The photo of the 1966 Deutz on another thread has got me thinking for reasons why Volvo and Scania, who both appeared here at the same time, won rave reviews and went on to great success, but such as Deutz and other European makes didn’t gain the same acceptance. What was it about Volvo and Scania that set them apart from most of their European made competitors when they first appeared on UK roads? We know why they beat our own makes in terms of driver comfort, for example, but did this also apply to such as Deutz and Mercedes?
gingerfold:
The photo of the 1966 Deutz on another thread has got me thinking for reasons why Volvo and Scania, who both appeared here at the same time, won rave reviews and went on to great success, but such as Deutz and other European makes didn’t gain the same acceptance. What was it about Volvo and Scania that set them apart from most of their European made competitors when they first appeared on UK roads? We know why they beat our own makes in terms of driver comfort, for example, but did this also apply to such as Deutz and Mercedes?
This could be an intresting thread Graham.
I think you could also ask which manufacurers could sell trucks in Sweden ? Volvo & Scania had something like 95 % of the heavy truck
market in Sweden from memory with Sisu selling some there. Funny enough Bedford did manage to sell some TK’s in Sweden. 
Will pop a road test on later.
Would there have been an anti German feeling at the time which lead to a peoples boycott to purchase any product manufactured in Germany, I think it was probably the seventies before people started buying their high quality products.
To be fair it all depends on what you’re comparing.SA 400, Bedford TM, ERF NGC, and even Foden S83, were all as comfortable from the drivers’ perspective.■■■■■■■ and Rolls at least also easily able to match F10/12 Scania 110/111, possibly even 140/141, if not exceed them.
The Brits have been unfairly treated using apples v oranges comparisons of typical poverty spec guvnor’s wagons like Gardner powered Atkis.
While, like Mercs, the Swedes liking for relatively heavy slow shifting synchro boxes and no Fuller option was another retrograde let down against them.A lot of unfair badge issues going on in that comparison.While I’d prefer a constant mesh ZF/Fuller equipped DAF 2800 or MAN over an F10/12 or Scania for similar reasons.
As for the F86 and F7 and Scania 80 poverty spec heap means poverty no matter who makes it.
I wouldn’t have thought so Dave, in the Northeast there were several companies running Mercedes 1418 units both the bonneted and cab over types, also at this period Mercedes accounted for almost 75% of Germany’s medium to heavy truck exports. The firm I worked for as an Apprentice late 60’s A.W. Ellis, although mainly an AEC fleet, ran them and also Cawthorn Sinclair on the South side of the Tyne. At the start of the 70’s Magirus Deutz became popular with another long established firm I worked for and they bought them up and into the Iveco era, only ever buying just one F86 in the late 60’s. Fergusons Transport ran MAN as well as Volvo but many Mercedes during the same period. I believe Scania in particular became more popular with the companies that did Continental or Middle East work before those operating only in the UK took to them, who tended to be users of British makes for many years, for the obvious reasons of UK operations. I do recall Scania had a big following, even by those that hadn’t drove the make based mainly on hearsay, with the One Series types which probably put them just ahead of those that yearned for the F88. I don’t think later models from both manufacturers were as appealing or as good as those first Scandinavians’ and they lived off the ‘glory days’ a little too long. Only my take on it no doubt others will see it differently. Franky.
SCANIA forever ! 
My dad was so impressed by his scania 80 ,he bought 2 guy big j’s to replace it on his scottish trunk. He did buy a 110 later and liked that though.
Tony
Apologies if he has already answered this elsewhere on trucknet but surely Bewick is the man for this question being an very successful operator in this era and going from uk gaffer type motors to European flagships.
Steve
^^^^^^
Those drivers still around who were driving in the era under discussion know the pros and cons of UK lorries against European makes… It’s comparisons against other European makes that the question is about, why some European / Scandinavian marques were successful in the UK market and others weren’t.
Another reason affecting choice, that as a trailer operator I saw, could also be that at the end of the 1960’s and through the 1970’s was the beginning and boom time for Continental and even Middle East TIR traffic. Consequently the back up for spares and " get you back on the road " in Europe was a big bonus and drivers liked the sleeper cabs of the Volvo’s and Scania, particularly whilst still claiming their night out tax free allowances. Therefore most of the TIR boys ran new Scanias and Volvos and it soon became THE choice of truck for many other operators and the greater reliability became known and of course, the glamour of a European truck for drivers ?
