T F he FL10/F10's revamped TD102F power unit was claimed to be
Page 33
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
quieter than the original TD101F. In our test of the L10-320 (CM 2 Nov 1988) it also proved to be gutsy and extremely flexible, offering maximum fuel efficiency over a 700rpm range and capable of lugging down below 1,100rpm. It's extra power also made acceleration quicker through the optional 14-speed synchromesh splitter box, although a ninespeed transmission was fitted as standard. A fast axle ratio coupled to a direct top and deep crawler made light of restarting on a 20% (1-in-5) slope. Strong headwinds played havoc with fuel returns, but even so this was not the thirstiest 38-tonner we had tested. Over our Scottish roadtest route we achieved 40.531it/100km (6.97mpg) at an average speed of 67.9km/h (42.2mph). The change to Z-cam brakes improved braking stability, but a shorter pedal travel would have speeded up response. Peak braking Performance was high and caused the cab to dip deeply, but without the usual neck cracking rebound. Volvo's engine exhaust brake was less useful than most. The four-point cab suspension and fixed seat worked well on smooth roads but was less impressive where suspension was really needed over rougher sections of the
route. The sensation of roll from the FL's low seat was minimal and we also found it well suited to urban traffic conditions. A high engine cowl and dogleg binnacle made for a snug cockpit with clear instruments and controls in easy reach, but crosscab movement was awkward. There are many larger cabs that we would rather use for an overnight stop; fortunately the bunk itself was a good size.
W3hen we tested it, the basic-spec Volvo FL1020 cost £2,200 more than the Cummins-325powered Seddon Atkinson Strato and a
massive 1'3,750 more than the similarly
powered ERF E10.