Twelve ways of travelling light
Page 46
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
acked up on its separate chas;is, the lorry's styling suits its lon-hgv application. Because he cab is thus mounted, there is io engine cowl inside, and so a lual passenger seat is possible. Another advantage is that Toss-cab access is better, with rnly the floor-mounted gearever to obstruct movement. The :ab tilts to 450 in normal use, but an be induced to a full 52° for najor overhaul or repairs.
Inside, there is full instruhentation, including a tachoiraph with integral tachometer. he centre of the dash houses ne clutch reservoir, which is idden beneath a flap.
There is an lsringhausen nonuspension seat, which is clothovered and adjustable for reach nd height. Practical rubber matng is used for the flooring, and endant pedals are used for lutch and brake operation.
The MAN D0226MF six-cyliner engine which has a capacity ,f 5.68 lit (347cin) produces 00kW (136bhp) at 3,000rpm and ives a more than adequate perormance at 1 3.5kW/tonne I 8bhp/ton). Despite this, overall Jel consumption was a reasonble 14.8 lit/100km (19.05mpg). Noise levels inside were fairly DW — 7 8dB — taken at lotorway cruising speed. We id find access to the cab was bstructed by the steering fheel, though well-placed grab
handles helped.
To sum it up, the MT offered a stylish yet lightweight-looking vehicle near the top of the league on fuel consumption for 7.5-tonners.
The first of our back-to-back tests was of petrol and diesel versions of the Renault Master. Introduced to Britain this year, we tested the front-wheel-drive models (rear-wheel drive won't be available until next year). Both vans have been built on the modular principle, and the only difference between them and the rear-wheel drive versions is the floor van height.
All van shells are built with two side door apertures behind the normal cab doors, so twinaccess can be obtained. Another option is a tailgate in place of the twin rear doors, which makes it possible to permutate any combination required.
Both fwd vans have a low floor height — 506mm (19.9in) above ground level for the petrol, and slightly lower on the diesel. Load volume on the Renaults looked massive and at 9.0 5cum (318cuft) it certainly is generous, though other vehicles such as the Transit parcels van and Dodge 50-Series can beat that.
Single rear wheels help to keep the load space free of obstructions, with a usable width of 1,248mm (49in) between the wheel arches.
The petrol version comes with a 1,995cc ohc four-cylinder unit, while the diesel is the SOFIM 2,445cc engine. Outputs are 59.7kW (80bhp) and 53.7kW (72bhp) respectively.
But overall the diesel is much the worst bet, we found. It is noisy, sluggish and its fully laden fuel consumption of 12.38 lit/100km (22.82mpg) was only 2.55mpg better than the petrol — or just 12.5 per cent.
We decided it would take many extra miles to justify the initial extra cost of the diesel version and its more expensive fuel.
Renault, we felt, made a good job of the driver's cab. It is both practical and comfortable. A capacious lidded glovebox was useful for storing delivery notes and so on. One minus, however, was the pistol-grip hand-brake lever which had an awkward truncated type of rowing action.
We summed up by saying Renault was obviously aiming at Ford, the major UK maker, with its vans — the short whee petrol Master being ch€ than its equivalent Transit, the diesel. But for our mc the petrol Master won h down.
If Ford's Transit is under a from France, it is also menaced by Germany. Our test — two complete but bac back tests — was of the wheelbase Transit 100 vE the newly introduced Merc 208 petrol van.
The long wheelbase Tr. uses the twin wheel van E but has single rear wheels
ts. It features the two-litre engine and on our test gave aden fuel consumption of lit/100km (23.7mpg), while laden it produced ' lit/100km (26.5mpg). Both s were achieved at 52.3km/h 5mph).
ransits offer a vast range of ons, from sliding front doors ;ide-loading doors. Our test had hinged cab doors and red a load length 0.76m n) more than its smaller :her. The load area was re:ad by two large wheel les, so that a 4ft-wide piece ardboard couldn't be accomiated between them — a vback for the construction istry.
nlike its smaller brothers, the van has a larger (68 lit — 31) fuel tank, giving a better le and it is thus better suited ong runs.
heaper than the Transit is the I 208 panel van with a 2.3 ohc engine. Its fuel conlotion was, at 16.41 lit/100km '.22 mpg) laden and 7 lit/100km (22.83mpg) unla den, much worse than the Transit. Payload, too, was lower (by 25kg or 0.5cwt) in spite of the Ford's lower gvw.
But our tester felt the Mercedes was by far the more pleasant vehicle. Everything about it said "quality", from the factory-finished paint job to the plastic coat hooks in the cab.
The van's shape, being virtually a box on wheels, is first class for all load types and flattopped wheel arches give more usable space. A load volume of 7cum (247cuft) is available. Access to the cab, he felt, was good through wide-opening doors.
Firm seating was comfortable and covered in hard-wearing material. The gearlever is quite far back from the driver's seat, but is easy enough to reach. A straightforward, but distinctively Mercedes, dashboard is well laid out.
There are no steering columnmounted stalks, with the indicator combination unit and the ignition steering lock separately mounted.
Good performance, a high standard of finish both inside and out and a low price all led us to favour the Mercedes over the Transit.
Yet another Renault came up for test at the end of August, this time the Trafic. Smaller than the Master, it too can be frontor rear-wheel drive. Our test model, the T800 with frontwheel drive, offered a gross weight of 2,100kg (2.06tons) with payload of 900kg (17.7cwt) including driver.
Fuel consumption from the 1,397cc petrol engine was 10.371it/100km (27.25mpg) laden and 8.781it/100km (32.18mpg) unladen. However, journey times were slow at 46.4km/h (28.8mph) and 49.5km/h (30.8mph). These were not only due to a low power to weight ratio but also to heavy traffic.
The cab, like the bigger Master's, is well-equipped and our tester liked the safety features, such as a jointed steering column and energy absorbing front end. Access to the cab is good, via wide-opening doors set back behind the front axle line. Double rear doors give access to the load space, but the rear arches detract from its usable area by cutting width to 1.1m (3ft 7in).
On the road, moderate crosswinds produced disturbing effects on the Trafic's steering. Like its big brothers, the Trafic also had a pronounced brake squeal, but the brakes themselves pulled up squarely and well.
To sum up, we felt the Trafic offered good value for money with a useful load space, but a relatively small engine made it somewhat under-powered.
The full road test of Bedford's KB 26 pickup appears elsewhere in this issue. It is sufficient here to say that it is a lively performer with a frugal thirst, giving a large payload capacity. Rubber mats and vinyl seats prepare the cab for hard use, while column gearchange makes the full width of the bench seat usable,