I drove this 111 for a few trips & I owned the 89 for a while, they where both very simple easy motors to work with & on, everything was easy to get at & both had good points & bad too. I think the Volvos gearbox was far superior but the Scanias engine was a better lump IMHO, both of these trucks had seen better days but could still do a days work up & down to Greece. I drove a 142 for a spell too which was a nail if I’m honest, all that [zb] about in the “V” getting burnt trying to bleed the poxy thing was a right pain in the arse. & talking of arses the bed in the 89 used to be in a kind of steel dish & I can remember crawling into the bottom bunk & it being roasting on the rear end. The Volvo was a tad more cramped with the raked back screen too. They both felt safe to drive equally & I’d go to work in either an F89 or a 141 tomorrow TBH when I sit in my newish FH it sometimes takes me back to my 89 where everything is now like the wireless & that. Yeah top trucks the pair of them are but I’d say a Scania was better on fuel by far, which at the moment would make it the winner. I hope this helps & the pictures are OK.
My dad owned the 111 at some point done Greece an Italy a lot with it
I drove this 111 for a few trips & I owned the 89 for a while, they where both very simple easy motors to work with & on, everything was easy to get at & both had good points & bad too. I think the Volvos gearbox was far superior but the Scanias engine was a better lump IMHO, both of these trucks had seen better days but could still do a days work up & down to Greece. I drove a 142 for a spell too which was a nail if I’m honest, all that [zb] about in the “V” getting burnt trying to bleed the poxy thing was a right pain in the arse. & talking of arses the bed in the 89 used to be in a kind of steel dish & I can remember crawling into the bottom bunk & it being roasting on the rear end. The Volvo was a tad more cramped with the raked back screen too. They both felt safe to drive equally & I’d go to work in either an F89 or a 141 tomorrow TBH when I sit in my newish FH it sometimes takes me back to my 89 where everything is now like the wireless & that. Yeah top trucks the pair of them are but I’d say a Scania was better on fuel by far, which at the moment would make it the winner. I hope this helps & the pictures are OK.
My old man drove soo 819r he used to use it for Greece an Italy trips
I drove it for Russel Emptage, I remember Chris Moore had it before Him, He & His Dad Eddie did Greece, Eddie had a white RHD 111 on for Anglo Greek & I think Chris subbed for Solar Marine Services…
Hi Ash the Scania was a very harsh ride solo compaired to the Volvo The Volvo had a much better gearchange but the Scania had better brakes better electrics But all in all my old 1973 F89 UIA2795 was one of the best motors I ever had and pulled like a train
How about how much you can get in that tilt or how many bits you can make that card into or changing your snap connecters at the lights You would have one that one lol
I would have thought that a more apt comparison would be 140 vs. F89 or 141 vs. F12, since these vehicles were sold about the same time.
Most contemporary magazine reports praised the 141 for its (novel for the period) high torque, low-revving characteristics, giving it good fuel consumption for its performance. Most of the posts above, apart from Fly Sheet’s, suggest otherwise. Were you all a bunch of rev-counter hooligans, or what?
Trev_H mentions pistons/liners failing on 140s- did the first Scania V8s have reliability problems/“teething troubles”?
Was the poor ride quality of the Scania mainly a feature of UK-specification 4x2 tractors? Given that Scandivavia was (and is) predominantly six-wheeled, would this bad trait have been reduced or eliminated on 6x2 tractors?
The 141 was the first lorry to have a green band marked on the rev counter
Well that’s what my research dug up, I wrote (for TRUCK) an epitaph for the 14 litre V8 when they introduced the new 16 litre version, that was one of the things that I found out. I think I titled the article ‘The king is dead, long live the king’ so you can probably guess which way I would lean on this, however I have no experience of either lorry, but they are both near the top of my all time top ten, in second and third place respectively
I would have thought that a more apt comparison would be 140 vs. F89 or 141 vs. F12, since these vehicles were sold about the same time.
Most contemporary magazine reports praised the 141 for its (novel for the period) high torque, low-revving characteristics, giving it good fuel consumption for its performance. Most of the posts above, apart from Fly Sheet’s, suggest otherwise. Were you all a bunch of rev-counter hooligans, or what?
