BEST 'ERGO' ?

[valkyrie]

Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 4.Page 10.TRUCKNETUK

I’ll quote myself first:-
AEC 3VTG CONCEPT PROJECT LORRY.
As I said in my last post,the wise AEC 3VTG Concept Project Lorry was the wise and inspired idea of the boss of AEC,Dr.Albert D.Fogg,who obviously wanted to copy Volvo with it’s refined American-style F88-F89
lorry models,and produce a refined American-style AEC heavy lorry range And in the words of the great
Barry Norman:“And why not”… And why not indeed,because other lorry manufacturers were doing the same thing
The interior of the AEC 3VTG cab was well-appointed,with Bostrom Viking seats,a very comprehensive instrument panel and good cross cab access. The lorry’s engine bay allowed more air to circulate around
the engine than with the Ergomatic Cab,and it’s AEC 801 Series V8 engine had a much larger header tank,
radiator and cooling fan than the AEC Mandator V8.
Albert Fogg wanted to produce a better cab than the Ergomatic,and he was well on the way in doing this
with his AEC 3VTG Lorry He realised that the Ergomatic was not big enough,it produced cooling problems
for the engines,especially in the tropics,it had design flaws and,according to Albert Fogg,it was not suitable
for long distance motorway journeys. So entered the AEC 3VTG Project-Concept-Prototype Heavy Lorry for all of the above reasons that I’ve listed
But,as I’ve already stated,Leyland mismanagement very misguidedly scrapped the AEC 3VTG Programme …and by doing so,it was yet another long,long,sharp,sharp nail in the unholy coffin of
the British Leyland Motor Corporation!

AEC 3VTG6RGAE 090 Mk1 Project-Concept-Prototype 6x4 Tractive Unit Specifications:-
Cab: Motor Panels Tilt Cab,modified.
Engine: AEC 801-Series-AVM8/801,13.1-Litre,V8 Diesel Engine,producing 272 BHP @ 2600 rpm,638 lbs ft of torque @ 1400 rpm.
Gearbox:Leyland-Self Changing Gears -SCG Pneumocyclic 10-forward speed Splitter Semi-Automatic Gearbox.
Rear driving axles: Leyland Group Hub Reduction Drive Axles.
Year:1968.
Not only was Dr.Albert D.Fogg the General Manager of AEC Ltd,he was a member of the board of the British Leyland Motor Corporation,Deputy Managing Director of this corporation and Director of Engineering of British Leyland. So his above various positions within British Leyland allowed him a substantial amount of influence within British Leyland and at AEC,thus,the AEC 3VTG being Albert Fogg’s pet project,he probably had every intention in eventually turning it in to a production lorry to take on the likes of the Volvo F88-F89,Scania LB110,etc
But of course,British Leyland mismanagement very misguidedly scrapped the 3VTG project ,which proved to be fatal for British Leyland in the long run - as did the scrapping of the AEC marque!!! .

According to Pat Kennett,development work started on the Leyland Marathon in circa 1971,and this lorry
turned out to be a compromise because of the limited financial budget allotted for it’s development -
the AEC 3VTG would probably have been better and more successful than the Leyland-AEC Marathon
The Marathon was introduced in 1973. But instead of using the money for the Marathon project, AEC-Leyland
might have saved some of this money getting rid of the V8 engine’s problems,fully developing the Motor Panels 3VTG cab and getting the AEC 3VTG heavy lorry range in to production,probably in 1972 It would
not have been the compromise that the Marathon was.

Ramone wrote:-
“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”.

I would love to know the full story of Lord Stokes apparently wanting to close AEC in 1968,and I am sure
that Graham Edge could provide all the details.Please
Before,I go on any further,I want to make it clear that I have always had a great enthusiasm for AEC lorries,
motorcoaches,buses,engines,etc,and mixed feelings for Baron Lord Donald Gresham Stokes of Leyland - to use his full title
AEC supposedly turned down Donald when he supposedly applied for a job at AEC in the early 1930s.Now I have heard this ridiculous story countless times over the years,but I have always been very cynical about it,and I am just as cynical about Donald wanting to shut down AEC in 1968? !
These are just childish stories concocted by certain AEC enthusiasts as a means to get back at Leyland and
Donald Stokes. It is on WRITTEN RECORD that Donald Stokes always wanted to work for Leyland Motors Ltd
from when he was 11 years old!

