truckerash:
Hi all; I’m writing “something” (all will be revealed soon) and I’d appreciate some help from those of you who drove either - or both - of these trucks.
Which was best to drive?
Which had best status?
Which was more ecconomical?
Which was more Comfy or roomy - to live in/cook in?
Service/back up abroad?
And anything else you can think of…
Much appreciated; Ash.
Best to drive, for me the Volvo, it was quieter and had by a mile the better ride.
Satus is bit subjective, Scania drivers felt that there was only one make etc,
Economy is easy, Volvo’s 330 TD120a was fairly frugal on juice where the big V8 ‘had a bit of a taste’ for the stuff, especially when revved hard.
The Volvo was more comfy but the Scania had more room and made better use of the space available.
Back up abroad would depend on what country you were in, in the 80’s Volvo had a better dealer coverage in Spain than Scania but I’m certain that this was reversed in other countries.
They both had MAJOR ‘tin worm’ problems with Volvo marginally the worst I recon, with 5 & 6 yr old trucks showing lots of the brown stuff, that said they were THE trucks to be seen in whilst driving ‘sur la Continent’
Ashley , you know i am biased toward Scania but, i had an F89 new and another which was passed down by an older driver, i found that the Scania was far better as regards driving position etc but then you will always get the other end of the argument given a straight choice with out regard to fuel usage (which is of no interest to many drivers anyway) i would opt for the Scania personally speaking of course. Having said that there are always going to be people who prefer one brand to another without any reason - i never could understand the following that Gardner engined lorries got but it takes all sorts.when i had to but a lorry to relace my F89 which was written off by a product of the HGV licensing system i didnt hesitate to buy a Scania. i did have engine problems with the F89 and also the Scania but that can happen with anything to write any lorry off as totally useless is a bit short sighted they al have good points - some just have less than others
Cheers mate
Bill
Hiya I had a spell of moving s/hand motors around and would have said the 89 was a better deal.
most trucks was 5/6 years old that i was moving and most had done some kliks but i think it was
the 89 on top.i did hear the scania,s could give you a bad dose of back acke.still a good truck.
Just imigine if the swede,s had fibre glass cabs and atki /erf/foden had the tin worm steel cabs
as some of them was. there would be volvo/scanias, stacked up everywhere and folk looking for a
very rear atki /erf cab…now there,s athought
John
I drove this 111 for a few trips & I owned the 89 for a while, they where both very simple easy motors to work with & on, everything was easy to get at & both had good points & bad too. I think the Volvos gearbox was far superior but the Scanias engine was a better lump IMHO, both of these trucks had seen better days but could still do a days work up & down to Greece. I drove a 142 for a spell too which was a nail if I’m honest, all that ■■■■■■■ about in the “V” getting burnt trying to bleed the poxy thing was a right pain in the arse. & talking of arses the bed in the 89 used to be in a kind of steel dish & I can remember crawling into the bottom bunk & it being roasting on the rear end. The Volvo was a tad more cramped with the raked back screen too. They both felt safe to drive equally & I’d go to work in either an F89 or a 141 tomorrow TBH when I sit in my newish FH it sometimes takes me back to my 89 where everything is now like the wireless & that. Yeah top trucks the pair of them are but I’d say a Scania was better on fuel by far, which at the moment would make it the winner. I hope this helps & the pictures are OK.
All very informative and helpful so far…keep it coming lads!
Nice pics flysheet. Thought the 111 was ex Astran for a split second; they had SOO 815 and 816R. Close.
Hi Ash, Not much experience with volvo’s but we ran 3 141’s out of Shotton Steel works. My late father’s was a 4x2 with a high geared diff (coach)(100+mph) and tri axle tilt, My brother’s (Desert Driver) 4x2 with a slightly higher than standard diff (68mph)with a tri axle flat and my 6x4 with standard diffs (60mph)and a tri axle flat. All three trucks had the fuel pumps opened up to push 18cc instead of 16cc of fuel.
