Altering vehicle's Maximum weight allowance

[marydot]

We are picking up our first motorhome next week (23rd). It is a 2003 Autotrail Cheyenne 635SE.

The dealer told us that the weight was 3500kg I think, but that the previous owner had had the weight allowance lowered to 3000kg as he was over 70. Do we need to do anything to get back the lost allowance? 8-) 8-)

 

Marydot

[aultymer]

First lesson on motorhomes - don't believe salesmen!

 

The restriction for over 70 year old drivers comes in at 3500 Kg so there would be no point reducing it below that..

Check the VIN plate on the vehicle and all the many threads explaining the meaning of the numbers there before you start trying to change anything.

 

I understand that van was available with a MAM of 3850 and it may be this which was lowered to 3500Kg for the over 70 driver.

[pepe63xnotuse]

I would've thought that it *should* be just a simple case of contacting Swansea and supplying them with the appropriate paperwork.

Having said that,we've found swansea(and dvla in general) to be shambolic at best(..speak to them 5 times and you'll get 6 different answers! >:-( )

 

If you haven't got any paperwork which shows that it has been downplated,then I would contact Autotrail and see what they could provide you with,prior to getting caught up with swanea...

 

It would've been better if the dealer could've sorted it all out though,before you took delivery... :-S

 

Edit..oh yeah! I was reading it as it had been lowered to 3.5 from 3.8.. :$

[marydot]

Yes, I think it was down from 3800 to 3500 now that you've said that.

 

 

We have not taken delivery yet, so I haven't got any papers to look at.

 

Marydot

 

 

 

 

[Robinhood]

If you want to recover the potential additional payload, then the first thing to be sure of is that all intended drivers are licensed to drive vehicles over 3500kg. (The restrictions don't just kick in at 70, they also apply to all drivers who have passed only the standard "car" test on or after the 1st Jan 1997).

 

There is also the chance that, if you have renewed your licence (for any reason such as change of address, photocard, etc.) since that date you may have inadvertantly lost the appropriate category (it shouldn't happen, but it has to some people)!

 

Be aware that raising the MAM above 3500kg has some less than desirable effects (though currently, the VED is slightly lower than if you didn't!). These effects are more prevalent abroad - lower speed limits, higher tolls, need for a Go-Box in Austria, etc. though some effects manifest themselves in the UK (e.g. differing regulations for the London LEZ. potentially different arrangements for beakdown recovery, etc.).

 

It's also worthwhile noting that increasing the MAM may not give you much (if any) additional practical load carrying on certain 'vans. This is because, in addition to the MAM, the maximum axle loads must not be exceeded, and if you are already close to one, you may not easily be able to redistribute the load to use up your (theoretical) additional payload. Unfortunately, without a full weigh of the vehicle, this is difficult to ascertain.

 

If the vehicle has been downrated, but still has the original weight plate (either on the vehicle, or with the documentation - there should be a newer weight plate on the vehicle with the reduced weight) then if you wish to go back to the original weight I would be inclined to visit your local DVLA office with the information, and be prepared to remove the lower weight plate on the spot. They should be able to deal with the issue for you there and then, but again, people's experience has differed.

 

In reality, if you haven't picked it up yet, and the dealer has all the papers - get them to do it as part of the deal! (after all, I suspect they're going to have to tax it for you -via the local DVLA office -, and there is a small reduction in tax that they could pocket for the privilege!).

[Keithl]

Hi Marydot,

 

Reading the 2003 brochure the Cheyenne 635 was offered in 3 chassis variants. First was a basic Fiat at 3,400kg Max Grosss Weight, next was a 'special order' Fiat Maxi chassis at 3,850kg and finally a Mercedes option at 3,800kg MGW.

You don't say which base vehicle you are buying but make sure that you are certain that it was originally the higher figure as I am certain that a 3,400kg base cannot be uprated without VERY expensive modifications.

 

For further info you can download the 2003 AutoTrail brochure from their website if you haven't already got a copy.

 

If you have any more questions just post and we'll try and answer.

 

Keith.

 

Edit Spelling! Why do you only notice after posting :$

[kelly58]

It may be worthwhile giving Vtech http://www.svtech.co.uk/faq3.html  a call and ask their advise regarding your weight issue , I have just had them organise the uplift of my motorhome weight from 3300kgs to 3500kgs £240 + vat you will have to give them full details of your vehicle from the VRD and weight plates , I found them more than helpfull they deal with all types of vehicle weight issues either to uplift or downshift.

