The best on test
Document Actions
2005 was a bumper year for new truck launches,and previews of Euro 4 and 5 engines. But the offers of full road tests in Euro 3 products were far fewer than normal
Last year was probably a frustrating one for the UK truck manufacturers. Realising that customers in the UK were not going to buy their Euro 4 products ahead of the October 2006 deadline, they had no choice other than to focus on existing Euro 3 vehicles, in the knowledge that their days are numbered.
The reasons behind this were threefold. Firstly (and we are sure you won’t mind us saying this) UK road hauliers are very conservative by nature and, despite comprehensive reporting on the ins and outs of the imminent introduction of new Euro 4 emissions standards, there has been suspicion and some confusion surrounding the different solutions. So it is going to be a case of ‘better the Euro 3 devil you know’.
Secondly, and more importantly, the British government has made no attempt to introduce an incentive scheme – unlike some of our European competitors – that can help operators justify spending an extra £5000 on a new ‘cleaner’ truck before they have to.
And thirdly, the infrastructure to support the majority of Euro 4 engines – namely distribution and supply of AdBlue for SCR emissions control catalysts – is in its infancy in the UK.
All this aside, some manufacturers tell us they will stop taking orders for new Euro 3 rigids by the end of March and tractor units by the end of May. Others say it will be June or July. So if you want to renew with Euro 3 trucks it’s make your mind up time.
In fact, we tested two 44-tonners, one newly launched 40-tonner, four 32-tonne tippers, one 18-tonner and a 5.5-tonne van.
We drove and reported on many more, but
as these were not for fuel consumption, performance or productivity purposes, the reports were purely based on driving impressions and so and we will not review them here.
Taking the three examples we tested last year, we think the new Optidriver 2 transmission in the Renault Magnum is the pick here, with Daf’s AS Tronic box coming a close second. In ROADWAY’s opinion, the auto box has become a no-brainer and the sooner all the manufacturers make it standard the better.
Our three artics spanned the power spectrum from 430 to 530hp: 430hp has become the norm for distribution work and MAN’s 6x2 TGA 26.430 with its new D20 Common Rail engine put up an impressive performance around our heavy test route. Its average speed was down compared with the 530hp Daf XF95 Alpine and the 480hp Magnum 40-tonner, but it returned the best fuel figure of our artic group – 8.23mpg at 44 tonnes – and consequently a better overall payload productivity figure than expected.
The whole idea of our payload productivity figure is to take account of how much can be carried, how quickly and for how much. In terms of productivity, the Daf XF95 just wins here thanks to its overall performance, but it costs £35,000 more than the TGA.
The Magnum was our top pick in terms of driveability, ride and handling and, despite the Daf’s state-of-the-art in-cab entertainment, we believe that once drivers get in the cab and behind the wheel of the new Magnum, it will rocket up the driver desirability stakes for long haul and international work. A 6x2 version is now available for the UK market.
The MAN TGA’s D20 engine is truly a pocket rocket. At 44 tonnes this distribution tractor unit was good on fuel, returned a high productivity figure and the truck’s price tag is reasonable. We do not know what the effect on fuel consumption will be when MAN turns up the percentage of the exhaust gases the D20 needs to recirculate to achieve Euro 4 – EGR is MAN’s preferred solution for Euro 4.
But its performance here has to put it at the top of your fleet truck list if a last minute Euro 3 buying decision is being made.
Tested over ROADWAY's 168-mile heavy test route
Comparing the Daf CF85, ERF ECT and the Scania P340 on payload their aluminium bodies allowed for 20,680, 20,560 and 20,840kg of load respectively. But Volvo’s FM9 was no slouch in the payload department and managed 20,300kg – more than enough to keep the accountant at bay.
In terms of powertrain specification, only 40hp split this group. Daf’s CF85 relied on a 12.6-litre engine and a 12-speed automated AS Tronic transmission to get its 380hp and 1750Nm (1291lb-ft) of torque to the black top and, although its excellent performance resulted in the highest average speed of the group, it could have been instrumental in returning the highest fuel consumption figure of last year’s 8x4s.
The FM9 was more than two litres behind the Daf in terms of cubic capacity but its 380hp and 1700Nm (1254lb-ft) of torque ensured it was not far behind the Daf around our course. The difference in average speed between the two was 0.31mph, but the Volvo returned a better fuel figure of 8.83mpg.