On a round trip to Paris there was less than £5 difference in fuel used between all three trucks. It was done numerous times and it never varied any more, it could be any one truck that was most economical. My 6x4 would storm away on the hills but the higher geared 4x2’s would soon catch up on the flat.
I remember father returning home from southern France early one morning after delivering in London. He joined the M1 at the start off the North Circular and arrived home in Whitchurch Shropshire in 2 1/2 hours. Aparently the National Express busses were standing still as he passed them
I have only driven a couple of F89s, one for an irish firm and the other for an italian, so it is fair to say that they had both been ‘fettled’. They both went like watsit of a shovel, although compaired to 88s they stopped well, but fuel was rarely above five to the gallon. Cramped cab, in hot weather the bottom bunk was uncomfortable to sleep on until the engine cooled, trying to throw the cab up was a challenge normally but with all yor kit and snow chains in the passenger footwell would make the H&S fairy cringe. On the plus side cracking 16 speed box, cosy cab in winter and comfortable ride.
Driven a few 141s, won’t go on about legendery V8s, but I have to say being a big lad, the LB cab was better to live in and move about in. I know the Swedes are quite and open minded race, but why did they only provide curtains for the sleeping compartment on all but the top spec cabs. Watching a bit of Swedish erotica is one thing, but watching the hairy posterior of some German driver getting his pants on at the Monkey House on a frosty morning was something elsel. The LB had better storage, over windsreen shelf stopped the stereo/8 track and CB overheating. Good underbunk storage and those lockers under the seats, but why put those daft two handed catches on them. Only one fault really, getting that 6th gear on a right-■■■■■■. To be fair this was not a problem on LHD as the bias was designed for the stick to be pulled towards you rather pushing it away as with RHDs, and with 141s it was rarely needed at thirty two tons, usually, 3rd, 5th, 7th and the up the rest. Oh and that annoying rattle from the metal keepers that held the range change switch in the gearstick, every 141 I have driven all rattled from the stick when pulling hard.
T.B
trucker.blackpool:
I have only drive a couple of F89s, one for an irish firm and the other for an italian, so it is fair to say that they had both been ‘fettled’. They both went like watsit of a shovel, although compaired to 88s they stopped well, but fuel was rarely above five to the gallon. Cramped cab, in hot weather the bottom bunk was uncomfortable to sleep on until the engine cooled, trying to throw the cab up was a challenge normally but with all yor kit and snow chains in the passenged footwell would make the H&S fairy cringe. On the plus side cracking 16 speed box, cosy cab in winter and comfortable ride.
Driven a few 141s, won’t go on about legendery V8s, but I have to say being a big lad, the LB cab was better to live in and move about in. I know the Swedes are quite and open minded race, but why did they only provide curtains for the sleeping compartment on all but the top spec cabs. Watching a bit of Swedish eritica is one thing, but watching the hairy posterior of some German driver getting his pants on at the Monkey House on a frosty morning was something elsel. The LB had better storage, over windsreen shelf stopped the stereo/8 track and CB overheating. Good underbunk storage and those lockers under the seats, but why put those daft two handed catches on them. Only one fault really, getting that 6th gear on a right-■■■■■■. To be fair this was not a problem on LHD as the bias was designed for the stick to be pulled towards you rather pushing it away as with RHDs, and with 141s it was rarely needed at thirty two tons, usually, 3rd, 5th, 7th and the up the rest. Oh and that annoying rattle from the metal keepers that held the range change switch in the gearstick, every 141 I have driven all rattled from the stick when pulling hard.
T.B
Hi, youve just taken me back donkey years with that dam rattle from the gear stick on the Scania, always found that a quick fiddel with a screw driver fixed it short term, but it always came back after a short while. I never had a F89 OR A 141, BUT HAD TO “MAKE DO” WITH A f88 AND 111, FOR ME THE vOLVO WAS NICER TO DRIVE AND BETTER 16SPD BOX, BUT 111 STOPPED BETTER AND DID SEEM TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE GRUNT, BUT END OF DAY i AM A vOLVO MAN.
