steptoe:
CJA1:
steptoe:
Here are a few pictures of lorries operated by the late Neil Moorhouse, Neilz Trukin Kumpny Louth, on middle east work in the 70s and early 80s.
4
3
2
1
0CJA1:
Hi Steptoe, Did u know Bruce[Helmark] he was on ME with that then later on OCL Con Base T/Pk always ha arabic writing on the visor them days. Cheers Chris.No I dont or didnt know Bruce. Just some nice LP pictures. These would have been taken when I was just a boy, I did know Neil however but when I first knew him he had an F88, (and a strange home made F86 6x2 lift axle thing)The 88 was also black and had arabic writing on one side and Neils own version of English on the other,
CJA1:
Hi Steptoe, no worries mate, it was a long time ago, Cheers Chris.
July 30th 1971 edition of Commercial Motor features a road test of one of these. Available to look up on the website. The report is not particularly complementary since the vehicle was unable to tackle the steep hills resulting in a diversion via Newcastle.
Just re-read this road test article. A LPS 1418 tested at 32 tons pulling a Tilt. Slow progress on the northbound M6 above J36 and especially mentioning a minimum speed of 16mph over Shap. Don’t recall even a Gardner being that slow.
cav551:
Just re-read this road test article. A LPS 1418 tested at 32 tons pulling a Tilt. Slow progress on the northbound M6 above J36 and especially mentioning a minimum speed of 16mph over Shap. Don’t recall even a Gardner being that slow.
Hi kr. On 31st Jan, they tested a 1623 (soon after, this became the British-market 1624, according to the dates in the posts above) in Germany. The report was generally very positive- they even praised the brakes! On 23rd April 1971, they had a go in a 1932 and loved it- apart from the brakes. Both vehicles had 5.5” wide front shoes.
Even the big 1920 / 1924 would not pull ,if better than 1418 a bit , two speed axle slow to change , electrics , compensator for speedo , swiches , brakes no good , parking brake jumped off ! , pistons/liners at 100 000 , gearbox next year , diff next year , cost a fortune to repair , parts hard to get /expensive to make even Scania parts look reasonable , strange wheels , too heavy for UK unladen weight , expensive to buy too long for UK , but even short cab was sleeper with flat top bench ready for mattrass , best ride ,exhaust brake, top quality cabin almost flat floor and looked great ,
The square cabs early LP were first around on the H reg before that you had the round front.The 1924s carried on till R reg
As well as early SK cabs on the roads on the N reg J.C Transport Silvertown had SKs on the N and 1418s on P reg the in line engines were non tilt cab routine servicing was done through the walk through floor lifting panel in the middle of the cab
The two step panels opened as well.The vee engines were all tilt cabs the 1418 had diabolical air over hydraulic braking
System and a ratchet handbrake which the cable used to get caught and tangle in the handbrake pull mechanism which was
A fitters nightmare as in missing fingers to untangle.the 1924 had full air brakes and a air handbrake.
1924 still weren’t a flying machine compared to a 110 or F88 but the ride was good as the wheelbase was long wheels were ok but the wheel studs and nuts were smaller than what we were used
They used to suffer from injectors coming loose giving the poor pulling and chaffing the effect of the head gasket blown but was a easy fix from a deep 30 m socket in the centre of the head and it was all cured.
Where I worked we had eight of them and the drivers loved them walk through cab power steering
Heaters rest of the fleet were ex HTS Seddon 32/4 and D1000 and the Mercs were all new so there was no comparison.
