Twelve ways of travelling light
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
3 a sign of the times that in s test year we've carried out less than 12 tests of vehicles the up to 7.5 tonne (7.38 ton) icket. Normally, this figure is ifer mainly because manufacers can sell all they can make. "hey rightly argue that a test ich shows vehicles in a good it will just increase demand id consequently operator frustion with long delivery des), while a poor test report is good to anyone.
3ut things have changed and it vehicles sales have been
of the hardest hit by the reision. Many users of these licles are not hauliers but all shopkeepers and the like o have delayed buying a new licle until things get better. kriill wind indeed blows no e any good, and these menuturers' problems have at least 3bled us to test more vehicles. 11/e started off with Tim Blakeire's initial test of the Transit This was a test with a difence. In addition to the nor1 full road test, we would be ?ping the van for about a year, tering, we hoped, around 000km (25,000 miles) and rerting on the outcome. It's a iasure of Ford's faith in its )duct that we could do this, )ecially as we chose the 'tide's specification.
3ack in January, the Transit s delivered with sliding front ors, tachograph and radio. a law of course doesn't reire a tachograph, as the insit has a gross weight of 70kg (2.04 tons), but we felt it .lessary for accuracy.
Na found the Transit easy to apt and to drive. Its 4.1sqm Isqft) of loadspace — corn)n to all short wheelbase insits — allowed a payload, iluding driver, of 775kg (15cwt r) on our test vehicle.
nstruments and controls, iich are laid out in the same 'le as Ford's cars, are easy to id, although the steering on r fully laden van was heavier in that of a car, but not excesely so.
fhe Transit started and pulled idily during the cold weather early January, thanks to an tomatic choke on its 1.6 litre trol engine. However, the Transit wasn't particularly economical on our light van route compared with its competitors but fully laden it returned 12.47 lit/100km (22.65mpg) at 48.51 km/h (30.2mph). This improved to 10.73 lit/100km (26.3mpg) at the faster speed of 51.08km/h (31.77mph) when unladen.
A light clutch which retains sensitivity and a slick four-speed gearbox with a well-placed lever were two more plus points for the van.
An effective handbrake — which works on the rear drum brakes — is controlled by a floormounted lever which was poorly placed and not in easy reach of the driver. Our Custom-Spec Transit had adjustable driver's seat, incorporating a height regulator. Sliding cab doors gave good access and they operate( smoothly.
Summing up, the "box or wheels" image of the Trans' makes people think it's large than its fellows. It's not, beim narrower than the Bedford ligh van and the Mercedes 2070 Overall, in spite of mino criticisms such as too small i fuel tank (42Iit) and an uncom fortable driver's seat, we founi the Transit still held its own fron an operator's point of view.
Next up was another Ford, thi: time the all new Escort 1.3 55 L Again, we have this vehicle or test for a year, but back in Feb ruary we carried out a full test o the van to coincide with it: launch.
The Escort is a total departun for Ford, offering front-whee drive and an engine which has ; hemispherical head and conpound valve arrangement called the CVH. It gave our tef van an excellent performanc (perhaps too good for the avei age boy racer?) and yet return& 8.1 lit/100km (34.7mpg) a 51km/h (31.8mph) laden an 7.4 lit/100km (37.7mpg) a 47.6km/h (29.6mph) unladen.
If performance was impref.