AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

FORD TRANSIT 15 -SEAT CUSTOM BUS (DIESEL)

26th May 1972, Page 39
26th May 1972
Page 39
Page 40
Page 41
Page 39, 26th May 1972 — FORD TRANSIT 15 -SEAT CUSTOM BUS (DIESEL)
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

by Trevor Longcroft

THE four-cylinder 2.4-litre diesel engine introduced by the Ford Motor Co earlier this year is an option in several of the Transit range of vehicles and we have recently tested it in a passenger version of the transit.

High and low rated versions of the engine are available. The lower rating offers 48 bhp net at 3600 rpm — and replaces the Perkins 4.108 on the shorter-wheelbase Transits, except the 125. The higher rating — 61 bhp net at 3600 rpm — is fitted as standard on the 123 model and the long-wheelbase versions. It is also available as an option on the short-wheelbase models.

We tested the higher-rated 2.4-litre engine fitted in a 15-seater custom bus over CM's Midlands test circuit.

Fuel consumption and noise As might be expected. we found that, compared with the four-cylinder vee petrol engine and operating at a similar gvw, the diesel has better fuel consumption at the expense of acceleration.

The petrol vehicle's results were taken with the lower (5.83 to 1) axle ratio, but the diesel showed an improvement in fuel consumption — when running laden — of 4.2 mpg and 6.2 mpg for the fourand one-stop-per-mile tests respectively. The highspeed run showed a fuel saving of 8.8 mpg.

When cruising laden over A'-type roads maintaining speeds around 40 mph in fourth gear the diesel fuel consumption was 26.8 mpg.

One disadvantage of the diesel engine is its relatively high noise level compared with the petrol engine. In the Custom bus the noise level was (because. of the forward-mounted engine) highest at the front. My impression was that the noise insulation around the bulkhead was adequate, but some further insulation under the bonnet and around the engine compartment sides would make the vehicle interior appreciably quieter. Pictures by Dick Ross The noise level was certainly not unacceptable, and conversation and the radio could be heard at all engine load conditions. The saloon is quieter as one sits progressively farther back, and at mid-vehicle is very acceptably quiet.

Performance

The vehicle was fitted with the highest axle ratio option, ie 4.625 to 1. Consequently, speeds approaching 65 mph could be achieved on motorways, while restarting in first and reverse gears on a 1 in 6.5 gradient remained easy.

Gear ratios were generally well spaced and good progress was maintained over all the road conditions — motorway, A-type roads and country lanes — encountered on the test.

Because of the high axle ratio, accelerating through the gears to 40 mph needed 14.7sec and indirect drive 10 to 40 mph required 39.9sec.

Full-pressure braking from 20 mph produced a first remarkable stopping distance of 12.3ft — the vehicle juddering to a halt. This result could not be repeated and was attributed to the friction co-efficients of that particular section of patchy road, but even our later results of around 20 ft represented a peak deceleration of over 90 per cent. Stopping from 20 mph using the handbrake returned a maximum efficiency of 40 per cent (Tapley meter) despite the offside rear wheel failing to lock.

. Fourth gear was used for much of the open road work, maintaining 40 mph with ease. For motorway operation I feel that an overdrive ratio could prove useful both in improving fuel consumption and maintaining higher average speeds.

Ride and handling

The position of the driving seat relative to the pedals is low, even with the seat in its highest position. Also, seat adjustment to the rear is limited and for me these combined factors produced an uncomfortable driving position.

Steering effort was rather heavy for a vehicle of this type and even after redistributing the load it was heavier than I liked. Manoeuvring in confined spaces such as a car park was difficult in spite of the 5.5 turns required from lock to lock, which in my view is excessive.

The accelerator required pressure to be applied downwards and towards the offside of the vehicle. While this did not prove inconvenient the added presence of "stiction" meant that as the pressure on the pedal was increased it suddenly gave, resulting in the vehicle jerking forward before moving smoothly away.

The vehicle handled predictably. No roll was discernible from within the vehicle and although there was some roll when cornering at high speed the steering stayed commendably neutral.

Comfort and convenience Both driver and passenger seats are covered with a breathable type of pvc material. The seats were most comfortable and any road vibrations transmitted by the body were adequately damped before reaching the passengers.

Passenger legroom seemed adequate; there is 2ft 2in. between the squab of one seat and the rear of the seat in front at about the leg position. Gangways are narrow and one row of seats — the last but one numbering from the front -mounted on the rear wheel arches stand above the others.

The Custom bus has a plated maximum gvw of 3 tons and assuming each passenger weighs approximately 12 stones this leaves 561b for any luggage that may need to be carried. The bus is obviously built to cater for passengers with a minimum of hand luggage.

As tested the bus returned good fuel consumption with adequate performance and as such should provide economic means of transport for 15 people.

The basic cost of the Transit with the low compressionpetrol engine is £1532.00. The 2.4 litre diesel engine, radial tyres, steering lock, side loading door, radio and seat belts (as tested) add £254.83 to the price.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus