2007 motorhome model research

[mhc]

If you were looking for a New motorhome on the web, what information would you like to see most?

[Brian Kirby]

You'll probably already have an idea it exists from an ad in a mag.  You'll therefore want facts to confirn it is of interest. 

You'll want a decent, legible plan, to start. 

You'll want to know chassis and engine data, and available options. 

You'll want to know dimensions, wheelbase and rear overhang. 

You'll want to know the "mass in running order", and exactly how it has been calculated, plus the MTPLM.

You'd be hugely grateful to have the individual axle weights in running order, and their limits! 

You'll want to know how many gas cylinders, of what size, will go into the gas locker; how much the fresh, and waste, water tanks hold; what is the habitation battery capacity; the exact type of fridge and heating installed; the number of burners and plates on the hob; the size and type of any oven; the number of belted seats, and the accurate size/s of the bed/s.

A picture or two showing the internal ambience, the washroom/toilet, the cooking area and the bed, together with any features such as a boot etc would be a useful addition so long as they assist understanding and don't take a couple of hours to download.  Spare me animations/panoramics, though!

Oh, and a phone number you can use to ask questions and/or get a full brochure - and even somwhere you can go to actually see one.

That'll do for starters!

[RonB]

Brian Ever thought of becoming a motorhome tester for MMM? This is exactly the information, in order of importance and especially concerning weights, that a purchaser wants. So why do we not get it instead of the lightweight offerings at present? It's not rocket science is it.

[messerschmitt owner]

you don't get it because the magazines do not have enough space to devote to it! Having just been through every brochure from every manufacturer (almost), looking at every spec, it would also take months to compile this information because much of it is not in the brochures we all get from the dealers. They don't care really about giving out useful information - only in having pretty pictures of vans so that they can sell them. Too much info (or not enough of the useful stuff) would put some of us off buying vans. I mean, payloads of 300kg for six berth vans, two ring hobs for six berth vans, seat belts for two in six berth vans... Also, many manufacturers issue the same brochure in different countries - with the same text in a different language, irrespective of the actual specifications of the van in that country.

[RonB]

Messerschmitt Owner I agree with much of what you say, however, I was referring to motorhome TESTS and not brochures, data tables, etc. Ron

[michele]

Why oh Why do the MHM devote so much to buying & selling . Silly question Whilst I understand that it covers lots of things for lots of people some times there are pages & pages . Why not more devoted to say the things that people really want to know . MMM could think about putting a freebie inside of the mag with the for sale stuff seperate to the actuall mag . That way they could give more over to the serious ones they are testing. with all the things they say above. On this subject i am trying so hard to find a Bessacar with a garage at the back and the bed over the garage to allow for the wheelchair and stuff. i do not know the model number and have spoke to a chap on here and I know it is out there ....? but can I find it on the web site NO.... Anyhelp would be appreciated.... Does anyone know where we could view this perticular model ? cheers

[Keith T]

In order to provide an initial comparison, and 'short list' for anyone looking for a new motohome, the minimum info would be Base vehicle/ engine size Dimensions - length, width, height Style - eg low profile/overcab/A-class etc Weight, both max as this affects who may be able to drive, and as previously mentioned an ACTUAL 'user' loading and how calculated. Layout, and no of travel seats Cost - plus brief 'main' options list (eg Cab a/c, etc)

[mhc]

Natually, the buying and selling part is what pays for a large proportion of the magazine cost. Bessacarr with a garage? Can't remember but I think if you look up a Swift Sundance 630G it could be a contender. Looking at the poll so far more people's priority is the specs rather than what deals are there. That makes sense to me too. I'd want to find the right vehicle for my needs and then shop around for a deal on that model. But, in my view, there is little consistent info on the web to help people with their buying decisions. Magazine articles and spec tables are great, but wouldn't it be better still to have some means of comparing on-line?

