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 
VEHICLE HISTORY
Page 162
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mercedes-Benz 307D Light Commercials During the past four years Commercial Motor has tested a number of MercedesBenz vans between 3.5 and 7,5-tonnes gross vehicle weight. There have been 10 in fact: four of them at 3.5-tonnes the 310 petrol in CM 7 April, 1984, the 307D diesel in the 1 June, 1985 issue, a turbocharged version of the 307D in 19 November, 1987 and, most recently, the new 3080 published on 13 April, 1989.
The test report selected for reprint here is the 307D. from June 1985, on the basis of its sales record-the 3070 outsells the petrol engined 310 by a factor of four-to-one.
As would be expected, the 3071) returned a better fuel consumption than the 310 petrol van over CM's light-vehicle route in Kent. But it was not that much better. Its 14.31ft/1001cm (19.7mpg) was only 19% above the petrol's "disappointing" 16.91it/100km (16.6mpg). It should be mentioned here also, perhaps, that the turbocharged 307D (not a Mercedes conversion, but by Omicron Engineering) was a well-run-in van and before modification gave a very acceptable 12.81it/ 100km (22.2mpg) although this dropped back to 14.5lit/100km (19.5mpg) after the conversion to turbocharging.
Mercedes-Benz must have been disappointed with the results of the original 3071) fuel tests, and with some justification, as the figures were well below the usual level for comparable vehicles. And looking at subsequent tests as well as the earlier ones, the two 307Ds come last, and next to last, of 14 3.5-tonnes gross vehicles tested by CM in the past four years.
No problems with performance, however, were raised in the first test of the 3070. And braking was said to be "well above average" as were its ride and handling characternstics. Also, there was little body roll, and steering was said to be precise, though rather heavy for low-speed manoeuvring.
There was strong criticism though of the level of noise which the driver had to "suffer", and this was a well-chosen word as the 30713 was one of the noisiest vehicles in its class. Even at 40mph cab noise reached 78dB(A), and on the M25 section of the test route, 70mph saw the level reach a "deafening" 88/89dB(A).
Engine and transmission noise and body boom combined to produce this unsatisfactory situation and it was not helped by the lack of panelling between cab area and load space: prospective users were recommended to specify the optional bulkhead if frequent motorway journeys were likely.
Specification of the 307D continued virtually unchanged after the 1985 test until the recent launch of revised models, including the 308D, this year. Main change was in respect of the engine and driveline, the power unit replacing the original 0M616 being the all-new 0M601 2.3-litre indirect-injection four-cylinder diesel, developed specifically for light commercial vehicle use from the Mercedes two-litre car diesel.
Compared with the 2.4-litre 0M616, the new unit has power and torque increased by 5.5% and 13% respectively to 58kW (79bhp) and 157Nm (115Ib ft). It is significant to note that engine speed for peak output is 3,800rpm for the 0M601 as compared to 4,400rpm for the 0M616 and that the torque curve for the new engine is quite flat with the peak value from 2,000 to 2,800rpm.
To match the lower engine speed, ratios in the Mercedes G1/18-S five-speed gearbox have been changed to include an overdrive top ratio of 0.806:1 and bottom of 4.69:1 with even spacing in between, and the standard axle ratio is 4.86:1 As a result of these changes gradability am maximum speeds have been maintained.
Mercedes claims that its new models arc mon fuel efficient and produce 30% less emissions. Ii the case of fuel, it has been said that the 2.3-litn unit shows a 20% improvement and is quietei smoother and more flexible than its predecessor These claims were certainly confirmed in th. test report on the 308D which appeared in CM o 19 April, 1989. Mercedes prediction of a 207t improvement in fuel economy was very close ti being achieved with 12.21it/100km (23.2mpg representing a 17.8% gain over the 307D.
And cab noise was considerably reduced not to the remarkably low levels now being sec] on many top-weight tractors (including Merce des) but to a quite respectable 75dB(A) a 60mph and a reasonable 78dB(A) at 70mph.
The improvement is the result of addm under-bonnet insulation, as well as engin improvements, and this time round the test viii had the optional full-height interior bulkhem between the cab and body areas.
Rather surprisingly, acceleration times wen worse with the higher-powered 3080.
The new model could not manage to climb , 25% (1 in 4) gradient on which the 307D ha4 been able to restart. As confirmation of theso points, the test report refers to "pedestriai performance" and "particularly poor in-tow' acceleration".
Because of the improved specification, diree comparison of prices quoted for the 307D/308E vans is difficult, but at the time of the 1 June, 198: test, the 307D had a net price of £9,380. Whei tested in April this year, a comparable figure fo the 3080 was £12,360, the rise of 0,251 representing 35% as compared with a 21% rise ii RP! in the five year period.