Lilladan:
Even thebig1920 / 1924 would not pull ,if better than 1418 a bit , two speed axle slow to change , electrics , compensator for speedo , swiches , brakes no good , parking brake jumped off ! , pistons/liners at 100 000 , gearbox next year , diff next year , cost a fortune to repair , parts hard to get /expensive to make even Scania parts look reasonable , strange wheels , too heavy for UK unladen weight , expensive to buy too long for UK , but evenshort cabwas sleeper with flat top bench ready for mattrass , best ride ,exhaust brake, top quality cabin almost flat floor and looked great ,
I wouldn’t agree with you there Lilladan. The '24 we ran was a very gutsy motor to pull. It could run rings around later V8’s, 240 F10 Volvos etc. The injector pump governor on the LP & NG Merc was deceiving, because if it wasn’t getting full throttle, it still gave full revs…and this threw a lot of fitters off the trail of poorly adjusted throttle linkages. Your truck still revved out fully but was gutless to pull. A properly set up Merc with a few extra cc’s fuel delivered was a totally different truck to drive
Our engine, gearbox and axles all lasted well over a million kms and we certainly had no issues with parts price and availability. Reliability was excellent…never brokedown or towed home. Very comfortable truck to drive & work in.
cav551:
Just re-read this road test article. A LPS 1418 tested at 32 tons pulling a Tilt. Slow progress on the northbound M6 above J36 and especially mentioning a minimum speed of 16mph over Shap. Don’t recall even a Gardner being that slow.
Hiya when i had a 150 Foden with a Gardner running at 32 ton if i saw a Merc in front and knew their was any hill,s to climb
i’d go into a cafe because following a Merc uphill was the worst thing ever.
John
Volvo did not make a 240 and F10 was 257 ,270, 299 , 320 ect but F86 pulled as good as F10 ! , and somewhat better than any Merc , after two years a Crankshaft was kaputt in a 1924 back in 1977 £1000.00 just for crank ,with labour truck was write off and new 1626 was cancelled but the tilt cabin V8 was good if we had risked it ,but still no power from V8 just very good and big miles
The LP1418 model the first batch of 12 was a revelation in cab comfort this was on P-reg made the Atkinsons SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO out of
date cab wise any way.
The first 1418 at Waugh’s was an ex demo from Bells of Ashington PTY 884M ratchet handbrake and all 
the later all came with a proper
handbrake, shame the same wouldn’t be said about the brakes proper 
in all the time they where in service the biggest criticism from
drivers was the soft poor brakes Q MISTER KEVMAC47 the brakes just could not compare to the old/new Atkinsons at the time.
Ian (ICI) Forrest Fleet engineer started to reline the brakes with softer shoes as the original fitment shoes where wearing the drums out not the linnig’s
plus to try and get a better feel for the drivers from the brake system.
The air/hydraulic mechanical linkage was prone to the two valves leaking at the brake fluid res/tank location most required a repair kit every 3- month.
the cylinders in the drum didn’t give that much trouble but the Adjusters had a small square and if you did not locate that you wouldn’t get much if any brakes at all
The 1418 had the little gearbox not much bigger than a car gearbox plus a very small clutch but as it was a synchro box it gave no problems in service and clutch life was very good to
the odd one was changed but not that many very surprising considering the physical size of the clutch.
The rear axle had its weak spot in the 2-speed bracket which would fail green head bank on the A69 had the most victims to date not one axle didn’t have a failure.
one Driver who we all thought was going to achieve the impossible rang in from green head bank and that was all them axles having the bracket renewed.
The service and back up at the time from Bells of Ashington was 100% if not better in a different league from the Atkinson, Seddon/Atkinson set up that i would
call adequate at best.
This experience with the Mercedes 1418 then the V8 NG and SK is why when i became an owner operator it was only going to be one motor for me
the V8 SK the motor/engine that took over from the Atkinson- Gardner 8lxb but that’s a different story. 
just a little ramble thoughts from a time gone by loved every minute.
Hi,
Here’s a pic of mine an LP2419 6x4 rigid this was luxury after my old AEC Marshall !
