VOLKSWAGEN RAZORBACK
Page 28
Page 30
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
'PRICE AS TESTED: £19,703 (ex-VAT) including £13,040 for the chassis-cab and .£5,736 for the Razorback conversion. ENGINE: 2.5-litre DI charge-cooled turbo-diesel. GYVI: 3,300kg. PAYLOAD: 925kg (including 75kg driver). FUEL CONSUMPTION (laden): 32.5mpg (8.71it/100km).
It's taken a long time to get our hands on a Razorback. But at last, two years after it first appeared on the UK market, this unique Australian design has come in from the outback and arrived
at Commercial Motor. So off we popped to the nearest Harley dealer to borrow one of their bikes and take full advantage of the Razorback's potential. Could they give a XXXX for anything else?
ftermarket conversions come in all shapes and sizes, but the Volkswagen Transporter Razorback takes things a little bit further than your average mobile workshop or Truckman bolt-on body. This van, with backing and full guarantees from Volkswagen, is the only vehicle we know of with a load bay that lowers to the ground.
You probably already know this but it bears repetition, because this is a truly innovative design offering a number of operational advantages—the sort of idea that makes you take a couple of steps back and say to yourself "Why didn't I think of that?".
Put the Razorback next to an unadapted neighbour from the Transporter range and the resemblance is there. But its musclebound haunches mark it out as the meanlooking member of the family; an image helped by the blackened rear window, striking logo and street ninja-style name.
The major changes are all behind the cab. Diagonal trailing-arm suspension is whipped out and replaced by independent, coil-sprung trailing arms with gas filled shocks. The exhaust is lopped off after the first box and a redesigned system is bolted on, complete with catalytic converter and gas re-circulation, which emerges midway down the loadbay on the drivers' side.
U-section chassis rails are retained for rigidity and house the split handbrake cable that runs either side of the body before meeting at a T-bar equaliser at the back. Crossmembers are removed and the hydraulically powered steel loadbay installed that is the whole point of this conversion. The hydraulics run off the standard VW battery; automatic transmission fluid is pumped through four cylinders to ensure even lowering (patent applications are pending).
This set-up is mounted behind one of two lockable panels on the sides of the van which add to the girth and give the Razorback the hunched look of a bare-knuckle fighter. The other panel, on the passenger side, houses the spare wheel which is moved from its traditional home underneath at the back, while a loadbed-position warning light and alarm are wired up to the cab. Other than these changes, and some heavier-duty parts induding pivot and wheel bearings, the van uses the standard kit that comes with the chassis-cab, from gear ratios to brakes.
The Razorback is offered in high-roof, standard-roof and pickup variants with three engine choices—a 2.5-litre petrol and two 2.5litre diesels, both turbocharged and one charge-cooled to boot_
Power ranges from 88hp at 3,600rpm for the standard diesel to io2hp at 3,500rpm for the charge-cooled version and ii,thp at 4,500rpm for the petrol model. Torque is 195Nm for the less powerful diesel and 25oNm for the top baby, both spread between Lgoo and 2,500rpm, while the petrol can deliver up to 200Nm at 2,2oorpm.
All in all, the Razorback conver -, sion costs15,736 over the price of a chassis-cab. A similar payload Vito costs around £5,000 less while the hefty Transit 150 we tested recently is £3,000 lighter on the pocket.
PRODUCTIVITY
Eye-catching is an adjective that is easily and too frequently bandied about. But when the driver of a (hardly inconspicuous) Ford Transit Flareside almost rear-ends a Citroen Saxo as he stares wide-eyed and slack-jawed at the Razorback, it makes you realise you're driving something different. When we took it to our friendly local Harley-Davidson dealership to demonstrate its virtues and borrow one of their beasts we were waylaid by admiring passers-by. We even gave a pair of print work owners and prospective customers Razorback's phone number (we wouldn't object to a to% finder's fee on that sale). This kind of attention may eat into your tumround times.
So what did the Harley-Davidson dealer think of the Razorback? Once the initial shock and disbelief had worn off the response was, well, unambiguous."****ing cool," said the main man, nodding his head in approval, "but it could do with being a lot bigger." A bogstandard Transit, he pointed out, will take two of his beasts side by side rather than the lonely one we wheeled in.
The Razorback is a little like a Tardis in reverse: smaller on the inside than it looks on the outside. But how much smaller?
Razorback claims it's wider than a normal van in the place that matters, between the wheelarches. Because the wheelarches are outside the loadbay area the Razorback offers Gomm more than its standard sibling down the length of the loadbay. It is momm narrower than a standard Transporter at its widest point, but the Razorback team say this space is rarely used.
It's 85mm higher than standard, at 1,500mm, but also 37omm shorter, which means the van has an overall load space of 3.3m5 (down by 1.3m2), and it loses 1.5m3 in volume, with 4.8m3 to fill. However, this volume is the same as the admittedly smaller Vito, and not too far behind the Transit.
A carrying capacity of well-nigh a tonne (925kg including CM's standard-issue 75kg driver) brings the Razorback to a very important benchmark. Cynics might predict that with all the gadgets and adaptations the van would be a few kilos short of a decent load, but it clearly isn't.
