AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

R. D. Cater comments: I do not consider this engine

2nd February 1968, Page 122
2nd February 1968
Page 122
Page 122, 2nd February 1968 — R. D. Cater comments: I do not consider this engine
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?

to be exceptionally noisy, although, as I remarked in the test, it is a bit noiser than its predecessor in this model, the 0.400 Leyland. The reference to smoke emission was not intended to suggest that the vehicle should be run with a broken injector pipe but merely to point out that the sealing around the engine cover was in efficient. As for the pipes to the test tank these came through rubber grommetted holes in the floor and, far from allowing smoke to come in, they would not even allow fuel spilled on the floor to run out I did not suggest that the curved windscreen reduced visibility but that the wiper equipment was ineffective and although I would admit to today's wipers clearing a greater area than those of the past, this is after all 1,?68 and I would expect to see even greater cleared areas. The driving mirror position was such that air turbulence plastered the glass with road din thrown up by the vehicle itself and not by passing traffic. Of course spare drivers will not memorize the switches, but nobody should have to,. they should be identifiable irrespective of where they are situated without the need for the driver taking his eyes off the road, I entirely agree that many of these criticisms can be levelled at coachwork manufactured by other companies and would point out that, where appropriate, they are

Tags


comments powered by Disqus