Chelston Motorhomes

[Keith T]

Yes, I told them exactly that hence the refund. These days the boss can be found personally criminally liable in case of accidents. There have been many such cases in the UK so every dealer should take care to ensure a van leaves in a roadworthy state.

 

 

This was exactly what I did in both purchases from them, and I am somewhat surprised the sales staff didnt pick up on it as they really should hav e been aware of the lack of additional capacity.

 

I would suggest their only acceptable recourse was the full refund whether or not you have purchased a further vehicle from them, and surely you could have argued that the final vehicle weight was not fit for purpose....??

I would hope the staff have been reminded of the weight issues which seems likely on so many of the motorhomes currently on the market….!!

 

[TheEscapist]

Update is that have decided to go for the Iveco 50c Liner for Two sitting at Carthago and not wait for a new order as that wouldn’t be until November. Chelston will be just charging me the difference and moving across all extras at no cost. Same discount on new one so very happy to have adequate pay,lad and twin rear tyres!

 

The one there now is a great spec but jut didn’t have the front air suspension. I will try it on no air before deciding to fit front air - anyone have experience of Iveco chassis motorhome handling to be able to advise if front air is an improvement or actually a detriment in terms of ride?

 

Thanks

 

Paul

[Derek Uzzell]

An Iveco Daily with front air-suspension will inevitably have a superior ‘ride’ to one with front suspension employing conventional steel springs, though you might not like the feeling of ‘floatiness’ that a front-air system may produce.

 

I doubt if anyone on this forum will be in a position to provide a comparison of a Daily’s two systems based on ownership experience, though you might get useful feedbsack via the Carthago Owners Club. You might also try asking VB-Airsuspension whether retro-fitting front-air would be genuinely worthwhile given the cost involved (though I expect they’d say “Yes”!)

 

As you’ll be obtaining an already-built Carthago without front-air, the sensible thing to do is what you are proposing - take delivery, get some experience of driving the motorhome and then decide whether retro-fitting front-air is going to offer you tangible benefits. If you were going to order the motorhome to be factory-built, it might be worth taking a chance and specifying front-air as part of the vehicle’s original specification. But as front-air will be a retro-fit now or later, there doen't seem to be any overriding incentive in having it retro-fitted straightaway.

 

Given the problems you’ve had with the Ducato-based Carthago, I suggest you ask Cheklston to confirm what weight data are on the Iveco-based motorhome’s Carthago data-plate (overall, train and front and rear axle weight maxima) and which tyres (make, name and exact specification) are fitted to it. Also that there be a wriiten addendum to the purchase contract that insists that the Iveco-based Carthago be weighed (overall and axle weights) immediately it is delivered to Chelston and copies of the weight certificate(s) be provided to you at that point in time. Although there’s no reason to think there might be weight-related problems with the Iveco Carthago, the ‘on paper’ specification of the Ducato Carthago suggested that this would also be OK weight-wise. Once bitten, etc...

[plwsm2000]

Derek Uzzell - 2019-05-09 8:37 AM

....

 

Given the problems you’ve had with the Ducato-based Carthago, I suggest you ask Cheklston to confirm what weight data are on the Iveco-based motorhome’s Carthago data-plate (overall, train and front and rear axle weight maxima) and which tyres (make, name and exact specification) are fitted to it. Also that there be a wriiten addendum to the purchase contract that insists that the Iveco-based Carthago be weighed (overall and axle weights) immediately it is delivered to Chelston and copies of the weight certificate(s) be provided to you at that point in time. Although there’s no reason to think there might be weight-related problems with the Iveco Carthago, the ‘on paper’ specification of the Ducato Carthago suggested that this would also be OK weight-wise. Once bitten, etc...

 

I could not agree more with Derek's comment.

I can't help thinking you will be in exactly the same situation with the Iveco chassis at 4.6T (or 4.8T) will all the extra stuff you want to add on.

