AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Maybe comparing a forward-control cab with a front-engined vehicle is unfair – but we did it anyway with two tippers

29th September 2011
Page 42
Page 43
Page 44
Page 45
Page 46
Page 42, 29th September 2011 — Maybe comparing a forward-control cab with a front-engined vehicle is unfair – but we did it anyway with two tippers
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?

Words: George Barrow / Images: Tom Lee In many ways, comparing a forward-control cab with a conventional front-engined vehicle is extremely unfair. One dominates in terms of payload, while the other is vastly superior when it comes to comfort. There is an obvious winner and a loser, but which is which depends largely on what duties you want your vehicles to perform. Where the two go head-to-head, though, is in the crossover areas, particularly at the lower GVW end of the CV spectrum, where both could quite easily do the job.

Since manufacturers started introducing their own off-the-shelf dropside, refrigerated and tipper models in front-engined vans, operators have had far greater choice. Forward-control stereotypes remain, but front-engined vans are getting a foothold in traditional cab-over markets, which is why we have taken two of the market leaders in each ield at 3.5-tonnes and put them through their paces in the toughest of all working sectors – tipping.

Nissan Cabstar SWB 130hp Basic+

Along with the Fuso Canter, the Nissan Cabstar has led the market in light forward-control vehicles for some time. Its looks are synonymous with the hard-working city contractor and its carrying capacity far outweighs its humble size. The weapon of choice for many a trade, from landscaper to scaffolder, the Cabstar is famed for its disproportionately high payload. Even as a factory-built tipper, our test model can lay claim to an impressive 1,300kg payload, while the chassis cab model has a massive maximum allowance of 1,852kg.

The load space available in the rear deck of this tipper is equally noteworthy, with a maximum length of 3,200mm and a width of 1,900mm. Four trim levels are available, but tested here is Basic+ trim, which gives you an increased GVW of 3.5-tonnes rather than the 3.4tonne of the entry-level Basic model. Both trim options give you a tilting cab, but the ‘+’ adds twin rear wheels.

With the engine nestled below you as you sit in the cab, there is suficient room for the front axle to be positioned right at the forefront of the chassis, giving not only an excellent turning circle, but also a very precise idea of how close you are to objects in front. This is another obvious beneit for those working in conined spaces or busy cities, but it does pose a few problems with ride comfort.

Cab-over models are notoriously uncomfortable and when empty the Cabstar is certainly no better than any of its rivals. The independent, double wishbone at the front, with springs, shock absorbers and stabiliser bar, work capably with the parabolic lead springs at the rear, but it’s only when there is a signiicant amount of weight in the back that you begin to appreciate the advances Nissan has made in improving the overall ride. The Cabstar still struggles immensely over speed bumps, with back-breaking jolts even at the lowest possible speeds, and you ind yourself kangarooing up and down in your seat if you dip in and out of pot holes. But, providing you are mindful of its limitations, during the day-to-day grind there’s nothing to prevent you from having a comfortable journey, so long as you’re not running completely empty.

Steering feedback is reassuringly complete, and although you’re not likely to hustle the Cabstar around, you can push on while receiving plenty of communication about your connection with the road.

Because it’s a tipper there is also a high probability you will take the Cabstar off the asphalt. With power coming through the twin rear wheels, there’s no need to worry about getting stuck. The Cabstar easily inds traction on loose surfaces, and the 130hp engine with 270Nm of torque can capably haul you and your payload around a site even at 3.5 tonnes.

When it comes to dumping your payload, simple up or down buttons on the robust remote control do the trick, while the ability to use the topor bottom-hinged rear lap allows gravels and other items to be easily deposited. Hinged aluminium sides increase access to the cargo area, which is 950mm off the loor.

Access to the Cabstar’s interior is via a single step which, due to the intrusion of the wheel arch, is positioned well forward of the space you need to occupy as a driver. With wet boots, we found mastering the entry process dificult and dangerous. However, once inside we were pleased by the space now offered in the Cabstar. Given the location of the engine, the positioning of the ive-speed manual transmission – between driver and passenger seat rather than on the dash – is understandable, although it does adversely affect cross-cab access.

Although the seating position is low, you do get a great view towards the front and through the enormous wing mirrors, but if it weren’t for the height-adjustable steering wheel we would have struggled to ind enough leg room. An overhead shelf and numerous central recesses provide ample storage, and we particularly like the two decent sized gloveboxes and the smaller central storage area. On the outside there is also a small toolbox locker.

