EXTRA PERFORMANCE
Page 55
Page 56
Page 59
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
without loss of economy
ROAD TEST: Bedford 15 17 cwt. Van SINCE the last test of a Bedford CA van, the report of which appeared in The Commercial Motor of February 2, 1962, there have been changes in body design detail and, more important, earlier this year there was a change in the engine fitted. The latest enginelarger in capacity and more powerful—was introduced for standardization reasons and followed a similar change on the Vauxhall Vietoi car. It was especially interesting to find, on testing a CAL which was otherwise identical in mechanical specification to that tested in 1962, that the expected useful improvement in performance was accompanied by a generally better fuel consumption.
The body changes in the CA have been introduced in two stages, the first in January, 1963. Then, the interioi engine cowl shape was changed, the removable shaped cover being replaced by fixed sides and a square cover plate held in place by four wing-headed fasteners, As this was less easy to remove than the original cover, the engine oil filling arrangement was revised, the aperture in the rocker cover being moved to the front and an extension being fitted to make the filling orifice accessible from the front of the van. The " bonnet" giving access to the front of the engine was also increased in width and another body change was the fitting of improved check links to the rear doors. Inside the body, the floor was brought up to the seat supports on the long-wheelbase model, giving an extra 5 sq. ft. of usable area. And, for the driver, there was an improvement in the door sliding-window layout, giving easier operation and better locking, and "knack-back " rear vision mirrors were introduced. Following the engine
change this year, there was the second batch of modifications announced only a few weeks ago. These were accompanied by a change in designation, the latest model being known as the Bedford CA Mark 2 and having a deeper windscreen and a restyled front end with anodized aluminium i'adiato grille. A restyled instrument panel was also introduced at the same time. (contd. over)eoft
From the driving point of view, the several changes have made little significat t improvement, although the vehicle is now slightly more attractive. Certainly, visibility is improved by the larger windscreen—the bottom line has been lowered and the top raised—but this results only in visibility now being on a par with comparable vans of the same type from other manufacturers. The lowering of the screen line has resulted in about an extra 9 in. in front of the van being visible from the driver's position, but the advantage is not over the full width of the screen because the steering wheel still comes in the line of vision at the lower edge of the screen and for about half the distance across it.
In the new facia layout, the instruments are easy to read and the switches are generally well placed. The exception in the latter case is the switch for the flashing direction indicators, which has been moved to the extreme right of the dash and is now reached only by stretching. For a switch that is so frequently used it would have been better to have left this control more directly in front of the driving position.
Nothing can be added to the remarks in previous test reports of Bedford CA vans regarding general handling and ride. It is an easy vehicle to drive and the suspension is good. In the latest version there is still the feeling of " wallowing at the front end when slight steering movements are made, which seems a characteristic of the CA. This is a rather strange feeling and occurs only on the initial stage of changes in direction; when taking corners there is little roll after the first " dip " of the front corner away from the bend. The steering is relatively light, and this may be part of the reason for the phenomenon. Although not difficult; access to the driver's seat from the road is not so easy as is the case with some other vans of a similar general type, the reason being that the seat is some distance from the outside of the vehicle. No change is pdssible in this respect because the semi-forward-control layout results in wheel arches protruding from the footboard and that on the driver's side prevents a re-positioning of the pedals and steering column. The arch on the passenger's side is also something of a nuisance, as there is not much foot-room for the passenger. It is obvious, however, that van buyers consider these points far outweighed by the many advantages of the CA, because sales continue to be good and the model is reported to have a very satisfactory share of the van market. 1 must say that I share the viewpoint that the advantages nullify the fairly minor disadvantages; performance is excellent, braking is very good and fuel consumption is satisfactory. What is more, the design has been in existence so long now that few troubles are likely to be experienced, there having been ample time for any " bugs " to be ironed out.
In order to get a true comparison of the current design's performance in relation to previous CA vans tested, exactly the same routes were used for this test as previously. Because there has been no change in the brake design since the 1962 test, no braking testswere carried out, the figures quoted in the specification table being those obtained in 1962. For the tests, the van was loaded with 15 cwt. of sand-filled sacks which, with two persons aboard • the vehicle, brought the gross weight to 2 tons exactly.
Economy Maintained The fuel-consumption runs were made on A6 from a point north of Barton, in Bedfordshire, to Clophill; an out-and-return run over this section was made, the distance being six miles. The usual procedure was carried out, and on the runs with one and four stops per mile each stop was of 15 seconds' duration, when the engine was left idling. Most of the consumption figures are an improvement on the test with the smaller engine, others being slightly worse, but this was likely due to different traffic conditions. All the acceleration tests produced better figures than previously and, in the case of the direct-drive tests, the engine pulled quite happily away from 10 m.p.h. in top gear. And the improved performance with the bigger engine was confirmed in the hill-climbing performance tests, which were carried out on Bison Hill. This has an average gradient of 1 in 10.5 for its 0-75-mile length and the maximum on a short stretch is 1 in 6-5. From a standstill at the bottom, a maximum-power ascent was made in the fast time of 1 minute 52 seconds, even though it was necessary to reduce speed slightly to get round the first bend on the hill. The lowest gear used was second, in which 15 seconds was spent, and minimum speed was 20 m.p.h.
The steepest section was used for stOp-and-restart tests. When facing up the hill it was found to be just impossible to start off in second gear, but an easy restart was made in first. When facing down the hill a similarly easy restart in reverse gear was made.
No high-speed fuel-consumption run was made on this occasion (extensive repairs to the M1 motorway in the Luton area would have made true comparison with the earlier test impossible), but the motorway Was used to find the maximum speeds in the four gears, these being 17, 30, 50 and 70 m.p.h.
As tested, the CAL 15/17-cwt. van costs £497 basic, finished in primer (the shod-wheelbase CAS is £24 cheaper) with an extra £12 added to this basic price for the fourspeed gearbox and £8 5s. for the passenger's seat. Painting in one of five standard colours costs an extra £15 10s. and a full-width rear bumper adds £3 is. to the price.