Can we really believe (AND RELY ON) what we read in Practical Caravan Magazine ?

[ProfAlGoogle]

"It is undisputed the magazine was looking at a 2007 V70 where as TR states his is a 2005 geartronic model. According to a major car data web site the V70 was updated in 2007, which suggests there could be some significant differences, so his assumption that his car and the test care were virtually identical may only apply to visual appearance, rather than the technical details. So there is almost certainly some weight difference. But I do agree a 200kg difference is stretching the point, and it made me check a car database which lists the 2007 V70 range as having kerbweights between 1755 and 1854kg, which does suggest some error in the reported magazine figures."

The phase 2 V70 was face lifted in late 2004.
2007 saw the introduction of the phase 3, completely different car built on a ford chassis and weighing in at over 200kg comparired to its predecessor. The 2005 V70 weights started at around 1540kgs.

 

[otherclive]

I think you mean 'weighing in at 200kg more than the predecessor '

 

[ProfAlGoogle]

I think you mean 'weighing in at 200kg more than the predecessor '

2007 saw the introduction of the phase 3, completely different car built on a ford chassis and weighing in at over 200kg MORE comparired to its predecessor. The 2005 V70 weights started at around 1540kgs.

Thanks Clive. Must give myself 100 lines for lack of concentration.......... Lol

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

I think you mean 'weighing in at 200kg more than the predecessor '

2007 saw the introduction of the phase 3, completely different car built on a ford chassis and weighing in at over 200kg MORE comparired to its predecessor. The 2005 V70 weights started at around 1540kgs.

Thanks Clive. Must give myself 100 lines for lack of concentration.......... Lol

Hi P A G. The car that you refer to is built on the Mondeo floor pan pressing,I believe.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

"It is undisputed the magazine was looking at a 2007 V70 where as TR states his is a 2005 geartronic model. According to a major car data web site the V70 was updated in 2007, which suggests there could be some significant differences, so his assumption that his car and the test care were virtually identical may only apply to visual appearance, rather than the technical details. So there is almost certainly some weight difference. But I do agree a 200kg difference is stretching the point, and it made me check a car database which lists the 2007 V70 range as having kerbweights between 1755 and 1854kg, which does suggest some error in the reported magazine figures."

The phase 2 V70 was face lifted in late 2004.
2007 saw the introduction of the phase 3, completely different car built on a ford chassis and weighing in at over 200kg comparired to its predecessor. The 2005 V70 weights started at around 1540kgs.

Hi P A G. Just to clarify a point of doubt here or more to the point an item of not knowing.
My car is a 2005 (05) Volvo V70 D5 SE Geartronic,it is also a Pre-DPF Variant. The image that is shown on the page that was in the PCM depicting the car with a caravan behind it is indeed is Page 18. It is not the phase 3 variant shape it is the one that was immediately after the Classic,that is what my car looks like from the exterior. It is carrying a 56plate.
As best as I am aware the D5 was available with the 2.5litre engine but it had a DPF fitted,no choice. The car that I have was run until the model change in 2006 when it became the 2007 model,and indeed,a very different car both visually and mechanically.
The image of this car only differs from mine by the absence of a Sun Roof,this has been previously stated. The interior is the same as mine even down to the Volvo Telephone System,again already stated. The car appears to be manual,again,already stated.
My car with me as the driver and weighing 68kgs and with a 90% full tank of fuel and a nominal 7kgs of luggage came off a Dynamic Axle Weighbridge at the premises of the manufacturer of the VOSA Dynamic Axle Weighbridges,they are based in Runcorn,Cheshire,it was showing 1777kgs after deducting the known weight of the towbar and twin electrics and the additional weight of the alloy wheel as the spare instead of the Doughnut.
There is no mistaking the weight of my car at 1777kgs.
It was registered 0n 29 04 2005,it is an SW79 variant and an SW7969?? version. The model ran from Aug 2004 t0 May 2005.
The V5C document has it listed as Mass in service 1649kgs.
It is a 2.4 D5 SE Geartronic and with the 163bhp unit.
The data bases cannot be relied upon,they get there details via third parties,they do not come directly from Volvo.
Parkers have it listed as 1611kgs,if you add in the weight of a driver,90% fuel and 7kgs of luggage it will come ton circa 1735kgs.

 

[Lutz]

Parkers have it listed as 1611kgs,if you add in the weight of a driver,90% fuel and 7kgs of luggage it will come ton circa 1735kgs.

