AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Sevel vans have been around for some time but the

30th June 1994, Page 30
30th June 1994
Page 30
Page 32
Page 33
Page 34
Page 30, 30th June 1994 — Sevel vans have been around for some time but the
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?

latest variation on the theme, the Peugeot Boxer, could be the best yet with a carrying capacity that sets a new record.

peugeotS new Boxer sure packs a punch...We went fifteen rounds with the Boxer...This Boxer deserves a Lonsdale Belt...

It's not easy to write about Peugeot's new panel van without taking advantage of its name, but the Boxer deserves better. This is the first full UK test of one of the new Sevel models—the most important new panel van for years. It aims straight at Transit territory, offering masses of space, a good payload and a range of new engines, all at the Sevel's traditionally competitive price.

The Boxer replaces the Talbot Express, Peugeot's variant of the Italian-built Sevel van (aka the Fiat Ducat° and Citroen Relay) which has soldiered on since 1981 helped by a facelift in 1990. But the Talbot name has been dropped, and this really is a completely new van, It retains the front-wheel drive of the old model, permitting big load volumes and a low load floor, but is designed to come up to the latest standards of handling, ride comfort and ergonomics.

The new van certainly looks imposing: styled by Giorgio Giugiaro's Ital Design, it has the wedge front that has become more or less standard among panel vans. The massive front bumper makes it look broad, in fact it is hardly wider than the old model. But the boxy appearance does not deceive, as the Boxer has a large and very practical loadspace that sets a new standard for the class.

The Sevel vans are already hugely popular

on the Continentover 1.3 million have been sold—but they face an uphill struggle in the UK, where "Transit" is the generic name for panel vans, and in Germany (far and away Europe's biggest market), where "Transporter" is the equivalent term.

Ford and VW's massive marketing clout and sales networks are formidable obstacles, which Peugeot, among others, has sought to fight with a network of specialist van dealers. PSA (Peugeot/Citroen) and Fiat must be confident, however, as the Val-di-Sangro Sevel plant has been refurbished to take potential daily production to around 800 units, at a cost of £600m.

• PRODUCT PROFILE When the original Sevel vans were introduced in 1981 the range came in piecemeal, with the basic vans leading the way. The Boxer has come in as a complete range: vans are available in three wheelbases, three weight ranges and three roof heights, along with chassis-cab models, and there is a choice of four diesel engines and a petrol option.

Peugeot is the most flexible of the three Sevel manufacturers in terms of engine availability. Fiat has an equally wide range of van bodies and engines, but certain combinations are not yet available in the UK even though they offer a wider range of chassis-cabs. Citroen's range is limited to diesel engines. As before, similarly-specified models are priced identically.

Gross weights are 2.7 tonnes, 3.2 tonnes and 3.5 tonnes, with payloads up to 1,600kg. The three wheelbase options are 2.85m, 3.20m and 3.70m, with three heights of about 2.1m, 2.5m and 2.7m. Load volume ranges from 75m3 to 12m3, which is one of the best figures for a mass-produced 3.5-tonne van.

The sole petrol engine option is the 2.0-litre Peugeot XU10 J2, which puts out 110hp (82kW); evidently the choice for power rather than economy. Peugeot has also supplied diesel engines. Its wellestablished XUD9 1.9-litre diesel is available as either the naturally aspirated AU or the turbocharged TF, which produces 90hp (67kW). Heavier Boxers are also available with a 2.5-litre diesel, the Peugeot DJ5. This new, indirectinjection, three-valves-per-cylinder, overheadcam model puts out 85hp (63kW); the turbocharged DJ5T version produces 102hp (76kW) with a peak torque of 230Nm. Two gearboxes are used, depending on torque output, but both are operated by an unusual dash-mounted lever, which makes for an unobstructed footwell.

Further developments are due next year with the introduction of a 4x4 version (like the old model's, a full-time system more suited to foul weather than off-road use) and an electronically controlled, automated gearbox.

