RWD suggestions

[davezeebra]

Due to unfortunate circumstances, i.e. being potless, we had to sell our previous motor home about 8 years ago. However things are now on the up and I've started researching for a potential replacement.

Our previous steed was a Swift Sundance 530LP on an 06 Ducato chassis which was excellent in every way apart from one. As soon as the tyres come into contact with even mildly moist grass the bl**dy thing would get stuck. This caused much hilarity with the club we rallied with and much stress and embarrassment on my part.

I promised myself that if ever I was in a position to get another motor home it would be RWD and so Initially I'm liking the Autosleeper Eton on the Transit Chassis.

Has anyone got any views on the traction of RWD vs FWD? or suggestions of other similar models to the Eton. We've still got the same size space at home so 6 metres is about our limit in length. The budget would be up to £25k.

[Will86]

I'm not sure if trials have been carried out ref front or back drive on a particular surface but I've been stuck with either so treat any doubtful surface with respect.

 

Why they are built that way is down to the manufacturer I would presume.

[ian62]

front or rear, if it's going to spin it will get stuck,as I found out last week in Wales,had our first tractor pull, ha ha

[keninpalamos]

Rear wheel drive every time. Not up for question. See Jeremy Clarkson. :D For a start you won't be doing any drifting with front wheel drive. Seriously the more wheels you have driving at the back the better. When accelerating weight is transferred to the rear or back of the vehicle from the front so the front wheel drive vehicle will always struggle for grip as it goes light. Under braking the weight is transferred to the front. That's why the front brakes are always more efficient by design. ie bigger discs at the front than the rear. Double wheels at the back are a bonus, extra load etc. the only real options you have are Mercedes, Iveco or Ford, each as good as the other. Traditionally Mercedes has the edge but I'm not so sure with the modern stuff that's about now. I'm sure someone can help you choose between the two and if it's down to how much I'd go for Ford. (But I have to admit I have a Mercedes Vito Autosleeper) and that didn't count because it's an early front wheel drive.

[keninpalamos]

ian62 - 2017-03-31 1:56 PM

 

front or rear, if it's going to spin it will get stuck,as I found out last week in Wales,had our first tractor pull, ha ha

well look at that. Front wheel drive. Like for like rear wheel drive at least gives you a fighting chance just like the tractor pulling you out. You don't see many front wheel drive tractors. Front wheel drive is produced in the mass market because it's cheaper. Simple as that

[Derek Uzzell]

As Ken mentions, there are technical advantages to RWD when it comes to traction.

 

Burstner and Westfalia used to market quite small RWD Transit-based clones using the twinned-rear-wheel chassis. These were called (respectively) “Prismo T626G” and “West Van”.

 

They are probably rarer than hens’ teeth in the UK (though it’s clear from this old advert that RHD Burstner versions were imported).

 

http://www.becksmotorhomes.com/vehicle/2009-burstner-prismo-t626g

 

Probably as good as one could get for a compact-ish motorhome that’s going to be parked on grass surfaces.

[Keithl]

And another vote for RWD!!!

 

We have driven off very muddy fields when everyone around us with FWD where getting towed off.

 

Auto Trail built quite a few models on Mercedes Sprinters up until 2007 and several of those models are certainly under 6.5m, like our Cheyenne which is exactly 6.5m.

 

There are three on eBay currently which may fit your requirements...

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=autotrail+mercedes&_sop=16

 

You can download original brochures back to 2003 from the AT website if you want full specs, eg weights and lengths...

 

https://www.auto-trail.co.uk/downloads/brochures

 

Keith.

[tonyg3nwl]

Hi, there is no doubt that rear wheel drive is more effective in the case where you are trying to go uphill an wet grass.

However, I was given a tip years ago in such circumstances, ,always park where there is the option to reverse out is at all possibel, if your are front wheel drive,, going back then treats front wheel as though they are now rear wheels.. simples

 

Surprisingly, it can work, but not when there is an obstruction behind.

