Class: Trucks, Simple truck — Model origin:
Background vehicle
Author | Message |
---|---|
◊ 2015-05-31 18:37 |
Heavy-duty MAN Something L or Something H, i.e. the first version of the Hauber. Apparently known as [H60] in the IMCDb, but I don't know why. As there is no possibility to check it's exact model name (based on payload and engine power), we'll just have to deal with that "name" ![]() |
◊ 2015-06-02 14:36 |
we can see three digits in grille of this "schwerer Hauber" anything 735H on to 1963 770 H as looking brandnew http://www.olafs-fotoseite.de/00080532.html here the heaviest MAN of 1963 with up to 38 tons Link to "www.volkswagenag.com" as we can't say exact type we should leave it unknwon, but it is totally wrong to call it a 635 as it was done with all the other [H60] cause 635 is small one with square grille, if we wish to give metonym number we should use 770 instead of 635, thank you! -- Last edit: 2015-06-02 14:52:32 |
◊ 2015-06-02 14:42 |
there is Kuddelmuddel to say at least in category [H60], as these heavy ones are called anything from 415 up to 635 on imcdb , which is midsize type, while heavy type starts with 735 but called 10.212 parallel normally easy to identify by numbers in grille -- Last edit: 2015-06-02 14:44:39 |
◊ 2015-06-02 17:48 |
2 comments with lot of informations need equivalent answers ![]() Trucksplanet (see the link in my previous comment) says 770 H and 780 H for a 1963 model with a 3-digit model number? Anyway, seeing here a 1963 only model could be tendentious: the episode was released in Octobre 1963, so the truck could be a 1964 model too (780 H only?). Not Unknown. We should have an Impossible to identify more precisely category for these kind of vehicles, as they have been identified. But we can for now do it the way it's done for some Mercedes-Benz models and certainly others from other makes: make + factory code, or whatever is the closest of this latter, + blank model name. I totally agree with you, and was preparing to correct the identification made for these trucks. I'm not really keen on the "just give it the smallest model name of that vehicle line" habit, and prefer generic names: how can one distinguish a genuine smallest model from a generically named one, when using this way of identifying? You're welcome ![]() And thanks in return for confirming the misidentification of these "big nosed" trucks ![]() Sorry, my German is a bit rusty: Kuddelmuddel = Synkretismus / syncretism? It helps obviously to use these codes, but I didn't find any external source for the [H55] or [H60] codes: I may be wrong, but for now it just looks like an old habit of some admin which has been kept for convenience... There are only 2 sizes for these trucks, so medium-duty and small size vs. heavy-duty and big size, in my world / with my words ![]() "735 but called 10.212 parallel": I'm not sure to understand. In fact, the MAN 3- or 4-digit nomenclature changed sometime in the late 1960s (de) to better reflect the accuracy. From what I understood: • 1953-67?: 3- or 4-digit number name, 1st digit (or 1st and 2nd for 4-digit names) meaning the payload, the 2 last ones, with 100 added to them, being the engine power; • 1967?+: 1- or 2-digit, a period, 3-digit standing for payload.engine power, so with no longer any "calculation". I'm not sure of the 1967 switch, as it seems to have occurred at different moments depending on the models. And one have to be able to read that number in the grille (i.e. no picture from afar, not blurry one, front face clearly visible...) for it to be "easy to identify by numbers in grille" ![]() If we continue this interesting exchange (which could be a good thing for a better understanding of this truck line), maybe should we do it in the forum, so it would be easier to use it later as reference? -- Last edit: 2015-06-02 17:55:04 |
◊ 2015-06-02 18:25 |
first of all, thank you, for analysis We have already gained much collecting the heavy ones by chassis code [H60] as they were built from 1960 on and the small ones [H55] came in 1955 and as far as exact type is concerned you are right, it is wiser to leave it blank instead of carrying it as unknown for eternity, as there never will be a chance to get closer than we have found today ![]() ![]() ![]() -- Last edit: 2015-06-02 18:39:05 |