gingerfold:
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.
The main problem with the roadtrain was it didn’t become a decent truck until they put a decent gearbox and back axle in it.
Admittedly it suffered from tin worm but so did the Swedish trucks of the period.
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 marathon cab shell is very similar to the ergo but with different doors the interior is the big difference its a massive improvement i think with a bit of fine tuning it could have been a whole lot better and maybe a wider version could have been introduced as well as a lower version for the rigids
kr79:
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
The so called ‘aggresive’ styling that I judge trucks on seems to have worked fine for the competition and I don’t remember any of them rushing to follow the ‘lead’ of the T 45.More like ( rightly ) the exact opposite.
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.
Another strange reply from cf why are you comparing a marathon of lower power rating to 401 which didnt arrive until after the marathon had gone
Because that was the relevant comparison according to both yours and nmm’s posts/comparisons concerning cab design not just power outputs the SA 400 series cab design being available during production of the Marathon.I don’t think that many drivers would have preferred a Marathon to an SA 400 series.
The SA 400 was nothing special a very plasticky motor with a back to front box but you quoted the 401 which wasnt in production until after the marathon was finished The 401 would have been in competion with the 320 ■■■■■■■ engined Roadtrain .Now if you ask if id prefer a TL12 Marathon to a 290 (270bhp) ■■■■■■■ engined 400 SA id go for the Marathon but thats my opinion
ramone:
The SA 400 was nothing special a very plasticky motor with a back to front box but you quoted the 401 which wasnt in production until after the marathon was finished The 401 would have been in competion with the 320 ■■■■■■■ engined Roadtrain .Now if you ask if id prefer a TL12 Marathon to a 290 (270bhp) ■■■■■■■ engined 400 SA id go for the Marathon but thats my opinion
That was obviously also the ‘opinion’ of Leyland’s management ( although to be fair they didn’t have much option ) not just in relation to the 400 but also the Euro and Scandinavian opposition that weren’t lumbered with the type of conservative power demands that the UK domestic market was ( at that time ).Not forgetting that there were 300 + ■■■■■■■ engine options available from the launch of the 400 ‘if’ the demand had been there for SA to fit them.Then I’ll say it again the rest is history.
[zb]
anorak:
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:
Around 5 years in my case.
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.
When one casts pearls to swine, what does one expect in return? I should have studied the porcine digestive system in more detail, before my feeble attempt to pass on some education.
sisu sm from 83
roadtrain. Tis proves the finns had same desingn thoughts ,and sisu did sell well to 96 when the cab was out,
so i,t wasn,t design that did the dissaster and not technical data, it was poor qality ,of a normal designed truck,cheers benkku
bma.finland:
sisu sm from 83
roadtrain. Tis proves the finns had same desingn thoughts ,and sisu did sell well to 96 when the cab was out,
so i,t wasn,t design that did the dissaster and not technical data, it was poor qality ,of a normal designed truck,cheers benkku
That just leaves the inconvenient truth that it wasn’t trucks like sisu that wiped out the Brits it was the Euro and Scandinavian competition in the form of DAF,Mercedes,MAN,Scania and Volvo.None of who followed the T 45,let alone the Marathon,design for their long haul truck ranges.While no surprise that DAF didn’t use the T 45 design when they took over Leyland.
bma.finland:
sisu sm from 83
roadtrain. Tis proves the finns had same desingn thoughts ,and sisu did sell well to 96 when the cab was out,
so i,t wasn,t design that did the dissaster and not technical data, it was poor qality ,of a normal designed truck,cheers benkku
That just leaves the inconvenient truth that it wasn’t trucks like sisu that wiped out the Brits it was the Euro and Scandinavian competition in the form of DAF,Mercedes,MAN,Scania and Volvo.None of who followed the T 45,let alone the Marathon,design for their long haul truck ranges.While no surprise that DAF didn’t use the T 45 design when they took over Leyland.
bma.finland:
sisu sm from 83
roadtrain. Tis proves the finns had same desingn thoughts ,and sisu did sell well to 96 when the cab was out,
so i,t wasn,t design that did the dissaster and not technical data, it was poor qality ,of a normal designed truck,cheers benkku
That just leaves the inconvenient truth that it wasn’t trucks like sisu that wiped out the Brits it was the Euro and Scandinavian competition in the form of DAF,Mercedes,MAN,Scania and Volvo.None of who followed the T 45,let alone the Marathon,design for their long haul truck ranges.While no surprise that DAF didn’t use the T 45 design when they took over Leyland.