Although I don't know for sure, I cannot imagine there will be a vast different in the mass of the base chassis between the Iveco/Fiat/Alko/Merc so whatever they build on top is not going to change the overall weight much. With this layout (limited storage directly at the front), a fair bit of the 2300kg max. front axle mass will be unusable, and I would be concerned that the 2700kg rear would already be on the limit.

 

I should have also added that if you are close to the axle limit, you should look at individual wheel loads (for the tyres) rather than assuming that each wheel will be a half of the axle load. I have a Reich CWC and I can have up to a 50kg difference side-to-side. Although I am a bit heavier than my wife, the drivers side also has the oven, fridge, gas bottles etc. so it is not symetrical.

[Derek Uzzell]

When a Carthago “Liner for Two” 53 model is built on the Iveco Daily 50C chassis its maximum overall weight is 5600kg, with a quoted ‘weight in running order' of 4115kg.

 

The Daily’s twinned-wheel rear-axle layout means that the maximum rear-axle loading should be way higher than that of the Ducato-based equivalent, but the specification-list indicates that there are still some heavy options - for example the 205hp motor + 8-speed auto-box is said to add 123kg and a 3rd leisure-battery and extra charger to add 50kg.

 

Even though there should be much less risk of the Iveco version ending up overweight in normal touring trim (even with a full fresh-water-tank) it would still be wise to take some simple precautions now that would help to confirm that assumption.

 

 

[Robinhood]

...I would also counsel caution, and a rigorous investigation of the starting position.

 

At face value, opting for the Iveco-based unit gives rather more leeway for "up-speccing", but an investigation of the base figures does introduce a few doubts.

 

We're not privy to full spec of the "off-the-peg" vehicle the OP is now pursuing, and there is no clue in the brochure as to what the axle loadings are as shipped on Iveco versions.

 

So (acknowledging that the vehicle might in fact be upgraded to 5.8t) the standard MAM on the 50C version is 5.6t (ostensibly 800kg greater than the rejected fiat) but the MIRO of the standard vehicle is already approaching 400kg more than the Fiat. If, as has been mooted, the vehicle has an engine upgrade and auto gearbox, this is a significant weight uplift again, over 100kg more than the engine/box option on the rejected Fiat vehicle. The rear pneumatic suspension option is slightly lighter on the Iveco.

 

My suspicion is that the Fiat was approaching the +5% limit on weight variance, contributing to the problems, and if the Iveco demonstrates a similar issue, then there is 5% of the additional 500kg basic weight to add.

 

So, the Iveco base vehicle itself might be approaching 550kg more than the rejected Fiat vehicle in its "unadorned" state. As the Fiat was weighed at just under 4800kg without people onboard (albeit with full water), it would be best to assume it's real "in-use" weight (in its weighbridge state) would be around 150kg more - say 4950kg.

 

That leads to the Iveco coming in at around 5.5t in similar state to the Fiat (and with two people on board). It still doesn't leave a lot of leeway on MAM, particularly on the 5.6t version - the 5.8t would be preferred (though reduced water whilst running might still be required).

 

I would still also be slightly concerned about rear-axle loadings (though, an educated guess would be that the max rear axle weight might be 3.5t or more), though the longer wheelbase will help somewhat with rear-axle loading, and patently the heavy engine/gearbox is likely to hit the front axle more (and I suspect the margin on this would be "adequate").

[plwsm2000]

Derek,Paul mentioned in an earlier thread that the van is 4.6T. Perhaps I read that wrong.

 

TheEscapist - 2019-05-06 8:55 PM

 

Does anyone have experience or advice regarding air suspension on the front wheels?

 

I ask because the Iveco Liner for Two available right away is a nice spec but lacks front air (it has the rear air package only).

 

It also lacks the payload upgrade to 4.8t from 4.6t which is a pain but not sure how they dl that anyway so maybe can be done at dealer.

