Coach Built as opposed to panel vans

[colin]

Colin Leake - 2011-12-10 10:28 PM

 

If the width is a problem in a car park with a coach built do what we do and simply park central on one of the lines taking up two spaces but leaving plenty of room for drivers on the two adjacent spaces to open their doors! If length is also a problem pull forward so that you take four spaces. Always remember to be considerate of others like us when you park!

 

Don't give us motorhome drivers a bad name.

 

I wonder when the last public lynching was held in Stanford :D

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

graham - 2011-12-10 7:45 PM

 

Just how many public car parks are there where you can park a 6m van within the marked out car park space and how can it be easier with a 6m PVC than a 6m coach built. Yes I know you can park with the back end over a grass verge (we do) but strictly speaking that isn't within the parking slot. Some car parks you can't do it anyway - Summerleaze beach at Bude for example where none of the slots back onto the verge but fortunately the attendants are a bit laid back about in the winter. I like PVC's but found that the shorter ones (Symbol for example) seemed a bit tighter than we were happy with.

 

Funny I was listening to a phone in the other day with folk complaining they could hardly get out of their cars on a car park down south somewhere because of the size of the bay markings, never mind a camper / coachbuilt. Another reason we always head over to France, none of that "parking eye" bulls**t, or over zealous local council jobsworth parking attendants enforcing the no overhanging the bay by a few inches nonsense. UK parking just adds up to stress big time, I hate it, the only real option being a Citroen Romahome to keep within the rules..

[Mel B]

We had this type of discussion last year when we were looking to change our then Rimor Sailer 645TC (7.14m). We wanted something shorter but couldn't decide whether to go down the PVC route or stay with a coachbuilt. We very, very seriously considered a PVC of 6m in length as we were especially keen to get one. We had also seriously considered not having a car so it would have to double up as that too. However, when we had crawled over loads of PVCs we came to the conclusion that there simply wasn't the storage in them for our needs - as we carry 2 inflatable canoes, paddles, life jackets, plus other more usual gear/kit when on holiday, and the lower insulation levels were a concern too.

 

As we didn't need to do without a car either and realised that 6m coachbuilt would be more manoeuvrable in terms of turning circle as the rear axle is further forward than a PVC. There are disadvantages to a coachbuilt - the one we went for is 2.3m wide (known as 'chubby chops'), but it meets most of our other needs pretty much perfectly.

 

In the end, it is down to how you intend to use your van which will influence the decision as to which is best. What is right for one person, may not be for someone else.

[Guest Peter James]

mandale - 2011-12-10 6:59 PM

 

Peter James - 2011-12-10 4:49 PM

 

mandale - 2011-12-10 2:43 PM

 

Peter James - 2011-12-10 12:40 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2011-12-10 11:16 AM For example, many of the PVCs (but by no means all, even at the higher price levels, so do check carefully) on offer have generous payloads on paper, but have very small load margins on their front axles, severely limiting their actual usability.

 

Thats another good point. Rear axles on panel vans tend to be further back to allow for a large side door. This makes the front axle take most of the weight, (an advantage on slippery surfaces as more of the weight is on the driving wheels) but it leads to front axle overloads

Another reason why I think the X250 L4 versions are better than the usual L3 because all of the additional 300mm length is behind the rear axle, counterbalancing the excessive weight on the front.

 

Incidentally I would put the rise in popularity of PVCs down to the new X2/50 as its wider, and lower, than any of the others.

 

 

Load distribution has very little to do with wheel base or rear axel overhang. The only thing a large rear axel overhang allows is additional load length inside the vehicle which does not affect the turning circle characteristics. It is the motorhome manufacturers who affect the load distribution of all motorhomes. The location of fresh and waste water tanks and travelling passengers must be the first consideration. It is not rocket science, fresh water tank, van midline opposite the fuel tank. Rear seating, fitted as close to the rear axel as possible without being on top of it, and the best one keep as much weight away from the front axel as possible. The original vehicle manufacturer do not allow for additional loads over the front axel. After all, the vehicle was originally designed to carry items in or on the rear.

 

Coach build or panel van conversion, is a personal choice. Both have good points and bad points, here are my personal views

 

If I was looking for a motorhome with more than 3 berths, it would be a coach build, simply because I feel the space inside a PVC runs out after the 3rd person ‘2 adults and a child’.

 

If I was looking for a 2 berth motorhome I would not look twice at a coach build, reasons for this are:

Original steel body is stronger, will last longer, repair is easier, better access to parts, less chance of water ingress, more practical and better fuel economy.

 

So, coach build if space is needed and panel van conversion otherwise, that’s my view.

 

Ps, final payload figures should really include the following: The complete vehicle with, full fuel tank, full fresh water tank and an allocation of 75kgs per travelling passenger. The bit that is left at the end is the payload for your holiday extras.

 

This is how we calculate on our PVC models.