Each time we test a truck the manufacturer sends a highly experienced driver trainer with it. Most will tell you that nowadays their master’s automated boxes are, in the hands of a sympathetic driver, nearly as good as manuals when it comes to fuel consumption. Conversely, there is no doubt that if you really give some stick to a truck with an auto box, and then do the same to an identical one fitted with a manual shift, the auto will use less fuel.
The other benefit of the auto is it protects the driveline and helps postpone the major repairs!
When we tested the Scania we thought its figure of 9.21mpg would be hard to beat at 32 tonnes, but the ERF returned an excellent 9.57mpg. This was not unique to our test. One of our tester’s industry colleagues was so amazed when he achieved a
similar figure with this truck, he demanded they check-weighed the vehicle to ensure that MAN ERF had not been cheating!
In the 8x4 aggregate sector there is little to split most of the market-leading tipper chassis. As our test results show, unlike the artic group the top productivity figure here goes to the truck with the best fuel consumption by a clear margin as payload potential only splits them by around half a tonne.
Driveability and driver acceptance is important so the Daf and Volvo win in this department. The Volvo had a sleeper cab and all the bells and whistles needed for high-profile work and the Daf has the best day cab – and both are a joy to drive. If we had to split them then we would have to give it to the Volvo. I-Shift is in our opinion the best auto box currently on the market and, thanks to Volvo taking a more realistic approach to pricing these days, you can get the build quality and comfort for a bit less.
If we had to choose between the Scania and the ERF on the same grounds, then we believe that despite Scania’s efforts to improve the P cab the ERF is still a better bet for space and comfort. The Scania’s ride and handling are superior, but we felt when powered with the 340hp motor it was the most taxing to drive of this group.
However, like horse races, in road testing there are upsets and favourites get turned over. It happened here and we suggest that if you are considering placing an order for some Euro 3 tippers – remember you could lose between 90 and 150kg of your payload at Euro 4 thanks to AdBlue tanks, catalysts and particulate filters – before it is too late the ERF has made a compelling case for itself here. If we were starting up a tipper operation today, we would buy one. It stands you the best chance of making some quick money.
But if we were established in the business with drivers and residuals to consider, it would have to be the Volvo.
Tested over ROADWAY's 168-mile heavy test route
At £43,015 the Eurocargo is a favourite with the rental companies and parcels market. It is this vehicle and its 7.5-tonne sibling that helps to put Iveco in the number three spot in the UK market over 3.5 tonnes.
At Euro 4 it will be equipped with an SCR system and this raises an interesting point. For an SCR system to work it must be kept supplied by an approved quality urea solution (AdBlue). If an irresponsible hirer or driver puts water in the urea tank or some other lesser product, the extremely delicate exhaust catalyst will sustain serious damage. This will ultimately lead to downtime, considerable expense and hassle.
If you are buying trucks like the 7.5 and 18-tonne Eurocargo to rent out, can you be confident that your customers will do the right thing? If you are not convinced it might be an idea to renew your fleet now while Euro 3 is still available. After all, you do not have to worry about the fuel consumption as much if you are hiring the trucks out and, despite our wind-affected figure of 13mpg for the Eurocargo, you can expect the 18-tonne Eurocargo to achieve 14mpg in normal operation.
Our test of the 5.5-tonne Renault Mascott was unusual. As the vast majority of our readers run commercials 7.5 tonnes and above, our normal policy on road testing is 6.5-tonnes or over. The 6.5-tonner is a real alternative to the 7.5-tonner and we believe it will take more and more of that market place in the future.
But, as we have said, 2005 was a lean year for heavy test trucks, so we bent the rules.
The overwhelming impression we formed of the Mascott is that it is still the most sturdy, workmanlike vehicle in its class. Thanks to its size, weight and manoeuvrability, it can take 2.8 tonnes of cargo, quickly, to virtually anywhere you want. All at around 25mpg.
We used to think that Renault’s Mascott was the best light truck around, but now Iveco has its new 3.0-litre engine in the Daily we feel the Mascott has some catching up to do.
Iveco tested over ROADWAY's 135-mile distribution test route
Renault tested over ROADWAY's 97.5-mile van test route
Our decision is not necessarily because it was fantastic on fuel – although fuel was a factor – nor because it was well-equipped and comfortable, with ride and handling to die for, or the fact that it ticks most of the economic and productivity boxes.