Regards
Richard
Dimly recall that the smaller models had some simply horrible braking systems to work on, both inside the drums as well as some weird and wonderful actuating ideas. Some bits even carried over into the SK range I think.
edit for correction to SK
I find all this stuff fascinating. It seems that the LP1418, along with the LB80 and F86, was the Europeans’ response to British operators’ demand for a 6LXB competitor. Those operators were never going to buy an LP1624 or, indeed, an 8LXB or a ■■■■■■■ 220. They wanted no more than 200bhp, ideally a bit less. They probably did not realise that the torque output of a Gardner 180 made it, effectively, a more powerful engine than the 1418’s.
I would speculate that the Continentals’ “poverty specification” for GB should have been a larger engine, derated to about 1900rpm or so, to give bang on 192bhp. Whether they would have been able to give good torque at 1000rpm, like the Gardner, remains a moot point- would an LP1624, LB110 or F88 pull adequately at that engine speed?
Lilladan:
Volvo did not make a240and F10 was 257 ,270, 299 , 320 ect but F86 pulled as good as F10 ! , and somewhat better than any Merc , after two years a Crankshaft was kaputt in a 1924 back in 1977 £1000.00 just for crank ,with labour truck was write off and new 1626 was cancelled but the tilt cabin V8 was good if we had risked it ,but still no power from V8 just very good and big miles
Hi Lilladan,
Yes, Volvo had both a 240bhp & 278bhp in the first generation of F10’s(splitter on the dash). I cannot comment on the crankshaft of a '24 as we never had to open an engine on one, because they kept going on & on and when they were old & tired, the Breakers/export merchants continually haunted us for anything Mercedes for export. Having an old Merc in the yard was like having money in the bank.
However I do remeber being quoted £1,400 by Vovlo for a crankshaft for an F7 that we had in 1983.
8LXBV8BRIAN:
The LP1418 model the first batch of 12 was a revelation in cab comfort this was on P-reg made the Atkinsons SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO out of
date cab wise any way.
The first 1418 at Waugh’s was an ex demo from Bells of Ashington PTY 884M ratchet handbrake and all
handbrake, shame the same wouldn’t be said about the brakes proper
drivers was the soft
Ian (ICI) Forrest Fleet engineer started to reline the brakes with softer shoes as the original fitment shoes where wearing the drums out not the linnig’s
plus to try and get a better feel for the drivers from the brake system.
The air/hydraulic mechanical linkage was prone to the two valves leaking at the brake fluid res/tank location most required a repair kit every 3- month.
the cylinders in the drum didn’t give that much trouble but the Adjusters had a small square and if you did not locate that you wouldn’t get much if any brakes at all
The 1418 had the little gearbox not much bigger than a car gearbox plus a very small clutch but as it was a synchro box it gave no problems in service and clutch life was very good to
the odd one was changed but not that many very surprising considering the physical size of the clutch.
The rear axle had its weak spot in the 2-speed bracket which would fail green head bank on the A69 had the most victims to date not one axle didn’t have a failure.
one Driver who we all thought was going to achieve the impossible rang in from green head bank and that was all them axles having the bracket renewed.
The service and back up at the time from Bells of Ashington was 100% if not better in a different league from the Atkinson, Seddon/Atkinson set up that i would
call adequate at best.
This experience with the Mercedes 1418 then the V8 NG and SK is why when i became an owner operator it was only going to be one motor for me
the V8 SK the motor/engine that took over from the Atkinson- Gardner 8lxb but that’s a different story.
Hello 8LXBV8BRIAN,
At Fergusons we took delivery of the first LP1418- PTY204M from Bells and totalled 16 in all the last one an R Reg.They were the first sleeper cab tractors to enter the
fleet,There was no problem allocating them to drivers.
I would agree with all you have said about the 1418.We resolved the problem with the 2 speed bracket when pulling heavy by dropping from 5th high to 5th low and then 4th low 3rd low 2nd low 1st low.We also had a problem with the cab suspension when using the exhaust brake when in 5th or 3rd gear if you hit a bump and stopped the engine,Thank god for the big steering wheel.
Regards
F Troop.
