@Anorak…our input crossed meanwhile…the truck is a 4MW for Shell South Africa, total order 50 vehicles,
and I was told over here that the engine was a (to 205hp) derated Rolls Royce 220.
about the cab-numbers, I remember we were earlier teached more precise, odd number axle set-back,
and W for sleeper and V for daycab…would have been quite a climb to get aboard this cab…
A-J
ERF-Continental:
@Anorak…our input crossed meanwhile…the truck is a 4MW for Shell South Africa, total order 50 vehicles,
and I was told over here that the engine was a (to 205hp) derated Rolls Royce 220.about the cab-numbers, I remember we were earlier teached more precise, odd number axle set-back,
and W for sleeper and V for daycab…would have been quite a climb to get aboard this cab…A-J
Maybe there was a step ring on the driver’s side wheel?
Regarding these small MV/MW cabs, here are some phots of vehicles already seen here:
The top two are annotated “4MV”, but they are not 4MVs. The rear view shows that the cab is definitely narrower than the 4MV/MW. The bottom pic is annotated “MV1a”. I reckon that this must be the first version of the ERF Motor Panels lorry, for its cab is almost identical to the original 1964 MP cab. The others, with the set-forward axle, are probably later vehicles, with the cab adapted to suit ERF’s set-forward axle chassis.
At a guess, I would say that the bottom phot is an MV and the two above are 3MVs.
[zb]
anorak:robert1952:
Here’s a couple of Shell tankers with LHD that were definitely not ‘Europeans’. One has the 5MW cab and the artic has an MV cab. Robert10Where did they live, if not Europe?
Is the top one not a 4MW, on account of its forward axle? The lower one appears to have the narrower cab, like a Seddon or a Guy. Would that make it a 3MV, or is the 3 the narrow-cab, set-back axle variant? Please note that, so far, I have been wrong every time I have tried to put a code to these vehicles!
Edit: having looked at them again, the lower one is definitely the narrow version. There are lots of detail differences between it and the 4MW above it: the cab is mounted lower and the doors are different- look at the spacing of the hinges. I reckon it is an MV or a 3MV, depending on which number denoted axle position on these narrow-cab lorries.
Yes, you are both right: silly me! I actually posted these definitions myself earlier in the thread and didn’t abide by them! Robert 
ERF-Continental:
@Anorak…our input crossed meanwhile…the truck is a 4MW for Shell South Africa, total order 50 vehicles,
and I was told over here that the engine was a (to 205hp) derated Rolls Royce 220.about the cab-numbers, I remember we were earlier teached more precise, odd number axle set-back,
and W for sleeper and V for daycab…would have been quite a climb to get aboard this cab…A-J
It’s unlikely to be bound for South Africa which has RHD vehicles. More like Middle East or South America both of which took a lot of these. Robert
I’d better stick to NGC 420s! I was thinking: it is clear that considerable thought had gone into creating an authentic long-haul truck, for the NGC 420 had some interesting features. A proper tyre-inflator, complete with dial, was mounted on the chassis just above the spare-wheel carrier (I posted a diagram of this earlier in the thread). Also, a trailer brake lever was placed on the dash-board (Scanias and Volvos had these too). Diff-locks were a standard fitting according to the driver’s handbook. A Dynair fan ensured that the engine didn’t overheat on Middle-East work. An air connector positioned just below the driver’s end of the bumper eased recovery by towing, if necessary. A robust tow-pin assembly was centrally situated just above the bumper, later examples of which were clad in tread-plate for drivers to stand on when cleaning the windscreen. Later NGC 420s produced during 1975/6, had grab-handles mounted on the top of the front grille to facilitate better access to the windscreen for cleaning purposes. ERF had at least tried to meet the requirements of what they perceived to be the needs of long-haul drivers, long before manufacturers had learnt to listen more systematically to what drivers wanted.