[pepe63xnotuse]

Well from what the OP has posted so far(..and the salesman is to be believed...yeah,I know! 8-) ) ,I wouldn't have thought the OP needed to be contacting the likes of SVtech(yet?),as they aren't looking to uprate the vehicle as such,just to" return the paperwork" to how it was when it left the factory/ converters...as has been said,they'll need to be really sure of just what the chassis was rated at(..and it's "potential")when it left the converters...

(..I wouldn't be involving or chucking money at third parties,for them to sort it out just yet...)

 

If there are no documents which state what it used to be rated at,then I would've thought that it would be a simple case of supplying Autotrail with a chassis/build number,so that they that they could clarify things...

 

When we first bought our van,there was a "mix up" on our V5,as it showed 3.5t even though the vehicle was rated at 3.85t.

After loads of conflicting advice from DVLA,(..and on forums if I'm honest :$ ),I ended up contacting Chausson HQ in France and they just posted through a certificate stating it's gross weight...Swansea accepted this and corrected the V5.

(..With hindsight,it would've been far easier if had of contacted them from the off,rather than listening to the likes of "..just take a photo of the vehicle and send it off mate.." and "..just write on the V5 what it should say and we'll update it...." etc..etc *-) )

 

[Derek Uzzell]

In an earlier posting Marydot describes the motorhome she will shortly be collecting as "a 2003 Autocruise Cheyenne 635 SE, which has a Mercedes 2.1 diesel engine". The 2003 Auto-Trail brochure indicates that the Cheyenne 635 Mercedes-based model was marketed only on a 3800kg MAM chassis (with 2.2litre motor as standard), so (as marydot believes) the 'down-plating' will have been from 3800kg to 3500kg.

 

As a Cheyenne 635 is reasonably compact, there's a sporting chance that it could be run legally at 3500kg and still have sufficient payload not to compromise its operation too much. On the other hand, if an extra 300kg of payload is considered to be desirable/essential, as the vehicle started life at 3800kg MAM and its brochure-stated maximum axle-loads are a respectable 1750kg (front) and 2240kg (rear), returning it to its original chassis-weight should present no technical problems.

 

Assuming that it were a practical proposition (ie. that there is adequate payload at 3500kg MAM) I'd be tempted to leave it at that weight. As Robinhood explains, there are various implications relating to running/driving an over-3500kg motorhome, not least that the UK market for such vehicles will contract over time. However, if it turns out that payload at 3500kg MAM is tight (and the only way to establish this with certainty will be to weigh the vehicle with a representative load on board), then it would be a good idea to insist that the dealer handles the bureaucracy needed to return the vehicle to its original 3800kg MAM specification.

[Brian Kirby]

Only one tiny rider to the above, of which I am sure Mary will be fully aware. If the plate says 3,500kg, that is the legal load limit for the vehicle.

 

If you decide to run it at 3,500kg, as currently plated, it matters not that it carries an original makers plate saying 3,800kg, and that the chassis remains technically capable of carrying that load. That is now superseded, and has no legal validity. The authorities will look only at 3,500kg.

 

I only mention this in case that knowledge may give rise to a certain over-confidence in checking actual load. :-)

[Mel B]

Before doing anything else I would insist on a printed weighbridge certificate from the dealer with both front and rear axles independently weighed, so you can check for yourself what the current payload is. It may be running close to it's limit and you'll then have to decide:

 

1) if you want to keep it at 3500kg and accept the payload as it is, or

2) get it uprated back to 3800kg to give a more usable payload and accept the restrictions that will bring.

 

I must emphasise that this should be done PRIOR to you actually completing the deal .....

[Robinhood]

Derek Uzzell - 2011-07-15 9:11 AM

 

In an earlier posting Marydot describes the motorhome she will shortly be collecting as "a 2003 Autocruise Cheyenne 635 SE, which has a Mercedes 2.1 diesel engine". The 2003 Auto-Trail brochure indicates that the Cheyenne 635 Mercedes-based model was marketed only on a 3800kg MAM chassis (with 2.2litre motor as standard), so (as marydot believes) the 'down-plating' will have been from 3800kg to 3500kg.

 

As a Cheyenne 635 is reasonably compact, there's a sporting chance that it could be run legally at 3500kg and still have sufficient payload not to compromise its operation too much.

 

...as a guideline, contemporaneously MMM gave the payload of this MB version (at 3800kg but not the SE) as 800kg. The non-uprated Fiat based version (at 3400kg) had a quoted payload of 345kg.

