MMM base vehicle of the year award

[colin]

And the winner is, the one you struggle to reverse up a hill! :-S

[Guest peter]

You're having a laugh surely :D Don't say much for the competition does it?. *-)

[madmick]

MMM base vehicle of the year for 2008 was announced about two months ago. It is the Ford Transit. 2007 winner was the Renault Master. Examples of both happily reversed up our steep driveway. Andy"s van struggled!

 

madmick

 

[AndyStothert]

MMM deliberately avoided mentioning the Fiat in their base vehicle of the year awards.

 

[colin]

My mistake, I allways think of this site as MMM, not Which Motorcaravan ,which, displays on front cover, 'from the publishers of MMM'

[madmick]

Same jockey, different horse colin.

 

You're excused on this occasion!

 

madmick

[colinfrier]

It is such a pity that Fiat and their partners shoot themselves in the foot with the various problems and their poor responce to owners complaints.

The X250 is a joy to drive:

Smoothe responsive engine

26 mpg on a 7.2metre 3.5 tonne MH

Light but reponsive steering

70+ relaxed cruising

Many nice cab features

6 Speed g Box

etc etc

I guess in a year or so they will sort the problems then it will be a credit to Fiat it's heaps better than the Commer Highwayman I started with 38 years ago.

Colin

[Corky 8]

I bet its only the winner because the Builders get the Sevel Chassis / Cowls Cheaper than they can get any of the others,I never hide the Fact I like and think the VW is the Best commercial base van /vehicle out there ,they are more reliable and do more milage than any other van based commercial, but VW wont give the Discounts the Sevel Factories will., Ok you will get the odd gripe for some people not happy with some thing, but if you want proof go to a commercial breakers yard and count the number of different commercials in there I bet the VW are in odd ones, It also goes to show ALL the Bad Comments/Gripes/ Faults/Failures, reported on this Forum alone Never get aired or get through to The Motorhome Builder and yet this Forum is run by one of the Loudest voices Motorhome Owners COULD have ,and I say Could as we are never listened to but we go on Buying the Magazine and only get to air our veiws between each other, But I know come trade in time it wont be a sevel based motorhome I buy even if I have to go into Europe to buy, I can spend my money anywhere and the sooner the Sevel based Builders cotton onto that the better their motorhome bases will be and the better off we will be, (soap box put away ), *-)

[Administrator]

To eleborate on my esteemed colleague Madmick's points about horses and jockeys, Which Motorcaravan and MMM are two thoroughbreds from the same stable, but ridden by different jockeys at different racecourses.

 

All I'd add is that no fewer than six of the Which Motorcaravan Awards winners were based on the Fiat platform. In this light, it would have been difficult to give any of Fiat's main competitors the award for best base vehicle.

 

Mark Sutcliffe

Managing Editor

Which Motorcaravan

[Guest Tracker]

As the vast majority of the mainstream UK converters use the Ducato base it is not always easy finding vans that don't use the Ducato as a base.

 

As there is such a wide variety of layouts and prices on the Ducato it is hardly surprising that the Ducato BASED vans won most of the Motorhome prizes.

 

Nevertheless, potentially superb base van as it may be, to win the base vehicle award without any caveats to warn prospective buyers of the issues could maybe be seen to be a bit irresponsible?

 

Call me a cynic but perhaps Warners are more afraid of Fiat than they are of their readers?

 

I wonder how much support Warners are giving Andy Stothert?

 

I'm glad I ain't got a new Ducato!

[Brian Kirby]

Well Denis (for I assume it is he) and Mark, I'd jut say this.  To the point about VWs, yes, if you are talking about the T series, they do have a reputation for a very good ride, and they are perhaps a little more reliable that the others.  However, they are smaller, and they cost more.  Their Achilles' heel as a motorhome base, in my opinion, is that the cab/track is too narrow, leading to excessive oversailing at the flanks of the coachbuilt bodywork, and a tendency to roll heavily, or in van conversion form, generally, a narrow bed.  Thus they are only suited to a niche market, in which they dominate.  Fewer examples in scrap yards?  But of course.  Not because they are better, though, but because there are far fewer of them on the road, so fewer to scrap.

As to differences between the publications, it is quite clear, as least to me, that the editorial "staff" of these magazines, plus the testers, the motorhome manufacturers/converters, the dealers, and the Sevel group (Fiat/PSA), are all fully aware of the various shortcomings of the present crop of Sevel products. 

However, they all seem steadfastly to remain silent, and are neither admitting to the problems, nor are they saying what they intend doing to relieve them.  For their part the journalists seem locked into this conspiracy of silence which, to me, seems at least ignoble. 