[Guest JudgeMental]

All this information is available already, alibi in German. I download reviews from German sites (promobil being one) and use automatic translation. It’s just about understandable and you get an in depth review of most all practical issues including weight…. They have had comparisons of the new chassis’s available for months. On the basis of these reviews (and a visit to Dusseldorf) I have ordered a new Ford based Euramobil profila 660 HB I find UK magazines lamentable in their service to motorhome buyers/users best wishes Eddie

[Brian Kirby]

[QUOTE]messerschmitt owner - 2006-11-30 10:56 PM you don't get it because the magazines do not have enough space to devote to it!  [/QUOTE]

Sorry to abridge your flow, but the information required can very easily be presented in a table - and much of the remainder with the aid of annotated diagrams or photographs.  So many of the reviews waste acres of paper with verbose descriptions of what is already bleedin' obvious from photographs (and streams of excruciating puns!).  What the reviewers really needs to focus on are the aspects that aren't already apparent from the table (if it was there) or the pics.  Oh, and no test should be considered complete without a weighbridge visit at proper MIRO loading - with a record of the individual axle weights.  Same cost as two copies of MMM in most places.  Cheapskates!

Oh, and I've thought of something else.  Reviewers should arrive at the van with a standard selection of cooking utensils and cutlery.  This they should have to stow away and show the result.  There are quite a few vans that seem woefully short of kitchen storage.  An underdesigned kitchen would just leave some of the kit sitting on the floor.  Just one 'photo would tell all!  The manufacturers would carp a bit that they'd been unfairly treated, but in the end they'd surely have to start doing some proper, functional, designing.  No?  Well, maybe you're right!

[messerschmitt owner]

Brian Not a problem with the abridged comment. Here are some of my thoughts regarding van testing. Basically, a journalist or reviewer has but a few hours to test a van - which isn't enough time to get a real feel for it - but the review is only, ultimately, intended to give a feel for the van so that people can go look themselves if interested and make their own minds up. I have a smart roadster which many reviewers panned as they did not like the smart's semi-automatic gearbox. However, it is a fantastic handling and very agile, nimble and sporty car which has a small but very loyal following. If one believed the reviews, it would be totally rubbish - which it quite frankly isn't. The reviewers had them for a few hours and it wasn't enough to get used to the car's idiosyncracies and learn how to drive it properly. Once learned, it is a fantastic car and easily the most fun modern car I have ever driven. I've found that, yes some people can tell what a van is like from the photos, but lot's can't. You and I may have some common sense, but it is the most incorrectly named human ability because it is actually very uncommon in the public at large. They also seem to like the pretty pictures! However, in a group test each van gets about 750-1000 words in total and that is simply not enough to tell all about a van, even with the aid of diagrams and tables. Many vans are tested at dealer locations and are brand new and, funnily, some dealers are a bit reluctant about reviewers driving them the miles and miles to a public weighbridge. Also, two vans are tested in a day and there isn't time to do this and they often only have a gallon of fuel in them. The manufacturers do actually list MAMs and payloads - while some are inaccurate and each van off the production line is slightly different, it should give a rough idea. My opinion is don't buy a six berth van with a payload of 350kg as six average people weigh 375kg. Manufacturers have kitted their vans out with what people seem to want and vans are plated at certain levels because that is what people can drive on their licences. Many things will change soon, as more and more hopeful motorcaravanners will have to pass tests to drive 3.5t+ vans. I see vans becoming smaller and lighter again. There are lots of things that I would like changed about van design. These include not having gas bottles in lockers at the very rear, payload and seat belts for the number of berths a van has (six berths, six belts, etc), decent length beds (minimum 6ft), storage in the kitchen (and sensible storage at that - not just an open cupboard), shelves in cupboards, drawers in wardrobes, inboard water tanks and decent taps on waste tanks, decent mattresses, slatted underneath, toilets that are big enough to move in, work surface and food preparation areas with space to cook properly, square sinks (how I hate round sinks), tv brackets for flat screen tvs (why, oh why are brand new vans now being built with tv cupboards), etc. Vans themselves are a compromise, designed to be all things in a very small space. I have yet to see a perfect 18-24ft long van that would suit me, and, as we know, we're all different and want different things from a motorhome. What I would like to see in reviews is a mention of some of the shoddy design work, shoddy workmanship, damaged and broken parts in brand new vans being reviewed, etc. Unfortunately, what makes magazines so cheap is the advertising and the publishers cannot afford to upset too many of their advertisers, so some of comments about the poor design and execution has to be toned down. Some vans are excellent, but I have seen some from some manufacturers that (for vans for review) were quite frankly shocking. It is a good point about the cutlery and pots/pans. Campbell

