How golden is Golden Opportunity Volvo?
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ME WERE somewhat sceptical vhen Volvo Trucks (GB) Ltd first old us of its used vehicle 3cheme Golden Opportunity Jolvo (CM February 7).
As far as we know, this is the irst such scheme in the UK for leavy commercial vehicles, but :here have been and still are similar warranty schemes for cars and by no means all of :hese have been received with enthusiasm.
Only a few weeks back one of the largest used car warranty companies denied the value of a Motoring Which report which had found "appalling incompetence" in car servicing in three of the fifty garages it sampled and only two that came anywhere near to doing the job properly.
One garage, not one of those sampled (and, coincidentally, a Volvo dealer), has responded by giving service customers a signed 108-item checklist. If the customer finds that even one has been missed, his bill will be halved.
How then would no-nonsense operators react to a manufacturer's promise of a Golden Opportunity to buy a used vehicle that has been reconditioned to a set standard and carries a six-month or 30,000-mile warranty? We think that, like us, most operators would be sceptical until any doubts they had were dispelled.
So when Volvo offered CM a used tractive unit for road test we said, "Yes, but we'd like to choose our own."
We visited three Volvo Trucks distributors who were preparing vehicles to be sold under the scheme, J. F. Duffield and Son of., Norwich; John Hebb of Wootton, Humberside; and Crossroads Commercials of Cleckheaton, Yorkshire.
In each case we looked at F7 tractive units. F86, F88 and F89s are not included in the scheme and any deterioration in performance would be more likely to show up on an F7 working close to its design weight at 32 tons than with a musclebound F10 or F12.
One tractive unit at each distributors was singled out and we took a closer look at each in its "raw" state before any reconditioning work was done.
At both Hebbs and Cross roads, the F7s were part-exchanges from hauliers who had bought new Volvos, but at Duffields the sleeper cab tractive unit was an ex-Avis rental vehicle. At just over 113,000km (70,000 miles) its mileage was slightly higher than either of the other two and Duffield's inspection and our brief drive showed up many faults which would have to be put right before the unit was sold. It looked the most likely candidate for our test.
The following is a list of defects found on our Volvo by Duffields, prior to any work being done to it.
Cab Offside wiper blade not working; MOT plate holder
poorly fitted; offside headlam discoloured; driver's sun visc loose; radio not working; voltrr eter glass misted over; offsid centre air vent not workinc, nearside heated mirror nc working; no tool kit; scree washer jets incorrectly pos tioned; park brake valve loos( headlight wiper incorrectly pos tioned; heater control pan, lights (lower) inoperative; ol type exhaust brake switch fitte( throttle pedal needing adjus ment and sticking; nearsic window handle cover missini offside and nearside knee craE pads missing; cigar lighter ni working; offside speaker pan damaged; nearside heater du adrift; bracket loose on front tc panel of cab on nearside; ba. steps loose; battery cover sprir clips missing; electrical Suz missing; cab tilt ram pip' leaking; air intake stack pif support bent.
Engine Exhaust down pipe clan: chafing on oil cooler pipe; no Volvo fuel filters fitted; air ;:leaner housing incorrectly modified; air filter element Jarnaged; oil leaks at oil cooler, Dil filler pipe and compressor; 3light damage to turbocharger mpeller; tappets needing adustment.
Clutch adjustment incorrectly ;et; breather broken off clutch ;lave cylinder; tachograph drive ;eal broken; bell housing stud nissing.
lear axle Oil leaking around stud at botom of differential housing; off;ide hub seal leaking; rear ;pring slippers worn; rear spring )in nuts loose on offside and iearside.
3rakes Depth of lining remaining ront and rear 70 per cent plus; lutomatic drain valve leaking; ;plash flap on cab chafing front wake hoses; alcohol evaporator :heck valve bracket broken.
"yres Offside rear inner regrooved Ind at tread depth limit; mismatched tyres on nearside rear, inner tyre at tread depth limit.
Cooling system Hose to header tank behind grille needs replacing; heater hose chafing on cab; antifreeze content 25 per cent.
Exhaust Silencer wrongly positioned and mountings split.
Defects noted during Duffield's road test Clutch pedal squeaks; turbocharger whistle under load.
Some list, and it took around 65 man/hours of Duffield's workshop time to put all these defects right and a further 40 man/hours to repaint the unit.
We were assured that before our road test, like all Golden Opportunity Volvos the F7 would have all its mechanical defects rectified to DTp test standard and its appearance would be first-class. When we next saw the Volvo it certainly looked good and we had no reason to doubt its mechanical condition was equally impressive. But to make sure we asked the FTA to conduct an A vehicle inspection report.
Its conclusion after a twohour inspection was that the vehicle was "generally prepared to a high standard". But the F7 was not given a totally clean bill of health.
