More silence. Having crucified the engineers responsible for the Ergo, our resident expert is now faced with the challenge of saying exactly how he would have done the job better.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Like the AEC 3 VGT fitted with a full choice of ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Detroit motors.In production before 1970.Which just left the issue of the fact that the domestic market could only afford to pay for a zb ERGO.
Considering the 3VGT was first seen in 1968, that’s 18 months from a one-off concept mock-up to full production- an astonishingly quick lead time. To do the job properly, it takes at least 5 years. Your dream vehicle would have been launched at about the same time as the Marathon. How would it have been superior to that?
I think the 3 VGT seems to have been a bit further down the line than ‘mock up’ more like pre production prototype and you seem to have missed the bit where I said both the Crusader and the 3 VGT would have needed to be brought forward a bit from the point that they were,( would have been ) available.IE 66-67 for the Crusader and around 69 for the 3 VGT.Which I think would have been doable with all the development budget of the ERGO saved.However as I’ve said the whole idea would probably have been sunk by the austerity thinking amongst the domestic market customer base.As for how would a sleeper cab version of the 3 VGT have been superior to the Marathon. 
Suggest you look at the photos and the reasoning given for it’s design criterea again.While even the Crusader seems to have been at least as good an option as the Marathon notwithstanding it’s fixed cab over design.Although no surprise sales seem to have been lost to the foreign competition by customers who obviously ( rightly ) didn’t rate the Ergo or the Marathon regardless.
[zb]
anorak:
More silence. Having crucified the engineers responsible for the Ergo, our resident expert is now faced with the challenge of saying exactly how he would have done the job better.
I think I’ve done that numerous times just by reference to what actually happened in the case of those happy customers in relation to the Crusader and the reasons as given,not by me but by AEC’s engineers,in regards to the design criterea of the 3 VGT which don’t seem to have been contained in the ERGO design. 
A schoolboy with a stack of car magazines has a superior knowledge of the workings of the motor industry.
Interesting fact from the book is leyland couldn’t produce enough trucks to meet orders partly hindered by industrial action at its own factory and also by component suppliers.
Saviem:
Afternoon Gentlemen, to return to Ergos.However, before we walked up the lane to the pub we looked at this thread together, (just briefly), particularly the images of the AEC cab on the 6x4. He is adamant that that was not the shape of the cab design that Southall asked Sankeys to look at!!! He recalls the design brief was from Southall, with no exterior help, that the design was “rounded”, and the envelope could possibly have been adapted to suit, short, long, (crew, or military), or sleeper. Manufacturing medium was to be pressed steel, hence Sankeys involvement. He again confirmed that the whole operation was recalled without any notice, but all dealings were with Southall, and not Leyland!!
Now there is something to be searched out and explored!!quote]
Now that does ring a bell and stirred a distant recollection of details my former AEC contact told me. The 3VTG was a Southall project carried out in some secrecy. But any project such as that could never have been kept secret for ever and when the heirarchy at Leyland found out about it the prototype was taken to Leyland where it was eventually dismantled and air brushed from history, but AEC through its in-house photographer had made sure that photos were taken for posterity.
My dad had four or five bisons over the years and he always rated them. If i remember rightly they were mainly TL11’s and never really gave him any major problems. He always rated them as a tipper though i do remember we fitted an extra crossmember on one as she seemed to flex alot when tipping. We went to a breakers to get the crossmember and soon realised that the truck we were removing it from had more than ours. Fitted the cross member and hey presto she was as good as any of the other Bisons the old man ran.
Daz
Hey, Aren’t some people leading away from the chapter by talking about car instead of Ergo’s.
look at Trucking magazine october 2006 chapter Classic truck it’s about british trucks down under.and you shall see that by becoming trips longer and with heavier weights that they needed purpose build trucks which Foden and Atki did for a while. So yanks came the norm,but on short runs you will see more Europians, but they had to adapt there trucks too. And see you them on the long run, not much I think. Even Scania had to install Fuller boxes. Someone I know was once over their and lots didn’t like Scanies and Volvo’s for thr long runs not only British marques.( I am a bit arrear by reading trucking but it is the last one,but don’t worry Gaydon is coming and lots offer them to buy second hand 
). we have here had ergo’s too and they weren’t so bed but sidetracked by the comforts and more powered Sweeds,even some German marques couldn’t beat them. And of course the low sitting of the cab made them like a delivery van beside a Scania,and any heavy lorry driver don’t like to look up to another in a higher cabbed wagons. And only my experience with Scannies 80,81,86 and Daf’s DH 825 engine let me think the Ergo’s were lots better maybe not on comfort. But if a driver hate them all hate them otherwise you will fall without good driver won’t you.