Drivers of that period tended to see ERFs either as ‘gaffers’ motors’, and strove to drive Scandinavian trucks instead (which were generally regarded as ‘drivers’ motors’); or they regarded ERFs as ‘mans’ motors’ and took pride in being able to drive them. This was partly because they preferred the constant-mesh Fuller Road-Ranger 9-speed ‘box which not only demanded skill and expertise but it was arguably much more satisfying to use. It was a virtually indestructible ‘four-over-four’ gearbox with range-change and a stick shift for every gear. It is worth noting, too, that ERF gearbox installation was much superior to many of its rivals, which meant that they were far nicer to use. It is relevant here to mention the issue of driving style. Driving vehicles with constant-mesh ‘boxes demands forward planning when approaching descents, junctions and hazards simply because gearing down is a much more precise art, as double-declutching requires an accurate sense of timing. In my opinion, nothing touches a nine-speed Fuller when the going gets tough. As for the issue of ‘gaffers’ motors’, the NGC 420 was definitely not one: it was designed with long-haul drivers in mind.
The mid 1970s was a busy time for ERF. During the four years that the NGC 420 was in production, ERF was also still making the LV-series, the standard A-series 7LV, the A-series 5MW and the B-series. So there was a lot of overlap here and all five models appeared on ‘P’-suffix plates: a wide variety indeed, of ‘the best oil-engine lorry in the world’! Robert 
3300John:
Hiya…you only got 1 cab on the European…the one with the slats going across the front.
the MV cab could be forward or set back axle but was a day cab.they all had a glass fibre
front panel that was made at Jennings.if you have a Observer book of Commercials from 1970
there is a Shell tanker photo of a 6 wheeler that went to south Africa(50 in all)
the MW range was mostly sleeper cabs I’ve put mostly just in case someone finds
one thats a day cab.(it may have been chopped down for some reason.).even numbers
in the cab design was froward set axles and odd numbers was set bask axles.
i didn’t think the say 5mw was anything to do with the lorry model as they was all A series chassis.
it was the cab design…I may be wrong.
John
Perhaps we have to remind on this one…as well as earlier input from Anorak on cab-types?
Robert made a remark that 2MV or 2MW was never heard of…so again Anorak was right
with it drives me nuts…again
ERF-Continental:
3300John:
Hiya…you only got 1 cab on the European…the one with the slats going across the front.
the MV cab could be forward or set back axle but was a day cab.they all had a glass fibre
front panel that was made at Jennings.if you have a Observer book of Commercials from 1970
there is a Shell tanker photo of a 6 wheeler that went to south Africa(50 in all)
the MW range was mostly sleeper cabs I’ve put mostly just in case someone finds
one thats a day cab.(it may have been chopped down for some reason.).even numbers
in the cab design was froward set axles and odd numbers was set bask axles.
i didn’t think the say 5mw was anything to do with the lorry model as they was all A series chassis.
it was the cab design…I may be wrong.
JohnPerhaps we have to remind on this one…as well as earlier input from Anorak on cab-types?
Robert made a remark that 2MV or 2MW was never heard of…so again Anorak was right
with it drives me nuts…again
As I said above, I am usually wrong. 
I am getting there though. If the rule about set-forward axles is right, then the blue 6x4 tractor with the load of logs may be a 2MV. What do the numbers mean on LV cabs? I know that the A-series had a 7LV with a set-back axle, but what about the others?
Bloody addictive, this is.
ERF-Continental:
3300John:
Hiya…you only got 1 cab on the European…the one with the slats going across the front.
the MV cab could be forward or set back axle but was a day cab.they all had a glass fibre
front panel that was made at Jennings.if you have a Observer book of Commercials from 1970
there is a Shell tanker photo of a 6 wheeler that went to south Africa(50 in all)
the MW range was mostly sleeper cabs I’ve put mostly just in case someone finds
one thats a day cab.(it may have been chopped down for some reason.).even numbers
in the cab design was froward set axles and odd numbers was set bask axles.
i didn’t think the say 5mw was anything to do with the lorry model as they was all A series chassis.
it was the cab design…I may be wrong.
JohnPerhaps we have to remind on this one…as well as earlier input from Anorak on cab-types?
Robert made a remark that 2MV or 2MW was never heard of…so again Anorak was right
with it drives me nuts…again
I think you’ve misquoted me mate: I said I had never heard of them, not they were never heard of! As the the Shell vehicles, they were supplied to Shell all over the world. What would SA want with LHD tankers? It must have been a different order! Robert
3300John:
Hiya…you only got 1 cab on the European…the one with the slats going across the front.
the MV cab could be forward or set back axle but was a day cab.they all had a glass fibre
front panel that was made at Jennings.if you have a Observer book of Commercials from 1970
there is a Shell tanker photo of a 6 wheeler that went to south Africa(50 in all)
the MW range was mostly sleeper cabs I’ve put mostly just in case someone finds
one thats a day cab.(it may have been chopped down for some reason.).even numbers
in the cab design was froward set axles and odd numbers was set bask axles.
i didn’t think the say 5mw was anything to do with the lorry model as they was all A series chassis.
it was the cab design…I may be wrong.
