bma.finland:
te narrow TM seems to bee as bad as the marathon ,in my opinion tought
I think the difference is that the narrow day cab TM was aimed and designed for a different market than the Marathon.The problem for Leyland was that they didn’t have anything to match the sleeper wide cab TM option and unlike GM didn’t have the funds to develop anything like it or the SA 400 series cab.So effectively the Marathon was a pointless waste of money for Leyland/AEC in being neither any good for the local distribution sector like the ERGO or the long haul sector that was better suited to the Crusader.
However by that time we’re into the production of the euro designs like the DAF 2800 then the Scandinavian ones in the Scania 110 and Volvo F 10/12 etc and with which if GM and SA couldn’t compete with their products in the TM and 400 series you can bet that Leyland didn’t stand the slightest chance.Leyland’s management obviously knew that but couldn’t afford to close the doors at that point.Which is why the final cheap skate pointless design in the T 45 was introduced to earn a few bob to clear the debts before finally closing the doors.
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:
Firstly it was that issue of having no budget and the resulting idea of bolting an ERGO cab a bit higher on the chassis being Leyland’s idea of ‘progress’ in the long haul market sector that did it not the workers.
The question is was it worth all the expense and aggro of bothering when the Crusader could do the same job as the Marathon satisfactorily with a better environment to work for it’s driver. It’s at that point where the references to Stokes thinking about closing AEC down would seem to make sense assuming demand for the Crusader wasn’t enough to sustain AEC producing it in addition to Scammell.
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:
I suggested that, if AEC had wanted a high-cab testbed chassis, that would have been an easier way of doing it than building the 3VTG. Of course, you are right, in that that was what Leyland did in the end. I agree with everything you have said, in fact! As an F88 fan, how would you rate the Marathon as a driver’s vehicle, compared with the 88 (discounting the Leyland build quality issue for one moment)?
bma.finland:
nothing else to do so now launching the HALFMARATHON for public, cheers benkku
[zb]
anorak:
I suggested that, if AEC had wanted a high-cab testbed chassis, that would have been an easier way of doing it than building the 3VTG. Of course, you are right, in that that was what Leyland did in the end. I agree with everything you have said, in fact! As an F88 fan, how would you rate the Marathon
Proof that the 3 VTG was a pre production prototype not a ‘test bed’.
As for the Marathon too small so no room,zb gear shift position and the brakes and silly small steering wheel because there wasn’t enough room for a proper one.
Does anyone recall the 2 factory built Big J’s that were built for the 1974 Motor Show, that featured the Marathon dash, i.e. fascia, air vents, plus indicator and wipers mounted on stalks on the steering column, one was a 4 wheeler, the other an artic, full sleeper 250 ■■■■■■■■ fuller box, the later was owned by HW Dines of Bicester, who bought it straight from the show, it was written off in Belguim, by Barry Washbourn in 1978.
[zb]
anorak:
I suggested that, if AEC had wanted a high-cab testbed chassis, that would have been an easier way of doing it than building the 3VTG. Of course, you are right, in that that was what Leyland did in the end. I agree with everything you have said, in fact! As an F88 fan, how would you rate the Marathon
Proof that the 3 VTG was a pre production prototype not a ‘test bed’.
As for the Marathon too small so no room,zb gear shift position and the brakes and silly small steering wheel because there wasn’t enough room for a proper one.
As I’ve said before there was more room in a short sleeper Marathon than an F88, brakes were crap, but then so were the Volvo’s, the steering wheel, have to agree on that.
[zb]
anorak:
I suggested that, if AEC had wanted a high-cab testbed chassis, that would have been an easier way of doing it than building the 3VTG. Of course, you are right, in that that was what Leyland did in the end. I agree with everything you have said, in fact! As an F88 fan, how would you rate the Marathon
Proof that the 3 VTG was a pre production prototype not a ‘test bed’.
As for the Marathon too small so no room,zb gear shift position and the brakes and silly small steering wheel because there wasn’t enough room for a proper one.
