BEST 'ERGO' ?

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

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

Exactly the foreign competition wasn’t here during the 1960’s so those ERGO operators/drivers had nothing to compare the thing with.Although just because the foreign invasion hadn’t started here doesn’t mean that those wagons didn’t exist at the time.Unless you’re saying that although the F88 was introduced to the market in 1964 no one anywhere started buying the thing before the Brits had discovered it’s existence much later. The relevant thing is that the British manufacturers knew trucks like the F88 existed during the 1960’s which is why the Crusader was developed and introduced in 1968 and it’s also why AEC’s engineers were working on the 3 VTG.Unfortunately for them they didn’t have access to euro or scandinavian type development budgets in addition to being in a customer environment where putting a set of TIR plates on a day cabbed ERGO was considered the state of the art for long haul truck design.If only I could find the Leyland publicity photo for the ERGO on the interweb to link to to prove it.

[carryfast]

bma.finland:
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

Blimey so there were actually more Marathons and then T 45’s running around the roads of UK/Europe than there were DAF 2800’S,3300’s/3600’s/95’s and still are more Leyland T 45’s than DAF XF’s because the T 45 was the much better design than all those DAF’s put together.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

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

Exactly the foreign competition wasn’t here during the 1960’s so those ERGO operators/drivers had nothing to compare the thing with.Although just because the foreign invasion hadn’t started here doesn’t mean that those wagons didn’t exist at the time.Unless you’re saying that although the F88 was introduced to the market in 1964 no one anywhere started buying the thing before the Brits had discovered it’s existence much later. The relevant thing is that the British manufacturers knew trucks like the F88 existed during the 1960’s which is why the Crusader was developed and introduced in 1968 and it’s also why AEC’s engineers were working on the 3 VTG.Unfortunately for them they didn’t have access to euro or scandinavian type development budgets in addition to being in a customer environment where putting a set of TIR plates on a day cabbed ERGO was considered the state of the art for long haul truck design.If only I could find the Leyland publicity photo for the ERGO on the interweb to link to to prove it.

If the F88 wasnt available here in 64 how could it have been in competion with the ergo?,the ergo was in competion with erfs fodens ,atkinsons to name a few because they were their rivals ,
Here`s a few photos of a V8 and an AV760 Ergo on TIR work

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

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

Exactly the foreign competition wasn’t here during the 1960’s so those ERGO operators/drivers had nothing to compare the thing with.Although just because the foreign invasion hadn’t started here doesn’t mean that those wagons didn’t exist at the time.Unless you’re saying that although the F88 was introduced to the market in 1964 no one anywhere started buying the thing before the Brits had discovered it’s existence much later. The relevant thing is that the British manufacturers knew trucks like the F88 existed during the 1960’s which is why the Crusader was developed and introduced in 1968 and it’s also why AEC’s engineers were working on the 3 VTG.Unfortunately for them they didn’t have access to euro or scandinavian type development budgets in addition to being in a customer environment where putting a set of TIR plates on a day cabbed ERGO was considered the state of the art for long haul truck design.If only I could find the Leyland publicity photo for the ERGO on the interweb to link to to prove it.

If the F88 wasnt available here in 64 how could it have been in competion with the ergo?,the ergo was in competion with erfs fodens ,atkinsons to name a few because they were their rivals ,
Here`s a few photos of a V8 and an AV760 Ergo on TIR work

That’s exactly the type of logic which contributed to the issues related to investment in development funds for the British manufacturers owing to the lack of vision amongst the domestic customer base.IE the aim was always to develop products from a start point based on continuing customer demands for obsolete domestic designs rather than the need to compete with foreign ones.Whereas the customer demands across the channel/north sea were running at a more advanced level.Which obviously gave those foreign competitors an advantage depending on point of view as to wether the ERGO was inferior to the F88 etc.Scammell’s/Leyland’s decision to introduce the Crusader to the market in 1968 and then it’s successful production run up to 1981 seems to answer that question.

flickr.com/photos/42220073@N … otostream/

[zb_anorak]

bma.finland:
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

If I remember correctly, the Leyland Daf group went bust just after the launch of the DAF 85, in 1993. The cost of developing it was one of the things which busted them. The British government was not in a credible position to support the group, having helped BL for the previous decades, so Leyland became a wholly-owned subsidiary of Daf, which was bailed out by the Dutch government, as you say. Renault spent many years on crutches, provided by the French taxpayer. Leyland was not the only large manufacturer to survive with public money. None of them remain as independent companies.

