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 
VERDICT
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Every manufacturer has something to learn when it introduces a new model and, in this case, it is reliability. The 650[5 Daily has had its problems (some quite serious as with turbochargers) but also with steering and engine oil leaks from the crankshaft seals. Not all of the operators we spoke to were satisfied with the back-up they received when something went wrong, while others— more forceful in putting their point across, perhaps—got the attention they deserved. Operators buy a 6.5-tonner because of its van characteristics. It's smaller than a 7.5-tonne truck, which makes it easier to handle in congested town traffic and less of a problem to manoeuvre in restricted areas. The 65C15 Daily provides options for a wide variety of body types and can give similar payload and body volumes to the 7.5-tonner. While none of our operators were able to give us a definitive figure for fuel consumption, the general impression was poor. CMs road test back in September 2002 tends to back that up with overall returns of just 18.6mpg. That is 3% heavier than Iveco's 7.5-tonner, 5% worse than Des 7.5 tonner and i8% worse than M-B's 6.o-tonne Sprinter. The 65C van's payload is pretty good, though, and its price is competitive. For the time being, it steals a march on the opposition, just as long as it's prepared to keep marching.