A Line Economy vs Low Profile

[Whirlybird]

Hello all
We've had 3 low profile motorhomes and are considering a change to an A Class. We've previously dismissed the idea thinking they were all expensive to buy and own and all behemoths that drink fuel .... which no longer seems to be the case. They seem to be building A Class in varying sizes and engine configurations. We like the look of a couple of under 8 m (26ft) with engines of 2.3l 150bhp & 3L 180bhp in auto and manuals and wonder if the fuel consumption could be near to the low profiles?
Insurance costs are a concern too but we can suss that one... Any advice appreciated? regards Rosemarie & Rob

 

[Aspenshaw]

My A-class is my third, this and the first were 6m, the second one 6.3m. We like them because they provide more in a shorter space e.g. by having a drop down bed and full width cab area. Currently my 130bhp with Comfort-Matic has averaged just over 28mpg in the UK after 11,000 miles. A-classes can be less fuel efficient because they can be heavier e.g. if they have double floors but the fuel costs are nowhere near as bad as depreciation.
The Fiat Camper website allows you to work out what engine you need.
For the large liners, Comfort-matic and the 3l Iveco or Merc equivalent are a must. The Comfort-matic is a regular topic on various motorhome websites. General opinion is that those who have it, love it. Some have had faults but the reliability is good - often used on ambulances. I question whether Comfort-matic is worth it unless you need it. My Comfort-matic does exactly what it was designed to do.
Some servicing costs for A-classes are marginally higher because access through the front panel is limited. However, all the routine fluids can easily be checked.
On insurance, make sure you have adequate cover for the windscreen, I've never had to claim but some of the liners have windscreens costing c£5,000 whilst mine is under three grand. Never had one go in 15 years though. Liner insurance is not easily available. Windscreen availability on some of the lesser known models can be limited.
If space efficiency is not a driver, then A-classes appeal because of the wide cab and view and because they are aspirational; a bit like buying a Merc when a Mondeo would be good enough! Because they are aspirations., A-classes tend to better built.
Ride on the Alko chassis can be poor and A-classes can flex more. You should conciser full air suspension not withstanding the cost.

 

[Whirlybird]

Thanks very much for all that information, we appreciate it

 

[TonyJones]

That's what you get on here Rosemarie, LOTS of helpful information and advice. We may not be as busy as some forums, but everyone on here wants to help.

 

[Flicka]

The downside of "A" Class (IMHO) is if you get windscreen damage.
A) The full cost may exceed the Insurance limit.
B) You may be off the road whilst a replacement is sourced.
Just a question of how you judge the risk, but worth checking with Insurer's what their limits are.

 

[Retread]

I've had both now and also a broken A class screen, my policy has a limit of 80% of the screen replacement costs so it can be expensive, but the replacement was sourced and fitted within 3 days, a standard van should be a lot quicker. yes A classes are aspirational but If You compare say Hymer products around 7.5 m O/A (Say the A Class B 598 and the Low profile Tramp CL 598) it becomes hard to justify the extra 10,000€ or so that an A class will cost compared with a similarly spec'd Low profile and today with drop down beds and better integration of the cab space with twin swiveling seats etc I can see that A Classes will travel further toward the Liner end of the market.