I drove an 89 for some years on Oryx but only a 140 and not a 141. The Scania was a better cab to live in but the 89 was a far better tool for the job, stronger, safer, better ride and a classic gearbox.
The gearstick rattle - it was more of a chatter really as I remember - was a big minus point of all the Scanias and the 140 was a thirsty beast if in the hands of a driver that wanted to win the traffic light Grand Prix. Also the 140 had a weak spot in the propshaft which was easy to wring-off with a badly executed change on slippery ground.
Prestige? The thought never crossed my mind but thinking back I suppose you could argue it one way or the other. They were both a step up from the Scamell Crusader I started with!
Hi,
As a one time Scania fitter, I changed a few corkscrewed 140 propshafts but that was the early models and they soon beefed them up a bit. The gearstick rattle was common to the earlier splitter box and later range change, there was an anti rattle kit they bought out but I could never tell the difference with it fitted. I did work on early Astran 140’s (may have been subbies but in their colours) but they normally arrived in the back of tilts or drawbars needing pistons, liners or clutches, never a gearstick rattle
I have attached a picture if my Dad,s F89 he had from new in the mid 70’s. Regular trips to Doha, Kuwait, Iran, Arab Emirates if I remember. I am sure Dad said the F89 was always better on fuel than the V8 Scanias.
This is one of two F89’s that i drove on the middle east run. It was owned from new by Don Hubbard of Gedney Hill out in the Fens. It started life as an R reg for a few months but he managed to re register it to an S reg, dont ask me why. He ran it for years to and from Iran for Davies Turner, as an owner driver. I was asked to come and drive it for him doing a weekly groupage service to Austria, which i done for a few months, before he went back on for DT’s running to Iraq
It was fitted with parabollic springs front and back which gave it a nice smooth ride. he had also had it fitted with a Telma retarder. A lot of people said this could not be fitted to a tractor unit as the wheelbase was too short , but Don proved them wrong It was a fantastic tool in the mountains and many a driver thought I was mad when i overtook them going down some of the long slopes. You still had to be careful as the heat generated by the magnets could melt the grease in the propshaft centre bearing ending with clouds of smoke and a possible fire, however it saved a lot of brake linings a best of all nice cool brakes when you needed them. I used to take the seat and base out on the passenger side which left a long flat floor enableing you to sit on the bottom bunk with lots of room to do your cooking etc. This was what PIE done when they fitted their kitchen pack’s to their fleet of F89’s. I found with the Volvo that even after a long hard day’s driving you could still feel fresh compared to driving the Scania.
I first drove an S reg 141 for Donald Brown of Edinburgh on Uk work which was mainly fish related work and not unusual to have thirty tons on the back and still overtake most trucks on the hills, I remember giving a friend of mine a shot driving it and he reconed that the first thing that would be worn out would be the r/h indicator as you could overtake most things on the road. I later drove a 111 and a 141 for M&C transport on middle east work and given the choice i preferred the scania cab although the volvo was more comfortable.
Regards Jamie
I am totally biased. I hate Scanias from the experience of owning a 141, driving most other makes later on from the 92, 112 113 and 142.
I didn’t have an F89 ever, but am more Volvo then Scania, even now.
Scania Faults. Always seemed to be revving their nuts off, heavy on fuel and oil, silly electrical fault on range change, that stupid gear change in the RHD models giving me a Scania Shoulder. The Rattle has already been mentioned.
Scania likes, the V8 growl, the oil spinner slowing down and the bottom bunk was comfy and roomy for me at 5’ 5’’
Mine was possibly a very late 140 or an early 141 taken in as a part exchange…
With a 141 being the first truck I ever drove on the road, I have a slightly biased opinion. I was taught to drive by Gordon Smith (G&JJ Smith) of Maidstone and spent a week with him being taught the ropes!
