anel beater n reliability
Page 14
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ITH REFERENCE to your recent teresting feature comparing e relative merits of the Ford .ansit and Mercedes vans' one ing your test could not really iver is the reliability of the ihides concerned.
We currently run the ercedes 306 which is, of ourse, the predecessor of the 17. It has covered 290,000 miles id is only on its second engine. le vehicle averages 75,000 iles a year, having been Right in 1977. We have taken it the Continent and quite aquently tow a box trailer. The .hicle is a chassis cab fitted ith a 620cuft Luton body. Initially, we bought the vehicle acause at the time it was the lost economical on the market. lough it is handicapped with a anelled Luton body, we an age to return 24mpg on ierage running.
We subsequently were very apressed with its reliability. part from the replacement igine already mentioned we ave never had to replace starter iotors, alternators, fuel pump r injectors. They just go on and n.
Your test interested us articularly as we used to run a ransit. This also was fitted with Luton body and though it had a etrol engine as opposed to our Jrrent diesel, we were isappointed with its 12 miles to le gallon. Also we were for ever eying to correct minor faults uch as the starter motor oming adrift, alternator acking up, wiring coming loose nd continual bad starting. Also n 180,000 miles we ran three ngines.
As for spare parts, some of lem are slightly more xpensive than the Ford but ome, in fact, particularly the ghts, are half-price. Anyway, ve found that spare parts are. at needed anywhere near as frequently as they were on the Ford.
All in all we are very pleased with our Mercedes and will certainly be buying another model when, eventually, our present one wears out.
A. WEST Andrew West Truckage West Row near Mildenhall, Suffolk