Build quality and longevity were points of concern with the old Sevels, so the company has introduced many robot-operated assembly lines and largely galvanized bodywork; the effectiveness of these, and their effect on residual values, remains to be seen.

Our test vehicle was as basic as they come: the ros (2.7t GVW, short-wheelbase) standard-roof panel van, fitted with the naturally aspirated 1.9-litre diesel, costing £10,600 (exVAT). Only the petrol-engined 270S is cheaper, at £10,285; the turbo-diesel will set you back £11,700. Prices of the new models are running at around 10% more than their equivalent predecessors, though gross weights are generally higher and payloads are correspondingly better. The most expensive model is the £17,300 350L High Roof with the 2.5-litre turbo-diesel; it's £1,100 more than the naturally aspirated version.

• PRODUCTIVITY

The prime considerations here are payload, load volume and fuel consumption. CM can give the Boxer an unqualified thumbs-up on the first two counts, but we'll have to reserve judgment on its fuel economy. The diesel gave a reasonable laden fuel return of 27.3mpg (10.41it/100km) around the Kent van route, but this was after only 500 miles; we suspect that it would do better when fully run-in.

The old Sevel in Citroen C25 1000D guise (using the same engine) managed a slightly better 27.7mpg (10.21it/100km), albeit at a lower gross weight. Its smaller frontal area should have been offset by poorer aerodynamics than the new model, which claims a drag coefficient of 0.25. This may be borne

out by the new model's better unladen fuel consumption. However, both fuel runs were hampered by road works on the M25.

So round one—fuel economy—is a split decision (those boxing cliches are unavoidable). What about the Peugeot's payload?

The 270S has a net payload of 1,050kg, a hair away from the Transit 100's 1,085kg. This is not bad, as other competitors include VW's "1,000kg" Transporter which can only muster 935kg with a much smaller loadspace. The payload is fully usable, as the heavy-duty suspension gives a very respectable load tolerance of 160kg.

Round two—payload—is a points win for the Boxer. It's all very well being able to carry the weight, but the next question is: have you got the space?

Load volume is where the Peugeot delivers its killer punch. Front-wheel drive gives it an immediate advantage. There's no propshaft or differential to tuck away beneath the floor and the Boxer pops a horseshoe in its glove when it comes to width. The new Severs track and overall width is little greater than the old model's, and it's just an inch wider than the Transit, but all of that width is used, with slab sides and no flare to the wheelarches.

Measured by the strict VDA system the 270S has a load volume of 6.5m3 (230ft3) which is more than 15% better than the semihigh roof, short-wheelbase Transit (which is three inches taller). In fact the French literature quotes a load volume of 7.5m3 (265ft3), probably due to the more forgiving SAE assessment of load volume. The biggest Boxers are said to offer 10.5m3 VDA (12.0m3 SAE) of load volume, which is enough to give the new Transit highcube a run for its money. Other contenders such as the high-roof VW Transporter (7.8m3 VDA) are nowhere near.

So round three— load volume—is a clear KO. So much for the raw figures; how practical is the Boxer's loadspace? Here, too, it's good news: the maximum internal width is 1,808mm, 89turn more than the Transit, while the space between wheelarches is 1,388mm, a whisker more than the Ford. Loadspace length is class-leading too, while the internal height is an amazing 1,562mm, which is 48mm higher than even the semihigh roof Transit.

The side door is equally impressive, being 60mm wider than the Ford's, and almost 200mm taller. Loading height is less remarkable, at around 540mm. Unusually, the high-roof (2.5m) versions of medium and long-wheelbase models have commensurately high (1,769mm) side loading doors.

Another noteworthy feature is that the side door does not encroach on the floor area; many operators may specify the additional offside dim an option at £240.

Lashing points are positioned on the sides, a little way above the floor to allow for load lining, but the standard bulkhead is a flimsylooking ladder affair behind the driver's seat, which wouldn't stop a determined runaway load. A glazed full bulkhead costs £215.

The Boxer sets new standards in load volume and practicality, while keeping up to the mark in payload. Fuel economy is uncertain, but we don't think it will disappoint.

