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
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190 
Model: Canter
Page 45
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Canter's cab is definitely the smaller of the two, but the only issue is getting through the door. It opens wide enough but lacks headroom, especially when the driver is wearing a hard hat.
All-round visibility is good, however, despite the fairly low-set cab. Mirrors are adequate but more van-type than truck.
The seating position is comfortable, thanks to an adjustable steering column and the optional mechanical suspension seat. There is just enough room behind the three seats for bags and coats, and the central seats backrest drops to make a table and document holder. Standard-spec comfort and convenience items include heated mirrors, electric windows remote oil check and a Siemens VDO single-disc CD/radio.
The unladen ride always a challenge on a lightweightis fair, although the body bounced quite a bit on the site roads. The steering is light with a very good turning circle, and grip is secure with no sign of understeer on site. Both on and off-road, the Canter proved reasonably quiet apart from some wind noise from the cab's top corner and an annoying rattle from a badly-adjusted dash box lid.
Playing the Canter's trump card at the loading heap raised the shovel driver's eyebrows somewhat as we asked for 'just under four tonnes, please" in what he obviously saw as a glorified pickup. Thanks to Tipmaster's composite body. aluminium sides and steel frame, the Canto carries 1,115kg more than the MAN with a 75kg driver and a full tank.
This is a worthwhile benefit on a 32tonner, but it represents an impressive 40% on these tiddlers.
When it came to unloading, little effort was involved. An obviously third-party switch plate by the driver's left knee carries electrical switches to engage PTO and to raise the Tipmaster body, with the standard hand throttle available if a bit more grunt is needec We should make it clear that the truck tested was a 7014 model with a 3.9-litre 141hp Euro-3 engine. For Euro-4. which yoi would get with a new order, there are now two engine choices. The current model is replaced by the 7C15 with a 3.0-litre unit giving two more horsepower but 50Nm less torque, and there's also a new, higher powered option, the 7C18. This has a 4.9-litre motor delivering 177hp and 530Nm.
But back to the test. Most of the time the 7014 felt no more than adequate on easy going. and it couldn't quite stay on top of the hillier bits. On the 2km climb up Birdlip Hill it lost 44 seconds against the MAN. Overall it only lost one minute, but this is a slightly flattering figure as the MAN was baulked going down Bird lip. The lesson: if you want to work your Canter on hills. spend another £1,200 on the reasonably good value 7018, The six-speed gearshift has dog-legs at each end, but second proved quite sufficient to pull away on the level, even at full weight. The all-disc brake system relies on servo-assisted hydraulics with a mechanical transmission park brake, but didn't seem to suffer unduly. The steering column carries the standard exhaust brake, which needed a quick dab of the footbrake to hold the target 80km/h on the very steepest part of Birdlip but managed the rest OK.