Big garage, big payload recommendations

[pepe63xnotuse]

coaltong - 2018-07-24 5:00 PM

 

I got a reply on up rating the weight limit. Essentially it can go to 4,000kg without vehicle modifications and 4,100 with air assist on the suspension and uprated tires. This would take the rear axle to 2,430kg.

 

Blimey, that's good.

Personally I'd be budgeting for air assistors on the rear anyway.

(they made a massive difference to the "handling" of the 7m Chausson Allegro(Renault) that we had).

[coaltong]

I've not used air suspension before. Does it work alongside the existing springs and dampers or replace them?

[Wasnt Me]

Is it worth adding air suspension for an extra 100kg?

 

The system will add weight so you won't gain much extra payload.

 

It may be worth it for handling and comfort though.

 

 

[pepe63xnotuse]

coaltong - 2018-07-24 5:51 PM

 

I've not used air suspension before. Does it work alongside the existing springs and dampers or replace them?

 

Hi

 

Air assistors,are just a pair of "bellows" that (usually) just replace the "bumpstop"..

Some owners have a gauge installed in the cab(some even with their own inbuilt compressor)

..ours were Dunlop , but without any gauge etc, as I found that adjusting/checking htem was easy enough when I was checking the tyre pressures...

Well worth it in my opinion.

 

Sorry, should have added, ours were from here- http://www.marcleleisure.co.uk/store/-c-58.html

 

[Brian Kirby]

coaltong - 2018-07-24 5:51 PM

 

I've not used air suspension before. Does it work alongside the existing springs and dampers or replace them?

It is air assistance, so the existing springs are retained but supplemented with air spring units. However, the proposed load increase is only of benefit to the rear axle, raising its maximum load limit to 2,350kg.

 

Re plating to 4,100kg on that basis requires you to so load the van that both its front, and rear, axles are simultaneously at their maxim permissible load. This is, for all intents and purposes, impossible, so the gain in MAM is, in reality, illusory. You'll get some useful gain, but not 500kg.

 

I can't find a reference to the wheelbase, so can't calculate the rear overhang, but it looks substantial.

 

This means that your proposed garage load will multiply up on the rear axle, and from what you've said the determining factor as to what usable payload you might have will be rear axle limit and not the MAM.

 

This is Transit based, so check insurance requirements, as some insurers are refusing to insure current Transit bases because the cab door locks do not provide the required security.

 

The starting payload of approximately 500kg is unrealistic for a 4 berth van - you'll loose about 300kg of that to driver + passengers. This is a tall van with a large, bulky, Luton over the cab. With a substantial load at the rear, and that windage area at the front, I'd expect the handling to be generally somewhat twitchy and sensitive to tramlining, and decidedly "interesting" on a windy day.

 

If you do as you propose and load outside the manufacturer's parameters, albeit by legally uprating the MAM and possibly the rear axle load, you will probably negate any remaining Ford, or Roller Team warranty.

 

Final comment is the engine is only a 2.2, and if wanting to run near 4 tonnes, I think to may find it lacks puff.

 

I'm not saying don't, but I am saying tread with great care on all the above fronts. Roller Team, in common with several other Italian builders build light, and their vans are popular with the hire market because the are big and roomy, cheap, and sold on after a short hire life. This van, as you propose to adapt it, will be running right at its designed limits, and that is liable to show through somewhere.

[coaltong]

All these comments are proving really useful.

 

To be honest I don't think the gain of 100kg for air assist and new tires sounds like good value for money either.

 

Likewise, the plan was never to load the van to its maximum new load.

 

Rather it was to try to keep within the 3,500kg if possible but not to put myself in a illegal position if the loading did take the van somewhere between 3,500kg and 4,000kg. I'm trying to buy some margin of error when loading the van for different trips.

 

The chap who responded re the potential weight increase did say that the first thing is to ask the dealer to provide a weighbridge certificate to ensure the quoted standard figures are accurate to start with. He also suggested starting with a specific heady duty Fiat 40 heavy chassis which is a better staring point. I've checked the Fiat brochure and it appears there are two types of Fiat Maxi chassis, the 35 and 40, with the 40 offering a higher payload.

 

I have no idea which motorhomes come on this chassis either as standard or as an option.

