[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Blah… It seems obvious to a trained monkey… BlahThe last resort of the wrong- boasting about your qualifications.
History is all I need in this case as my qualification and it proves me right. 
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Blah… It seems obvious to a trained monkey… BlahThe last resort of the wrong- boasting about your qualifications.
History is all I need in this case as my qualification and it proves me right.
How ironic that you use history as a qualifier when your posts are full of ‘ifs, buts and maybes’ 
newmercman:
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Blah… It seems obvious to a trained monkey… BlahThe last resort of the wrong- boasting about your qualifications.
History is all I need in this case as my qualification and it proves me right.
How ironic that you use history as a qualifier when your posts are full of ‘ifs, buts and maybes’
Probably just like that argument between AEC’s management and Leyland’s which would have gone along the lines of why are we wasting loads of money on developing this ERGO heap when we can do something much better like this 3 VGT idea which we’ve been working on and maybe if we can get it into the market fast enough we’ll have a big advantage over the foreign competition.To which Leyland’s answer was probably we would if we could but we can’t because we can’t afford it and the ERGO is better for the demands of the domestic market.To which AEC’s answer was ok if that’s what you want to do but trust me that idea will put us so far behind the competition it’ll bring the firm down in the long term. 
Carryfast:
newmercman:
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Blah… It seems obvious to a trained monkey… BlahThe last resort of the wrong- boasting about your qualifications.
History is all I need in this case as my qualification and it proves me right.
How ironic that you use history as a qualifier when your posts are full of ‘ifs, buts and maybes’
Probably just like that argument between AEC’s management and Leyland’s which would have gone along the lines of why are we wasting loads of money on developing this ERGO heap when we can do something much better like this 3 VGT idea which we’ve been working on and maybe if we can get it into the market fast enough we’ll have a big advantage over the foreign competition.To which Leyland’s answer was probably we would if we could but we can’t because we can’t afford it and the ERGO is better for the demands of the domestic market.To which AEC’s answer was ok if that’s what you want to do but trust me that idea will put us so far behind the competition it’ll bring the firm down in the long term.
Probably, maybe, if, but, !
Trev_H:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Blah… It seems obvious to a trained monkey… BlahThe last resort of the wrong- boasting about your qualifications.
History is all I need in this case as my qualification and it proves me right.
How ironic that you use history as a qualifier when your posts are full of ‘ifs, buts and maybes’
Probably just like that argument between AEC’s management and Leyland’s which would have gone along the lines of why are we wasting loads of money on developing this ERGO heap when we can do something much better like this 3 VGT idea which we’ve been working on and maybe if we can get it into the market fast enough we’ll have a big advantage over the foreign competition.To which Leyland’s answer was probably we would if we could but we can’t because we can’t afford it and the ERGO is better for the demands of the domestic market.To which AEC’s answer was ok if that’s what you want to do but trust me that idea will put us so far behind the competition it’ll bring the firm down in the long term.
Probably, maybe, if, but, !
Another thread thats been sidetracked Trev by hindesight
I made a mistake earlier- the 500-engined high-datum Ergo was launched in 1968, along with the 690 Beaver:
The roadtest of the 690 is here:
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … ross-artic
The test mentions numerous build quality defects:
Electrical fault caused unintended gearchange.
Accelerator pedal action bad.
Steering vague.
Ill-fitting engine cover.
Brakes.
These were in a vehicle which was presented to the press. I wonder how many people not doing their jobs properly allowed these faults to get into a finished vehicle? It appears that the labour problems of the 1970s were already well-entrenched a decade earlier. To think the layabouts spent the '70s striking for more pay, while BLMC was battling to stave off foreign competition and sort out the mess of its merger! Laziness, incompetence, indiscipline and a false sense of entitlement in the workforce were by far the most significant factor in the troubles of the firm, regardless of any design issues with the lorry cab.
Come on, ya cross-eyed loon. Take the bait!
[zb]
anorak:
Come on, ya cross-eyed loon. Take the bait!
I think it was a Leyland one not an AEC so built up norf not dan saf where we knew how to put a wagon together.
Although that’s assuming the issues in question had anything whatsoever to the way in which the thing was assembled as opposed to dodgy component quality control by the firm’s suppliers. 
