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
201
202 
The novice's view
Page 51
Page 52
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Before being press-ganged into joining our testers, the biggest vehicle
photographer Simon Everett had driven was a Ford Transit But as so
many hirers of 75-tonners are novices we make no apologies for that.
It looks are everything this quickly developed into a two-horse race, because the Oaf and Iveco are head and shoulders above the other three when it comes to exterior appeal. Climb into the cabs and the impressions remain the same: the open, clean layout of the modern Daf and Iveco cabs with their carefully designed ergonomics felt welcoming. Both had good driver access and well shaped seats that could be adjusted to conform to my peculiar back shape.
It wasn't until I got behind the wheel that the differences began to emerge. The LF is simple to drive. The gear change is slick and the clutch isn't too heavy. It also steered well, with positive feedback giving good control. The engine pulled willingly from low revs and I quickly got the measure of its torque characteristics. Visibility from the cab was good— in fact the LF scores well in most areas, except for the fact there was no support for my right elbow or forearm.
In the Iveco my first concern was the steering. It was so light that it was difficult to keep the vehicle in a straight line, which did not inspire confidence in this novice. In other respects, however, the Iveco shone. The engine had the little truck scampering away and once accustomed to the driveline's ability to take a change up early, the Iveco felt the quickest of the five trucks in this test group.
Light foot was needed
Certainly on the A-roads it wanted to go, even in top gear, and a light foot was required to stay within the speed limit. Holding 70mph on the motorway was never a problem. The engine brake was a useful feature which really came into its own on the sharp drop down into Much Wenlock.
The MAN is nothing to look at— basically a square box with a wheel at each corner. But climbing into the cab and shutting the door it is not as bad as you might expect. I immediately felt comfortable and the window ledge is exactly in the right place for steering with a lazy arm. Mind you, after the Iveco the MAN felt sluggish The engine is less frenetic, more steady carthorse than stampeding stallion. Once on the move, however, I found the speed over the ground to be quite acceptable. The steering is more precise than the Iveco, if heavier. The MAN scored maximum points for the quietness of the cab; I got out still able to hear myself think.
The Renault was bland and characterless. From the moment I opened the door it was obvious that it had been through the rental mill. The seats, though not tatty or torn, were well worn and there was the smell of hard work within the cab, which was strictly functional. This veneer of mediocrity actually hid a number of useful features, like the radio controls on the steering column.
The engine felt very flexible and driveability was enhanced by well chosen gear ratios. The steering was precise, but the cab bounced about a bit too much for my liking the pedals rattled on the soles of my foot when the going got bumpy. But my abiding memory of the Renault is overbearing noise.
The Mercedes had an extra cog in the transmission which, once installed in my memory, gave an added dimension to motorway work. The ride was firm but compliant with the road surface and there was none of the head-banging of the Renault. In fact it was hard to find fault apart from the weight of the clutch and the sloppy gearchange. On more than one occasion I found it a real struggle to get the gears to mesh and had to pull hard on the stick to get the selection to go home, even with a dab on the throttle when going down the box. So it's not my first choice, but then it wouldn't be the one left unpicked for the team either.
If I had to pick a truck to hire for the day from this line-up I would choose the Daf LF, simply because it was the easiest to get to know and I felt confident and comfortable. The one I would not relish having to drive again was the Iveco, simply for that wayvvard steering that left me uneasy behind the wheel.
Winners and losers
With any group test there have to be winners and losers and it was soon pretty clear which trucks were going to fall into which categories. At the weighbridge the Mercedes Atego copped its first black mark; it was the heaviest of the trucks on test even without a tail-lift fitted. The bodywork fitted to the Mercedes was from an unfamiliar bodybuilder (Richard Wilkinson of Clitheroe) and these bodies may have included more metal than the offerings from JCP or Boalloy which graced our other test trucks.
That said, the Atego has always carried a few extra pounds in chassis-cab form so it was never going to win any slimming championships. Of the other four, only the Daf was without a tail-lift, though it did have a sleeper cab. and despite the LF's lightweight chassis-cab it tipped the scales 160kg heavier than the MAN LE, confirming that there's some life left in the old dog. We'll have to wait to see if the new TGL will be able to match its competitors at the scales.
Top for performance
For performance the Iveco scoops top spot, though that's the only category where it can lay claim to top honours. The gutsy Tector motor ensured it was swiftest up all the hills; it surprised all our testers with its effortless acceleration.
Contrast that with the performance of the MAN and Mercedes: the former could barely make 70mph while the Merc's performance inadequacies were only partially hidden by that extra cog in its gearbox.
The Renault's performance wasn't worthy of mention, but its fuel economy earned it top marks, which surprised us all.
The Renault engine has never wowed us in our normal roadtests, but here it has come out ahead of the pack, though chased hard by the Daf.
The MAN would no doubt have given a stronger showing with a wind deflector fitted to the cab, so we'll go easy on the little German. No such excuses for the Mere or lveco, however; neither of them made a particularly favourable impression. The overall opinion among our testers appears to favour the British-built Oaf LF. It got our vote for its ail-round driveability, performance and fuel economy, coupled to the dnveabillty which is such an important factor in a vehicle destined to be driven by novices. Little wonder it's been pushing lveco so hard for top spot In the sales rankings.
Renault was let down by its in-cab ruse and uncomfortable ride; Iveco blotted its copybook with ponderous handling, while the fortunes of Mercedes and MAN will hopefully be improved by the arrival of new models superseding those we tested,