If this link is true (no reason to suspect it’s not),why would anyone want to put an F88 290 cab on an F89 chassis?? Drivers of the real 89s had no problems with LHD whether they were in the UK or abroad.Or maybe it was “Just because we can”
It says in that link that RHD F89’s were made but never sold in the uk , that makes no sense to me at all . Why would they produce them but not sell them here but go to the trouble of exporting them to AUS ?
Ive never heard of F89’S being made RHD , if im wrong then im wrong and i’ll hold my hand up but i was always told that RHD F89’S were called G89 because they are a different beast …
Has someone got a picture of a RHD factory built F89 ?
MVA370R was new to Fungstons in 1977 along with sister F89 MVA369R and spent over ten years running middle east they were bought by a guy called Peter Whitford in a very poor state, they were both refurbished, 370R had the cab replaced with one off an F88 and was altered considerably to fit the 89, he run 370 for about 2 - 3 yrs to Austria and then it was sold on ,nice to see it still survives MVA370R is an F89 with an F88 cab.
Tony Taylor:
Sir +:
bigr250:
deemg:
MVA370R Also a RHD F89. Framptons had these new?
That’s an F88 290 grille & lower front pannel so probably an F88.
If this link is true (no reason to suspect it’s not),why would anyone want to put an F88 290 cab on an F89 chassis?? Drivers of the real 89s had no problems with LHD whether they were in the UK or abroad.Or maybe it was “Just because we can”
Would the set-forward front axle on the G89 allow more space to get the gear linkage from the right hand side of the engine tunnel to the gearbox?
Point taken Anorak,the G89 was about a foot longer in the chassis than the F89,possibly as you say probably to accomodate the conversion.Maybe Saviem will have more knowledge on the subject.I see from your table that volvo also fitted a 525 ■■■■■■■ engine in the NH16 in Australia.I thought they only did that in North america.We learn something new everyday.
volvo made the f89 in rhd but would not sell it in the uk for the reason they would not sell the f88. australier did get the f89 in rhd. the truck shown in this picture was a lhd. two f89 were converted to rhd drive in the uk by changeing the engine tunnel.
★
Karwik added this photo to his favorites.(4 months ago)
this post ( TAKEN FROM THE LINK ) clearly states that the F89 was made in RHD form but was NOT sold in the uk , that is news to me .
does anyone have a picture of one ? by that i mean a factory built F89 in RHD form not a G89 they are a different beast .
what i would like to see is a picture of a factory built F89 in RHD form ( not G89 ) .
I cant see that table being correct anorack unless ive missed something but the early 86s & 88s dont seem right 240 not shown & I think the 86`s early ones 69/74 were 196bhp then blown a bit more later to either 201 or 210 also 290 88 not there
greek:
I cant see that table being correct anorack unless ive missed something but the early 86s & 88s dont seem right 240 not shown & I think the 86`s early ones 69/74 were 196bhp then blown a bit more later to either 201 or 210 also 290 88 not there
The F88’s all had the TD100 9.6L where the F86 was always fitted with the TD70 6.7 litre engine so whatever the outputs they were always fundamently different, I think the last of the F86’s had 207BHP & the lowest power F88 at that time (1976) was 240BHP.
greek:
I cant see that table being correct anorack unless ive missed something but the early 86s & 88s dont seem right 240 not shown & I think the 86`s early ones 69/74 were 196bhp then blown a bit more later to either 201 or 210 also 290 88 not there
As Sir+ says, it is an Australian table. I should have made this clear. The link in the post takes you to another list, on the same site. The power outputs are to SAE standard, at least some are, so the 240 F88 will be rated at 270bhp.
I thought the 290 F88 was GB only, to make up for the lack of an RHD 89? As we have seen, Oz had their RHD G89s, so no need for a 290 88, or so I would have thought.
[zb]
anorak:
I thought the 290 F88 was GB only, to make up for the lack of an RHD 89? As we have seen, Oz had their RHD G89s, so no need for a 290 88, or so I would have thought.
I have an interest rather than a depth of knowledge as displayed by yourself,Saviem bigr250 and others.I think your statement above is correct .The RHD factory manufactured F89 does seem to be a mythical beast.
[zb]
anorak:
I thought the 290 F88 was GB only, to make up for the lack of an RHD 89? As we have seen, Oz had their RHD G89s, so no need for a 290 88, or so I would have thought.
I have an interest rather than a depth of knowledge as displayed by yourself,Saviem bigr250 and others.I think your statement above is correct .The RHD factory manufactured F89 does seem to be a mythical beast.
Nice of you to say so but, like you, I have only an interest.
That Oz site actually shows a production line. I guess that this is where the RHD G89s (and F89s?) were built. Given that they were fitting all sorts of “foreign” parts- American axles, for instance, maybe the RHD adaptations to the 12 litre vehicles were engineered locally. They may not have been as fussy about clearances/tolerances as the exacting Swedes. They may have considered it worthwhile to modify the engine hump, whereas the Volvo engineers would not. Speculation, of course.
Would the set-forward front axle on the G89 allow more space to get the gear linkage from the right hand side of the engine tunnel to the gearbox?
I reckon this is a “foreign” table. According to this, F88s with the TD100A engine, which was the 290, went out of production in 1973, yet I, and a host of other people, ran new 88s up until the F10 was introduced.
This has to be one of the most debated and questioned subjects in UK truck circles. Having grown up in the UK and been interested in this subject for many years and after listening to many different opinions and theories,most of which don’t any water. I’ve drawn my own conclusions.
Volvo devolved the 290 F88 for the UK market to offer more HP over the 240 model,this would have been much easier than converting the F89 to RHD. The UK was not renowned for running premium high HP trucks,so sales of F89’s would have never been as high as F88’s.
Those that wanted premium high HP trucks-ie heavy haulage and how many of these we sold over the F89’s seven year production run,100? Or firms running on the Continent and a LHD truck would have suited them better anyway.
So for such small numbers why would Volvo convert the F89?
In Australia however they had to convert the G89 to RHD or they wouldn’t have sold any,as trucks had to be RHD.
As for the conversion,well relatively simple really. As far as I know the engine hump doesn’t require modification,the air filter needs to be moved from the right hand side of the engine to make room for the gear linkage.
The G88/G89 has the same chassis as the F88/F89 it’s only the axle that is moved forward,the cab sit’s in the same place. The wheel arches are moved forward to compensate for this.
Moving the axle forward will not change the position of the engine at all. The reason for moving the axle forward was to gain better axle spacing,to be able to comply with Australian axle loadings.
At the bottom of this page are some pics I’ve posted of a G89 showing the gear stick linkage and my thoughts on the conversion.
NZ Jamie apart from the steering wheel being on the left the other major difference was that the passenger side of the cab was much narrower, the simple answer to make life easier would have been to mount the engine upright instead of inclining it to the right. G88s were also sold in the UK.I drove Volvos from 1968 up to 1995 starting with an 86 then 88 and for the final 15 years F89s.As some one said the 290 F88 was UK market only none were produced LHD why would they when you had the bigger HP 89. From my recollection the 290 was an over blown TD100 and was not very reliable we did nt operate any of them. Regards Crow.
geoffthecrowtaylor:
NZ Jamie apart from the steering wheel being on the left the other major difference was that the passenger side of the cab was much narrower, … Regards Crow.
Jamie’s G89 pictures show the engine hump to be offset about 4" to the right of centre. This does suggest that the driver’s side of the cab, on RHD vehicles, would be narrower than the passenger side, which agrees with Crow’s post on LHD lorries. Was this true on F88s, or did the 88 have a central engine hump?
