Worried about payload on Apache 632

[Bop]

Billggski - 2017-03-30 9:07 PM

 

I just read the instructions for officials stopping vehicles to weigh them.

This bit is interesting.

 

the accuracy limit of an axle weigher in static mode is +/- 50kg per axle, with a consequent accuracy limit on gross/train weight of +/- 50kg, multiplied by the number of axles:

 

 

If you're referring to the DVSA Document dated 20 June 2014, then Sect 2.3. 'Enforcement action in the event of an overload' should be known to all motorhomers. It covers the info points pertaining to fixed penalty notices, prohibition notices, offloading of excess weight, and the security, cost and responsibility of securing excess weight at the point of offload.

[Billggski]

.......my point is that there seems to be a 100kg margin for error, or 150kg on a tag axle.

[Bop]

Brian Kirby - 2017-03-30 10:59 AM

 

 

 

Arrrrrrgh! Why is this so bloody hard? :-D

 

I know the answer to that one Brian, i.e. Brits don't like to make a fuss and complain. We seem to grumble about things but that's about it.

 

If this was a French or Italian Forum then the Dealer would be scared by now. Thankfully for the dealer it's not and he has a big cheesy smile on his face about supplying yet another lemon to a British Motorhomer while keeping his profit forecasts on track.

 

If the dealer can get away with it then well done him - eh?

 

If people keep buying such sub-standard items then manufacturers will keep building them.

[Brian Kirby]

Bit hard on the dealer, Andrew, it is AT who make the van, and AT who have decided not to base it on the "heavy" chassis, which is where the payload shortfall really originates. Doubtless the van does work for someone who just wants a weekender, or a vehicle suitable for shortish trips that broadly remain within the same climatic zones. However, AT describe it on their website as "a versatile long distance tourer".

 

Don't know what their definitions of "long distance", or "versatile", are, but they seem to have come from a different dictionary to mine! Anyone wanting a reasonably autonomous vehicle (versatile long distance tourer?) would soon notice its lack of versatility on finding a stopping place with no water supply (that requirement for empty tanks to provide a meagre payload!) and anyone travelling a long distance (say across the Alps or whatever) might just wish they had sufficient payload to have allowed them to take extra bedding and warm clothing as well as flip-flops and shorts when they break the trip overnight at altitude!

 

Of course the dealer should have enquired about his customer's travelling requirements and payload needs when selling a van with so slender a useful margin. But then, assuming a dealer to be a professional consultant, advising on which van will best suit his client's interests is, perhaps, just a little optimistic! :-D Some may, but others won't, and one needs to know which one is dealing with. There is a reason that famous phrase "caveat emptor" has been around for 400 years!

 

From Wiki "The phrase caveat emptor and its use as a disclaimer of warranties arise from the fact that buyers typically have less information about the good or service they are purchasing, while the seller has more information. The quality of this situation is known as 'information asymmetry'. Defects in the good or service may be hidden from the buyer, and only known to the seller." A seller of motorhomes can reasonably be assumed to have greater knowledge of his product that a buyer, but he cannot reasonably be assumed to know more about how a particular buyer might want to use a particular van than the buyer. There lies the rub.

[Derek Uzzell]

Warners magazine “Caravan Motorhome & Camping Mart” published an excellent and informative 2-page article headed “The weight-watchers guide to payloads”. The article’s final paragraph read as follows:

 

“Anxious enquiries or unhappy tales about motorcaravan-payload appear regularly in leisure magazines. As everybody’s motorhome requirements differ, it’s down to you, the prospective owner, to decide how much ‘spare’ payload you need to make you feel comfortable, or how little you are prepared to tolerate. The important thing, surely, is thar some elementary maths will help you make an informed decision.”

 

It’s unrealistic to anticipate that a motorhome salesman will attempt to dissuade a purchaser from buying a particular vehicle they have set their heart on. Should the salesman say to somebody about to order a new motorhome “You are about to commit to a £50,000 expenditure, have you thought about what might happen if you go blind before taking delivery?” - of course not. Few people whose livelihood depends on selling will proactively highlight negative issues with the product being sold.

 

The article I mentioned above was published in 2003. Things are no different now to what they were then and there’s no realistic chance they will change. I know the article was excellent and informative because I wrote it...