Mercedes had a huge presence in UK haulage, both domestic and long-haul, in the 70s and 80s once the New Generation (1617, 1619, 1626, 1625, 1628, 1633 etc) came out. As someone ^^^ mentioned earlier, Scania were bigger on the long-distance market than the domestic. As I remember it, all this changed dramatically with the introduction of the SK cab and the compulsory EPS gearbox that came with it. Unless your name was Willi Betz (or Somat) you had to have that god-awful semi-automated gearshift whether you liked it or not. UK operators abandoned MB in droves and turned to Scania, who by then were offering the P-cabbed 112 as a tractive unit - suitable for domestic work. There must be some marketing stats out there to back this theory up.
Carryfast:
To be fair it all depends on what you’re comparing.SA 400, Bedford TM, ERF NGC, and even Foden S83, were all as comfortable from the drivers’ perspective.■■■■■■■ and Rolls at least also easily able to match F10/12 Scania 110/111, possibly even 140/141, if not exceed them.The Brits have been unfairly treated using apples v oranges comparisons of typical poverty spec guvnor’s wagons like Gardner powered Atkis.
While, like Mercs, the Swedes liking for relatively heavy slow shifting synchro boxes and no Fuller option was another retrograde let down against them.A lot of unfair badge issues going on in that comparison.While I’d prefer a constant mesh ZF/Fuller equipped DAF 2800 or MAN over an F10/12 or Scania for similar reasons.
As for the F86 and F7 and Scania 80 poverty spec heap means poverty no matter who makes it.
+1
I agree with all that. Build-quality is often cited as a Brit-built downfall for these vehicles but often by people who were perfectly content to run Fiats /Ivecos! There were no perfect trucks in those days (and still aren’t). You had Mercs with ponderous ZF synchro-shifts but impressive reliabilty; you had Ivecos with crap build-quality but impressive engine / gearbox reliability; you had Volvos with cab comfort, reliability but high costs and slow gearshifts; you had ERFs with comfort, Fuller boxes, ■■■■■■■ engines decent power but sparse back-up. And so it goes on. Oh and the disastrous Scania 80 is a perfect example of why this subject is not as simple as it looks!
To quote from Lorries of Arabia Book 1:
“It is possible that the (likes of ERF) NGC was marginalised by the fashion-consciousness of drivers and operators. Drivers were certainly wooed by competitors’ synchromesh gearboxes and slightly more comfortable cabs, but, more significantly, they were also wooed by the badge on the radiator. After all, Scania, Volvo and Mercedes Benz were seen as the Nike, Gucci and Rolex of the day. These were all excellent trucks of course, but so was the ERF, as *TRUCK’*s Trans-Euro Test verified. There may be other factors now lost to us over the passage of time, and these are all strictly speculations: we just don’t know, of course - but the baby was probably thrown out with the bathwater!”
To get back to the subject: Euro-truck vs Euro-truck; the same principal must go for the likes of MAN. Like UK-built / assembled trucks, MAN was producing the F8 and later the F90 as a strong, plain, no-nonsense lorry with Fuller constant-mesh 9-speed, 13-speed or Twin-splitter options. They were good trucks to drive and reliable too. But they were never really up there with Scania. Iveco fell into a similar category. So in this sense, we need to nod at the UK trucks for comparison.
Jack Henley ran two Magirus Deutz Saturns: a six wheeler and a tractor unit, these were referred to as Humbolts by the fitters after the name on the manufacturer’s plate - Klockner Humboldt Deutz. These were possibly slightly earlier since one of them, a ISO D14 FS model, was registered as FKL 826C and was left hand drive. The six wheeler is known to have had a sleeper cab and was left hand drive.
Superb idea for a thread, this.
I think the Swedes’ success versus the Germans may be summed up by their approach to engineering- modern versus thorough.
The Swedish engineers pioneered mass-produced turbocharged engines, so their 1960s vehicles were more powerful and cost less to make (never forget the maker’s earnings- they are just as important as the customer’s). Mercedes were still making IDI engines in 1963, while Scania had had turbos since 1960. The Swedes’ engines might not have been quite as reliable as the excellent Mercedes/MAN collaborative effort, but their extra torque was almost a free gift. That state of affairs continued through to the end of the 1970s.
The cabs of the Swedish vehicles might not have been as corrosion-resistant as those of the German makes, but they were a stylish billboard for the operator’s name, and attractive to drivers. Their fittings and trim might have been cheap, compared to the more solid German fare, but that did not seem to detract from sales too much, and might have helped fund more R&D elsewhere (did I mention the importance of the manufacturer’s earnings?).