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … n-vehicles
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … an-the-man
youtube.com/watch?v=8gX9bJQEULg
^ Not bad condition for a 40 year old wagon that’s obviously had zb all spent on it through the Communist years and just a coat of paint since.
Just been reading the book I mentioned earlier and it states leyland made only 2 million in profit on a turn over of 50 million in 1968 this was the year before British leyland was formed.
It states this modest profit was largely due to warranty claims on its truck range. That along with the faults highlighted on a press demo truck has got to have been part of leylands problems.
I’m sure saviem and Newmercman can shed more light through there roles in been involved in truck building and a magazine tester can confirm manafacturers make sure there press demo fleet are checked and fettled to be A1
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Come on, ya cross-eyed loon. Take the bait!I think it was a Leyland one not an AEC so built up norf not dan saf where we knew how to put a wagon together.
Although that’s assuming the issues in question had anything whatsoever to the way in which the thing was assembled as opposed to dodgy component quality control by the firm’s suppliers.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … n-vehicles
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … an-the-man
youtube.com/watch?v=8gX9bJQEULg
^ Not bad condition for a 40 year old wagon that’s obviously had zb all spent on it through the Communist years and just a coat of paint since.
What the hell has that lot got to do with Ergo’s? Digression within context is one thing, but you seemed to have meandered miles off topic in one drunken step. Do you pee in the wardrobe, then wonder why it is wet in the morning?
High-datum Ergo cabs.
Fitted in 1968 to 2VTG V8 Mandators, mainly for Australia and New Zealand which were CKD builds and a few for the home market. Approximately 40 high -datum versions in total on V8 Mandators.
The Leyland 500 Series fixed head range with High-datum cab was announced in 1968 but because of development delays and problems the first models to enter service were in late 1969 on ‘H’ registration plates. (H plate 1st August 1969 to 31st July 1970).
Turbo-charged Leyland Beaver ‘690’, probably available late 1968, definitely early 1969.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
Come on, ya cross-eyed loon. Take the bait!I think it was a Leyland one not an AEC so built up norf not dan saf where we knew how to put a wagon together.
Although that’s assuming the issues in question had anything whatsoever to the way in which the thing was assembled as opposed to dodgy component quality control by the firm’s suppliers.
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … n-vehicles
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … an-the-man
youtube.com/watch?v=8gX9bJQEULg
^ Not bad condition for a 40 year old wagon that’s obviously had zb all spent on it through the Communist years and just a coat of paint since.
What the hell has that lot got to do with Ergo’s? Digression within context is one thing, but you seemed to have meandered miles off topic in one drunken step. Do you pee in the wardrobe, then wonder why it is wet in the morning?
As I read it you were making some generalised comments,concerning the industrial relations issues of the 1970’s and possibly before which,if you’d have been there,you’d have known affected most aspects of British industry at the time not just the automotive manufacturing one and even that which did affect the automotive manufacturing one affected most of that industry too not just Leyland.What ‘that lot’ shows,is that notwithstanding any of that,those so called ‘militant’ workforces were actually doing their jobs properly with most industrial action being official and well disciplined and a totally seperate issue to that of quality built into the products being made.IE working to rule and/or strikes when required didn’t mean just chucking things together at those times when the job was being done.Industrial action meant the withholding of labour as part of official action nothing more and no responsible union or union member would ever sanction dodgy work quality standards as part of that action.
As I said you also seemed to be making some generalised bs political points to explain some obvious faults found on a press test vehicle.When,as I also said,those faults could have been explained my many different reasons,which could have had,and probably did have,absolutely zb all to do with either the work practices or industrial relations between shop floor workers and their management at the time wherever those shop floor workers happened to be working.Therefore I’d suggest that it was you who went miles off the topic by putting in your own bs political agenda to explain the possible reasons behind some faults found on a press test wagon regardless of what that wagon happened to be.
kr79:
Just been reading the book I mentioned earlier and it states leyland made only 2 million in profit on a turn over of 50 million in 1968 this was the year before British leyland was formed.
It states this modest profit was largely due to warranty claims on its truck range. That along with the faults highlighted on a press demo truck has got to have been part of leylands problems.
