Leyland's Windfoiled Terrier
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
I WAS MOST interested to read your comprehensive road test of the Leyland Windfoil Terrier, but I should like to clear up one or two misconceptions.
Firstly, I should point out that the vehicle had come straight from some hard use by a prospective customer and was overdue for a service. It had suffered accident damage to the rear and had been repaired in the field hence I suspect the loose shutter guide.
Secondly, 1 was more than a little alarmed to see the photograph of a supposed "glued" joint and reference to stress in other "glued" joints. There are no visible "glued" joints on this particular type of body, the joints referred to are riveted with a mastic sealant and are easily removable for repair. The floor is not "structurelite" but one-piece p coated with an epoxy non-slip surface and is fitted to a conventional alloy under frami The rear frame is fabricated fro box section aluminium alloy with a plastic capping.
From your photograph it would appear that when the accident damage was repaired too short rivetts were used. Fot tons of unsecured timber plank on a 1 in 4 gradient stop-start test would doubtless have caused some damage to the roller shutter, Thirdly, fuel consumption; oi own experience has shown tha the 6.98NV engine improves with mileage. This vehicle was only registered in January. The comparisons you took, apart from the Bedford TL which had the lowest average speed, were for platform-bodied vehicles with obviously much reduced frontal areas hence the better consumptions.
A low cd isn't going to help much if you have a frontal area disadvantage!
M. T. RAWLINGS Technical director Windfoil East Dere ham