One cannot imagine MAN designing a corrosion trap into the chassis, but it did not stop Scania selling vast numbers of relatively light-weight but strong 6x2’s all over the world. The chassis might become borderline dangerous at the end of the vehicle’s life, but the other structural parts of any vehicle would have the beginnings of fatigue cracks, by that stage.
One of the main appeals of the Scania & Volvo were that they were both “vertically integrated” i.e. the whole drive train was both matched and built “in house” by the manufacturers. This was as opposed to the premier British “assemblers” ( Atky & ERF) who matched the drive trains with units from different suppliers which did not always achieve an acceptable outcome. Just my opinion others may no doubt disagree. Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
One of the main appeals of the Scania & Volvo were that they were both “vertically integrated” i.e. the whole drive train was both matched and built “in house” by the manufacturers. This was as opposed to the premier British “assemblers” ( Atky & ERF) who matched the drive trains with units from different suppliers which did not always achieve an acceptable outcome. Just my opinion others may no doubt disagree. Cheers Bewick.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+1
british logic and workmaship at its best couldnt compare to the rest of europe and was scrap in comparison.
15 years ago i was ordering a new build tilt and slide/speclift recovery truck.
i wanted it with a high roof and automatic with rear seats instead of a bed.
i narrowed down the choice between a daf and merc.
the following from daf…
we can order the chassis cab,then once it arrives we can send it to allison to have an autobox and pto fitted,then,when we get it back,we can send it to hatcher and get a roof chopped off and a high one fitted,then we will get it back blahblahblah and so on.
mercedes option…
6 weeks from ordering itl be sitting here with a factory high cab full spec ectect all done .
bit of a no brainer for choice.
dieseldog999:
Bewick:
One of the main appeals of the Scania & Volvo were that they were both “vertically integrated” i.e. the whole drive train was both matched and built “in house” by the manufacturers. This was as opposed to the premier British “assemblers” ( Atky & ERF) who matched the drive trains with units from different suppliers which did not always achieve an acceptable outcome. Just my opinion others may no doubt disagree. Cheers Bewick.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
+1
british logic and workmaship at its best couldnt compare to the rest of europe and was scrap in comparison.15 years ago i was ordering a new build tilt and slide/speclift recovery truck.
i wanted it with a high roof and automatic with rear seats instead of a bed.
i narrowed down the choice between a daf and merc.the following from daf…
we can order the chassis cab,then once it arrives we can send it to allison to have an autobox and pto fitted,then,when we get it back,we can send it to hatcher and get a roof chopped off and a high one fitted,then we will get it back blahblahblah and so on.
mercedes option…
6 weeks from ordering itl be sitting here with a factory high cab full spec ectect all done .
bit of a no brainer for choice.
on the DAF , we had the same at salvesen when we wanted an auto version of the LF, we did have a new LF fitted with an allison , and it was probably one of the best 18 tonners i’ve ever driven . this was around 2002 , HV02UUZ was the reg, nothing could touch it on acceleration and on urban work it was a revelation for the time. i put it on leicester and coventry work , it was a shade heavier on fuel than a manual but the idea was to reduce driver fatigue. unfortunately a plonk of a night driver wrote it off up the rear end of a bulker on the hard shoulder of the M1
tony
ERF-NGC-European:
Carryfast:
To be fair it all depends on what you’re comparing.SA 400, Bedford TM, ERF NGC, and even Foden S83, were all as comfortable from the drivers’ perspective.■■■■■■■ and Rolls at least also easily able to match F10/12 Scania 110/111, possibly even 140/141, if not exceed them.The Brits have been unfairly treated using apples v oranges comparisons of typical poverty spec guvnor’s wagons like Gardner powered Atkis.
While, like Mercs, the Swedes liking for relatively heavy slow shifting synchro boxes and no Fuller option was another retrograde let down against them.A lot of unfair badge issues going on in that comparison.While I’d prefer a constant mesh ZF/Fuller equipped DAF 2800 or MAN over an F10/12 or Scania for similar reasons.
As for the F86 and F7 and Scania 80 poverty spec heap means poverty no matter who makes it.