We have chosen this truck because we loved driving it and the changes that Renault has made to the Magnum puts it back in a league of its own.
The reasons behind this were threefold. Firstly (and we are sure you won’t mind us saying this) UK road hauliers are very conservative by nature and, despite comprehensive reporting on the ins and outs of the imminent introduction of new Euro 4 emissions standards, there has been suspicion and some confusion surrounding the different solutions. So it is going to be a case of ‘better the Euro 3 devil you know’.
Secondly, and more importantly, the British government has made no attempt to introduce an incentive scheme – unlike some of our European competitors – that can help operators justify spending an extra £5000 on a new ‘cleaner’ truck before they have to.
And thirdly, the infrastructure to support the majority of Euro 4 engines – namely distribution and supply of AdBlue for SCR emissions control catalysts – is in its infancy in the UK.
All this aside, some manufacturers tell us they will stop taking orders for new Euro 3 rigids by the end of March and tractor units by the end of May. Others say it will be June or July. So if you want to renew with Euro 3 trucks it’s make your mind up time.
2005 Euro 3 tests
It goes without saying that in 2005, due to the lack of candidates – not helped by Scania saying it was not able to make its R500 tractor unit available to ROADWAY for test – we did not test as many examples of the current heavy Euro 3 offerings as we would have liked.In fact, we tested two 44-tonners, one newly launched 40-tonner, four 32-tonne tippers, one 18-tonner and a 5.5-tonne van.
We drove and reported on many more, but
as these were not for fuel consumption, performance or productivity purposes, the reports were purely based on driving impressions and so and we will not review them here.
The artics
Looking firstly at the artics, the single common denominator between them was the transmissions. All three tested last year were specified with 12-speed fully automated transmissions. Currently in the UK only MAN and Iveco fit an automated box as standard in their long-haul and distribution tractor units. The rest of the manufacturers say that sales of trucks with automated gearboxes account for around 70% of volume in this sector, so those customers are paying a premium.Taking the three examples we tested last year, we think the new Optidriver 2 transmission in the Renault Magnum is the pick here, with Daf’s AS Tronic box coming a close second. In ROADWAY’s opinion, the auto box has become a no-brainer and the sooner all the manufacturers make it standard the better.
Our three artics spanned the power spectrum from 430 to 530hp: 430hp has become the norm for distribution work and MAN’s 6x2 TGA 26.430 with its new D20 Common Rail engine put up an impressive performance around our heavy test route. Its average speed was down compared with the 530hp Daf XF95 Alpine and the 480hp Magnum 40-tonner, but it returned the best fuel figure of our artic group – 8.23mpg at 44 tonnes – and consequently a better overall payload productivity figure than expected.
The whole idea of our payload productivity figure is to take account of how much can be carried, how quickly and for how much. In terms of productivity, the Daf XF95 just wins here thanks to its overall performance, but it costs £35,000 more than the TGA.
The Magnum was our top pick in terms of driveability, ride and handling and, despite the Daf’s state-of-the-art in-cab entertainment, we believe that once drivers get in the cab and behind the wheel of the new Magnum, it will rocket up the driver desirability stakes for long haul and international work. A 6x2 version is now available for the UK market.
ROADWAY Verdict on the artics
There cannot be a clear winner here because all three trucks have slightly differing applications and markets and all three impressed us for different reasons. So we will choose the one that in our opinion really stands out in its field.The MAN TGA’s D20 engine is truly a pocket rocket. At 44 tonnes this distribution tractor unit was good on fuel, returned a high productivity figure and the truck’s price tag is reasonable. We do not know what the effect on fuel consumption will be when MAN turns up the percentage of the exhaust gases the D20 needs to recirculate to achieve Euro 4 – EGR is MAN’s preferred solution for Euro 4.
But its performance here has to put it at the top of your fleet truck list if a last minute Euro 3 buying decision is being made.