 

I always had a weighbridge check on the Apache 700 both empty and loaded to double check so I get the importance of this. The weighbridge guys always took the test really seriously and I always carried the certificates with me.

 

Insurance is another issue I have yet to double check.

 

Re engine size, to make matters worse I tempted with an auto which I plan to test drive. I think the engine is actually a 2.0lit but quotes 130bhp. Not sure on the torque, I'll have to check.

 

 

[Wasnt Me]

Hi I think you may struggle to keep to 3500kg with the items you want to take.

 

We had ours weighed with the minimum essentials on board and our Transit based twin wheel Chausson weighed in at 3320. That was without food, clothes, bikes, gas cylinders, and passengers.

 

Just 2 adults and our 2 kids Will take us up to 3500kg. The poor dog is now on a diet.

 

Uprating will give you the payload, but you will need it. Especially if you want to take a motorbike.

 

Good luck.

[colin]

coaltong - 2018-07-24 10:30 PM

 

He also suggested starting with a specific heady duty Fiat 40 heavy chassis which is a better staring point. I've checked the Fiat brochure and it appears there are two types of Fiat Maxi chassis, the 35 and 40, with the 40 offering a higher payload.

 

 

 

Unless things have changed lately the Maxi 35 is just a Maxi 40 down rated for licence purposes.

[Derek Uzzell]

coaltong - 2018-07-24 10:30 PM

 

..Re engine size, to make matters worse I tempted with an auto which I plan to test drive. I think the engine is actually a 2.0lit but quotes 130bhp. Not sure on the torque, I'll have to check.

 

 

The Euro 6 powerplants fitted to current Ford Transits have a 2.0litre capacity with outputs of 103bhp/360Nm, 129bhp/385Nm or 168bhp/405Nm.

 

If you had a Roller Team Zafiro's original 3500kg MAM ‘uplated’ to 4000kg or 4100kg, this modification would impact on any Ford warranty that the motorhome currently had.

 

You might also want to bear in mind Niigel B’s comments about overgearing in this 2017 forum thread

 

http://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/chausson-630/46471/

 

though it’s quite likely that the gear ratios used with the Transit’s automatic gearbox differ from those of the manual ‘box.

 

if you don’t plan to go for RWD, it would probably be best to choose a model built on a Ducato ‘maxi’ chassiis that has an original MAM of 4000kg or above. At least then you’d get a specification designed from the onset for a heavier overall weight (bigger brakes, revised gearing, etc.) and the only uprating that might usefully be done subsequently would be to add rear air assistance if you were consistently putting a lot of weight on the rear axle.

[bigparkie]

Not necessarily my transit on the earlier 155ps engine pulls very well, it was downplated by ford from 4100 my rear axle 2400 kg front 1850kg to 3500 kg by chausson, I subsequently found this to be insufficient payload so contacted svtech who said that they could uprate to 4000kg rear axle 2330kg front 1850kg , which I did,it drives and handles fine for a motorhome.

Regards Richard

[Derek Uzzell]

bigparkie - 2018-07-25 8:53 AM

 

Not necessarily my transit on the earlier 155ps engine pulls very well... i

 

Yes, but yours is the 2.2litre motor rather than the current 2.0litre unit and it’s quite likely that the gear ratios differ for the different powerplants.

 

As I understand Nigel B’s comments, he was not criticising his Transit’s Euro 6 168bhp 2.0litre motor for being down on power, but that the vehicle was seriously over-geared. In his posting of 22 June 2017 12:43 PM on the link I provided above, Nigel described the motorhome’s gearing in detail and there’s no doubt that the 5th and 6th ratios were high.

 

Over-gearing can be a real pain, so it’s something for coaltong to look out for when taking a test drive.

[coaltong]

I think I've just found a potential Make and Model. Guessing it might be a bit pricey.

 

Chausson C714GA

 

Double over cab bed

Double dinette

Double fixed rear bed

Large garage

7.2m long

Factory upgrade to 4100kg max weight

Factory upgrade to 170 hp

 

All I now need is discover if it is available in righhand drive in the UK?

 

 

[mgnbuk]

If you are seriously considering a Euro 6 Ford Transit, I would ask what exactly the 4100kg "upgrade" includes, particulary with regard to the suspension & gearing.