[AlanS]

We seem to be getting into a let's bash AutoTrail discussion when it actually is the same for most manufacturers. When you purchase an AT everything is included within the specification, with the exception of a couple of items, in the price and the weight they disclose as a MRO figure.

 

Have a look at some of the foreign manufacturers brochures or website material and you will find that every conceivable option that some other manufacturers include as standard items is at both a cost and weight implication. Hymer are very good indicating their options and the list is endless as is the cost and weight implications ! At least with AT you know what you are getting from a standard specification point of view. How many purchasers know what the MRO figure plus all the options weights add up to before they sign on the dotted line ?

 

I think there is some merit in the argument that dealers should bear a responsibility to new motorhomers and to existing ones who are changing their outfits. Possibly the salesmen are only after a quick sale but I believe should give a good service in making enquiries of the purchased as to how they intend to use their proposed purchase and to point out the pitfalls of that dreaded word 'payload'. I also believe that when the purchasers are families with children they should be even more careful in helping them to select the outfit that is suitable for them in terms of travel seating, payload and driving licence conditions.

 

As for buying a MH at a show I think this is where there is an element of competition between salesmen from different dealerships, all who are trying to get the best sales figures for the week.Also this is where prospective purchasers can get caught up in all the hype and don't ask all the questions that they should. We bought our present MH at the NEC but this was at the invitation of our dealer with whom we had already had a look at the pre-show models at their site and we went to get the best deal possible and to also look at what else was available from other manufacturers before we finally sealed the deal. Many of the dealers on different stands didn't ask us any questions and some couldn't even answer the questions we put to them about the particular MH's and some of the best knowledge was gained from fellow MH owners who were sitting in the particular make and models we were looking at - as you know MH owners are only too willing to give advice and answer any question they can.

 

Alan

[mgnbuk]

"We seem to be getting into a let's bash AutoTrail discussion when it actually is the same for most manufacturers. When you purchase an AT everything is included within the specification, with the exception of a couple of items, in the price and the weight they disclose as a MRO figure."

 

As the initial enquiry was about an Autotrail product, it stands to reason that the replies will focus on Autotrail's perceived shortcomings.

 

We initially entered the motorhome market with no opinions or biases for or against any particular manufacturer. We had an idea of how we wanted to use the vehicle and what features we particularly wanted, those that we didn't want at all & proceeded to examine a great many layouts and options. Pretty early on I formed an opinion of Autotrail products - for any given layout, they seemed to be longer & heavier than the competition and, as I specifically wanted to operate under 3500kg (despite having the licence that would allow me to go heavier), I have not looked at AT since. Some of the weight appeared to come from the use of older build techniques, which was compounded by the extra length. The default max weight seemed to be 3850 to 4250 kg on a heavy chassis, which would not have been an issue to most of those likely to purchase them due to the "grandfather" licence rights. But now they have a problem from both ends of the age spectrum - many of their traditional "grandfather" rights licence holders are loosing the entitlement with age & medical issues, and the up-and-coming prospective purchasers have not got the appropriate licence privileges without taking an additional commercial vehicle test.

 

So AT seem to have brought out a range of vehicles based on the light chassis to appeal to those who find themselves limited by licence to 3.5 tonnes - but they are still building heavy, due to using older techniques & compounding this by still building longer for a similar layout. Hence the current discussion. I was not being flippant when I mentioned that you won't find a Promobil test of an AT - this is because AT don't appear to export to Europe. All the other Trigano companies appear to sell in all European countries, but AT only appears to sell in the UK ? Could this be because their products could not offer competitive payloads, a point that the likes of Promobil would clearly indicate to the detriment of sales ?

 

I have only had Continental vans - 3 to date & all at 3.5 T or under (the CI Carioca was 3.4T) - and all were useable at their rated axle and payloads with all tanks full. My current Chausson Welcome 610's 2958kg +/- 5% MIRO assumes a full 122 litre water tank, 90% fuel , full 11kg gas bottle and 75Kg for the driver & all standard equipment. Clearly stated in the brochure and no ambiguity or hiding behind caveats that I can see. Having added a solar panel, towbar, SWMBO, my extra 10kg over the rated allowance for the driver - but with only 30 litres of water on board - the weighbridge says I have 370kg to play with. The weighbridge also says that in the measured configuration all that 370kg can be used on the back axle, with 310 kg back axle capacity spare. This purchaser had a pretty good idea of available payload when he signed the contract & the reality has not proven to be significantly different to expectations. So it seems that fully workable 3.5T vans are being produced & can be determined to be workable before purchase from the manufacturer's literature - though not by AT ?