As I said on the L4 version of the X2/50 van the additional 2 cubic metres of space is behind the rear axle. So common senser would suggest that the weight of the extra bodywork, plus whatever is in it, will counterbalance weight on the front. So you don't have the layout limitations of trying to put all the heavy things towards the back.

 

Was it my comments about the X2/50 being the widest most spacious panel van that offended you?

The only PVC which permits a full size bed to go in widthways.

I see you only use the narrower, higher floored panel vans for your conversions.

 

 

 

Hello Peter,

 

No offence has been taken from you post on my part. I was simply trying to say that manufactures can think about where they are fitting heavy items and what effect this may have on the vehicle when being driven.

I have no problem with the L4 that you speak of and in fact we are currently looking at this model so we can offer 3 and 4 berth PVC early next year. We use the Renault at the moment on our two berth motorhome because only a small number of converters use it and we would like to offer something different. The Renault is not as tall inside or as long as the vehicle you have mentioned but it does not seem to effect our conversion.

We are able to fit a bed length of 6 feet 1 inch across the Renault, what is the longest transverse bed you have come across in PVC, as this would be of interest to me.

 

I am truly sorry if I have offended you, or if my comments have caused upset, that was never my intension.

 

Your apologies are making me feel bad now, sorry. :$

 

But I am surprised you tell us you can fit a 6feet 1 inch bed across the Renault Master because the manufacturers give the van cargo width as 5 feet 9 inches (1.765m).

 

(The X2/50 manufacturers give the van cargo width as 6 feet 1 inches (1.870m) These figures are on the van manufacturers websites. The X2/50 also has a lower floor.)

[colin]

Peter James - 2011-12-11 9:42 AM

 

But I am surprised you tell us you can fit a 6feet 1 inch bed across the Renault Master because the manufacturers give the van cargo width as 5 feet 9 inches (1.765m).

 

(The X2/50 manufacturers give the van cargo width as 6 feet 1 inches (1.870m) These figures are on the van manufacturers websites. The X2/50 also has a lower floor.)

 

The wall construction of the two vans are different, on the Renault you can fit a bed above the main wall strenghning members and at this point it is at least as wide, if not wider, than the Fiat

[Guest Peter James]

colin - 2011-12-11 11:52 AM

The wall construction of the two vans are different, on the Renault you can fit a bed above the main wall strenghning members and at this point it is at least as wide, if not wider, than the Fiat

 

Interesting yes. The manufacturers brochures (I got both when I was looking for a van) quote the external width between sides of the Renault (2.07m) to be more than the X2/50 (2.05m). Yet the 'cargo width' quoted is the other way round - its less for the Renault.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Peter James - 2011-12-11 1:38 PM

 

colin - 2011-12-11 11:52 AM

The wall construction of the two vans are different, on the Renault you can fit a bed above the main wall strenghning members and at this point it is at least as wide, if not wider, than the Fiat

 

Interesting yes. The manufacturers brochures (I got both when I was looking for a van) quote the external width between sides of the Renault (2.07m) to be more than the X2/50 (2.05m). Yet the 'cargo width' quoted is the other way round - its less for the Renault.

 

Perhaps they use thicker steel, P.S what in old money is the difference :-S

[mandale]

colin - 2011-12-11 11:52 AM

 

Peter James - 2011-12-11 9:42 AM

 

But I am surprised you tell us you can fit a 6feet 1 inch bed across the Renault Master because the manufacturers give the van cargo width as 5 feet 9 inches (1.765m).

 

(The X2/50 manufacturers give the van cargo width as 6 feet 1 inches (1.870m) These figures are on the van manufacturers websites. The X2/50 also has a lower floor.)

 

The wall construction of the two vans are different, on the Renault you can fit a bed above the main wall strenghning members and at this point it is at least as wide, if not wider, than the Fiat

 

Thanks for your post explaining the bed length Colin.

 

I can not confirm whether or not the Renault is wider than the Fiat without measuring the Fiat, however you have it absolutely right about the cargo load area and the actual space available for a transverse bed. By using all the available space in the Renault we have been able to extend the bed to 6ft 1” on the prototype model, as far as I am aware (and I would have to look at the design drawings at work) we would be able to extend the bed further possibly up to 6ft 4”. I would imagine similar transverse lengths would be achievable on the Fiat vehicle also.

 

Ps, the van in question has had a four day road test by Which Motorhome and the review is in the January edition out now, this confirms the bed length.

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

1footinthegrave - 2011-12-11 1:51 PM.............................P.S what in old money is the difference :-S

20mm, or 3/4 inch.

[Guest 1footinthegrave]

Brian Kirby - 2011-12-11 3:25 PM

 

1footinthegrave - 2011-12-11 1:51 PM.............................P.S what in old money is the difference :-S

20mm, or 3/4 inch.