 

As Derek has already mention, I had a Chausson Welcome 610 on the Euro 6 Transit last year. I ran this as a 3500kg van (just !), plus towed a 610kg motorcycle trailer so my train weight was 4150kg.

At that, the "170hp" Ford struggled up Alpine roads that my previous 130hp Ducato had managed without problems & used more fuel doing so. Part of the problem was the ridiculously high gearing Ford employed, coupled with a narrow peak torque band & a marked drop-off in power with increasing altitude. Also noticable at that train weight was the softly sprung & lightly damped suspension.

 

So I would want to be assured that the 4100kg "upgrade" include heavier duty suspension and lower gearing & was not just a paper re-plating exercise.

The Welcome 610 carries a lot of its weight at the rear, yet the front suspension bottomed easily on broken up roads, particularly if a pothole was encountered while cornering.

An overcab design will put more weight over the front & would make this worse if the suspension were not uprated.

 

I am probably not the best person to give an un-biased view of the new Transit - you can read about the reliability issues and (lack of) support from Ford I encountered in the thread Derek linked to earlier.

My dealer dropped into conversation on my last visit that the new owners of my Transit had also suffered an injector failure 12 months on from my having to have all 4 replaced.

Suffice to say that I changed it for another Welcome 610 on a 150hp Fiat this March (at not inconsiderable expense) & find the Fiat to be a much more comfortable,better handling & more economical base vehicle.

 

With regard to Chausson, be wary of the weights quoted in the brochure & ask to see the Certificate of Conformity for the vehicle you are interested in which has an "ex-works" weight on it.

Trying to ascertain what water level was used for the brochure weights eventually got escalated to the Sales Manager at Chausson, who apparently translated the English brochure back to French & found that the meaning was not the same as the French brochure. The quoted brochure weights are based on travelling with 20 litres of water. The brochure also does not spell out all the weight implications of different options, so be wary !

 

I am also not a fan of the Webasto heating Chausson choose to fit to many models - it can belt out heat, but distribution isn't great & the current van (like the first one) doesn't do a good job of heating the bathroom. The Truma Combi 4 in my previous van was a much better solution IMO.

While I like many of the innovative features of the 610 layout, I have been disappointed with Chausson build quality on two consecutive vans & won't be considering another when I change this one.

The Roller Team T-Line 670 I had before the Chaussons was better built, better thought out in many areas & gave fewer problems in 4 years I had it.

 

Good luck with your search - I suspect that you are asking rather too much, though. With just the two of us & a very limited optional accessories fitment (short towbar & solar panel), it takes care to stay under 3500kg.

 

Nigel B

[coaltong]

Just heard back from Chausson and the C714GA will be available fro 2019. Hoping it will be at a show later this year.

 

Interesting to hear about the power/torque/gearing concerns. I've just taken a look at the power/torque curves of this engine and it looks OK on paper. Torque is flat at about 400Nm from 1,500 to 2,500rpm then drops to 350N/ at 3,500rpm.

 

If I get time and can find the data I'll overlap the Ducato figures to see how they compare.

[coaltong]

coaltong - 2018-07-27 7:58 AM

 

Just heard back from Chausson and the C714GA will be available fro 2019. Hoping it will be at a show later this year.

 

Interesting to hear about the power/torque/gearing concerns. I've just taken a look at the power/torque curves of this engine and it looks OK on paper. Torque is flat at about 400Nm from 1,500 to 2,500rpm then drops to 350N/ at 3,500rpm.

 

If I get time and can find the data I'll overlap the Ducato figures to see how they compare.

 

OK. Just checked the Ducato torque curve. Looks like torque curve remains flat at 400Nm for another 500rpm to 3,000rpm.

 

Ford power peaks at 3,500rpm

Ducato power peaks at 3,500rpm

 

I guess the Ducato wins on flatter torque curve. Not sure about fuel consumption.

 

 

[Derek Uzzell]

Comparison of power/torque curves is useful but, where gearing is concerned, it’s the relationship of road-speed to rpm that’s important.

