VAULTS
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
811R11711JES
When the Renault Trafic arrived in 1 981 we liked its load area, handlin. and price, but not its cab, noise or finish. It's •ained a facelift and a Sofim en•ine — but what else is new?
• Back in 1981 a fresh new face was to be seen zipping around city streets in the UK. With frontal styling seemingly inspired by the North face of Mont Blanc, drive being transmitted through the front wheels (zut alors!) and a large measure of French practicality, the Renault Trafic certainly set British one-tonne panel van buyers thinking.
Here at Commercial Motor we introduced our first Trafic road test as follows: "A front-wheel-drive light commercial is still something of a rarity in the UK, but Renault is confident it can break down our conservatism and score a hit with the Trafic range." Eight years on, Renault seems to have done just that — and with the launch of an updated range it aims to make the Trafic's second chapter more successful than the first.
The company is starting that second chapter from what has become a solid sales base. From 1,280 registrations in 1981, numbers rose year by year to a peak of 8,241 in 1985 before slipping a little, largely because of supply problems.
Sales were particularly strong in the first half of 1989, and the Trafic now seems to be well established as runner-up in the 1.8-2.6-tonne sector, ahead of the Leyland Daf 200 and the Bedford Midi, Part of this success could undoubtedly be traced to cut-throat pricing as stocks of the old Trafic were run down, but Renault has responded to cries of "unfair" from the competition by pitching the newcomer equally competitively.
The Trafic has been no stranger to Commercial Motor over the years: last year we ran the popular T1300D as a long-term test van. It was therefore a natural choice to pick its successor, the 114001), from the new range for road testing, to see whether our criticisms of the outgoing model had been attended to.
• BODYWORK
Time has been rather unkind to the Trafic. When first released it was rightly acclaimed for its bold wedge-shaped styling; eight years on the facelifted version is being criticised for apeing the Transit, which borrowed its streamlined profile from the Renault in the first place. Having said that, as our side-by-side picture shows, the two are now uncannily alike.
The chief motivation behind the less angular snout was not to improve the aerodynamics (though a small decrease in drag is claimed), but was rather to make room for the longer Sofim diesel engine used in the Trafic for the first time.
Enough of the front end: for the majority of operators, a much more important consideration is that the rear, load carrying section of the bodywork is unchanged. The front-wheel-drive layout permits an extremely low load floor, so the driver needs to lift goods by only 500mrn if the vehicle is empty, dropping to a minimal 410mm fully laden.
New wrap-around bumpers not only protect the back of the bodywork, but also provide a handy step to ease the climb aboard or to rest a load. Otherwise the bodywork is essentially as before. The steel-panelled high roof gives a full 1,900mm of headroom; the twin full-height rear doors give excellent access (opening to 900 or 180°), and tie-down eyes are fitted to assist with making cargo secure.
While the rlsrafic's good points have not been diminished, it is equally true that the bad aspects of the bodywork have been left uncorrected, Our chief moan concerns the hinged side-loading door. Since virtually all of the competition fit sliding doors (albeit often as an extra-cost option) it remains something of an oddity; installation difficulties apparently prevent Renault from fitting the sliding variety.
Not only is the door awkward to open in confined spaces, but the only way to stop the thing swinging about uncontrolled is to employ the catch on the passenger's door. Crucially, however, this relies on this door being shut; if it is not, the twc doors are free to crash into one another with inevitable results. Other black marks are for the absenco of any protection from flying parcels fo the passengers (the driver gets a tubula steel frame), the impractical roundel wheelarches in the load bed, the space robbing location of the spare wheel insidi the van, and the lack of a luton-type tra: over the driver (which would also providi additional bracing to the bodywork).
The T14001) offers 100kg more payloai than its T13001) predecessor thanks ti selectively uprated running gear. Our tes vehicle carried a net load of 1,340kg wit] a 75kg driver at the wheel.
Unfortunately for Renault, the nev model also has a hefty 200kg increase ii unladen weight, largely caused by till heavier Sofim diesel. This is not cause fo concern in itself, were it not for the fac that the extra load takes the high roc T1400D over the 1,525kg unladen weigh threshold for annual testing. While flee operators are unlikely to be concerned b this, the small businesses which tradi tionally form a substantial chunk of Trafi customers might look elsewhere.
• DRIVELINE Running at a gross weight of 2,700kg the T1300D, Renault's own 2,068cc ID diesel was having to work to the limit c its capabilities; low gearing disguised the situation at town speeds, but on the open road quick journey times were out of the question.
So the need was there for some more oomph, but in the absence of a more powerful diesel in its stable, Renault was forced to look outside for an engine to inject the Trafic with the get-up-and-go it deserved. Not surprisingly, the French company plumped for the 2.5-litre ID1 diesel manufactured by the Fiat-owned Sofim factory, an engine which Renault already uses in its larger Master van.
The cast-iron block/alloy head overhead-camshaft unit chosen is the 2,499cc variant fitted to the Fiat Ducato since the beginning of 1986. Installed in the Trafic it produces 57kW (76.5hp) at 4,200rpm and 166Nm (1221b1t) at 2,200rpm. Peak torque is thus a healthy 37% better than the smaller Renault diesel.