| Daf FTG XF95 Alpine 6x2 |
Renault Magnum 480 19A 4x2 |
MAN TGA 26.430 D20 6x2 |
| 530hp at 1900rpm | 480hp at 1800rpm |
430hp at 1900rpm |
| 2350Nm 1050rpm |
2240Nm at 1050rpm |
2100 at 1000rpm |
| 12-speed AS Tronic |
12-speed Optidriver 2 |
12-speed Tipmatic |
| Av 7.68mpg |
Av 8.81mpg |
Av 8.23mpg |
| Av 49.33mph |
Av 49.95mph |
Av 47.23mph |
| Payload productivity 10,954 |
Payload productivity 10,283 |
Payload productivity 10,868 |
| RW test Oct issue |
RW test Dec issue |
RW test May |
| Chassis list price as tested £112,740 |
Chassis list price as tested £91,602 |
Chassis list price as tested £77,700 |
The eight-leggers
Looking across the group of four 8x4 tippers tested last year, real comparisons can be drawn. Only Volvo’s FM9 380 sported a sleeper cab and could be described as an ‘owner-driver’ purchase. The other three were day-cabbed and specified for maximum payload aggregate work.Comparing the Daf CF85, ERF ECT and the Scania P340 on payload their aluminium bodies allowed for 20,680, 20,560 and 20,840kg of load respectively. But Volvo’s FM9 was no slouch in the payload department and managed 20,300kg – more than enough to keep the accountant at bay.
In terms of powertrain specification, only 40hp split this group. Daf’s CF85 relied on a 12.6-litre engine and a 12-speed automated AS Tronic transmission to get its 380hp and 1750Nm (1291lb-ft) of torque to the black top and, although its excellent performance resulted in the highest average speed of the group, it could have been instrumental in returning the highest fuel consumption figure of last year’s 8x4s.
The FM9 was more than two litres behind the Daf in terms of cubic capacity but its 380hp and 1700Nm (1254lb-ft) of torque ensured it was not far behind the Daf around our course. The difference in average speed between the two was 0.31mph, but the Volvo returned a better fuel figure of 8.83mpg.
Each time we test a truck the manufacturer sends a highly experienced driver trainer with it. Most will tell you that nowadays their master’s automated boxes are, in the hands of a sympathetic driver, nearly as good as manuals when it comes to fuel consumption. Conversely, there is no doubt that if you really give some stick to a truck with an auto box, and then do the same to an identical one fitted with a manual shift, the auto will use less fuel.
The other benefit of the auto is it protects the driveline and helps postpone the major repairs!
Manual transmissions
Our second pair of 8x4s came fitted with 16-speed manual transmissions. The Scania P340 was the slowest around our route, recording an average speed of 48.19mph with the 350hp ERF ECT slightly ahead by 0.3mph. At 1750Nm (1291lb-ft), the ERF’s 10.52-litre D20 engine produces 150Nm (111lb-ft) more torque than the 10.6-litre Scania so you can confidently assume that the ECT’s better journey time is down to this. Both the manuals broke the 9.0mpg barrier around our route.When we tested the Scania we thought its figure of 9.21mpg would be hard to beat at 32 tonnes, but the ERF returned an excellent 9.57mpg. This was not unique to our test. One of our tester’s industry colleagues was so amazed when he achieved a
similar figure with this truck, he demanded they check-weighed the vehicle to ensure that MAN ERF had not been cheating!
In the 8x4 aggregate sector there is little to split most of the market-leading tipper chassis. As our test results show, unlike the artic group the top productivity figure here goes to the truck with the best fuel consumption by a clear margin as payload potential only splits them by around half a tonne.
Driveability and driver acceptance is important so the Daf and Volvo win in this department. The Volvo had a sleeper cab and all the bells and whistles needed for high-profile work and the Daf has the best day cab – and both are a joy to drive. If we had to split them then we would have to give it to the Volvo. I-Shift is in our opinion the best auto box currently on the market and, thanks to Volvo taking a more realistic approach to pricing these days, you can get the build quality and comfort for a bit less.
If we had to choose between the Scania and the ERF on the same grounds, then we believe that despite Scania’s efforts to improve the P cab the ERF is still a better bet for space and comfort. The Scania’s ride and handling are superior, but we felt when powered with the 340hp motor it was the most taxing to drive of this group.
ROADWAY Verdict on the eight-leggers
If this was a horse race the betting at the off might read: Scania P340 – 11/8; Daf CF85 – 9/4; Volvo – 2/1, and ERF ECT – 4/1. This is not a race but our starting prices pretty much reflect their positions in the market.However, like horse races, in road testing there are upsets and favourites get turned over. It happened here and we suggest that if you are considering placing an order for some Euro 3 tippers – remember you could lose between 90 and 150kg of your payload at Euro 4 thanks to AdBlue tanks, catalysts and particulate filters – before it is too late the ERF has made a compelling case for itself here. If we were starting up a tipper operation today, we would buy one. It stands you the best chance of making some quick money.
