Edit to add I’ve at least now found an example of a 93 with a splitter just as I remembered it if with the later type gear shift which I didn’t.Which just leaves the mystery of the 112 which I was sure was also a splitter type but maybe I’d confused it with the 93 but I thought I would have remembered that diabolical dog leg range change. 
youtube.com/watch?v=occ520AaCKk 6.51 - 6.57
newmercman:
The Scania box was a 5spd in very early 80s and 110s and then either a 10spd splitter or range change, the splitter box was usually found in the smaller versions, 80/81/82/86/92/93 etc.It had the gears laid out with a dog leg 1st and then a normal H pattern. Except that because of an overlap in ratios it wasn’t a conventional 1st lo/hi through to 5th lo/hi. It went 1st lo/hi, 2nd lo/hi, 3rd lo/hi, 4th lo, 5th lo, 4th hi, 5th hi.
The range change was a conventional use all the gears in low range then go around again in high range set, still with the dog leg 1st/6th gear position.
The dog leg was an awkward gear in RHD, but completely different in LHD, the Scania box was a lot slicker than the ponderous notchy alternatives from Volvo and the ZF ecosplit which I personally hated, especially in a 2800 Daf with its tight against the seat broom handle gearstick and a slap over range change.
And the Volvo boxes always had a distinctive rattle/vibration through the stick, bloody annoying.
Does that mean that it was possible to find a splitter rather than range change in a 112 ?.If so my memory isn’t as full of holes as I thought and the Mandela effect is busted. 
nomiS36:
Carryfast:
nomiS36:
The 5 over 5 scanias I used were just range change in earlyish 113’s, I think they were J registered.It’s a long time ago but I think from memory the 112 at least was an 8 speed splitter with 9th and 10 th being two more seperate gears on the stick ?.
We need somebody with a better memory than me but I’m almost certain it was a 113 320 with a normal range change gear stick but had 10 gears and not 8 like the later ones we had which were L and M regs. This was when I was working for Taylor’s of martley in the late 90’s. They were scania service agents near Worcester so nearly all the fleet was scania.
Spot on fella, i used to drive a 113 320 with a 5 over 5 range change. It was L reg the one i had
I’ll never forget coming to a stop in it going up the steep hill going south out of Lincoln!!
Reef:
You’ve not experienced hell till you’ve driven a Renault Premium (pre Volvo) with a slapover box
I actually liked that gearbox, so long as the cables were correctly adjusted.
The older man’s had the same rig up, just with a shorter throw.
I did like the comfort shift though
I liked the slapover too, in old shape Axor a lovely box where the driver could make the most out of the lovely old school low rev lugging power of the 430 lump.
As you say Stevieboy its needs to be a maintained vehicle though, and some drivers are too rough with it cos they hate the thing so don’t try to make it work for them, in most cases it only needs a gentle nudge over to the other range not an almighty clout which further strains the thing making it worse…as with all good manual boxes a bit of finesse and feel, not brute force and ignorance, helps.
weeto:
Perhaps this may jog some memories, fitted to 1 3 and early 3 series.
Well done, that’s exactly the one I was on about. I was thinking about it today and it came to me it was like that!
I liked the 5 over 5 in the scania. I’d forgotten it was a vertical dome shaped switch for the range change. I’d swap all these crappy autos for one right now! My first axor was a 52 plate 360 with a slap over range change which I hated. The second was an 04 430 with the same box as the actros click click thing, telegent I think they called it and that was great. It pulled like a train!
My all time favourite transmission was the MAN comfort shift though.
Just wanted to chime in - up until now I thought you lot were bloody mad raving about manuals. Drove a Scania 4 over 4 today and now I get what you mean! Auto is quite nasty in comparison, even if manual makes you sweat.
Still can’t quite understand what they are describing here.I can certainly remember the full shift needed between 9th and 10th and it not being a split shift but don’t remember 7th to 8th being the same and it not being a split shift.Nor can see the point of a splitter that doesn’t split at least up to 8 out of the 10 gears. Also don’t remember it not being clutch actuated,unlike the ZF splitters were,and therefore not being pre selectable.Mandela effect is back in the frame in that only 8 speed splitter + 2,as I remember it,makes any sense. 
It explains it quite clearly in the text. The ratio of 5th gear low split was lower than 4th gear high split, so from 4th gear low split you went into the next highest ratio, which was 5th gear low split, then into 4th gear high split and finally into 5th gear high split.
It sounds more complicated than it is, in practice a stick movement gave much less opportunity for a failed gear selection than a simple split, as they could be quite slow at times, especially when old and full of dirty air/water.
Scania wasn’t alone in this odd gearshift arrangement with a semi redundant 5th gear where crawler would be.
Foden’s twelve speed three unequal split shift was just as odd to get your head around.
Going up the box loaded you could go 1l 2l 3l 4l 2m 2h 3m 3h 4m 4h
or 1l 2l 3l 1h 2m 2h 3m 3h 4m 4h, if you were on a steep hill that extra low shift (which was a very small increment) between 3l and 1h could help you, don’t forget no synchro involved so once you’d got the hang of it the shifts would go in as fast as you could shift the range lever and the gearlever itself, slightly slower changes where splitting alone, it all took some remembering when climbing a steep hill loaded with the speed dropping fast, only 150/180 hp then in a NA engine.
Carryfast:
Still can’t quite understand what they are describing here.I can certainly remember the full shift needed between 9th and 10th and it not being a split shift but don’t remember 7th to 8th being the same and it not being a split shift.Nor can see the point of a splitter that doesn’t split at least up to 8 out of the 10 gears.