Have a look at the humble daf cf not so dissimilar to a roadtrain and look at a lot of dafs chasis design.
Owes more to Lancashire Watford and southall than Eindhoven
I`ve spoken to quite a few drivers in the past and they all said the same thing about the ergo mandators, they loved them when they first came out ,and they were well ahead of their time .I cant recall any of them calling them heaps just great motors because reading between the lines there was nothing better at the time available this was before the foreign invasion.When the F88s and Scanias got a foothold over here it was very different and every driver wanted one.It was progression but we never moved with the times
kr79:
Have a look at the humble daf cf not so dissimilar to a roadtrain and look at a lot of dafs chasis design.
Owes more to Lancashire Watford and southall than Eindhoven
Ironically DAF probably never would have got where they did without the help of Leyland.But.The fact is that it was development of the 2800,95,and XF that kept them in the top end of the market and unlike Leyland they never intended the 85 or CF to compete in the top league like Leyland did with the Marathon and the T 45.
As I’ve said the ERGO was only much use as a urban local delivery wagon which seems to match it’s dustcart type cab design. Whereas the Marathon was a case of putting that dustcart cab on a wagon which was designed to compete in the top league where the 2800 was placed.Which was obviously a case of game over and also explains how the Crusader managed to stay in production from 1968-1981.It also explains why the 95 then the XF became DAF’s product in the top end of the market not the 85 or the CF.
Which just leaves the question as to wether you believe that a large truck manufacturer can compete in the market without keeping up with developments in the top end product sector .
Which is the position which Leyland was in from at least the point when the 2800 was introduced to the market and probably before that when the ERGO was Leyland’s answer to the F88.Which realsitically just left the Crusader as it’s only real credible product in that league.In which case it’s obvious that nothing less than at least a large sleeper cabbed development of the 3 VTG would have been up to the job of taking Leyland forward from at least the mid 1970’s on and probably before.
ramone:
I`ve spoken to quite a few drivers in the past and they all said the same thing about the ergo mandators, they loved them when they first came out ,and they were well ahead of their time .I cant recall any of them calling them heaps just great motors because reading between the lines there was nothing better at the time available this was before the foreign invasion.When the F88s and Scanias got a foothold over here it was very different and every driver wanted one.It was progression but we never moved with the times
The fact is the Brits never knew any better and the manufacturers didn’t have the funds to develop the type of products required even if they’d have had the type of customer base required to buy them if they’d have built them.The important thing to remember is that the ERGO was put onto the market at the same time as the F88 and the F88 was actually it’s relevant competition in the long haul market.It’s just that the British market was too backward to realise it.
kr79:
Have a look at the humble daf cf not so dissimilar to a roadtrain and look at a lot of dafs chasis design.
Owes more to Lancashire Watford and southall than Eindhoven
Ironically DAF probably never would have got where they did without the help of Leyland.But.The fact is that it was development of the 2800,95,and XF that kept them in the top end of the market and unlike Leyland they never intended the 85 or CF to compete in the top league like Leyland did with the Marathon and the T 45.
As I’ve said the ERGO was only much use as a urban local delivery wagon which seems to match it’s dustcart type cab design. Whereas the Marathon was a case of putting that dustcart cab on a wagon which was designed to compete in the top league where the 2800 was placed.Which was obviously a case of game over and also explains how the Crusader managed to stay in production from 1968-1981.It also explains why the 95 then the XF became DAF’s product in the top end of the market not the 85 or the CF.
Which just leaves the question as to wether you believe that a large truck manufacturer can compete in the market without keeping up with developments in the top end product sector .
Which is the position which Leyland was in from at least the point when the 2800 was introduced to the market and probably before that when the ERGO was Leyland’s answer to the F88.Which realsitically just left the Crusader as it’s only real credible product in that league.In which case it’s obvious that nothing less than at least a large sleeper cabbed development of the 3 VTG would have been up to the job of taking Leyland forward from at least the mid 1970’s on.
