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
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168 
This year when t came to selecting the Testers Choice
Page 38
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
tractor for operators running at 44 tonnes, we were faced with a dilemma : should we go for functional or flashy, prudent or powerful, expensive or economical?
In 2007 we completed eight artic roadtests, all with two things in common: they were running on three-axle tractors and had a GCW of 44 tonnes.
Initially we divided them via Euro ratings and emissions technology. At Euro-4 we had the Volvo FH16 580 SCR (selective catalytic reduction) with a tag axle, and MAN'sTGA as the sole EGR (exhaust gas recirculation) entry.
The remaining six were rated at Euro-5 with SCR: the Oaf CF85, lveco Stralis, Renault Premium and Magnum. Scania R620 Griffin and Volvo FH480.
A better way of breaking them down proved to be engine size. The sub-11-litre trucks included the Premium, TGA and Stralis. Both the French and the Germans scored well in terms of fuel economy and what the Stralis lacked here it made up for in product improvement and enhanced reputation.
In the next group came the 12-litre trucks: the CF85, Magnum and FH480. They produced fuel figures comparable with the sub-11-litre crowd; Oafs entry led the way with a cracking fuel result before the Germans' timely intervention.
Above them came the Swedish beasts -the 15.6-litre R620 Griffin and Volvo's industry-topping 16.1-litre FH 16. Scania held sway on power but Volvo edged in front on fuel economy.
Overall we tested just about every scenario open to a transport manager's expense account. With so many different ways to fund a vehicle, the decision tends to centre on cost of ownership and the type of operation you run.
The FH16 was the quickest, followed by the Magnum; the slowest was the TGA and FH13. Heaviest was the Scania at over 9,2 tonnes followed by the two Volvos; surprisingly, with its 12.9-litre engine, Oaf's CF85 emerged as the lightest contender with MAN a few pounds heavier.
In terms of running costs the MAN TGA with its 020 engine proved the cheapest, followed by the Oaf. And if you are looking to cash in three years down the line, the Scania held the best residual value with the FH16 just E300 behind. The cheapest? That was the Oaf.
So, with Commercial Motorwearing its transport manager's hat, we felt we were duty-bound to choose the best-performing and cost-effective truck for any given operation. All things considered, we plumped for MAN's TGA.
The cab was, just, on offer when we tested it and the all-important driveline underpins the TGS, which subsequently replaced it.
The Dutch wagon, a close and worthy runner-up, was the lightest, the third quickest, and a high scorer when it came to running costs resulting in a sound, functional truck.
If you want something to stand out from the crowd then any of the Swedish entries, or the Magnum, with a Volvo-sourced engine, will suffice.