Once I passed my test and had “cut my teeth” for 18 months, he bought an ex Mortimers 141 (MLJ610W) and gave to me to drive. After driving F7s and F10s, the V8 was a joy! The cab was big enough and comfortable, just not as modern as the Volvo, but that engine just used to keep pulling and pulling, and with a 5" stack up the back, it sounded superb.
His original 141, KFJ 730V, (ex Chard and Axminster Tpt) ended up having a 13 speed fuller fitted to it, which made it even better with a higher top speed, and those extra ratios kept it going against the more modern models. It also saved your shoulder from the Scania 6th gear slot!!
I cannot give you any points regarding driving F89 as I only went in one as a passenger, but I think whoever you talk to would say, driven properly, the V8 was a much more superior engine for driveability.
Good luck with the new article Ash, I wonder what it could be!!!
Hi all, hi Ash I drove a 141 left ■■■■■■ for Pat Duffy of Southampton in the early 80’s (LJA 597P) on Italian work and was a fantastic motor, plenty of room in the cab more than the Volvo and pulled like a train gutsy on fuel though but hey pulling on mountain roads the V8 made the work easy, never had much trouble with break downs at all really but then Pat did look after her well, a while later on for Comptons of Poole I was given an old F89 (CLU 98T) was a bit batterd looked like she had done a fare bit of work but it still kept punching back and forth to Italy now that old thing I loved it tatty as it was.He offerd me an F12 but no I’d rather have the 89 bit tight for room inside not as much as the 141 but once you get used to that amount of room you make do! Plenty of room for every thing. Broke down once on the way back home was towed into San Benadetta Del Tronto where I spent 3 days trying to locate a compressor but was expected she was getting on a bit, but for me F89 love em !! Regards Jimski
Scania’s 375 horses didnt mean much against the 330 of the Volvo because the 16 speed SR61 was so fast in opertion that at the Peage Grand Prix the Volvo would be long gone whist the Scania driver wondered why he was always left witha gearbox full of empty cogs whilst passing thru the range change.
How many time have you (Scania drivers) been left in neutral climbing a mountain at 30kmh dropping it into low range and had to to stop and start from scratch, just as the F89 swung on by, singing sweet and pulling hard at 1800 rpm all the way to the top!
I drove this 111 for a few trips & I owned the 89 for a while, they where both very simple easy motors to work with & on, everything was easy to get at & both had good points & bad too. I think the Volvos gearbox was far superior but the Scanias engine was a better lump IMHO, both of these trucks had seen better days but could still do a days work up & down to Greece. I drove a 142 for a spell too which was a nail if I’m honest, all that [zb] about in the “V” getting burnt trying to bleed the poxy thing was a right pain in the arse. & talking of arses the bed in the 89 used to be in a kind of steel dish & I can remember crawling into the bottom bunk & it being roasting on the rear end. The Volvo was a tad more cramped with the raked back screen too. They both felt safe to drive equally & I’d go to work in either an F89 or a 141 tomorrow TBH when I sit in my newish FH it sometimes takes me back to my 89 where everything is now like the wireless & that. Yeah top trucks the pair of them are but I’d say a Scania was better on fuel by far, which at the moment would make it the winner. I hope this helps & the pictures are OK.
Hi Ash…i drove both the 141 and the F89 and must agree with most of the others on here that the scania had a stiff rear end, and more room inside to move around and cook etc…whereas the 89 was a more comfortable ride but more homely…
the 141 was ideal in road train form, whereas the tractor was heavy on the arse end and anything stored on the top bunk ended up on the floor if left loose. of course the Volvo was limited for space because of the large engine cowling, but both were reliable and exciting to drive. With regards to fuel consumption, depends on the right foot of course, and the weight being carried, but i would assume there wasnt much to compare them to, and would both average around 8/9 to the gallon.
(all will be revealed soon) and I’d appreciate some help from those of you who drove either - or both - of these trucks.
TBH when I sit in my newish FH it sometimes takes me back to my 89 where everything is now like the wireless & that. Yeah top trucks the pair of them are but I’d say a Scania was better on fuel by far, which at the moment would make it the winner. I hope this helps & the pictures are OK.