 

Years ago, I was caught out by stupidly trying to do a 3 point turn in a narrow lane, with high bank to the side.. got completely stuck, and was rescued by a friendly French Camper with a towrope. He managed to drag my front end around sideways on the wet grass, .

 

Hint therefore, take a towrope with you just in case.

 

Tonyg3nwl

[davidmac]

Hi my Peugeot based motorhome is front wheel driven when I am going forwards BUT rear wheel drive when going backwards,so to me it's about having a good look at where I am going to park and deciding which way round is the best way to park up.

Regards David

[Archiesgrandad]

I'll probably be attacked from all sides for this, but I'm not convinced that there is actually a lot in it. I think that a lot depends on the ability of the driver, and a good driver could probably get a vehicle of either arrangement out of a sticky situation in circumstances where a lot of other drivers would just dig in.

 

When I was young and beautiful I did a lot of Production Car Trials, whereby people like me would use completely standard road cars on normal road tyres at normal tyre pressures to climb muddy hills and twisty forest tracks. The cars were divided into 3 classes, front engine/front wheel drive, rear engine/rear wheel drive, and front engine/rear wheel drive. As one would expect the rear engine cars were most able, the down side was that you had to drive a Hillman Imp or a VW Beetle, and the front wheel drive cars were a close second, and I preferred them. Front engine/RWD did not generally figure in the overall results.

 

It would , no doubt, be possible to fit a limited slip diff into most of these vehicles and it would make a huge difference to the traction, but the cost would be eye-watering. I really think that the best approach is to really think about how you park, and how you intend to get out. If, when you park up, you keep in mind how your van behaves on wet surfaces, you will probably be OK.

 

When people start making statements about how much better RWD is than FWD, I am reminded of the wonderful words of out Transport Officer on the subject of driving a 4wheel drive truck. Remember that 4WD enables you to get much further into trouble before you realise that you have a problem. The same logic applies.

AGD

[keninpalamos]

Archiesgrandad - 2017-03-31 9:19 PM

 

I'll probably be attacked from all sides for this, but I'm not convinced that there is actually a lot in it. I think that a lot depends on the ability of the driver, and a good driver could probably get a vehicle of either arrangement out of a sticky situation in circumstances where a lot of other drivers would just dig in.

 

When I was young and beautiful I did a lot of Production Car Trials, whereby people like me would use completely standard road cars on normal road tyres at normal tyre pressures to climb muddy hills and twisty forest tracks. The cars were divided into 3 classes, front engine/front wheel drive, rear engine/rear wheel drive, and front engine/rear wheel drive. As one would expect the rear engine cars were most able, the down side was that you had to drive a Hillman Imp or a VW Beetle, and the front wheel drive cars were a close second, and I preferred them. Front engine/RWD did not generally figure in the overall results.

 

It would , no doubt, be possible to fit a limited slip diff into most of these vehicles and it would make a huge difference to the traction, but the cost would be eye-watering. I really think that the best approach is to really think about how you park, and how you intend to get out. If, when you park up, you keep in mind how your van behaves on wet surfaces, you will probably be OK.

 

When people start making statements about how much better RWD is than FWD, I am reminded of the wonderful words of out Transport Officer on the subject of driving a 4wheel drive truck. Remember that 4WD enables you to get much further into trouble before you realise that you have a problem. The same logic applies.

AGD

. You mention the VW Beetle with its rear engine rear wheel drive. Did no one have a Porsche 911? Or were you slumming it :D

[Derek Uzzell]

A vehicle’s tractive ability will primarily depend on the weight on its tyres.

 

For a motorhome with four wheels and identical tyres (same age, make, pattern, tread-depth) and exactly the same weight on the tyres on the vehicle’s front axle as on the rear axle, the tractive force should be the same whether the vehicle is FWD or RWD.

 

However motorhomes usually have more weight on their rear wheels than on their front ones, so a RWD motorhome’s tyres should be more resistant to wheel-spin than those on a FWD model. The other thing is that RWD separates ‘drive’ from ‘steering’, leaving the driver potentially less distracted when attampting to gain traction on a difficult surface like wet grass.