[RonB]

The big problem about looking for a new motorhome on the web, or anywhere else, is the amount of false data supplied by manufacturers which is then slavishly repeated by motorhome publications and testers. You therefore have vehicles with seemingly high payloads which cannot be achieved in practical terms without overloading one axle or the other, payload figures supplied using differing criteria to arrive at the supposedly same answer, and specifications given that are quite simply lies. An example of the latter is our own Burstner A-Class which is listed by the manufacturer and MMM as having an overall width of 7'6" - it is nearer 8'4"!What are motorhome tests for I wonder if not to test manufacturers claims?

[Brian Kirby]

[QUOTE]RonB - 2006-12-02 1:14 PM The big problem about looking for a new motorhome on the web, or anywhere else, is the amount of false data supplied by manufacturers which is then slavishly repeated by motorhome publications and testers. You therefore have vehicles with seemingly high payloads which cannot be achieved in practical terms without overloading one axle or the other, payload figures supplied using differing criteria to arrive at the supposedly same answer, and specifications given that are quite simply lies. An example of the latter is our own Burstner A-Class which is listed by the manufacturer and MMM as having an overall width of 7'6" - it is nearer 8'4"!What are motorhome tests for I wonder if not to test manufacturers claims?[/QUOTE]

There seems to be an unwritten convention that "overall width" excludes the rear view mirrors!  Don't ask - you won't understand the answer!

[messerschmitt owner]

[QUOTE]Brian Kirby - 2006-12-02 2:23 PM There seems to be an unwritten convention that "overall width" excludes the rear view mirrors!  Don't ask - you won't understand the answer!

[/QUOTE] basically if you need to get past something, you can pop the mirrors in - I do it myself and many people who have narrow driveways do the same - would you ever look at something if the total width inc mirrors out was beyond the capabilities of your drive/entrance, etc. That is why 'mirrors in' widths are quoted. There is no conspiracy there. The width is simply the maximum width of the van with mirrors folded. Again, if that is the consistent standard, then it takes but a little common sense to know that two inches more than that is the minimum width you can get past and that with mirrors out there must be an extra 6in of van! Perhaps what is needed is not a change to the buyers guides or brochures but more an explanation of how the figures are reached at. Payloads are a lot more consistent now that most manufacturers use the same methods to calculate them. In the good old days some manufacturers constructed vans that were overweight when leaving the factory - even without driver or 90% fuel and water. Imagine having a van that was too heavy and breaking the law before you even sat in it - it happened on numerous occasions. Campbell

[Brian Kirby]

I thought I’d try to respond to some of the above points.  It’s just that the topics raised interest me, so I hope I don’t seem to be trying to impose or dominate.  Not the intention.

Regarding quoted motorhome widths; overall should mean just that.  Body width ditto.  I think the confusion is being caused through brochure copy written by those with English as a second language!  Why doesn’t the UK end vet the copy?  Sadly, their English is probably worse!

However, regarding the original question: what information would one wish to find on the web?  Many manufacturers do seem to do themselves a disservice, by not seeing websites as something that can save them money and assist their customers to make informed choices.  I do think they would spend less posting out brochures if the web info was more comprehensive, and many buyers would appreciate the opportunity to get the facts they want relatively easily. 