If Parkers have kerbweight listed instead of Mass in Service, which I doubt as databases like their's usually rely on manufacturer's information and Volvo will most probably always have quoted weights according the EU standards, then the difference can only be 75kg, not the 124kg that you have arrived at (1735 - 1611). A full fuel tank is included in kerbweight, too.
If the V5c document lists Mass in Service as 1649kg, then the kerbweight will be approx. 1649 - 75 = 1574kg, regardless of the 1777kg that was determined on the weighbridge.
If you think 1777kg is more appropriate as a basis with which to calculate weight ratio, then I suggest you approach the caravanning organisations and ask them to revise their recommendation accordingly, to reflect actual weight instead of kerbweight.
Your relatively high measured weight could perhaps be explained at least in part by the presence of the towbar, if it was dealer fitted.. The towbar and all its fasteners and wiring alone can easily weigh around 40kg in total, but these would not be included in kerbweight or Mass in Service unless the car left the factory with the towbar already fitted. The 40kg will come out of the payload.

 

[ProfAlGoogle]

Hello, just one or two points to clear up.
after the clasic the all new Volvo V70 was launched being the phase 1, it ran from 2000 untill late 2004 where it was face lifted, different grill and head lights.( power washers replaced the head light wipers) head light bulb change was a nightmare with a visit to the local dealer to remove the front bumper! But there was ways round it, lol. Slightly shorter bonnet (the reason why you could not get to the bulbs)
the wing mirrors changed shape, the interior saw a sliding centre compartment and chrome bezels around the dials, different steering wheel and led side marker lamps to the rear light cluster, think there was one or two other slight changes that I can't remember, can't swear to it but I am fairly sure that on the phase 1 the battery was under the bonnet, with the phase 2 seeing it moved to the rear under storage area, hence the shorter bonnet.
not 100% sure on the date but I think it was around late 06 early 07 saw the introduction of the euro 3 engine with its much dreaded DPF filter and a drastic drop in MPG. Easy to identyfy by the repeater indicator lights in the wing mirrors, then as you rightly say 2007 saw the introduction of the phase 3 Ford / Volvo with an even worse MPG, wish I still had my 2005 phase 2, drive it gently and on some journeys I could get almost 60 mpg, at best now I'm lucky to see 40.
i hope this helps.

 

[otherclive]

Thanks for the explanation of Volvo specs. It shouldn't be forgotten though that it was Ford who were responsible for improving the Reliabilty of the Volvos and the benefits are now feeding through to the S3s, just as they sorted out the Freelander and the Jaguars too. Sharing floor pans is quite common as my Saab 9000 shared one with a Fiat and Lancia too. Why when talking about cars doesn't anyone say Audi A6 (a Skoda or Volkwagen)? For good Reliabilty statistics see True Delta or Warranty Direct.

 

[ProfAlGoogle]

Pleased that I could have been of some help. But I must say that in over 35 years of owning Volvo cars I have never had any issues with reliability, hence my staying with the brand for so many years, apart from that is, one rogue 740 turbo that I could fill a page or two with, but that was mainly down to the main stealers lack of ability.

 

[TheTravellingRooster]

Parkers have it listed as 1611kgs,if you add in the weight of a driver,90% fuel and 7kgs of luggage it will come ton circa 1735kgs.

If Parkers have kerbweight listed instead of Mass in Service, which I doubt as databases like their's usually rely on manufacturer's information and Volvo will most probably always have quoted weights according the EU standards, then the difference can only be 75kg, not the 124kg that you have arrived at (1735 - 1611). A full fuel tank is included in kerbweight, too.
If the V5c document lists Mass in Service as 1649kg, then the kerbweight will be approx. 1649 - 75 = 1574kg, regardless of the 1777kg that was determined on the weighbridge.
If you think 1777kg is more appropriate as a basis with which to calculate weight ratio, then I suggest you approach the caravanning organisations and ask them to revise their recommendation accordingly, to reflect actual weight instead of kerbweight.
Your relatively high measured weight could perhaps be explained at least in part by the presence of the towbar, if it was dealer fitted.. The towbar and all its fasteners and wiring alone can easily weigh around 40kg in total, but these would not be included in kerbweight or Mass in Service unless the car left the factory with the towbar already fitted. The 40kg will come out of the payload.

Hi Lutz. Now I really did think that you read and paid attention to postings before posting a reply but now I am not entirely sure.
I have already stated in my previous post of the 16th January that the 1777kgs was as a result of deducting the weight of the towbar and twin electrics and the additional weight of the alloy wheel as the spare instead of the Doughnut.
As far as the, thinking that 1777kgs was a more appropriate weight. That is not the case. The car was weighed in accordance with the definition of kerbweight as per the pages in PCM my 1996 Volvo V70 T5 CD Auto was done in exactly the same way and that is how I arrived at 1638kgs.
I am well aware of the complete contradictions of the many and varied ways of defining the "Kerbweight" but I have been working on the premiss that the one used in PCM is the UK widely accepted one. Indeed this only started appearing in PCM after your many contradictions of the details that I was quoting some years back after finding it in a document that has been removed from the official site that it was at the time of finding it on the internet.

 

[Lutz]

Hi TR,
I'm sorry, but yes, I did overlook your reference to deducting the weight of the towbar and spare wheel.
As far as the definition of kerweight is concerned, I am of the opinion that if there is no general consensus on a common defintion, then there can be no definition as such, only an interpretation. The problem is that, as the law doesn't recognise the term kerbweight, there is no source on which to fall back and point to for a definitive answer. Within the motor industry it always referred to the ex-works weight, but with a full fuel tank and no driver or other payload.
The snag is that few car manufacturers publish kerbweight according to that interpetation any more, but favour the EU definition of mass in running order, which is now the standard for all type approval purposes.

 

[NigelDonnelly]

Ok. I can see that things have got a it tetchy on here over this issue. Apologies for any upset caused.

As for any discrepancy in the data of the 2007 Towcar Awards, I am not aware off the top of my head with issues regarding the Volvo V70 data, but it was a long time ago and while I do have a head for nerdy figures, they don't stretch to the kerbweights of individual models!

However, car weights at the Towcar Awards are checked as official figures are often vague at best. In fact, as many of you know, I'm sure, Nissan quote a range of figures for the X-Trail for example, making accurate matching without a weighbridge very tricky indeed.

As you feel strongly that we have got the figures wrong, I will ask David Motton to check the data if he still holds it. When compiling such large and complex amounts of data, there is always a chance of rogue data making it onto the page. I appreciate that it shouldn't happen,but sometimes, it does.

In this case though, I'm happier that the quoted figure is lower rather than higher than your quoted figure as at least any matched calculated would be on the cautious rather than the reckless side. That's not an excuse for dodgy data.

Just a silver lining if it proves to be wrong.

I will let you know as soon as I hear back from Motty

Regards

 

[NigelDonnelly]

Dear all. I got this, very lengthy reply from David Motton today who has been in touch with Volvo UK to try and get to the bottom of the issue. Not an answer as such, but I hope this clarifies a few of the points raised about the exact car in the test - OE56 DKU

Whenever a manufacturer agrees to supply a car for testing at the Tow Car Awards we send them a questionnaire about the vehicle. This includes asking for confirmation of the kerbweight. I no longer have copies of these questionnaires dating back to 2007. However, after you raised this with me I contacted Volvo’s PR department to ask them to check the kerbweight of the model we tested. Volvo has confirmed the kerbweight of this model is 1561kg, as published.

Manufacturers usually quote a minimum kerbweight, and include the proviso that the exact weight will vary depending on the precise specification and the fitment of any extras and accessories. It’s also worth noting that in 2007 we published the car manufacturers’ quoted kerbweights exactly as listed in their brochures and websites. Some manufacturers include 75kg for the driver (strictly speaking 68kg for the driver and 7kg of luggage) and some don’t, so since 2008 we have asked manufacturers to include the 75kg when confirming the kerbweight so that all weights are given on the same basis.

I am surprised that The Travelling Rooster has found such a large discrepancy between the weight published and the true kerbweight of his car. Some or the difference can be explained by variations in specification, but even allowing for this I find the discrepancy surprising. Nonetheless, having checked the figure with Volvo we have quoted their published kerbweight correctly.

We have considered weighing all the cars we test at the Tow Car Awards individually in order to find out the specific weights. However, the weights we find would be correct for the specific vehicle tested with its exact combination of equipment and accessories. In all likelihood, the weight of the test cars would be higher than the quoted kerbweights. My concern in publishing these weights would be that anyone buying a mechanically similar car with a lower level of specification might be misled as to the true weight of their vehicle. It would also complicate the logistics of loading the caravans to 85% of the kerbweight while ensuring the noseweight reaches 7% of the van’s weight or the maximum noseweight limit, whichever is lower. This side of the preparation is handled by one of our colleagues from Swift and I know it takes him some time to make the calculations and check them for 40-50 vehicles.

