• Home
• Used vehicles
• Product news
• Dealer news
• Compliance
• Buying advice
• Archive

1986's roadtesting crop critically sifted

• Commercial Motor's

roadtesters are frequently asked to name their favourite vehicles. We usually avoid a direct answer to that question, mainly because we think it inappropriate to treat CVs like cars or pop records by putting them in some general order of preference when the jobs they are designed to do vary so much.

We therefore treat with deep suspicion any exercise which, for example, attempts to compare panel vans with 38 tonners with 16 tonners, In each roadtest we aim to pick out the subject vehicle's strong and weak points to help guide the operator in his purchasing decision, but it is bound to be the operator himself who ultimately will be in the best position to judge whether a particular vehicle will suit him.

We have no wish to be accused of being interminable fence-straddlers, however, so when it came to reviewing our tests of the past twelve months we decided that we would make some choices, while ensuring that we compared like with like. In order to do this we divided the 65 vehicles fully roadtested in 1986 (not including driving impressions) into ten categories. These are: three-axle 38 tonne tractive units; twoaxle 38 tonne tractive units; two-axle 32.5 tonne tractive units; multi-axle rigids; up-to-16.26 tonne rigids; vans and chassis cabs of 3.5 to 7.5 tonnes; panel vans up to 3.5 tonnes; car-derived vans; and two PSV categories: touring coaches and urban buses. We tested six offroad vehicles last year but because these are so specialised we decided against making any award for this category.

Then we listed the subject headings under which we would rate the vehicles in each category. These headings are: productivity (derived from fuel consumption, average speed and payload); driverappeal; fleet engineer or transport manager-appeal; safety (a broad heading encompassing ride and handling and braking, for example, as well as passive safety features): value-formoney and innovation. In the PSV categories the judging criteria clearly had to be modified slightly and included passenger-appeal and body style.

The next part of the exercise was getting all Commercial Motor's testers out of driving seats for long enough to sit around a table and discuss, even argue over, which vehicles we would choose.

In most of the categories a short list of three was established with little difficulty, then the discussion became increasingly lively as we systematically pitted one against another to arrive at the winners.

PSV: URBAN BUSES

• On the London urban bus test route our three test vehicles provided radically different solutions to meeting public transport needs in the over-50-passengers class.

With its £47,500 price tag the Bedford YMT with Wrights IT bodywork would have continued to provide unbeatable value for money if its production had not so abruptly come to an end. The only real disadvantage we found with the YMT was a relatively high step height necessitated by its mid-engined layout.

With its capacity of 53 seated and eight standing passengers, our Bedford (which was fitted with an Allison fullyautomatic transmission) could well have proved a deregulation winner if it had been given the chance. Its demise has left an obvious gap in the market.

The 20-year-old AEC Routemaster is a winner purely in terms of cost per passenger carried. With its 69passenger capacity and 26.6fit/100km (10.6mpg) fuel consumption, the Routemaster could still make economic sense for some operators despite needing a crew of two.

Overall, however, our favourite urban bus tested was Leyland's Lynx. With its modern European look, 73-passenger capacity and 260,500 price tag the Lynx clearly has a lot going for it.

We were impressed not only by its looks but also by the thought which clearly went into its design. As well as be

PSV: TOURING COACHES

Touring roads contenders Def ACE Puma Hestair Duple integral Scania K92

Setra 215 HRI integral Testers' choke: Seim VISHRI • Commercial Motor took four touring coaches around its revised Scottish test route in 1986 and all had plenty to offer. Despite a relatively high purchase price, however, the Setra 5215HRI from Kassbohrer has been deemed best of the bunch with Plaxtons' Scania K92 coming a close second.

The most disappointing touring coach tested during the year was the Duple integral 425. With its high seating capacity, aerodynamic design and integral strength, this model should eventually prove a world beater. On our test, however, two unrelated breakdowns and a disappointing level of finish let it down. Nevertheless it is very quiet, rides well and is pleasant to drive.

The little ACE Puma with its high-floor Van Hool Alizee body is a well-appointed small tourer that performed perfectly.

With its mid-mounted Daf MT engine and ZE 56-65 gearbox it provides big coach standards of comfort and performance for its driver and 31 passengers. Its average fuel consumption at 27.411k/100km (10.3mpg) and £63,829 price tag make it a fairly expensive proposition in terms of price per passenger carried, The Scania K92 with its tenspeed computer-aided gearchange proved an attractive coach. It handled well, was acceptably quiet and operated economically. The Plaxtons body is well finished and comparable with its continental rivals; our only criticisms were minor and the fuel con

sumption of 27.151itJ1001trn (10.4mpg) is perfectly adequate for a 53-seater.

