AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

ROADTEST SHERPA 350 DNB

28th January 1988
Page 38
Page 39
Page 38, 28th January 1988 — ROADTEST SHERPA 350 DNB
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?

job as the release is just inside the door, but the mechanism slides smoothly, and looks as though it will last the distance.

Loads can be tied to the side of the van's interior, but at a time when other manufacturers provide tie-down eyes on the floor, Freight Rover only supplies threaded holes in the Sherpa's floor, should an operator wish to fit his own.

The engine masquerading as a power unit under the Sherpa's bonnet is the aged Land Rover 2.5-litre four-cylinder IDI diesel, with a few changes to the injection pump and front cover, and different heater plugs. It was introduced on the Land Rover 110 in January 1984 as a development of the 2.25-litre diesel engine that had served Land Rovers since 1957. Land Rover no longer offers the unit in the UK in naturally-aspirated form, and even Freight Rover euphemistically refers to the unit as "proven".

It drives the twin rear wheels through the Solihull-built 77mrn five-speed all synchromesh gearbox, along the conventional propellor shaft to a live rear axle.

The engine is, unfortunately, both underpowered and overnoisy, and this makes driving the empty vehicle on a motorway a very trying experience. One tester likened the experience to what he imagined it would be like to sit inside a cast-iron bath while it was being broken up by the time-honoured method of repeatedly hitting it with hammers until the harmonic resonances caused its selfdescruction.

The Sherpa's acceleration is certainly greater than that of that other well known sluggard, the Ford Transit 2.5-litre DI diesel, but this is far from being a compli ment. The Sherpa's performance is still about as exciting as a wet weekend in Walthamstow. A decade ago the performance imparted by the 2.5-litre diesel would have been adequate, and up to the standards of its contemporaries. Today it is simply underpowered. Why Freight Rover has to buy this dreadful engine we are at a loss to explain, when there are so many better power units that the company could choose, now it is free of the Austin Rover Group and able to source its components from outside. Instead, it is going to buy the blown version of the same engine for the 300 Series, and that may be only a small improvement.

Given that the Sherpa's engine is nominally more powerful than the Transit's, its poorer overall performance must be blamed on less-impressive aerodynamics and less-well-chosen gearing. Although the gear ratios seem well-spaced to a driver, on paper there are some odd gaps As it's not very awe-inspiring to look at, there are no surprises when the ignition key is turned. The 2.5-litre Land Rover diesel may not be the most thirsty unit we have tested, but it is certainly one of the slowest. which must detract from an efficient progression. The gear change has a pleasant, if rather notchy feel to it.

Unfortunately, the clutch is a bit heavy for urban delivery work, and sustained stop-start journeys could make for unevenly-developed leg muscles.

Considering the slow rate of progress, it is not surprising that the Sherpa's economy is respectable at 12.51it/100km (22.7mpg). This is the best fuel consumption among the indirect-injection engines in our comparison group, but like the two categories of racing in Formula One, the turbocharged, and in this case directinjection, group is running away with the honours.

The Fiat Ducato Maxi we tested last year (CM 16 May 1987) has the Soflm 2.5-litre DI turbocharged engine, and covered our light van test route at an average speed of 68.35krn/h (42.65mph). Its fuel consumption was 11.141it/100km (25.35mpg) which is better than even the Ford Transit naturally-aspirated directinjection diesel. Sherpa has clearly got some catching up to do to meet the Transit and the Ducato Maxi on level terms.

In many years to come, when the Sherpa's steering system forms part of a strong-man act at the circus, people will laugh when they are told that power steering was not offered as standard. The company tells us that it has recently improved on the situation, but the steering weight is still unacceptable for urban delivery work.

Thankfully the rest of the Sherpa's suspension set-up is in a different league. The unladen van offers a rather bouncy ride, but the laden vehicle is a tribute to Freight Rover's chassis and suspension engineers. The bumps and undulations of the Motor Industry Research Association's ride and handling circuit held no fears for the 350 Sherpa, and one is tempted to think that the van had been specially set up for the course.

Braking in the big van is also an undramatic experience, with the big front discs and rear shoes providing a very positive pedal feel, and effective retardation. The offside rear wheel on the test van locked up slightly before the others, but this evened out after a few stops.

From the Austin Rover Group instrument cluster (as in the Maestro CVs) to the superbly-sprung driver's seat, the interior sets a very high standard. The seats are covered in a velour trim which doesn't slip or sweat, and the floor has good-sized rubber mats that are easy to clean, but do not detract from the air of high quality.

We particularly like the siting of the gearlever and handbrake in the gap between the driver and passenger seats. It is the Sherpa's body width that allows the "normal" position of these controls, but it still makes a nice change to find the handbrake on the left in a three-seater van.

The test van was fitted with a Clarion wireless that seemed of reasonable quality, although it was difficult to hear the thing at speeds above 110km/h.

Views from the cab interior are good, thanks to a tall near-vertical windscreen, and convex side mirrors that distort the view of following traffic, but allow for easy parking as the rear wheels can be seen on each side. We particularly like the Austin Rover-type dashboard layout. The gauges are easy to read, and the steering column stalks are simple, but bring a lot of functions within fingertip reach of the driver.

The Sherpa 350 van's good points are definitely its suspension and handling. It is relatively unaffected by side winds, and is commendably stable at motorway speeds.

We like the interior, particularly the instrumentation and the steering column stalks, although we understand that it is vunerable to the ingress of dirt (CM Workshop December 1987).

The Sherpa has a reasonable payload, is fairly easy to load, and looks strong enough to withstand the gruelling life of a fleet van. Its main fault is the engine, which is woefully underpowered, and far too noisy to be comfortable.

Sherpa's van does grow on one, however: like some huge, ugly, but incredibly loyal Newfoundland dog, one feels that a Sherpa would also swim out in perilous seas to its drowning master with a lifeline in its slobbering jaws. It's a hard van not to like.

ID by Andrew English


comments powered by Disqus