M•B SPRINTER 3100 Price as tested: £20,369 (ex-VAT). Includes £19,100
Page 52
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
for the basic vehicle, £1,082 for the high roof and £187 for the bulkhead. Engine: 2.9-litre, charge-cooled, direct-injection turbo-diesel, 102hp (75kW).
GVW: 3,500kg. Payload: 1,260kg. Fuel consumption (laden): 25.6mpg (11.051it/100km).
At the time of its launch in May 1995, the MercedesBenz Sprinter range included two diesel engines. While the 312D (122hp/90kW) created some controversy with its ability to shatter the UK speed limit by a huge margin, the 308D variant (78hp/58kW) went to the other extreme with acceleration that could be measured with the aid of a diary.
It soon became obvious that a middle road was needed, and this was provided last year with the introduction of a 102hp (75kW) model.
III PRODUCTIVITY The van tested here is the medium (3.55m) wheelbase variant with the high-roof option, giving a load volume of 10.4m3. Payload with a 75kg driver aboard is 1,260kg. It's fitted with unglazed rear doors and a full bulkhead. The loadspace floor and walls have a wooden lining and the usual substantial lashing rings are fitted. Also, 270° opening rear doors (a £333 option on the 308D) are standard on the 310D.
The laden fuel consumption over CM'S Kent test route was 25.6mpg (11.051it/100km), some way off the class-leading figures of the 312D. But our van had fewer than 600 miles on the clock, and we would expect some improvement with age. Proving the adage that a good big'un will beat a good little'un, fuel consumption improves through the range as power increases. • ON THE ROAD While the power output of the 310D is roughly midway between the two extremes (see box), the performance figures definitely tend towards the 312D.
Nice as it may be to have the 312D's generous surplus of power on tap, the constant need to hold it in check, particularly when unladen, can become tiresome. The 310D is much more relaxing to drive, and rarely leaves the driver wishing for more grunt. Our M20 hill climb, some three miles long, saw the laden test van losing nine seconds to its more powerful brother. A brief drop into fourth gear was needed for the steepest bit, but overall journey times are unlikely to be far apart.
Handling is also improved by the ability to accelerate out of bends "without having to allow for broken traction. The traction control fitted as standard only to the 122hp versions is not really missed on the 310D. The brakes still display the characteristic long pedal travel common to all the Sprinter and Volkswagen LT variants we have driven.
Sadly, we have to report that for the first time we can recall, a Mercedes suffered a mechanical problem. Halfway through the test period the power steering system intermittently failed to provide assistance at engine idling speed. This was initially diagnosed as air in the system, which was failing to self bleed. While any machine can fail, it's the way that failures are dealt with that matters, and on this occasion the Mercedes organisation impressed. The van was left with the dedicated van specialists Malaya Gatwick, at closing time on the day of the failure. A new power steering pump was fitted by 10:00hrs the following day, although they suggested keeping it for another couple of hours to ensure that the problem wouldn't return.
• SUMMARY So you've decided to buy a 3.5tonne Sprinter—which engine should you specify? Mercedes' figures for 3.5-tonner sales show the approximate mix of 308D, 310D and 312D to be in the proportion of four, five and one. Unless your operations are never likely to take you out of town, we would advise you to think seriously before buying the 308D, which struggles to keep up with open road traffic. If you live on motorways, with a full load in the back most of the time, then you need the autobahn-storming 312D, which is proving to many high-performance van operators that petrol engines are not essential any more.
But for give-and-take everyday operations in a varied environment, in the best traditions of compromise, we would recommend the middle way.
by Colin Barnett