+1
I agree with all that. Build-quality is often cited as a Brit-built downfall for these vehicles but often by people who were perfectly content to run Fiats /Ivecos! There were no perfect trucks in those days (and still aren’t). You had Mercs with ponderous ZF synchro-shifts but impressive reliabilty; you had Ivecos with crap build-quality but impressive engine / gearbox reliability; you had Volvos with cab comfort, reliability but high costs and slow gearshifts; you had ERFs with comfort, Fuller boxes, ■■■■■■■ engines decent power but sparse back-up. And so it goes on. Oh and the disastrous Scania 80 is a perfect example of why this subject is not as simple as it looks!To quote from Lorries of Arabia Book 1:
“It is possible that the (likes of ERF) NGC was marginalised by the fashion-consciousness of drivers and operators. Drivers were certainly wooed by competitors’ synchromesh gearboxes and slightly more comfortable cabs, but, more significantly, they were also wooed by the badge on the radiator. After all, Scania, Volvo and Mercedes Benz were seen as the Nike, Gucci and Rolex of the day. These were all excellent trucks of course, but so was the ERF, as *TRUCK’*s Trans-Euro Test verified. There may be other factors now lost to us over the passage of time, and these are all strictly speculations: we just don’t know, of course - but the baby was probably thrown out with the bathwater!”
To get back to the subject: Euro-truck vs Euro-truck; the same principal must go for the likes of MAN. Like UK-built / assembled trucks, MAN was producing the F8 and later the F90 as a strong, plain, no-nonsense lorry with Fuller constant-mesh 9-speed, 13-speed or Twin-splitter options. They were good trucks to drive and reliable too. But they were never really up there with Scania. Iveco fell into a similar category. So in this sense, we need to nod at the UK trucks for comparison.
i remember going with Dad back in 1978 to pick up a leyland clydesdale 4 wheel tipper he had bought new. It broke down on the way home and didnt get any better in the 12 months he owned it. He had enough when the warranty ran out and went and bought a Fiat 159 tipper. That lasted 13 years without major troubles.
Bewick:
One of the main appeals of the Scania & Volvo were that they were both “vertically integrated” i.e. the whole drive train was both matched and built “in house” by the manufacturers. This was as opposed to the premier British “assemblers” ( Atky & ERF) who matched the drive trains with units from different suppliers which did not always achieve an acceptable outcome. Just my opinion others may no doubt disagree. Cheers Bewick.
To be fair more like the opposite situation with the choice availabe it was more likely to be the customers who specced their truck wrong.
Less chance of that with the take it or leave it one size fits all Volvo/Scania.
The Americans had been managing perfectly well with their choice of driveline components 9 speed or 13 speed overdrive or direct drive top numerous final drive options.
As for the Swedes love of their ponderous synchro boxes I’ll be blunt here if someone can’t/wont handle a constant mesh box they shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a truck.Having got that out of the way how can anyone rate Scania or Volvo transmissions as being good to drive ( unless they can’t drive ) on the basis that if someone can’t/won’t synchronise their own gears they also aint going to be able/want to sychronise the clutch facings either.
The fact is the lack of Fuller option at least was rightly a deal breaker in more enlightened markets to the point where after market retro fit conversions weren’t unheard of.
[zb]
anorak:
Superb idea for a thread, this.I think the Swedes’ success versus the Germans may be summed up by their approach to engineering- modern versus thorough.
The Swedish engineers pioneered mass-produced turbocharged engines, so their 1960s vehicles were more powerful and cost less to make (never forget the maker’s earnings- they are just as important as the customer’s). Mercedes were still making IDI engines in 1963, while Scania had had turbos since 1960. The Swedes’ engines might not have been quite as reliable as the excellent Mercedes/MAN collaborative effort, but their extra torque was almost a free gift. That state of affairs continued through to the end of the 1970s.
The cabs of the Swedish vehicles might not have been as corrosion-resistant as those of the German makes, but they were a stylish billboard for the operator’s name, and attractive to drivers. Their fittings and trim might have been cheap, compared to the more solid German fare, but that did not seem to detract from sales too much, and might have helped fund more R&D elsewhere (did I mention the importance of the manufacturer’s earnings?).
One cannot imagine MAN designing a corrosion trap into the chassis, but it did not stop Scania selling vast numbers of relatively light-weight but strong 6x2’s all over the world. The chassis might become borderline dangerous at the end of the vehicle’s life, but the other structural parts of any vehicle would have the beginnings of fatigue cracks, by that stage.
With the exception of the F12 I don’t think the Swedes produced anything even as good, for all their relatively more advanced turbo charging programme, than Rolls Royce/Perkins TX or ■■■■■■■■
To the pont where I think Rolls Royce had em beat on the best combination of capacity and output.Also Rolls obviously not going down the blind alley boy racer idea of trying to get away with turbocharging ‘instead of’ capacity.Regardless of how many naive customers and maybe a few drivers who didn’t know better were fooled by the pathetic F86/F7 Scania 80-93 con.