Lord Donald Stokes in 1968.He always wanted to work for Leyland -NOT AEC.

VALKYRIE.

[carryfast]

VALKYRIE:
Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 4.Page 10.TRUCKNETUK

I’ll quote myself first:-
AEC 3VTG CONCEPT PROJECT LORRY.
As I said in my last post,the wise AEC 3VTG Concept Project Lorry was the wise and inspired idea of the boss of AEC,Dr.Albert D.Fogg,who obviously wanted to copy Volvo with it’s refined American-style F88-F89
lorry models,and produce a refined American-style AEC heavy lorry range And in the words of the great
Barry Norman:“And why not”… And why not indeed,because other lorry manufacturers were doing the same thing
The interior of the AEC 3VTG cab was well-appointed,with Bostrom Viking seats,a very comprehensive instrument panel and good cross cab access. The lorry’s engine bay allowed more air to circulate around
the engine than with the Ergomatic Cab,and it’s AEC 801 Series V8 engine had a much larger header tank,
radiator and cooling fan than the AEC Mandator V8.
Albert Fogg wanted to produce a better cab than the Ergomatic,and he was well on the way in doing this
with his AEC 3VTG Lorry He realised that the Ergomatic was not big enough,it produced cooling problems
for the engines,especially in the tropics,it had design flaws and,according to Albert Fogg,it was not suitable
for long distance motorway journeys. So entered the AEC 3VTG Project-Concept-Prototype Heavy Lorry for all of the above reasons that I’ve listed
But,as I’ve already stated,Leyland mismanagement very misguidedly scrapped the AEC 3VTG Programme …and by doing so,it was yet another long,long,sharp,sharp nail in the unholy coffin of
the British Leyland Motor Corporation!

AEC 3VTG6RGAE 090 Mk1 Project-Concept-Prototype 6x4 Tractive Unit Specifications:-
Cab: Motor Panels Tilt Cab,modified.
Engine: AEC 801-Series-AVM8/801,13.1-Litre,V8 Diesel Engine,producing 272 BHP @ 2600 rpm,638 lbs ft of torque @ 1400 rpm.
Gearbox:Leyland-Self Changing Gears -SCG Pneumocyclic 10-forward speed Splitter Semi-Automatic Gearbox.
Rear driving axles: Leyland Group Hub Reduction Drive Axles.
Year:1968.
Not only was Dr.Albert D.Fogg the General Manager of AEC Ltd,he was a member of the board of the British Leyland Motor Corporation,Deputy Managing Director of this corporation and Director of Engineering of British Leyland. So his above various positions within British Leyland allowed him a substantial amount of influence within British Leyland and at AEC,thus,the AEC 3VTG being Albert Fogg’s pet project,he probably had every intention in eventually turning it in to a production lorry to take on the likes of the Volvo F88-F89,Scania LB110,etc
But of course,British Leyland mismanagement very misguidedly scrapped the 3VTG project ,which proved to be fatal for British Leyland in the long - as did the scrapping of the AEC marque!!! .

According to Pat Kennett,development work started on the Leyland Marathon in circa 1971,and this lorry
turned out to be a compromise because of the limited financial budget allotted for it’s development -
the AEC 3VTG would probably have been better and more successful than the Leyland-AEC Marathon
The Marathon was introduced in 1973. But instead of using the money for the Marathon project, AEC-Leyland
might have saved some of this money getting rid of the V8 engine’s problems,fully developing the Motor Panels 3VTG cab and getting the AEC 3VTG heavy lorry range in to production,probably in 1972 It would
not have been the compromise that the Marathon was.

Ramone wrote:-
“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”.