Regarding brochures, there can be no advantage in misrepresenting a product so that people buy it in error: the customer is then dissatisfied and goes around saying so.  Had that customer gained accurate information they could have bought exactly what they wanted, and then gone around singing its praises.  Seems a “no brainer” to me - unless of course you know all your motorhomes are cr*p!

Regarding tests/reviews: not enough space/time to do the vans justice?  Well, I’m sorry, but I really don’t agree.  The testers/reviewers represent themselves as professionals.  That being so, it shouldn’t take them long to assess a new van.  It is, after all, what they do.  It isn’t exactly rocket science and, if you’re an experienced motorhomer, as they mostly profess to being, you’ll know the critical items.  Your job is twofold: to assist manufacturers to sell, and customers to buy.  The need, therefore, is to present the product positively and honestly, and tell prospective customers what it does, and doesn’t do.

There is too much lazy journalism, even in MMM recently, with tests/reviews seemingly being padded out to meet a specified number of words, with brains left in neutral.  For example, why describe the colour and pattern of a fabric when that is obvious from the photographs?  Do I want the reviewer’s opinion of it?  No, I can decide for myself, thank you.  However, are there alternative fabrics available?  Well, are there?  Now that would be useful information, wouldn’t it?  Your pro journo couldn’t even be fagged to open the brochure to look.  Some pro!  Gas lockers: what size cylinders actually fit, and are they easy to install?  Manufacturer quotes German cylinder size?  Oh, just pass it on.  Can’t get that size in UK?  Really?  Pro journo didn’t know that, or couldn’t be fagged to try a 13Kg to see if it fitted?  Pro?  Where is the grey water outlet?  The what?  Is the fridge properly installed?  Ah, quick look behind the vent grilles.  Nah!  Can the fresh water tank be drained and washed out?  Well, can it?  Even the basics such as the mass in running order could so easily be checked, but it never is.  Why not?  1 full gas bottle, one tank full of fuel, and the other of water, a 25M cable + 75Kg for the driver and one weighbridge (and check the axles while you’re there!).  How long does it really take do the job thoroughly if you’re reasonably organised, checklist in hand, pencil ready to tick boxes, digital camera and voice recorder to hand as aides memoire?  I have my targets in mind, and don’t want to give the impression I think them all opinionated amateurs, but some recent reviews/tests have been very long on opinion and equally short on substance, which isn’t why I buy MMM!

[flicka]

One area that always seems to be omitted from any brochures / reports, is the height of all the "Fixed" beds and if they are suitable for lounging. I know alot of Motorhomers out there buy M/Hs because they are/have disabilities or less mobility as they get older. It was a major consideration for us as we did not want to have to Climb into bed. (but then we are both short ***es.) Flicka

[mhc]

I think the likelyhood of journos arriving with a variety of gas bottles, with the sanction from the dealer or manufacturer to verify their specificaton (which, if I'm not mistaken is already verified to some degree by the National Caravan Council) and then having either a dynamic weigher or permission to go to wherever the local weighbridge is, plus a rucksack full of utensils, is a little far fetched, however ideal in principle. Ultimately, someone pays for their time and the relatonship between journo, publisher and vehicle provider/advertiser must be a fine balance I guess. I do agree that the standard of reporting (and photography) can vary widely. What is clear from the results above is that there isn't enough concise information about makes and models in a consistent format available to view online. So I am not alone in my views, it isn't just me, other people feel frustrated too.

[RonB]

Sorry Campbell, the overall width I quoted WAS with the mirrors folded. Now, can someone please enlighten me on how a vehicles 'overall width' should not include the folded wing mirrors. Wing mirrors are part of the vehicle so how can they be excluded from the measurement. I'm sure that the law would not be to happy if you ditched a broken mirror and didn't bother to replace it on the grounds tht it was not part of the vehicle anyway. You can't have it both ways, or can you? Are Burstner telling porkies or not?