 

Blimey and the poster noticed the difference between two vans,mmmmmmmm ! ! 8-)

[Brian Kirby]

colin - 2011-12-11 11:52 AM

 

Peter James - 2011-12-11 9:42 AM

 

But I am surprised you tell us you can fit a 6feet 1 inch bed across the Renault Master because the manufacturers give the van cargo width as 5 feet 9 inches (1.765m).

 

(The X2/50 manufacturers give the van cargo width as 6 feet 1 inches (1.870m) These figures are on the van manufacturers websites. The X2/50 also has a lower floor.)

 

The wall construction of the two vans are different, on the Renault you can fit a bed above the main wall strenghning members and at this point it is at least as wide, if not wider, than the Fiat

Apologies Colin, can't resist, immodesty demands!! :-) So, the new Master is as wide as the Ducato & clones, and can take a transverse bed.

 

It can also have RWD with single rear wheels, giving improved traction as a PVC, without undue rear wing intrusion. In this form it has the tighter turning circle of the MWB FWD van, in a LWB body. It also has sufficient rear overhang to take conversion loads without leaning too hard on the front axle. The only flaw I can see is the need for the high top version, because headroom is lost to the higher floor necessary to clear the prop-shaft. However, if choosing a variant to convert, I think that would be my target vehicle.

[Guest pelmetman]

Another point to add to mix is a short wheel base ;-).............I have taken our coachbuilt to places I would struggle with my LWB works Transit, which is something many of today's PVC's suffer from............a duff turning circle 8-)

I can spin our camper on a sixpence :D

[colin]

Brian Kirby - 2011-12-11 5:43 PM

 

 

Apologies Colin, can't resist, immodesty demands!! :-) So, the new Master is as wide as the Ducato & clones, and can take a transverse bed.

 

As I've posted before, thats only part of the story. For a layout such as a Twin or my CampScout IMO it works better on a Fiat than a Renault, as you get a wider passage between front and rear sections of van and more room in the front dinette, get these wrong and the van is IMO not nice. Now funny enough to see it wrong you have to look at the Adria version of my van which is on a Fiat, or the earlier version of my van based on Renault

[colin]

pelmetman - 2011-12-11 7:10 PM

 

Another point to add to mix is a short wheel base ;-).............I have taken our coachbuilt to places I would struggle with my LWB works Transit, which is something many of today's PVC's suffer from............a duff turning circle 8-)

I can spin our camper on a sixpence :D

 

I can only presume from this post that you have not had much experiance driving an X250, obviously the longer wheelbase will have some effect, but much less than you might imagine. The road outside 'the old house' is very narrow and the gate posts restrict width of drive, when backing my Suzi with 2.36m wheelbase onto drive I sometimes get it wrong and need to bites to get in, yesterday was only the second time I needed two bites with our L4 X250, now it would be ridiculas to say the van was anyware near as manovrable as the Suzi, but it's suprisingly not a huge amount worse, and last time I tried backing a MWB transit CB in, it took me several attempts.

[Guest pelmetman]

colin - 2011-12-11 8:51 PM

and last time I tried backing a MWB transit CB in, it took me several attempts.

I did say short wheel base ;-)...................so I might have a big overhanging back end, but I can swing it with alacrity :D

[colin]

pelmetman - 2011-12-11 9:00 PM

 

colin - 2011-12-11 8:51 PM

and last time I tried backing a MWB transit CB in, it took me several attempts.

I did say short wheel base ;-)...................so I might have a big overhanging back end, but I can swing it with alacrity :D

 

your not the only one

 

[Guest pelmetman]

colin - 2011-12-11 9:10 PM

 

pelmetman - 2011-12-11 9:00 PM

 

colin - 2011-12-11 8:51 PM

and last time I tried backing a MWB transit CB in, it took me several attempts.

I did say short wheel base ;-)...................so I might have a big overhanging back end, but I can swing it with alacrity :D

 

your not the only one

 

Well there's a first Colin :-D..................my old Travelhome compared with Beyonce (lol) (lol) (lol).........................I still think I can shake my tush better :D

[rolandrat]

I once owned an IH Savanah, it was very well made and I was reluctant to part with it but the biggest problem I had with it was the drafts from the rear doors and the sliding side door. I made numerous adjustments to resolve them but in the end I had to accept that nothing else could be done. With the bed made up there was a constant draft coming up the rearmost side. When IH made the one piece rear end which incorporated a storage boot area it was a good design that obviously solved the draft problem. What the latest x250 is like for drafts I dont know. If you have owned a rear lounge coach built you appreciate the copious amount of space. If you then get a van conversion you will have to get used to the limited space, my description being a sardine can. There are numerous pros and cons, it boils down to personal choice. If I was to start all over again I would buy a Merc 609 extra long wheelbase van and have it converted to my own design, the problem with some of the old ones on offer is that they suffer very badly with tin worm under the front windscreen. They can be repaired but it is a major front strip down job.