The DS 11 here in the UK was quoted as 275 but not sure what rating figures they used, I don’t think the rating figures were standardised until the 80’s.
Hey to all, hopefully we don’t fall in a mimic as with CF in the Ergo topic. But it is a very complex situation and will stay, now we all have all ISO.
Anorak, For the Scania’s I have brochures with different engine types and so think with the different hp’s it will be maybe derated engine’s.
Volvo’s first F88 brochure annonced 250 HK SMMT.
But where you get the 215 and 256 DIN HP for the Sweeds I realy don’t know sorry.
We had the 76 DS11 1 number with 225hp DIN,but not surely in a brochure I have seen the LB76 with a DS11 3or4 engine number.
It is difficult te show here all the specifications in my Belgium and some in other languages brochures.
And constructors weren’t affraid to put on the paper what they wanted, here MB sold the V10 320 as a 350hp to withstand the 140 super.
Some stated 340hp and were officially only 304 or 306 hp models to withstand the 8hp per ton for the than 38 ton truck.
Volvo annonced the F89 with 330hp but in DIN,SAE and SMMT the same.
Fiat 240 hp SAE only 204/208 DIN.
The only real hp’s you feel is on the hills,and that was the fact,as you arrived at the sommet of the hill as you looked in your mirrors at the big letters 350HP on the bumper behind you, with your only about 300 HP Swedish truck.
So very difficul,t but like this discuction because you can learn about it.
Cheers Eric,
if i have undersand things right VOLVO usedto give power in scandinavia in SAE norms and scania inDIN/smmt ,so in late80 SCANIA had in the V8 390 and 420 hp in other markets but to concure in homecountry they were 400 and 430,modells never sold in finland 
chee… benkku
Anybody know any history or who owned F89 reg no PAA708P when new
ECT Wimbourne were the second owners
best regards
john
tiptop495:
Hey to all, hopefully we don’t fall in a mimic as with CF in the Ergo topic. But it is a very complex situation and will stay, now we all have all ISO.
Anorak, For the Scania’s I have brochures with different engine types and so think with the different hp’s it will be maybe derated engine’s.
Volvo’s first F88 brochure annonced 250 HK SMMT.
But where you get the 215 and 256 DIN HP for the Sweeds I realy don’t know sorry. We had the 76 DS11 1 number with 225hp DIN,but not surely in a brochure I have seen the LB76 with a DS11 3or4 engine number.
It is difficult te show here all the specifications in my Belgium and some in other languages brochures.
I have just looked at the CM article about the LB76, in August 1963. It says that the DS11 made 222bhp net. Whether this was DIN or SMMT is not mentioned, although 222bhp Imperial would be about 225ps/ch/hk Metric, so that would explain your 225 figure. Björn-Eric Lindh’s book says that the three versions of the engine in the 76 were 220, 240 and 260, although I am guessing that those numbers were rounded to the nearest 10. I thought I had read somewhere that the original DS11 had 215 bhp but, reading the CM article about the Brussels Show in January 1963, it says 225. I will forget the 215 figure! 
I am pretty sure about the 1967 DS11 numbers- 250bhp to BS141, 256ps DIN and 275/280bhp SAE all makes sense, and those numbers and standards have been mentioned in many articles. Of course we may call it a 260!
tiptop495:
And constructors weren’t affraid to put on the paper what they wanted, here MB sold the V10 320 as a 350hp to withstand the 140 super.
Some stated 340hp and were officially only 304 or 306 hp models to withstand the 8hp per ton for the than 38 ton truck.
Volvo annonced the F89 with 330hp but in DIN,SAE and SMMT the same.
Fiat 240 hp SAE only 204/208 DIN.
The only real hp’s you feel is on the hills,and that was the fact,as you arrived at the sommet of the hill as you looked in your mirrors at the big letters 350HP on the bumper behind you, with your only about 300 HP Swedish truck.
So very difficul,t but like this discuction because you can learn about it.Cheers Eric,
The F89 numbers, I think, were BS- referring to bulls rather than horses! How can an engine produce the same power to two completely different standards? Not likely.
In scandinavia VOLVO was SAE and SCANIA SMMT nearly same asDIN and thats why official scanias power output was in histotic to 220 240 260 ,inother markets in countrys style ,so in home market VOLVOS horses where ponnies,cheers benkku
by the way the intercooler VOLVO F12 385 in official registration was 360 hp and the non cooler 142 was 388 hp and thats from what you get the Tn/hp ratio for what weights you allowed to total weight on the combination
Bushy, the question has been asked before, maybe by you. No one seems to know . I had 710P and worked for the supplying VOLVO Dealer (Prince’s) in 77/78.
bma.finland:
by the way the intercooler VOLVO F12 385 in official registration was 360 hp and the non cooler 142 was 388 hp and thats from what you get the Tn/hp ratio for what weights you allowed to total weight on the combination
This 1985 Aussie spec. sheet quotes the TD121F engine at 385bhp to ISO1585. The original “385” was a TD120F, IIRC. That later version was a “395”, then there was a “405” with electronics. I think that Aussie one must be the “395”. 385 ISO would be about 370 DIN, I reckon.