Cheers Eric,
youtu.be/0JTxkx9D7Uw not sure if this link will work but the commentary may make a few of you laugh, fredm
just tried the smaller marathon ,cheers benkku
kr79:
Interesting fact from the book is leyland couldn’t produce enough trucks to meet orders partly hindered by industrial action at its own factory and also by component suppliers.
This was apparently true in the early to mid 70s but not :open_mouth: just Leyland,Dennis (Bewick) as mentioned on numerous occasions the difficulty in buying new vehicles at the time with very long lead times and when the vehicles did arrive they werent always what they had specced,enter the foreigners and as Leatherheads finest would say “the rest is history”
bma.finland:
just tried the smaller marathon ,cheers benkku
Nice one benkku, this could have saved Leyland,but it would look better with a blue triangle on the front
fredm:
http://youtu.be/0JTxkx9D7Uw not sure if this link will work but the commentary may make a few of you laugh, fredm
That must have been filmed around `78 when the marathon 2 was launched note there were no AEC s around in the film was it offical Leyland?
gingerfold:
Saviem:
Afternoon Gentlemen, to return to Ergos.However, before we walked up the lane to the pub we looked at this thread together, (just briefly), particularly the images of the AEC cab on the 6x4. He is adamant that that was not the shape of the cab design that Southall asked Sankeys to look at!!! He recalls the design brief was from Southall, with no exterior help, that the design was “rounded”, and the envelope could possibly have been adapted to suit, short, long, (crew, or military), or sleeper. Manufacturing medium was to be pressed steel, hence Sankeys involvement. He again confirmed that the whole operation was recalled without any notice, but all dealings were with Southall, and not Leyland!!
Now there is something to be searched out and explored!!
Now that does ring a bell and stirred a distant recollection of details my former AEC contact told me. The 3VTG was a Southall project carried out in some secrecy. But any project such as that could never have been kept secret for ever and when the heirarchy at Leyland found out about it the prototype was taken to Leyland where it was eventually dismantled and air brushed from history, but AEC through its in-house photographer had made sure that photos were taken for posterity.
None of this makes any sense to my simple mind. I can understand why Leyland would not want AEC developing new ranges of vehicles autonomously, when the goal of any merger is to prune any unnecessary duplication. However, I find it difficult to believe that the 3VTG prototype was built without Leyland’s knowledge. Factories are hotbeds of gossip. Even if the cab was a “Saturday morning” project, in a closed workshop, with the costs ascribed to some other activity, the question, “what are you working on, mate?” in the canteen, would have let the cat out of the bag eventually. The same goes for quotations by Sankey to develop presswork on behalf of AEC. The Ergo work must have been a significant part of their business. They would be duty-bound to disclose subversive activity by their customer’s subsidiary.
Nevertheless, the 3VTG prototype existed; the question is- why? If AEC wanted a rolling chassis for R&D purposes- trying out bigger radiators in front of their V8, for example- why not just mount an Ergo higher and lash up some lower panels? The only explanation I can think of is that Leyland allowed AEC and Scammell to compete for the job of building a “no-frills” heavy tractor, and the Crusader got the green light. Even that idea sounds outlandish. Intriguing stuff. Keep digging, chaps.
ramone:
kr79:
Interesting fact from the book is leyland couldn’t produce enough trucks to meet orders partly hindered by industrial action at its own factory and also by component suppliers.This was apparently true in the early to mid
70s but not :open_mouth: just Leyland,Dennis (Bewick) as mentioned on numerous occasions the difficulty in buying new vehicles at the time with very long lead times and when the vehicles did arrive they werent always what they had specced,enter the foreigners and as Leatherheads finest would say “the rest is history”
It’s obvious that large scale industrial action won’t help production output figures but the reasons behind that situation were just the same as those related to retrograde compromised designs.IE austerity and government economic policies regarding price increases after joining the EEC resulting in wages losing their value in real terms leading to higher wage claims which the firms in question weren’t able to meet because they couldn’t pass the costs on in the price of the product.
While many of those foreign replacements didn’t always seem to be just an issue of supply in that they often seem to have been of better more state of the art designs made in other countries which weren’t subject to British type austerity policies resulting in higher development budgets and wage provision to pay their workforces.Such as Holland,Germany and Sweden for example.With such comparisons as the DAF 2800 v the Marathon for example.
[zb]
anorak:gingerfold:
Saviem:
Afternoon Gentlemen, to return to Ergos.However, before we walked up the lane to the pub we looked at this thread together, (just briefly), particularly the images of the AEC cab on the 6x4. He is adamant that that was not the shape of the cab design that Southall asked Sankeys to look at!!! He recalls the design brief was from Southall, with no exterior help, that the design was “rounded”, and the envelope could possibly have been adapted to suit, short, long, (crew, or military), or sleeper. Manufacturing medium was to be pressed steel, hence Sankeys involvement. He again confirmed that the whole operation was recalled without any notice, but all dealings were with Southall, and not Leyland!!
