paul b:
big truck, something you may want to be aware of is the 460 with i shift returns very low mpg when off of the big roads, the ones running out of the steelworks on what they call local work i.e twenty mile or so drops, manage little over 6mpg at around 42t.
Thanks Paul,
but can anybody name me a truck that will get much over 6/6.5 mpg on 20 mile runs on hilly B roads running a tipping trailer at 44t using a PTO for tipping 
ec11, and as luck would have it, i’ve got one for sale at the right money which is a huge slice of luck you i reckon, when you wana pick it up? 
I worked for a company a little while back who have a T cab 164 Scanny which has been chipped up to 710 
honestly, it has been like it for over two years and the driver said that she hasn’t missed a beat and purrs along, he also said that the fuel economy wasn’t too bad either
But who does really know the long term effect chipping has on engines? sport car manufacturers have been re-tuning and squeezing the extra bit out of engines for years AND you can buy chips for cars too
I have been told that only difference between (recent) 420 and 460 Volvo engines is in ECU. I don’t have any first hand experience in chipped engines, but what I’ve heard is that they cope wery well with upgrade from 420 to 460. I spoke just week ago with a guy driving old FM12 420, which had been upgraded to 460 immediately after one year warranty expired. He said every truck in that company has got similar upgrade, and they hand’t had any engine problems with them, and they are driving quite heavy loads (60 tonnes).
This, and fact that even Volvo offers this kind of upgrade leads me to think that this kind of upgrade can be done with very low risk of engine problems.
I know also couple other motors which have been “chipped”, and I haven’t yet heard any problems. Well, apart from one intercooler which had hole that wasn’t found earlier than after 420 to 490 upgrade increased turbo pressure and all that extra pressure escaped through the hole. At least it sounded nice 
Someone mentioned FH16 610 to be tunable over 1000 which probably is possible but I doubt drivetrain doesn’t stand torque of such upgrade, but I know one logger upgraded to 740hp/3500Nm…
" quite heavy loads (60 tonnes). " Yeah…that would be quite heavy…
Harry, in fact that 60 tonnes is GVW, and load is around 40 tonnes. I always seem to do this same mistake (talking about GVW as a load), or then I notice it at very last moment before posting. 
here in australia they rate many 420’s to 90 tonne gvw they seem to cope .
not sure on the mpg or chipping etc.
cheers
meggala
If you look at the spec on a 420 and 460 the gearboxes are diffrent to handle the more torque of the 460.
A lot of local companies run uprated FHs and FMs, with very few problems, I think. The FM 420 is a very impressive truck in it’s own right though, 2 of my owner drivers run them and they are at least equal to my CF 430
I drive a 420 fm and we always run at top weight with a sloppy load. not much passes us except for the tossers who think it is fun to overtake on roundabouts and then get in my way on the exits.
It is doing 30 litres to 100 and gets better every day even driving ancillary equipment like pumps, generators and pto
Would it not be cheaper just to buy a couple of 460 badges and a go faster stripe
Rob K:
DAFMAD:
As the standard 12 litres come up to 460 I would’ve thought it would go a little more say 480 or 500.Rob that Volvo you had was originally a 340 weren’t it ?
The Volvo was a 340 Steve, but still the same 12 litre lump that the 380, 420 and 460 have in them. It was meant to have been chipped up to a 440 but couldn’t pull you out of bed. Same with a 580 Scania which had supposedly been chipped up to 700 by Scott’s of Derbyshire but again, all smoke and no puff. Had a 530 Scania which was supposed to be a 600 with the chip and that was dead on its knees as well. With the exception of the 580 Scania, I’ve driven all of them in standard form and they all went a lot better without any tinkering. However, if Big T thinks that it’s an “urban myth” then I say go for it. I won’t laugh too much in months/years to come when it goes pop and he’s sat there with his head in his hands wondering where the ££££k is going to come from for a new engine…
The 340 was a mechanical common rail. The 380 was electronic as are the bigger ones. It will depend on the age of the engine, the step you want to go up to and the general condition of the motor when you start out. To suggest that anyone who chips engines up will have trouble in a year or so is about what people would expect from some.
If the motor is in good order, has been serviced well and is serviced properly after chipping it up then there should be no reason why there should be trouble.