If you want to compare the 141’s low rev torque to the F12’s, here’s a pick of the ‘dash board’ of my F12 from the 1980’s at a little over 50mph ‘pulling’ about 1,450rpm, very low for the early 80’s & right at the bottom of the green sector. (the numbers around the outside is revs per second, rpm is the inner set of numbers)
fly sheet:
I drove it for Russel Emptage, I remember Chris Moore had it before Him, He & His Dad Eddie did Greece, Eddie had a white RHD 111 on for Anglo Greek & I think Chris subbed for Solar Marine Services…
Yeah that’s right it’s such a small world it was only today I was talking to me dad about this site an this photo an how the truck used to use about 5 litres of oil every trip, I said did it burn it an me dad said no it leaked out ha ha ha ha the good old days ! What’s your name I’ll ask me dad if he remembers you ?
Hi,how was our experience in Belgium which can be very different in terms of gross weights.
First I should compare the 89 with a 140 because the 141 came nearly together with the F12.
Engine F89, more reliable, better to work on (6 in line), more torque,more fuel efficient, first had often broken crankshafts.
140, burnt exhause valves in the beginning,latter came the turnable valve washer,general good engine and fuel consumption.
Box F89 more reliable, more speeds, easy to work on.
140 very weak box, still the same as the old 76 so had to cope the 100HP more,10 speeds but only 9 were useable 4H and
5L had nearly the same ratio, planetary auxiliarybox not reliable.
Propshaft F89 nearly ever lasting if geased.
140 everyone knows Scania’s propshafts before 1980 NOT?? every week greased and lived only a 1/10th of an ungreased
Daf or MB shaft.
Driveaxle F89 very good double drive diff reduction, but with singel diff reduction a weak satellite hub reduction.
140 reliable but not the best,again it had to cope with 75HP more as the 110 Super and was the same,also low geared 4.71
Chassis F89 strong single frame
140 not corrosion-resistant dubble frame, look to restore a Scania with double frame.
Comfort Not comparable because of the choice, cab suspension or not, parabolic springs or not,wheelbase choise,
Cab F89 if you were tall there was more headroom and place behind the steeringwheel.
140 more spacious ,bigger beds,better heating system,more storage room, flat dash useable as table,electic wippers,
tall drivers were cramped behind the wheel.
Buy/service F89 better back up and dealerchoice.(Belgium)
140 overpriced, poor back up,and always the drivers fault. (Belgium)
My own experience and opinion as driver and mechanic,and don’t think I’m a Scania hater I liked them till the 4 series came, and we had problems with Volvo’s too.I only compare here the 89/140 the 141 was a whole other story.
totally agree with the above comments about scania’s prop shafts-we had an 80 super artic,and that used to eat propshaft bearings.
it was usually working at 32ton though and wasnt really man enough.
i have to say if i was offered the keys to either an 89 or a 140/141 it would be the scania everytime
newmercman:
The 141 was the first lorry to have a green band marked on the rev counter
Well that’s what my research dug up, I wrote (for TRUCK) an epitaph for the 14 litre V8 when they introduced the new 16 litre version, that was one of the things that I found out. I think I titled the article ‘The king is dead, long live the king’ so you can probably guess which way I would lean on this, however I have no experience of either lorry, but they are both near the top of my all time top ten, in second and third place respectively
I don’t know when the 141 came out but I had a F88 290 new CCX 509S in September 77 and that had the green band on 1500 up to 2200 then yellow band 2200 to 2400 then red band from 2400 but this was some type of trial wagon from Volvo as the sister wagon 510S was at least a full gear lower on any bank and that did not have the same colour coded bands on. The F10 and F12 came out around 6 weeks after I had this wagon.
Hi all; I’m writing “something” (all will be revealed soon) and I’d appreciate some help from those of you who drove either - or both - of these trucks.
Which was best to drive?
Which had best status?
Which was more ecconomical?
Which was more Comfy or roomy - to live in/cook in?
Service/back up abroad?
And anything else you can think of…
TBH when I sit in my newish FH it sometimes takes me back to my 89 where everything is now like the wireless & that. Yeah top trucks the pair of them are but I’d say a Scania was better on fuel by far, which at the moment would make it the winner. I hope this helps & the pictures are OK.