 

[ProfJohnL]

OE56 DKU

is a Volvo V70 D5 SE Diesel Estate 2401cc

 

[Lutz]

Nigel, if PC is weighing the vehicles prior to test and basing any weight ratio calculations on the result of that weight, then it is not kerbweight that is being used, but an actual 'supplied' weight. Such practice is not in line with advice given that weight ratios are based on kerbweight. Therefore, either the practice or the advice should be changed so that the two concur.
Furthermore, as manufacturers seldom quote kerbweights according to the original interpratation of that term, but rather the Mass in Service (or mass in runnning order) it would be appropriate to have a rethink about using the term kerbweight altogether. The continued use of the term kerbweight is causing confusion because there is no consensus in its definition.

 

[NigelDonnelly]

Lutz,

We only weigh cars where there is a stupidly broad spectrum of weights and no single quoted figure. In all other cases we use quoted weights as that is what buyers will use when choosing a car. Not ideal, but in our opinion, the best way to solve an unsolvable problem.

And we use the term kerbweight consistently, so comparison between tested vehicles in Practical Caravan and the Camping and Caravanning Club magazine at least will always refer to the same thing. We can't make everybody (both clubs, manufacturers, NCC, Towsafe) all see our point of view but we can do things our way in the most rigourous fashion we can. I think that introducing a further term as a measure of a car's 'weight in service' would add to, rather than sooth the confusion!

 

[Surfer]

As a matter of interest, if they estimate that the driver's weight is 68kgs, do they only us elady drivers? I think most men of average height would weigh closer to 80kgs that 68kg? The older you get, the more you seem to weigh!

 

[NigelDonnelly]

I haven't weighed 68kg since I was born...

 

[Parksy]

My shadow weighs 68kg

 

[Lutz]

With respect, Nigel, but I think that the confusion is there already. For those who want accurate data, and that includes many newcomers who, through lack of experience, are unable to gauge the effect minor variations in weight have, it is almost impossible to find true source of information on the kerbweight for any vehicle. Most people rely on manufacturers' published data, but that is nowadays rarely kerbweight in its original interpretation. More often than not it's on the same basis as in the V5c. If the advice given out by the clubs is to remain unchanged, then one should at least inform those who want to know the kerbweight how it can be determined from the V5c or from data in the brochures or owner's handbook.

 

[ProfJohnL]

This thread demonstrates one of the reasons why I suggest the 85% guidance is so imprecise and flawed. If the main key variable (kerbweight) cannot be consistently ascertained, then the output of any calculations based on it will also be flawed. - But in the absence of any other agreed method it is still better than nothing.

 

[ProfAlGoogle]

I think things are being unnecessary over complicated here. For as long as I can remember we have always used the term kerb weight in the uk to give us an idea as to what we can tow.
in my case according to the V5c my V70 P3 weighs 1648kg, I've never been on the weigh bridge with it, but according to Volvo uk they quote a minimum kerweight of between 1761/1778. With an 85% match of 1497/1511 and the all important figure of 1800kg as the maximum trailed weight.
if in doubt use the the figures that are quoted on your V5c, and do not exceed them!
a lot of reference here is being placed on maximum weights, do we really want to be there? Far better to leave a margin of safety,
in my case the max MPTLM of my California is 1498kg. That puts me in at under 302kg per the V5c, max of 1800kg.

But no doubt this will open a new can of worms from the self appointed experts. Now taking cover and wearing my tin hat.

 

[Lutz]

The thing is that the V5c doesn't specify kerbweight. If Volvo quote kerbweights according to its proper interpretation then you are one of the lucky ones. However, most car manufacturers nowadays specify weights according to the same basis as that which applies to the V5c and that isn't kerbweight, but mass in running order or mass is service, whichever you prefer.

 

[ProfAlGoogle]

Agree with you lutz, be it mass in running order, mass in service, or kerweight, the all important figure to abide by must be max trailed weight, and of course not forgetting gross train weight, keep within those limits and it could save a lot of hassle at the road side.

 

[Lutz]

Agree with you lutz, be it mass in running order, mass in service, or kerweight, the all important figure to abide by must be max trailed weight, and of course not forgetting gross train weight, keep within those limits and it could save a lot of hassle at the road side.

Unless, of course, you have a Category B licence, in which case mass in service is just as important as it must not exceed the MTPLM of the trailer.