How was the ergo Leylands answer to the F88 in 64? The Crusader was a variant of a cab used by Seddon,Foden ,ERF to mention a few that was nothing special and didnt tilt.You know absolutely nothing about the 3VTG apart from an outside view which looks remarkably like an old Pete design (american lorries have never taken off here or europe for that matter) so what is your reasons for it being a success .Leyland wanted a cab which would cover the whole range and in 64 the ergo fit the bill with a large step forward compared with what was available at the time .Progress in development moved forward very quickly shortly afterwards and BLMC didnt move quickly enough due to a number of reasons within the group.Just like the rest of the British manufacturers and to coin a well used phrase “the rest is history”
The interstate roadtrain cab was as big as any of it competitors at the time.
Sadly it was the mechanicals that earned it the go by road home on the train tag that didn’t help.
By the mid 80s with a ■■■■■■■ engine and when they ditched the awful spicer gearbox andalbion howling axle for a twin splitter and Rockwell axle it wasn’t a bad truck.
kr79:
Have a look at the humble daf cf not so dissimilar to a roadtrain and look at a lot of dafs chasis design.
Owes more to Lancashire Watford and southall than Eindhoven
Ironically DAF probably never would have got where they did without the help of Leyland.But.The fact is that it was development of the 2800,95,and XF that kept them in the top end of the market and unlike Leyland they never intended the 85 or CF to compete in the top league like Leyland did with the Marathon and the T 45.
As I’ve said the ERGO was only much use as a urban local delivery wagon which seems to match it’s dustcart type cab design. Whereas the Marathon was a case of putting that dustcart cab on a wagon which was designed to compete in the top league where the 2800 was placed.Which was obviously a case of game over and also explains how the Crusader managed to stay in production from 1968-1981.It also explains why the 95 then the XF became DAF’s product in the top end of the market not the 85 or the CF.
Which just leaves the question as to wether you believe that a large truck manufacturer can compete in the market without keeping up with developments in the top end product sector .
Which is the position which Leyland was in from at least the point when the 2800 was introduced to the market and probably before that when the ERGO was Leyland’s answer to the F88.Which realsitically just left the Crusader as it’s only real credible product in that league.In which case it’s obvious that nothing less than at least a large sleeper cabbed development of the 3 VTG would have been up to the job of taking Leyland forward from at least the mid 1970’s on.
How was the ergo Leylands answer to the F88 in 64? The Crusader was a variant of a cab used by Seddon,Foden ,ERF to mention a few that was nothing special and didnt tilt.You know absolutely nothing about the 3VTG apart from an outside view which looks remarkably like an old Pete design (american lorries have never taken off here or europe for that matter) so what is your reasons for it being a success .Leyland wanted a cab which would cover the whole range and in 64 the ergo fit the bill with a large step forward compared with what was available at the time .Progress in development moved forward very quickly shortly afterwards and BLMC didnt move quickly enough due to a number of reasons within the group.Just like the rest of the British manufacturers and to coin a well used phrase “the rest is history”
Assuming that the ERGO wasn’t Leyland’s answer to the F88 before introduction of the Crusader then what was .Yes the Crusader was a fixed cab but it was still a better competitor to the F 88 than the ERGO was and for that matter than the Marathon was to the F88,let alone the DAF 2800,which probably explains why there was still a demand in the market for the Crusader up to 1981 long after introduction of the Marathon.
As for Leyland moving forward it was actually Bedford with the TM and SA with the 400 who outran Leyland by a mile but if they couldn’t stay with the foreign competition,let alone beat it,then Leyland had absolutely no chance.Especially using the bonkers idea that a using a dustcart cab suited to just local work can also be used to compete in the top league long haul/international sector of the market.
kr79:
The interstate roadtrain cab was as big as any of it competitors at the time.
Sadly it was the mechanicals that earned it the go by road home on the train tag that didn’t help.
By the mid 80s with a ■■■■■■■ engine and when they ditched the awful spicer gearbox andalbion howling axle for a twin splitter and Rockwell axle it wasn’t a bad truck.
