In part answer to the two immediately above posts ^^^^ by Tyneside and Anorak: the New Generation Mercedes 1626 units in RHD form had their ZF 12-sp splitter 'boxes installed upside-down so that you had to change gears away from you (instead of towards you), which seems to have been the case with Tyneside’s DAF. And wasn’t there a problem with Volvo F89s only being available in LHD because the gearbox installation didn’t translate to RHD?
ERF-NGC-European:
According to my records, Carryfast is right. Like CF I’m a bit of a gearbox obsessive when it comes to lorries - and proud of it. I used to drive Series 2 Scanias with the R cab, all of which had the range-change 10sp box. I also drove several P-cabbed 112s (P112M) artics, all of which had the 10-sp splitter version. Most of these were rental /lease units.
Ironically there is a discussion somewhere elsewhere between myself and nmm concerning 10 speed range change Scanias in which I didn’t have a clue what they were talking about.Then put it all down to the Mandela Effect. 
Then the discussion moved on to that weird shift pattern which I never did get my head around then or since, having become instinctively familiar with and moved from the DAF 12 speed splitters in the day, when we’d finally got the two different versions sorted out.
5 or 6 on the stick and all preselectable splits how difficult could it be for the Swedes to get that right.
tyneside:
The DAF’s in the mid seventies with the ZF six speed spiltter were a right PITA. The linkage was really stiff and the gear change pattern was in the opposite direction to most other vehicles. Tyneside
It seems to have been a Marmite box.
To me it was nicer to use than Fuller or Foden.
6 on the stick and splitter and hot knife through butter shift quality.I even thought that the lower gears closer and higher ones further was a more logical gate layout.
Not to be confused with the 12 speed synchro in the 2500 that was much worse than any of the Swedes.I hated it and that useless gutless small engine and the cramped narrow day cab.Volvo F7 or DAF 2500 two of my all time worst heaps and a draw for the Swedes and Dutch in mediocrity.
ERF-NGC-European:
gingerfold:
For what it’s worth, and only my opinion, I was never that bothered about what type of gearbox was in a lorry, any decent driver would have it’s usage sussed out within half an hour of leaving the depot if he was new to the lorry and gearbox. I would never judge any lorry for being good, bad, or indifferent by the quality of its gearbox alone.Yes, I agree with all of that. I used to pride myself on becoming as slick as possible with whatever new 'box was thrown at me, which is how I got interested in them! When I discuss gearboxes on here I’m careful to use the word ‘preference’ a lot, because, like most drivers, I had my preferred gearbox option (and my preferred engine option etc).
To me gearshift quality was a deal breaker and could make the difference between a good and a bad truck from Bedford TJ/TK to Leyland WF/FG and Clydesdale to Boxer onward.
Don’t think there can be any arguments that a factory Fuller option would have considerably improved Volvo’s and Scania’s offerings. 
[zb]
anorak:
While we’re mired in EP90, how did that car 'box in the 1418 fare?There’s another twist to the tale- in the GB market, Mercedes continued to offer the 1418 and 1924, well into the 1970s, while those vehicles’ V-engined successor was standard in Europe. That was a markedly different stance to the Swedes, who updated their ranges completely. Did Merc’s conservative approach harm it?
In general straight 6 is always preferable to V6.An argument which continues between Merc and BMW car engines to this day.
From experience the V6 in the 2534 was anything but an improvement the thing was a gutless liability regardless of the ‘powerliner’ badge.
While the inline 6 engine rightly seems to have won out in most heavy truck engine designs to date with the exception of Scania V8.
Back in the day; I can’t think of many drivers who were interested in gearboxes. Everybody just got on with it, changing up and down regardless of how-many and where they were. Most discussion was on power and the comfort of the sleeper cab.
Wasn’t it mainly the British haulage companies that specced these under powered narrow cabbed Daf. 2300, Volvo F86 . . . running at 32t.,
when on mainland Europe, they were worked as rigids
ChrisArbon:
Back in the day; I can’t think of many drivers who were interested in gearboxes. Everybody just got on with it, changing up and down regardless of how-many and where they were. Most discussion was on power and the comfort of the sleeper cab.
Which obviously leaves the double standard regarding those who say that the Swedes synchro boxes were a big advantage ?.
Suedehead:
Wasn’t it mainly the British haulage companies that specced these under powered narrow cabbed Daf. 2300, Volvo F86 . . . running at 32t.,
when on mainland Europe, they were worked as rigids
Which could have been stopped by limiting their design weights.It was a deliberate policy to create profits by minimising production costs.
