# Question for Swift



## Nethernut (Jun 4, 2008)

Have been looking at the layout of your low profile motorhomes. Can you explain how the 680 FB can be a 4 berth when there is only one belted passenger seat. Where are the other 2 passengers supposed to sit?
Very disappointed as we were hoping to buy a Swift low profile motorhome (have always been Swift stable caravan owners) but really need the 4 belted seats.
Jan


----------



## ingram (May 12, 2005)

I am not 'Swift' ( in any meaning of the word ) but ....
When the Bolero and it's stablemates were introduced the 'FB' was listed as a two berth but there was obviously potential ( and may have been actual ) possibility for the front lounge seats to be converted to a double bed.

Swift's website update for 2008 then listed the 'FB' as a four berth, but as it does in fact have only two travel seats those extra beds will no doubt be for visitors to use once you are on site ................ my 2006 Autocruise has the same number of beds / seats.

It would be helpful if Swift's ( and others ) brochure / website details made it clearer for potential purchasers.

You won't get a layout that has front lounge parallel seating like the Bolero's, that also has forward facing passenger seats unless you find one of the few that has a convertible L shape with belts.

All just my opinion .....
Harvey


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

Nethernut said:


> Can you explain how the 680 FB can be a 4 berth when there is only one belted passenger seat.


Very common. It is legal to sit without a seatbelt if there are none.

Many 6 berth vans cannot carry the weight of 6 adults. Some must travel separately.

Daft ?

Probably.


----------



## Steamdrivenandy (Jun 18, 2007)

I'm sure Swift can answer for themselnves Jan but they are by no means the only manufacturer who provides more berths than homologated travel seats. A situation that some believe should be made illegal to avoid the risks should someone be tempted to carry more passengers than there are safety belts.

I'm assuming the standard type response is that the two additional beds are 'alternatives' for the two users or for 'visitors' who arrive by another means of transport.

If you go for a Voyager 685FB you get the same rear layout but a front dinette with two belted seats instead of side benches. You will have to put up with an overcab which again makes the van provide two berths in excess of it's seats. Still you can look upon it as extra storage.

Mind you'll pay for the privilege as the Bolero is £40,030 and the Voyager lists at £42,430.

As Swift have now brought out Low Profile versions of the Kon-Tiki range it may not be too long before they offer dinette versions of the Bolero. What about it Peter?

HTH

SDA


----------



## Rapide561 (Oct 1, 2005)

*Lowlines*

Hi

Have a read of the link below from the Swift website re the Voyager going "low line".

http://www.swiftleisure.com/SwiftGroup/News/NewsArticle/Properties/NewsID-155

Russell


----------



## EJB (Aug 25, 2007)

Why don't you contact Swift directly instead of using a public forum????????


----------



## Nethernut (Jun 4, 2008)

EJB said:


> Why don't you contact Swift directly instead of using a public forum????????


My mistake - thought others on the forum may be interested in the answer.


----------



## Steamdrivenandy (Jun 18, 2007)

Anyway it looks like they do just what you want for the '09 season Jan, a low profile Voyager 680FB with a dinette, 4 belted seats and 4 berths.

'09 prices have risen with the Bolero 680 OTR £44,285 and the Voyager 680 @ £46,245.

Thanks to Russell for pointing out they intend to make 'em, I'd probably read it somewhere but forgotten. Tempus fuses it.

SDA


----------



## Nethernut (Jun 4, 2008)

Steamdrivenandy said:


> Anyway it looks like they do just what you want for the '09 season Jan, a low profile Voyager 680FB with a dinette, 4 belted seats and 4 berths.
> 
> '09 prices have risen with the Bolero 680 OTR £44,285 and the Voyager 680 @ £46,245.
> 
> ...


Trouble is that the 680 FB isn't "low profile" but is "low line" and is also over 3500 kg. 
Ah well - just have to go with our second choice (Burstner).
Jan


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

Nethernut said:


> Ah well - just have to go with our second choice (Burstner).Jan


Which is where we ended up looking for lots of seat belts for grandchildren.

The grandchildren have hardly ever been in it mainly due to them being 200 miles away which is exactly what the Barron's salesman predicted.

We have been very pleased with it. Next week it goes in for it's new 5 year timing belt all ready for Morocco next year.


----------



## Nethernut (Jun 4, 2008)

hilldweller said:


> Nethernut said:
> 
> 
> > Ah well - just have to go with our second choice (Burstner).Jan
> ...


Ours live just a few minutes away so see lots of them - we help out with childcare when daughter in law is at work. We try to get away with them 3 or 4 times a year at least. We definitely want a low profile for various reasons.
Good luck with your Morocco trip - friends of ours did it a few years ago with a caravan, spent several months there - this is a link to their story if you are interested:
http://www.ukcampsite.co.uk/articles/view.asp?id=109


----------



## hilldweller (Mar 8, 2008)

Nethernut said:


> Ours live just a few minutes away so see lots of them - we help out with childcare when daughter in law is at work.


You are very lucky. And so is your daughter in law. Seeing grandchildren is possibly our biggest expense.

>> We definitely want a low profile for various reasons.

I think it's the way to go for fuel economy but bed over the cab does make a lot more space for living.

I'll read that log later.


----------



## SwiftGroup (Jun 27, 2007)

*Swift response*

We can understand the potential confusion around motorhome occupancy and it would be clearer if we could conveniently equate berths to travelling seats. The problem is that it would not satisfy all customer requirements. When we first introduced the Bolero 680 it had only two berths (ie the rear double) but customers soon persuaded us to make the front seating convertible to another double to provide "flexible sleeping arrangements".

To help avoid confusion we state clearly in all our motorhome marketing information the number of designated passenger seats (ie with belts and correctly homologated) and refer to berths as "sleeping positions", implying a choice of which beds are used.

As pointed out on here, the front end of the Bolero 680 would adapt to a half-dinette with two extra travelling seats. The only reason we have not done that is that the 3.5 ton chassis is not sufficient for 4 people, luggage etc if the calculations are done correctly and honestly; that is the reason we have now introduced the Voyager 680FB on a 4 ton chassis. Before you dismiss it as just a low-line and not a genuine low profile, you should see it - the inside and outside are very impressive. Double check other brands who offer 4 seater versions - what is the genuine payload once the weight of two extra occupants, seat belt frame etc has been allowed for (officially about 200kg). Check how the payload is calculated and if variation in the ex factory weight has been allowed for in the MRO. Swift motorhomes are not inherently heavy, it's just that we are being honest by offering the 4 seater only on a 4 ton chassis.

Regards

Kath


----------



## some-where-in-oxford (Apr 18, 2006)

Steamdrivenandy said:


> A situation that some believe should be made illegal to avoid the risks should someone be tempted to carry more passengers than there are safety belts.
> 
> HTH
> 
> SDA


If it was made illegal, it would also be illegal to stand up on a bus?? For practical reasons when the seat belt laws were introduced there were many exceptions for not having to wear a seat belt.


----------



## aultymer (Jun 20, 2006)

A very clear explanation, wish more manufacturers would explain the design criteria in such terms.


----------

