didn't reverse uphill when it was delivered ;-) Ok..................You can pull this thread now :D (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Usinmyknaus Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Would this thread judder as it was pulled away? :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 The design of the 6-speed transmission fitted to FWD 'SEVEL' motorhomes with the 3.0 litre motor differs radically from that of the transmission fitted to the smaller-capacity motors. While it's technically straightforward to fit a lower reverse-gear ratio to the latter without affecting the forward-gear ratios, this is (probably) not the case with the 3.0 litre's gearbox. If that's correct (and it would certainly be true for the similar design of 6-speed transmission fitted to current FWD Transits), then a redesigned gearbox for the 3.0litre motor would be needed to provide both a lower reverse-gear ratio and a satisfactory range of forward gears. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobalobs Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Both the vehicles tested are plated at 5000 kg. Of course the vans only contained Dave Hurrels test kit rather than all the "clobber" that owners fill their garages with . However is this not further proof that the more heavy weight versions of the vehicle be it the 3 litre or the2.3 litre are more likely to judder? How many 3 litre panel vans are sold new plated to 5000kg? Why should the thread be pulled? At least the tester is prepared to question Fiat's stance that the 3.0 litre does not judder and the editor is willing to print it. Good on them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldlowie Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 pelmetman - 2011-05-25 7:55 AM But last week we were on a site at Much Wenlock where I watched a PVC version reverse onto a pitch...... I was shocked at the speed that he seemed to need to get up what was a slight incline 8-) How big were the levelling blocks? 8-) 8-) 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest peter Posted May 25, 2011 Share Posted May 25, 2011 Usinmyknaus - 2011-05-25 8:22 AM Would this thread judder as it was pulled away? :-DIf it did it would all be down to operator error. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvin Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 bobalobs - 2011-05-25 9:07 AM Both the vehicles tested are plated at 5000 kg. Of course the vans only contained Dave Hurrels test kit rather than all the "clobber" that owners fill their garages with . However is this not further proof that the more heavy weight versions of the vehicle be it the 3 litre or the2.3 litre are more likely to judder? How many 3 litre panel vans are sold new plated to 5000kg? Why should the thread be pulled? At least the tester is prepared to question Fiat's stance that the 3.0 litre does not judder and the editor is willing to print it. Good on them. I totally agree, I also previously raised the extreme overhang behind the rear axle of our 2008 2.3 Autotrail Cheynne 660, off the top of my head I think it was right on the limit nearly 55% of the wheel base, surely the coach builts are partly too blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Without doubt the moderators are closely watching this thread? It would be good if Daniel the editor could clarify his company's perspective on the level of journalistic integrity on road test reports and their reasons for being economical with the truth at times? Do they see manufacturer retaliation and potential loss of advertising revenue for being truthful as a greater peril than loss of faith by their subscribers and readers? Is the risk of the costs of legal action forcing them to censor road test findings or are the road testers just not up to the job? Do they not feel any responsibility for those unfortunate readers who went out and spent a large part of their life savings on a dream machine on the strength of an MMM road test report only to find it not only unfit for purpose but the makers beligerent and obstructive to a degree that would have been unimaginable had it not happened - and is continuing to happen? Without the input of Andy Stothert even less would have been done than has been done and we all owe him our thanks, but on the other hand the cynic in me wonders whether he would have been quite so keen to get involved had his own personal motorhome not been so badly affected - and then he backed off either when his own van was fixed or when his masters told him to? I do realise that Warners prime objective is making a profit not consumer protection but it some truth and clarification from Warner's might be appreciated as many of us have a rather poor opinion of the company right now. As the leading magazine in it's field maybe MMM could afford to be a little bit more consumer focussed? Any thoughts please from Warners? Mike the Mod? Daniel the editor? Anyone else agree or is it only me being cynical? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Well said Rich....many of us must question the attitude, as said we are not doing pound shop deals when parting with our dough are we . Would anyone buy one, i certainly would not...plenty of other engine choice ! If you paid £3.75 for MMM and half of it was ads and the other half blank would you stop or carry on buying it ? WELL ....of course you would'nt waste your money, SO WHY do motorhomers keep buying them ? Regardless of advertising revenue for Warners if not fit for purpose its not this thread that should be pulled but the ADVERTS ! Now .......lets see a reply ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rupert123 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Manu - 2011-05-26 10:19 AM Well said Rich....many of us must question the attitude, as said we are not doing pound shop deals when parting with our dough are we . Would anyone buy one, i certainly would not...plenty of other engine choice ! If you paid £3.75 for MMM and half of it was ads and the other half blank would you stop or carry on buying it ? WELL ....of course you would'nt waste your money, SO WHY do motorhomers keep buying them ? Regardless of advertising revenue for Warners if not fit for purpose its not this thread that should be pulled but the ADVERTS ! Now .......lets see a reply ! Perhaps you can point out the other 'plenty of engine choice'. Renault is a new unproven base, Ford has a reverse just as high as the latest or modified Fiat, latest Mercedes to expensive and no better anyway and older ones like driving a tractor compared with the Fiat. Motorhomers keep buying them because 99.9999% have no problems and they remain the best base around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 rupert123 - 2011-05-26 10:49 AM Motorhomers keep buying them because 99.9999% have no problems and they remain the best base around. Almost Henry! Motorhomers keep buying Sevel based conversions because for 99.9999% of buyers there is little other choice available from converters and the problems are kept hidden from unsuspecting buyers by an unhelpful media / manufacturer conspiracy of silence? PS - I was a passenger in a five year old Mercedes Sprinter van recently and tractor it most certainly was not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Hello Rupert.....have read lots of your posts and like we say its about OPINIONS , so your opinion is 99.9999% ,bit high maybe ,maybe not. My purchase would probably be Merc (TRACTOR...YOUR OPINION) lol ,but then would look at a Comfortmatic Fiat also. Anyone selling a judder job i feel for, but what about the new owner who maybe cant afford new ? Back to the aim of my post and that was in response to a report in MMM ...one of the 00000.1 % eh . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek Uzzell Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Melvin - 2011-05-26 9:34 AM bobalobs - 2011-05-25 9:07 AM Both the vehicles tested are plated at 5000 kg. Of course the vans only contained Dave Hurrels test kit rather than all the "clobber" that owners fill their garages with . However is this not further proof that the more heavy weight versions of the vehicle be it the 3 litre or the2.3 litre are more likely to judder? How many 3 litre panel vans are sold new plated to 5000kg? Why should the thread be pulled? At least the tester is prepared to question Fiat's stance that the 3.0 litre does not judder and the editor is willing to print it. Good on them. I totally agree, I also previously raised the extreme overhang behind the rear axle of our 2008 2.3 Autotrail Cheynne 660, off the top of my head I think it was right on the limit nearly 55% of the wheel base, surely the coach builts are partly too blame. This is a quote from the GoMotorhoming guide: "Wheelbase, overhang and clearance Wheelbase is the distance between the centre point of the front and rear wheels of a motorhome. Overhang; the distance from the centre point on the rear wheel to the rear of the motorhome, ideally this should be less than 55 per cent of the wheelbase to allow for towbars or bike racks, however 60 per cent is the recognised maximum legal limit. We once measured a factory standard motorhome with a 71 per cent overhang." There are two formulae governing rear overhang. These formulae are described on: http://www.transportsfriend.org/road/dims.html Motorhomes constructed using the 'swinging out' formula can have a legal rear overhang well in excess of 60% of wheelbase and (as the GoMotorhoming writer found) sometimes over 70%. While such a large percentage of wheelbase overhang may be undesirable (particularly if the vehicle manufacturer has made no attempt to angle upwards the vehicle's underside behind the rear wheels), it's not automatically illegal just because it breaks the more simplistic 60% 'rule'. In the case of Melvin's Cheyenne an overhang of 55% of wheelbase would meet either of the regulatory formulae. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DESCO Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Well said Tracker this is the very reason I cancelled my subscription to MMM and as yet have not seen any reason to start again, Have looked at various issues since and feel that the road tests and reports are of no help to me payloads, gearbox problems etc. should be taken into account in final resume of van, not if the latest décor, latest gimmicks are present these can be seen when the road tests become meaningful then I may reconsider my position. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manu Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Oh dear Rupert123 ,Henry....reading the other thread it seems that maybe you got the numbers correct but you read them the wrong way....99.9999 % do HAVE TROUBLE AT THE MILL. And as for Tractors they come way above FIATS cos they certainly can reverse uphill....he heee. Joke Henry , joke ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dawki Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 rupert123 - 2011-05-26 10:49 AM Manu - 2011-05-26 10:19 AM Well said Rich....many of us must question the attitude, as said we are not doing pound shop deals when parting with our dough are we . Would anyone buy one, i certainly would not...plenty of other engine choice ! If you paid £3.75 for MMM and half of it was ads and the other half blank would you stop or carry on buying it ? WELL ....of course you would'nt waste your money, SO WHY do motorhomers keep buying them ? Regardless of advertising revenue for Warners if not fit for purpose its not this thread that should be pulled but the ADVERTS ! Now .......lets see a reply ! Perhaps you can point out the other 'plenty of engine choice'. Renault is a new unproven base, Ford has a reverse just as high as the latest or modified Fiat, latest Mercedes to expensive and no better anyway and older ones like driving a tractor compared with the Fiat. Motorhomers keep buying them because 99.9999% have no problems and they remain the best base around. I have the new Merc and have no complaints about it what so ever. they are a bit more expensive to buy but are cheaper to service and no cambelt to worry about. So very little in them cost wise over a 4 or 5 year period i suspect. A great motor in my opinion Cheers Dawki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
art338 Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Tracker, You obviously know that all the motor trades have to work together towards a common aim, sales, each relies on the other for survival, by trades I mean all the ancillary component manufacturers and advertisers that include the magazines and the print industry (which is massive and tightly controlled unionwise). It is simply not possible for one section to stop. None are going to stand up and say a particular make of Motorhome is poor quality. Its all up to the individual to not buy a duff product or having done so, very quickly return it as not fit for purpose. Unfortunately many buyers refuse to do this having bought what they call their 'dream'. They therefore continue to support an industry that fails them by producing a product that continues to be a problem (for some). Agreed there are few hard complaints but how many refuse to own up that they have a problem and return their 'dream', very few is my guess. Also, unfortunately we as buyers are in many ways forced to buy a product due to greed, fashion and mass production. It should be noted that a lot of something does not mean its good, hence all these discussions on a certain Italian product. It should never have happened.Buyer beware !! art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 art338 - 2011-05-26 3:41 PM..........................................It should never have happened.Buyer beware !! art Well yes, buyer beware indeed. The problem is that for the buyer to beware, he first needs to be informed. It may be argued that many of the buying public are fools (though in truth I think they are more innocent, or naive, than foolish), in that they see something, talk to a salesperson, gain assurances, and then buy. Only later do they discover its flaws. So, should the fools, the innocents, and the naive, be regarded as mere lambs to the slaughter, or should it be recognised that, in common with many other manufactured products, the quality and fitness for purpose of a purchase cannot effectively be judged at the point of sale, even by a knowledgeable buyer? Is it to be expected of the first time motorhome buyer that s/he will have the insight to suspect a reputable converter would convert (knowingly, to boot) a flawed chassis, instead of selecting a serviceable one? Advanced as a theory of commercial practise, that notion would be laughed out of court by anyone other than a confirmed conspiracy theorist, and the odd Trot. Most would argue, logically, that no reputable company would risk doing such a thing, on the basis they would irreparably damage their reputation, and so their business. And yet.......................... I