John
Don’t shoot the messenger on the SA-Shell-vehicles, it might 3300John was wrong with the destination.
Possibly the notation 1MV/MW and 2MV/MW was internal-language in Sun Works…
Chilly regards, A-J
ERF-Continental:
3300John:
Hiya…you only got 1 cab on the European…the one with the slats going across the front.
the MV cab could be forward or set back axle but was a day cab.they all had a glass fibre
front panel that was made at Jennings.if you have a Observer book of Commercials from 1970
there is a Shell tanker photo of a 6 wheeler that went to south Africa(50 in all)
the MW range was mostly sleeper cabs I’ve put mostly just in case someone finds
one thats a day cab.(it may have been chopped down for some reason.).even numbers
in the cab design was froward set axles and odd numbers was set bask axles.
i didn’t think the say 5mw was anything to do with the lorry model as they was all A series chassis.
it was the cab design…I may be wrong.
JohnDon’t shoot the messenger on the SA-Shell-vehicles, it might 3300John was wrong with the destination.
Possibly the notation 1MV/MW and 2MV/MW was internal-language in Sun Works…
Chilly regards, A-J
No need for chilly regards old thing! I wasn’t trying to shoot the messenger or 3300 John. That Observer book was written for kids in the 1960s and that series wasn’t always accurate. I expect they used the photo because it was outwardly the same and hoped no-one would notice what side the steering wheel was on - who knows? See if it compares with the tankers in Dai Davies’s book (I didn’t bring it out here with me). Warm regards, Robert
NGC 420s on long-haul work, including Middle-East traffic, had to pass through mainland Europe. Driving on The Continent was significantly different when ‘seventies ERFs disembarked at Calais. For drivers, each country had its own very distinctive atmosphere to a far greater extent than today. Part of this was because the old ‘nationals’ ran through all the towns and villages, so drivers got a real flavour of each country. The truck stops had their own distinctive character too: the autohofs of Germany, the hostals of Spain and of course Les Routiers in France. Even the currencies were different. Rules and regulations were more diverse and yet to be homogenized by the EU. About the only thing not to have changed is the variety of languages. Most of the really exciting roads have been ironed out or by-passed altogether: the Route Nationale 10 in France, for example, has changed beyond all recognition from a challenging truckers’ trunk route into a bland, safe dual-carriageway which by-passes all the towns and villages. The pace of life was more measured and an NGC 420 driver was never tyrannized by the mobile phone, just-in-time deliveries or the Health and Safety Executive. The engine would even start when the driver wasn’t wearing a high-viz vest and steel-capped boots! It ought to be remembered that one of the reasons for the pace of life being slower was because European countries still had border controls. Running the gauntlet of the more corrupt customs and excise officials and traffic police was one of the downsides of driving life until the EU border controls were relaxed. Driving on The Continent was, and still is, a way of life and depending on the outlook of the driver; his NGC 420 was either an evil juggernaut designed for blasting milk bottles off doorsteps in the middle of the night, or it was a natty air-conditioned two-seater tourer, designed for driving on Le Continent. Robert
robert1952:
I’d better stick to NGC 420s! I was thinking: it is clear that considerable thought had gone into creating an authentic long-haul truck, for the NGC 420 had some interesting features. A proper tyre-inflator, complete with dial, was mounted on the chassis just above the spare-wheel carrier (I posted a diagram of this earlier in the thread). Also, a trailer brake lever was placed on the dash-board (Scanias and Volvos had these too). Diff-locks were a standard fitting according to the driver’s handbook. A Dynair fan ensured that the engine didn’t overheat on Middle-East work. An air connector positioned just below the driver’s end of the bumper eased recovery by towing, if necessary. A robust tow-pin assembly was centrally situated just above the bumper, later examples of which were clad in tread-plate for drivers to stand on when cleaning the windscreen. Later NGC 420s produced during 1975/6, had grab-handles mounted on the top of the front grille to facilitate better access to the windscreen for cleaning purposes. ERF had at least tried to meet the requirements of what they perceived to be the needs of long-haul drivers, long before manufacturers had learnt to listen more systematically to what drivers wanted.
