something I’ve often pondered and I hope someone with far more knowledge on the subject could clear it up, what made an operator/company purchase a certain model of truck?
For instance, Scania made a few variations at the same time. They had a 92 out as well as a 112. They cab on the 92 was smaller in height but they were still purchased in artic format. Volvo did the same with the F10 and the F7. Both Volvo’s, both artics why choose one over the other?
Now was it down to engine size? why choose that F7 and not the F10? why did the haulage company choose the 92 and not the 112?
The variation in cost of the unit and the weight would be the main factors when choosing between the bigger and smaller vehicle I would guess. But it will be interesting to hear what the operators say.
Cheers Dave.
Dave the Renegade:
The variation in cost of the unit and the weight would be the main factors when choosing between the bigger and smaller vehicle I would guess. But it will be interesting to hear what the operators say.
Cheers Dave.
It would depend on which part of the pecking order you came from. Large fleet purchaser would have a totally different view point to a start up OD.
If the boss says to the purchase officer I need 15 new trucks for a new contract coming up in 3 months then it would depend on who had what trucks available that were suitable for delivery in the time period. The sale crew would probably say we don’t have X amount of this model but we can do you this amount of that truck, and the rest in that model at a discount.
If you’re a new OD then it’s a suitable vehicle in the budget you have, or buy a motor from you your mate that has a good track record.
I know a small fleet owner that run wendy house Scanias for years and thought they were the best truck for his job, light, good on fuel, fairly good service from the dealer but he couldn’t keep drivers who were expected to do 4 night out a week. He change up to the higher cab, a bit heavier, a bit more to run, but the drivers were happier and even some of the old drivers came back.
A lot of transport Co’s won’t buy truck if the dealer isn’t in the local area, there are probably as many reasons for buying a truck as there are transport companies.
ah I see, that makes sense. I realise that it also could depend on what you mainly carry. For instance an operator who mainly pulls low loader work would more than likely purchase a bigger engined, volvo F16 truck rather than a wendy cab scania 92.
Talking about Wendy House Scania’s, I remember in the early '70’s I ran a normal cab Scania 110 in Europe, but I also remember that at that time there was a Company from Essex that were running quite a few Scania 80’s in there fleet, these were all proper sleeper cabs. I was really envious at the time of these beautiful looking motors. Of course we were only running at 32 tons then, so they must have been just as cheap to run as my 110.
with big firms dealers usually supply a demo for a few weeks to try & get their foot in the door & offer a maintainance package i.e. 3 yrs nose to tail , also operators tend to play one supplier off against another when fleet replacement time comes round if say Volvo are a bit dearer " i’ve been offered so & so by Scania , Daf , Iveco etc can you match it
Archie Paice:
Talking about Wendy House Scania’s, I remember in the early '70’s I ran a normal cab Scania 110 in Europe, but I also remember that at that time there was a Company from Essex that were running quite a few Scania 80’s in there fleet, these were all proper sleeper cabs. I was really envious at the time of these beautiful looking motors. Of course we were only running at 32 tons then, so they must have been just as cheap to run as my 110.
The cost of running a Scania 80 to a 110 at 32 tons was a world apart, the little 80 with it’s 8 litre engine was at it’s design limits and pushed hard (trunk or multi shifted) was hopelessly unreliable, running lighter weights with a single driver it was fine, I reckon 28ton gross was it’s barrow.
Engine repair bills would far outweigh any fuel consumption gained and if you got a real rogue one it would really hurt.
Of course the 110’s design weight at that time was 48 ton and I think it too would have shown it’s faults at it’s limits.
Jelliot:
… I know a small fleet owner that run wendy house Scanias for years and thought they were the best truck for his job, light, good on fuel, fairly good service from the dealer but he couldn’t keep drivers who were expected to do 4 night out a week. He change up to the higher cab, a bit heavier, a bit more to run, but the drivers were happier and even some of the old drivers came back…
Jeff…
Why would the higher cab be heavier and cost more to run than the low cab? Indeed, why would it cost more to buy in the first place? The cab shell is identical, apart from the floorpan. In fact, the floorpan of the P cab contains more steel and insulation than that in the R, because the engine hump is bigger. OK, the R cab has a deeper “skirt” round the bottom, but that is just non-structural panelling.