[kr79]

Carryfast:

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.

Don’t worry I can drive one just the fuller or twin splitter is much more user friendly. In a recent classic truck they ran an article on the history of the t45 range and in user focus groups and pre production tests most drivers they spoke to opted for a fuller but leyland put the spicer in.
Leyland had no choice but to out source drivelines after the failure of the leyland fixed head engine and the v8 AEC as you say the budget to design another engine probaly would have been to much added to lack of faith in a new leyland engine.
Plus by this time the ■■■■■■■ and rolls Royce options were well respected options here.
But as for daf been a great truck I have to disagree. The cf and xf are nothing specail. Daf is market leader in the UK but they offer a full range of trucks unlike scania and Volvo added to a few big customers such as Royal Mail who were all leyland and are probaly under obligation to buy British built products which all rhd dafs are

[kr79]

Daf only survived due to been bought by paccar

[zb_anorak]

kr79:
Daf only survived due to been bought by paccar

I guess the Dutch government wanted its money back. Was Daf still losing money, when Paccar bought it?

[kr79]

I think that and was probaly too small to survive as an indipendant

[zb_anorak]

kr79:
I think that and was probaly too small to survive as an indipendant

It’s doing great now though. Its sales in Europe are amongst the best, its engine design has been adopted by Paccar as the standard engine for the US and its cabs are fitted to Paccar chassis in some countries. I bet the next “XF” cab, or whatever it will be called, will provide the main structure for all Paccar cabovers worldwide. I can’t see them continuing with their “traditional” cabs on Aussie KWs in the long term.

Did Paccar not try to buy Leyland before the Daf merger?

[carryfast]

kr79:

Carryfast:

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.

Don’t worry I can drive one just the fuller or twin splitter is much more user friendly. In a recent classic truck they ran an article on the history of the t45 range and in user focus groups and pre production tests most drivers they spoke to opted for a fuller but leyland put the spicer in.
Leyland had no choice but to out source drivelines after the failure of the leyland fixed head engine and the v8 AEC as you say the budget to design another engine probaly would have been to much added to lack of faith in a new leyland engine.
Plus by this time the ■■■■■■■ and rolls Royce options were well respected options here.
But as for daf been a great truck I have to disagree. The cf and xf are nothing specail. Daf is market leader in the UK but they offer a full range of trucks unlike scania and Volvo added to a few big customers such as Royal Mail who were all leyland and are probaly under obligation to buy British built products which all rhd dafs are

The fact is the T 45 was let down by the combination of not ideal componentry,as you say a Fuller box was best and then the late realisation,by the customers,that the Leyland group had no in house engines which were up to the job and a compromised cheap cab design v the foreign competition and Leyland knew all that from the development stage.As I’ve said the T 45 was just a stop gap to allow the winding down of the firm before finally closing the doors at least in the case of any further uk designs.

As for the 95 or the XF I don’t think it was lack of demand or loss of market share that was DAF’s problem.It was probably all about economics in finding out that it’s rate of product development had outrun it’s budget constraints.Ironically just like ( would have been ) the case in Leyland’s situation during those make or break years.However like the ERGO and the Marathon the CF really isn’t relevant in the sector of the market which we’re discussing which the 2800,95,and XF were designed for and which the ERGO,Marathon and T 45 were ( wrongly ) used to satisfy.As for Brit built XF’s that seems like a case of natural selection which finally proves that the foreign rate of development outran ours to the point where we had to adopt it just as was ( would have been ) the case in 1968 with the 3 VTG v the ERGO and the Marathon.The missing link being the financial backing of Paccar who of course have historically made their money by selling wagons like US designed Kenworths in their own domestic market and our old colonial markets.My own personal view is that the euroisation of the US truck DNA will prove to be a massive mistake for the US manufacturers in the long term.

[ramone]

Can i ask you a serious question CF well im going to anyway
… Have you ever driven a lorry or just looked at them in books and magazines.The reason why i ask is some of your comments are bewildering to say the least you say that the very average imho 2800 was built for long distance work but the CF wasnt is this because the CF is lower to the ground and cant be used as an extension to your ■■■■■?The CF as won fleet truck of the year a few times so do all these fleet users not realise theyve been buying the wrong vehicle
I drive a CF every day its nothing spectacular but it pays my mortgage just like the equally unspectatacular 2800 did .I think the CF is a pretty poor design with just like the 2800 a low screen and those ridiculous side windows which volvo dumped years ago .The CF does a very adequate job on long distance and short distance much the same way as those old ergos did when they were the modern motor.

