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 
OPERATOR EXPERIENCE
Page 127
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FORD CARGO 16.15 RIGID. ORIGINALLY TESTED: 11/9/82.
ENGINE: FORD 150 148hp.
GEARBOX: FORD 8-570-S 8 speed. BACK AXLE RATIO: 4.88:1 TESTED GVW: 16.22-tonnes.
OVERALL RESULTS: 13.08mpg/38.81mph OVERALL TEST REPORT PLUS POINTS: 'Good performance/good fuel consumption/ improved flexibility/low in-cab noise/good visibility/good turning circle/good brakes and steering.
ORIGINAL TEST REPORT MINUS POINTS: Faulty turbocharger/eight-speed gearbox necessary/heavy clutch pedal/poor exhaust brake performance/poorly-sited location for exhaust brake control.
Operator 1 is part of a large brewery organisation and runs seven vehicles from his depot. The work is mainly beer delivery on local and national distribution.
Operator 2 is part of a national spot and contract-hire group. Operator 3 is an owner driver with a coal round.
None of the three operators felt that the minus points had any relation to their vehicles. It was difficult to find any black marks against the Cargo at all. Operators 1 and 2 had found out earlier on that an eight-speed gearbox was far superior to the six-speed and has specified their vehicles accordingly. Operator 3 did virtually no distance work so didn't think he would find any great benefit from the eightspeed option.
Only operator 1 had an early complaint with two of his vehicles. One concerned a cracked cylinder block, the other had a faulty gearbox. Both complaints, however, were replactd under warranty with 'no argument or quibble'.
All three spoke highly of the reliability, driver acceptance, performance and economy of the vehicle. Average fuel figures were virtually identical at 12.5-13.7mpg. Operators 1 and 2 felt that fuel consumption got better as the vehicles got older. In a spot hire environment, Operator 2 felt that the Cargo stood up to the wear and tear of this type of work very well indeed. Operator 1 spoke of having to fit new blocks to vehicles after 200,000 miles but 'that was virtually all they needed'.
All three operators praised the cab access. low noise levels, braking performance, superb turning circle and good visibility. There had been no recalls that any one could remember. Dealer service was thought to be first class and spares and service item charges about average. There had been fears that service would deteriorate after the Iveco Ford merger but it has, if anything, improved. Operators 1 and 2 felt that the same levels of service and price could be obtained at any Iveco Ford dealership nationwide. Operator 3 described the service from his dealer as good and mentioned that he had been dealing with the same one for 32 years. Resale values, according to operators 1 and 2, were felt to be good. Operator 1 had recently sold a six-year old vehicle at auction and this had commanded a good price. Prices for wellmaintained Cargos were described as 'steady and dependable' and this was thought to be a major plus point.