I would love to know the full story of Lord Stokes apparently wanting to close AEC in 1968,and I am sure
that Graham Edge could provide all the details.Please
Before,I go on any further,I want to make it clear that I have always had a great enthusiasm for AEC lorries,
motorcoaches,buses,engines,etc,and mixed feelings for Baron Lord Donald Gresham Stokes of Leyland - to use his full title
AEC supposedly turned down Donald when he supposedly applied for a job at AEC in the early 1930s.Now I have heard this ridiculous story countless times over the years,but I have always been very cynical about it,and I am just as cynical about Donald wanting to shut down AEC in 1968? !
These are just childish stories concocted by certain AEC enthusiasts as a means to get back at Leyland and
Donald Stokes. It is on WRITTEN RECORD that Donald Stokes always wanted to work for Leyland Motors Ltd
from when he was 11 years old!

Lord Donald Stokes in 1968.He always wanted to work for Leyland -NOT AEC.

VALKYRIE.

^

That seems to confirm most of what I’ve said on the topic.Stokes was as much a victim of the austerity programme running through every aspect of the British economy,and it’s resulting effects on the product development and production budgets of it’s industries,during the post war years,as every other worker in those industries.

Although having said that it seems obvious that the idea of 272hp at 2,600 rpm and a semi auto box wasn’t going to be competitive or practical.Firstly the TL12 would probably have been a better idea and then AEC would probably have needed to resort to outside engine and transmission suppliers like ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ and Fuller to make the wagon a real success in most markets both domestic and export.Maybe the inflexibility of being tied to in house production of large componentry like engines was actually a disadvantage of the AEC operation compared to Scammell for example.

[zb_anorak]

Whatever the romantics may say about the 3VTG, it was a one-off hand-built prototype. It would have needed a full design and development programme, lasting about 5 years and costing what it costs, before vehicles were available for people to buy. Leyland’s decision to mount the still-modern Ergomatic cab a foot or so higher, with a lower engine hump and full floor, was the only sensible option.

Look at the market volumes for maximum weight tractor units- 9:1 in favour of mainland Europe! Here’s the crucial quote from Stokes’ obituary in the Telegraph: “Stokes returned to Leyland Motors with a visionary’s zeal for the sort of markets where the company should be selling its products. He argued that European countries would be developing their own truck and bus plants and that Leyland should go for the Middle East and South America.”

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:
Whatever the romantics may say about the 3VTG, it was a one-off hand-built prototype. It would have needed a full design and development programme, lasting about 5 years and costing what it costs, before vehicles were available for people to buy. Leyland’s decision to mount the still-modern Ergomatic cab a foot or so higher, with a lower engine hump and full floor, was the only sensible option.
0
Look at the market volumes for maximum weight tractor units- 9:1 in favour of mainland Europe! Here’s the crucial quote from Stokes’ obituary in the Telegraph: “Stokes returned to Leyland Motors with a visionary’s zeal for the sort of markets where the company should be selling its products. He argued that European countries would be developing their own truck and bus plants and that Leyland should go for the Middle East and South America.”

I’m not sure how much sales volume would have been found in South America but the logic seems sound to me of looking for markets without a strong domestic truck manufacturing industry of their own and crucially trying to keep the old colonial markets.Especially in the case of the type of customer loyalty that existed in mainland europe to their own domestic manufacturers even if their products were inferior.In my own case I earn’t plenty of my wages during the 1970’s based on specialist vehicle sales to the Middle East but none in Germany for example where loyalty to FAUN was unbreakable in the specialist vehicle sector in just the same way that Mercedes etc ruled the domestic German road haulage truck sector.

The same probably applied in the case of the domestic manufacturers in France,Holland,Italy and Scandinavia in most cases.In the case of road haulage trucks it was really the domestic market that was the most important factor to the domestic manufacturers just as was the case in mainland europe to theirs and when the uk manufacturers couldn’t match the euro and scandinavian manufacturers rate of funding for development and production,including the wage bills,then started losing that domestic market to imports the writing was on the wall.The compromised ERGO and the Marathon were certainly major contributors to that situation.

Whereas something along the lines of the 3 VTG,brought to the market in time,probably would have stood a far better chance assuming the money was there to develop it and build it and the customers had the money to buy it.As I’ve said those development and production funds might have at least been more likely to have existed assuming that the ERGO and Marathon projects had been cancelled and the money spent on their development and production had been saved.The ERGO seems to have been a typical case of cut price short term thinking at the expense of the longer term future.

[kr79]

Carryfast:

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.

To be fair scammell always had a lot more freedom in design and products than any other leyland truck company. And in the book it notes this across bl as a whole there was to many overlapping products.

[gingerfold]

Just a point on the Scammell Crusader. Much of its design was done in collaboration with the engineering team of BRS. BRS in the late 1960s was still the largest single buyer of commercial vehicles in Great Britain. 99.99% of its operations were in Great Britain. Being a state owned company and with its origins as a nationalised concern BRS was a heavily unionised business. The T & GWU was opposed to sleeper cabs for its members. BRS had a very comprehensive nationwide depot network and inter-depot trunking was the norm. BRS tramper drivers had their digs booked for them by the nearest depot they would be at when they finished their day’s work. BRS was not concerned about having a sleeper cabbed lorry so the Crusader was conceived as a day cab lorry for domestic operating conditions.

Lord Stokes. As I understand it his father was General Manager of Plymouth Corporation in the early 1930s. I do not know what the preferred make of bus was at Plymouth then Leyland or AEC. The young Donald Stokes supposedly applied for an apprenticeship at AEC Southall but was refused and accepted by Leyland Motors. Thereafter he always supposedly had a grudge against AEC. This is the story that has grown up around Stokes, whether true or not I don’t know. As Valkyrie says it could be the AEC people putting that one about.

What is undoubtedly true is that before Stokes came to power at Leyland (and he was ultimately very powerful and influencial) Leyland and AEC had always enjoyed a reasonably cordial relationship even though they were fierce competitors in the bus markets, which carried more ‘prestige’ then lorry markets back then. There had been successful collaborations between AEC and Leyland in the BUT trolley bus manufacturing joint company and in railcar development and production.

[retired_old_fart]

And yet comparatively few Crusaders were run on domestic work by BRS.
And I had completely forgotten about all those fantastic AEC rail engines.

[zb_anorak]

Retired Old ■■■■:
And yet comparatively few Crusaders were run on domestic work by BRS.
And I had completely forgotten about all those fantastic AEC rail engines.

I wonder what the breakdown of makes was in their fleet, when the Crusader was in production? There are pictures of day-cabbed Scanias and Leylands in BRS colours all over the forum. You would have thought that, if they had told Scammell what they wanted, that they would have gone 100% with it. Why would they buy foreign?

[kr79]

Couldn’t deliver trucks quick enough?

[carryfast]

kr79:

Carryfast:

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.

To be fair scammell always had a lot more freedom in design and products than any other leyland truck company. And in the book it notes this across bl as a whole there was to many overlapping products.

It was probably more an issue of ‘what’ was being built rather than one of overlap of products.In this case it was all about the fact that all of the Leyland Group’s production capacity would probably have been more effective by concentrating on co operation with Scammell,by forgetting all about development and production of the ERGO and concentrating on the Crusader and then using the extra production capacity to turn out as many as possible which would have created more advantages in terms of economies of scale and then do the same in the case of the 3 VTG by forgetting all about the Marathon.

In which case the T45 design probably would have been a further development of the 3 VTG design both of which being a much more effective competitor to the foreign invasion.That’s ‘if’ the money had been there to do all that which it most likely wouldn’t have been.So it had to be the cheaper options of the ERGO,Marathon and the T 45 instead.The inevitable result of that seems no surprise to me.

