Hitting an all-time low on weights?
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHILE production tolerances ensure that identical chassis do not always end up with identical weights, it would appear that in vying for sales in today's limited market some manufacturers' claims for low unladen weight are becoming as outrageous as some claims for power output were before British Standards and C & U Regulations intervened.
The following comparisons between your 1981 "Artic" road test findings and your specification tables (CM, May 9, 1981, and June 13, 1981) would seem to require answers from someone, especially when consideration is given to the fact that the specification table weights include spare wheel weights, and only two of the road test vehicles (MAN 16.240 and Leyland T45 Roadtrain) showed any evidence of spare wheels on photographs.
Spec. Road test weight weight Seddon Atkinson T17C29 5.16.2 6.8.2 Leyland Roadtrain 16.28 6.1.2 6.4.2 Leyland Cruiser 16.21 5.11.2 5.15.3 Mercedes 1628 532 6.3.2 6.14.0 MAN 16.240 FTS 5.16.2 6.6.2 ERF 35C2 LT 5.13.2 5.17.2
CM cannot escape all blame; the ERF 35C2LT road test (CMJuly 18, 1981) weighed 5,969kg on page 1 of the report with a 3/4 full-fuel tank; with a full tank on the specification page of the road test it weighed 5,969kg! J. A. MASON
Coine Lancashire The main reason for the differences between the kerb weights quoted in CM's specification tables and in road tests is that the weights shown in the tables do not include fifthwheel couplings, rear wings or suzies. On road test we weigh the tractive units in their ready road condition so the weights include all the above items.
But, as Mr Mason rightly points out this does not expla all the weight differences. A typical fifth-wheel coupling is unlikely to weigh more than 150kg (3cwt).
We have noticed a certain optimism in some manufacturers' quoted kerb weights and that is precisely why we now quote an actual weight for road test vehicles. There are so many specifications in our tables tha clearly we have to depend on manufacturers for the information contained in them
As far as the ERF test is concerned, the figure of 5,969N on the first page included the weight of a fuel flowmeter (30kg) as was indicated in the text. We later discovered that the fuel gauge was innacurate and in fact the tank was more than three-quarters full.
The weight of the fuel needel to fill the tank would have beer equivalent to the weight of the flowmeter. We quoted the weight "with fuel tank full" on the final page of the test to make the ERF easily comparabf with other vehicles.