• ON THE ROAD

The old Sevel was always a good advertisement for the benefits of front-wheel drive. Predictable handling came as standard, with a slight, safe dose of understeer. The new model is much the same, but its beam axle to the rear, suspended on leaf springs, has been overtaken by the VW Transporter's all-independent setup. The ride is good when laden, but the rear end is apt to joggle when empty, and road noise is prominent. This may be due to the rather sporty 70-profile tyres at each corner. Such a large loadspace means that body boom is inevitable, so the sound readings are unimpressive, but a couple of sofas damp things down considerably.

Wind noise is none too bad, though a ghost of the old Severs doubtful build quality was apparent: with the passenger's door shut daylight was visible through the top of the door seal. Tut, tut.

Front-wheel drive can make steering heavy, but not in this case. The unassisted rack-andpinion setup is direct, but low-geared. Power steering (a £445 option on the 270) comes as standard on heavier models and cuts wheel. twirling by 25%.

Front-wheel drive lets the Peugeot down in one way, however: traction. We couldn't restart the fully-laden van on our 1-in-4 test hill. This may be partly due to the engine; these days, 68hp doesn't get you very far even with low gearing, and drivers expecting ■ car-like acceleration will be disappointed. The aerodynamics made motorway cruising simple enough, and the mediocre average speeds round Kent were largely the fault of roadworks, but don't go looking to pull the skin off too many heavy-duty rice puddings.

The dash-mounted gearlever is well sited. This really is a good idea (Mercedes is trying out a similar system) though the short-throw lever was a little stiff. Possibly this was due to the lack of miles under its belt. The brakes are fine: our van pulled slightly to the left in a crash stop but retardation was even with no sign of fade. However, the handbrake levermounted to the right, as before-took an almighty heave to restrain the Boxer on the 1in-4. And, like the old model, it was mounted far too low for comfort. The mirrors are an improvement on the old model's and are good by most standards. Mind you, the width of the Boxer takes some getting used to; it's worth remembering that the body overhangs the wheels.

• CAB COMFORT This is where standards have improved most since 1981. The class leaders from Ford and VW can claim to have become car-like in their levels of comfort and equipment; if you ignore the high noise levels that seem endemic to panel vans.

The old Sevel suffered from a peculiar, upright driving position, inadequate legroom and poor interior finish. The new vehicle is a partially successful attempt to address these failings.

The driving position is much better: no longer do you you have to hold your right foot agonisingly in mid air on the motorway, due to the high-mounted accelerator. The new setup is good, and for once the right-hand drive customer has the advantage over his Continental cousins: intrusion of the wheelarch into the footwell is less of a problem than for the southpaw Boxer.

The seats are OK, but far from the standards of the Transit. Legroom is better than before but, again, may not be enough for lanky Nordic types. Still, the avant-garde gear-lever made three-abreast seating practical.

It was good to see height-adjustable seatbelts fitted as standard, though our tester kept on letting go of the buckle and letting it clunk. click into the deep side door windows.

As for equipment, our early Boxer got an immediate black mark for the lack of a radio; we are assured that a stereo radio-cassette player (with two speakers, no less) will be fitted as standard.

The curvaceous fascia mouldings are much better than before: up to VW standards, in fact. But the three steering-column stalks (and who needs three?) are among the nastiest plastic mouldings we've seen. Stowage space is OK, if not as good as in the Transit, but there's a good deep door pocket.

• SUMMARY It's good_ It's not the answer to every van driver's prayers, but the Boxer will make its competitors sit up straight. We've not been ashamed to compare it with the Transit and Transporter, because price changes mean that it competes closely with the class leaders.

The Boxer has a tremendous appetite for loads and deserves to sell for that reason alone. But a few question marks over driveability and quality remain-and Peugeot might have impressed us more with one of its more powerful engines. Yup... it's no KO but, to mix a metaphor, the Boxer gets at least a half-Nelson on the opposition.

LII by Toby Clark


comments powered by Disqus