AEC/MARSHALL RANGER 35-SEAT BUS
Page 69
Page 70
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
EN Britain, with few exceptions, a passenger vehicle is a passenger L vehicle and a goods vehicle is a goods vehicle, but there are :ountries where public service vehicles are commonly passenger)odied goods chassis. One such country is Iraq, where the city of vlosul is taking delivery Of a 25-vehicle order for single-decker uses using AEC goods chassis. This is a repeat order of models lelivered in 1962—with the difference that, as the Ranger is no onger available as a completely passenger design, Mosul has tccepted this latest batch of 35-seaters built on 16 ft. 6 in.-wheelbase Mercury goods chassis and modified to left-hand drive.
The resulting vehicle, which is the subject of this COMMER:UAL MOTOR road test, has a rugged character and promise of ong service life which make it worth consideration as a rural bus n Britain, especially as it proved a surprisingly pleasant vehicle to iandle. The Ranger tested was 30 ft. 9 in. overall, with front overtang of 4 ft 3.5 in. and rear overhang of 9 ft. 3 in.
As well as the vehicle chassis undergoing changes to convert it :o left-hand drive it was also necessary to reposition some of the mgine components such as the fuel Pump, which is now fitted on the eft-hand side of the engine. A removable asbestos-lined, glass-fibre :ngine cover is fitted, together with a detachable side panel, which, when removed, permits easy access to the engine.
All switches for lights and other instruments are placed within easy reach of the driver, who also controls the air-operated doors. The low windscreen height permits an almost unrestricted view of the road immediately ahead, an essential contribution to safe driving.
The 3 ft. 7 in. frame height presented no problems to Marshall of Cambridge when building the bodies. Of the 35 seats, 15 are leather upholstered for first-class passengers who enter by a nearside front door and the remaining 20 have wooden slats and are for second-class passengers, who enter by a rear nearside door. No luggage compartment is fitted; access to the gearbox, rear axle and batteries is via trapdoors in the Ranger's flat floor.
The power unit is the direct-injection diesel engine, derated to 149 b.h.p., and AEC engineers have done an excellent job on it. An integral cylinder block /crankcase casting has dry liners and a seven-bearing crankshaft, which allows the engine to be driven hard without any fear of damage. The old problem of the cooling system becoming pressurized seems to have been overcome because not once during the various tests did the engine show any signs of overheating. The fan is mounted on the crankshaft and an additional plastic header tank fitted above the radiator ensure that the cooling system is always kept full.
Unhurried gear changes A five-speed constant-mesh gearbox is fitted—about the only reminder that this is, in fact, a goods vehicle. Gear changes just cannot be hurried unless one crashes them, and the more the Ranger was driven the less noticeable did the time lag between gear changes become. Cam-operated air brakes are fitted with anti-fade brake linings and the handbrake is air-assisted.
For the purpose of the test the Ranger was laden with sandbags representing 33 passengers and weighed 10.8 tons but with the addition of myself and two observers this brought the weight up to the g.v.w. of 11 tons.
The route chosen for part of the test was six miles of country road through Barton-in-the-Clay in Bedfordshire, where the Ranger behaved very well in roadholding and general handling.
The steering of this machine is accurate under all conditions, at times giving the impression of power assistance, while the fine control needed when travelling over narrow winding roads is of the highest order. The characteristics of the air brakes are out of the ordinary in that they combine good stopping power with a lack of fierceness; they are a pleasure to operate, offering that nicety of control so essential if passengers are to be given a smooth ride.
Fuel consumption proved to be good, with the vehicle returning 11.9 m.p.g. at a maximum speed of 40 m.p.h. non-stop, the actual average being 35.4 m.p.h. At two stops per mile at an average of 21 m.p.h. the fuel consumption proved to be 9.4 m.p.g.; at four stops per mile, making an average of 14.6 m.p.h., the consumption