 

It should not be asking too much that a manufacturer supplies pertinant information on request, even if they choose not to put such information directly in their catalogues. Failure to honestly answer a question about the axle weights of a van as it comes off the production line would have me asking "what are they trying to hide" ? But that could be just me !

 

Nigel B

[kevandali]

AlanS - 2017-03-31 2:00 PM  'Also this is where prospective purchasers can get caught up in all the hype and don't ask all the questions that they should.

Guilty as charged M'lord 

[Bop]

I wouldn't say that this thread is an Autotrail bashing thread but from my perspective the various manufacturers do need to be taken to account on the production of some of their current range of motorhomers. If you buy a small AT or a big AT variant (since this is an AT-specific thread) then you're on a win-win scenario, plus you get a fantastic van at the same time but, if you were to buy some of the AT products such as certain types of Imala, Tracker or Apache variants then things go wrong very quickly.

 

In the absence of any absolute UK industry standard for MHs then it can only be the customer pool that helps keep the manufacturers on the straight and narrow, hence this thread.

 

This problem has been prevalent since 2003-ish, according to the above posts, and still no change in the way that the manufacturers do their business, therefore, it's probably about time that the minions did something about it and wrote up on the forums about the dodgy vans. This being one of them.

 

Either way I have learnt lots from this thread.

 

All the best,

 

Andrew

[crocs]

This thread is fast becoming my guilty pleasure. :$

 

Every day or two, I log in with great anticipation to see how many new ways have been found to point out that some motorhomes have insufficient payload for comfort. 8-)

 

I got to thinking about how items on such forums can change manufacturers' policy but then realised that, in actual fact, there are only 31 different posters, some with many multiple posts. Will that really put pressure on manufacturers?

 

For all those who really care about this issue (and, clearly, there is a degree of passion about it), would it be better if we wrote to Manufacturers to let them know our thoughts? and, obviously, stop buying the offending motorhomes. >:-)

 

[kevandali]

Bop - 2017-03-31 7:08 PM  If you buy a small AT or a big AT variant (since this is an AT-specific thread) then you're on a win-win scenario, plus you get a fantastic van at the same time.

I agree with Bop/Andrew

Hallelujah!!!

I found the answer to all my problems, concerns, doubts and misgivings!

The Auto Trail Frontier Serrano!!

Couple of problems to overcome though.

Firstly, its about 12 grand more than we have available.

Secondly, it won't fit on the drive.

Bit of a pipe dream really but it does show the quality of AT and what can be produced on a decent chassis.

The video goes on a bit but you can see that the payload is brill.

[david lloyd]

Kevandali,

 

You have my full sympathy with the situation you find yourselves in. Even after many years of motorhoming and eight different Motorhomes I made a similar mistake in 2015 when buying a 5 month old Chausson Welcome 717GA that had just 800 miles in the clock. It offered just about everything we felt we needed including the all important garage for the bikes. But even with that past experience I never realised (or asked about) the fact that it was built on the Fiat Light chassis and, despite a previous post suggesting that the X290 comes normally with 16" wheels, also had 215/70R15 camping tyres. Based on the advertised payload of around 350kg (if I remember correctly) I assumed this would be sufficient but after putting it on a weighbridge in full touring trim found it to be 350 kgs overweight. Worse, the rear axle was 240kgs over its weight of 2000kg. An uprate to 3650 was available as a paper exercise but this would overcome neither problem. Especially since I weighed everything in the garage/underbed storage areas and this came to 240 kgs - so the motorhome when empty was at its rear axle limit even with an empty garage!

 

SvTech uprated the van to 3850kgs but to get the higher rear axle loading the work necessitated fitting two new (replacing the two new) tyres to the rear with tyres that had a higher load index and also rear air suspension. Together the work and uprating cost over £1200 plus the time and mileage to get the work done but without it I could not have used the van properly with all the camping paraphanalia that makes a good camping trip for us - including, as others have said, chairs, table, BBQ, books etc.