But if we were established in the business with drivers and residuals to consider, it would have to be the Volvo.
| Daf FAD CF85 8x4 tipper |
Volvo FM84R B9 8x4 tipper |
ERF ECT 10.35Y.P4 8x4 tipper |
Scania P340CB 8x4 tipper |
| 380hp at 1900rpm |
380hp at 1900rpm |
350hp at 1900rpm |
340hp at 1900rpm |
| 1750Nm at 930rpm |
1700Nm at 1200rpm |
1750Nm at 1000rpm |
1600Nm at 1100rpm |
| 12-speed AS Tronic |
12-speed I-Shift |
16-speed manual |
8-speed manual |
| #Av 8.45mpg |
Av 8.83mpg |
Av 9.57mpg |
Av 9.21mpg |
| Av 49.91mph |
Av 49.60mph |
Av 48.49mph |
Av 48.19mph |
| Payload productivity 8720 |
Payload productivity 8890 |
Payload productivity 9354 |
Payload productivity 9284 |
| RW test April issue |
RW test Nov issue |
RW test Jan 06 issue |
RW test Aug issue |
| Chassis list price as tested £80,410 |
Chassis list price as tested £78,862 |
Chassis list price as tested £67,917 |
Chassis list price as tested £64,100 |
The remainder
With nothing to compare them with, it is hard to wax lyrical about our final two test vehicles.At £43,015 the Eurocargo is a favourite with the rental companies and parcels market. It is this vehicle and its 7.5-tonne sibling that helps to put Iveco in the number three spot in the UK market over 3.5 tonnes.
At Euro 4 it will be equipped with an SCR system and this raises an interesting point. For an SCR system to work it must be kept supplied by an approved quality urea solution (AdBlue). If an irresponsible hirer or driver puts water in the urea tank or some other lesser product, the extremely delicate exhaust catalyst will sustain serious damage. This will ultimately lead to downtime, considerable expense and hassle.
If you are buying trucks like the 7.5 and 18-tonne Eurocargo to rent out, can you be confident that your customers will do the right thing? If you are not convinced it might be an idea to renew your fleet now while Euro 3 is still available. After all, you do not have to worry about the fuel consumption as much if you are hiring the trucks out and, despite our wind-affected figure of 13mpg for the Eurocargo, you can expect the 18-tonne Eurocargo to achieve 14mpg in normal operation.
Our test of the 5.5-tonne Renault Mascott was unusual. As the vast majority of our readers run commercials 7.5 tonnes and above, our normal policy on road testing is 6.5-tonnes or over. The 6.5-tonner is a real alternative to the 7.5-tonner and we believe it will take more and more of that market place in the future.
But, as we have said, 2005 was a lean year for heavy test trucks, so we bent the rules.
The overwhelming impression we formed of the Mascott is that it is still the most sturdy, workmanlike vehicle in its class. Thanks to its size, weight and manoeuvrability, it can take 2.8 tonnes of cargo, quickly, to virtually anywhere you want. All at around 25mpg.
We used to think that Renault’s Mascott was the best light truck around, but now Iveco has its new 3.0-litre engine in the Daily we feel the Mascott has some catching up to do.
| Iveco Eurocargo 180E24 4x2 rigid |
Renault Mascott 5.5 tonne panel van |
| 240hp at 2700rpm |
156hp at 3600rpm |
| 810Nm at 1250rpm |
350Nm at 1500rpm |
| 6-speed manual |
6-speed manual |
| Av 13.06mpg |
Av 24.30mpg |
| Av 40.95mph |
Av 45.55mph |
| Payload productivity 5536 |
Payload productivity 3103 |
| RW test Sept issue |
RW test June issue |
| Chassis list price as tested £43,015 |
Chassis list price as tested £32,632 |
Renault tested over ROADWAY's 97.5-mile van test route
ROADWAY says
Because of the diversity of the vehicles tested in 2005, we cannot have an objective overall winner, so we will indulge you with our personal favourite. We have selected the Renault Magnum, because it was the truck that made the biggest impression.Our decision is not necessarily because it was fantastic on fuel – although fuel was a factor – nor because it was well-equipped and comfortable, with ride and handling to die for, or the fact that it ticks most of the economic and productivity boxes.
We have chosen this truck because we loved driving it and the changes that Renault has made to the Magnum puts it back in a league of its own.