 

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

Their is a Huge difference in rear axle suspension of a alko torsion bar axle and Iveco. In case you can lift up the axle and let it down. And auto ride height. Not the help air versions. In case of Al-ko axle they take 90 percent of the load, and the standard three torsion bars who take the load in std versions are removed and replaced by only two weak ones who take 10 percent and act also to keep the swingarm and wheel in place. If you do a retrofit alko x4 on a two axle in a alko service station as i have monitored for a club member you can take home the flwg: Two fiat front struts,Two swing arms of the rear axle, six torsion bars, and the hand brake alko cables who do not fit for x4. So order these at new motorhome and you have a grease free axle. on retro fit you pay 3000 euro extra if you want this. About Paul iveco 50c chassis VB they have a 90 percent up down air bellows. Some club members have them on Niessmann flairs. Paul it takes some time to let them work together whit your EP feets. As far as i understand on the iveco chassis you can only have help air on the front chassis according some Iveco . Your Final COC is crucial on axle loads, but you have some gain about loads on the wheels and tyres, and that is in detail on your coc what you have, small or large.

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

A puzzle question can a alko x4 air suspension drive when one air bellow is leaking on the front and or rear?

[TheEscapist]

Derek Uzzell - 2019-05-09 3:16 PM

 

When a Carthago “Liner for Two” 53 model is built on the Iveco Daily 50C chassis its maximum overall weight is 5600kg, with a quoted ‘weight in running order' of 4115kg.

 

The Daily’s twinned-wheel rear-axle layout means that the maximum rear-axle loading should be way higher than that of the Ducato-based equivalent, but the specification-list indicates that there are still some heavy options - for example the 205hp motor + 8-speed auto-box is said to add 123kg and a 3rd leisure-battery and extra charger to add 50kg.

 

Even though there should be much less risk of the Iveco version ending up overweight in normal touring trim (even with a full fresh-water-tank) it would still be wise to take some simple precautions now that would help to confirm that assumption.

 

 

Hi Derek

 

As you say the base vehicle is 4115 kgs.

 

With all options from factory - too many to list but notably aircon, air suspension, awning, gearbox, engine, towbar etc - it goes to exactly 4850 kgs as stated on the sales order.

 

My vehicle is the 5.6t version. interestingly the upgrade to 5.8t is only a paperwork exercise and has no mechanical difference, which tells me the vehicle can handle 5.8t safely even if the CoC says 5.6t. Carthaginian charge over 2,000 pounds for changing it.

 

We have calculated the extra load of the other items to be moved across and we will have enough spare as the weight will fall under the 5.6t with enough spare for water, fuel and personal belongings.

 

To me the biggest reassurance is the twin wheel rear axles.

 

I’m more concerned to understand the front air differences and spec. Chelston tell me it’s only about 600-800 pounds to fit front air as it’s a far simpler job than the rear so price isn’t the issue and I will drive the vehicle first without but I have no way of knowing if once fitted it’s to floaty (except of course if it’s adjustable). Apparently it didn’t work with the rear and is a stand-alone system on the front even when it comes from Carthago which seems odd but that’s the way it is as the rear comes from Iveco and they retro fit the front,

[TheEscapist]

I found this very useful too.

 

https://www.iveco.com/uk/collections/catalogues/Documents/Motorhome/Iveco-Motorhome.pdf

 

Paul

[Derek Uzzell]

TheEscapist - 2019-05-10 12:02 AM

 

...My vehicle is the 5.6t version. interestingly the upgrade to 5.8t is only a paperwork exercise and has no mechanical difference, which tells me the vehicle can handle 5.8t safely even if the CoC says 5.6t. Carthaginian charge over 2,000 pounds for changing it...

 

The Carthago price-list for the Iveco Daily variant of the “Liner for Two I 53” model” includes the two options shown on the attached image. My reading of the Carthago price-list is that it would cost £2045 to specify alloy wheels and £2560 to choose the 5600kg to 5800kg weight upgrade option, but the latter would include provision of alloy wheels, making the cost of the weight-upgrade alone £515. This is bad enough if the upgrade is merely a 'paper exercise’, whereas £4605 (£2045 for the obligatory alloy wheels + £2560 for a piece of paper and revised weight-sticker) would be highway robbery.

[Billggski]

.....especially as it says alloys on the front only!

Presumably they have to be steel on the back for the twin wheel arrangement?