Carryfast:
ChrisArbon:
Back in the day; I can’t think of many drivers who were interested in gearboxes. Everybody just got on with it, changing up and down regardless of how-many and where they were. Most discussion was on power and the comfort of the sleeper cab.Which obviously leaves the double standard regarding those who say that the Swedes synchro boxes were a big advantage ?.
To drag things back to the topic title, are we saying that the other imports had constant mesh 'boxes? From memory, Scania and Volvo had synchromesh throughout- IE since the war, but the other Euro makes had constant mesh up to a point then went synchro. Did the 1418 and 1924 have constant mesh 'boxes? What about the GB Magirus imports in the 1960s?
[zb]
anorak:
While we’re mired in EP90, how did that car 'box in the 1418 fare?There’s another twist to the tale- in the GB market, Mercedes continued to offer the 1418 and 1924, well into the 1970s, while those vehicles’ V-engined successor was standard in Europe. That was a markedly different stance to the Swedes, who updated their ranges completely. Did Merc’s conservative approach harm it?
The 1418 little gearbox used ATF fluid 
if i remember, they were a strong little gearbox so was the clutch. The weak link in the driveline was the 2-speed bracket in the back axle. 
They came with electric 2-speed switch which gave problems so got changed to air using the old style fuller range change up down switch as you could screw it to the gear lever just like the Atkinson`s.
Berliet were constant mesh. The things were massive.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
ChrisArbon:
Back in the day; I can’t think of many drivers who were interested in gearboxes. Everybody just got on with it, changing up and down regardless of how-many and where they were. Most discussion was on power and the comfort of the sleeper cab.Which obviously leaves the double standard regarding those who say that the Swedes synchro boxes were a big advantage ?.
To drag things back to the topic title, are we saying that the other imports had constant mesh 'boxes? From memory, Scania and Volvo had synchromesh throughout- IE since the war, but the other Euro makes had constant mesh up to a point then went synchro. Did the 1418 and 1924 have constant mesh 'boxes? What about the GB Magirus imports in the 1960s?
Constant-mesh 'boxes were widely available on Continental makes well into the '70s, though mostly as options. Earlier New Generation Mercs (1626s etc) came with a choice of ZF (AK-80 IIRC) 12-sp 'boxes in either sychro or constant according to taste; likewise DAFs and MANS (and Bussings), which could also have 9 or 13-sp Fullers if opted for. MAN F8s came with 9/13-sp Fullers, and German-spec F90s could have 13sp Fuller, while UK F90s came with the Twin-splitter option (excellent installation BTW!). The Berliet TR305 came with a Fuller 'box option, as did the Saviem SM340, the Pegaso 2182/60, the Barrieros Dodge 300, the Loheac ‘Ton-ton’, and the RABAs from Hungary. Ro
ERF-NGC-European:
Constant-mesh 'boxes were widely available on Continental makes well into the '70s, though mostly as options. Earlier New Generation Mercs (1626s etc) came with a choice of ZF (AK-80 IIRC) 12-sp 'boxes in either sychro or constant according to taste; likewise DAFs and MANS (and Bussings), which could also have 9 or 13-sp Fullers if opted for. MAN F8s came with 9/13-sp Fullers, and German-spec F90s could have 13sp Fuller, while UK F90s came with the Twin-splitter option (excellent installation BTW!). The Berliet TR305 came with a Fuller 'box option, as did the Saviem SM340, the Pegaso 2182/60, the Barrieros Dodge 300, the Loheac ‘Ton-ton’, and the RABAs from Hungary. Ro
MAN and DAF at least were providing constant mesh options into the 1980’s.
Although the small DAF’s in the form of 2300/2500 etc had moved to synchro boxes such as 8 speed range change and 12 speed splitter and the 3300 etc with 16 speed.Although for some reason I’d ( wrongly ) thought that 13 speed Fuller was the default option in the 3300-3600. 
Having said that I could see the percieved logic in having something which at least provided a chance of being able to just ram the thing into a low gear without bothering to use the accelerator, relying on the synchros, if things had gone pear shaped between gears when descending an alpine pass.Bearing in mind the difficulty of simultaneous use of brakes and accelerator using the heel and toe method with air brakes and truck throttle brake pedal layouts.
ERF-NGC-European:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
ChrisArbon:
Back in the day; I can’t think of many drivers who were interested in gearboxes. Everybody just got on with it, changing up and down regardless of how-many and where they were. Most discussion was on power and the comfort of the sleeper cab.Which obviously leaves the double standard regarding those who say that the Swedes synchro boxes were a big advantage ?.
To drag things back to the topic title, are we saying that the other imports had constant mesh 'boxes? From memory, Scania and Volvo had synchromesh throughout- IE since the war, but the other Euro makes had constant mesh up to a point then went synchro. Did the 1418 and 1924 have constant mesh 'boxes? What about the GB Magirus imports in the 1960s?