[valkyrie]

Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 5.Page 12.TRUCKNETUK

The LEYLAND-AEC MARATHON.
As I said in my forth post in this thread,the Leyland Marathon was a compromise due to the fact
that British Leyland could not afford a proper amount of development money.Thus it had a poor
in-cab heater,a rough ride and had poor quality control in regard to leaking air pipes,control
cables that sagged and the doors also rattled.Furthermore,although fairly attractive,the Marathon
still looked like a prototype:It lacked the finishing touches of,say an AEC Mandator V8 or a
Leyland Beaver 690,and just did not have their glamourous styling:It looked utilitarian.

Otherwise,it was a fine lorry,but the above shortcomings cost it sales and it never became a favourite of lorry drivers.
Marathon Mk1 sales from 1973 to 1977:-
1640.

Marathon Mk2 sales from 1977 to 1980:-
3650.

Leyland had got rid of all the above problems - but not the utilitarian styling - hence the
marked improvement in sales.
The Leyland Marathon Mk1 and Mk2 lorry range was a stopgap and was reasonably successful,no more,
no less

AEC 3VTG.
But,Leyland might have saved itself some precious money and time by continuing to develop the
3VTG,instead of going ahead with the stopgap Marathon.If Albert Fogg’s 3VTG project had not been
very wrongly scrapped by the rest of the pathetic excuse for a Leyland board,it would have probably been more successful than the Leyland Marathon,sooner on the market and better looking!
The 3VTG’s WELL APPOINTED American - Peterbilt-inspired - cab’s styling would have been improved
and glamourised.Albert Fogg knew what he was doing

AMERICAN HEAVY MOTOR TRUCK STYLING*.
And what’s wrong with the styling of American heavy motor trucks anyway? American heavy motor truck manufacturers have produced very interesting,outstanding,striking,archetypal,beautiful
and glamourous heavy motor trucks for decades! - and I’m just on about the cab over engine
models!!! But the American conventional heavy motor trucks can also be very attractive and interesting too

SCAMMELL CRUSADER.
Chassis design-wise,the Scammell Crusader was largely British,but the styling of it’s Motor
Panels cab was very American heavy motor truck-inspired - and very attractive too!
It appears as though Scammell was following Volvo and it’s Volvo F88-F89:Scammell produced
an American-inspired but more refined heavy lorry,just as Albert Fogg was doing with his
AEC 3VTG.But,unlike AEC,Scammell rightly succeeded in getting the Crusader in to production,and
it did very well saleswise,but one thing that let it down was that it’s cab did not tilt.

PARK ROYAL PRODUCTION OF AEC LORRY CABS.
Park Royal Vehicles - PRV - became a member of the AEC-led ACV Group in 1949,and quickly
became the main builder of AEC lorry cabs,although other motor body builders such as HCB and
Lee Motors continued to build cabs on AEC lorries.Park Royal’s main business was the building
of bus and motorcoach bodies,a great many of which were fitted on to AEC and Leyland chassis
for London Transport.
Park Royal cab production declined a lot from 1966,because of the introduction of the GKN
Sankey-produced Leyland group Ergomatic Cab.Park Royal built cabs for military vehicles,spare cabs and spare parts for cabs,but only military vehicle cabs were built from 1971 to 1975.

PARK ROYAL EXPERIMENTAL FIBREGLASS ERGOMATIC CAB.
B53345 was the serial number of the one-off Park Royal Experimental Fibreglass Ergomatic Cab of 1964.It differed from the usual steel production version in that it had a two-piece windscreen,
which was more panoramic,it didn’t have front quarter lights on the forward part of the doors and
the doors had narrower top sections.This cab could have been a prototype for UTIC of Portugal,
since UTIC built fibreglass versions of the Ergomatic cab.

BRITISH,EUROPEAN AND SCANDINAVIAN HEAVY LORRY MARKET.

[ZB] Anorak » Wed Apr 10, 2013 2:19 am

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.

cm730811.jpgcm730811.jpg (41.03 KiB) Viewed 135 times
COMMERCIAL MOTOR Editorial:The Long Haul Into Europe,Friday,31st August,1973.
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.” UNQUOTE.

