Hi,
I knew ... but had forgotten I knew ... if you know what I mean?
There is more room in a 109 cab than in an 88. I'm guessing an extra three or four inches, meaning room for sliding seat adjustment, and no need for a fillet between the top of the cab bulkhead and the bottom back of a truck cab roof. It has it's attractions.
Has anybody ever fitted a 109 bulkhead into an 88" tub?
OK, it will lose you space in the tub, but that is what trailers are for, and anyway, at my age, what will I want to carry, other than Wilkie?
I suggest there might be a small advantage in fitting the fuel filler hose.
Personally, I was quite happy with the under-seat fillers on my several S1s, but the seats on S2 and S3, discourage that idea. How did the military get round this problem? Who else continued used under-seat filling?
Underseat-fill tanks are appreciably more expensive, as are the associated filler caps, but I can probably live with that (don't tell Barbara). Extra tank under the passenger seat? Driving 300 miles up through France in the "small" hours, in a Landy, was a very pleasant experience, apart from buying fuel. You could drive for long stretches without seeing another headlamp ... and then meet dozens of truckers fleeing from the ferry port.
Assuming 2,000 miles per annum, and 20mpg, a quick bit of mental guestimating suggests I'd
need to refill about once a month, but in real life I'd like to top up when the needle says half empty. Buying fuel in Milton Keynes is not a pleasant experience. Maybe I don't know my way round yet?
I'm assuming that "rear fill" (as on a 109") is a non-starter. Or is it? Besppke "belly tank"?
Anyway ... back to contriving to fit a 109 cab bulkhead into an 88 tub.
The easy answer, is to chop a 109 tub, and replace it with a wooden box (narrow, with "cycle" mudguards, and side-steps), but is there a more civilised way?
602