Personally I think the three axle Axor is a dangerous truck, and simply saying it’s the driver that’s the problem, doesn’t make this shoddily engineered, badly equipped, accountants dream of a truck, any safer.
First of all, as one poster has already stated, the two axle version is a very adequate truck. That’s because this, short distance, inter-modal and distribution, fleet tractor unit, was developed in Germany for exactly that. (Merc were obviously trying to do with truck units, what they did for vans with the Sprinter, which was to develop a cheap, modular fleet vehicle for world use.)
Unfortunately the UK market, which was always going to be key to the financial success of the truck, but is still small in the context of a world market, virtually alone in Europe, has this strange requirement for a third axle. And all my comments regarding Axors refer primarily to the three axle version.
To accommodate that legal and market essential, Mercedes decided to do the cheapest engineering bodge they could get away with. After all, their competition are all able to build adequate competitive versions of their own vehicles which don’t have the handling problems the Axor has. Check the Volvo FM, the MAN TGS, the Scania R series. They all have the same basic spec, yet only the Axor has had so much criticism for it’s handling that it’s little wonder that Merc have effectively killed the Axor, and introduced the Arocs.
Yes, there’s a button on the dash allowing you to lift the mid axle, but that only works up to 20mph. And why can’t this high torque, modern distribution workhorse, get it’s power down to the tarmac without spinning it’s wheels in the wet? That alone indicates an engineering problem that hasn’t been addressed. And that’s without mentioning the damaging efficiency and environmental aspects involved.
Oh yeah, according to some posts on this thread, “…it’s the driver behind the wheel that’s to blame!” If that was the case, and quite frankly, it’s absurd to suggest it is, then those same drivers would no doubt also have problems with other units they drive. In fact, those other competitive units from MAN, Volvo and Scania mentioned above.
You’ll also get a shocked look from the Merc salesman when you tell him the truck is [zb] dangerous, but the fact is, it’s a different story when you’re driving the bob-tail Axor to the transport yard to demo it, and driving that demo unit with a fully loaded trailer, up a twisting and icy little A or B road. “Oh yeah, but the Axor’s designed to be used on trunking routes…” they say. But of course they don’t say that to the accountants that purchase that Axor fleet. Or indeed, sold the last few Axors sitting in fields, at give away prices, to people like Dawson Rentals! (Who then cream off mega short term rental fees for a couple of years, before offloading the remains to places like Iran and Egypt, for more than they paid new.
Mercedes themselves have suggested it’s the driver’s fault. From their point of view, they’re happy to say, “It can’t be our truck for two key reasons. One; we’re Mercedes Benz, and our engineering credentials are unimpeachable, and two; look at the thousands of Axors we’ve sold! If there was a problem, we wouldn’t have sold so many.”
The correct answer to the first point is that Mercedes Benz, whilst rightly having engineering talent and resources to give away, have also made some major engineering ■■■■-ups in their time. In this instance, the engineers were briefed to make a third world truck for as little money as possible - and they’ve done a brilliant job. For the third world. Remember the A-Class car that was released, but fell over as soon as it saw a corner. The manufacturers (MB) had to basically stop all production and re-engineer the entire suspension system, before allowing it to be sold to the public.
The second point is slightly different. Yes, they’ve probably sold thousands of Axors in the UK market, and the reason they’ve done that is purely because of the pounds, shillings and pence. They’ve quite simply made a truck unit that is cheaper than the competition (MAN, Volvo & Scania… not to mention Renault, Iveco and every other truck maker under the sun) and they’ve sold it on the basis that; “…you can have a Mercedes, for the cheapest price possible.” And, “…we’ll beat any price you get, and you’ll still get a Mercedes…”
On top of that, I’d love to know how many of those thousands of Axors were purchased by accountants who wouldn’t know the first thing about driving a truck, and how many were bought by drivers, or at least transport managers, that had knowledge of what truck driving in the UK environment actually requires. And believe it or not, there are even transport managers out there that have no idea how to drive a truck, but have got the job because they’ve done the transport manager, home study course…
Now, I can already hear the Axor fan boys out there saying I’ve got no idea. That may be true, but I will say this. Before I drove an Axor, I was a big, big fan of Mercedes Benz trucks. And let’s face it, the Actros is a competent tractor unit, despite it’s dodgy start in the market all those years ago.
I’ve driven all of the competitive vehicles in the Axor segment, and the three axle Axor, in my opinion, shouldn’t even be on the road it’s so shoddily engineered. And no, I’m not some new boy either. I’ve been driving since about 1974, and I’ve driven a very wide range of vehicles on three very different continents. I’ve driven Kenworths with ■■■■■■■ and Detroit Diesel engines and Fuller gearboxes, and I’ve even driven the golden old time Merc 1418… Now that was a bullet proof third world truck unit. Yes I’ve used tarps on flat bed loads (and [zb] the dream, I’m pleased I don’t still have to do them. Likewise Fuller gearboxes.)
I’ve worked for Shell in Germany, delivering fuel and using the Axor’s ancestors, the 1932, and 2232, so I’m sorry if you don’t agree with me, but I still think and always will think, the three axle Axor is the most dangerous truck on the roads in Britain today.