Little n Large

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS OLD TIME LORRIES, COMPANIES AND DRIVERS (INTERACT
21

Jelliot:
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…

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.

Jeff …

No difference of opinion intended. I was just expressing some derision at the manufacturers’ cynical expoitation of the snob appeal of the bigger cabs to jack the price up, and the market’s gullibility in accepting the price difference. The overall specifications of the vehicles seemed to polarise the choice towards “big, heavy and expensive” and “small, light and cheap” in all areas, hence the examples you quote. I think this was more prevalent in Britain than on the Continent, where there was a more practical “horses for courses” approach: they chose the engine to match the work the vehicle was doing and the cab to suit the driver’s needs, whatever they were. There were plenty of R-cabbed 9 litre Scanias, for example, and there are photos somewhere on the internet of a Dutch operator who had a P-cabbed 142 built specially.

22

There were a few F7 cab F12’s in Switzerland, Swiss had some kind of cab width law at the time. I think the cab sat a couple of inches higher, and I also remember seeing a few small cab 142’s as well most of which were 8 legger tippers. I thought it was a badge change the first time I saw one until it came romping past my Turbo Star climbing up to the Gotthard on day.

Britain always had some strange ideas about that kind of stuff, I used to get loads of flack about having an F12 Globetrotter drag. Spoiled Brat, what the f&*$ does he need that for, big cabs will never catch on. Heard them all.

It was even better to see the look on their face when I told them that most of the time fully loaded it was grossing 13.8 tons. ( it was 12.9 empty ) But even better still when I told them I was getting 11 to the gallon at 60 mph…
I didn’t have the head of until it had covered over 700,000. The rear brakes were changed for the first time at 500,000 they were only about half way down, but Volvo thought might be getting a bit old.

Jeff…

23

Just been browsing the CM archives for roadtests of P and R cab 112s. There was one for a 305bhp R112 and one for a 280bhp P112. The lower-powered vehicle had a splitter 'box, the larger a range change. Both had he same size fuel tanks, axles and wheelbase. The two power ratings were available with either cab, but notice how the smaller power output was matched with the lower cab on the demonstrators? The R112 did 6.85mpg, the P112 6.75mpg. I did not take any notice of the quoted list prices, because there was a two-year gap between the roadtests.

Despite the guff in the P112 roadtest, saying its popularity was due to its lower price and kerbweight, it was only 76kg lighter than the R112. This could have been accounted for by the different gearboxes or, if the R cab had been fitted with a second bunk, that alone. In other words, both vehicles contained about the same amount of stuff, therefore had a similar build cost. If there was a significant difference in the purchase price of the vehicles, it would have been contrived for marketing purposes only.

p vs r 4.JPG
p vs r 4.JPG823×583 103 KB

24

On the introduction of the 82, 112 & 142 scania’s n the early eighties Unigate dairies wanting more power but not wanting the larger cab option ordered a number of 142’s with the low cab fitted ( the cab had to be mounted that bit higher though).They did make it into the fleet aswell & ran for a while but didn’t last long for some reason or other & were sent back to scania who re cabbed them back to normal!

25

I know some of the guys doing grain and regular farm stuff wanted small cabs as there were some height access issues as well as getting the larger cabs damaged on overhanging trees, and also getting under overhead hoppers, and farm shed access.
Some of the farms I delivered to were laid out in the 17 hundreds and hadn’t changed much since then, fine for a horse and cart not good for an 18 meter drag outfit.
I think in all my time there were only 2 farms I didn’t manage to access dew to low trees. Never regretted have a Globetrotter though…

Jeff…

26

I wonder if there are any operators on here, with experience of any price difference between P and R cab Scanias (or the corresponding models in other makers’ ranges), with the same mechanical specification?

Bewick, the contents of your vast memory are needed… :stuck_out_tongue:

27

in 2003 i priced a scania r cab day cab and it was £1700 more than a p cab day cab

28

[zb]
anorak:
I wonder if there are any operators on here, with experience of any price difference between P and R cab Scanias (or the corresponding models in other makers’ ranges), with the same mechanical specification?

