I wonder where this truck ended up !
Carryfast:
Surely the ‘fact’ that there were ‘perfectly good’ other options more suited to heavy haulage applications than the NGC at least adds weight to the default choice being that of putting the better 7 MW cab on any of those versions,rather than going to all the needless aggro of converting an NGC to 6 x 4 spec,wherever possible.
Edit to add assuming that this is the only/definitive NGC 4 x 2 tractor unit length and assuming they were only built in two lengths rigid or that unit length ?.
download/file.php?id=207155&t=1
Then I’d suggest the further bombshell that any 6 x 4 version of the NGC has to be questionable on the basis that a 6 x 4 rear bogie just ain’t going to fit within that overall chassis rail length.IE they are either all cab conversions of other 6 x 4 type chassis not possibly converted NGC 4 x 2’s.
Or the only other possibility would be 4 x 2 rigids,let alone stretched units,converted to 6 x 4 tractors.Which makes even less sense bearing in mind that there were plenty of ‘other perfectly good’ 6 x 4 tractor unit options to bolt a 7 MW cab onto. 
DEANB:
I wonder where this truck ended up !0
Yes indeed! It’s a shame they didn’t pop a small-ad picture in like they do nowadays: we might have seen a registration number. It’s ironic that some of our UK NGCs appear to be more elusive than the export ones. Robert
DEANB:
ERF-Continental , I have no idea why you will not post the picture of the Thibaut draw-bar ? Tell me ■■?
Dean, nothing personal to you but after several debacles/debates with the head-master, I decide
to stop input when it comes to pictures. Bearin mind that since his ‘collision’ my input over here is approved by the moderators before posting but moreover out of the many pictures I handed him in better times, he apparently didn’t saw much reason to publish any of them in the several volumes.
One picture has copyright (by CDB/Denonville themselves, as is the picture with the demonstrator in front of their office in Brussels) and the other is quite vague pulling a trailer with crates in dull/dark weather.
No hard feelings but it is not my cup of tea to buy books in a serie when (with some more time for genuine research) you could offer a by far more better book, e.g. I prefer to pay 50 pounds for ONE book and not three times 16 pounds for (to be) revised books that end somewhere. 
As you said lately…the author and I quite have a history
ERF-Continental:
DEANB:
ERF-Continental , I have no idea why you will not post the picture of the Thibaut draw-bar ? Tell me ■■?Dean, nothing personal to you but after several debacles/debates with the head-master, I decide
to stop input when it comes to pictures. Bearin mind that since his ‘collision’ my input over here is approved by the moderators before posting but moreover out of the many pictures I handed him in better times, he apparently didn’t saw much reason to publish any of them in the several volumes.One picture has copyright (by CDB/Denonville themselves, as is the picture with the demonstrator in front of their office in Brussels) and the other is quite vague pulling a trailer with crates in dull/dark weather.
No hard feelings but it is not my cup of tea to buy books in a serie when (with some more time for genuine research) you could offer a by far more better book, e.g. I prefer to pay 50 pounds for ONE book and not three times 16 pounds for (to be) revised books that end somewhere.
As you said lately…the author and I quite have a history
Ok ERF-Continental, send the pics to my email address as i would like them for my collection.I will
not post them online.
I do agree with A-J 
about the books to a certain extent! Hindsight is a wonderful thing 
: if I’d known in advance how much this project would ‘take off’, I’d have collated the material for several years (perhaps until I had located all 91 NGCs) and then produced a nice fat hardback fifty-quid tome. Instead, I have produced an organic series of three little volumes that have to correct each other as they progress, which is a bit of a mess really. However, we should factor into this the knowledge that it took the first volume to stimulate and trigger a mass of material that we may never have discovered if I had sat on everything for ten years! And now we are where we are and I’m determined to see the third volume through to the end - it is already longer than the earlier two 
. Robert 
Carryfast:
Carryfast:
Surely the ‘fact’ that there were ‘perfectly good’ other options more suited to heavy haulage applications than the NGC at least adds weight to the default choice being that of putting the better 7 MW cab on any of those versions,rather than going to all the needless aggro of converting an NGC to 6 x 4 spec,wherever possible.Edit to add assuming that this is the only/definitive NGC 4 x 2 tractor unit length and assuming they were only built in two lengths rigid or that unit length ?.
download/file.php?id=207155&t=1
Then I’d suggest the further bombshell that any 6 x 4 version of the NGC has to be questionable on the basis that a 6 x 4 rear bogie just ain’t going to fit within that overall chassis rail length.IE they are either all cab conversions of other 6 x 4 type chassis not possibly converted NGC 4 x 2’s.
