AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

It pays to pass on the diesel

18th July 1981, Page 19
18th July 1981
Page 19
Page 20
Page 21
Page 22
Page 23
Page 19, 18th July 1981 — It pays to pass on the diesel
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

NEW dimension was added to e British 3.5-tonne van market May this year when Renault troduced its Master range — ew not simply because the aster made its debut in Britain r even because it was Renault's rst ever sortie into this fiercely ompetitive sector.

Here for the first time van perators were being offered the hoice between frontor rearheel drive from one manufacurer as well as the option of etrol or diesel engines.

Even for a company of Reault's size it would have been xtravagant to try to introduce II the variations of its new odels (the smaller Trafic was unched in May also) at the ame time into a relatively small xport market such as Britain.

o it was decided to phase in the ange's introduction.

This means that we probably han't be seeing a rear-wheel

rive Master until next year. kill, it is important to explain hese options at the outset be:ause the decision taken very 3arly in the development projramme to offer so many has )een a major influence on the inal design and appearance of he Master.

The van's body, for example, has been designed in such a way that the only difference between a front-wheel-drive and rearwheel-drive version is the height of the floor.

If suddenly there is a demand for P (propulsion, ie rear-wheel drive) Masters from Renault's factory when it has been producing T (traction, le front-wheel drive) models, then all that is required on the shell production line is for the computercontrolled robots to be programmed to weld the floor pans to the cab sections in the higher position, leaving room for the transmission to be fitted later.

The design of the rear and side doors is another good example of how Renault has achieved maximum diversity without increasing production costs prohibitively. All the door mountings are on external panels so that they may be fitted or left out during assembly with the minimum of fuss.

One of our test vans was fitted with two sliding side doors, while the other had only the standard nearside sliding door yet it was difficult to tell at a glance which had non-standard door equipment.

All the van shells are built with two side door apertures and if the extra one is not required, a panel is simply welded into it. Apart from the absence of a door handle pan, this panel looks identical to a side door panel.

Renault must pass on some of its saved production costs to the customer, but like any commercial organisation its main objective must be to make a franc or two in profit — which must be the reason for the charge of £190 for the optional second sliding side door. A tailgate in place of the standard double 1800 opening rear doors will cost you £50.

From the van user's point of view, the main advantage of the external mounting of the Master's door fittings is the unobstructed access it affords to the load space. On our petrol-engined tes1 van, with its twin sliding side doors, any part of the load area could be reached with ease — enough to delight any delivery driver.

Both vans, being front-wheel drive, had the low floor height. This really is low — just 506mm (19.9in) above ground level at the rear of the unladen petrol van and slightly lower with the diesel.

No step is necessary, of course, with the floor at this height, and a lot of the hard work is taken out of loading and unloading heavy weights. Also, unless a driver is taller than average he will find he can move around inside a Master van without crouching — there is over six feet of headroom between the floor and roof.

Still on the subject of access to the load area, another of the Master's features is its "walk through" ability, despite the light obstacle of the engine cover between the seats. (Incidentally the plastic knob on the hinged flap fitted to this cover looks as if it will be prone to damage from drivers' boots.) In several respects, then, the Master is reminiscent of the Commer Walk Thru, a van that in its day was considered by many to be the ideal vehicle for local deliveries.

Load volume The initial reaction of most people who opened the rear doors of the Master during our testing sessions was "what a massive load volume!" The van's capacity, quoted as 9.05cum (318cuft) is certainly generous, but it is by no means the only 3.5-tonne gross van on the market to offer a volume above 300cuft.

Ford's Transit Parcel Van and Dodge's 50-Series Integral Van, for example, have larger capacities and if you consider longer wheelbase models (in which category the 3.8m wheelbase Master offers 1 1.0 6cum (390cuft);, then the MercedesBenz has a quoted 424cuft, and the Dodge High Capacity van even more.

It is the unusual height of the Master's body that creates an impression of space.

In any event, a van buyer would be well advised not to worry too much about quoted maximum load volumes. Few operators are ever able to use the full volume of any van. In practice, the more critical dimensions are often the minimum width or height which may prevent a particular load from being carried.

Single-tyred wheels on the Master's rear axle help to keep the wheel arch intrusion into the load space to a minimum, leaving a usable width of 1,248mm (49in) between the arches.

Also, these are flat topped — a more practical proposition than rounded ones, but mounting the spare wheel above the nearside wheel tends to cancel some of this advantage. But if you do need the space, it is a simple enough task to remove the spare wheel.

Petrol or diesel?

The petrol engine fitted to the Master is Renault's own 1995cc four-cylinder ohc unit with a maximum power rating of 59.7kW (80bhp) DIN.

The diesel engine, which adds £758 to the retail price, comes from the Sofim (Societe Franco ltalienne Moteurs) en gine factory in Italy, has city of 2,445cc and a rni power output of 53.7kW DIN.

Until recently, Rena 24 per cent shareholdi Sofim factory but it has its share to the other ners Fiat and Alfa Ro official reason being nault felt it could have r fluence over Sofim's p major customer rather minor shareholder.

As you would expect sel is the slower revvi two engines, develo maximum power at 4 >mparison of the power and irque figures could lead to the ipression that there is little to loose between the on-the-road 3rformances of the T35 and 35D.

Nothing could be further from e truth.

The Master assumes a totally fferent character when the peDI engine is replaced with died. I drove the petrol-engined 35 first and thought that here as a fairly quiet 31/2-tonner ith a reasonably lively perrmance — remembering that it not uncommon these days for uch lighter vans to have ennes with a capacity of two res and above and power outJts above 80bhp.