[bma_finland]

never seen a maraton in life but i,ll think it had better possibility to match european taste then the awful prototype,think the lost of market had to do whit quality of the product ,not the design of it,it,s comperative to many other europeans in it,s time.no one even not the l495 tiptop looks american,means totally whitout design(BUT WHIT BIGGG BALLLS,the americans)

[carryfast]

bma.finland:
never seen a maraton in life but i,ll think it had better possibility to match european taste then the awful prototype,think the lost of market had to do whit quality of the product ,not the design of it,it,s comperative to many other europeans in it,s time.no one even not the l495 tiptop looks american,means totally whitout design(BUT WHIT BIGGG BALLLS,the americans)

I drove a Marathon which was still being used in the mid 1980’s by a typical British cheap rate guvnor.Shortly before that I’d been driving a DAF 2800 but was temporarily put off that job and had to find another one.Both were on the market from/during a similar point time.Trust me the difference between the DAF and the Marathon had nothing to do with build quality and everything to do with typically British austerity thinking both in the terms of it’s design and customer buying policy and use.IE the Marathon was obsolete from the time it was on the drawing board let alone to the time it was still being used by at least some cheap skate British operators.

youtube.com/watch?v=-lP3RndKBa8

youtube.com/watch?v=JNTx6De13Eg

As for the Americans v the Swedes.

youtube.com/watch?feature=fv … uHUMs&NR=1

[ramone]

Carryfast:

kr79:

Carryfast:

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.

To be fair scammell always had a lot more freedom in design and products than any other leyland truck company. And in the book it notes this across bl as a whole there was to many overlapping products.

It was probably more an issue of ‘what’ was being built rather than one of overlap of products.In this case it was all about the fact that all of the Leyland Group’s production capacity would probably have been more effective by concentrating on co operation with Scammell,by forgetting all about development and production of the ERGO and concentrating on the Crusader and then using the extra production capacity to turn out as many as possible which would have created more advantages in terms of economies of scale and then do the same in the case of the 3 VTG by forgetting all about the Marathon.

In which case the T45 design probably would have been a further development of the 3 VTG design both of which being a much more effective competitor to the foreign invasion.That’s ‘if’ the money had been there to do all that which it most likely wouldn’t have been.So it had to be the cheaper options of the ERGO,Marathon and the T 45 instead.The inevitable result of that seems no surprise to me.

Just a thought here, we have only seen the outside of what some say is a copy of a Pete cab ,what makes you think this big ugly cab was going to be the bees knees and as for developing that instead of introducing the T45 i would like to see it scaled down and fit onto a 7.5 tonner Roadrunner.Just because it looks american doesnt mean to say it would be a success here none of the Americans ever were.I agree the Marathon wasnt the best but it was no worse than anything else being offered by english manufacturers at the time and as it was developed on a tight budget i think the designers need credit not criticism

[ramone]

gingerfold:
Just a point on the Scammell Crusader. Much of its design was done in collaboration with the engineering team of BRS. BRS in the late 1960s was still the largest single buyer of commercial vehicles in Great Britain. 99.99% of its operations were in Great Britain. Being a state owned company and with its origins as a nationalised concern BRS was a heavily unionised business. The T & GWU was opposed to sleeper cabs for its members. BRS had a very comprehensive nationwide depot network and inter-depot trunking was the norm. BRS tramper drivers had their digs booked for them by the nearest depot they would be at when they finished their day’s work. BRS was not concerned about having a sleeper cabbed lorry so the Crusader was conceived as a day cab lorry for domestic operating conditions.

Lord Stokes. As I understand it his father was General Manager of Plymouth Corporation in the early 1930s. I do not know what the preferred make of bus was at Plymouth then Leyland or AEC. The young Donald Stokes supposedly applied for an apprenticeship at AEC Southall but was refused and accepted by Leyland Motors. Thereafter he always supposedly had a grudge against AEC. This is the story that has grown up around Stokes, whether true or not I don’t know. As Valkyrie says it could be the AEC people putting that one about.

What is undoubtedly true is that before Stokes came to power at Leyland (and he was ultimately very powerful and influencial) Leyland and AEC had always enjoyed a reasonably cordial relationship even though they were fierce competitors in the bus markets, which carried more ‘prestige’ then lorry markets back then. There had been successful collaborations between AEC and Leyland in the BUT trolley bus manufacturing joint company and in railcar development and production.

