1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192 
OPERATOR EXPERIENCE
Page 184
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
VOLVO F1017 4x 2 ORIGINALLY TESTED 23/10/82.
ENGINE: VOLVO TD 100 GA. GEARBOX: VOLVO SR62 16 speed. BACK AXLE RATIO: 4.25:1.
TESTED GVW: 32.5 tonnes OVERALL RESULTS: 7.24mpg/41.59mph. ORIGINAL TEST REPORT PLUS POINTS: improved engine flexibility/"willingness to hang on"/impressive performancelcomfortable cab. ORIGINAL TEST REPORT MINUS POINTS: pronounced exhaust note/ needs 16 speed gearbox option (£1,100. extra)/reverse indent needs stronger spring to eliminate grinding/poor horn.
OPERATOR REPORT Operator 1 has a 11 vehicle mixed fleet on nationwide general haulage.
Operator 2 has 5 vehicles on nationwide bulk tipper work.
Operator 3 has switched his business from general haulage with trucks to express parcel deliveries with panel vans. None of the operators have had a F1017 for some time. All remembered the model well and felt that, at the time. it was one of the best trucks around. Operator 2 said that "on my bulk tipper work it slogged away for 24 hours a day, five days a week and never let me down. Drivers loved it and, at the time, it was an advanced vehicle, 32 tonnes was its top weight and it was always just on top."
Operators 1 and 2 had both specified the 16-speed gearbox after the first vehicle was found to be unsuitable with the standard eightspeed. Both felt that the £1,100 extra for this option was pricey hut necessary. Operator 3 would have ordered this option with hindsight but, at that time, could not afford to change the gearbox. He said that 'it always preferred a split gear rather than a whole one and Volvo were silly to bring it out with the eight-speed. It was a nice simple box and perhaps that was the reasoning behind it but the eight speed gearbox was totally unsuitable'.
Fuel consumption figures were not easy to establish. All three operators felt it was around 6.5-7mpg but remembered it for performance rather than economy. All three mentioned the flexibility and torque of the engine. Referring to the test minus point of the pronounced exhaust note. Operator 3 said that 'it always sounded like a proper truck the way it growled'.
Drivers like the cab comfort and general layout. Rust around the doors, exterior locker door and wings was experienced in varying degrees on our operators' F10 cabs. Reliability was felt to be good provided that proper servicing schedules were kept to.
Dealer service was described by all three operators as 'excellent' and the cost of spares and service items was acceptable. Operator 1 commented that 'Volvo bits always seemed to cost a bit more than most other makes but always seemed better quality'. No operator could remember any recalls and only Operator 3 had a major problem. This involved a clutch that was replaced under warranty and persistent fuel injection problems. Eventually, the fuel pump was replaced when the vehicle was six months old. Afterwards, the vehicle was reliable.