Twelve ways of travelling light
Page 44
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ye, so too were ride and hand characteristics. Braking was lultless with maximumoessure stops producing little ?viation. We felt, though, that e foot pedal pads could be ade bigger in view of the ?hide's commercial role.
An excellent (10m — 33ft) rning circle achieved with less an four turns lock to lock made e Escort very manoeuvrable — eal for urban work. Adequate re and aft seat adjustment with iriable back rest produced a )mfortable driving position, id the fascia is neat and well id out and controls well placed. All-round visibility was good, ded by large door mirrors, an tenor mirror, large screen and co neat side windows behind e front doors. Our test vehicle id optional head restraints, id a load cage behind the ats, which was a useful extra. Front-wheel drive has meant a dv floor height and improved ternal capacity, but the rear
wheel arches intrude somewhat. However, Ford says its floor height of 1.83m (6ft) makes it the best in its class while giving 2.26cum (80cuft) of load area.
All in all comfort, accessibility to the power unit, low maintenance items, good load space, and stylish looks made the Escort a van which can be all things to all men.
Our next test took us right up to the limit of our category, the Renault JK 75. Purpose-built for urban delivery work, the JK 75 comes with a choice of four wheelbases and, of course, can be driven by non-hgv drivers.
The Renault 720 engine gives a fairly low output of 64kW (86bhp), but with the highest axle ratio it gives a top speed of nearly 60mph. Our test vehicle had the 3.85m (12ft 71/2in) wheelbase, and fitted with an alloy dropside body it gave a payload capacity of 4.45 tonnes.
The cab used for the Renault is a version of the Club of Four joint project. Doors open to 90° and it has a low entry by wide non-slip steps and has good grab handles. Cross-cab movement is restricted by the gearchange and the cab comes with a non-suspension cloth-covered seat. This gives plenty of adjustment, however. Rubber mats are used for the flooring and these come flush to the door opening.
A large front screen gives good forward visibility and this is complemented by five quarter lights and rear panel windows.
Daily checks on oil and water are made at the rear of the cab, and for further accessibility the cab tilts to 52°.
On the road, the JK 75 seemed somewhat sluggish but covered the route at an average speed 60.8km/h (37.8mph) at an ave age fuel consumption c 16.381it/100km (17.24mpg). TI five-speed ZF box was easy use, and noise levels were lo even at maximum revs.
Other controls, such as tt pendant clutch and brake p dais, were light in operation ar well placed.
To sum up, we felt the JK I had better than average comfoi visibility and accessibility, that its small output engir made it struggle on th motorway.
The Japanese are very stror in the light vehicles sector of tlBritish market, and our next te was the Mitsubishi L300 pan van. Introduced to Britain in Ju 1980, it is the only forwai control van offering two sicil loading doors as standard.
3imilar in looks to the VW )nsporter, it is nevertheless mpletely different in layout th a front-mounted, 1600cc, itar-cooled, overhead cam en)e. A four-speed synchromesh x transmits power to the rear 'eels.
:uriously, perhaps, the Mitsu;hi has a separate chassis, owing different body types to fitted.
"ilow filling of the fuel tank asperated our tester, but the n produced excellent fuel re ts — 8.54 lit/100km (29.6mpg) len, 8.5 lit/100km (33.22mpg) laden — both at speeds niter to those of the Transit 80, part from some braking deitions, the van handled well. waver, cab access is poor and )ugh the standard of trim is lh, the vinyl seats look as if »,/ wouldn't stay clean for ong. Heater and ventilation systems were excellent, and interior noise levels low.
Although the L300 has a low gross weight of 2,0050 (1.97 tons) it loses nothing on payload because of its low kerb weight. However, its small load area may inhibit some operators.
Bedford's long-serving CF has been tarted up and the CF tag dropped. Basically, though, it has retained much the same shape, even though it rejoices in the name "Bedford light van". Our test of the 250 — designated to denote the gross metric weight (2.5 tonnes) — was carried out in May.
With a payload of 1,100kg (1ton 1cwt) the van produced 13.47 lit/100km (20.98mpg) laden on our West London light van circuit; while unladen it jumped to 25.5mpg. Average speeds were 50.6km/h (31.5mph) and 51.3km/h (31.9mph) respectively.
The Bedford is equipped with a fairly hefty 2.3-lit ohc engine and four-speed gearbox, which made it more at home on motorway running.
An irritating gearlever rattle at high speed was one of our few complaints, while the semi-for ward control design give reasonable cross-cab access an provides ample storage areas.
Braking seemed good (our rE corder produced some odd reac ings, though, but was diagnose as faulty) with straight lin stops. Acceleration too wa commendable, but hill restart steeper than one in five defeate our Bedford. As for the steed nc its four and a half turns lock t lock by means of rack and pinio gave a good turning circle c 10.5m (34ft 6in).
Despite other cosmeti changes, including a new grilli front wings and bonnet to in prove accessibility, the Bedfor still has small flat mirrors — to small for us.
Overall we reckoned the Bec ford offered good load volumi comfortable high speed crui: irg, and good accessibility.
Few MANs come our way i the course of a normal test yea but one that did this time wz the MT 7.5-tonne 8.136 from if joint MAN-VW range.
Using the VW LT cab, suitab