Even with a price tag of £92,000 we found the bottomof-the-range Setra S2151112I to be at the top of the class in tourers this year.

Its overall fuel consumption of 26.151it/100km (10.8mpg) is very good for a 53-seater and the level of finish and attention to detail in the coachwork was as good as anything we have seen.

In terms of safety, details such as the heated door and driver's signalling windows and mirrors; its anti-lock ABS braking system, Voith retarder and exhaust brake all impressed us. So did body, electrical and mechanical systems accessibility of the coach.

The Setra's heating and ventilation system was able to keep the coach free of condensation and the entire length of the saloon at a uniform temperature. Other plus points include easily-replaceable corner panels and a well laid out driving compartment with such impressive details as the steering wheel centre doubling as a desk top with clips.

CAR-DERIVED VANS

IN In the conunercial vehicle market, Only the light commercial vehicle up to 1.8 tonnes and 4x4 sectors have shown any growth in 1986. The car-derived-van market

forms a major part of the upto-1.8 tonnes LCV sector, and judging by the new products being offered by a number of manufacturers, the significance of that growth has not been lost on them.

The diesel content of the CDV market has also been rising, from just 2.3% in 1982 to 32.3% in 1985. It is in this area that the manufacturers have concentrated their collective attention. The new generation of direct injection, high revving small diesel engines, epitomised by the Austin Rover/Perkins Prima engine, has been challenged by super efficient pre-chamber diesel engines using the well-tried "Comet" pre-chamber system from Ricardo — now in its 51st year.

Of the ten vehicles tests in the CDV sector the shortlist comprised the Austin Rover Maestro 500 City diesel, the Bedford Astramax 560L petrol van and the Renault Extra diesel van.

The Maestro van is the replacement for the old Marina van, and has been around for a few years now.

The engine, however, is the new two litre DI diesel, jointly developed by AR and Perkins. It marks a watershed for small diesel engine design, as well as providing the Maestro with a much-needed diesel option.

Bedford's Astramax celebrated its first birthday in August last year. The stylish wind-cheating body offers up to 24% more payload than the standard Astra van, and is coupled with GM's high revving 1,300cc petrol engine.

'Derived from the Renault 5, with the same front wing pressings and driveline combinations, the Renault Extra diesel offers a distinctive box body, with the unique solution to the problem of carrying long loads; the roof flap continued over from the old 4F6 van.

The 1.6 litre IDI diesel engine surprised us with its power and economy, and with a price premium of only 270 the low break-even point makes the diesel an attractive option.

With its payload of 625kg, the Astramax scored heavily against the Maestro and Extra's half-tonne payloads.

For speed and fuel economy around the light van test route, however, the Maestro led the way, with a laden figure of 5.68 lit/100km (49.7mpg) at 79.9 km/hr (46.5mph).

No other vehicle in this class can achieve a laden figure of under 61it/100km. The Extra achieved 6.51it/100km (43mpg) at a speed of 68.1km/hr (42.3mph). The Astramax, with its petrol engine, achieved 7.791it/100km (36.25mpg) at a speed of 73.5km/hr (45.7mph).

Head restraints, a steel half bulkhead and good brakes and handling gave the Astramax top marks for safety. The others gained marks for their load restraint devices, but ultimately lost out for offering safety items only as options on the basic van.

The low price of the Extra — over £700 cheaper than the Maestro and 21,000 cheaper than the Astramax — and the reasonable price of spares gave the Renault the lead in the value-for-money stakes.

The little French van lost Out, however, in fleet engineering appeal against the Astramax and the Maestro, both of which have large fleet popularity in Britain.

All the vans gained marks for innovation; the Maestro for its engine, the Astramax for its high load volume and sleek shape, and the Extra for the continued use of the roof hatch for long loads.

For driver-appeal the Astramax gained the most points, with the Maestro and Extra close behind. When the points were tallied it was the Maestro that held the lead. The van with the 1930's cinemastyle grill and the world beating engine is a worthy tester's choice in this category. • Sales of panel vans up to 3.5 tonnes took a bit of a downturn in 1986. Ford replaced its 20-year-old Transit and other manufacturers failed to fill the gap left by initial buyer resistance to the new shape Ford or the early shortages of the Southamptonbuilt van.

We tested 12 vans in this category; the final shortlist consisted of the new Ford Transit in its 100L guise with the 2.5 litre diesel engine; the Talbot Express 1500 LWB diesel van; and the Toyota LiteAce with the 1.5 litre petrol engine.