An air pipe was resting on a gearchange rod, a securing bolt was slack on the offside of the front bumper, and there were tears in both seatback covers. In the road test section of the inspection, the tachograph needle wavered erratically between 10 to 15mph, there was slight wheel wobble on light brake application, and a lack of power steering assistance at engine idling speed. The first two defects were quickly rectified.
The FTA inspection also revealed that the two external mirrors were the old F86/F88 type not carrying the appropriate approval marks, and so did not comply with legislation requiring such approval on all mirrors fitted to vehicles manufactured on or after 1 December 1977 and first used on or after 1 June 1978, To put the FTA's inspection into perspective the number of defects found by the Association's inspectors on brand-new vehicles averages out at 7.83, of which 1.16 are possible GV9 items. So fewer faults were found with the reconditioned two-year-old Volvo than with the average new vehicle.
But this was only the start of the CM road test. We were keen to discover how the two-yearold F7 would perform over our 737-mile route. Remember, new F-engined F7 is the onl tractive unit to date to bett( 8mpg over our new Scottis route. Our overall average fui consumption results of 35.0 lit/100km (8.06mpg) from th used F7 confirmed that the 6.: litre engine is a remarkably frL gal unit.
The 4.86:1 rear axle ratio c the Duffield F7 was the same a that fitted to the new vehicle CI tested in August 1979 and, c course, the gearbox, the R5 eight-speed synchromes range-change was the sam type, so the results are direct! comparable.
Over our timed hill climb E Carter Bar our revamped Volv,
was just ten seconds slowe than the new one and it cam within a whisker of achieving th same overall average speed.
It wasn't because of any lac of power that it was more diffi cult to maintain 60mph oi motorways with the olde vehicle, but simply because till throttle return springs had beei modified and three were fittec instead of the usual two.
While this ensures that thi throttle returns quickly to fru idle position without sticking, i also means that a good deal o effort from the driver's right lec is needed to hold the peda down for long periods agains the springs' tension. ake tests at MIRA We always take a new vehicle r brake tests at MIRA before ibarking on our road test — id on a few odd occasions our II pressure brake tests have own up dangerous shortcomgs.
But this F7 had just had its rear akes relined and its front lings deglazed and there had ten no time to bed in the new iings before the test. So Dufelds wisely asked us to )stpone the brake tests until ter the road route.
As it turned out, we couldn't A braking figures from 30mph Id 40mph because when we ent back to MIRA the track was et and a slight imbalance in the iar brakes combined with a ont brake judder led to the unit ?Mating from a straight line. Duffield's service manager on Amies, told us that when ie unit went back to Norwich, ie front brake judder was cured y a light skim of the drums and :placing the linings with a Dfte r material.
The F7 couldn't be persuaded ) restart on a one in six gradient t MIRA but this could well have een caused by the delay in the 3lease of the park brake, cornIon to all F7s, rather than a reult of the Volvo's gradeability. Ve weren't sure of the state of
wear of the clutch plates and didn't want to risk burning them away by making several attempts at the hill.
The lack of power steering assistance at engine idling speed noticed by the FTA inspector persisted throughout our three day test and Duffields tell us that the final cure was to fit a new steering box.
Being Volvo specialists, Duffield's workshop staff were able to spot items during the reconditioning of the F7 that perhaps might have been missed by a more general workshop. The air filter housing, for example, had previously been incorrectly
Right: Better than the new type maybe, but these F86 style mirrors are not EEC-approved.
modified and that needed some work.
Early rubber front cab mountings used to become too soft in service and allow the cab to drop, which in turn allowed a steering column UJ to knock against the cab floor. The mountings on our F7 were replaced with the latest type, made of harder rubber.
Summary Without doubt, there are quite a few operators who will welcome Volvo's used vehicle warranty scheme — those who can't afford the high cost of new equipment for instance, but who are unwilling to risk a lot of money on the unknown quantity of an unwarranted used vehicle.
It is a safe bet that other manufacturers will soon be put under pressure from their distributors to administer schemes similar to Volvo's.
As the FTA put it, our test Golden Opportunity Volvo was "generally prepared to a high standard". That didn't surprise us. Duffields and Volvo Trucks knew that it was going to be road tested (that was unavoidable) and that of course would have been an incentive to make a good job of it.
But generally Duffields, like any CV workshop, have to deal with customers who know what
they're talking about — operator usually does — and 1 the standard of work has to I high.
A commercial vehicle wz ranty scheme such as th should not be tarred with ti same brush as similar c schemes. If all Golden Opport nity Volvos are prepared to tl same standard as ours, th, buyers won't have much to col plain about — even thoui they'll be paying premiu prices.
For Volvo Trucks (GB) Ltd, a ultimately for its customers, less obvious advantage of t Golden Opportunity warrar scheme is the record of comi nent failures it will provide t yond the normal new vehii warranty period.
That should eventually lead more reliable vehicles — sun welcome by everyone in the dustry.