• version of the engine that powers the F10. It
Page 36
Page 37
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
develops 229kW (311 hp) at 1,900rpm and 1,330Nrn (9801bft) of torque at 1,200rpm.
Drive passes through an asbestos-free single dry plate clutch to the optional 14-speed SR1400 synchromesh range-change/splitter gearbox and 3.1:1 axle to the HD75 drive tyres.
Brakes, shock absorbers, and most other equipment are standard; the front axle is the standard item except for flatter springs.
Volvo's now familiar FL10 sleeper cab offers single bunk accommodation and an already low-slung driving position. In many ways Volvo's conversion seems a natural one; it certainly looks more natural than a similar change might appear on, say, a Foden.
Montracon built the tri-axle curta insider specifically for this truck. Its double sliding side post design is virtually identical to Swift's other trailers; the key differences are the tyres on twin wheels and a long-travel ROR suspension system which allows the vehicle to be towed by any tractor.
With twin wheels each axle is still rated at eight tonnes giving the full flexibility of a 24tonne bogie.
Air powered hydraulic landing legs were specified to ensure full fleet compatibility. Should a standard tractor need to hitch up the trailer after it has been dropped off by the low tractor it would not be able to get under the nose so the hydraulic legs incorporate a jacking device enabling the trailer to be raised, even when loaded.
This is a special vehicle so it does not appear on the Volvo price list, but a price will be supplied on request. The standard FL10320 is listed at £56,250 but rumour has it that for this, as for most trucks at the moment, the list price should be treated as a starting point.
Track tested acceleration reminds us that the 300hp-class engine is just about at its limit when running at 38-tonnes. For an operation such as Swift's, where weights are frequently well below this figure, the power is about right.
We recorded an average 68 seconds from rest to 60mph: depending on its gearing we expect a 300-320hp tractor to take around 70 seconds so the Volvo's result is a good one, especially given its rather ponderous gearbox.
The important thing for this class of truck is to be able to keep up with the cut and thrust of city traffic and it does that adequately.
Once up and running the Volvo's time of 32sec from 32 to 64km/h (20-40mph) was identical to Mercedes' 1831 and only slightly slower than the more powerful MAN five-cylinder 17.322. Similar parallels with these trucks between 48 and 80km/h (30-50mph) prove that the changes to the Volvo's overall gearing have had no ill effect. In fact the Swift FL10 beat Volvo's own factory prepared FL10-320 tested back in November 1988 by 3.4 seconds from rest to 80km/h and matched its rolling time to 80km/h.
With that low ground clearance in mind— the lowest point is just 127mm (Sin) under the rear axle V-stays—we modified our usual test route to two days, keeping to dual carriageways and motorways where we could be sure that the low approach angle and ground clearance would not cause any problems. But we ran at 38 tonnes so direct comparisons can be made with the standard FL10-320 over the motorway section of our route.
The Swift Volvo's 41.11it/100km (6.9mpg) is slightly better than the standard model, which achieved 43.31it/100km (6.53mpg), but it is still beaten by the other vehicles in our comparison group. Overall economy comparisons aren't valid bemuse of differences in the route, but the Swift Volvo's 39.61it/100km (7.14mpg) do seem to put it in a better light; nearer to the ERF and MAN, and just ahead of the Merc.
It's a strange sensation when another FI,10 flies by at a higher altitude, as do Fodens Scanias and just about everything else over 7.5 tonnes. This truck's lack of inches makes piloting it a strange sensation, particularly when going through roundabouts where the lack of chassis roll is akin to riding the dodgems. The steering wheel turns and the vehicle lurches that way, instantly and without protest. Swift's drivers report the rig is uncannily stable when loaded to full height. We were carrying concrete blocks, but the difference was still marked.
Potholes are a problem. Hit one and not only do you feel a harder thump than usual; you run a higher risk of wheel rim damage. Motorcyclists develop a natural instinct to scan the road surface ahead in search of manhole covers, holes and other perils, we found ourselves doing the same—but manoeuvring is the real danger time. Normally when going backwards a driver might push the trailer wheels over a kerb with little worry. This isn't on with low profile tyres due to the wheel rim's proximity to the ground. Even a glancing blow when pulling up in the high street could cause considerable damage.
Ride quality is good in the FL range, not least due to the cab's four-point coil-spring suspension. That hasn't changed, but the chassis' ride is made considerably stiffer with this running gear. If anything, we preferred this set up to the standard truck.
There's little or no give in the tyres, and the suspension has shorter travel. As a result motorway rumble strips don't; confining themselves to a light buzzing noise. Cat's eyes fail to provide quite the same thud either. The experience is altogether peculiar.
The FL cab continues to age well; it's hard to believe it was unveiled as long ago as 1985. There have been a few updates, all for the good, and it still offers something quite unique in the marketplace.
The array of man-size switches and clear, colourful dials give the FL character. The steering wheel is small and car like, not at all like the competition.The driver's quarters are well appointed. The driving position suits us, though it is hard to reach the centrally positioned exhaust brake switch with your left leg when the seat is rolled more than two thirds of the way forward. The switch may be well positioned for three legged drivers, but with relatively few of those about we can't help thinking a more westerly position would be an improvement.
Interior noise levels are good, as is visibility We appreciated the rear window, especially when coupling such an unfamiliar combination, but seeing the coupling through it is easier said than done when the driver's seat is well below the level of the window.
Trucks on shallow tyres need good road surfaces: county engineers please note. When your vehicle attracts VED of £3,286 you have a right to expect road surfaces that will pamper it. The dangers of poor surfaces and the requirement for drivers to be constantly aware of the limited ground clearance are conversion's only major drawbacks.
Tyre availability is a problem-the Swift machine is forced to carry round two spare wheels (carried under the trailer) plus a spare casing-but this will doubtless bet less as its low-profile tyres become ly used and stocked.
While this FL10 may look stran its daily bread and can still pull a c al trailer. It's stable with good mi the change in gearing and tyre siz nothing to detract from the FL10's1 ability. One operator worry about artics will be how drivers treat then file tyres and special axles aren't rig like this needs to be driven b sional. Most operators don't need a artic. But for a carrier like Swift I cialist need then losing a few inche hurt anyone's confidence.
0 by Danny Coughlan