 

Pre-X250 Ducatos with 5-speed transmissions were regularly criticised for having a yawning gap between 4th and 5th gears such that heavily loaded motorhomes were unable to maintain use of top gear on relatively shallow motorway inclines. A 6-speed ‘box should help, but Nigel B commented that his Euro 6 Transit-based Chausson (with the most powerful motor available) was overgeared in both 5th and 6th gears.

 

As I’ve said before, a higher top-gear ratio would be exploitable for my Ducato-based Rapido. But I’d want this to be achieved by having a 7th gear rather than raise the present final-drive ratio (say by choosing the 16”-wheel option) or by Fiat having raised just the present 6th-gear ratio. My Transit-based Hobby motorhome was over-geared (too high a final-drive ratio) and I never found driving it a fun experience because of this.

[coaltong]

Derek Uzzell - 2018-07-27 8:31 AM

 

Comparison of power/torque curves is useful but, where gearing is concerned, it’s the relationship of road-speed to rpm that’s important.

 

Pre-X250 Ducatos with 5-speed transmissions were regularly criticised for having a yawning gap between 4th and 5th gears such that heavily loaded motorhomes were unable to maintain use of top gear on relatively shallow motorway inclines. A 6-speed ‘box should help, but Nigel B commented that his Euro 6 Transit-based Chausson (with the most powerful motor available) was overgeared in both 5th and 6th gears.

 

As I’ve said before, a higher top-gear ratio would be exploitable for my Ducato-based Rapido. But I’d want this to be achieved by having a 7th gear rather than raise the present final-drive ratio (say by choosing the 16”-wheel option) or by Fiat having raised just the present 6th-gear ratio. My Transit-based Hobby motorhome was over-geared (too high a final-drive ratio) and I never found driving it a fun experience because of this.

 

I'll see if I can find and compare the gear ratios. Would an auto be designed to hold the engine in its torque hot spot?

[colin]

I can't help but think you will end up making too many compromises just to avoid a tag axle van.

[coaltong]

I'm going to have a test drive of a Ford Auto next week so I can get a feel for its driveability.

[Derek Uzzell]

coaltong - 2018-07-27 3:22 PM

 

I'll see if I can find and compare the gear ratios. Would an auto be designed to hold the engine in its torque hot spot?

 

Depends on the transmission.

 

During the last few years there’s been a tendency for automatic transmissions to have an increasing number of ratios (the Mercedes 9G-Tronic has nine) and to be ‘smarter’.

 

There’s a review of the latest Transit auto-box system here

 

https://www.commercialfleet.org/van/reviews/large-panel-vans/ford-transit-first-drive-reveals-automatic-gearbox-enhances-driver-experience

 

A currently active forum member (“Marcol”) has a 2018-model Transit-based Benimar motorhome with the 170 motor and auto-box. In this March 2018 thread

 

http://forums.outandaboutlive.co.uk/forums/Motorhomes/Motorhome-Matters/Ford-check/48829/

 

he said

 

"The 170 engine with a proper automatic gearbox is an absolute joy”

 

and

 

"I also agree with you that the gear ratios are too high. Fortunately the motorhome is an auto so all is good, but my Transit custom is a manual and sixth gear is pretty useless until you’re on a dual carriageway."

 

As Marcol will now have had some 8 months experience of driving the Benimar, he should be able to say whether he has found any real drawbacks and if the transmission has any idiosyncracies.

[mgnbuk]

"I'm going to have a test drive of a Ford Auto next week so I can get a feel for its driveability."

 

Bear in mind that the vehicle you test drive will be empty & will feel a lot perkier than it will when fully loaded - my old 130 hp Roller Team felt like a sports car when I took it in empty for its annual habitation check compared to its "normal" loaded condition. My old 170hp Ford was noticably poorer performing with a 650kg motorcycle trailer hung on the back than without (more so than the 130hp Fiat - the Fords high gearing really worked against it here)

 

If the dealer will play along, try to get both the fresh & waste water tanks brimmed wih fresh water - on most vans that will be around 100/120 litres fresh & 80/100 litres waste, so maybe up to 220kg there. And load all the travelling seats with adults - 3 x 80kg bodies is nearly another 1/4 Tonne. On a 3500kg gross van, that should put you close to maximum & give a more realistic test of what the van will perform like in "running order".

 

Nigel B