1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200 
Results
11th September 2003, Page 63
11th September 2003
Page 63
Page 63, 11th September 2003
— Results
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
First, the expected results: the 8x4 used much less fuel— in fact,mpg was improved by some 34.5%, and payload was 8,735kg better on six axles at 44 tonnes It takes the 8x4 a further three trips to match the tractor in delivered payload, which meant 4.5 more hours and an extra 18.2 litres. Productivity is improved by 8.8% per delivery at 44 tonnes. Average speed between the two is pretty close; although there were a few hold-ups with the rigid test trip, delays were marginal. O