Never mind all this B*ST lets see some photographs of 89’s!!!
[zb]
anorak:bma.finland:
by the way the intercooler VOLVO F12 385 in official registration was 360 hp and the non cooler 142 was 388 hp and thats from what you get the Tn/hp ratio for what weights you allowed to total weight on the combinationThis 1985 Aussie spec. sheet quotes the TD121F engine at 385bhp to ISO1585. The original “385” was a TD120F, IIRC. That later version was a “395”, then there was a “405” with electronics. I think that Aussie one must be the “395”. 385 ISO would be about 370 DIN, I reckon.
Hey, we had the TD120F 360 DIN 385 SAE
TD 121F 370DIN 385 or 389 SAE
TD 122F 395 ISO
TD 123E 405 ISO
We had variants of those engines 100G and GA 120/121F FG de difference was 385 at 2050 revs and 389 at 2200revs.
But why■■? 
hallo Woodcutter,you have right but …
Good night Eric,
Hi Tiptop,
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … erie-there
This mentions the TD120F developing 360bhp DIN net, which confirms your assertion that the 385 figure was gross (SAE).
This earlier Australian-market brochure also states that the 385 figure was gross:
hunteroldtrucks.com/Aust%20F … erview.pdf
What a con! Every other European manufacturer was quoting DIN net power (apart from Saviem and Unic). I am surprised that Scania did not publish the SAE or DIN gross figures for the DS14, just to put their rival back in its place- an extra 25-odd bhp would have given the 141 about 400, which would have been quite a marketing coup in the day.
[zb]
anorak:
Hi Tiptop,archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … erie-there
This mentions the TD120F developing 360bhp DIN net, which confirms your assertion that the 385 figure was gross (SAE).This earlier Australian-market brochure also states that the 385 figure was gross:
hunteroldtrucks.com/Aust%20F … erview.pdf
What a con! Every other European manufacturer was quoting DIN net power (apart from Saviem and Unic). I am surprised that Scania did not publish the SAE or DIN gross figures for the 141, just to put them back in their place.
hey Anorak, a strange history,but a time the 141 was annonced with 385hp but no mention DIN,SAE or ISO but sometimes they annonced two types of ISO 1585 and ■■? forgotten sorry.
Most here in Belgium sold by SAE, the Germans most as DIN,but in the heat of the battle it was SAE too.
MB V10 350 V8 282 6L 250 and 265. Always the battle with the sweeds.
Volvo was the first with ISO (I think for the battle with it’s biggest rival of course.
But wasn’t in reality not nessesary with there 12 or 16 speed they could easily withstand them.
But yes the eyes want something too on paper.
A time all annonced 340 Daf too with it’s DKS320.
Super stuff Tiptop. I did not know that Central Europe was engaged in an SAE point-scoring battle in the 1970s. I have never seen lorries with those exaggerated engine power badges on before. The most surprising aspect to all of this, to bring the subject back to F89s, is that Volvo quoted the same figure- 330bhp- to both DIN and SAE standards. You would have expected it to have 350-360bhp to SAE, which would have looked good for Volvo. I did speculate, elsewhere on this forum, that the TD120 engine might have some odd characteristic- possibly exhaust resonance- which may have been spoiled by the exhaust arrangement on the SAE test, causing the usual 30-odd bhp advantage to be lost. This is mere guesswork, however- it would be great if we had some people who worked as factory development engineers, in the day, on the forum. They would have some stories to tell!
Hey, here a pic of one of the first delivered F89 here. This pic is made in Ostend spring '71 for the brochure,it nearly took a half a day to make the right pic for the photographer,before we could continue our work. But were happy with the pic in the brochure. Pitty we never received any other pic made except that which was for the brochure.
Cheers Eric,
Philip Grants loaded with hanging beef for Algieria.
HH:
Philip Grants loaded with hanging beef for Algieria.[/qu
thats a volvo f88
C’mon then ranksdriver, I’ve driven an F88 and an F89 and from the camera angle there’s no way I can think of any cues that would identify that as an 88. I’d love to know.
Ross.
Thought F89s were LHD only