[Keithl]

Do they fit different tyres with alloys to increase axle capacity?

Just seems odd you can only increase weight by fitting alloys?

 

Keith

[TheEscapist]

Hello again,

 

I'd like to ask more advice regarding the air suspension and levelling.

 

My Iveco Daily 50C van comes with air suspension on the rear as mentioned and I have the E&P levelling system i could take off the previous Fiat van.

 

I'm almost convinced I'll want to fit air suspension on the whole van so I am trying to find out info and get options as Chelston don't have much experience here.

 

What I was told by Chelston is they recommend VB Air suspension for the front.

 

The Iveco 50C van has its own proprietary air suspension on the rear - maybe made by VB or another company or in-house.

 

Looking at the VB website, it's not very clear or helpful, but it does mention that full air from VB offers auto-levelling (similar effect to the E&P system using air, not jacks).

 

My thoughts are:

 

1. Fit air to the front and the E&P to all 4 wheels for levelling.

2. Remove the current Iveco rear air and fit VB full air to all 4 wheels and achieve levelling without having to fit the E&P. Might be cheaper overall. However, I don't see a full air product for Iveco 50C.

3. Fit some other products not VB or E&P.

 

Does anyone have enough knowledge or experience here?

 

I have read this very helpful article here:

 

https://www.outandaboutlive.co.uk/motorhomes/articles/practical-advice/motorhome-levelling-and-air-suspension-systems-explained

 

I guess maybe the most practical solution is to fit the best front air suspension there is with adjustment ie. can be raised or lowered on the go and fit the E&P for levelling.

 

Thanks in advance.

 

Paul

 

[TheEscapist]

Doing more reading and this is a helpful intro

 

 

For sure, I want an integrated onboard adjustable system. Does anyone have any recommendations?

 

This seems to be the most well known system.

 

https://www.as-airsuspension.co.uk/

 

Thanks

 

Paul

[dicksob]

Paul, the leading expert for both VB and E+P in the U.K. is Mick at SAP near Doncaster. Really helpful and would be able to advise on what is available etc, not at all pushy and would give sound advice.

My own view, given the size of your van, would be to go for both, whilst the suspension does have some levelling capacity it doesn’t have the stability, for that you need the levellers.

We have both on our panel van conversion and wouldn’t be without, party trick is van tipping to one side to empty the waste water!

Bill

[TheEscapist]

dicksob - 2019-05-11 1:20 PM

 

Paul, the leading expert for both VB and E+P in the U.K. is Mick at SAP near Doncaster. Really helpful and would be able to advise on what is available etc, not at all pushy and would give sound advice.

My own view, given the size of your van, would be to go for both, whilst the suspension does have some levelling capacity it doesn’t have the stability, for that you need the levellers.

We have both on our panel van conversion and wouldn’t be without, party trick is van tipping to one side to empty the waste water!

Bill

 

Thanks, Dick

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

To drain the waste water tank by means of leveling equipment is a ferry tale. Pep talk.

[TheEscapist]

TAKEN DELIVERY of the Carthago Liner for Two

 

So finally, despite two attempts, some interference from the poor Easylifter product (see separate thread for that story), driving around in the new Carthago Liner for Two.

 

In the most part it's superb. This weekend will be the first time away in it; so far, it's done 500 miles coming home, collecting the Vespa and negotiating city centres for a stereo upgrade.

 

In summary:

 

THE GOOD

 

Wonderful build quality

Feels lovely sitting inside

Great visibility when driving

3.0ltr Iveco pulls well and gearbox is superb

Plenty of payload. Even with 4 solar panels, under slung generator, aircon, E&P, awning and more, still plenty top spare.

Easylifter and rear view on the back is visible with dual rear cameras.

Plenty of sockets and so far all stays well charged up from the panels.

Reassurance of 4 tyres across the back is nice.

 

THE BAD

 

Even with the front V&B air suspension the ride is very harsh. At the rear too so heaven knows what it would feel like with no air! Thinking that front tyres on 70 psi as supplied is too high and drop to 65 same as rear.

Not much adjustment in the seats but they are very comfortable.

