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
189
190
191
192 
VEHICLE HISTORY
Page 167
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
DAF 2500 4 x 2 Tractor — 32 Tons GCW Aswill be seen, generally first class results were obtained in the road test of the Dar FT2500 DHS 32 ton gross tractive unit featured in CM of January 1, 1983. Aspects picked out for particular praise included allround visibility, interior noise levels, seating. general ease of driving and gear change and clutch actuation. And in summarising results there was reference to "outstanding fuel economy" (better than tests of comparable Volvo. Scania and Seddon Atkinsons) and very good payload capacity almost 21 tonnes at 32 tons gcw despite a heavy box trailer.
There was not a lot on the debit side either. Main points were delay in parking brake release, premature lock-up of the drive axle brakes, "inadequate" heating and ventilation system with "insensitive", non-illuminated controls.
Comments made by operators of the Daf 2500 32 ton gross tractive unit reflected the way attitudes and expectations have developed in the six years since the road test was carried out. Standards have certainly changed in respect of desired levels of power, fuel economy and cab standards.
Average fuel consumptions in the order of 8 to 8.5 mpg arc apparently common and not seen as particularly praiseworthy. In fact, some felt that 8 mpg was "quite poor" although the 1983 report referred to 7.42 mpg. as -outstanding economy"! Where fuel consumption was criticised, -relatively low" engine output was often blamed-300hp was suggested as nearer the ideal for 32 tons operation as compared to the 244 hp of the 2500.
With comments in the test report that the Daf cab was "showing its age" and that heating and ventilation were inadequate it would not have been surprising if, six years on, more adverse comments were common among drivers and operators. But this was not so. Points made included criticism that a more roomy cab was needed when drivers spent frequent nights away from base but there was little adverse comment otherwise.
On the mechanical side, it is apparent that the 2500 tractor has generally given a good account of itself with reasonably low operating costs, excellent reliability and minimal down time. The drive axle brake locking which occurred on the test seems to have been an isolated ease although the annoying delay in parking brake release must have been common in the early days. It was said, however, that the problem was eventually cleared and that current braking is trouble free.
A persistent problem referred to by one operator related to loss of engine power. After a number of visits to workshops for attention (including twice skimming heads) the problem was finally rectified by changing the turbocharger.
The overall picture given in the interviews was that general service provided by the Daf organisation was to a very good standard. In particular, contract maintenance facilities were said to be "the best in the business".
In regard to the critical comments on braking made in the test report, delay in trailer brake release from the parked position was overcome by the manufacturer and action required to rectify the fault advised to Daf dealers. Operators contacted had not experienced the problem and similarly the tendency to rear wheel locking when braking with cold drums had not been evident; it is probable that the phenomenon was due to newness of linings and need for bedding in rather than drum and shoe temperature. The 2500 tractive unit is still in production with a detail specification virtually identical to that in 1983. Different engine output figures are quoted for the 8.25 litre turbocharged and charge cooled engine 195kW (265 hp) and 932Nm (687 lb ft) instead of 182kW (244 hp) and 906Nm (668 lb ft) but this is due solely to the fact that the manufacturer now quotes figures based on the ISO 1585/ECE 24.02 net standards instead of BS Au 141a net.
Clutch, gearbox (ZF 12-speed synchromesh), front and rear axles, steering, frame, etc. are also unchanged. the only difference of note relating to brakes use of non-asbestos linings increased in width by 3mm. and fitment of 295/80-22.5 low profile tyres with traction tread at the rear in place of the previous 11R 22.5 highway tyres all round. There has been no apparent change in the cab heating system or its controls so the testreport criticism in this area will still apply. But overall, the 25(10 tractor has a lot going for it which explains why there has been a steady demand since its introduction to the U.K. in 1982. In the period almost 3000 have been sold here an average of 412 per year with peaks of 535 and 474 in 1985 and 1986. And the level was maintained last year with sales of 412.
One area where there has been a big change since the road test is price. The figure quoted for the test vehicle (with sleeper cab) was £27,285 including fifth wheel, anti-spray equipment, manwalk and coupling lamp. On the same basis, the current price is £38,065 or almost 40% more as compared to an increase in the retail price index of 34% in this period.