Bewick, the contents of your vast memory are needed… :stuck_out_tongue:

In the later years I was operating I thought that this spec was the optimum fleet motor,same drive line as the R cab 360 but,as my Maryport marra says about a couple of grand cheaper than the R cab motor,obviously some of the drivers preferred the big cab,but they wern’t “balancing” the books :wink: .just my opinion and that is from many years ago now,but as I was into buying good clean secondhand Scanias as well as new,I wasn’t fussed wether they were R or P cabs,as long as it was a decent deal ££££££ phew! HOW much ? are you having a ■■■■■■■ “giraffe” ? :open_mouth: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: :smiley: Hope my “two penarth helps” Cheers Bewick

29

Now this was the first new motor we ran on the Ross/Youngs contract and from the outset the agreed MPG was very important,this was set at 7mpg as the motor was loaded both ways and the weekly mileage was circa 3800.So as you can imagine the Scanias performance was monitored closely by “yours truly”.Winter time was always in the top 7’s,7:8/7:9 sometimes a bit lower because of the bad weather over the Pennines.In Summer we averaged around 8:25 or so.I replaced this Scania with an FL10 299bhp and this motor never managed to get to 8mpg,always around 7:5 to 7:75 or so,it did OK but it wasn’t in the same league as the Scania.The reason I dropped down in spec a notch or two was at the time of the contract renewal “things” had tightened up a bit at Ross Youngs so I had to lower the vehicle spec accordingly. :wink: Cheers Bewick.

30

I was involved in bulk tanker work from the beginning and the weights were critical, we had one customer who required a payload of 25tonne so we had a special light tank built with an FL10 pulling it. I started on a powder tanker at 32500kg and the only thing suitable was an F7 or an A series ERF

Pattersons ran F86 and F7 Volvos for many years with no real problems, the drivers stayed with them too.

31

Evening all,

I could make this a long interminable post explaining how a vehicle manufacturer arrived at a certain specification/pricing ratio for a given market, and how his research, (via in the main, National Governmental statistical records, in the case of the UK Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders regional registration records…known as “tabs”), would have pointed him in the direction of specifications that would have market advantage over other offerings in the market place. There are other considerations, are they trying to “dump” an old product cheaply, to gain market share, are they seeking to “outspec” the opposition to gain a reputation for value, are they trying to chip away at the market leaders business in any particular sector?

Each of these strategies would be specific to an area of the market where the manufacturer saw potential market, or advantage for “his” product growth/ or wished to increase his market share. For instance in the UK you would have catergories, ( in the 70/80s) such as, 7.5 tonne 2 axle, 16tonne 2 axle, multiaxle 20/28 tonnes, 28 tonnes plus etc.

Then of course we have to bear in mind the influence of his Dealer Network…were they “independents”, or Factory owned outlets, for their success, and profitability are vital to the manufacturer. And of vital importance the “Factory Gate Price/ Achievable retail Market Price” . This , most closely guarded of all statistics determines the true future viability of any vehicle manufacturer. Then of course the currency exchange rate, of vital importance to overseas manufacturers, and best illustrated in true terms when considering the " market acceptable"retail price of 60/70s Scandanavian lorries, versus the price of their replacement components over the counter in the Dealership Parts Departments. A classic case of one end "subsidising " the other. A similar example can be cited for German sourced products.

So how did it all work in practice? Given that the average independent Truck Franchised Dealer was signed up to a minimum stock commitment of X chassis, against a volume target based on National Market share, on a credit agreement with interest payable after a certain period, (commonly known as a “floor plan”). His terms would be list price less a discount, varying between 20/25%, subject to an extra “bonus” payable by the manufacturer either against a pre determined volume target, or for “conquesting” a new operator in his geographic area. Then of course there were other incentives as and when required…So if as an operator you wished to buy a xyz 4x2 TU, and the local Dealer had one in stock, and he was just about to start paying interest on that chassis on his “floor plan”, or he had convinced the factory that you were of vital importance to be seen running an xyz…then Sir, you were in the pound seats!!

Now Anorak asked for specifics…and my knowledge is “well past its sell by date”, but today, as part of my “phased” return to work,( and running the new knee in), I was allowed to cleanse some old files and transfer them to my new office in the cow shed! One that I have kept relates to our Contract Hire business back in the 80s. To be specific 88, E & F registration, so lets just look at some of my acquisitions during that period…
Tractor Units, Volvo FL10 4x2 sleepers, sliders, night heaters, paint,ready for the road, 29k
Scania P320 " " " " “” 31.5k
DAF 95 350 " " " 34K
Scania P93 4X2 sleeper/ Chereau Thermo King Fridge rigid 40k
Then if we go to 89, G reg,
Volvo F10 Globetrotter 4x2 slider, night heater paint ready for the road 28.9k
ERF E14 14 litre ■■■■■■■ rest cab 4x2 spec as above 26k
Scania R 360 4x2 sleeper spec as above 33k
Seddon Atkinson Stratocruiser, ■■■■■■■ as above 31k
Scania P93 4x2 sleeper spec as above 26k
Scania P360 4x2 sleeper spec as above 28k
Steyr sleeper 4x2 Chereau, Thermo King fridge 34k

Now the above prices are as shown on our audited accounts, but do not allow for Manufacturers over riding discounts, (whereby a vehicle manufacturer would pay to us an additional payment at the end of a period because we had “met” a pre agreed volume target, over a 12 month period). The prices are not for “one off” transactions but for tranches of 5 units upwards.

