Sherpa reaches fe peaks
Page 41
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
REALISING the sales potential at the heavier 2.5 to 3.5-tonne gvw end of the van market, Freight Rover last year extended its Sherpa range with wider-bodied variants. Manufacturers in this sector are overshadowed by Ford, which annually looks to capture the lion's share of new registrations. But by broadening its range, Freight Rover clearly hopes to increase its presence in this market segment to the extent of its penetration in the smaller vehicle area.
Since January 1 this year more than 1,700 of the wide-bodied Sherpas have been sold, which represents almost seven per cent of that area of the market. The model offers a wide choice of bodies — panel vans and minibuses (each with a high or low-roof option), Luton-bodied vans on the long wheelbase only and chassis cabs. Weights range from 2.85 to 3.5 tonnes.
There is also a dropsided version available on a 3.2 or 3.6m (126 or 1 32in) wheelbase. These are factory built models using body components supplied by Ingimex and they are covered by the full Freight Rover warranty. Both body sides and tail gate are built of extruded aluminium and are completely detachable or they can be lowered for side or end loading.
A phenol-bonded timber floor gives a considerable 6.9m (74sqft) loading area. It looked durable enough, but our test load of bagged sand was unsuited to prove the point. When I off loaded at the end of the test, part of the floor was wet and, although the surface seemed slippery, it caused no problems underfoot. Fitted immediately behind the cab is a ladder frame which is attached to the front cornerposts. All are aluminium.
The bulkhead, like the sides, is made of extruded panels. At first I was concerned about its ability to withstand the sort of knocks that a builder's vehicle might have to take. More immediately, I thought about the track braking tests and how my carefully stacked and apportioned test load would react.
These doubts were illfounded. Despite a number of stops at speeds up to 40mph and the bags, being forced forward, the bulkhead suffered no deflection. Both of the rear wheel arches suffered, though, because they are not long enough and have no supporting stays. Carrying maximum payload causes the springs to deflect and the wheels to bounce against the underside of the wings. One side was splitting and breaking away.
Our test vehicle built on the shorter 3.2m wheelbase was powered by the familiar two-litre 0-series engine, one which is found in the smaller Sherpa models as well as Austin Rover's Ital and Ambassador cars. It is similar, too, to that fitted in the 250HL van tested almost two years ago (CM November 6, 1982) at 2.50-tonne around the old Thames Valley route, and which, returne 23.5 mpg. This time, however, fuel consumption was disappointing at 15.3 mpg on the 85.3 mile test route through Kent and caused me to question the suitability of this two-litre engine for powering the heavier Sherpas economically.
The 350 dropside tested was plated at 3.5-tonne gross which, with a kerb weight of 1,680 kg (23 cwt), allowed for a 1,800 kg (35.5 cwt) payload. This is a 35 per cent increase without any extra available power, so it seemed quite likely at the start that the performance would suf fer by comparison.
On the outward journey to the Motor Industry Research Association test facility at Nuneaton the vehicle seemed to lack power as though the ignition was retarded. A look at the distributor showed that the contact breaker points were barely opening at all, but once reset to the recommended 0.35mm to 0.40mm (0.014 to 0.0161n) gap the improvement in performance soon became apparent.
Over CM's light van route the 350 dropside running on twostar petrol returned a quite acceptable average speed of 62.39 km/h (38.77 mph), which was only marginally slower than the most recent 3.5 tonne van tested — the Mercedes 310 (CM April 7, 1984).
Examining each of the stages it seemed to be only minutes behind the Merc although the 350 was much slower in accele rating throughout the entire range.
On several occasions at speeds around 50 mph the Sherpa's acceleration seemed to wane slightly if it met any sort of gradient. At that speed it was impractical to change down because the engine would then have been revving unnecessarily fast.
Over the rest of the motorway leg it pulled quite well, attaining the 70 mph limit easily.
At speeds up to 50 mph the Sherpa gave a much quicker performance, more in keeping with its hard working image. It would have been livelier still had it been in a better state of tune. Freight Rover explained that the vehicle was produced for CM at very short notice and. had been on demonstrations for quite some time. For the uprated Sherpa the company has specified the fivespeed gearbox with manual floor mounted shift. Despite the operation of the baulking ring on the synchros, it was quite easy to select gears.
Although crossing between seats is reasonably easy, this would be improved further if the gear lever were reshaped. Operating the very light clutch pedal was not at all tiring, even during the rush-hour journey through the capital.
Without doubt, its best feature: was its brakes. They were very. positive and could not be faulted. During the track testing at MIRA peak decelerations of 0.82g were recorded and the vehicle showing no sign of instability. Over the severe ride and handling course the 350 showed little sign of the understeer tendency that it displayed on the A5 roundabouts near MIRA.
Single leaf springs with telescopic dampers all round were helped at the front by the antiroil bar which proved highly effective. At the back there was a little bit of roll, probably as a result of the body overhang on the chassis and the spread of the sand bags over the entire body floor.
The driving compartment with its grey cloth covered seats, durable looking rubber matting Seats are comfortable, firm and well-upholstered. They gave me excellent back support. Behind them there is sufficient room to store quite large items away from prying eyes.
While the instrument panel and two stalk switches have hardly changed, a number of electrical switches have been replaced with sturdier push-type ones. Daily checks and routine maintenance under the bonnet seem relatively easy and trouble free.