I reckon that Scanny 109 was designed by the same nutter who designed the Sabrina ERF. Either that or the Belgian was on
the same wacky backy
the same wacky backy
1 Like
Is that Scania photoshoppped or what.
Never ever seen one.
I thought the predecessor of the 110 was the old Scania Vabis.
Yes, it was the 75 wasnât it? Looks like an elaborate photoshop or perhaps a genuine remodelling with a tongue-in-cheek badge.
Yeah, from the top of the grille downwards it resembles a later 111 rather than an earlier 110, so faked up I reck.
After saying that mind, the SCANIA lettering is 110 , and the SUPER , rather than 111.
God I sound like a trucking nerd.
Itâs alright mate, youâre safe on here: this is a trucking nerdâs platform. Donât tell anyone but Iâm HGV-positive and Iâve got anoraksia verbosa so I can blather on here to my heartâs content 
1 Like
Yeah, but yours isnât terminal like Carryfastâs (is for other people!)
2 Likes
Wasnât there also a super 80 and 81?
Yes, SDU, but they were lower powered contemporaries with the 110 and 111 respectively. Iâve never heard a good word said about the Scania 80 on here. I drove a '72 day-cab artic version of it years ago - awful machine, especially in RHD where the gear lever scraped along the driverâs seat and trapped your fingers. It couldnât pull the 4 skin off a gnat ffs. You dared not double-declutch with it (as we all did in those days) for fear of confusing the quirky gear changing mechanism. I also drove a Ford D-series with a crap V8 Cummins in it for the same firm and even that could out-perform the Scanny 80. Gutless wonder. Odd really, when you think what a fantastic machine the 140 was!
The extra 6 litres may have had some baring. 
1 Like
I had an 81 the next model up, or an improved version of the 80.
It was an 82 X plate, one of the very last of the modelâŚmaybe even late registered after storage, as I never saw another X plate, they were all 82s.
I actually could not fault it.
Getting out of one of my other motors, Sed Atk, ERFâs etc, even a later brand new Ford Cargo, (which was supposed to be in a similar category,) it was completely different in terms of comfort, better suspension, and general ride, moving towards like driving a car in comparison.
It obviously did not pull as well as the others with weight, but I did not expect it to being a smaller motor.
In fact now I remember I took the driver of it, and gave him a brand new Cargo L10 290 Cummins and he wanted the old Scania back after a week or so.
Yes, I understand the 81 was a great improvement over the 80; much the same as the SA 401 was a huge improvement on the 400.
Yes, 80s DAFs certainly were plodders. In defence, MâLud, you could overload the chassis and get the job done and it wouldnât complain. Not that Iâd ever admit to any such behaviour that isâŚ
I know there are many fans of the V8 Scania here, but could it be argued that the 6-cylinder Scanias (111/ 112/ 113) were the bread-and-butter wagons that paid for the V8 excess? IIRC Bewick (ex of these shores) employed many of them.
Looking at the door and wheel arch,it looks like an LB 76? cab with an 80 grille grafted on
1 Like
I much preferred the cab layout of the 400 with the twin bunk sleeper, than the 401 with the standard single bunk.
1 Like
Harking back to the Scania 80, I was given one one night for my Bristol trunk on Stirlandâs. Something was up with our usual Mk 2 so I set off thinking how lucky I was.
Apart from the pulling and the gear stick the worst of it was the absolute uselessness of the heater. All the way there and back in the middle of winter freezing to death. I was glad of the usual trunkersâ meet at Strensham Services just to get warmed up a bit.
I left a note for the TM that I wouldnât be taking it again and next night I got our old Atki back. I believe my dayman had refused the Scania as well
Comes to something when you reject a scanny for an Atki in the comfort stakes.
1 Like