Another question for you Graham (suppose youre sick of em) there maybe a logical answer AEC owned Park Royal ,couldnt they have built the cabs instead of out sourcing it to Sankey or wasnt there the available capacity?

[bma_finland]

thank,s for the links CF seem like maraton is factorybuild and the crusander is like our old sisu done by heart at a homegarage? cheers benkku

[carryfast]

bma.finland:
thank,s for the links CF seem like maraton is factorybuild and the crusander is like our old sisu done by heart at a homegarage? cheers benkku

No both built by factories but unbelievably the Marathon was supposed to be a ‘later’ design but was obviously beaten by an earlier one.Therefore proof that Leyland was going backwards not forwards simply through lack of cash to develop it’s products.

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:

kr79:

Carryfast:

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.

To be fair scammell always had a lot more freedom in design and products than any other leyland truck company. And in the book it notes this across bl as a whole there was to many overlapping products.

It was probably more an issue of ‘what’ was being built rather than one of overlap of products.In this case it was all about the fact that all of the Leyland Group’s production capacity would probably have been more effective by concentrating on co operation with Scammell,by forgetting all about development and production of the ERGO and concentrating on the Crusader and then using the extra production capacity to turn out as many as possible which would have created more advantages in terms of economies of scale and then do the same in the case of the 3 VTG by forgetting all about the Marathon.

In which case the T45 design probably would have been a further development of the 3 VTG design both of which being a much more effective competitor to the foreign invasion.That’s ‘if’ the money had been there to do all that which it most likely wouldn’t have been.So it had to be the cheaper options of the ERGO,Marathon and the T 45 instead.The inevitable result of that seems no surprise to me.

Just a thought here, we have only seen the outside of what some say is a copy of a Pete cab ,what makes you think this big ugly cab was going to be the bees knees and as for developing that instead of introducing the T45 i would like to see it scaled down and fit onto a 7.5 tonner Roadrunner.Just because it looks american doesnt mean to say it would be a success here none of the Americans ever were.I agree the Marathon wasnt the best but it was no worse than anything else being offered by english manufacturers at the time and as it was developed on a tight budget i think the designers need credit not criticism

The question as to wether the 3 VTG was ‘ugly’ v the ERGO would all depend on wether you think that a truck cab should be low set,small and look like a cross between a bus and a dustcart or look like,and function like a truck.IE cab over Pete,Kenworth or even F 88,DAF 2800 etc etc.The Marathon was simply a case of just using the same too small dustcart cab and placing it a bit higher on the chassis.

If it must be cheap skate Leyland then I’d rather have had the Crusader thanks and then a DAF,Volvo,Scania etc etc from around 1975 assuming I couldn’t have a KW instead.Which is more or less the way that history proved in the euro and colonial markets where customers didn’t mind spending a few bob.Then here when the Brit buyers eventually realised that they couldn’t stay in the 1950’s forever.

[newmercman]

Somebody mentioned a solution to the cooling problems associated with the Ergo. Just mount the cab higher and cover the gaps with some panel work. That’s exactly what they did with the Marathon cab:o

Remember the Marathon was built at Southall and although it was badged as a Leyland it was named Marathon in keeping with the AEC tradition of using names beginning with the letter M. So to make the best lorry they could within the constraints placed on them as part of BL and as the V8 engine had been consigned to history the boys at AEC used the readily available TL12 engine and the raised Ergo cab instead of developing a new one at considerable cost. Not a bad idea really:shock:

The problem was the continental invasion had landed, the Marathon was a little shaky due to reduced budgets and an apathetic workforce throwing them together, so it never hit the ground running, the rest, as they say, is history:oops:

[bma_finland]

te narrow TM seems to bee as bad as the marathon ,in my opinion tought

[bma_finland]

nothing else to do so now launching the HALFMARATHON for public, cheers benkku