When I started out the one on our right was the mutz nutz. Amazing how things evolve…
the maoster:
When I started out the one on our right was the mutz nutz. Amazing how things evolve…
To put it into context, that F86 was introduced 50 years after the First World War, while the modern counterpart is over 50 years newer.
I leave it to the reader to decide whether that’s a comment on progress in lorry design or on the OP’s age…
Oi! I resemble that remark!
That little 86 was the equivalent of a current FM (no room for non Pygmy driver) or possibly FL, is there such a thing? with the smallest possible engine option, the 88 of the time was the equivalent and that was only rated for the max 32 tons of the period in the UK.
I drove an 86 a number of times on night trunks i was doing at the time, compared to the usual otherwise typical A or B series ERF ripping the tarmac off the roads 
via the Gardner 180 farce, the little 86 was a superb little wagon to drive, went like the clappers drove and handled well, had power steering and it didn’t need yards of insulating self adhesive tape all over the front inside of the bulkhead or what was amusingly called a dashboard to stop the gale force freezing draughts that came through all the gaps in the A class cab front where nothing fitted properly, nor did it peg out on freezing nights with Diesel freezing as you hurtled back at the typical Gardner 48mph flat out with wood brace jammed on the throttle in the wee small hours.
Wonder what the new Volvo flagship will look like, or be running like, in 2070.
Lets put them both to work on a similar job, aggregates, the F86 was a popular vehicle in and out of the quarries and gravel pits.
An all-aluminium trailer from Welford was coupled to the Volvo and its low unladen weight, 2.4 tonnes, provided a total 24.6 tonne (24.3 ton) carrying capacity within the 32-ton UK maximum. Unladen weight of the tractive unit is 5.2 tonnes. Because the small 6.7 litre (409 cu in) engine marginally clears the minimum power to weight ratio of 6 bhp /ton, many consider it inadequate for a 32-tonner. However, in my experience the F86 thrives on hard work and as the test results indicate it completed our route in an acceptable time and produced some outstanding fuel consumption figures which, had one not witnessed, I would have found difficult to believe.
With the eight-speed gearbox the F86 turns in an adequate performance, but it a pity that Volvo do not offer an alternative 16-speed transmission for this vehicle, as they do for their bigger models. In my opinion engine output could be more fully exploited and vehicle performance enhanced by the addition of a splitter.
Volvo FH12 - Roll on 50 years, give the man a licence to print money and run at 44t, then add all the safety gear now necessary, two more axles, side guards, easy sheets, staircases, balcony’s and sleeper cabs, is he really any better off?
If you are on aggregates work, you’ll be paid for what you tip, so any chassis weight savings goes straight into your wallet in the form of extra tonnes moved. Making a healthy saving on every trip all adds up. Roll a regular 6×2 FH with the XL cab over a weigh bridge and you’ll see around 8,684kg flash up on the display – that’s not taking wet kit and hydraulics into account.
Drive an FH lite onto the bridge and get ready to blink. Give or take a few kilos for manufacturing tolerance and you should see around 7,867kg. My ■■■ packet says that’s a whopping 817 kg of extra payload on every trip. Every trip!