The new engine powers the front wheels through the same five-speed synchromesh gearbox used in earlier Trafics, though changes to the final drive and fourth and fifth gears leave the T1400D with slightly lower intermediates than the T13001), hut a higher fifth.
• PERFORMANCE
Our Trak was delivered with little more than 6001un on the clock, and still felt very tight. Despite this it was clear that the Sam engine had the guts to heave the laden van along in a way that was beyond the capability of Renault's diesel.
While we found the T1300D "underpowered and miserable" jostling for position on the M25, its successor can happily maintain the legal limit on motorways, needing fourth gear only on the steepest of inclines. Sadly, the extra performance comes at the expense of refinement, for the combination of engine and exhaust noise which echoes round the interior at speed is the ideal recipe for a headache; we recorded 84.5dB(A) at 112km/h (70mph).
Low gearing and plenty of torque mean that good progress can be made around town without recourse to the noisy top third of the engine's rev band. Dnvers won't find the gearbox particularly pleasurable to use, but given familiarity changes can be made through with decent speed. Our box was, however, spoiled by a faulty synchromesh on fifth gear.
• ECONOMY
Commercial Motor has tested two T1300s round our Kent fuel consumption route; the petrol variant returned an appalling 16.11it/100km (17.5mpg), while the diesel turned in a more acceptable 12.41k/100km (22.8mpg). The T1400D did not, therefore, have much to beat.
Given its ehance, the newcomer in fact equalled its diesel predecessor with an identical 12.41it/100km, and it was some 1.7km/h faster at 67.5km/h (42.0mph). Obviously, the Softm engine does not demand an unacceptable penalty for its superior performance, though in absolute terms its economy is nothing to shout about.
As far as maintenance costs are concerned Renault's network of 79 van centres is already familiar with the engine (from the Master), so operators can ex
pect no problems there. For those intent on doing their own minor jobs, matters look less rosy.
Under-bonnet access really is poor, with the fuel filter, air filter, fan belt and injectors all being awkward to reach without removing obstructions like the ventilation air intake first. Plastic under-trays beneath the engine and gearbox also need to be taken off before tinkering from below.
Even changing the oil filter entails diving in from above with a special strap spanner to remove the cartridge, which is mounted on the side of the block.
An interesting addition to the standard Renault warranty which could attract extra customers is a six-year anti-perforation guarantee, as is offered on Renault cars.
• HANDLING
Few operators doubt the handling qualities of front-wheel-drive nowadays, and the Trafic must get some of the credit for winning this acceptance. We remain impressed by its surekioted and failsafe road behaviour: our only criticism concerns the steering, which becomes heavy at parking speeds when the van is laden.
The ride is firm and well controlled, and the long wheelbase helps ensure that it does not deteriorate when the vehicle is unladen. Other good points are excellent stability at speed, and service brakes which slow the Trafic in a reassuring fashion even during panic stops.
• INTERIOR
II there is one area in which the Trafic is showing its age it is its driving environment. It is a pity that Renault has overlooked this side of things entirely — save for another variation on the rainbow coloured cloth seat trim, the addition of head restraints, and a steering wheel which, says Renault, doubles as a "writing desk".
At the risk of repeating ourselves, therefore, we feel bound to spell out our misgivings once again. Worst of all is the driving position, which suffers from small pedals severely offset to the left, and from a driving seat whose unusual springing offers little support in the normally accepted sense of the word.
The instrumentation and controls are as before, that is to say adequate, but it would be nice to have a clock. It would also be nice to have a more practical and attractive fascia moulding.
The fit and finish of the test vehicle also left something to be desired, with a broken trip meter, and a plastic moulding around the steering column which fouled the wheel until it broke away.
• SUMMARY
We approached ths test believing that Renault's 227 million spend on the Trafic's mid-life update had achieved something new and different. In the final analysis, however, it's more of a case of Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose.
The Trafic's good bits remain those which stood out eight years ago when the van hit the UK market: excellent load volume, class-leading low-loading height, reassuring road behaviour, and prices which make other manufacturers sit up and think.
But then again, the bad bits also remain: poorly designed side loading door, uncomfortable driving position, unsatisfactory noise levels at speed, and question marks over fit and finish have all cropped up all too regularly in Commercial Motor road test summaries.
For. those who have one of the 50,000 or so Trafics registered in the UK, however, the good clearly outweighs the bad. So if Renault continues its aggressive pricing — which it says it will — and if it manages to secure large numbers of righthand-drive vehicles from the factory — which it says it can — we see no reason why the Trafic will not continue to win sales at the expense of its competitors.
As for the new Sofim diesel, it is clearly the best option for those operators who regularly carry payloads of over a tonne. It has plenty of torque, is well established, and is as economical as the less powerful Renault it supplants (although it is beaten by some of its competitors.) Small businesses, however, should note that the TI4001) requires annual testing. 'L. by Peter Watt