The larger Transit vans were not shortlisted because of their relatively low payload and high price, compared with their contemporaries in the 3.5 tonne sector. The excellent performance of the diesel version made the 100L single rear wheel, short-wheelbase, 2.6 tonne version the best of the Transits, and a worthy shortlist candidate.

The Talbot Express is a 3.1 tonne gross weight version of the Sevel-built van, with a high roof and the 2.5 litre Citroen diesel engine mounted transversely, driving the front wheels. A low price and a massive load volume qualified this van for the shortlist.

The Toyota LiteAce and the Nissan Vanette are 'compact' panel vans, designed to fill a perceived gap between the car-derived-van and the conventional panel van markets. The diesel Vanette did not impress with its lack-lustre performance, and the Toyota LiteAce won the final place in the shortlist.

Aimed at local traders, the LiteAce is only as long as a Ford Escort, yet has a payload that would put many larger vans to shame.

Neither the Transit nor the Express has a particularly outstanding payload for the class. The LiteAce, with its lightweight construction, gained marks in this category. A lower overall gross weight also helped the LiteAce to speed round our Kent Light van test route at 70.3 km/h (43.7mph). The Transit only achieved 67.6 km/h (42mph); the Express managed 61.27krn/h (38mph).

The LiteAce's relatively thirsty petrol engine and worse fuel consumption give it a much poorer consumptionper-tonne figure than either the Transit's 8.08 lit/100km/tonnes, or the Express's 8.991it/100kmitonnes.

Excellent brakes, visibility and handling gave the Transit and the LiteAce good marks for safety. The Express was let down a little by its brakes, but was well-liked nonetheless.

The relatively expensive Transit did not score heavily in the value-for-money section where the Express came top and the LiteAce second. The Ford did do well in fleet engineering-appeal, however, which reflects the buying policies of many light vehicle fleets in this country. Being

foreign in origin the Express and LiteAce did not do so well in the fleet-appeal category. The LiteAce was awarded innovation marks for its market positioning, the Express for its front engine/front-wheel-drive layout, and the Transit for its DI engine and wind-tunnel-developed shape.

The marks had been fairly evenly spaced up to this point. The LiteAce was first for speed, the Express was first in value for money and the Transit was first for fuel consumption.

The final criterion though, was driver appeal, and with its superb seats, pleasant overdrive gearbox and wellappointed interior the Transit set a standard that the others could not match.

VANS AND CHASSIS CABS: 3.5 TO 7.5 TONNES

• This category proved to be one of the most difficult to judge, largely because of the wide variety of the vehicles it incorporates. After several unsuccessful attempts to establish a shortlist we decided to mark each vehicle under all of our subject headings and see where that led us. To our initial surprise, it led to the Roadrunner coming out on top with the Dailys and Dodge sharing second place, followed by the 6091) and 709D Mercedes.

The strong driver appeal of the new Mercedes is more than outweighed by their relatively poor productivity and high retail prices, resulting in rather poor value for money. The two vehicles in this group which, with the same type of body and the same GVW are most directly comparable, are the Dodge S56 and the Mercedes 609D.

The Dodge beats the younger Mercedes on fuel. consumption, average speed and productivity, although its payload is not as good. Despite losing out on driverappeal with its ageing cab, the 50 Series just pipped the 609D in our scoring table. Those testers who drove the three Iveco Dailys we tested in May enthused about their driver appeal, which is reflected in the scoring. The Dailys also gained maximum points for fuel consumption and average speed. Had the Dailys we tested been plated above 3.5 tonnes — a weight at which they will soon cease to be sold following the Iveco Ford agreement — the final result in this category might well have been different, for the Nem lost most points on payload. The Roadrunner won this category mainly by virtue of its high marks for value for money, fleet engineer-appeal and payload. It was only on fuel consumption that the old 6.98 engine fell behind all its rivals. It will be interesting to see how the Cumminsengined Roadrunner fares in the 1987 Testers' Choice. TWO-AXLE RIGIDS: 7.5 TO 16.26 TONNES • There are five trucks in this category, and all but one, the Cargo 1115 with Allison automatic gearbox which we tested in August, are 16 tonners. Not surprisingly the 11 tonne GVW Cargo is not in the same productivity league as 16 tonners like the dropframe Daf 2100, Volvo FL6, ERF E6 or MAN 16.170, and so was eliminated early on from our deliberations. That left a rather long shortlist of four, from which the ERF eventually emerged as the clear winner.