I’m sure saviem and Newmercman can shed more light through there roles in been involved in truck building and a magazine tester can confirm manafacturers make sure there press demo fleet are checked and fettled to be A1
This is an interesting statistic. While we have discussed the suggestion that the Ergo was undersized compared to the cabs on other “premium” makes of the 1960s, the sleeper version does not look significantly more cramped than an F88, looking at the pictures. Most posts on the F88 threads cite good reliability in its favour.
kr79:
Just been reading the book I mentioned earlier and it states leyland made only 2 million in profit on a turn over of 50 million in 1968 this was the year before British leyland was formed.
It states this modest profit was largely due to warranty claims on its truck range. That along with the faults highlighted on a press demo truck has got to have been part of leylands problems.
I’m sure saviem and Newmercman can shed more light through there roles in been involved in truck building and a magazine tester can confirm manafacturers make sure there press demo fleet are checked and fettled to be A1
The important question in that case being the reason for the failures.IE poor engineering manufacturing standards ( doubtful ) or compromises in design standards to save research and development money at the pre production stage and production costs,and in rating of componentry IE too little being expected to do too much,in order to keep purchase prices down.
Carryfast:
As I read it you were making some generalised comments,concerning the industrial relations issues of the 1970’s and possibly before which,if you’d have been there,you’d have known affected most aspects of British industry at the time not just the automotive manufacturing one and even that which did affect the automotive manufacturing one affected most of that industry too not just Leyland.What ‘that lot’ shows,is that notwithstanding any of that,those so called ‘militant’ workforces were actually doing their jobs properly with most industrial action being official and well disciplined and a totally seperate issue to that of quality built into the products being made.IE working to rule and/or strikes when required didn’t mean just chucking things together at those times when the job was being done.Industrial action meant the withholding of labour as part of official action nothing more and no responsible union or union member would ever sanction dodgy work quality standards as part of that action.As I said you also seemed to be making some generalised bs political points to explain some obvious faults found on a press test vehicle.When,as I also said,those faults could have been explained my many different reasons,which could have had,and probably did have,absolutely zb all to do with either the work practices or industrial relations between shop floor workers and their management at the time wherever those shop floor workers happened to be working.Therefore I’d suggest that it was you who went miles off the topic by putting in your own bs political agenda to explain the possible reasons behind some faults found on a press test wagon regardless of what that wagon happened to be.
Hahaha. I knew you would not be able to resist. The root of all of your nuttiness is revealed. Most, if not all, of the strikes were for more pay for less work. Read kr79’s post more carefully. It describes a workforce which deserves less pay or a better standard of work, or both. The fact that the louts were not prepared to pull their socks up is what gave us the joke situation of the 1970s. The rest, as you are so fond of saying, is history.
Carryfast:
kr79:
Just been reading the book I mentioned earlier and it states leyland made only 2 million in profit on a turn over of 50 million in 1968 this was the year before British leyland was formed.
It states this modest profit was largely due to warranty claims on its truck range. That along with the faults highlighted on a press demo truck has got to have been part of leylands problems.
I’m sure saviem and Newmercman can shed more light through there roles in been involved in truck building and a magazine tester can confirm manafacturers make sure there press demo fleet are checked and fettled to be A1The important question in that case being the reason for the failures.IE poor engineering manufacturing standards ( doubtful ) or compromises in design standards to save research and development money at the pre production stage and production costs,and in rating of componentry IE too little being expected to do too much,in order to keep purchase prices down.
The book obviously focuses on the car side but a big criticism is a lack of product testing it states that there was only 2 maxis used in pre production testing and was pushed in to production whith known flaws in the design and the fact they were forced to use the doors from the 1800 land crab range which comprimised its styling.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
As I read it you were making some generalised comments,concerning the industrial relations issues of the 1970’s and possibly before which,if you’d have been there,you’d have known affected most aspects of British industry at the time not just the automotive manufacturing one and even that which did affect the automotive manufacturing one affected most of that industry too not just Leyland.What ‘that lot’ shows,is that notwithstanding any of that,those so called ‘militant’ workforces were actually doing their jobs properly with most industrial action being official and well disciplined and a totally seperate issue to that of quality built into the products being made.IE working to rule and/or strikes when required didn’t mean just chucking things together at those times when the job was being done.Industrial action meant the withholding of labour as part of official action nothing more and no responsible union or union member would ever sanction dodgy work quality standards as part of that action.As I said you also seemed to be making some generalised bs political points to explain some obvious faults found on a press test vehicle.When,as I also said,those faults could have been explained my many different reasons,which could have had,and probably did have,absolutely zb all to do with either the work practices or industrial relations between shop floor workers and their management at the time wherever those shop floor workers happened to be working.Therefore I’d suggest that it was you who went miles off the topic by putting in your own bs political agenda to explain the possible reasons behind some faults found on a press test wagon regardless of what that wagon happened to be.