I suspect that the manufacturers jack up the price of the high-cabbed lorries, because bigger is better. They may add a bit more tinsel to the interior, to reinforce the impression of superiority, but the vehicle’s manufacturing cost is similar.
Mostly hauliers ran smaller units to allow a greater payload. For instance there was no way you could put 20 ton in a Pacton tilt with a 110 but you could with an 80. Same with the Volvo 10 and 12 but the smaller 7 you could get away with it. It is true that the smaller Scania 80 was up against it and to make matters worse MAT even had an automatic 80 that would not pull your cap off and ran away with itself downhill. But having said that the Volvo F7 was a fantastic motor and could hold its own in the day.
Carlc:
Mostly hauliers ran smaller units to allow a greater payload. For instance there was no way you could put 20 ton in a Pacton tilt with a 110 but you could with an 80. Same with the Volvo 10 and 12 but the smaller 7 you could get away with it. It is true that the smaller Scania 80 was up against it and to make matters worse MAT even had an automatic 80 that would not pull your cap off and ran away with itself downhill. But having said that the Volvo F7 was a fantastic motor and could hold its own in the day.
Hullo Cliff,
That bloody Automatic Scania 80. Do yo remember when Kieth Pettingale had to take it to Portugal. He certainly had a few problems there. But I must say when I saw them as Sleeper Cabs, I thought they were the dogs ■■■■■■■■. Mind you I changed my 110 for a 111.
Cheers, Archie.
They look like the same cab to me at first glance.
they are they did a 112 p cab aswell just like the fl10 and the f10 same running gear different cabs
DAF CF 85
Archie
I think what it was is that the 80 in sleeper cab format was a good looking motor and returned some fantastic fuel consumption figures, but you had to be patient, you were never going to out pull anyone on a long hill but having said that you still made it to the top. Like a lot of small motors they all did their job, most car transporters are small in size but they did a good job because the gross weight was not a problem. The Scania 110 was rated at 42 tons, bloody hell I would not like to see one pull off on a hill start with that lot on your tail. I think MAT were taking the ■■■■ out of Keith when they sent him with that, however it was a great laugh when he came back.
Cliff
Archie Paice:
Carlc:
Mostly hauliers ran smaller units to allow a greater payload. For instance there was no way you could put 20 ton in a Pacton tilt with a 110 but you could with an 80. Same with the Volvo 10 and 12 but the smaller 7 you could get away with it. It is true that the smaller Scania 80 was up against it and to make matters worse MAT even had an automatic 80 that would not pull your cap off and ran away with itself downhill. But having said that the Volvo F7 was a fantastic motor and could hold its own in the day.
Hullo Cliff,
That bloody Automatic Scania 80. Do yo remember when Kieth Pettingale had to take it to Portugal. He certainly had a few problems there. But I must say when I saw them as Sleeper Cabs, I thought they were the dogs ■■■■■■■■. Mind you I changed my 110 for a 111.
Cheers, Archie.
Dear Mr Anorak, may I start by saying I really enjoy your extensive range of clothing and found it very practical even though it may not be as trendy as it us to be, it still serves it’s porous very well. It would seem we have a difference of opinion, I can quite honestly say that I have never weighed either a big or small cab Scania 112 so I have no first hand experience in that matter. Nor am I privy to the structural construction of the underside of either a big or small cab 112 Scania.
However…here’s a bit of story which is true, so get a cup of coffee, and a biscuit
Many years ago, back in the 80’s a friend of mine got into bulk haulage and was very weight aware. To start with he had a B series ERF with possibly a Boaloy tri axle tipper. He was doing a few nights away at the start of his dealings and as the ERF was was only a day cab he looked for something with a sleeper, and decided on a Scania lite (Wendy house if you like) I don’t know how he came to his decision but that was his choice.