There is no such thing as a “pre-production prototype”. A prototype is just that- a one-off, the first of a type. It will be hand-built, the newly-designed parts having been made using whatever process can make them the right shape. For example, a prototype for a casting or a forging may be machined from solid. Pre-production vehicles and parts are built as a batch, usually off production tools.
[zb]
anorak:
I suggested that, if AEC had wanted a high-cab testbed chassis, that would have been an easier way of doing it than building the 3VTG. Of course, you are right, in that that was what Leyland did in the end. I agree with everything you have said, in fact! As an F88 fan, how would you rate the Marathon
Proof that the 3 VTG was a pre production prototype not a ‘test bed’.
As for the Marathon too small so no room,zb gear shift position and the brakes and silly small steering wheel because there wasn’t enough room for a proper one.
As I’ve said before there was more room in a short sleeper Marathon than an F88, brakes were crap, but then so were the Volvo’s, the steering wheel, have to agree on that.
The difference is that the F88 was a 1964 design against which the late 1960’s Crusader was probably a better competitor than the Marathon was which was AEC’s answer to a truck built for the 1970’s.
Ironically at that point Volvo was in a much weaker position than it was after the F 10/12 range was introduced but unfortunately Leyland didn’t have the development budget to take advantage of that with something to follow the Crusader while even the next generation T 45 wasn’t up to the job either being another cheap rate money saving attempt.However,as I’ve said,if the TM or SA 400 designs couldn’t compete with,let alone beat,the foreign invasion then nothing that Leyland could have produced probably would have anyway.But the ERGO and the Marathon just made absolutely sure of that situation at least in Leyland’s case.
[zb]
anorak:
I suggested that, if AEC had wanted a high-cab testbed chassis, that would have been an easier way of doing it than building the 3VTG. Of course, you are right, in that that was what Leyland did in the end. I agree with everything you have said, in fact! As an F88 fan, how would you rate the Marathon
Proof that the 3 VTG was a pre production prototype not a ‘test bed’.
As for the Marathon too small so no room,zb gear shift position and the brakes and silly small steering wheel because there wasn’t enough room for a proper one.
There is no such thing as a “pre-production prototype”. A prototype is just that- a one-off, the first of a type. It will be hand-built, the newly-designed parts having been made using whatever process can make them the right shape. For example, a prototype for a casting or a forging may be machined from solid. Pre-production vehicles and parts are built as a batch, usually off production tools.
So you’re saying that the 3 VTG cab seen in the photo wasn’t manufactured in just the same way as it would have been had it gone into series production.I’d doubt it.
I think the only thing the marathon had in common with the ergo was the windscreen and the back of the cab the rest is torally different as for SA and TMs i would take a marathon everytime
Carryfast:
So you’re saying that the 3 VTG cab seen in the photo wasn’t manufactured in just the same way as it would have been had it gone into series production.I’d doubt it.
Anyone who has worked for more than a week in any manufacturing company would fall over laughing at the above statement. Have a look through these:
Carryfast:
So you’re saying that the 3 VTG cab seen in the photo wasn’t manufactured in just the same way as it would have been had it gone into series production.I’d doubt it.
Anyone who has worked for more than a week in any manufacturing company would fall over laughing at the above statement. Have a look through these:
I don’t see anything there related to the development and production process of a 1960’s truck cab design such as the 3 VTG example at the decision point of series production.