Drivers of that period tended to see ERFs either as ‘gaffers’ motors’, and strove to drive Scandinavian trucks instead (which were generally regarded as ‘drivers’ motors’); or they regarded ERFs as ‘mans’ motors’ and took pride in being able to drive them. This was partly because they preferred the constant-mesh Fuller Road-Ranger 9-speed ‘box which not only demanded skill and expertise but it was arguably much more satisfying to use. It was a virtually indestructible ‘four-over-four’ gearbox with range-change and a stick shift for every gear. It is worth noting, too, that ERF gearbox installation was much superior to many of its rivals, which meant that they were far nicer to use. It is relevant here to mention the issue of driving style. Driving vehicles with constant-mesh ‘boxes demands forward planning when approaching descents, junctions and hazards simply because gearing down is a much more precise art, as double-declutching requires an accurate sense of timing. In my opinion, nothing touches a nine-speed Fuller when the going gets tough. As for the issue of ‘gaffers’ motors’, the NGC 420 was definitely not one: it was designed with long-haul drivers in mind.
The mid 1970s was a busy time for ERF. During the four years that the NGC 420 was in production, ERF was also still making the LV-series, the standard A-series 7LV, the A-series 5MW and the B-series. So there was a lot of overlap here and all five models appeared on ‘P’-suffix plates: a wide variety indeed, of ‘the best oil-engine lorry in the world’! Robert
The obvious question which that raises is that,was the erroneous idea,of trying to seperate a domestic use spec type wagon from the improved so called international ‘long haul’ spec type one,based on customer perceptions or manufacturer ones ?.My case is that the manufacturers knew that such double standards thinking would bite them in the long term but they couldn’t do anything about it because the idea of a ‘guvnor’s wagon’ was still,at that time,entrenched within the UK customer base in terms of domestic use spec products.It was the eventual backlash against that flawed thinking which eventually proved to be one of the major factors in bringing down the Brits.IE uk only running trampers for example wanted all the same benefits in terms of comfort and power to get the job done as enjoyed by their continental running counterparts.It was just a matter of time until the guvnors realised that too and then ditched the double standards thinking.Unfortunately it was the Scandinavian and Euro imports that benefitted from that obvious foreseeable change in thinking. 
As for the 9 speed fuller I totally agree that the lighter faster constant mesh fuller was far superior to the average Euro or Scandinavian synchro type but ironically there was a massive split amongst uk drivers and operators in that regard in that many erroneously viewed the synchro type as being superior. 
In addition to which as I’ve said the last thing that was needed for the fuel consumption characteristics of turbo charged engines was the relatively fewer and resulting wide ratio 9 speed as opposed to at least 13.IE the 9 speed fuller was effectively obsolete and a fuel consumption liability for use with turbocharged engines.Which is why the 13 speed was developed and introduced.
Carryfast:
The obvious question which that raises is that,was the erroneous idea,of trying to seperate a domestic use spec type wagon from the improved so called international ‘long haul’ spec type one,based on customer perceptions or manufacturer ones ? Blah blah blah…
More b.s. How is adapting the product to meet market demand, or building a range of vehicles for different applications “erroneous”? All lorry builders do precisely that, all of the time. For example, in the time when the ERF European models were in production, Scania had its 80, 110 and 140, Volvo the F86, 88 and 89, Mercedes the 1418, 1924 and 1932. Name one manufacturer who said, “This is it, take it or leave it.” ERF was just doing what its competitors were doing, which was meeting market demand. Of course, you would say (for the umpteenth time) that it should have offered the NGC420 alone, to teach the UK operators a lesson. Were you bullied by a previous boss, by any chance? I bet he was making good money operating Gardner 180-engined wagons.
Hiya just come acros
I was led into a workshop to be introduced to it. What a magnificent beast it was, resplendent in its blue and red livery and sporting those Trilex rear wheels — themselves a fabulous ‘period’ detail. Gary, very generously, let me drive it round the Corbishley premises so I was able to conduct the Trans Yard Test (rather than the Trans Euro Test). Naturally, I had breakfasted on Shredded Wheat - there used to be an ERF advert picturing a cereal bowl laden with ten pieces of Shredded Wheat, with the caption: ‘I bet he drives an ERF!’
