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 138
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MERCEDEZ-BENZ 814/42 RIGID. ORIGINALLY TESTED: 6/10/84.
ENGINE: MB 0M366 134hp.
GEARBOX: MB 03/60-5/7.5 5-speed. BACK AXLE RATIO: 3.636:1 TESTED GVW: 7.50-tonnes.
OVERALL RESULTS: 15.73mpg/45.53mph. OVERALL TEST REPORT PLUS POINTS: 'Real drivers vehicle'/good journey times/low noise levels/full air braking/good cab access/low deck height/effective exhaust brake/light power steering/above average ride/good seating and dash layout.
ORIGINAL TEST REPORT MINUS POINTS: Not ideal rear axle ratio'/high kerb weight/high price/fuel economy down/poorly sited exhaust brake control/excessive brake pedal travel.
Operator 1 has two of the above on a general haulage operation between Scotland and the North of England. Operator 2 has a five vehicle nationwide general haulage operation. He has
two 814 vehicles. Operator 3 is a young owner driver on local to middle-distance distribution. All three felt that the 814 had the quality and durability of a larger vehicle. The high level of build quality was another feature commented on. Operator 1, with a small operation, said that the reliability of his vehicles was the most important factor. Despite a high annual mileage over very testing conditions, the two 814's had far exceeded his expectations. The 814's high kerbweight was accepted as the only real drawback. Operators 2 and 3 expressed similar opinions about the kerbweight. Both felt that this was acceptable and no real problem to their operations. All three operators rated the driveability and comfort of the vehicle very highly and Operator 1 felt that 'it was undoubtedly the best 7.5 tanner on the road'. All remarked on the performance of the full-air braking system and the exhaust brake. The siting on the control for the exhaust brake was not the most ideal, but acceptable.
Operator 1 had an average mpg of 14.5
which he said 'is a little low but my type of operation is not the best for economy'. The other two operators felt that 16.5-17mpg was about average for their vehicles.
Dealer service was rated as good by all three. The cost of service items and replacement parts was felt to be high but acceptable. Only Operator 2 reported a problem involving the fuel injection equipment which occurred after the warranty had expired. The cost of repair was subsidised by the dealer as it was thought to be a long-standing fault that had finally manifested.
Only Operator 1 had specified his vehicles with the factory sleeper cab and the other operators commented that very few, if any, of the other manufacturers could match the high quality of this feature. Operator 3 would be ordering his next vehicle with a sleeper. All three operators expected both a long service life and a high resale price when they disposed of their vehicles. Operator 1 commented that 'they cost a good deal more to buy and maintain but, at the end of the day, you get it back'.