Sadly, there is little in the way of sound deadening, so despite the 3-litre engine being very capable and impressively economical, at motorway speeds and under acceleration it is painfully loud.

The Cabstar is a vehicle of extreme contrasts. Extremely practical and rugged but, at times, extremely uncomfortable.

Ford Transit Tipper 115 T350

Despite being king among panel vans, the Ford Transit is not unfamiliar with the rough requirements of the wider working world. Ford’s One-Stop range has seen the Transit visit box van, curtainsider and dropside markets, in addition to offering a tipper body.

Like the Cabstar, the Transit tipper is a versatile workhorse, but the added size of the larger front-engined machine does add weight to the vehicle and in some sectors that could mean critical payload is lost. While a maximum payload of 1,123kg for our test vehicle isn’t poor, it is still 177kg (16%) less than the Cabstar. This is despite Ford’s best efforts to reduce weight through an extensive review of the bodywork. As you would expect with a 3.5-tonne Transit, load area is high, with a 3,200mm load length and a width of 2,064mm.

Our test vehicle was a rental model generously supplied by Commercial Vehicle Solutions UK (www.cvs.ltd.uk), and as such made do without any of the frills normally found on press leet models. This meant options including satellite navigation (£945) and Bluetooth (£200) were not itted, making the Transit’s £27,750 list price slightly more comparable to the £21,848 Cabstar. However, the base speciication of our test models is where much of the similarities end.

Onor off-road, the Transit’s suspension cushions you capably, whether loaded or unloaded. The steering is precise and informative, and as the forward weight of the engine is balanced out by the mass of the tipper body you don’t feel as though you are at the leading edge of a pendulum as you turn into corners. Running unladen leads to body roll, but adding weight lowers the ride height just enough to make the Transit feel far more civilised and manageable.

The 2.4-litre common-rail diesel engine is smaller than the Cabstar’s 3-litre unit and produces just 115hp as a result. However, its torque igure of 310Nm surpasses the Japanese cab-over. Where the Cabstar requires a certain degree of brutishness with the right foot to keep it moving when fully loaded, the Transit can be treated more delicately, and your reward for doing so is that you will not be punished with deafness – the Transit’s engine sounds far more relaxed across the rev-range.

On the inside, the Transit’s cabin feels well put together, with a typically hardy steering wheel and irm gearshift. The layout is also more conventional and user-friendly, with large door pockets, central dash storage and twin glovebox.

When it comes to tipping, the Transit makes do without a remote control, Ford preferring a ixed unit positioned to the side of the driver’s seat. An easy-to-use joystick raises and lowers the body, and can be easily operated from inside or outside the cab. As in the Cabstar, there is an emergency override switch, along with a safety catch that mechanically locks the tipper body into place.

All three sides of the load space fold down, to reveal a deck that is fractionally higher than the Cabstar at 995mm from the loor, while the rear gate is also top-hinged.

The Transit has many admirers as a panel van, and as a tipper its reputation is not damaged. At nearly 800mm longer than the Cabstar, and more than 200mm wider, this tipper’s size might limit its uses for some, but the merits of this One-Stop conversion shows that the Transit’s boundaries are limitless.

Verdict

The price difference of nearly £6,000 between the two tippers is a lot, but purchase price is not the only consideration. Sadly for the Nissan, once you factor in running costs it’s a different story and things even out signiicantly.

Over the course of our test the Nissan managed a creditable 25.3mpg, while the Transit recorded a slightly higher 25.9mpg. While these igures vary depending on the nature of your business, they are encouraging, but whole-life costs extend far beyond fuel consumption.

When it comes to the rough working life of the average tipper, spare parts also play a massive part in running costs, which is why John McQue, commercial manager of Transit owner CVS, says the company would struggle to justify purchasing a Cabstar.

Not only is the Cabstar’s basket of commonly required spares nearly twice the price of the Transit’s, according to McQue the Cabstar’s appearance also poses a potential problem. “It’s worth noting that the cost of breaking bits off is higher on the Cabstar. The headlights, for example, are the size and cost of Mars – an important consideration for the construction industry,” he says.

However, it’s not just the headlights that are at risk of damage. The Cabstar’s size makes it an ideal inner city work tool, but the wing mirrors are vulnerable. At £318 versus the Transit’s cost of £81 per unit, it’s little wonder McQue believes the Cabstar tipper isn’t right for rental in the construction business.

Coming from such a petite package the Cabstar’s payload is impressive, but although the Cabstar reigns supreme in the forward-control community, in the wider world there’s no doubting the Transit is still king. ■


comments powered by Disqus