I hauled myself into the Motor Panels cab using that long grab handle and the tread-plated step ring. As soon as I sat in the driver’s seat it felt entirely right, giving me the gratifying impression of sitting on top of the controls, rather than behind them. For a driver who hadn’t sat in a ‘70s ERF for many years, it felt like ‘coming home’. The starter was on the key, but set into the dashboard. When I fired her up the exhaust stack behind the cab gave voice to the ■■■■■■■ straight-six. Once the air had built up I floored the left pedal to engage the clutch-brake, slotted it into third in low-range, let in the clutch until the double drive wheels bit into the ground and the great legend eased gently into motion. The accelerator pedal was hinged to the floor, enabling me to squeeze smooth power from the NTC 335 engine, which was probably ■■■■■■■■■ best small-cam creation: powerful, uncomplicated and long-lasting; and it growled reassuringly as I pulled out of the workshop and into the yard. By the way, the N in NTC denotes a four-valve head, T stands for turbo and C stands for custom.
With my preference for left-hand-drive lorries, I found the driving position excellent and the flat steering wheel fell comfortably to hand. The power steering was satisfyingly stiff, giving exactly the right amount of positive resistance as I fed that distinctive three-spoke steering wheel through my hands. This steering wheel appears to have been fitted to nearly all NGC 420s in a uniform grey colour, though TRUCK magazine’s Trans Euro testers claimed that it obscured dials at times. Rather curiously, nothing whatsoever adorned the steering wheel boss, unlike other models which bore the ERF logo.
For me, the somewhat dated switchgear was all part of its endearing charm, but everything was there where I could see it. Additions to the dashboard were the power take-off switch and the diff-lock switch. The engine hump was unobtrusive for a lorry of the period, probably because the cab was so tall, and the cockpit had none of the cramped feeling of some other units of that time. Little niceties like bottle holders and storage holes were moulded into the engine cover. The bunk looked a little narrow by today’s standards but was normal in its day. I found the big clutch pedal surprisingly well assisted. It is easy to forget what good trucks we had in the ‘seventies: how sophisticated they were, how comfortable they were and what a pleasure they were to drive. The windscreen, with its impressive triple wipers, was not as deep as more modern trucks, but it was beautifully proportioned and I found the height and depth pleasing without compromising forward visibility. And it had quarter-light windows at the side for regulating fresh air: I miss those even now.
With its full width, tall cab it had certainly had that ‘big truck’ feel that most later tractive units had. In fact, the driver was perched higher from the ground than in the later B-series cab, and this shows clearly in photos which juxtapose the two models. A good example of this is a Van Steenbergen fleet line-up photo showing six NGC 420s and two B-series, to be found in ‘Transportnostalgie uit Belgie’, by Mario Maes.
This wonderful ERF was enormously satisfying to drive, even over the short distance round the premises and I was absolutely bowled over by it.Pat Kennett, editor of TRUCK magazine, author of ERF: World Trucks No. 1 and HGV tester claimed that theNGC 420 was ‘a great truck in sight, feel and sound’. Jerry Cooke of Trans Arabia agrees that they were superb to drive and Gary Corbishley certainly wouldn’t take KCH 95N to all those truck shows if he didn’t think so too.
On a subsequent visit, Gary took me for a drive round the Staffordshire countryside. It rode the old A-roads very well and it wasn’t difficult to imagine how stable it would be with a trailer. Of course it seemed noisy compared with modern trucks but the sound was worth listening to! Some of the noise was attributable to the permanently engaged fan. Later NGC 420s had Dynair fans which were thermostatically controlled and which were to prove very effective in Saudi Arabia. Visibility both forward and rearward was excellent. It was a most comfortable and enjoyable drive, made even more so by Gary’s skilful handling of the vehicle. Truck testers, both at home and abroad, praised theNGC 420’s handling characteristics — its suspension, steering, braking, acceleration, transmission and road-holding.