have no figures, but I suspect part of the answer may lie in a peculiarity of the motorhome market. I suspect there are few serial motorhome buyers, most folk buying just one in their lifetimes, usually around their retirement. It is only then they have the cash, and sufficient time to use so costly a leisure vehicle, that it begins to look good value. If this is so, then there is an incessant flow of the naive and innocent into the market, with the number of experienced motorhomers who know what to avoid, being quite small. Some novice buyers buy motorhome magazines before they buy vans, some find motorhome forums, or look elsewhere for greater information, but it seems they are a quite small minority. In today's market the majority will buy what is most on offer, which will overwhelmingly be a SEVEL based motorhome. They will be impressed by how much like a small hotel suite it looks, they will be reassured that motorhoming is not like "camping", that it has a toilet, a kitchen, a bedroom, a dining room, running hot and cold water, electricity, even heating. I would only say that is exactly how it should be and those folk should then expect their new, mobile, go anywhere, home to convey them flawlessly into a perpetual rosy sunset. Personally, I think the specialist press has a clear moral duty to warn those who choose to consult it, when a product may have flaws. Two reasons. One, because people buy these magazines precisely to find out what is good, and what not so good, and that implies that what is not good can be identified. Second, because specialist writers are believed to have specialist knowledge, and so to write with authority. To this extent they mislead their readers when they do not use to the full their critical faculties. This is difficult where what is under discussion is a mere matter of opinion, such as decor, or value for money, (though that seldom prevents lengthy opinions being expressed! :-)) but should be much easier to define where aspects of the vehicle are technically unsatisfactory, such as payload, or there are mechanical deficiencies, such as very high gearing unsuited to such heavy vehicles as motorhomes. Plainly, there is no merit in slating a product as "rubbish": no-one gains worthwhile knowledge from such statements, as they appear no more than bigoted opinion. However, I really cannot understand why a knowledgeable appraisal cannot be phrased within the laws of libel, that allows a shortcoming to be pointed out. Poor finish has been mentioned, bad preparation of test vehicles has been mentioned, failure of equipment during tests has been mentioned, bad drainage from shower trays has been mentioned, short beds have been mentioned, inadequate lighting has been mentioned, so why is it not be stated when the something fundamental is poor? It should not damn a whole product for one shortcoming, even a fundamental one, but equally it should not resort to selective silences, it should seek to inform its readers in the round, warts and all, and let them judge. Only then, they can beware when they buy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pepe63xnotuse Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 An excellent post Brian... ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tracker Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Honesty and integrity pay in the long run. A few years back when digital cameras were quite new and expensive I bought a Canon camera. It worked well but when it was two years old and a year out of warranty the lcd display failed. I contacted Canon fully prepared to pay for repairs, or dump it and buy new, but was pleasantly surprised to be told - 'yes, we know all about this, it's been an issue for us. we're very sorry it has happened to yours but please send it back to our repair centre and we will fix it free of charge and refund your postage'. So I did, and they did what they said and it has worked ever since. Good result eh? Knock on effect - my photo copier, two printers, other camera are all Canon and always will be as will any other product that I need where Canon is a supplier. Call me old fashioned but I believe that honesty and integrity deserve recognition and reward. And so does the opposite - which is why although I don't have an X250 having been warned in time - I will never buy another Fiat based product. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DESCO Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Totally agree an excellent post Brian. It's a pity publishers do not take note. But I expect that that is too much to hope for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldlowie Posted May 26, 2011 Share Posted May 26, 2011 Tracker - 2011-05-26 5:37 PM And so does the opposite - which is why although I don't have an X250 having been warned in time - I will never buy another Fiat based product. How do you distinguish between your Peugeot, my Peugeot, and a Fiat-based product? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.