And it's undeniably useful. Rolling a bike on, or a fridge, or a couple of pallets, is easy. The hydraulics never complain and it's a matter of minutes before you're off again. Razorback lists an A to Z of uses from "amusements and leisure" (fruit machines) to "zinc and alloy product movers" (X is for X-ray apparatus). And it is true that many more businesses than motorcycle retailers could easily find a genuine use for it.
Mind you, with the floor on the ground it can be difficult to judge if you will have enough headroom as you raise the bed. A kind of Plimsoll line on the side of the load bay would be handy to help judge this (and could easily be added with a marker pen).
The Razorback has a beefy 3,300kg GVV/, compared with the standard Transporter's 2,800kg, so you might expect fuel consumption to suffer. In fact it was a little better than the last equivalent-engined version we drove, giving us 32.5mpg (8.7tit/roolcm).
ON THE ROAD
A lot of work was put into keeping the Razorback rigid at the rear and the ride it gives is almost as good as you would expect from a standard Transporter. Roll round corners is nothing to be concerned about and responsiveness is up to scratch. If anything the van under-steers but weighting from the power rack-and-pinion is good.
Feel at the front seems unchanged by the mechanical shenanigans at the rear, but the van's higher overall weight inevitably hits performance. From 0-50mph the Razorback loses three seconds on the standard Transporter, crossing the line in i6sec; it's 5.5sec slower from 30-50mph, at i2.9sec. Both the hill climbs we make around our Kent route were interrupted by traffic on the laden run, but the unladen times point to a bit of slog up the slopes.
To be fair, however, while the Razorback is no rocket ship, it's not bad.
Brakes failed to impress, with long stopping distances, but the van was under control throughout. The handbrake, which is routed around the loadbay, is a hell of a heave to pull on and was unable to hold on any test slope. Razorback says this shouldn't be a problem and is probably just a question of giving the callipers a quick clean.
The standard Transporter gearing has the right ratios for all conditions with easy changes marred a little by the stretch for the gearstick.
Razorback says it made a conscious decision not to isolate the engine when the floor was unlocked so the van could be moved quickly in case of emergency. A light on the dash shines red when the loadbay is not in the locked position and an alarm will sound if you try to drive the vehicle.
CAB COMFORT
Like all other Transporters, the Razorback has a functional and comfortable cab. Seats are supportive and the ventilation and heating will keep you happy in most situations the weather throws at you. Controls are in sensible positions and of sturdy design. The only difference with this cab is the indicator light, alarm and stiff hand-brake for the loadbay.
Visibility is good all round and a window is retained in the bulkhead and on the back of the loadbay area so drivers can keep a beady eye on the cargo.
It's odd, but the bulkhead doesn't seem to have cut noise as much as we might have thought. Decibel-meter tests gave results slightly worse than the 1997 Transporter test, but it still feels quieter, even if it measures differently.
The radio is good and storage is adequate— there's a cup holder and some space—but a cab this size should have a lot more.
SUMMARY
There's no way around it—the Aussies have come up with a real beaut of a design.
As a unique concept the Razorback is unbeatable value for money as far as we are concerned and a real option for many buyers.
It's an entirely new concept and little if anything of earth-shattering importance is sacrificed to gain the big leaps forward that it brings. It has useful space, handy weight carrying capacity, good handling and amazing presence on the road, We think the Razorback could pay dividends. if put to good use.
• by Peter Lawton
YOLKS WAGEN
RAZORBACK
SPECIFICATION
MODEL Volkswagen Transporter Razorback. Design 1111W: 3,300kg.
Importer: Volkswagen (UK), Yeomans Drive, Blakelands, Milton Keynes, Bucks MK14 SAN; and Razorback Vehicles Corporation, PO Box 1396, Royal Leamington Spa, Warwickshire CV31 3YG.
ENGINE Cylinders: Five, in line. Bore/stroke 81x95.5mm. Capactty: 2,461cc.
Compression ratio: 9.5:1. Maximum net power: 102hp (75kW) at 3,500rpm.
Maximum net torque: 250Nrri (184Ibft) at 1,900-2,300rpm.
TRANSMISSION Ratios: 3.91, 2.12, t35, 0.97 and 0.73:1; reverse, 3.70:1.
Final drive: 391:1.
Clutch Hydraulically actuated, asbestos-free single dry plate.
BRAKING SYSTEM Disc brakes all round on dual hydraulic circuit. Brake dimensions: Front, 280x24mm; rear, 280x12mm.
STIEMNG Power-assisted rack-and-pinion.
GIMSSIS Steel longitudinal U-frame sections. Suspension: Front. independent with dual wishbones, longitudinal torsion bars, telescopic shock absorbers and stabiliser; rear, independent coil springs with trailing arms and gasfilled shock absorbers.
Axle design weights: Front, 1,570kt, rear, 1,800kg.
Design GM: 4,500kg; maximum braked trailer weight,1,200kg. Wheels and tyres: 6,1x15 steel wheels with 195/70R 15.0 tyres.
Fuel tar*: BO litres.
ELECTRICAL SYSTEM Battery:12V, 72Ah.
TERMS OF WARRANTY One-year unlimited distance, with sixyear anti-perforation cover and three-year paintwork cover. Driveline warranty in second and third year.
DEALERS AND SERVtGE POINTS VW has a network of 350 dealers in the UK.