Some may have bought cheaper, some may not, but with the credit periods we enjoyed then even looking back I am not displeased. Interesting how close the actual total costs of acquisition actually are, irrespective of type of product. Our client base was almost exclusively own account, so payload, and compatability with other products on their fleet was a vital concern…you did not put a 142 into a fleet running FL10s!

Hope it is of interest, and I have not bored you!

Cheerio for now.

32

Thanks for a very informative post, Monsieur Saviem- these factual details are invaluable to the discussion. Your statement “And of vital importance the “Factory Gate Price/ Achievable retail Market Price” . This, most closely guarded of all statistics determines the true future viability of any vehicle manufacturer” is the crux of the matter under scrutiny in this thread. It is precisely that principle that I was referring to, in my above posts, and it will form the background to my opinions in this post.

Referring to the “G” registration units:

Volvo F10 Globetrotter 4x2 slider, night heater paint ready for the road 28.9k
ERF E14 14 litre ■■■■■■■ rest cab 4x2 spec as above 26k
Scania R 360 4x2 sleeper spec as above 33k
Seddon Atkinson Stratocruiser, ■■■■■■■ as above 31k
Scania P93 4x2 sleeper spec as above 26k
Scania P360 4x2 sleeper spec as above 28k

The foundations of ERF’s eventual demise are evident. They were selling the biggest engine at the bottom price. Of course, they could have put their sleeper cab on the lorry, but it would still not be as attractive (therefore expensive) as the Globetrotter or the Stratocruiser. For an operator who wanted a no-frills motor with maximum durability, the ERF looks like a “steal”. ERF seemed to have cornered the market in unprofitable specifications and customers!

The difference in price of the P360 and R360 Scanias is huge. In a similar vein to the P112/R112 comparison above, the two vehicles contain almost exactly the same parts, so the factory gate price would be similar. Bewick was not daft ( :smiley: ), choosing the low-cabbed version. Why did Scania not price the vehicles more closely- they must have winced every time a P113 was sold into a fleet which would have otherwise taken an R113? I can only speculate that Scania was jacking up the prestige image of its big-cabbed models, so was prepared to take a hit in the short term.

ERF may not have had this option- would their sleeper-cab 14 litre vehicle have commanded the same retail price as a 143 Topline? No chance.

33

I wonder if Scania were doing the same deal in other countries, defiantly can’t remember seeing as many small cab Scanias on the continent. In all my time in Australia I have only seen a handful.

Jeff…

34

Jelliot:
I wonder if Scania were doing the same deal in other countries, defiantly can’t remember seeing as many small cab Scanias on the continent. In all my time in Australia I have only seen a handful.

Jeff…

Rip-off Britain. The Swedes’ analysis of the market was perfect. They realised that British drivers would accept bargain-basement cabs (and digs, and roadside food) and that British operators would provide the drivers with the minimum they could get away with. They also realised that snob value sells in Britain, so the better specifications had their prices adjusted accordingly- upwards. In other countries, people just bought the best vehicle for the job, without swallowing any marketing bs, or so it seems.

I’ll just go and get my tin hat and flak jacket…

35

When I was much younger and only living in Britain I didn’t have anything to compare it with so I thought that was how everything was. However after leaving and coming back a few times I began to realize things about it. That’s when I decided it was time to leave.

I’ll get my flack jacket as well.

While we’re on the subject what’s the current price and weight difference between an FM 500 and an FH 500 ? Say the Globetrotter version just to make the comparison the same.

Jeff…

36

Jelliot:
When I was much younger and only living in Britain I didn’t have anything to compare it with so I thought that was how everything was. However after leaving and coming back a few times I began to realize things about it. That’s when I decided it was time to leave.

I’ll get my flack jacket as well.

While we’re on the subject what’s the current price and weight difference between an FM 500 and an FH 500 ? Say the Globetrotter version just to make the comparison the same.

Jeff…

According to the data sheets on the Volvo website, the FH is about 300kg heavier. However, it was impossible to determine what specification was standard for each model, so I gave up. For instance, changing the standard spec to a day cab produced a different height change for the FM and FH, neither height change corresponding to the difference in height of the various cabs, so I could not work out which cab was quoted in the weight tables. God knows what other options were included in the quoted weight for each vehicle. The options list was huge.