 

Ultimately only you can decide what will and what won't work for you but I think Brian Kirby has touched on the most pertinent points and his advice is certainly something I would be following in a similar situation. I can well understand the disappointment this has brought at a time which should be joyous for you both - eagerly awaiting delivery of your dream vehicle. But, if you do go ahead and then find you are struggling to live within the payload, that disappointment will never completely disappear. Whereas, if you did find a suitable alternative and made the switch to a motorhome that would continue to give peace of mind you would still have that joyous feeling of anticipation while you await delivery. I can honestly say that even after having had our Chausson uprated it never felt the same for us again.

 

Again, only you know what would be a suitable payload for your needs but those needs may change in the future and require an additional margin. Personally, I think anything in the -300kg range is woefully inadequate and although some contributors seem to believe it is perfectly acceptable to either manipulate the grey areas of +/- margins or ignore the legal requirement altogether, there are serious risks attached to operating the vehicle outside its plated limits. Invalidating your insurance apart, having a tyre blowout on a busy road could lead to serious, even fatal, consequences and is the worst that could happen. Fines and endorsements are another real risk to yourself,

 

I wouldn't want to have to face the hassle of cancelling an order at this stage - especially if I were having difficulty in finding a suitable alternative, but neither would I want to be constantly worried about whether I was over the plated limits (especially axle and tyre limits) or have to restrict how I used my pride and joy. Neither would I want to ignore the law. For me the choice would be between cancelling the order or getting the dealer to do the uprating work before delivery to take the vehicle up to 3850kg with a rear axle limit of 2240kgs.

 

I sincerely hope you get what you really want and enjoy the motorhome for many years to come.

 

Regards

David

[Robbo]

Kevin, I’m getting worried about your dilemma, especially as SWMBO has banned the word “payload”, although I note you've found your perfect van but it's too long for the driveway.

 

The weight assessment by AT (in their email) could be considered as a tad simplistic by those who understand the mechanism of mechanics.

 

Anybody versed in structural engineering will know that the position of the additional load applied within the 2 axles, or outside the axles, will influence the magnitude of transferred load to the axles.

 

As an example, AT have advised that your 48Kg bikes + rack will add the same amount to the chassis in general. In fact, because of the leverage effect, the load of 48Kg will add 80Kg to the rear axle and reduce the load on the front axle by 32Kg (80 – 48). OK, the overall effect is the same but the loading on the axles is different.

 

Because of the general layout of the Apache 632, there are more opportunities to overload the rear of the vehicle because of the amount of cupboard and storage space. My van has a similar layout so I’m aware of the problem.

 

Consequently, it would be wise to concentrate your investigations towards assessing the viability of the 2000Kg permissible rear axle load. Get AT to advise the MRO weight on the rear axle. Take the time to visit the same vehicle on a forecourt somewhere and take measurements of where the fresh and waste water tanks are relative to the rear axle. If you want help with the maths, there are plenty of people on here who can help.

 

Should your investigations prove that the van is not workable as a “versatile long distance tourer” there may be other options available. It may be possible to carry more load on the rear axle by retro fitting air-assisted suspension, although this would need to be checked by the likes of SVTech and may affect the Fiat warranty. I've just seen that david lloyd has also mentioned this option.

[Brock]

As I have said, if you are worried about overweight, visit the SvTech website and use its software to calculate the impact of say adding a bike rack. As Robbo highlights, it is surprising the impact on both axles of adding load in one area of the van unless you understand the technical considerations.

 

KevandAli can always consider second hand to save on a larger van.

[Derek Uzzell]

david lloyd - 2017-04-01 10:27 AM

 

...I never realised (or asked about) the fact that it was built on the Fiat Light chassis and, despite a previous post suggesting that the X290 comes normally with 16" wheels, also had 215/70R15 camping tyres...

 

David

 

A Fiat Ducato X290 ‘light’ camping-car chassis still has 15”-diameter steel wheels and 215/70 R15CP tyres as standard. 16”-diameter wheels (steel or alloy) and 225/75 R16CP tyres are options, though some motorhome manufacturers may choose to include the larger wheels/tyres as part of the conversion’s standard specification. Auto-Trail does with for the current Apache 632 model.

