MGTW?

[Derek Uzzell]

Keithl - 2011-07-01 3:00 PM

 

pelmetman - 2011-07-01 2:39 PM

...or a replate to 3800kg

 

No Dave, Sorry but that isn't the issue here :'(

 

The issue is, why has Ford limited the GTM (ie Mass including Trailer) to 3,500kg?

 

It is probably to do with something like engine/clutch/gearbox power or maybe braking ability. ie The clutch or gearbox may not be able to stand pulling away on a gradient at over 3,500kg, or the brakes are not capable of stopping the vehicle at over 3,500kg.

Both are definitely situations that you want to avoid.

 

I would suggest you look at a Ford Transit Forum for advice on towing capabilities of your base vehicle as I am sure others must have run into this problem before.

 

(PS I work in motor vehicle design & manufacture and do get involved with towing capabilities of new vehicles so have a general knowledge of what is involved).

 

Keith.

 

PS Dave posted while I was typing.

 

Pelmetman's motorhome is an around-1990 Autohomes model based on a Transit Mk 4 short-wheelbase chassis-cab with normally-aspirated 2.5litre diesel motor.

 

This is not a combination that one would expect to have a high MAM or a high GTW and the MAM (GVM) of 2770kg and the GTW (GTM) of 3500kg shown on the vehicle's VIN-plate reflect this.

 

I'm not sure where the idea of 're-plating' to 3800kg comes from. The best one might sensibly (in terms of cost) consider is to re-plate the MAM from 2770kg to 2900kg (the total of the two axle-weight limits), but I see no reason why this should improve the GTW.

 

Logically, if one has increased the overall weight of the towing vehicle without making mechanical modifications (probably pretty serious modifications would be required in this instance), then the weight of what the fully-loaded vehicle can tow would need to be reduced accordingly.

[Guest pelmetman]

I think Derek we have decided to go the unbraked 750k route, the people I bought my trailer from do a box trailer which weighs 125k, which is quite a bit different to the 500k of my existing :D

 

Funny how I've been bimbling around the highways and byways, with my trailer stuffed to the roof with pouffes unaware that I was breaking the law *-).

 

Just goes to show salesman will tell you anything to get a sale 8-)........and in these straightened times it pays to be 100% legal, as I suspect our and foreign authorities will be upping the anti to fleece the unsuspecting as much as possible *-)

[nowtelse2do]

pelmetman - 2011-07-02 10:16 AM

 

Funny how I've been bimbling around the highways and byways, with my trailer stuffed to the roof with pouffes unaware that I was breaking the law *-).

 

Dave, I think you are one of many on the road who don't realize what sort of weight you are carrying around, its a case of filling it up to the gunnel's. It is a serious offence and VOSA have started to clamp down a lot more on commercial vans and are looking a lot closer at M/H's also.

 

Anyway you will be a lot lighter when you do the deal for a fresh trailer :D :D

 

Dave

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2011-07-01 12:42 PM

 

Hopefully picture attached :D...................Re nose weight Brian, my handbook states not less than 25k and no more than 75k. It also starts to go into how much to reduce the gross train weight by for being over a 1000 metres above sea level 8-)...........It's getting more complicated the more I look :-S

 

Might be the best option to change to a smaller trailer ;-)................anybody want a 2 year old box trailer :D

 

Now too many other posts, so back to your plate, and with apologies to others who have already covered some of this.

 

On noseweight, you don't say which handbook you are quoting, but the generally accepted way to arrive at the correct figure is to use 7% of the actual laden weight of the trailer. It is a rule of thumb, promoted by both Caravan, and Camping, clubs, as the best compromise to ensure reasonable stability (freedom from snaking) of the trailer. 75kg will be the maximum that either the tow hitch, or possibly the towbar, can take. I'd guess that 25kg is the minimum for the unladen trailer.

 

Reducing GTW above 1000M is to compensate for loss of power, especially with naturally aspirated diesels, with altitude. Many European mountain roads are way above 1000M, so once into the mountains, it has relevance. It also illustrates the minimal margins in your Transit chassis.

 

GVM (presumably) Gross Vehicle Mass, aka MTPLM (Maximum Technically Permitted Laden Mass), or MAM (Maximum Allowable Mass) = 2770kg.

It is the maximum permitted weight of the laden (meaning laden with everything, including driver, passengers, pets etc) vehicle. Exceed that, and you may be fined, or told to offload the surplus at the roadside.

 

GTM (presumably) Gross Train Mass, aka GTW (Gross Train Weight) = 3500kg.

It is the maximum permitted weight of the van plus its trailer. It is a figure based, if I remember correctly, on the maximum weight at which the vehicle can be driven off on a 1 in 6 hill. It is a fineable offence to exceed this weight whatever the state of load of either vehicle or trailer. Fine, or roadside offload, as above, if exceeded.

 

1 = 1280kg is the maximum permitted front axle load.

2 = 1620kg is the maximum permitted rear axle load.

Fine, or roadside offload, as above, if either exceeded.