By comparison the T35D iemed noisy and sluggish. Our sts at MIRA confirmed this: the esel Master on average took 11 iconds longer than its petrolIgined counterpart to reach lmph and our noise meter adings indicated interior noise vels 1-2dB(A) higher in the dieIvan at 50 and 70mph.

Subjectively, on the road the fference between the two ins' performances was even ore marked. The T35 sailed ter gradients on which the

T35D seemed comparatively becalmed — the diesel Master is the only van I have taken over CM's Thames Valley test route so far that has needed second gear to climb the hill at High Wycombe.

As far as noise is concerned, Renault has in fact done an excellent job with the Master in insulating the driver from most of the engine noise, and of course the diesel version is inherently the noisier of the two. Remember that the engine is mounted behind the front axle with the gearbox in front so the power unit sits very close to the driver. • It became clear to us just how good the noise insulation around the engine cover is when during the test of the T35D we experimentally lifted the inspection flap while we were travelling at about 70mph. Suddenly it was as if we were in St Paul's Whispering Gallery while 20 pneumatic drills began to dig up the nave.

Needless to say, the flap was quickly replaced, restoring relative peace with the most obtrusive sounds then being an irritating buzz from the general direction of the dashboard and a rattle from the rear doors. The petrol Master suffered from neither of these which suggests that the petrol engine is also much smoother running as well as being quieter.

So maybe the diesel's saving grace was its fuel economy and with this in mind I made the consumption calculations expectantly. Fully laden over our van test route, the T35D recorded 12,38 lit/100km (22.82mpg) which is only 2.55mpg better than the petrol Master — or an improvement of 12,5 per cent.

Assuming the cost per gallon of petrol and diesel both to be £1.50 per gallon and ignoring any advantages that might accrue to one type of engine or the other through differences in maintenance costs, then, based on those figures, it would take 94,750 miles before the extra cost of the diesel engine could be recovered in saved fuel costs.

We were delayed by traffic congestion in Windsor with the diesel Master and while I had been able to allow for this delay in the journey time, it was impossible to say how much extra fuel, if any, the van had used.

I had tried to minimise the effect by switching off the en gine whenever possible. With this in mind, I looked carefully at the fuel consumption records we had kept for both vans on a different road section where neither had been delayed -the predominantly motorway route from MIRA to Maidenhead.

These results were even closer, with the T35 clocking up 14.33 lit/100km (19.72mpg) and the T35D 13.19 lit/100km (21.42mpg). Under these conditions it would take 126,333 miles' before the extra cost of the diesel could be justified.

Only when both vans were unladen did the diesel engine's extra economy begin to look to be enough to justify its additional cost within a reasonable time. The T35D's consumption jumped to 9.54 lit/1 0 Okm (29.60mpg) around our route when its load was taken off, whereas the petrol Master could only manage an improvement to 11.39 lit/100km (24.81mpg). But even in this case, the diesel en gine's "payback" mileage is a hefty 77,347.

From the driver's seat

In the Master cab's level of trim, Renault has struck just about the right balance between practicality and driver comfort.

According to Renault's specifications, both vehicles should have been equipped with cloth covered seats, but for some reason the petrol van's seats had a vinyl covering and the diesel's were cloth-covered and zipped up the back.

If you're faced with the choice between these two materials, I would recommend the latter be cause the zip allows it to be replaced more easily and it is more comfortable to sit on, especially in warm weather.

like the capacious lidded glove box on the passenger side of the facia. It provides useful. stowage space for delivery notes and paperwork, while the tray in the centre of the facia panel can be used for items less likely to be blown away.

I don't. like the pistol grip handbrake lever which, like all of its kind, is more difficult to reach than the conventional type mounted alongside the driver's seat. Master drivers will be likely to avoid using the handbrake whenever they can get away with it because of the awkward and truncated kind of rowing action needed to apply it.

The noises peculiar to the diesel van have already been mentioned, but curiously both the vans tested also suffered from squeaking rear brakes. I can't believe this is common to all Renaults, and yet the strange

Below: On both the diesel and the petrol version (shown here) a small inspection flap is provided for checking the oil level.

thing is that every one of thcompany's vehicles I have dr yen over the past few month including three Masters, tw Trafics, an 18TS Estate and 14TS saloon, have produce similar noises.

Summary In its pricing policy for th Master van, Renault has gon straight for the jugular of what must see as its major competitc in the UK, namely Ford. Th short wheelbase petrol MastE van is £287 cheaper than a petrc Transit 190 Custom Van, and th diesel Master is £427 cheapE than its Transit equivalent.

But it is not just on price thE Renault hopes to win customer from Ford, BL, Bedford and Mei cedes and so on. As always be fore a new product launch, RE nault's market research ha been extensive and the require ments identified in this researcl have been built into the Maste range, hence the decision tt offer both front and rear-wheE drive.

Eighty per cent of light corn mercials in France have front wheel drive in complete contras to the British market, where tht overwhelming majority of van: are rear-wheel drive.

Renault's planners art convinced that more van buyer: in Britain and indeed othe European countries woulc choose fwd if they had IN chance, but accept that for cer tam n applications it is better tc drive the wheels that are im mediately below the load.

Our tests of the two fwd Mas. ters demonstrated the ease cr loading and large load volumE which can be achieved with thiE transmission layout. It was only on a gradient as steep as one ir four that the expected disadvantage of lack of traction was evident.

Using our test results to compare the diesel and petrol Mas ters, I can find no reason for pre ferring the diesel version. As well as being more expensive, its payload is two hundredweight less, it is noisier and slower, and generally less pleasing to drive than the petrol engined van.

Unless there is a sudden (and extremely unlikely) reduction in

the price of diesel in this country, the economy of the Sofim engine simply isn't good enough to justify its extra cost for most operators.

Tags

Locations: Windsor

comments powered by Disqus