Pioneer head units not easy to use and sound in front is woeful for such a price point so changing to Halo unit at front and rear and adding new speakers to front and sub to rear.

Bicycle only just fits in the garage as Iveco chassis is high.

Don't know how it all works yet as still learning. On hand over the Easylifter problems took all day and left no time for handover so returning on Monday to fix the Easyflifter (again) and go through hand over again properly.

Front V&B air suspension leaks. Chelston use Courtside Conversions of Tiverton and so far I'm not impressed as pretty much all their work on the old Fiat van and this one hasn't been good. E&P, TyrePal and V&B air all not fitted correctly.

 

Chelston Motorhomes have as ever been great. All is well on the money side too as they immediately sold my old Fiat chassis van (the one with no payload) and fitted everything new to this van for free.

 

I'll send a new update after sleeping in the van but so far the only two niggles are 1. the harsh ride (very harsh on all but smooth roads even with air set (tried setting to anywhere from 2 to 5 bar on the dash adjustment unit and not sure what works best) and an occasional crashing sound from the front nearside axle), 2. poor stereo and 3. Easylifter hassles.

 

Nevertheless, love the product and support from Chelston...

 

Any advice on V&B front suspension / tyre settings set up and alternatives to Easylifter gratefully received!

 

Cheers

 

Paul

 

[Keithl]

Paul,

 

Tyre pressures - in my books there is only one way to get the correct pressures, weigh you MH in full touring trim and get both axle weights (or subtract one from total weight) then contact the tyre manufacturer for their advice.

 

Out of curiosity what make/size tyres does the IVECO run on?

 

Keith.

[Derek Uzzell]

The usual policy with light commercial vehicles with a twinned-wheel rear axle is to have relatively narrow heavy-duty tyres and I THINK the current Daily has 195/75R16C 110R tyres.

 

Because of this the front tyres will usually require to be run at a fairly high pressure (Paul’s Carthago is, after all, a large heavy vehicle) and 70psi may well be needed.

 

As Keith says, to establish how low a front-tyre pressure could safely be used it will be necessary to have the Carthago weighed in fully loaded ‘touring trim’ to confirm the axle loadings. (Choosing to drop the 70psi pressure to 65psi because that’s what’s used in the rear axle is not even educated guesswork.) But if it is the 70psi pressure that’s the primary culprit for the very harsh ride, lowering that pressure by 5psi is most unlikely to provide a solution.

[Billggski]

Silly point, but new cars are delivered to the dealers with shipping blocks inserted into the springs to make loading more secure, and it's not unknown for them to be overlooked on handover. The suspension is then rock solid!

[monique.hubrechtsgm]

This is what i have seen right now at the moment of a club member. Having N+ B flair on Iveco. having TWO axles Double air on the rear. VB air is standard on the rear axle and fitted by iveco to N+B. Not air on the front. But VB has a kit for it. Who fitted air on your suspension, and Vb dealer? They work whit std ride height tables: axle weight, tyre type, tyre inclination. Sorry to hear about your vespa easy lifter. Have a A- Frame whit a fiat or citroen C1 (lol)

 

[Solwaybuggier]

Keithl - 2019-06-07 1:16 PM

 

Paul,

 

Tyre pressures - in my books there is only one way to get the correct pressures, weigh you MH in full touring trim and get both axle weights (or subtract one from total weight) then contact the tyre manufacturer for their advice.

 

Out of curiosity what make/size tyres does the IVECO run on?

 

Keith.

 

Michelin used to do this, but I understood that now whatever the axle weight, they advise 80 psi all round.

 

Our Carthago (C Tourer, 2015 model) has manufacturer’s suggested tyre pressures in the handbook, based on axle weights. After a visit to the weighbridge I set the tyres at 45 psi front and 60 psi rear in line with this, and it is comfortable. BUT I have a feeling that subsequent year’s handbooks don’t list suggested pressures, presumably for the same reason that Michelin, at least, now only give tyre pressures of 80 psi, where they used to give a more realistic figure. Protection of their back, inevitably?