 

My X290 Ducato ‘light'-based Rapido (3500kg chassis) has 15”-diameter steel wheels and 215/70 R15CP tyres. I could have specified steel or alloy 16”-diameter wheels with 225/75 R16CP tyres, but this would have meant considerable extra cost and there was no persuasive reason for doing so.

 

 

[Mike88]

Derek Uzzell - 2017-04-01 2:36 PM

 

david lloyd - 2017-04-01 10:27 AM

 

...I never realised (or asked about) the fact that it was built on the Fiat Light chassis and, despite a previous post suggesting that the X290 comes normally with 16" wheels, also had 215/70R15 camping tyres...

 

David

 

A Fiat Ducato X290 ‘light’ camping-car chassis still has 15”-diameter steel wheels and 215/70 R15CP tyres as standard. 16”-diameter wheels (steel or alloy) and 225/75 R16CP tyres are options, though some motorhome manufacturers may choose to include the larger wheels/tyres as part of the conversion’s standard specification. Auto-Trail does with for the current Apache 632 model.

 

My X290 Ducato ‘light'-based Rapido (3500kg chassis) has 15”-diameter steel wheels and 215/70 R15CP tyres. I could have specified steel or alloy 16”-diameter wheels with 225/75 R16CP tyres, but this would have meant considerable extra cost and there was no persuasive reason for doing so.

 

 

Apologies for going off topic but do you know if 16in wheels would give greater ground clearance - an issue which is of concern to me with my present vehicle grounding at the step position so even a slight increase in ground clearance would be of enormous benefit. I am currently looking for a pvc to replace my existing pvc now sold that had 15ins wheels.

[Derek Uzzell]

Rapido’s technical data advises that choosing the 16”-diameter alloy wheels option will add 4.5cm to the motorhome’s overall height, and if the height went up by 4.5cm the ground-clearance would increase by the same amount.

 

Based on Continental’s technical data, I would have estimated that the height/ground-clearance increase produced by the bigger wheel/tyre option would be just over 3cm, which might still be worth having if ground-clearance is poor beneath a step.

[Bop]

kevandali - 2017-04-01 8:22 AM

Bop - 2017-03-31 7:08 PM  If you buy a small AT or a big AT variant (since this is an AT-specific thread) then you're on a win-win scenario, plus you get a fantastic van at the same time.

I agree with Bop/Andrew

Hallelujah!!!

I found the answer to all my problems, concerns, doubts and misgivings!

The Auto Trail Frontier Serrano!!

Couple of problems to overcome though.

Firstly, its about 12 grand more than we have available.

Secondly, it won't fit on the drive.

Bit of a pipe dream really but it does show the quality of AT and what can be produced on a decent chassis.

The video goes on a bit but you can see that the payload is brill.

Kev,I'm not sure if it helps you but there's a big AT Dealer close to you (10-miles) with some nice near-new AT vans for sale but in the price range of circa £56,995.

[Brian Kirby]

AlanS - 2017-03-31 2:00 PM

 

We seem to be getting into a let's bash AutoTrail discussion when it actually is the same for most manufacturers. When you purchase an AT everything is included within the specification, with the exception of a couple of items, in the price and the weight they disclose as a MRO figure.

 

Have a look at some of the foreign manufacturers brochures or website material and you will find that every conceivable option that some other manufacturers include as standard items is at both a cost and weight implication. Hymer are very good indicating their options and the list is endless as is the cost and weight implications ! At least with AT you know what you are getting from a standard specification point of view. How many purchasers know what the MRO figure plus all the options weights add up to before they sign on the dotted line ?

 

I think there is some merit in the argument that dealers should bear a responsibility to new motorhomers and to existing ones who are changing their outfits. Possibly the salesmen are only after a quick sale but I believe should give a good service in making enquiries of the purchased as to how they intend to use their proposed purchase and to point out the pitfalls of that dreaded word 'payload'. I also believe that when the purchasers are families with children they should be even more careful in helping them to select the outfit that is suitable for them in terms of travel seating, payload and driving licence conditions.