I think I am am sufficient of a realist to know that there are legal and commercial repurcussions to publishing damaging copy - even if the statements therein are substantially true - so I am not advocating a "publish and be damned" approach, because that would be naive and foolish.  However, to sit on their collective hands on these issues while their readers buy products that have well known faults, is hardly serving the best interests of those readers who seek knowledgable and reliable guidance on where to spend their retirement lump sums, or life's savings. 

An educted public is the only public that can truly exercise choice, and those who chorus "caveat emptor", when the poor buyer suffers the inevitble pratt-fall, are not being especially helpful. 

The specialist press has a duty of care to its readership, simply because it sets itself up a specialist press, and claims great knowledge of its chosen subject.  Under present circumstances, in failing to share this specialist knowledge, I think the kindest comments that can be made of their performance relative to these particular issues, is "could do better".  Whether the advertisers generate more revenue than the readers is not the whole of the point.  If the readers come to believe they are being sold short they will caese buying the magazines, and with falling circulation will come reduced advertising revenue, so whoever currently brings the biggest bucks, it is the readership who ultimately finance the whole edifice.  I think it may be time for some Warners' minds to give a bit more thought to this "inconvenient truth". 

So, how about it?  It is for you to judge how - you claim to be the professionals - but you do need to establish a formula that allows you to highlight the issues, and to extract the necessary assurances from those responsible, and then fully and responsibly inform your readers what, really, is happening.  At present, as you are playing the game, you are not performing the job many of your readers think they are paying you to do.  As implied above, that may yet prove to carry the greater risks.  So, lets be 'avin yer!

[Guest JudgeMental]

 

Great stuff as per usual Brian! :-D

[Corky 8]

OAL Moderator - 2008-02-08 10:54 AM

 

To eleborate on my esteemed colleague Madmick's points about horses and jockeys, Which Motorcaravan and MMM are two thoroughbreds from the same stable, but ridden by different jockeys at different racecourses.

 

All I'd add is that no fewer than six of the Which Motorcaravan Awards winners were based on the Fiat platform. In this light, it would have been difficult to give any of Fiat's main competitors the award for best base vehicle.

 

Mark Sutcliffe

Managing Editor

Which Motorcaravan

Hello Mark ,all I can find to say in reply to you is, Most Motorhomes are choosen for the layout ,standard of equipment quality of build, with other features taken into consideration, Ask your readership how many of them went out and purposely bought say a Fiat first and the motorhome Second, and the judges of these Motorhomes how much consideration do they give to the base vehicle ,what do they know about the base vehicles track record on reliability and parts failure, are they ever asked about the base vehicle, if any of the judges read these forums I bet it would have a different outcome to winners and also rans. while I,m at it there is never any feed back from the major M/H builders over base vehicle problems do they choose not to hear about them, By the way I bought Bessacarr first liked the Dunlop tyres and the Alko chassis begrudgingly accepted the Fiat Cowl/engine parts.and I am being proven right , my Fiat 2004, 9,000mile M/H has an N/S front wheel bearing failing, now you can quote the number of fiats on the road to the number of Bearing Failures, (lol) Mark its nice to see someone from the Magazine side reads the forums, Which the Magazine should be proud of for the service it provides to everyone.

[Corky 8]

Yes Brian its a He (I just looked) and Dennis with two N,s please Brian, Fully agree with everything you said, and Eloquently put.

[Frank Spencer]

Yes, very well put Brian.

[Brian Kirby]

Brian Kirby - 2008-02-08 12:45 PM

So, how about it?  It is for you to judge how - you claim to be the professionals - but you do need to establish a formula that allows you to highlight the issues, and to extract the necessary assurances from those responsible, and then fully and responsibly inform your readers what, really, is happening.  At present, as you are playing the game, you are not performing the job many of your readers think they are paying you to do.  As implied above, that may yet prove to carry the greater risks.  So, lets be 'avin yer!

C'mon Eds, where are you?  Lost yer tongues?  :-)  ;-)

[fred grant]

sock it too em bri baby my biddy. but u cant be talking about mmm me ansum as the good ol tranny won the award an u bought one previous. or as fred got is wires crossed.

 

farawayfred

[Brian Kirby]

Hello Fred, how's the farm?

Transit MMM base vehicle of the year: correct.

I have one: correct.

My above comments relate (mainly) to the reversing problem with Sevel bases. 

However, there are a number of current issues around these base vehicles that the magazines are keeping quiet about, despite the fact that the editorial, testing, and contributing staff know about them, and are much better placed than their readers to dig up the facts and inform their readers accordingly.  I think they should do more for their readership, who at present seem to me a little neglected when it comes to the actualité.