Or the only other possibility would be 4 x 2 rigids,let alone stretched units,converted to 6 x 4 tractors.Which makes even less sense bearing in mind that there were plenty of ‘other perfectly good’ 6 x 4 tractor unit options to bolt a 7 MW cab onto.
Which is probably why only three of them existed - all of them retro-converted and probably all of them cut-and-shut (though the third one remains in dispute in that regard at the moment). Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
Carryfast:
Edit to add assuming that this is the only/definitive NGC 4 x 2 tractor unit length and assuming they were only built in two lengths rigid or that unit length ?.download/file.php?id=207155&t=1
Then I’d suggest the further bombshell that any 6 x 4 version of the NGC has to be questionable on the basis that a 6 x 4 rear bogie just ain’t going to fit within that overall chassis rail length.IE they are either all cab conversions of other 6 x 4 type chassis not possibly converted NGC 4 x 2’s.
Or the only other possibility would be 4 x 2 rigids,let alone stretched units,converted to 6 x 4 tractors.Which makes even less sense bearing in mind that there were plenty of ‘other perfectly good’ 6 x 4 tractor unit options to bolt a 7 MW cab onto.
Which is probably why only three of them existed - all of them retro-converted and probably all of them cut-and-shut (though the third one remains in dispute in that regard at the moment).
Let’s get this right the only main difference over a ‘perfectly good’ 6 x 4 5 MW for example would have been the better cab ?.Yet operators would still rather go to all the trouble of either cutting down NGC rigids or stretching tractor units to fit a 6 x 4 bogie to a vehicle which ERF obviously never intended for the heavy haulage market.IE it was certainly never going to be a case of just ‘grafting’ a 6 x 4 bogie onto an NGC tractor unit chassis and,having been indirectly involved in such an operation with the TM,the scale ( and expense ) of the job of ‘cutting and shutting’ truck chassis shouldn’t be underestimated in that regard.IE something to be avoided unless there is absolutely no other option/alternative at the time.
While ‘if’ it’s correct that would though fit the script of ERF having shot itself in the foot by obviously losing loads of heavy haulage sector sales to its opposition.Also not surprising that there would have been only 3 in that case.While my personal view remains that,possibly with the exception of chopping the rear overhang off a rigid chassis and then bolting a 6 x 4 bogie to it,there were no NGC 6 x 4 tractor units/prime movers whether modified or otherwise and all 3 could only logically be a case of operators doing whatever it took to put 7 MW cabs on different 6 x 4 chassis.Possibly even to the point of pretending otherwise for type approval/registration reasons in certain markets.In which case maybe it would be an idea to try to look for any links between the 6 x 4 tractor versions and NGC rigids and without that link I’d guess it’s a case of them all just being re cabbed 6 x 4 chassis such as 5 MW’s,unless confirmed otherwise. 
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
Carryfast:
Edit to add assuming that this is the only/definitive NGC 4 x 2 tractor unit length and assuming they were only built in two lengths rigid or that unit length ?.download/file.php?id=207155&t=1
Then I’d suggest the further bombshell that any 6 x 4 version of the NGC has to be questionable on the basis that a 6 x 4 rear bogie just ain’t going to fit within that overall chassis rail length.IE they are either all cab conversions of other 6 x 4 type chassis not possibly converted NGC 4 x 2’s.
Or the only other possibility would be 4 x 2 rigids,let alone stretched units,converted to 6 x 4 tractors.Which makes even less sense bearing in mind that there were plenty of ‘other perfectly good’ 6 x 4 tractor unit options to bolt a 7 MW cab onto.
Which is probably why only three of them existed - all of them retro-converted and probably all of them cut-and-shut (though the third one remains in dispute in that regard at the moment).
Let’s get this right the only main difference over a ‘perfectly good’ 6 x 4 5 MW for example would have been the better cab ?.Yet operators would still rather go to all the trouble of either cutting down NGC rigids or stretching tractor units to fit a 6 x 4 bogie to a vehicle which ERF obviously never intended for the heavy haulage market.IE it was certainly never going to be a case of just ‘grafting’ a 6 x 4 bogie onto an NGC tractor unit chassis and,having been indirectly involved in such an operation with the TM,the scale ( and expense ) of the job of ‘cutting and shutting’ truck chassis shouldn’t be underestimated in that regard.IE something to be avoided unless there is absolutely no other option/alternative at the time.