 

That is your working framework. There is no upward flexibility. The total load can be shared between vehicle and trailer however you choose, providing you do not exceed the MAM of either, or the GTW.

 

I still think you should take the van to a weighbridge, as suggested, either fully loaded with everything, and everyone, on board (possibly best) and get the axle loads at the same time, as above. You have worryingly little difference (130kg) between the MAM at 2770kg, and the combined axle maxima of 1900kg.

 

Since you appear to be so close to your MAM, I strongly suspect your rear axle is already overloaded, or at its maximum. If true, your tyres are likely to be very near to, or over, their load for pressure, or possibly, overloaded for any pressure. Until you have the necessary axle loads, it seems to me likely that you cannot, in fact, tow any trailer at all. (No margin for necessary noseweight)

 

If you find you can, bearing in mind the age of the van, I think it would be very unwise indeed to go for an unbraked trailer. You will be running everything at close to 100% capacity, meaning the brakes will be liable overheat and fade badly when you most need them.

 

Not sure whether, when you had four people in the van, you also transported them in the van, or whether you intend carrying your guests in the van. However, from what you have said already, it seems unlikely you have any available payload for even one passenger, let alone more.

 

I know I have a rather overactive imagination, but you seem already to be at the limits of what your van can take, possibly beyond, and therefore flirting with mechanical or tyre failure, or fine, or some combination thereof.

 

Therefore: weighbridge! Chop, chop! And do it thoroughly, otherwise, you may fool yourself for a while, but you won't fool the poor old van, or the "boys in blue". (lol) Sorry!

[colin]

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-02 4:28 PM

 

GVM (presumably) Gross Vehicle Mass, aka MTPLM (Maximum Technically Permitted Laden Mass), or MAM (Maximum Allowable Mass) = 2770kg.

 

 

GTM (presumably) Gross Train Mass, aka GTW (Gross Train Weight) = 3500kg.

 

GVM and GTM are as you say Gross Vehicle Mass and Gross Train Mass, these are standard terms still refered to by Ford.

http://www.ford.co.uk/Commercialvehicles/TransitChassisCab/Wheelbaseandgrossvehiclemass

[Brian Kirby]

Thanks Colin. Then I guess our own Tranny has the same terms on its plate. Teach me to read it properly, instead of just looking at the numbers! :$

[Robinhood]

pelmetman - 2011-07-01 2:39 PM

 

Don't know Dave:D...................never weighed it :-S..........But based on the brochure quote of 2570k and although it states a load capacity of 2104k 8-) ...............I reckon that's a typo and 200k is what it should read *-).

 

 

Whilst ultimately it adds little to the end debate, the above figures might be more understandable if you know that Which Motorcaravan reviewed this model in 1990, and quoted the payload as 466kgs.

 

.....which just happens to be the difference between the above figures.

 

I suspect, then, that the 2104kg is the MIRO - though in 1990 it would be debatable what the figure included.

 

(Sad person that I am, the magazine is still in my archives :-( )

[Derek Uzzell]

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-02 8:43 PM

 

Thanks Colin. Then I guess our own Tranny has the same terms on its plate. Teach me to read it properly, instead of just looking at the numbers! :$

 

Asa far as I'm aware VIV-plates are nowadays standardised and formulaic, with no letter-abbreviations linked to the weight maxima. While abbreviations like MAM, MTPLM, GVW, GVM, etc. may 'work' in a English-speaking country, they will be meaningless in say Framce or Germany.

[Brian Kirby]

Derek Uzzell - 2011-07-04 9:46 AM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-02 8:43 PM

 

Thanks Colin. Then I guess our own Tranny has the same terms on its plate. Teach me to read it properly, instead of just looking at the numbers! :$

 

Asa far as I'm aware VIV-plates are nowadays standardised and formulaic, with no letter-abbreviations linked to the weight maxima. While abbreviations like MAM, MTPLM, GVW, GVM, etc. may 'work' in a English-speaking country, they will be meaningless in say Framce or Germany.

 

On reflection, I think you may well be right, Derek. Due to an ankle sprain and a shoulder strain I haven't been to look yet! :-D

[Mel B]

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-04 12:58 PM

... Due to an ankle sprain and a shoulder strain I haven't been to look yet! :-D

 

What on earth have you been doing Brian!!! 8-)

 

Not trying your somersault antics in the bedroom again have you?? :D

[Derek Uzzell]

Mel B - 2011-07-04 6:46 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-04 12:58 PM

... Due to an ankle sprain and a shoulder strain I haven't been to look yet! :-D

 

What on earth have you been doing Brian!!! 8-)

 

Not trying your somersault antics in the bedroom again have you?? :D

 

I'm intrigued by your use of "again".

[Brian Kirby]

Derek Uzzell - 2011-07-05 8:34 AM

 

Mel B - 2011-07-04 6:46 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-04 12:58 PM

... Due to an ankle sprain and a shoulder strain I haven't been to look yet! :-D

 

What on earth have you been doing Brian!!! 8-)

 

Not trying your somersault antics in the bedroom again have you?? :D

 

I'm intrigued by your use of "again".

