Two price tags do not settle it; the number of days a year the vehicle really carries chilled goods does. A conversion ties the vehicle to one job for good, while an insulated container is independent of the vehicle and rides on another van on the days this one is idle.
The cost structures differ too. A fridge conversion is a single large outlay written against the vehicle: when the van is sold, the bodywork goes with it. Containers are bought piece by piece, grow with demand and stay with the business when the vehicle changes. The conversion invoice shows only insulation and a unit; lost internal volume, payload reduced by added kerb weight, the unit's share of fuel, annual servicing and the van standing still on a breakdown day do not show. Containers carry none of these lines, in exchange for being limited by holding time.
In mixed operations a conversion costs volume and payload on the dry days as well, while a van run with containers goes back to full capacity on a dry day. A conversion used 40 days a year costs six times more per day than one used 240 days.
Build the sum from your own data. Count the days chilled goods travelled in the last three months; note their volume, the time from first loading to last delivery, the number of stops and door openings, and summer ambient conditions. Measure the registered gross and kerb weights, the clear interior and the door aperture. Compare the volume a conversion would lose and the kerb weight it would add, and how many containers cover the same volume, against that file.
For a eutectic-plate arrangement the file should also hold the freezer temperature where plates will be prepared, where they wait and the preparation time at shift start; which plate and how many are needed is set from route, load and container arrangement together.
