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 
Somewhat embarrassingly, last year year artic test tally amounted to
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
just two... or exactly six less than in 2007. But why was this? Well, it's a strange cocktail of circumstances...
Back in January 2008, manufacturers were talking about lead times of up a year so they certainly didn't need a road test to stir up interest in a new truck that would take a year to deliver. Likewise, some makers preferred to wait till Euro-5 kicked in 'proper' before providing us with new product. And last but not least, the tractor manufacturers clearly know how little the difference can be between a 'winner and 'loser' around our Scottish test route the top three (Euro-4/5) 44-tonne artics in our roadtest database are separated by just 0.37mpg; at 40-tonnes it's 0.36mpg, So, unless they feel they're in with a decent shout, manufacturers are a little bit reluctant to put a truck up for test. Sad but true.
Let's just hope that with lead times slashed and a desperate need to sell more trucks, and Euro-5 regs fully bedded-in, well see more test tractors in 2009!
But back to our two contenders,.
Both were fleet machines with 440hp 13-litre engines. Both had high-roof or high-datum sleeper cabs. They both had auto boxes, too. In fact, they lock the perfect match for a direct comparison.
Unfortunately, the Volvo FM13.440 Globetrotter was a
40-tonner, while the Scania R440 Highline was a 44-tonner So instead, we've had to make our Testers' Choice selection based on individual merits although both als testers praised each Swede's level of driver comfort and ride and handling and low interior noise levels which doesn't help either...
Despite a (not surprisingly) higher fuel consumption, on sheer productivity (based on mpg x av.speed x payload) the Scania came top by shifting its superior 28.78-tonne payload at a higher average speed.
However, the FM's lower diesel bill, and subsequent overall running cost of £36.90/100km, was noticeably better despite the extra cost of Ad Blue.
Moreover, while the SCR-equipped Volvo's 8.1mpg put it within the top three of our 40-tonne test contenders, the EGR Scania was more than half an mpg down on the third-placed truck in our 44-tonne top three, and almost a mile per gallon down on the number one MAN TGA 440 with 8.46mpg.
Despite the fact that the Scania was forced to make an unscheduled detour due to road closures on the A68 (making apples-for-apples comparisons even harder), the Volvo is undeniably closer to the leading pack.
And simply for that reason, we've given the FM the top spot in 2008.