I drove plenty of Spicers in the TM and it was more a case of being able to drive it than anything wrong with the box although the fuller was better but who needs the twin splitter.But the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ combination is about as American as it gets.Which was another of Leyland’s/AEC’s problems in being too tied to in house/Brit componentry.Unlike Scammell.However if the T 45 cab had been up to the job then that’s the type of design that would have won out in the market not the DAF 2800/95/XF etc etc.
kr79:
Have a look at the humble daf cf not so dissimilar to a roadtrain and look at a lot of dafs chasis design.
Owes more to Lancashire Watford and southall than Eindhoven
Ironically DAF probably never would have got where they did without the help of Leyland.But.The fact is that it was development of the 2800,95,and XF that kept them in the top end of the market and unlike Leyland they never intended the 85 or CF to compete in the top league like Leyland did with the Marathon and the T 45.
As I’ve said the ERGO was only much use as a urban local delivery wagon which seems to match it’s dustcart type cab design. Whereas the Marathon was a case of putting that dustcart cab on a wagon which was designed to compete in the top league where the 2800 was placed.Which was obviously a case of game over and also explains how the Crusader managed to stay in production from 1968-1981.It also explains why the 95 then the XF became DAF’s product in the top end of the market not the 85 or the CF.
Which just leaves the question as to wether you believe that a large truck manufacturer can compete in the market without keeping up with developments in the top end product sector .
Which is the position which Leyland was in from at least the point when the 2800 was introduced to the market and probably before that when the ERGO was Leyland’s answer to the F88.Which realsitically just left the Crusader as it’s only real credible product in that league.In which case it’s obvious that nothing less than at least a large sleeper cabbed development of the 3 VTG would have been up to the job of taking Leyland forward from at least the mid 1970’s on.
How was the ergo Leylands answer to the F88 in 64? The Crusader was a variant of a cab used by Seddon,Foden ,ERF to mention a few that was nothing special and didnt tilt.You know absolutely nothing about the 3VTG apart from an outside view which looks remarkably like an old Pete design (american lorries have never taken off here or europe for that matter) so what is your reasons for it being a success .Leyland wanted a cab which would cover the whole range and in 64 the ergo fit the bill with a large step forward compared with what was available at the time .Progress in development moved forward very quickly shortly afterwards and BLMC didnt move quickly enough due to a number of reasons within the group.Just like the rest of the British manufacturers and to coin a well used phrase “the rest is history”
Assuming that the ERGO wasn’t Leyland’s answer to the F88 before introduction of the Crusader then what was .Yes the Crusader was a fixed cab but it was still a better competitor to the F 88 than the ERGO was and for that matter than the Marathon was to the F88,let alone the DAF 2800,which probably explains why there was still a demand in the market for the Crusader up to 1981 long after introduction of the Marathon.
As for Leyland moving forward it was actually Bedford with the TM and SA with the 400 who outran Leyland by a mile but if they couldn’t stay with the foreign competition,let alone beat it,then Leyland had absolutely no chance.Especially using the bonkers idea that a using a dustcart cab suited to just local work can also be used to compete in the top league long haul/international sector market.
The F88 wasnt over here in64 or anywhere else when the ergo was introduced neither were hardly any other top weight imports ,i would like to see the sales figures of the Crusader compared with the marathon and for that matter the dunstable dustbin , Bedfords ill fated and only attempt at a top weight artic (the KM doesnt count )As for the SA quite a few on here knicknamed them Sudden Accidents much were their appeal.You keep mentioning the 2800 ,well i found them cramped and that ridiculously low windscreen gave me kneck ache stooping all day to see out of it ,they should have tried entering the japanese market with them ,those little tiddlywinks would have loved them .The Marathon was a vehicle developed on the cheap no one is denying that but in later form they were no worse than any of the other british makes available which had been developed at much higher costs
daf did not take over eny market at all it get bankrupt saved by dutc goverment(leyland was not) and then get hold of brittish market by buying leyland , in rest of europe daf share of market was 4to5% untill about 6years ago when it rised to over 10 ,so don,t trye to ■■■■ my in the eye CF
. 