The Scania served him well and he built up his business, concentrating mainly on bulk grain. A few years later his son wanted in on the act so another Scania lite was purchased with a similar trailer, and they got on with it.
The other son wanted the same deal, so then there were 3 Scania’s 3 trailers and they were doing mainly bulk grain one way and either glass or coal the other. They were doing 3 local loads per truck each way per day and doing fine. ( 18 loads a day all up )
Son’s being young eventually wanted bigger trucks and persuaded the dad to get a big cab demonstrator. The dad went to the dealer, collected the truck, took it to the weigh bridge, and drove it back to the dealer stating it wasn’t going to happen.
I don’t know what size fuel tank it had, if it had an air kit or not, or what wheel base it had. But I do know that the dad then bored any one that he met, about how much heavier the big cab was compared to the small cab and even worked out that if he had 3 big cabs then he would loose the equivalent of 4 loads a week. Which he would then tell you exactly how much that equated to in money, tires, fuel, road tax, and many other monetary equations he had up his sleeve for comparison.
On the subject of cab size via’s fuel consumption, I had an F7 that did 7 to 8.8 mpg, my F12 Globetrotter did 9 to 11.5mpg on the same job. I also had an F16 Globetrotter that did 5.5 but that’s another story.
So if I was an operator in the 80’s carrying empty plastic bottles on pallets and I was looking at a new motor, I’d more than likely go for the wendy cab Scania or an FL7, kees the weight down, fuel consumption up.
If you were running empty plastic bottled you wouldn’t have to worry about weight, however Westerman did a lot of that and they ran the smallest of MAN’s with very big cubic capacity. The thing is even thought the weight is very small the amount of energy it take to move that size of vehicle through the atmosphere puts a big strain on the running gear. A lot of the early Westerman trucks were stuffed in a short period of time, and the later franchisees opted for a far bigger engine option. Dragging 109 c meters into a head wind for days at a time kills a truck.
Jelliot:
If you were running empty plastic bottled you wouldn’t have to worry about weight, however Westerman did a lot of that and they ran the smallest of MAN’s with very big cubic capacity. The thing is even thought the weight is very small the amount of energy it take to move that size of vehicle through the atmosphere puts a big strain on the running gear. A lot of the early Westerman trucks were stuffed in a short period of time, and the later franchisees opted for a far bigger engine option. Dragging 109 c meters into a head wind for days at a time kills a truck.
Jeff…
I think that old Jan de Rooy had it about right when it involved cubic capacity loads.
Archie Paice.
All the wardrobe guys with those Eurotrotters, some of them weren’t very inviting looking. Voss had a load of them as well. I never understood the guys that had them as a tractor unit pulling a standard 13.7 trailer■■?
Back in the 70’s I’m not sure who did it could have been RHA FTA or RTITB but someone did a survey and it went a bit like this.
Get a load of various types sizes and colour of trucks and drive them through a town center early one Sunday morning. Present are various members of the public, the usual cross section of the local demographic, as well as a load of guys in white lab coats carrying clip boards. I assume most of them were called George, Dennis, Cedric, etc…
Each member of the public had a white coat with them as in turn the trucks ( seeing as it was Britain in the 70’s they would have been lorries ) was driven along high street, The lorries were Artics, ridgeds, etc, various colours, different sizes, flats boxes. The idea was to gauge the public opinion of what was most acceptable by them.
One interesting part was that during the test the same lorry was driven along the street through out the test, not at different speeds, but the same speed in different gears causing the engine note and speed to be higher. All of the public thought that the lorry was traveling a lot faster, when it was in lower gear, and the engine was reving higher.
The lorries that were least liked were larger cab artics with roped and sheeted loads, after that were larger cab artics with boxes and fridges.
Traditional livery was chosen over graphics, and second to traditional livery was a plain white.
From what I remember of the article the larger cabs were Guy big J and Atki Borderers, there were also Ergo Leylands, Bedfords and Commers, in various sizes.
I was speaking to a Dutch driver in the 90’s who told me that Holland also had a similar thing in the 70’s.
