PVC width

Q, don't forget that the cab occupies part of that 6.8m so the hab unit will be roughly 1m shorter.

There's no getting away from the fact that they are narrow inside. We move one at a time. It fair takes me back to the early days of caravanning when vans were so much narrower and shorter. I can't tell you how to manage in the reduced space because we all have our own ways of coping.

The model you're looking at is 6.836m, I believe, so you might as well consider the 7m Lunar on a Merc. Personally, I thing 6.5 is the absolute max for sensible use. Ours is 6m and, ideally, we would have liked 5.5.

As I keep saying, you really need to get out there and view some and test drive them. A paper/virtual exercise is just no comparison and your theory may well fall apart.

5.5 metres doesn't seem very big to me (as a caravaner) .... my car is only a couple of inches shorter than that at 5.2 m

at 6.8m this is a pretty large PVC, and I'm wondering what model this might be...is this the LWB Merc with this body length....loads at 6m and lunar Landstar at 7.1m....what's on the 6.8m platform?

depending on layout, there might be pinch points, usually between kitchen and washroom...

...and the long wheelbase might hinder manoevrability....

despite the 'full' width of the Stanton, I'd have put this as roomy as most PVC's and probably more manoevrable...

yes, in absolute terms the PVC is slimmer (and this really does help) I would feel that much extra length might undo some of that advantage.

had you mentioned a 6m PVC I might have said it was 'overall' an easier drive (but not necessarily a better layout for your requiremnts) but at 6.8m I'm not so sure....

btw, I don't have a PVC but our 2.12m wide van is pretty slim compared to the Stanton....

It isn't very big, MM, which is why we bought a 6m.

The Crafter used by IH is 6.836m, BB.

The length will certainly hamper manoeuvrability. The RWD Sprinter, though, has a much smaller turning circle than the FWD Boxer/Ducato.

Given Q's penchant for the Merc, I can see no point in buying any PVC other than the Lunar if he wants something of that length. It wouldn't do for me, mind.

I really feel Q needs to experience PVCs 'in the flesh'.

even on the Sevel 5.4m version, a front lounge, rear kitchen van can work (like the Symbol....).

there are even some continental fixed rear bed vans (Adria, Malibu etc) on this platform...the compromise will be the kitchen/washroom, but for their usual market (outdoor cooking and lounging) it's the bed that's the important bit...

tiny vans in cold, damp UK weather may not work as well....

One of the Autotrail V Line models is on that 5.4m base. It's a rear lounge model but the bunks are only around 4ft long. It wasn't for us, much as we would have preferred the shorter wheel base.

yes, I was wondering which Merc conversion it was....of course this IH model is brand new....on the new Crafter...

i agree, one has to drive a few to start to get the feel of how the different widths and lengths affect the different aspects of driving...and even parking....

despite the cachet of the Merc chassis, there's no way I'd even look at a Lunar....I've been in a few at shows out of curiosity...it killed this cat

I’ve not even been in a Lunar so can’t comment on build quality etc. Just knowing it was 7m was enough to put me off. 

There are quite a number of slimline coachbuilts now so the orientation towards PVC is not quite so essential. The advantage of a coach built is that it gets you away from that sliding door. Probably warmer than PVC's too, a consideration in our iffy climate.