We have a sponsored standard sized Ford Transit which we use to service our 13 Charity shops as well as used for taking equipment to events etc.
Unfortunately the sponsorship has ran out and we need to return it soon.
This van has been a godsend and has proved to be very practical for a number of reasons namely
1. It is a good size for driving through community streets and being able to park at shops. Indeed we have quite a few female staff who enjoy driving it and have no fear of it (thats not meant to be sexist, just an observation.
2. It is used primarily for moving bags of clothing donations between shops but is occasionally required for moving furniture.
If we were to replace it, we may consider getting the same van but hi-roof version, or a LWB version or maybe another type of van altogether. With a hi-roof, we would be able to stand a lot more items up in the back rather than having to lie them down, thus getting more in it.
My question is, even when you go up from standard to LWB Transit, does this make a huge difference in the driving practicality ie. parking in bays on streets, maneouvring about etc? Enough maybe that some staff and volunteers who use the current one may say that its too big?
We have a couple of carriers who use Luton bodied vans and they are certainly longer and wider than our Transit, probably so much so that I wouldn't feel as comfortable driving it through the streets,parking at shops, parking in staff car park etc.
Anyone any experience of driving these different sizes and the comparison between them?
|
Don't go for a Luton, the body is far too easily damaged.
Also the GVW is an important factor. Us old timers who passed our tests back in the mists of time can drive a 7.5 tonner with a standard license.
quote.
cars are category B - 3500Kg max which includes small vans up to transit size.
larger vans are catergory C1 - 3500Kg - 7500Kg you should have C1 automatically if you passed your car test before 01/01/1997 and was 21 before that date otherwise its a separate test
LWB transit size should be your max for this application I think.
|
Good advice from Zero.
High-top LWB panel van will suit your needs perfectly; if it's mainly clothes you'll be hard pushed to overload it, and you'll also have the advantages of side loading doors and a lower rear step than a Luton or box body, handy if there's a lot of bags. Such vans generally have a payload of about 1.2 tonnes.
I would strongly advise you to invest in a "maximum height" marker fitted inside the van where the driver can clearly see it; will be available from any commercial vehicle factor. Modern vans are so easy to drive, that I have known of people forgetting what they're in and trying to go under height restrictor bars in car parks!
Edit; @gb, great minds think alike! ;-)
I used to park my old LWB Sprinter in supermarket car parks.
Last edited by: Harleyman on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 21:44
|
I'm quite good at tight manoeuvering these types of vehicles because of the old job, but a LWB version of these types of vans brings a whole new feeling to the way it manoeuveres, they really are big.
They are not cumbersome, they feel just as quick and are as light as the SWB's, but when loading that long body with it's extended wheelbase through the decks they would make skilled transporter drivers hesitate and be not quite so confident...add in the much increased corner cutting by the longer van, it 'feels' big in tight places.
On the open road they are fine, you don't really notice the extra size, but it sounds like you are shop hopping, parking in tight spots etc.
Not saying you and the other staff won't cope, you will but that nimble nip in and out of the SWB won't be quite the same.
Is the SWB high-er top big enough, apart from putting a blinking great height sticker in the cab to remind everyone there would be no difference at all, IIRC there is a MWB high top too which might be a good compromise.
The Master/Movano i found equally nimble and nice to drive if they offer a suitable high top SWB, Boxer/Relay is nice too but feels wide.
|
Cheers guys for the input so far.
The SWB is not very tall to stand up in, if I have to carry a 3 piece suite for instance you need to do a bit of squashing to put the armchairs on top of the couch. Also if there are wall units or even wardrobes, these need to be laid flat.
With a hi top, then I am guessing this would be more practical , would fit more in and could possibly put full rails of clothing on hangers in there which is something we can't do just now.
Re the LWB, I think this would be a bigger issue psychologically as well as realistically. It would take up 2 spaces in the car park, as GB says a lot more difficult to manoeuvre, go round corners etc.
With the current van, I am pleasantly surprised with the number of staff and volunteers who have no problems jumping in it and driving it without second thoughts. Although some of them could maybe do with reversing sensors but thats what the bumper is for isn't it???
From the Ford website
SWB - 2582mm load length, turning circle 10.8m, 1985mm height, door height 1370,
MWB - 2949 mm , 11.9m, 2310mm h, 1666 door height
LWB - 3399 , 13.3m 2548 h, 1896 door height
|
My figures are a bit mixed up there - it would appear that for the Transit you can only get the Hi roof in the MWB or LWB, not the SWB.