As mentioned earlier, most 335-powered NGC 420s came with a constant-mesh Fuller Road-Ranger 9-speed gearbox. However, as mentioned earlier, this particular vehicle was actually supplied new to Eyckmans with a Fuller RTO9513 13-speed gearbox and is itemised as such on the invoice.Reassuringly attached below the dashboard was the original 9-speed gear-shift diagram plate fitted on the production line. The 13-speed gear knob had been replaced by a Twin-splitter knob, which neatly gives the three positions required for gear selection thus making it easier for drivers like me, who prefer to make downward splits-shifts on older 13-speed ‘boxes by pre-selecting the lower split, moving the stick into neutral, double-declutching and returning the stick to its original position. Done habitually, this technique is relatively effortless, ensures cleaner and more reliable changes and is particularly satisfying to use when ascending steep hills or entering roundabouts.
Oddly enough, the driving position felt far more comfortable than I remember the B-series ever being, but I initially thought that it may have more to do with my small stature or that maybe it was because the seat squab wasn’t designed for the build of driver who appeared regularly in Truck & Driver magazine’s Shobba cartoons. However, I later learnt that I was by no means alone in my opinion. Wobbe Reitsma reports in his article (‘Flemish ERFS’, REVS magazine issue 68) that in Europe drivers generally preferred the NGC 420 to the left-hand-drive B-series, mainly because they were more comfortable (though it ought to be mentioned that operators preferred the more fuel-efficient B-series). Furthermore, a blogger on this thread called ‘Dave’ gave a fascinating account of an NGC 420 he drove, registered KRH 153P. It ran in the red and white livery of PG Horridge on TIR tilt work (I posted a picture of this earlier). Dave later drove a LHD ERF B-series (BMB 447W) for Phil Horridge but he claimed that it ‘wasn’t a patch’ on the old NGC 420 he drove before progressing to the B-series. Dave described how he could drop a gear in the 7MW at 60 mph to get out of trouble, something he couldn’t do in the B-series. He also mentioned that the NGC 420 would ‘pass anything going up Cherbourg hill’ — the steep climb out of the port. Clearly, he rated the formidable performance of the ‘big banger’ ■■■■■■■ 335 coupled to a 9-speed Fuller in the NGC 420 more highly than its successor.
Having reversed the old girl onto a patch of grass at the bottom of the track after my ‘trans yard test’, I rested my hands on the wheel momentarily to reflect upon Eric Vick’s Middle-East drivers who once sat, as I did now, at the wheel of an NGC 420 unit loading for the Gulf. And I closed my eyes to rekindle that wonderful, ‘heading south’ feeling that explodes in the pit of the stomach when you fire up a lorry bound for the Orient. Robert:)
3300John:
Hiya just come across a couple…it looks like we have one MW restored.
John
These three are all right-hand drive, which you will already know. Gimme a minute or two and I’ll fish out chapter and verse about that Pountain’s unit with the 7MW cab. Robert
Hiya Robert…
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
The obvious question which that raises is that,was the erroneous idea,of trying to seperate a domestic use spec type wagon from the improved so called international ‘long haul’ spec type one,based on customer perceptions or manufacturer ones ? Blah blah blah…More b.s. How is adapting the product to meet market demand, or building a range of vehicles for different applications “erroneous”? All lorry builders do precisely that, all of the time. For example, in the time when the ERF European models were in production, Scania had its 80, 110 and 140, Volvo the F86, 88 and 89, Mercedes the 1418, 1924 and 1932. Name one manufacturer who said, “This is it, take it or leave it.” ERF was just doing what its competitors were doing, which was meeting market demand. Of course, you would say (for the umpteenth time) that it should have offered the NGC420 alone, to teach the UK operators a lesson. Were you bullied by a previous boss, by any chance? I bet he was making good money operating Gardner 180-engined wagons.
You’ve obviously missed the point that what ‘actually’ happened was that ‘adapting’ to what was at that time a flawed marketing viewpoint, concerning ( what became an ever increasing eventual ) non existent double standard,between products in the form of ‘drivers wagons’ aimed at the supposed international ‘long haul’ use market,as opposed to the ‘guvnors wagons’ aimed at the supposed domestic use market,was a large contributor to what brought down the British truck manufacturers including ERF.
As for me I thought you’d have known that my employers gave their UK only running trampers a fleet of DAF 2800’s to use as of at least 1977,while ERF were obviously counting themselves out of that market at that time based on your ( and their ) flawed logic.Unlike at least DAF.