We tried not to be too harsh in rating the Volvo FL6; it was, after ail, an in-service vehicle that we tested in April, but then so was the Daf FD 2100 DH dropframe which we tested in June.

On our score sheet the straight frame FL6 finished ahead of the dropframe Daf by a clear margin. The Volvo's strengths are its high average speed and value for money. We were not impressed by the driver-appeal of the new Volvo cab used on the FL6, giving it only a small lead over the soon-to-be-replaced Daf cab. In fleet engineer-appeal we put the Daf ahead of the Volvo, mainly as a result of its large capacity and lightly stressed engine compared with the much greater kW/litre rating of the Volvo engine. Even before we got down to detailed scoring it seemed likely that the tussle for the honours in this category would be between the excellent 16 thrillers from ERF and MAN, and so it turned out.

The 16.170's final points tally was comfortably ahead of the Volvo, thanks mainly to better fuel consumption, payload and fleet-engineer appeal. What surprised us was how far ahead of the MAN 16.170 the ERF's score turned out to be. Under each of our subject headings there was little to choose between these two vehicles but in every category except payload we reached the conclusion that the ERF is marginally the better choice.

At the heart of the E6's success is the excellent matching of its new Cummins 6B1'A-180 engine with the even newer Eaton 4106 six-speed synchromesh gearbox.

This driveline, completed with a Rockwell single reduction drive axle, enabled the ERF to chalk up average speed and fuel consumption results which no twelve-speed 16 tonner we have tested can match.

ERF has in the past made mistakes with its 16 tonners. This time it seems to have got it right with a vengeance.

MULTI-AXLE RIGIDS

• Cummins' 10 litre engine has had a major impact on the six and eight-wheeler tipper market since its introduction four years ago and this is strongly reflected in our 1986 tipper tests. Of the five tippers tested, three are L10powered; the Seddon Atkinson 301 eight-wheeler and six-wheeler, and the Iveco Ford Cargo 2424.

The two vehicles vying with these for the title of top tipper are the newlyintroduced Mercdes-Benz 3025K and the Bedford 8.2 litre six-wheeler, the TL2440.

To be as fair as possible in drawing up a short-list we separated the eight-wheelers from the six-wheelers. That put the Seddon Atkinson R30 L25 301 8x4 up against the Mercedes 3025 and our testers had no hesitation in choosing the Seddon Atkinson from this pair.

To make up for its poor fuel consumption of 42.51it/100km (6.65mpg) over our new tipper test route compared with the 301's 33. 7lit/100km (8.38mpg), the Mercedes would need to offer some exceptional attributes in other areas, and it fails to do so. Indeed its chassis cab kerb weight is relatively high, as is common with this marque, and this will be a significant disadvantage to many payload-conscious tipper operators.

Nevertheless, we did like the 3025's suspension package, and its lightly stressed big vee-eight naturally-aspirated engine. The Seddon Atkinson scores on productivity but its spartan, aged cab lacks driver-appeal.

If the 301 is our clear favourite among the eightwheelers we tested last year, our choice in six-wheelers is even clearer. When we tested the Iveco Ford Cargo 2424 in December we said: "Prospective buyers will certainly have to look far to find a six-wheeler to match its performance. . . it is the fastest most fuel efficient example of its type" that we have tested.

Accordingly our two finalists in the multi-axle rigid category are the Seddon Atkinson 8x4 301 and the Cargo 2424, both with the 180kW version of the Cummins 10-litre engine.

On safety and fleet engineer appeal we could not separate the two finalists and we put the Cargo ahead by the smallest of margins in value for money. On fuel consumption, average speed and driver appeal, however, the Cargo is well ahead of the 301, although this situation is reversed in the payload category. The net result of this is that the Cargo 2424, a model which went into production last October, is the winner in the multi-axle rigid category.

UP-T0-32.5 TONNE TRACTIVE UNITS

• Last year's crop of tested tractive units below 38 tonnes GCW was meagre indeed, comprising two 32.5 tonners and a solitary 28 Written We were not impressed with the Bedford TL 28 tonner, despite its fancy

Techliner aerodynamic package. The TL's average fuel consumption of 41.7 lit/100km (6.78mpg) around the Commercial Motor medium weight test route was disappointing and a choppy ride from the short wheelbase tractor did nothing for its driver-appeal. The TL's performance was "barely middling" we said, and that means it is not in the same class as the Volvo FL7 and Leyland Cruiser 16.26.

Such was the reputation of the FL7's predecessor, the F7, as a highly productive 32 tonner that those of us who remembered it thought the Cruiser would stand little chance in any comparison with the FL7. As we systematically compared the two trucks, however, we were soon reminded how times change.

