Quote:
Originally Posted by condor Remember reading reports that Tata had done some market research which had given them indications of this layout being favored by drivers in this segment. While the reasons that the drivers would have had may not have made techonological sense, the design definitely seemed to have catered to a certain need of the actual users. |
Very true and correct, Condor.
DRIVERS probably prefer semi-forward or normal control vehicles (i.e. those with a nose) because:
(1) they consider it safer.
(2) It's easier to do routine inspection, maintenance and repair of the engine
On the other hand, OWNERS prefer full-forward control because it increases the cargo area.
I don't know what DRIVER-CUM-OWNERs prefer.
For some reason, American drivers too prefer normal control (with nose) vehicles. There was this case study about a prominent American auto maker in which the development of a very successful people carrier/van was discussed. It was mentioned that one of the basic instructions given to the designers was that the vehicle must have a nose.
I also remember reading a case study in Business India which said that in the event of frontal collisions, 407 used to survive and could at least limp-home to a workshop whereas the full forward control Indo-Jap LCVs got immobilised in the event of a head-on collision and had to be towed to the workshop. Don't know how correct this report was though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by condor Along with the 407 we had the 608 & 709 on a similar build. Of course, we later had a regular cabin-on-engine layout with the turbo'd version of the 407. |
The cabin-on-engine (i.e. full forward control cab) first appeared on the 609, not 407. Full-forward 407 appeared much later.
Quote:
Originally Posted by condor Another factor one can consider is that the only real competition the 407 had was the Cabstar. And Cabstar didnt last.
Dyna was more in the 9-10 tonne range, and had to contend with the established Tata 1210. |
Cabstar probably gave the least competition to 407. 407, though designed to compete with the Matador, actually competed with all the Indo-Jap LCVs.
Dyna was a six-tonner (GVW), not in the 9-10 tonner category, even though it used a larger load body. Dyna did not compete with 1210, as rightly pointed out by Steeroid. Dyna, Eicher-Canter and Swaraj-Mazda were all 6-tonners and had similar specifications. Only the Cabstar was smaller.
Actually, these Indo-Jap LCVs were designed to carry high-volume but low density/weight cargo like refrigerators, TVs, washing machines. Hence, though they had relatively big load bodies, their load carrying capacity was less, almost in the 407 category.
Quote:
Originally Posted by condor Eicher was there in the same range, but has survived, and is growing. The HM Isuzu FVR 16 tonner could not take on the Leyland's. The Swaraj Mazda was a little below that, and may have got stuck in-between the lower & upper range. I still seem to see relatively more Mazda's as passenger vehicles than as cargo carriers. |
Swaraj Mazda was the only Indo-Jap LCV manufacturer which obtained collaborator's know-how for making passenger vehicles also. Others only obtained Japanese know-how for making trucks. Hence, the mini-buses from Swaraj-Mazda were of a much better quality and became popular. Others developed mini-buses on their own and hence their quality was poorer.