Constant-mesh 'boxes were widely available on Continental makes well into the '70s, though mostly as options. Earlier New Generation Mercs (1626s etc) came with a choice of ZF (AK-80 IIRC) 12-sp 'boxes in either sychro or constant according to taste; likewise DAFs and MANS (and Bussings), which could also have 9 or 13-sp Fullers if opted for. MAN F8s came with 9/13-sp Fullers, and German-spec F90s could have 13sp Fuller, while UK F90s came with the Twin-splitter option (excellent installation BTW!). The Berliet TR305 came with a Fuller 'box option, as did the Saviem SM340, the Pegaso 2182/60, the Barrieros Dodge 300, the Loheac ‘Ton-ton’, and the RABAs from Hungary. Ro
Good work- very informative.
What about earlier? From 1965-72, GB imports were the two Swedes plus Magirus and Mercedes. DAF came in 1972(?); Berliet, MAN and Fiat 1974. In that period, using the GB market as our petri dish, we can focus on differences between the Swedes and the rest, the rest being Magirus and Merc. Were those German makes synchromesh in the late '60s?
[zb]
anorak:
Good work- very informative.What about earlier? From 1965-72, GB imports were the two Swedes plus Magirus and Mercedes. DAF came in 1972(?); Berliet, MAN and Fiat 1974. In that period, using the GB market as our petri dish, we can focus on differences between the Swedes and the rest, the rest being Magirus and Merc. Were those German makes synchromesh in the late '60s?
Thank you. Merc LPS units had the ZF 6-sp constant-mesh 'box from 1965 onwards (and possibly earlier) with the 3-ax 2020 version having the 11-sp version (which was probably the 12-sp without a split 1st gear). I think MAN offered much the same. The thing is, Germany was obviously keen to use it’s own gearbox manufacture, ZF, and managed to cover all tastes by offering the same 'box in both constant and synchro form to the end of the '70s. The game-changer was the ZF Eco-split which the heavy-handed newbie that everyone grumbles about on here. They took ages to wear in and the slap-across mechanism was not to everyone’s liking. I suspect it was fitted with synchro cones on steroids because those early ones were really difficult to use without the clutch! It was later offered in the 4-over-4 format which, in DAF’s case, was a lot better.
The Merc LPS 1932 V10 had a 4 over 4 ZF range change box, fully air powered.
I liked the box myself, a splitter on top would have been nice but not essential even at 44tons + on Turkish Mountains
I had the first UK one a 1974/5 special import (M Reg) that John Fishwick an Astran subbie sorted, I then bought 2 more 2nd hand from Belgium.
More good stuff from the man who necks a shot of EP90 before bedtime, and will last well into his eleventh decade as a result!
Now- when did Mercedes start offering synchromesh? Was it available on those 1966 round-front tractors, which spearheaded Mercedes’ first assault on the GB market?
I am working on the theory that the Swedish makes were more modern, technologically advanced that the others, and synchromesh was seen as a benefit. The vehicles were seen as more car-like to drive, and synchro was an obvious similarity. Previous lorries required more muscle and technique to drive, so anything that made the 1960s machines more like luxury cars was a marketing advantage, if nothing else. The driver of the day might prefer a dogbox in his rally car, but would rather rely on synchromesh at work.
If Merc et al were still offering constant mesh in the 1960s, that would make them less modern than Scania, therefore less attractive five or ten years down the line.
Missed Whisperingsmith’s post, while I was writing the above. I take it your 1932 was synchromesh? Air-assisted- sounds superb. I guess that specification was available from 1969, so the 1932 was very similar in spec. to the 140. Maybe the difference was that you had to do special deals to acquire your vehicles, while Scania was actively promoting the 140 to GB operators.
[zb]
anorak:
Missed Whisperingsmith’s post, while I was writing the above. I take it your 1932 was synchromesh? Air-assisted- sounds superb. I guess that specification was available from 1969, so the 1932 was very similar in spec. to the 140. Maybe the difference was that you had to do special deals to acquire your vehicles, while Scania was actively promoting the 140 to GB operators.
Whispering’s Merc sounds interesting and was probably properly maintained and successful, especially if it was on M/E work. However, '70s air-assisted anything to do with gearboxes was, in my experience, usually disasterous if you had so much as an air-leak, a dodgy compressor or you’d used up all your air manoevering or you were in heavy traffic - all commonplace in those days. Air-operated splitter-switches and range-change switches were always the first to be denied air, so if you’d used a fair bit of air braking, the chances were that you may struggle to change down and with a non-synchro box they were slim. Electrically operated switches were better. Air-operated wipers were a disaster for the same reason.