So currently we have SWB with low roof
l - 4863, w - 1974 (without mirrors), door height 1370, interior height 1430.
to change, we could go to
SWB with medium roof
l - 4863, w - 1974, dh 1666, ih 1745
MWB with high roof
l - 5230, w - 1974, dh 1896, ih 1985
Wonder what difference that extra foot in length would make for driving? The extra height would certainly be very beneficial, could lift rails of clothes straight in and be able to get 6 foot high items in without lying on their back.
Think I need to do lots of research here!
|
I understand the Transit is made in a bewildering variety of combinations of wheelbase and height; i.e. you don't have to have a long one to get a high one. Obviously certain permutations are more common, (longest highest body / shortest lowest body) but here 's an example of a SWB hi-roof van: bit.ly/eKXjvp
You would have to watch the payload when carrying chests of drawers and so on, but it should be pretty obvious when you're weighing out. I found out the hard way in a SWB Sprinter once that three quarters of a tonne can be pushing it.
|
>> 's an example of a SWB hi-roof van: bit.ly/eKXjvp
That looks suspiciously like a MWB at least to me Dave, but glad to be wrong as usual.
MWB didn't feel so much different to the small one.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 22:35
|
Think that one is a LWB, certainly mentions it in the description.
Of course there are other vans other than Transits - I am thinking that if the company who currently sponsor us are terminating their lease of, literally hundreds of different shapes and sizes of Transits, then there is a chance I could maybe buy one back from there of a suitable spec!
|
>> but glad to be wrong
No you're right GB, I looked at a few from the nearside then chose one with an offside view, which meant I hadn't got the length of the side door rail to judge it by.
Try this one instead bit.ly/gaqDnZ
It's next to the rocking-horse doodoo, just by the hens' teeth.
BobbyG, the plan of buying an ex-lease one from your known source is a good one.
|
>> Try this one instead bit.ly/gaqDnZ
>>
>> It's next to the rocking-horse doodoo, just by the hens' teeth.
That's the one, as per the rocking hens, few and far between.
|
All the more unusual for being 3500kg gross.
I received a long lecture about how that Sprinter's brakes, suspension and so on were designed to handle its plated max of 2800kg and no more, I thought better of pointing out that the tyres, springs, brakes etc were identical to the 3500kg models. At a hefty 2200kg unladen it didn't carry a lot after the driver got in it.
Last edited by: Dave_TD {P} on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 23:17
|
>> when you go up from standard to LWB Transit, does this make a huge difference in the driving practicality
>>Enough maybe that some staff and volunteers who use the current one may say that its too big?
Yes it does. A LWB Transit will take up 1⅓ spaces in length, plus it's easier to catch the sides on walls, gates etc when turning because the rear wheels will follow a tighter turning circle. To confirm this, see how many LWB Transits and Sprinters you see with scuffs and gouges around the rear wheelarches. For non-professional van drivers I would strongly recommend you get a model the same size as the one you've been using.
A higher roof will increase practicality for the work you do with it, but you would have to be careful of archways under apartment blocks, height restrictions in car parks, protruding signs from shop fronts and so on.
Last edited by: Dave_TD {P} on Tue 8 Feb 11 at 21:48
|
|
Good point Dave, the ambulances we use are Renault Trafic based and must be LWB and the rear wings on them are very heavily scraped and gouged! Even in our car park, the Transit is a lot more easily moved about than the ambulances.
|
I'd also advise a front wheel drive van; most of them are these days anyway. Again it's to do with the lower rear end, less of a step which makes unloading easier and reduces the risk of injuries.
|
Harley, the one we have just now is FWD and looking at the tech spec, it does give you a bit more space in the rear.
Have never had any issues with it in the snow these last couple of winters whereas I have seen some RWD vans struggling ( probably due to lack of ballast in the rear!)
|
I ran a succession of VW Transporters, starting with a 1.6TD Syncro many moons ago, before my final van, a 2.4 5 cyl LWB HiRoof. I bought it as an ex demo, and it was so reliable I ran it for almost 10 years before I sold my business.
Many members of staff drove it, and none of them had a problem with regard to its size.
Never, ever, let me down. Fabulous workhorse, albeit slightly underpowered when fully loaded as it was in constant use as a mobile warehouse for my shops!
Sold within hours of going on Ebay.
Highly recommended if you can get a good one, although mine had minor rust around two wheel arches, and the maroon paintwork faded eventually. Pretty impressive given its hard life.
|
VW Transporters are indeed very good vans, but tend to fetch good money.
Vauxhall Movano or Citroen/Peugeot equivalent should do you fine; avoid MB Sprinters as they're RWD and horribly expensive if they go wrong, and LDV's because they're just a pile of carp.
|
|
One of my carriers has a VW based Luton and he loves it and has proved very reliable - the other has an LDV based one and it certainly isn't!
|
Van sizes - advice sought - Zero