[fred grant]

bri

 

fred only reads mmm my biddy, and as me an alice as decided to delay our new motorhome for another year due to stuff weeve read in there, we dont understand were yous comin from me ansum. they mmmers av been clever in nare view by spreading it all over - so much that are elddis could reach its 10th birthday by default!

 

good weather lately as made it a laber of love again - thanks for asking bri - me an alice will not let the boy take over yet, at least not until us is ready for sum full timin 9or at least until fred as stockpiles enough flagons for is retirement.

 

forumfred

[colin]

For those not wishing to read one of my shameless self promotion posts read no more!

Might just let WMC off the hook here, brought march issue as saw Hymer copy of Twin on front page, low and behold page 58/59, just visible behind glass in background is some of my work :-D

[RonB]

To the above criticism of MMM's non reporting of base vehicle faults please also add the lack of information on converters TRUE payloads. MMM slavishly quote and list converters figures with rarely a comment as to how some of these dubious payload figures were arrived at.

 

All motorhome tests should carry a health warning if the converters have not quoted payload figures that comply to the standard EN1646-2 formula.

[Brian Kirby]

Or even, Ron, when they do claim to comply with EN1646-2, because a) there are permissible tolerances on the weights so proclaimed, b) because some of the "packs" and/or options offered by manufacturers consume payload, and the EN1646-2 quoted payload is almost invariably for a basic version of a van, and c) because some dealers add "goodies", such a awnings, that also consume payload, which some buyers do not understand.

Good, this game, innit?  :-)

[RonB]

I take your points Brian but at least complying to one standard would provide a level playing field and be far better than the present situation. If a converter wishes to fit, say, extras that others don't, then obviously it will result in bringing the payload down and is a choice they have to make. Nothing is stopping them explaining this in their brochures.

[michele]

Brian Kirby - 2008-02-08 12:45 PM

Well Denis (for I assume it is he) and Mark, I'd jut say this.  To the point about VWs, yes, if you are talking about the T series, they do have a reputation for a very good ride, and they are perhaps a little more reliable that the others.  However, they are smaller, and they cost more.  Their Achilles' heel as a motorhome base, in my opinion, is that the cab/track is too narrow, leading to excessive oversailing at the flanks of the coachbuilt bodywork, and a tendency to roll heavily, or in van conversion form, generally, a narrow bed.  Thus they are only suited to a niche market, in which they dominate.  Fewer examples in scrap yards?  But of course.  Not because they are better, though, but because there are far fewer of them on the road, so fewer to scrap.

As to differences between the publications, it is quite clear, as least to me, that the editorial "staff" of these magazines, plus the testers, the motorhome manufacturers/converters, the dealers, and the Sevel group (Fiat/PSA), are all fully aware of the various shortcomings of the present crop of Sevel products. 

However, they all seem steadfastly to remain silent, and are neither admitting to the problems, nor are they saying what they intend doing to relieve them.  For their part the journalists seem locked into this conspiracy of silence which, to me, seems at least ignoble. 

I think I am am sufficient of a realist to know that there are legal and commercial repurcussions to publishing damaging copy - even if the statements therein are substantially true - so I am not advocating a "publish and be damned" approach, because that would be naive and foolish.  However, to sit on their collective hands on these issues while their readers buy products that have well known faults, is hardly serving the best interests of those readers who seek knowledgable and reliable guidance on where to spend their retirement lump sums, or life's savings. 

An educted public is the only public that can truly exercise choice, and those who chorus "caveat emptor", when the poor buyer suffers the inevitble pratt-fall, are not being especially helpful. 

The specialist press has a duty of care to its readership, simply because it sets itself up a specialist press, and claims great knowledge of its chosen subject.  Under present circumstances, in failing to share this specialist knowledge, I think the kindest comments that can be made of their performance relative to these particular issues, is "could do better".  Whether the advertisers generate more revenue than the readers is not the whole of the point.  If the readers come to believe they are being sold short they will caese buying the magazines, and with falling circulation will come reduced advertising revenue, so whoever currently brings the biggest bucks, it is the readership who ultimately finance the whole edifice.  I think it may be time for some Warners' minds to give a bit more thought to this "inconvenient truth". 

So, how about it?  It is for you to judge how - you claim to be the professionals - but you do need to establish a formula that allows you to highlight the issues, and to extract the necessary assurances from those responsible, and then fully and responsibly inform your readers what, really, is happening.  At present, as you are playing the game, you are not performing the job many of your readers think they are paying you to do.  As implied above, that may yet prove to carry the greater risks.  So, lets be 'avin yer!

fantastic as usual well put Brian ... I cant help thinking of all the people who buy MMM and who do not log on poor sods.

[colin]

Just checking what syd said, and yes you can add photo's at anytime after posting, just look above.

p.s. hope I don't get into any copyright problems :D