Now there is something to be searched out and explored!!
Now that does ring a bell and stirred a distant recollection of details my former AEC contact told me. The 3VTG was a Southall project carried out in some secrecy. But any project such as that could never have been kept secret for ever and when the heirarchy at Leyland found out about it the prototype was taken to Leyland where it was eventually dismantled and air brushed from history, but AEC through its in-house photographer had made sure that photos were taken for posterity.
None of this makes any sense to my simple mind. I can understand why Leyland would not want AEC developing new ranges of vehicles autonomously, when the goal of any merger is to prune any unnecessary duplication. However, I find it difficult to believe that the 3VTG prototype was built without Leyland’s knowledge. Factories are hotbeds of gossip. Even if the cab was a “Saturday morning” project, in a closed workshop, with the costs ascribed to some other activity, the question, “what are you working on, mate?” in the canteen, would have let the cat out of the bag eventually. The same goes for quotations by Sankey to develop presswork on behalf of AEC. The Ergo work must have been a significant part of their business. They would be duty-bound to disclose subversive activity by their customer’s subsidiary.
Nevertheless, the 3VTG prototype existed; the question is- why? If AEC wanted a rolling chassis for R&D purposes- trying out bigger radiators in front of their V8, for example- why not just mount an Ergo higher and lash up some lower panels? The only explanation I can think of is that Leyland allowed AEC and Scammell to compete for the job of building a “no-frills” heavy tractor, and the Crusader got the green light. Even that idea sounds outlandish. Intriguing stuff. Keep digging, chaps.
I dont think the dates add up .It was definitely used as a testbed for the Marathon but that would be the early `70s it was also tested at 40 tons hence the 6 wheeler i wish i could find that old Gazette
[zb]
anorak:gingerfold:
Saviem:
Afternoon Gentlemen, to return to Ergos.However, before we walked up the lane to the pub we looked at this thread together, (just briefly), particularly the images of the AEC cab on the 6x4. He is adamant that that was not the shape of the cab design that Southall asked Sankeys to look at!!! He recalls the design brief was from Southall, with no exterior help, that the design was “rounded”, and the envelope could possibly have been adapted to suit, short, long, (crew, or military), or sleeper. Manufacturing medium was to be pressed steel, hence Sankeys involvement. He again confirmed that the whole operation was recalled without any notice, but all dealings were with Southall, and not Leyland!!
Now there is something to be searched out and explored!!
Now that does ring a bell and stirred a distant recollection of details my former AEC contact told me. The 3VTG was a Southall project carried out in some secrecy. But any project such as that could never have been kept secret for ever and when the heirarchy at Leyland found out about it the prototype was taken to Leyland where it was eventually dismantled and air brushed from history, but AEC through its in-house photographer had made sure that photos were taken for posterity.
None of this makes any sense to my simple mind. I can understand why Leyland would not want AEC developing new ranges of vehicles autonomously, when the goal of any merger is to prune any unnecessary duplication. However, I find it difficult to believe that the 3VTG prototype was built without Leyland’s knowledge. Factories are hotbeds of gossip. Even if the cab was a “Saturday morning” project, in a closed workshop, with the costs ascribed to some other activity, the question, “what are you working on, mate?” in the canteen, would have let the cat out of the bag eventually. The same goes for quotations by Sankey to develop presswork on behalf of AEC. The Ergo work must have been a significant part of their business. They would be duty-bound to disclose subversive activity by their customer’s subsidiary.
Nevertheless, the 3VTG prototype existed; the question is- why? If AEC wanted a rolling chassis for R&D purposes- trying out bigger radiators in front of their V8, for example- why not just mount an Ergo higher and lash up some lower panels? The only explanation I can think of is that Leyland allowed AEC and Scammell to compete for the job of building a “no-frills” heavy tractor, and the Crusader got the green light. Even that idea sounds outlandish. Intriguing stuff. Keep digging, chaps.
I think VALKYRIE’s listing of the 3 VTG’s design aims answer that question.