I think it’s more of the Sheldon effect, rather than the Mandela effect.
newmercman:
It explains it quite clearly in the text. The ratio of 5th gear low split was lower than 4th gear high split, so from 4th gear low split you went into the next highest ratio, which was 5th gear low split, then into 4th gear high split and finally into 5th gear high split.It sounds more complicated than it is, in practice a stick movement gave much less opportunity for a failed gear selection than a simple split, as they could be quite slow at times, especially when old and full of dirty air/water.
There was no 5th ‘low’ split because that was 9th which,like 10th,was a seperate gear on the gate and it wouldn’t/couldn’t possibly have been 9th if it was lower than 8th.IE,as the article ( correctly ) states there was no split on 9th or 10th they were both seperate gears.Unlike the other 8 which were all splits.In a similar way that there was/is no split on 1,2,3,4 on a 13 speed fuller.As it stands I’ll trust my memory and logic over what seems to be a mistaken CM article.Bearing in mind that it took a lot of digging to even find out and confirm that I’d remembered it right being a splitter option as opposed to a range change change only.
Also by memory I’m sure it’s also a usual H pattern not the dog leg pattern in the case of the range change.IE by memory it was just like driving the DAF 12 speed splitter but without the split on ‘5th’ and ‘6th’ thereby making it a 10 speed not 12.While no one is going to go to all the trouble of a 10 speed splitter without at least 8 of those being split shifts. 
weeto:
Carryfast:
Still can’t quite understand what they are describing here.I can certainly remember the full shift needed between 9th and 10th and it not being a split shift but don’t remember 7th to 8th being the same and it not being a split shift.Nor can see the point of a splitter that doesn’t split at least up to 8 out of the 10 gears.I think it’s more of the Sheldon effect, rather than the Mandela effect.
I’d really liked to have seen a CM road tester show how 9th could have been lower than 8th and where 5th low was when they’ve already ( rightly ) stated that there is no split on ‘5th’ ( 9th ) with 9th and 10th being seperate gears on the stick. 
What are you talking about Carryfast? I’ve told you exactly what shift pattern you would need to use to sequentially shift through all 10 speeds in the Scania splitter box fitted to later 92/93 models. It’s quite simple to understand.
1st gear (1lo)
2nd gear (1hi)
3rd gear (2lo)
4th gear (2hi)
5th gear (3lo)
6th gear (3hi)
7th gear (4lo)
8th gear (5lo)
9th gear (4hi)
10th gear (5hi)
newmercman:
What are you talking about Carryfast? I’ve told you exactly what shift pattern you would need to use to sequentially shift through all 10 speeds in the Scania splitter box fitted to later 92/93 models. It’s quite simple to understand.
1st gear (1lo)
2nd gear (1hi)
3rd gear (2lo)
4th gear (2hi)
5th gear (3lo)
6th gear (3hi)
7th gear (4lo)
8th gear (5 lo )
9th gear (4hi)
10th gear ( 5 hi )
I’m actually referring to the 1980’s GS771 in a 112 and I don’t think the 1990’s 93 was any different.
There was no ‘5 lo’ / ‘5 hi’ because 5th ( 9th ) didn’t split. 
IE 6 speeds on the stick with 4 splits 1st - 4th and as confirmed in the article 9 and 10 being on the stick =10.Also bearing in mind it was a normal H pattern shift from memory unlike the range change set up.
1 lo ( 1st )
1 hi ( 2nd )
2 lo (3rd)
2 hi ( 4th )
3 lo (5th )
3 hi ( 6th )
4 lo (7th )
4 hi ( 8th )-
5th ( 9th )
6th (10 th)
Well your memory is telling you lies mate. It had the standard dog leg Scania 5spd gearshift pattern.
I think that you’re missing something in the translation. When it says that 7th to 8th and 9th to 10th are not splits, it means just that. They are ratio changes made by moving the gear lever…
newmercman:
I think that you’re missing something in the translation. When it says that 7th to 8th and 9th to 10th are not splits, it means just that. They are ratio changes made by moving the gear lever…
Exactly.
In which case if 9 th to 10 th is a full gear shift that means ‘5th’ on the stick doesn’t split it’s only 9th as I said and just as I remember it.In which case you can’t split 5th lo/hi and 10th is the 6th position on the stick as I said.Which from memory was just a normal H pattern front to back and vice versa shift.With 7th and 8th being ‘4th’ lo/hi and 8th not possibly being higher than 9th or there would be no need for 9th.Having said that I’d be happy to be proved wrong if someone could post a 10 speed splitter shift pattern.Bearing in mind that the video of the 93 splitter at least,which I posted previously also shows clutch actuation,just as I remember it.As opposed to CM’s description of clutch actuation being dropped in the 1980’s and probably being just as inaccurate as the idea that 7th to 8th wasn’t a split shift 4th lo/hi or that 4th hi was supposedly higher than 9th.
While by your/CM’s description it’s a dog leg 10 speed splitter with only six of those gears being splits and four being full shifts on the lever but with 5th supposedly being a split lo/hi with hi being 10 th. ?. Go figure.
The Mandela Effect being as good an explanation as any.
How do two gear positions supposedly provide two gears each ( 7 and 9 and 8 and 10 respectively ) when they’ve also said that the splitter function supposedly only works regarding the bottom six ratios. When surely what they actually should have said is that there are 5 gear positions and the splitter works on them all but 4th hi is higher than 5th lo thereby defeating the object of the splitter in the top 4 gears.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … s-six-pack
As opposed to a 6 position H pattern 8 speed splitter + 2.Which is how I remember it.Seemingly wrongly.