 

Not half as intrigued as I was!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D Ahem. For the record, we are just good firends (and it was very dark!).

[Derek Uzzell]

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-05 2:30 PM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2011-07-05 8:34 AM

 

Mel B - 2011-07-04 6:46 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-04 12:58 PM

... Due to an ankle sprain and a shoulder strain I haven't been to look yet! :-D

 

What on earth have you been doing Brian!!! 8-)

 

Not trying your somersault antics in the bedroom again have you?? :D

 

I'm intrigued by your use of "again".

 

Not half as intrigued as I was!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D Ahem. For the record, we are just good firends (and it was very dark!).

 

"firends" seem to have an affinity with bedrooms. See:

 

http://www.fishforums.net/index.php?/topic/304522-my-firend/

[Brian Kirby]

Best not to go there, I think! :-D

[Mel B]

Derek Uzzell - 2011-07-05 3:03 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-05 2:30 PM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2011-07-05 8:34 AM

 

Mel B - 2011-07-04 6:46 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-04 12:58 PM

... Due to an ankle sprain and a shoulder strain I haven't been to look yet! :-D

 

What on earth have you been doing Brian!!! 8-)

 

Not trying your somersault antics in the bedroom again have you?? :D

 

I'm intrigued by your use of "again".

 

Not half as intrigued as I was!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D Ahem. For the record, we are just good firends (and it was very dark!).

 

"firends" seem to have an affinity with bedrooms. See:

 

http://www.fishforums.net/index.php?/topic/304522-my-firend/

 

Does this mean you're 'hot stuff' then Brian! *-)

[Guest pelmetman]

Mel B - 2011-07-06 7:44 PM

Derek Uzzell - 2011-07-05 3:03 PM

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-05 2:30 PM

Derek Uzzell - 2011-07-05 8:34 AM

Mel B - 2011-07-04 6:46 PM

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-04 12:58 PM... Due to an ankle sprain and a shoulder strain I haven't been to look yet! :-D

What on earth have you been doing Brian!!! 8-) Not trying your somersault antics in the bedroom again have you?? :D

I'm intrigued by your use of "again".

Not half as intrigued as I was!!!!!!!!!!! :D :D Ahem. For the record, we are just good firends (and it was very dark!).

"firends" seem to have an affinity with bedrooms. See:http://www.fishforums.net/index.php?/topic/304522-my-firend/

Does this mean you're 'hot stuff' then Brian! *-)

8-)8-)....................................Ref!..............off topic!............

[Brian Kirby]

Oi! This is private. Shove off and get yer van weighed! :D

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-06 9:27 PMOi! This is private. Shove off and get yer van weighed! :D

Sorry Brian:$..................I didn't know there was a swingers section on the forum8-).........:D

[Guest pelmetman]

Finally got to a weighbridge today:$:$:$

Fully loaded with full tanks of fuel/water grub etc and a bucket of herbs:D

Front axle 1120kg, rear axle 1780kg, total 2900kg, that's 130kg over and 160kg to much on the rear axle8-)

So looks like a smaller trailer to get as much stuff out the van as possible. I have sent SV Tech an email to see if there is any scope for re plating:-S

PS anybody looking for a nearly new box trailer, 800kg payload, carpeted, just used occasionally for transporting pouffes, cost £2300 new*-)

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2011-07-25 4:42 PM.............................. I have sent SV Tech an email to see if there is any scope for re plating..............................

 

I honestly wouldn't bother. If the van were re-plated it would only increase its MAM. With that rear overhang my guess is it would make no difference at all to what you could actually carry, because your rear axle limit (which I doubt could be increased) will always be the limiting factor. Neither an increase in MAM, nor in rear axle capacity (likely to be expensive, if possible) would increase the GTW. So, whereas you might possibly be able to put a bit of extra load into the van (which I doubt), that extra would merely come off what you can now put in the trailer. You would still be limited to 3,500kg GTW.

 

Add to this that it is now an oldish van, and I think you will begin provoking unreliability (probably cooling system, possibly clutch and brakes) if you now start working it at maximum capacity, and then taking it south across Europe. Sorry, but I think you have reached the limits of your van.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-25 6:10 PM  Add to this that it is now an oldish van, and I think you will begin provoking unreliability (probably cooling system, possibly clutch and brakes) if you now start working it at maximum capacity, and then taking it south across Europe. Sorry, but I think you have reached the limits of your van.

I take on board what you say Brian:D......The email to SV Tech was just clutching at straws*-).....I think the smaller trailer is the answer as that will give me 375kg of extra payload which will be more than enough for the extra gear like bike, drive away awning washing machine etc:D we want to carry for long terming. I am planning on having the brakes overhauled this winter with new pipes etc, not that I have had any problems but prevention, is better than trying to find a cure when going down hill:D as I discovered once in a MG midget8-) 

When I think back to what we used to carry in the van at times, I must been a 1000kg overweight8-)