 

Whilst it is admittedly not at all clear how the quoted payload figures were calculated, this would indicate that a downrated MB version at 3500kg would still be better placed than the Fiat on the lighter chassis, and with a payload of 500kg, as Derek says it could indeed possibly provide sufficient capacity. (ultimately, though, confidence in the available payload will only come from weighbridge readings, and it would certainly help with the decision if these were available before pick-up).

 

Personally, I would certainly choose to run at 3500kg if the resulting payload were sufficient, and it is almost certain that any subsequent upgrade (if required) could be done as a "paper exercise".

 

Only Marydot can make a judgement on what payload flexibility is required, and whether or not the negative aspects of being over 3500kg are important.

 

The main sticking point will be the entitlement to drive vehicles over 3500kg. If there is such entitlement, then there is the ability (either now or at a later date) to increase the potential payload, albeit with some possible ongoing inconvenience. If there is no entitlement, then buying might be an expensive mistake.

[flicka]

IMHO the Saleman can not be right.

The Autotrail Cheyenne MIRO would be around the 3000kg weight, effectively leaving NO useable payload.

[Keithl]

Right folks,

 

The 2003 AT brochure does not give any unladen weights or payload for any model, BUT the 2004 brochure does :-D and as most models where basically unchanged between these 2 years it would be a fair starting point to calculate Marydot's payload.

 

Quoted Unladen Mass of a 635 on a MB 313 (but Not SE) was 2,982 kg including the weight of a driver and 90% fuel (total given as 140 kg). But note that this is then quoted as only being an estimate!

The weight of the SE options then has to be added to this unladen weight of 2,842 kg. These are given as 39 kg for the option fitted to a Cheyenne with 3.5 m awning.

 

This would give an (estimated) unladen weight of 2,881 kg plus any other accessories permanently fitted, eg TowBar, satellite dish, second battery, etc, etc.

 

For comparison our AT Cheyenne 632SE has identical figures quoted in the brochure and from these I have estimated our unladen weight as 2,945 kg and added a modern Dymo style sticker next to the VIN plate to this effect in case we are ever accused of speeding. For info for those that didn't know, vehicles with an unladen weight over 3,050 kg (yes 3,050 and NOT 3,500) are restricted to speed limits 10mph below national limits on all roads except motorways (and 30mph zones).

 

This should mean that Marydot's new (to her) Cheyenne has a usable payload of something in excess of 500 kg if plated to 3,500 kg.

But I still feel it would be very wise to get it weighed in a totally unladen state as a condition of sale.

 

I'm sorry for the long rambling but hope all is now a little clearer.

 

Keith.

[Keithl]

flicka - 2011-07-15 10:06 PM

 

IMHO the Saleman can not be right.

The Autotrail Cheyenne MIRO would be around the 3000kg weight, effectively leaving NO useable payload.

 

Flicka,

 

Marydot corrected herself in a second post saying that she actually believed the vehicle was downrated from 3,800 to 3,500 kg.

So as I have calculated above this would give her a very usable payload in excess of 500kg. (subject to weighbridge confirmation).

 

Keith.

[Derek Uzzell]

There is some anecdotal evidence that Auto-Trail builds ‘heavy’ (or, to put it another way, does not build ‘light’) and it’s commonplace for motorcaravan manufacturers to quote build-weight data as +/-5% accurate.

 

I recall discussing this with Dave Thomas ages ago at an NEC show, when he was designing for Auto-Trail and there had been complaints on forums about that company’s motorhomes being heavier than Auto-Trail brochures stated. He was defensive, saying that, when complaining buyers had their ‘empty’ vehicles weighed at the factory, it was rarely the case that the motorhome was genuinely empty. Also, that the weight data were “estimates”. Nevertheless, it was plain that some Auto-Trail buyers had had weight-related grievances sufficient for their motorhomes to have been officially weighed. While a 500kg estimated usable payload is likely to be adequate, a +5% increase in the estimated ex-factory build-weight would bring that figure down to around 350kg, which might be pushing it if autonomy is important.

 

Marydot’s plans involve off-campsite motorhome usage (perhaps for longish periods), which suggests that the fresh-water tank will usually need to be full when the vehicle is being driven, that large battery capacity will be important, perhaps a solar panel will be fitted, probably bikes will be carried, possibly a 2nd toilet-cassette will be added to extend the emptying period, etc. etc. All such things will eat remorselessly into the payload.

