Advice needed on weight

[Brian Kirby]

Robinhood - 2020-09-22 5:24 PM

You're confusing me even more ;-)

The other vehicle is a Lunar Roadstar..........................

It's that interloper with his Swift wot dun it! :-D If it is on the maxi chassis that would make quite a difference!

[stevemc67]

Oh dear, he says with a due sense of dread and foreboding :-D , but how can I tell if the Swift 694 is on the Maxi chassis??!!!

[tsmith59]

Brian Kirby - 2020-09-22 5:05 PM

 

Robinhood - 2020-09-22 4:27 PM

 

It may be me Brian, but it seems to me you are conflating weights and configurations from two separate posters/questions on this thread.

 

The basic advice is correct, however. It is worthwhile checking how much margin is currently available, fully loaded, on the rear axle before pursuing an upgrade to MAM, since that margin on the rear axle may well constrain the practical use of any additional plated weight.

 

As for the Swift Champagne - the Al-Ko wheelbase on the 694 is reasonably long, so the overhang, though big, is not entirely excessive. Swift specs indicate that it is/was available in at least one configuration with a MAM of 3700kg, so, subject to the above caveat, it is probably worthwhile pursuing an upgrade, subject to all the other constraints, if the OP is concerned about payload. With a previous stage 3700kg (Al-Ko) plate on board, it should be a paper exercise.

Apologies to all, it seems you're right Bob. It started at 3,850kg and was then downplated to 3,500kg by SVTech. However, I don't think tsmith59's van is a Swift Champagne. That is stevemc67's 2019 van. I'm not sure tsmith59 has actually confirmed which model his Swift is, only that it is a 2004 Swift Roadstar. I looked at the examples I could find of Roadstars from that period (not many!) and most seemed to have quite long overhangs. However, it would be helpful if the actual model could be confirmed, as much of my post is based on assumptions (mine and others!).

 

The real question in my mind is whether there would be any sensible gain from plating back up to 3,850kg if the van is as long as some seemed to have identified, as that 2,000kg rear axle limit would, I suspect, be quite difficult/costly to increase. But, if the van is shorter than assumed, and the overhang is also reasonable, then a worthwhile gain should easily be achieved by verifying that the SVTech plate is genuine, and then dealing with the uprating direct with DVLA.

 

 

My motorhome is a 2004 Lunar Roadstar 726. Overall length of 7.3 metres.

[tsmith59]

Robinhood - 2020-09-22 5:24 PM

 

You're confusing me even more ;-)

 

The other vehicle is a Lunar Roadstar.

 

Given its vintage (2004), and the fact that it has an original Al-Ko plate at 3850kg, I strongly suspect that the underpinnings originated from the Maxi chassis (I can find contemporaneous reviews that support the fact that some of the larger models did) and I think (fading memory) the rear axle limit on these was 2120kg (for the standard chassis, I wouldn't expect the Al-Ko to be less).

 

That would reduce the concern about (re) up-plating a bit.

 

The OP can confirm that situation from the Al-Ko plate, and the existence of 16" wheels would confirm the Maxi parentage (for that vintage, though one can't rely on such now).

 

 

The alko rear axle limit is 2120kg as suggested and the vehicle does has 16" wheels.

[Robinhood]

stevemc67 - 2020-09-22 7:50 PM

 

Oh dear, he says with a due sense of dread and foreboding :-D , but how can I tell if the Swift 694 is on the Maxi chassis??!!!

 

It isn't ;-)

 

It will be on the "light" version with, I suspect, an Al-ko chassis rated at 3700kg. (Probably an AMC37L)

 

The key point of discussion is the maximum rear axle loading, which is likely to be 2000kg for you (but can be confirmed from the Al-ko plate you've found, which I believe will show 1850/2000 for the front and rear axles respectively.)

[stevemc67]

Thanks Robinhood, your figures are spot on. I shall now respectfully withdraw and let the conversation revert to the Lunar!! :-D