While ‘if’ it’s correct that would though fit the script of ERF having shot itself in the foot by obviously losing loads of heavy haulage sector sales to its opposition.Also not surprising that there would have been only 3 in that case.While my personal view remains that,possibly with the exception of chopping the rear overhang off a rigid chassis and then bolting a 6 x 4 bogie to it,there were no NGC 6 x 4 tractor units/prime movers whether modified or otherwise and all 3 could only logically be a case of operators doing whatever it took to put 7 MW cabs on different 6 x 4 chassis.Possibly even to the point of pretending otherwise for type approval/registration reasons in certain markets.In which case maybe it would be an idea to try to look for any links between the 6 x 4 tractor versions and NGC rigids and without that link I’d guess it’s a case of them all just being re cabbed 6 x 4 chassis such as 5 MW’s,unless confirmed otherwise.
Here you go Robert, you will be on 200+ pages by the end of next week and on book 10 by the end of the year now you have CF on board!
pete smith:
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
Carryfast:
Edit to add assuming that this is the only/definitive NGC 4 x 2 tractor unit length and assuming they were only built in two lengths rigid or that unit length ?.download/file.php?id=207155&t=1
Then I’d suggest the further bombshell that any 6 x 4 version of the NGC has to be questionable on the basis that a 6 x 4 rear bogie just ain’t going to fit within that overall chassis rail length.IE they are either all cab conversions of other 6 x 4 type chassis not possibly converted NGC 4 x 2’s.
Or the only other possibility would be 4 x 2 rigids,let alone stretched units,converted to 6 x 4 tractors.Which makes even less sense bearing in mind that there were plenty of ‘other perfectly good’ 6 x 4 tractor unit options to bolt a 7 MW cab onto.
Which is probably why only three of them existed - all of them retro-converted and probably all of them cut-and-shut (though the third one remains in dispute in that regard at the moment).
Let’s get this right the only main difference over a ‘perfectly good’ 6 x 4 5 MW for example would have been the better cab ?.Yet operators would still rather go to all the trouble of either cutting down NGC rigids or stretching tractor units to fit a 6 x 4 bogie to a vehicle which ERF obviously never intended for the heavy haulage market.IE it was certainly never going to be a case of just ‘grafting’ a 6 x 4 bogie onto an NGC tractor unit chassis and,having been indirectly involved in such an operation with the TM,the scale ( and expense ) of the job of ‘cutting and shutting’ truck chassis shouldn’t be underestimated in that regard.IE something to be avoided unless there is absolutely no other option/alternative at the time.
While ‘if’ it’s correct that would though fit the script of ERF having shot itself in the foot by obviously losing loads of heavy haulage sector sales to its opposition.Also not surprising that there would have been only 3 in that case.While my personal view remains that,possibly with the exception of chopping the rear overhang off a rigid chassis and then bolting a 6 x 4 bogie to it,there were no NGC 6 x 4 tractor units/prime movers whether modified or otherwise and all 3 could only logically be a case of operators doing whatever it took to put 7 MW cabs on different 6 x 4 chassis.Possibly even to the point of pretending otherwise for type approval/registration reasons in certain markets.In which case maybe it would be an idea to try to look for any links between the 6 x 4 tractor versions and NGC rigids and without that link I’d guess it’s a case of them all just being re cabbed 6 x 4 chassis such as 5 MW’s,unless confirmed otherwise.
Here you go Robert, you will be on 200+ pages by the end of next week and on book 10 by the end of the year now you have CF on board!
You’re right there! And I’m not even going to get drawn into his fantasy. He only has to go and look at the 6x4 NGC (that used to be a 4x2) on the show circuit and see for himself that it was an expert cut-and-shut job performed by the Belgians when the vehicle was four years old. 
Robert
Here’s a new variable to chuck into the debate about which vehicles derived from the prototype demo NGC seen on promo material (and other early models).
As we have already established, the two vehicles on show in Brussels in '73 were displayed without either a water flap atop the grille or a roof vent. In addition to this, they both had a grille inset (with the ERF badge on) that was different from subsequent NGCs in that the lateral slats supporting the letters ‘E.R.F.’ were broader and made of what looks like chrome or aluminium. One of these was a tractive unit and the other a drawbar outfit. You might think that this grille inset element would make it easier to work out which vehicles were derived from these later in life. Sadly, it appears to complicate matters.