The FL7 is not as light as might be thought; in fact its payload is virtually the same as that of the Cruiser 16.26, so they were equally matched under this heading. The 6.7 litre Volvo engine is more fuel efficient than the 11.1 litre TL11C Leyland unit, but its lower power and torque lead to longer journey and hill climb times, so where the Volvo gained points for fuel economy, the Cruiser regained them for average speed.

We spent a lot of time talking about the relative merits of the Cruiser and FL7 under the heading of driverappeal. The consensus was that while the newer FL7 cab is attractive, there is no getting away from certain disadvantages such as the rather cramped driver's compartment which results from the cab's low mounting.

Eventually we gave the Cruiser a slight lead on driver appeal, simply on its hill climbing ability. The Cruiser was a dear winner on value-formoney but engineer-appeal caused another lengthy discussion on the relative merits of the Leyland and the Volvo. The lower cost of Leyland's parts, at least those we list, finally tipped the balance in the Cruiser's favour. Overall, the Cruiser beat the FL7 by a comfortable margin.

38 TONNEILS: TWO AXLE

• For several reasons the 38 tonne category of testers' choice proved to be by far the most difficult to judge, partly because of the sheer number of trucks involved: 13 in the past twelve months comprising seven two-axle units and six three-axle units.

After some deliberation we decided that these two categories had to be judged separately. That should have made it somewhat easier to pick out the wheat from the chaff, but a major problem that confronted us is that among modern 38 timers there really is no chaff.

We were not prepared, however, to have 13 winners in this weight category, so on into the small hours went the discussion.

On me basis of productivity (payload multiplied by average speed divided by fuel consumption in litres per 100Ian) two two-axle 38 formers, the Foden 5104 with Caterpillar ATAAC engine and the MAN 16.331, were eliminated. That left a shortlist of five: Leyland's Roadtrain 17.34, Iveco Ford's Cargo 3828, Dafs FTG 3600 ATi, Volvo's FL10, and Renault's R340.

The Roadtrain was particularly difficult to mark because of the weather problems we encountered during its test which forced us to leave our normal route. Nonetheless we had established that the Perkins 340Li Eagle-engined truck with Eaton Twin Splitter was fast but thirsty, and has bags of driver-appeal.

The 38 tonne GCW version of the Ford (now lveco Ford) Cargo tractive unit with Cummins LTA10-290 engine which had been promised for so long was introduced just before last year's Motor Show.

After the unfortunate experiences some operators had with the Deutz-engined Cargo 32 tonner there will be those who find it difficult to take any Cargo seriously as a top weight tractive unit. They may be surprised to see the Cargo in a shortlist with such illustrious names as Daf, Volvo, and Renault Vehicules lndustriels (RVI).

They will be even more surprised to learn that the Cargo beat all these to become the testers' choice of two-axle 38 tonners for 1986.

The fact is that the 3828 Cargo is one of the most productive 38 tonne tractive units available, thanks to a combination of very high payload and first rate fuel economy.

On average speed over demanding roads it cannot five with more powerful rivals like the Daf 3600 or Renault R340 but that is not at all surprising. While the Cargo cab is cramped compared with the big Renault, Daf or Leyland cabs, it is a thoughtfully designed workplace which we reckon is by no means uncomfortable. We marked the Cargo behind the Leyland, Daf and Renault on driver-appeal, but on a par with the day cab It was the day-cabbed Volvo FL10 which ran the Cargo closest, finishing behind it by the smallest of margins.

38 TONNERS: THREE AXLE

• Here again we used productivity as a means of whittling down the list of six contenders to a shortlist of three: the Renault G290, MAN 20.331 and Daf 2800.

Of all the three-axle tractive units we tested last year the Renault's productivity stands head and shoulders above the rest owing to a remarkable average fuel consumption of 37.31it/100km (7.57mpg) and an equally remarkable payload of 24.95 tonnes. Having seen how the most productive unit in our two-axle category had taken the honours we began to think that the Renault's victory in this category would be a formality.

Nevertheless we carefully moved down our list of criteria, sharing points between the Renault, Daf and MAN as we went.

The result came as another surprise.

The Daf beat the Renault which in turn beat the MAN.

Although the Daf lost out to the Renault on fuel consumption and payload, it gained ground on average speed and particularly value-for-money.

The most telling factor in the Dafs favour, however, was its all-round ability. In the categories where it was behind either the MAN or the Renault, it was not very far behind. Its exemplary ride, handling and braking helped it to score heavily under safety.