[messerschmitt owner]

Ron Surely the mirrors fold within the overall body width (ie inboard of the coachbuilt body)? That is the maximum width that should be measured by Burstner for a mirrors folded measurement. If it was new and they had given the wrong info and you found out that the van was too wide, you would have been able to reject it as unfit for purpose. You used to need by law (for cars) two rear view mirrors only (out of a possible three) - so you could lose one (unless you don't have a central mirror). Campbell

[Brian Kirby]

[QUOTE]messerschmitt owner - 2006-12-03 6:45 AM Ron Surely the mirrors fold within the overall body width (ie inboard of the coachbuilt body)? Campbell [/QUOTE]

Not on a A Class, they dont, Campbell!  Ron's is an A Class.  If he knew size was critical, he would have been well advised to check all brochure dimensions, rather than relying upon them.  All the brochures I've ever seen have disclaimers as to the accuracy of information given.  It isn't that the manufacturers lie, just that compilers and printers, being human, do make mistakes!

[Brian Kirby]

[QUOTE]mhc - 2006-12-02 9:26 PM I think the likelyhood of journos arriving with a variety of gas bottles, with the sanction from the dealer or manufacturer to verify their specificaton (which, if I'm not mistaken is already verified to some degree by the National Caravan Council) and then having either a dynamic weigher or permission to go to wherever the local weighbridge is, plus a rucksack full of utensils, is a little far fetched, however ideal in principle. Ultimately, someone pays for their time and the relatonship between journo, publisher and vehicle provider/advertiser must be a fine balance I guess. I do agree that the standard of reporting (and photography) can vary widely. What is clear from the results above is that there isn't enough concise information about makes and models in a consistent format available to view online. So I am not alone in my views, it isn't just me, other people feel frustrated too.[/QUOTE]

There is a review, and a test.  A review may just be a quick canter around the van on someone's forecourt.  However, a test involves driving the van around and living in it.  At least that is what the testers say they do!  There is therefore ample time and opportunity for them to do as I suggest.  The point is about professionalism, and what that means. 

I subscribe to MMM and Le Monde du Camping Car.  At present the LMCC tests generally demonstrate more professionalism than do some of MMM's.  If the French can do it, why can't the Brits?  It is, as I said, their job.  If they don't do it thoroughly, what are they for, actually?

[Keith T]

Ref the actual body width, with or without mirrors folded: my present van (Rapido 710F)m is quoted as 2.11m, mirrors folded. I have not measured the actual coachbuilt body width, but the mirrors do not fit within it, albeit this is a (usfully) narrow body. I recently drove a new motorhome on the new Fiat cab, and the body (both cab and coachbuilt) itself was much wider, but with the new allsinging, alldancing,mirrors, no way did they fold within that body width - what was quoted on the brochure was 2.30m, but what that in reality represented, I don't know (it was a Burstner coachbuilt). I don't think there are many, even older models, where the mirrors could fold within the coachbuilt width.....and I always assumed the measurement stated mirrors folded meant just that. I woudd think that when the mirrors are in normal use, the additional ditch could be up to another 12 inches, maybe more on an A class, where folder or otherwise they are 'outisde' the actual body width.

[mhc]

Back onto the main topic - online information. Given the agreed lack of good info online, if there was, would you pay to download a report ? (I think Motorcaravan offer this service already but I haven't tried it yet).

[colin]

[QUOTE]mhc - 2006-12-03 6:02 PM Back onto the main topic - online information. Given the agreed lack of good info online, if there was, would you pay to download a report ? (I think Motorcaravan offer this service already but I haven't tried it yet).[/QUOTE] Depends, how much commission do you intead paying to us for helping with your business plan? ;-)

[Brian Kirby]

[QUOTE]mhc - 2006-12-03 6:02 PM Back onto the main topic - online information. Given the agreed lack of good info online, if there was, would you pay to download a report ? (I think Motorcaravan offer this service already but I haven't tried it yet).[/QUOTE]

What, you mean like being asked to pay for a manufacturer's brochure?  Why?