 

[Brian Kirby]

Keithl - 2011-07-15 10:24 PM...............................For comparison our AT Cheyenne 632SE has identical figures quoted in the brochure and from these I have estimated our unladen weight as 2,945 kg and added a modern Dymo style sticker next to the VIN plate to this effect in case we are ever accused of speeding. For info for those that didn't know, vehicles with an unladen weight over 3,050 kg (yes 3,050 and NOT 3,500) are restricted to speed limits 10mph below national limits on all roads except motorways (and 30mph zones)..............................Keith.

 

I have to say, though, Keith, that I don't think this method quite safe!

 

Your calculation, apparently based only on brochure figures, give you a margin of just 105kg.

 

While that may sound a lot, there is, as Derek says, a fairly general acceptance tolerance of +/-5% (so, in your case, 145kg) tolerance in build weights. However, anything you have added to the van since delivery, or that is over and above the standard package as represented in the brochure, immediately contributes to its unladen weight.

 

Unladen weight is the weight of the vehicle with no water, no fuel, no tools, no gas (providing the cylinders are normally removable - a bulk tank or fixed refillables would count, but should be empty), no driver, and arguably, no habitation battery. The only way to be certain of this is to get the vehicle as close as possible to that condition, take it to a weighbridge, and get the printed ticket with the vehicle registration number clearly shown.

 

Whatever you have to leave in, you could deduct arithmetically but, if you were challenged, you would probably have to prove your case. Your Dymo strip won't be worth squat diddly, because it would have no legal validity!

 

However, a weighbridge ticket (because weighbridges are periodically checked and certificated), showing your vehicle reg No and a weight under 3,050kg, would carry far more weight, and should satisfy the police there and then (Providing the officer fully understands the requirement. There is some evidence that not all do).

[marydot]

Well, called into the showroom today. The salesman had taken V5 and tax disc and anything else he had to local DVLA office. Turned out all they needed was the registration number. The chassis is the Mercedes Benz which has MIRO just under 3000 and a max. weight of 3500, originally 3500. We think we will just stay with the max wt of 3500, as it seems easier and should be plenty of payload. There is a 2nd plate fitted showing the downgraded weight and DVLC say there are no problems with it.

 

Had another good poke around in the m/h while we were there, planning where everything will be packed in.

Even clim ed up and down the ladder and tried overcab bed. Not sure how I'll manage in the 'wee' small hours, but can always use the 'downstairs' bed if need be.

[marydot]

Derek Uzzell - 2011-07-16 9:36 AM

 

Marydot’s plans involve off-campsite motorhome usage (perhaps for longish periods), which suggests that the fresh-water tank will usually need to be full when the vehicle is being driven, that large battery capacity will be important, perhaps a solar panel will be fitted, probably bikes will be carried, possibly a 2nd toilet-cassette will be added to extend the emptying period, etc. etc. All such things will eat remorselessly into the payload.

 

There is a flat solar panel fitted to the roof, but there will definitely be no bikes on the rear. Just thinking about riding a bike makes me laugh! :-> :-> :->

 

So if we want to tow a small car behind, on a trailer, say, how does that fit in with weights. Is it just included in Gross train weight?

 

Mary

[Brian Kirby]

marydot - 2011-07-16 5:14 PM.....................................So if we want to tow a small car behind, on a trailer, say, how does that fit in with weights. Is it just included in Gross train weight?..................................Mary

 

Broadly, yes. GTW defines the maximum combined laden weight of van plus its trailer. Look to see if the new plate also reduces the GTW by 300kg. If it does not, because 300 kg has been clipped from the MAM of the van, it would be wise to check to see if an actual maximum trailer weight is stated anywhere - most likely in the Mercedes handbook.

[Derek Uzzell]

Brian Kirby - 2011-07-16 1:28 PM

 

...but, if you were challenged, you would probably have to prove your case. Your Dymo strip won't be worth squat diddly, because it would have no legal validity!

 

The 3050kg unladen weight that impacts on UK speed limits is a hang over from an old (pre-metric) 3-ton regulation. Realistically, it is unpoliceable as there is no requirement nowadays for a motorhome's unladen weight to be stated on any official documentation.

 

I recall the late Mel Eastburn (who was fond of anything motorhome-weight-related) advising that a motorhome owner could not be asked to place his/her vehicle in an 'unladen weight' condition to establish whether or not it was above the 3050kg threshold. Nor had the authorities any right of access to the motorhome to take it into 'unladen weight' state to check for a 3050kg contravention.

 

In other EU countries the motorhome's MAM will be used (where appropriate) for speed-limit-related prosecutions.