ramone:
I think the only thing the marathon had in common with the ergo was the windscreen and the back of the cab the rest is totally different as for SA and TMsi would take a marathon every time
Having spoken to a couple of cab designers, I learned that the windscreen and door aperture pressings are the most expensive things to change in a cab makeover, so I would say that the Marathon was quite literally a jacked up Ergo cab
Comparing a Marathon to an 88 or latterly an F10 would put the Marathon ahead on paper in most cases, a non turbo 250 ■■■■■■■ would swing things in the favour of the Volvo, a 290 ■■■■■■■ would always better the Volvo, but walking back out to an 88 or an F10 in a yard, cafe, ferry or customs compound would be a nicer feeling than it would if a Marathon awaited you
As strange as it sounds, the c300hp British lorries of the late 70s/early80s were the better lorry when compared with the foreign competition, but most drivers would rather have the import. It’s like the Golf GTI syndrome, the fast Focus is a better car, but the Golf has breeding, so wins everytime
ramone:
I think the only thing the marathon had in common with the ergo was the windscreen and the back of the cab the rest is totally different as for SA and TMsi would take a marathon every time
Having spoken to a couple of cab designers, I learned that the windscreen and door aperture pressings are the most expensive things to change in a cab makeover, so I would say that the Marathon was quite literally a jacked up Ergo cab
Comparing a Marathon to an 88 or latterly an F10 would put the Marathon ahead on paper in most cases, a non turbo 250 ■■■■■■■ would swing things in the favour of the Volvo, a 290 ■■■■■■■ would always better the Volvo, but walking back out to an 88 or an F10 in a yard, cafe, ferry or customs compound would be a nicer feeling than it would if a Marathon awaited you
As strange as it sounds, the c300hp British lorries of the late 70s/early80s were the better lorry when compared with the foreign competition, but most drivers would rather have the import. It’s like the Golf GTI syndrome, the fast Focus is a better car, but the Golf has breeding, so wins everytime
But the scary thing is if I’ve read it right ramone seems to be saying that he’d rather have a 250 or 290 Marathon than a 320 401.
ramone:
I think the only thing the marathon had in common with the ergo was the windscreen and the back of the cab the rest is totally different as for SA and TMsi would take a marathon every time
Having spoken to a couple of cab designers, I learned that the windscreen and door aperture pressings are the most expensive things to change in a cab makeover, so I would say that the Marathon was quite literally a jacked up Ergo cab
Comparing a Marathon to an 88 or latterly an F10 would put the Marathon ahead on paper in most cases, a non turbo 250 ■■■■■■■ would swing things in the favour of the Volvo, a 290 ■■■■■■■ would always better the Volvo, but walking back out to an 88 or an F10 in a yard, cafe, ferry or customs compound would be a nicer feeling than it would if a Marathon awaited you
As strange as it sounds, the c300hp British lorries of the late 70s/early80s were the better lorry when compared with the foreign competition, but most drivers would rather have the import. It’s like the Golf GTI syndrome, the fast Focus is a better car, but the Golf has breeding, so wins everytime
The windscreen aperture, roof panel and the rear panel are obviously made on the same tools as the original Ergo, possibly with inserts added. The upper part of the rear side panel on the long sleeper looks like the 1965 model. At a guess, I would say the same for all of the front bulkhead parts and inner panels. Oddly enough, the Marathon has a different ‘B’ post to the original Ergo, with a dog-leg in it, and a completely different door- I wonder why?
Here’s another question, of a more general nature, but pertinent to Ergo’s- the Marathon 2 short sleeper replaced the long one, which had been perfectly acceptable all along. All that work and expense, to make the thing worse! Did the length regulations change between 1973 and ’78, or did the feds simply invest in a tape measure for the first time?
ramone:
I think the only thing the marathon had in common with the ergo was the windscreen and the back of the cab the rest is totally different as for SA and TMsi would take a marathon every time
Having spoken to a couple of cab designers, I learned that the windscreen and door aperture pressings are the most expensive things to change in a cab makeover, so I would say that the Marathon was quite literally a jacked up Ergo cab
Comparing a Marathon to an 88 or latterly an F10 would put the Marathon ahead on paper in most cases, a non turbo 250 ■■■■■■■ would swing things in the favour of the Volvo, a 290 ■■■■■■■ would always better the Volvo, but walking back out to an 88 or an F10 in a yard, cafe, ferry or customs compound would be a nicer feeling than it would if a Marathon awaited you
As strange as it sounds, the c300hp British lorries of the late 70s/early80s were the better lorry when compared with the foreign competition, but most drivers would rather have the import. It’s like the Golf GTI syndrome, the fast Focus is a better car, but the Golf has breeding, so wins everytime
The windscreen aperture, roof panel and the rear panel are obviously made on the same tools as the original Ergo, possibly with inserts added. The upper part of the rear side panel on the long sleeper looks like the 1965 model. At a guess, I would say the same for all of the front bulkhead parts and inner panels. Oddly enough, the Marathon has a different ‘B’ post to the original Ergo, with a dog-leg in it, and a completely different door- I wonder why?