 

As for buying a MH at a show I think this is where there is an element of competition between salesmen from different dealerships, all who are trying to get the best sales figures for the week.Also this is where prospective purchasers can get caught up in all the hype and don't ask all the questions that they should. We bought our present MH at the NEC but this was at the invitation of our dealer with whom we had already had a look at the pre-show models at their site and we went to get the best deal possible and to also look at what else was available from other manufacturers before we finally sealed the deal. Many of the dealers on different stands didn't ask us any questions and some couldn't even answer the questions we put to them about the particular MH's and some of the best knowledge was gained from fellow MH owners who were sitting in the particular make and models we were looking at - as you know MH owners are only too willing to give advice and answer any question they can.

 

Alan

Alan, with the exception of your comment about AT bashing, I agree with all of the above.

 

However, the particular van Kevin has ordered is likely to prove very restrictive in practise. My initial reaction was that there must be an error somewhere, but investigation showed there was not. So, the initial criticism was of the van. However, it is the manufacturer who designs the van, and who decides which chassis should carry it. How can the manufacturer evade responsibility for those decisions? The criticism is specific: it is not an "all AotoTrails are rubbish" string, and I don't think any poster has commented to that effect.

 

It is abundantly clear to me that the base should have been the "heavy" chassis, since even with the "light" chassis uprated to 3,650kg, the payload is marginal unless the van is run with fresh water tank empty. Had there been the option to upgrade to the "heavy" chassis, Kevin could have all he wanted.

 

Had the van been based on the heavy chassis it could still have been downplated to 3,500kg, albeit with some additional loss in payload, to satisfy those wanting a light van with minimal payload who are prepared to travel with an empty tank. I think they have a potentially very good van, but have based it on the wrong chassis, and then compounded the problem by not offering an alternative.

 

Having said all of that, and not knowing the dimensional differences between the chassis, I just wonder if Kevin has explored, through his dealer, the possibility of getting his 632 built on a "heavy" chassis as a special order? I'm sure it would cost more, but it would give him exactly what he wants, with the payload flexibility to use it as he chooses.

[Robbo]

Agree Brian. The heavy chassis will provide a permissible load on the rear axle of 2400Kg, as far as I am aware, but obviously slow down the delivery process, assuming they've already started the build.

 

The other option of upgrading the rear axle to 2240Kg with air-assisted rear suspension (to be confirmed whether this is possible) is probably more attractive to Kevin as this should not affect delivery date if AT can include this in the finished product.

 

 

[AlanS]

Brian Kirby - 2017-04-01 7:24 PM

 

AlanS - 2017-03-31 2:00 PM

 

We seem to be getting into a let's bash AutoTrail discussion when it actually is the same for most manufacturers. When you purchase an AT everything is included within the specification, with the exception of a couple of items, in the price and the weight they disclose as a MRO figure.

 

Have a look at some of the foreign manufacturers brochures or website material and you will find that every conceivable option that some other manufacturers include as standard items is at both a cost and weight implication. Hymer are very good indicating their options and the list is endless as is the cost and weight implications ! At least with AT you know what you are getting from a standard specification point of view. How many purchasers know what the MRO figure plus all the options weights add up to before they sign on the dotted line ?

 

I think there is some merit in the argument that dealers should bear a responsibility to new motorhomers and to existing ones who are changing their outfits. Possibly the salesmen are only after a quick sale but I believe should give a good service in making enquiries of the purchased as to how they intend to use their proposed purchase and to point out the pitfalls of that dreaded word 'payload'. I also believe that when the purchasers are families with children they should be even more careful in helping them to select the outfit that is suitable for them in terms of travel seating, payload and driving licence conditions.

 

As for buying a MH at a show I think this is where there is an element of competition between salesmen from different dealerships, all who are trying to get the best sales figures for the week.Also this is where prospective purchasers can get caught up in all the hype and don't ask all the questions that they should. We bought our present MH at the NEC but this was at the invitation of our dealer with whom we had already had a look at the pre-show models at their site and we went to get the best deal possible and to also look at what else was available from other manufacturers before we finally sealed the deal. Many of the dealers on different stands didn't ask us any questions and some couldn't even answer the questions we put to them about the particular MH's and some of the best knowledge was gained from fellow MH owners who were sitting in the particular make and models we were looking at - as you know MH owners are only too willing to give advice and answer any question they can.