While maybe it was just that Scammell’s management had more bottle when it came to standing up to the demands and wishes of the parent company than AEC’s in that both were working on independent superior projects to the ERGO and the following Marathon but only Scammell managed to get their ideas into production.While AEC didn’t because it’s management weren’t prepared to push any issues and arguments to the brink and maybe beyond like maybe Scammell’s were.However it’s my bet that the money just wasn’t there anyway for both divisions to develop and get into production the superior products that were required to meet the foreign challege and the Scammell idea was obviously the cheaper alternative.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:gingerfold:
Saviem:
Afternoon Gentlemen, to return to Ergos.However, before we walked up the lane to the pub we looked at this thread together, (just briefly), particularly the images of the AEC cab on the 6x4. He is adamant that that was not the shape of the cab design that Southall asked Sankeys to look at!!! He recalls the design brief was from Southall, with no exterior help, that the design was “rounded”, and the envelope could possibly have been adapted to suit, short, long, (crew, or military), or sleeper. Manufacturing medium was to be pressed steel, hence Sankeys involvement. He again confirmed that the whole operation was recalled without any notice, but all dealings were with Southall, and not Leyland!!
Now there is something to be searched out and explored!!
Now that does ring a bell and stirred a distant recollection of details my former AEC contact told me. The 3VTG was a Southall project carried out in some secrecy. But any project such as that could never have been kept secret for ever and when the heirarchy at Leyland found out about it the prototype was taken to Leyland where it was eventually dismantled and air brushed from history, but AEC through its in-house photographer had made sure that photos were taken for posterity.
None of this makes any sense to my simple mind. I can understand why Leyland would not want AEC developing new ranges of vehicles autonomously, when the goal of any merger is to prune any unnecessary duplication. However, I find it difficult to believe that the 3VTG prototype was built without Leyland’s knowledge. Factories are hotbeds of gossip. Even if the cab was a “Saturday morning” project, in a closed workshop, with the costs ascribed to some other activity, the question, “what are you working on, mate?” in the canteen, would have let the cat out of the bag eventually. The same goes for quotations by Sankey to develop presswork on behalf of AEC. The Ergo work must have been a significant part of their business. They would be duty-bound to disclose subversive activity by their customer’s subsidiary.
Nevertheless, the 3VTG prototype existed; the question is- why? If AEC wanted a rolling chassis for R&D purposes- trying out bigger radiators in front of their V8, for example- why not just mount an Ergo higher and lash up some lower panels? The only explanation I can think of is that Leyland allowed AEC and Scammell to compete for the job of building a “no-frills” heavy tractor, and the Crusader got the green light. Even that idea sounds outlandish. Intriguing stuff. Keep digging, chaps.
I think VALKYRIE’s listing of the 3 VTG’s design aims answer that question.
While maybe it was just that Scammell’s management had more bottle when it came to standing up to the demands and wishes of the parent company than AEC’s in that both were working on independent superior projects to the ERGO and the following Marathon but only Scammell managed to get their ideas into production.While AEC didn’t because it’s management weren’t prepared to push any issues and arguments to the brink and maybe beyond like maybe Scammell’s were.However it’s my bet that the money just wasn’t there anyway for both divisions to develop and get into production the superior products that were required to meet the foreign challege and the Scammell idea was obviously the cheaper alternative.
If you go back to 62 AEC actually merged with Leyland but it never worked out that way.Ive read that after BLMC was formed in `68 Stokes in a meeting wanted to close AEC .It seems it was always a tense relationship with Leyland always having the upperhand Stokes apparently having deep hatred for AEC which stems from not getting a job with them
Getting in to the book bl was still in profit before tax up to about 74 however tga majority of the profit was from truck and bus. But the group required huge investment to move forward and the car side got priority
The crusader was launched in 69 wheat as the marathon didn’t launch until late 72 so they wasn’t exactly rivals in production.
Perhaps AEC was devolping the truck to take leyland into the f88 scania 110 140 bracket this was a mock up and leyland said no to a new cab and made them use existing components.
kr79:
Getting in to the book bl was still in profit before tax up to about 74 however tga majority of the profit was from truck and bus. But the group required huge investment to move forward and the car side got priority
The crusader was launched in 69 wheat as the marathon didn’t launch until late 72 so they wasn’t exactly rivals in production.
Perhaps AEC was devolping the truck to take leyland into the f88 scania 110 140 bracket this was a mock up and leyland said no to a new cab and made them use existing components.
In 1972 the Crusader was only just at the start of it’s production run.It went on to 1981.So it obviously ran together with production of the Marathon.The documented design aims of the 3 VTG were obviously meant to make it as a superior product to the ERGO and the Marathon.It seems obvious that using the cheapest possible options were the aim of Leyland’s management.
Which realistically just leaves the comparison of which were the best solution to making the best possible product for the least possible outlay between the ERGO,Marathon,and the Crusader.As I’ve said the Crusader seems to me to have been the best option of the three in being able to meet all the demands required of it.With the fixed cab seeming to cause not many,if any,issues in service as to make the wagon unviable.