If you can make sense of it, you are a better man than me.

37

I’ve noticed a lot of metropolitan and short haul guys using big engine small cab units for pulling containers to and from the docks, Daf 85 day cab rated at 560 hp and the same with Volvo day cab FM with 580’s. I would assume they are only single rail chassis as I haven’t seem them on the front of trains. I don’t know what the resale market or price will be.

Jeff…

38

I mentioned bulk liquids and powders and the weight issue, but there were also height issues with loading gantries, cleaning stations and factories, and also the fact that until recently the UK had the lowest limit of gross vehicle weights in Europe.

The F88 and F89 were designed for 52 tonne operation and we had only just gone up from 28ton to 32500kg. This was the reason the Ford Transcontinental sort of failed in Britain, too heavy and long before its time, but Ford guessed wrongly that we would be sharing 40tonne with Europe by the time of its launch.

39

I had a beautiful Transcon, and pulled some good heavy loads with that. Eighteen tons of International Marine Paint, with Twelve tons of Groupage on top of that regularly. A real beast, extra large tyres 14 x 20, and a 350 ■■■■■■■ in it. I bought it from an Owner Driver in Belgium, through Emile Neigt in Lockeren. Registered it in Essex, GJN 243 Y. The last time I saw it was in Dover and it had been bought by Athol. I don’t know where he got it, I sold it to Bobby Mckeller. Athol was then doing Davis Turner work with it. I wonder if anyone ever took a picture of it.
Archie.

40

Evening all…apologies, one glaring error in my tabulation…due no doubt to old eyes, poor spectacles, and a growing urge for my evening Bollinger!

The price quoted for the F10 Globetrotters was, (as most will have realised ), quite wrong. The actual price was 39.5k, (as stated on another thread. Apologies! The 28.9k related to a “special” deal from Volvo for a batch of F10s to replace some older DAFs on the daily rental fleet.

Likewise the price for the rest cab E14 4x2 ERFs, would probably stand in better context if the scenario was explained. This was a price negotiated to give my client the rest cab E series for his operation at the same rate as he would have paid for day cab versions, (he had specified day cab vehicles). The rest cab gave me an advantage because the allowed me to “gamble” more on future value, the rest cab having higher residual value, over a day cab on a five year contract. Thus I was able to “bear a little lighter upon the pen”!!!

As a comparison, a batch of petroleum regulated ERF E14 4x2s, ran out at 38k, and earlier F registered ones with 10 litre ■■■■■■■ at 33k, an `89 purchased 6x2 14 litre sleeper non pet reg, was net at 39k . Exactly the same price as a similar spec F10 6x2 Volvo. (The ERF was considerably cheaper to operate over a similar distance and period contract, to the F10), and was sold retail at a greater price than its Guaranteed buy back figure, at the Contract end, unlike the Volvo which went straight back to the supplying Dealer!

I always tried to supply my clients with a very high specification vehicle, but inside a size envelope that was in keeping with their existing fleet acquisition policies. Hence the preponderence of big power/low cab tractor units. Price wise , across the makes spec for spec the prices were very similar, but power to power, (low/high), then there were significant gaps, but that would be expected if the marketing people had read the trends in the market correctly, and priced their products accordingly.

One thing is without doubt, that the UK was the “Bear” lorry market in Europe in the late 60s right through to the 80s. That the market became a “dumping” ground for the excess manufacturing capacity of all of Europes manufacturers, who simply could not sell their capacity in either their home markets, or the emerging low tariff EU. That these artificially low prices in the UK, (for nowhere in the European market, (except to the State Operations in Eastern Europe), could be maintained. This is evidenced by the loss of "independent franchised dealerships, and the emergence of wholly owned “factory” outlets, (some trading behind old established names). The independents simply could not make any profit at the prices they were “forced” to sell product at, (and was acceptable to the market)! So could not invest for the future themselves.

But what was the “true” factory gate price of each lorry, and what was the margin between that, and the dealer cost price?? That figure was the success or failure of the manufacturer,…only muddied by the odd Governmental bale out, the overt…Holland and DAF, or more veiled…Germany, the Mercedes rescue of MAN. One thing is certain, at one stage there were a lot of lorries being sold in the UK market at prices undreamed of by our friends involved in the freight transport industry in Europe.

I shall away to my nightly Bollinger, this new knee is giving me some stick…as is my old one!!

Cheerio for now.