 

Alan

Alan, with the exception of your comment about AT bashing, I agree with all of the above.

 

However, the particular van Kevin has ordered is likely to prove very restrictive in practise. My initial reaction was that there must be an error somewhere, but investigation showed there was not. So, the initial criticism was of the van. However, it is the manufacturer who designs the van, and who decides which chassis should carry it. How can the manufacturer evade responsibility for those decisions? The criticism is specific: it is not an "all AotoTrails are rubbish" string, and I don't think any poster has commented to that effect.

............

........

Brian, I am not batting for AutoTrail in any way but trying to give a balanced opinion. AT have manufactured an Apache 632 and 634 in the same guise since at least 2009 built on the Ducato light chassis. The so called payload has been similar for much of this time and must suit some motorhomers who do travel light otherwise AT would have dropped this from their range some time ago. Also those who wanted to have additional load capacity could upgrade to the 3650kg version if their licence permitted.

People use their motorhomes in many ways with some just visiting commercial sites where facilities and water are easily to hand whereas some prefer the 'free' life and wild camp or when abroad use aires, etc. - the latter wanting a more sophisticated outfit and a correspondingly higher payload to cater for their needs.

Those that just potter around travelling light on modern camp sites might find the type of MH such as an Apache 632 quite suitable for their needs.

No one should go blind into purchasing a MH - many come to forums such as these prior to purchase to gain valuable insight / information but ultimately it is down to the prospective purchaser to establish exactly how they intend to use a MH and what they want to take along with them on their travels. Don't expect the dealers to do it for them as after all, they are after a sale.

Alan

[kevandali]

I agree with you Alan. 

We use our motorhome for weekends away in the UK, mainly campsites, sometimes just wild camping and when abroad we mix and match, occasional campsites and then sometimes Aires and wild Camping.

I just wanted to use our new van as we have used all our vans, unfortunately for me, I have never even considered payload in all the vans we have had in the past, wrongly assuming that we travel fairly light and payload would never be an issue. *-)  

I have learnt so much from this thread and we have rightly or wrongly come to a conclusion.

The 632 is not available on the heavier chasis which would be the answer, the AT Serrano is a bit on the big side and also out of our league price wise.

So, we are going to be collecting our 632 in July with big smiles on our faces but a lot more knowledgable about the fact we will have to work with the payload available to us and adapt accordingly.

I am still in discussions with Auto Trail at the moment as well as the dealer but there are a lot of 632 owners out there who make it work for them so we will make it work for us.

After July, if you come across an Auto Trail Apache 632 and there are a couple sitting on the grass outside their van with a border collie, cooking with some light weight pots and pans over an open fire, take pity and lend them a chair and possibly the use of your BBQ that you keep in the garage of your 600kg + payloaded van. :-)

Thanks again to everyone who has contributed to this thread, I am sure at the very least it will enable potential future customers of all motorhomes, not just Auto Trail, to realise that at the moment, like it or not, figures are being manipulated all be it, within the law to ensure that motorhomes are being sold with customers still unsure what they can actually put in their vans once they take ownership.

We are still not 100% sure we are doing the right thing but I am sure time will tell, as I mentioned earlier, I am still in discussion with AT and the dealer but as mentioned earlier on in this thread, getting straightforward answers from manufacturers or dealers is not as clear as it could be.

What is clear, we will enjoy it, we will drink wine, go on bike rides and walks and meet some lovely motorhomes along the way.

[crocs]

Well done kevandali. You've listened to all the comments, taken into account your own preferences and made your decision to move on.

 

Good luck with your new motorhome . I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

[AlanS]

Kevandali

Life is what you make it and I hope you enjoy your new MH when it arrives. We will keep an eye out for you and if we see you with a big grin on your faces we will come and sit on the ground with you (as we only carry 2 chairs with us) and of course bring some glasses (lightweight plastic) and wine with us.

Alan

[Brian Kirby]

crocs - 2017-04-01 10:23 PM

 

Well done kevandali. You've listened to all the comments, taken into account your own preferences and made your decision to move on.

 

Good luck with your new motorhome . I'm sure you'll enjoy it.

Ditto!!