We know that the drawbar outfit went to Thibaut in Belgium, and yes, one picture of it shows the prototype grille inset clearly. The roof-vent appears to have been added. As the wrecker, Q824 RGC has the same wheelbase as this vehicle and has the same prototype grille inset and lacks a water flap you may be tempted to wonder if these aren’t the same vehicle. However, Q834 RGC has no roof vent, which is why I still suspect that it might be the stretched prototype unit.
These roof vents were clearly addable/detachable by the way so we shouldn’t place too much emphasis on them. For instance AFU 615 (Van Steenbergen’s 28/31 unit) also sports the prototype grille inset and is believed to have been the second vehicle on show in '73 but it had a flap and a vent - were these added later?
Then there’s HMO 220N - the calor tanker unit. That too has no flap, a modified (probably added, then) vent and the prototype grille inset.
It’s a bit of a puzzle. Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
You’re right there! And I’m not even going to get drawn into his fantasy. He only has to go and look at the 6x4 NGC (that used to be a 4x2) on the show circuit and see for himself that it was an expert cut-and-shut job performed by the Belgians when the vehicle was four years old.
Great so that’s one confirmed stretched NGC tractor unit ?.Assuming others how does that fit the script of ‘perfectly good’ ‘other’ alternatives such as you’d described for example and thereby supposedly having been no need for a 6 wheeler heavy haulage version ?.
As opposed to,as I said,demand for a heavy haulage spec NGC.To the point where operators were prepared to go to all the aggro of an ‘expert’ cut and shut job to create the NGC version that ERF had decided not to. In addition,as I said,to all the other potential customers who’d have more sensibly gone elsewhere.Or arguably even have just bolted the right ERF cab to the right ERF chassis to save themselves all the aggro ( and cost ) of ‘an expert’ conversion of the NGC.
.
ERF-NGC-European:
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
You’re right there! And I’m not even going to get drawn into his fantasy. He only has to go and look at the 6x4 NGC (that used to be a 4x2) on the show circuit and see for himself that it was an expert cut-and-shut job performed by the Belgians when the vehicle was four years old.Great so that’s one confirmed stretched NGC tractor unit ?.Assuming others how does that fit the script of ‘perfectly good’ ‘other’ alternatives such as you’d described for example and thereby supposedly having been no need for a 6 wheeler heavy haulage version ?.
As opposed to,as I said,demand for a heavy haulage spec NGC.To the point where operators were prepared to go to all the aggro of an ‘expert’ cut and shut job to create the NGC version that ERF had decided not to.
I’ve already told you that ERF was already producing 6x4 units at the same time (as 4x2 NGCs). They sold strong 6x4s in large numbers with 3MW, 4MW, 5MW and 6MW cabs (but not 7MW cabs because the NGC had a different chassis and the cab tilted) in the '70s alone. You could have them in LHD or RHD and you could even have Euro-spec ones. As usual you are forgetting that things were different back then. You have to accept that hauliers who had a perfectly serviceable 4x2 NGC but desired a 6x4 because the work had changed, were apt to convert what they had rather than buy an expensive new off-the-shelf 6x4. It doesn’t happen now but it did then because labour cost were different and transport was not so highly (over-) regulated. For example, Trans Arabia needed 6x4 B-series units but couldn’t get enough of them so they simply took the back off some 8-wheeler tippers and created some serviceable 6x4 units that gave very good service. Richard Read in those days thought nothing of building hybrid ERFs with whatever they had to hand, and with considerable success. Many hauliers in the '70s didn’t just have fitters, they had real mechanics and in some cases, engineers, capable of innovative and creative conversions. Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
I’ve already told you that ERF was already producing 6x4 units at the same time (as 4x2 NGCs). They sold strong 6x4s in large numbers with 3MW, 4MW, 5MW and 6MW cabs (but not 7MW cabs) in the '70s alone. You could have them in LHD or RHD and you could even have Euro-spec ones. As usual you are forgetting that things were different back then. You have to accept that hauliers who had a perfectly serviceable 4x2 NGC but desired a 6x4 because the work had changed, were apt to convert what they had rather than buy an expensive new off-the-shelf 6x4. It doesn’t happen now but it did then because labour cost were different and transport was not so highly (over-) regulated. For example, Trans Arabia needed 6x4 B-series units but couldn’t get enough of them so they simply took the back off some 8-wheeler tippers and created some serviceable 6x4 units that gave very good service. Richard Read in those days thought nothing of building hybrid ERFs with whatever they had to hand, and with considerable success. Many hauliers in the '70s didn’t just have fitters, they had real mechanics and in some cases, engineers, capable of innovative and creative conversions. Robert
To be fair that contradiction has at least predictably resulted in what are clearly two opposing explanations as to the origins of at least one of the examples in question.In which the idea that the default solution,to the simple problem,of how to put a 7 MW cab together with a 6 x 4 chassis,was to cut and shut a 4 x 2 NGC,as opposed to just swapping the cabs between an unwanted NGC and a wanted 6 x 4 3 MW,4 MW,5 MW and 6 MW chassis if at all possible,defies all logic.
On that note notwithstanding the origins of the surviving show vehicle example I’d still go along with the idea of a much simpler cab swap being the default solution unless confirmed otherwise.Especially in the case of supposedly cut and shut a 4 x 2 NGC and having a Volvo 6 x 4 bogie bolted to it seems less likely in that regard.As opposed to the much simpler explanation of a 7 MW cab swap onto a 5 MW chassis for example ?.While as I said also suggesting that ERF got it wrong in not offering a 6 x 4 NGC tractor option.Just like the other mistakes of not fitting the 13 speed RTO and NTA engine options as standard with 9 speed RT and 335 as lower cost options.
Which in this case would/should obviously have translated as a factory built 380 NTA engined,9 speed RT and 6 x 4 axle configuration,NGC.Just as the European normal road spec test example would/should have been 380 NTA and 13 speed RTO.Not fantasy but fact.
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
I’ve already told you that ERF was already producing 6x4 units at the same time (as 4x2 NGCs). They sold strong 6x4s in large numbers with 3MW, 4MW, 5MW and 6MW cabs (but not 7MW cabs) in the '70s alone. You could have them in LHD or RHD and you could even have Euro-spec ones. As usual you are forgetting that things were different back then. You have to accept that hauliers who had a perfectly serviceable 4x2 NGC but desired a 6x4 because the work had changed, were apt to convert what they had rather than buy an expensive new off-the-shelf 6x4. It doesn’t happen now but it did then because labour cost were different and transport was not so highly (over-) regulated. For example, Trans Arabia needed 6x4 B-series units but couldn’t get enough of them so they simply took the back off some 8-wheeler tippers and created some serviceable 6x4 units that gave very good service. Richard Read in those days thought nothing of building hybrid ERFs with whatever they had to hand, and with considerable success. Many hauliers in the '70s didn’t just have fitters, they had real mechanics and in some cases, engineers, capable of innovative and creative conversions. RobertTo be fair that contradiction has at least predictably resulted in what are clearly two opposing explanations as to the origins of at least one of the examples in question.In which the idea that the default solution,to the simple problem,of how to put a 7 MW cab together with a 6 x 4 chassis,was to cut and shut a 4 x 2 NGC,as opposed to just swapping the cabs between an unwanted NGC and a wanted 6 x 4 3 MW,4 MW,5 MW and 6 MW chassis if at all possible,defies all logic.
On that note notwithstanding the origins of the surviving show vehicle example I’d still go along with the idea of a much simpler cab swap being the default solution unless confirmed otherwise.Especially in the case of supposedly cut and shut a 4 x 2 NGC and having a Volvo 6 x 4 bogie bolted to it
Which in this case would/should obviously have translated as a factory built 380 NTA engined,9 speed RT and 6 x 4 axle configuration,NGC.Just as the European normal road spec test example would/should have been 380 NTA and 13 speed RTO.Not fantasy but fact.
It doesn’t ‘defy all logic’, as you put it. As usual, you are attempting to rewrite history. The 4x2 NGC chassis was different from the others, was shaped differently and had a cab that tilted (the others didn’t). It wasn’t compatible with the its stablemates and was not designed like a set of ‘swap-its’, common-rail technology still being in the future with the arrival of the C-series in the early '80s. Also, you keep ■■■■■■■■ on about it not having a 13-sp 'box: for the umpteenth time that box was always available as an option on the NGC during its entire 5 years of production. Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
I’ve already told you that ERF was already producing 6x4 units at the same time (as 4x2 NGCs). They sold strong 6x4s in large numbers with 3MW, 4MW, 5MW and 6MW cabs (but not 7MW cabs) in the '70s alone. You could have them in LHD or RHD and you could even have Euro-spec ones. As usual you are forgetting that things were different back then. You have to accept that hauliers who had a perfectly serviceable 4x2 NGC but desired a 6x4 because the work had changed, were apt to convert what they had rather than buy an expensive new off-the-shelf 6x4. It doesn’t happen now but it did then because labour cost were different and transport was not so highly (over-) regulated. For example, Trans Arabia needed 6x4 B-series units but couldn’t get enough of them so they simply took the back off some 8-wheeler tippers and created some serviceable 6x4 units that gave very good service. Richard Read in those days thought nothing of building hybrid ERFs with whatever they had to hand, and with considerable success. Many hauliers in the '70s didn’t just have fitters, they had real mechanics and in some cases, engineers, capable of innovative and creative conversions. RobertTo be fair that contradiction has at least predictably resulted in what are clearly two opposing explanations as to the origins of at least one of the examples in question.In which the idea that the default solution,to the simple problem,of how to put a 7 MW cab together with a 6 x 4 chassis,was to cut and shut a 4 x 2 NGC,as opposed to just swapping the cabs between an unwanted NGC and a wanted 6 x 4 3 MW,4 MW,5 MW and 6 MW chassis if at all possible,defies all logic.
On that note notwithstanding the origins of the surviving show vehicle example I’d still go along with the idea of a much simpler cab swap being the default solution unless confirmed otherwise.Especially in the case of supposedly cut and shut a 4 x 2 NGC and having a Volvo 6 x 4 bogie bolted to it
Which in this case would/should obviously have translated as a factory built 380 NTA engined,9 speed RT and 6 x 4 axle configuration,NGC.Just as the European normal road spec test example would/should have been 380 NTA and 13 speed RTO.Not fantasy but fact.
It doesn’t ‘defy all logic’, as you put it. As usual, you are attempting to rewrite history. The 4x2 NGC chassis was different from the others, was shaped differently and had a cab that tilted (the others didn’t). It wasn’t compatible with the its stablemates and was not designed like a set of ‘swap-its’, common-rail technology still being in the future with the arrival of the C-series in the early '80s. Also, you keep ■■■■■■■■ on about it not having a 13-sp 'box: for the umpteenth time that box was always available as an option on the NGC during its entire 5 years of production. Robert
Apologies if I’ve got it wrong but I was under the impression many pages ago that ERF’s management counted out the ‘RTO’ box,as opposed to the ‘RT’,on the grounds that it would supposedly spin the prop shaft at too high speeds ?.Thereby removing ‘that’ option ?.Only to then obviously admit that was bs by offering it in their later products ?.
As for the NGC being significantly ‘different’ from the rest,not just in terms of its cab design,and it’s all those other ‘differences’ combined which made it more viable to cut and shut a 4 x 2 NGC than to look for one of those other options.Surely that just adds weight to what I said.IE the customer wanted a 6 x 4 NGC not a 3-5 MW etc.
While ‘if’ you’re right that the 3-5 MW options were ‘perfectly good’ alternatives then surely that adds weight to the idea that the the default choice would have been doing whatever it took to just swap the 7 MW cab onto one of those chassis ?.
Instead of which you’re painting the contradiction of both a product which was supposedly so good in the case of the 3-5 MW etc that it gave ERF the excuse not to bother with a 6 x 4 NGC.But then was actually so bad that heavy haulage operators would actually rather cut and shut an NGC to create the vehicle they actually wanted and that obviously being not just in terms of the superior cab design.
The former of those scenarios obviously adding more weight to ERF’s Continental’s case regarding at least one example and which I’m more inclined to believe.Notwithstanding the fact that at least one operator seems to have chosen to take the latter route for whatever reason.
As for ‘common rail’ technology what has that got to do with vehicles which were all fitted with equivalent old tech ■■■■■■■ power.However ‘if’ you’re saying that there’s absolutely no way that the 7 MW cab could possibly fit on any other type of ERF chassis regardless of any other issue,that would be a different matter.In which case why not just say that to ERF Continental and then let him provide an answer to his claim on that basis to start with ?.
Although if I’ve read it right you did say that both his view,that a 7 MW cab had in fact been swapped onto a different ERF chassis and the opposing view that it was another cut and shut NGC,are as reasonable as each other.
DEANB:
Posted this pic a long time ago,but this is a better copy.Willemstein after being refurbished.
0
Yes indeed - much better! Thanks for posting. Robert
A new one of Pountains mighty ,dodgy iffy NGC ! 