[zb]
anorak:
I find all this stuff fascinating. It seems that the LP1418, along with the LB80 and F86, was the Europeans’ response to British operators’ demand for a 6LXB competitor. Those operators were never going to buy an LP1624 or, indeed, an 8LXB or a ■■■■■■■ 220. They wanted no more than 200bhp, ideally a bit less. They probably did not realise that the torque output of a Gardner 180 made it, effectively, a more powerful engine than the 1418’s.I would speculate that the Continentals’ “poverty specification” for GB should have been a larger engine, derated to about 1900rpm or so, to give bang on 192bhp. Whether they would have been able to give good torque at 1000rpm, like the Gardner, remains a moot point- would an LP1624, LB110 or F88 pull adequately at that engine speed?
Sir Bob at waugh’s would have bought every Atkinson with a Gardner 8lxb 
in it if you could get them i think Dennis would agree they where a bit like
hens teeth back in the 70`s if you could find one. 
[zb]
anorak:
I find all this stuff fascinating. It seems that the LP1418, along with the LB80 and F86, was the Europeans’ response to British operators’ demand for a 6LXB competitor. Those operators were never going to buy an LP1624 or, indeed, an 8LXB or a ■■■■■■■ 220. They wanted no more than 200bhp, ideally a bit less. They probably did not realise that the torque output of a Gardner 180 made it, effectively, a more powerful engine than the 1418’s.I would speculate that the Continentals’ “poverty specification” for GB should have been a larger engine, derated to about 1900rpm or so, to give bang on 192bhp. Whether they would have been able to give good torque at 1000rpm, like the Gardner, remains a moot point- would an LP1624, LB110 or F88 pull adequately at that engine speed?
I think you’ll find that the reason UK operators bought 1418, F86 or LB80 was not because they didn’t want any more power, but much more to do with unladen weight to maximise payload at our 32t gross maximum. So to many the 1418 was much more appealing than the 1924, especially when MB started to tweak the UK bound 1418’s to 192bhp. Interestingly Merc only ever sold the LPS1924 in the UK and not the LPS1624. Also when the SK was introduced we only got the 1626, and not the de-rated 1624, backing up the theory that weight was the issue, rather than an aversion to power.
CJA1:
steptoe:
Here are a few pictures of lorries operated by the late Neil Moorhouse, Neilz Trukin Kumpny Louth, on middle east work in the 70s and early 80s.
4
3
2
1
0CJA1:
Hi Steptoe, Did u know Bruce[Helmark] he was on ME with that then later on OCL Con Base T/Pk always ha arabic writing on the visor them days. Cheers Chris.…and Bruce was always complaining what a poor puller the Merc was!!,mind you the tonnage they used to put into those tilts its hardly surprising!,nice picture of his Merc though.
David
acd1202:
I think you’ll find that the reason UK operators bought 1418, F86 or LB80 was not because they didn’t want any more power, but much more to do with unladen weight to maximise payload at our 32t gross maximum. So to many the 1418 was much more appealing than the 1924, especially when MB started to tweak the UK bound 1418’s to 192bhp. Interestingly Merc only ever sold the LPS1924 in the UK and not the LPS1624. Also when the SK was introduced we only got the 1626, and not the de-rated 1624, backing up the theory that weight was the issue, rather than an aversion to power.
Fair point. The CM road test of a UK-spec 1418 (higher axle weights and uprated to 192bhp) gave its ulw as 5.85 tons which, I guess, ain’t too bad for a lorry with a “luxury” cab.
Regarding the 1923/'24, CM said that it needed heavier springs to get its 19 ton rating. Presumably, even the 16 ton-rated 1924s would have had the heavier chassis anyway.
It is odd, as you suggest, that Mercedes should send a “heavy” '24 to the UK, especially considering that they had gone to the trouble of uprating the axles and engine of their 14 ton chassis to make a lightweight, UK-specification 32 tonner. Maybe they had the ideal vehicle for the UK market all along, in the 1963-introduced LP1620…