Here’s another question, of a more general nature, but pertinent to Ergo’s- the Marathon 2 short sleeper replaced the long one, which had been perfectly acceptable all along. All that work and expense, to make the thing worse! Did the length regulations change between 1973 and ’78, or did the feds simply invest in a tape measure for the first time?
I think the Crusader’s sleeper seems longer than the short Marathon and the DAF 2800 wasn’t illegal coupled to a 40 ft trailer so I don’t think there was any regs which said that anything longer than the short Marathon sleeper cab was illegal at any time during the 1970’s at least. Maybe saving a few bob in production costs as even the T 45 didn’t seem to match the TM or the SA 400 series cabs.
Are you sure the the roadtrain especially the interstate was a fair size for the period it just lacked the agressive styling you seem to judge a trucks quality on
To answer Ramone’s question about Park Royal Vehicles and cab builds. Until the launch of the Ergo cab AEC was purely a chassis designer and assembler and fitted its own running gear. Engines were built in house at Southall, gearboxes built in house until 1961 when production was transferred to the subsidiary factory at Basingstoke (Thornycroft) and rear axles were built at Alcester (Maudsley). The former Maudsley plant also assembled chassis, such as GM4 Mercurys and specialist vehicles such as Dumptruks.
In pre-Ergo cab days completed lorry chassis left Southall with a front scuttle in place (i.e.panels) and went to a coachbuilders for the cab to be built onto the chassis. AEC’s in-house cab builder from 1948 was Park Royal Vehicles (which also owned Chas. H. Roe of Leeeds). PRV was also a bus body builder and these and cabs were built in the traditional way of wooden frames and aluminium panels. There were also many other coachbuilding firms dotted about the country ranging in size from small to large. Passenger vehicles chassis buyers had there own preferred coachbuilder. It’s virtually impossible to list the number of different traditional cochbuilt cab builders that AEC lorries used. There were some all-metal designs, such as Duramin, Bonallack etc. Oswald Tillotson had a cab building division as did Commercial Vehicles the Harold Wood subsidiary. Other companies such as Briggs, Sankeys, Motor Panels etc. supplied cabs for various chassis builders. Leyland Motors was slightly different in that it had its own metal cab building plant, along with bus bodies, that was always at full capacity hence it had to out-source the early Comet cabs and of course the LAD cab.
After the above pre-amble ramble the simple answer to the question is that it was cheaper to out-source production of the Ergo cab to Sankeys rather than tool-up at Park Royal or Leyland. PRV did not have the experience or different required skill set to produce an all-steel cab.
ramone:
I think the only thing the marathon had in common with the ergo was the windscreen and the back of the cab the rest is totally different as for SA and TMsi would take a marathon every time
Having spoken to a couple of cab designers, I learned that the windscreen and door aperture pressings are the most expensive things to change in a cab makeover, so I would say that the Marathon was quite literally a jacked up Ergo cab
Comparing a Marathon to an 88 or latterly an F10 would put the Marathon ahead on paper in most cases, a non turbo 250 ■■■■■■■ would swing things in the favour of the Volvo, a 290 ■■■■■■■ would always better the Volvo, but walking back out to an 88 or an F10 in a yard, cafe, ferry or customs compound would be a nicer feeling than it would if a Marathon awaited you
As strange as it sounds, the c300hp British lorries of the late 70s/early80s were the better lorry when compared with the foreign competition, but most drivers would rather have the import. It’s like the Golf GTI syndrome, the fast Focus is a better car, but the Golf has breeding, so wins everytime
But the scary thing is if I’ve read it right ramone seems to be saying that he’d rather have a 250 or 290 Marathon than a 320 401.
It’s at that point where the references to Stokes thinking about closing AEC down would seem to make sense assuming demand for the Crusader wasn’t enough to sustain AEC producing it in addition to Scammell. 
cheers benkku