Trying to boost the 340s was usually a waste of time.
And Rob, you would laugh your a** off if he did have trouble with it. You know it and so does everyone else. Why deny it?
The 16 litre Volvo engine will easily achieve 1000 bhp as a marine engine. Same for the Scania lump. Impractical on road transport though. 1000 horsepower could twist the chassis if you got into a slippery spot. I reckon 600 hp is over the top. Glory boy stuff in general. I can’t imagine the strain the driveline is under.
Geoff:
If you look at the spec on a 420 and 460 the gearboxes are diffrent to handle the more torque of the 460.
Sensible point Geoff.
Forget the talk of 420 and 460 - what are the torque figures and where in the rev range. Up hills A to B it’s torque you want not necessarily more bhp right at the top end
TC
On Detroit series 60s the ecu is the only difference from 370hp to 500hp.Some models can be changed up or down by a quick remap in the shop and some need a hardware upgrade so the ecu is sent back to Detroit Diesel.
In any event most blow ups happen when the power output is increased but no thought is given to increasing the radiator cooling capacity. HP =heat.
I know a few guys who have done the head gaskets shortly after a power upgrade.
My view is the company engineers spend millions to get you a reliable product .Why waste your own money trying something they probably tested and rejected already. 
paul b:
big truck, something you may want to be aware of is the 460 with i shift returns very low mpg when off of the big roads, the ones running out of the steelworks on what they call local work i.e twenty mile or so drops, manage little over 6mpg at around 42t.
I get between 7.8 and 8.5 out of mine at 44t constantly. Thats not all motorway work either, AND its running a pto at least once a day
(and my thumbs always on the power button )
as rob k says and is 98% right after 12 mths or so they seem to loose the grunt they had when re~chiped/programmed, my volvo has been chiped and was a flying machine for the 1st 7 or 8 mths and then and still is ■■■■■■■ a lot or re chipers clame big big bhp figures to sell you the thing, get it on a rolling road after and see what bhp you have got?? my old volvo was supposed to have a 40+ chip, went on rolling road at feather diesel after came out with print out at 487bhp, 12 months down the line mmmmmmmmmh this thing wasnt pulling 
back to feathers for a rolling road check 452bhp, so were the hell did the 30 odd donkey go to?? and as it gets on it seems to pull less and less,in a nut shell i would just leave it on std bhp what it came out of the factory with,
ever one claims better fuel,power etc to sell the things,
the faster you go■■? the more fuel you use dont ya■■? most of the time anyway
and after 1 engine rebuild of 8k, is it worth the £400 odd pounds to go up a hill at a extra 5 mph?? eeeeerh NOPE,
so in a nut shell rob k is all about right in what he is saying,
DONT DO IT!!!
The_Catman:
Geoff:
If you look at the spec on a 420 and 460 the gearboxes are diffrent to handle the more torque of the 460.
Sensible point Geoff.
Forget the talk of 420 and 460 - what are the torque figures and where in the rev range. Up hills A to B it’s torque you want not necessarily more bhp right at the top end
TC
Just what I was thinking!! What gooed is 600BHP when you are limited to 90 km/h?
Hardly anyone seems bothered about torque - and that’s what gets the job done.
Our FM12 420s (2000Nm) claw along up the hills very well at 44 tonne.
globby 480:
ever one claims better fuel,power etc to sell the things,
the faster you go■■? the more fuel you use dont ya■■? most of the time anyway
One FH12 420hp I drove at late summer got chipped to around 500 hp. Before chipping I got weekly fuel consumption around 35 litre/100 km and boss was very satisfied of such low consumption. After chipping weekly fuel consumption was between 31-32.5 litres/100 km. So it’s not only a talk when they say consumption will drop.
About going faster taking more fuel. Before upgrade in one particular hill this truck barely managed to go up without changing gear down, but after upgrade it don’t even notice that hill. At the same time consumption meter points that consumption in the hill is much less than before upgrade despite going faster.
At the same time this truck was chipped, two other FH12 460’s were also chipped to 500 hp. Guy doing the chipping ran some “bench program” to old chips and found out that another of those supposedly 460 hp engines wasn’t giving even 400 horses:!: