1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194 
MIRAGE NO MO RE
Page 40
Page 41
Page 42
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Renault's original Mascot was so elusive we dubbed it the Mirage. But we've hunted down the latest version to find out if it can live up to that early shimmer of promise.
Industry veterans may be able to cast their minds back to Telford in 1999, and the fondly remembered IRTE Show. One of the stars of the show that year was Renault's brand new contender in the gap between 3.5 and 7.5 tonnes: the Mascott. Was it any good? Who knows? We don't, as Renault never managed to provide one for roadtest, although it showed promise during a brief drive around Dunstable.
We had to wait five years for the second generation Mascott: at the press launch in Bordeaux we put more miles on the new model than we'd managed during the entire life of its predecessor. Initial impressions were positive, but now we've put it through the full road test process and can finally tell you what it's really like.
Mascott's place in the market is best defined by its rivals, which are basically the larger versions of the Iveco Daily and MercedesBenz Sprinter, although the Ford Transit and Volkswagen LT also have a bit of overlap.The Renault comes at GVWs of 3,500,5,000,5,500 and 6,500kg, although the smallest example's struggle to carry a practical payload means we won't see too many.
Mention of the Daily is significant, as the Renault and Iveco share some components; principally the cab sub-structure. All the exterior panels are unique to Renault. as is the interior, which shares much with the latest Master range.
The original Mascott had even more in common with the Daily, including Sofun engines.This has now changed to impressive new 3.0-litre common-rail units from Renault's group partner,Nissan.They're rated at 120 and 160hp—the extra power comes from a variable geometry turbocharger. Running costs are greatly reduced by the use of longer life components and oil change intervals of up to 60,000km if the night oils are used.
The lower rating drives the rear wheels through a five-speed box, while the 160 gets an extra ratio; both transmissions courtesy of ZF.This week's test vehicle is a 160.55 panel van with the longest and tallest body choice.
On the road One of the star features of the Mascott is the engine.The four-valves-percylinder Nissan common-rail offers excellent flexibility, and while the peak torque (artificially capped at the gearbox's limit of 350Nm) is not remarkably high, nearly all of it is available from 1,5003,00Orpm. Optimum economy entails keeping the engine speed below 2.000rpm but it requires a fair bit of discipline to do this. There's a touch of booming resonance around 1500rpm under heavy load, but this apart the engine is very smooth. Noise levels are such that raised voices aren't needed at 70mph, when the engine is spinning close to its 3,600rpm limit.
The only extraneous noises were a slight rattle from the radio area and another from the outer air vent on the driver's side, which had become dislodged.
The dash-mounted shift for the ZF six-speed box has a slightly notchy and agricultural feel,but is always predictable.
Parabolic leaf springs all round give a firm but wellcontrolled ride with a full load aboard, and during the launch we'd found that unladen behaviour was also pretty good. Handling was fine on the typically greasy lanes of our test route ; the electronically controlled disc brakes did their stuff without drama.The handbrake has a long-travel ratchet, but is within easy reach.
Productivity Our database of van tests at these inbetween weights is somewhat limited by the number of vehicles on the market. The two vehicles in our comparison tables both had separate van bodies on chassis-cabs, so exact payload comparisons aren't possible. Compared with a similarly bodied 3.5-tonne van, about three-quarters of I the Mascott's extra 2,000kg of gross weight translates to extra payload. Looked at from the other direction, the Mascott's net payload of 2,662kg is not too far off that of a typical 7.5tonner.We can't help any more on this one — you'll have to see how the sums factor into your own operations.
The 14.2m loadspace is entered by unglazed 2700 rear doors and a sliding nearside door; the bulkhead is full height.unglazed steel.
If we can't reach any conclusions on payload, we certainly can on fuel.The two comparison vehicles were running at 490 and 1,000kg higher GVWs and had taller bodies, but we simply weren't expecting the Renault to have such an advantage. It returned a highly impressive 23.3mpg around our Welsh distribution route, and it wasn't at the expense of performance.A good average speed was backed up by a sub20sec 0-50mph track time; and it powered up Wantage Hill a clear half a minute faster than the similarly powered Sprinter.
Warranty runs to full cover for the first year with a second year for driveline components. Residual value predictions are on a par with the lveco's, although some way behind the big Sprinter. Large twin-rear-wheel vans like this are prone to side damage, but the Mascott's sacrificial plastic side protection girders should avoid excessive body repair costs.
Cab comfort
Being slightly taller than your average van the Mascott gets an extra step up, although for a person of average mobility, it's probably more hindrance than help.The interior is predominantly light grey, with a black centre panel and a Trafic-style carbon-look shelf on top.
The centre of the dash is dominated by lots of electronics, including a CD/radio, tachograph and a full-colour TMC-equipped (live traffic messaging) sat-nay systern.The cruise control is a feature not often fitted as standard to this size of vehicl e, so we should be grateful, but the dash mounted switch approach is not as user-friendly as a column mounted system. A more welcome feature is the 'set speed' display in the dash which flashes accusingly if you over-run the nominated speed.
The main instruments are white-on-black rev counter and speedo, with water temperature and fuel contents indicated by orange vertical bar graphs. Stalks on the (sadly non-adjustable) steering column operate lights on the left, and wipers, radio and trip computer on the right.
A mechanically suspended driving seat has enough features that it wouldn't look out of place on a real truck, including height, rake, load adjustment and an armrest.All three seats have full seat-belts, height adjustable on the outers.
The overall feel of the Mascott is surprisingly refined — at least the equal of any competitor. Remote central locking is optional,but electric windows and mirrors are standard— it's a pity they give a stingy view, and are not really good enough for a van of this type.
Storage facilities are reasonable, with a basket under the dual passenger seat, a lockable glove box and a storage bin where the passenger's airbag would go.A handy A4sized elasticated pouch lives at the bottom of the central dash. Each end of the dash has a convenient can or mobile phone holder;large door bins include bottle holders. •