Hahaha. I knew you would not be able to resist. The root of all of your nuttiness is revealed. Most, if not all, of the strikes were for more pay for less work. Read kr79’s post more carefully. It describes a workforce which deserves less pay or a better standard of work, or both. The fact that the louts were not prepared to pull their socks up is what gave us the joke situation of the 1970s. The rest, as you are so fond of saying, is history.
Blimey zb whatever planet you’re on it certainly isn’t the one which applied then.It’s no surprise that you got a bit upset about me posting those 3 examples of the inconvenient truth that whatever the problems might or might not have been at that time they had zb all to do with bad workmanship throughout the automotive manufacturing industry.The success of a product usually came down to design and how much money was thrown at it at that stage and how much was being charged for it and how much the customer was willing to pay for it.Bearing in mind that wages during that time were falling in value by the day.The difference being that workers then were willing to fight to keep the value of their wages the same in real terms instead of being mug enough to do the same amount of work ( as opposed to quality which never altered ) for less pay in real terms as is the case today. 
kr79:
Carryfast:
kr79:
Just been reading the book I mentioned earlier and it states leyland made only 2 million in profit on a turn over of 50 million in 1968 this was the year before British leyland was formed.
It states this modest profit was largely due to warranty claims on its truck range. That along with the faults highlighted on a press demo truck has got to have been part of leylands problems.
I’m sure saviem and Newmercman can shed more light through there roles in been involved in truck building and a magazine tester can confirm manafacturers make sure there press demo fleet are checked and fettled to be A1The important question in that case being the reason for the failures.IE poor engineering manufacturing standards ( doubtful ) or compromises in design standards to save research and development money at the pre production stage and production costs,and in rating of componentry IE too little being expected to do too much,in order to keep purchase prices down.
The book obviously focuses on the car side but a big criticism is a lack of product testing it states that there was only 2 maxis used in pre production testing and was pushed in to production whith known flaws in the design and the fact they were forced to use the doors from the 1800 land crab range which comprimised its styling.
I prefer to use the Triumph Stag as a comparison.Big heavy two door car ( nothing wrong with that ) but lumbered with an overstressed underdeveloped 3 litre V8 as opposed to a 450 SL Mercedes.
Carryfast:
Blimey zb whatever planet you’re on it certainly isn’t the one which applied then.It’s no surprise that you got a bit upset about me posting those 3 examples of the inconvenient truth that whatever the problems might or might not have been at that time they had zb all to do with bad workmanship throughout the automotive manufacturing industry.The success of a product usually came down to design and how much money was thrown at it at that stage and how much was being charged for it and how much the customer was willing to pay for it.Bearing in mind that wages during that time were falling in value by the day.The difference being that workers then were willing to fight to keep the value of their wages the same in real terms instead of being mug enough to do the same amount of work ( as opposed to quality which never altered ) for less pay in real terms as is the case today.
You have not read kr79’s post properly, have you? It says that the profits were low due to bad workmanship. The money was not there even if the workers deserved it, which they did not, for obvious reasons. The general theme is that, as a group, they were lazy, greedy, useless bums (with apologies to any competent members of the manufacturing industry whose companies were successful in the 1960s and '70s).
That’s one of the criticisms that triumph should have been made to modify the car to use the existing rover 3.5v8 and the option of a 4.4 version of the same engine. Which although seen as less refined than triumphs offering it was well proven to be a reliable engine and would stand up to less meticulous maintaince than the more fragile triumph engine.
However it goes on to say bl was struggling to keep up with demand for existing models using it.
Also another factor was that bl couldn’t get a version approved for the American emmisions standard until 1980 and this was seen as a key market but it never panned out