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 
OPERATOR EXPERIENCE
Page 173
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FORD CARGO 3224 4 x 2 TRACTOR. ORIGINALLY TESTED: 23/3/85.
ENGINE: CUMMINS LT 10 250 243bhp. GEARBOX: EATON 11609A 9 speed. BACK AXLE RATIO: 3.7:1.
TESTED GVW: 32.5 tonnes.
OVERALL RESULTS: 8.04mpg/41.79mph. ORIGINAL TEST REPORT PLUS POINTS: good fuel consumption/good performance/low cab noise/good engine access/good exhaust brake/well sited controls and dash layout/well geared/good torque/good payload. ORIGINAL TEST REPORT MINUS POINTS: poor brake performance/drive axle wheel lock indicated a tendency to jacknife/poor road 'feel' from steering wheel/cab not full width/low cab roof/headlight switch poorly sited.
OPERATOR REPORT
Operator 1 has a small fleet of Ford vehicles on nationwide general haulage, Operator 2 has a large mixed fleet on general haulage, contract and specialised distribution. Operator 3 runs a transport section for a large, well known, Manchester based organisation that sells various household commodities.
Operator reports on the vehicle were mixed. Operator I was very scathing of his Cargo. He recently sold the vehicle and reckoned he got very poor resale value.
He went on to detail a long list of warranty and chargeable work concerning the driveline. suspension and cab. Reliability was rated as poor and he criticised dealer service. Fuel consumption was put at an average 7-7.5 mpg, performance was rated as poor and his drivers didn't like the vehicle at all.
Operator 2. on the other hand, was favourably impressed with the vehicle. Whilst agreeing with the majority of the plus and minus points from the original test he added cross cab access and driver acceptance as points in the vehicle's favour. Fuel consumption averaged 8-8.5 mpg, but did depend on the driver. Performance was rated as good for his operation which was dependent on volume rather than top operational weights. Dealer service was rated as good and the cost of spare parts and service items as 'about average' compared to other makes in the fleet. Reliability was thought to be above average and, when fitted with a sleeper cab, the vehicle was a favourite with his drivers. The standard day cab was thought to be lacking in size although comfortable and well finished. Operator 3 also thought that his drivers liked the vehicle. Reliability was rated as good and performance, although not critical for the vehicle's workload, was also rated as good. This operator's workload was mainly local work delivering own goods to stores and private houses, Fuel consumption was put at 7.5-8 mpg and, for the operation, was felt to be average. There had been no major problems and dealer service was rated as excellent. Compared to other vehicles, the prices for spares and service items was very competitive.
Operators 2 and 3 both felt that resale values would be good because of the driveline and make of the vehicle.