 

On a flattish grassed surface it won’t be the wetness of the surface that will be the problem - it will be the surface’s softness. As soon as a driven tyre breaks through the top surface and the tyre’s tread fills with mud, grip will become non-existent. Driver-aids (eg. mechanical traction-control or an electronic equivalent) may help but - as AGD says about 4WD - if the surface is soft and the tyres’ tread-pattern cannot ‘self clean’, you’ll just end up with several wheels spinning instead of one.

 

Some educational images and reading matter here:

 

http://tinyurl.com/lh5xv9s

 

https://johnandlinsadventure.blogspot.co.uk/2016/05/stuck-in-mud-and-weve-moved-house.html

 

It will still be the case that a lightish motorhome with a twinned-wheel rear axle SHOULD be better than a FWD one if parking on wet grass is to be contemplated. This is simply because having a significantly greater tyre-footprint on the driven axle will have a ‘snowshoe effect’ that will reduce the chances when moving off of the tyres digging through the grass and into the soil beneath.

 

Regarding Dave’s motorhome size requirement, an Auto-Sleepers “Eton” is very short for a coachbuilt design

 

http://www.toddsmotorhomes.co.uk/motorhomes/used/auto-sleepers/auto-sleeper_ford_eton_c7019.asp?VM=Specifications

 

and I can’t think off-hand of any RWD equivalents. If a maximum length of 6 metres and RWD were to be ‘must haves’ (and the budget were around £25K) it might be necessary to look at Ford or Mercedes-based panel-van conversions.

[lancepar]

We do a lot of stays on soft grass after rain where the organizers prebook a tractor because they know people will need help getting off.

 

What happens is that the wheels settle down in the grass especially the rear ones with the movement inside the MH and dig themselves into a hole. When trying to move off a FWD MH doesn't have a chance and just digs in deeper trying to pull the MH out of four divots. So most folks try and get the MH on to mats or boards to spread the load a bit when first parking up.

 

I've noticed the vehicles that manage to get going under there own steam are panel vans that are RWD, but still have to have there caravans tractored off.

 

B-)

[davezeebra]

Thanks for the replies and suggestions guys.

Thinking back the main problem was that the steward of most of the club rallies we attended could not be convinced of the Sundances' capabilities which, as a long term tipper driver used to driving in all conditions,I was well aware of. He would insist on all attendees being regimentaly lined up whatever the prevailing under wheel approaches were. We always parked on load bearing blocks to prevent sinkage and had a couple of roll out runners to give us a fighting chance of gaining some momentum when departing.

 

As for the new van, the Eton really doesn't seem to have many rivals in a like for like basis does it? We would definately prefer a coach built and as I said 6 metres is our limit otherwise we wouldn't be able to get our other vehicles on our drive.

[pepe63xnotuse]

Hi davezeebra..

 

I had a "they must be RWD" approach..and all things being equal; and if every model was available in either front or rear wheel drive, then in my view rwd would be the way to go(preferably "twin").

 

Unfortunately, things aren't "equal", so although RWD may be desirable, insisting on it can/does greatly reduce your choice of van (as you are finding).

If the layout/model you want/need just happens to be rwd, then all well and good.

 

Most of our usage was either on small, grass-pitched campsites/pub-sites or on, fend-for-yourself music festival sites..and after our first rwd van conversion, both our subsequent coach-builts were front driven.

(rwd vans in our price range at the time, and of the layout we could live with, all tended to be huge or old (or both) "family" sized vans.)

 

Yes, we got towed on/off on occasions but on the occasions that it happened, so did most other vans there, irrespective of which wheels were driven..

(Swapping to decent, "knobblier" tyres helped no end though!)

 

Some years ago we looked over a, then new, Westfalia Westvan at a show and thought that'd do us, when our lottery numbers came up :-D ..and some time after that, the Burstner Prismo was added to our list..

But as said up thread, they were hard to come across..

 

Didn't Autosleeper market a Transit based model under the Orion brand? (I seem to recall seeing one of them at a local dealer (Morans) some years ago)