VALKYRIE replies:-
Donald Stokes made the above statement in 1945,but the world had moved on by 1973
and the British Commercial Vehicle Industry was being outrun in it’s home market by the
European and Scandinavian commercial vehicle makers -it was seemingly one-way traffic in to
the United Kingdom.But Leyland,Foden,ERF,Bedford and Ford tried to counteract that situation
by competing in their home market with new heavy lorry models,and turning the situation in to
two-way traffic trying to sell these lorries in Europe,Scandinavia and in other parts of the world. I’m talking about the Leyland Marathon,the Foden Universal,ERF MW and European,plus
the new entrants in the heavy lorry markets of the UK,Europe and elsewhere:-Bedford,with it’s
TM,and Ford with the Transcontinental.
Furthermore,it is ironical that both AEC and Leyland had several manufacturing deals in Europe in
the 1950s and 1960s,but Leyland mismanagement destroyed every single one of them! Peter Foden,
chairman of ERF Ltd,said Leyland’s big mistake was pulling out of Europe.

DONALD STOKES,HARRY POTTS STOKES LIKE FATHER LIKE SON - LIKE SON LIKE FATHER.
Just to reinforce what I was saying about Donald Stokes wanting to work only for Leyland
Motors Ltd.Donald’s father,H.P.- Harry Potts - Stokes,was the manager of Plymouth City Buses
from October 1919 to September 1929.During the later part of his managership,Harry ordered and
placed in to service a good number of Leyland Tiger single decker buses and Leyland Titan
double decker buses,although he did apparently order some AEC Regal single decker buses - but
these entered service after he had left Plymouth for United Automobile Services as manager of
this bus and motorcoach operator.
During his time at United Automobile Services he ordered several large batches of Leyland
motorcoaches and buses.The fact that Harry placed orders for Leyland buses and motorcoaches,
both at Plymouth and United,must have somewhat influenced Donald Stokes in regard to who he always wanted to work for when he had reached working age…which was,of course,Leyland Motors Ltd.

AND NOW SOME PHOTOGRAPHS:-

Leyland Marathon MK1 4x2 Tanker-bodied Articulated Lorry,CMA 61S,G.F.Potter,Welshpool.
Although the Marathon has attractive styling,it was still utilitarian and lacked the glamour
and finish of the original Ergomatic AEC,Albion and Leyland lorry models:-

AEC Mandator 760 TG4R Ergomatic 4x2 Tractive Unit,ECL 142D,British Road Services LD 93.This is
a typical Ergomatic lorry,which was attractive,but the Marathon lacked it’s glamour and finish:-

If Albert Fogg’s very wise AEC 3VTG Prototype-Concept-Project Heavy Lorry had been fully
developed,and had gone in to production,it might have ended up as good looking,or even better
looking,in regard to this beautiful Peterbilt :-
Peterbilt Pacemaker 352 COE 6x4 Tractive Unit:-

Scammell emulated the Volvo F88-F89 with it’s beautiful American-looking Scammell Crusader,which
was successful and versatile :-
Scammell Crusader,Detroit Diesel 8V-71-engined,6x4 Tractive Unit,Chassis No.WHV 52001,the first Crusader:-

*As I objectively said:-And what’s wrong with the styling of American heavy motor trucks anyway? American heavy motor truck manufacturers have produced very interesting,outstanding,striking,archetypal,beautiful and glamourous heavy motor trucks for decades! - and I’m just on about the cab over engine models!!! But the American conventional heavy motor trucks can also be very attractive and interesting too

Freightliner FLB COE 6x4 Tipper-bodied Long Distance Heavy Duty Freight Trunking Articulated Lorry -a real beaut!
This Freightliner FLB COE is a great example of how very good looking American heavy motor trucks can be :-

Although Harry Potts -H.P.- Stokes did not order this particular 1930 Leyland Tiger motorcoach,
he did order many Leyland Tiger’s and Leyland Titans when he was the manager of Plymouth City Buses,and then United Automobile Services.East Yorkshire Motor Services were “next door neighbours” of United Automobile Services.
Leyland Tiger TS2/6/Ransomes C26R Motorcoach,RH 206,1930,East Yorkshire Motor Services,No.158,which is now preserved :-

More details of this splendid motorcoach -
old-bus-photos.co.uk/?p=8956

And another absoutely striking example of how outstandingly good looking and fascinating American
heavy motor trucks can be! - another real beaut! :-

Oshkosh M1070E 8x8 Heavy Equipment Transporter-Tank Transporter:-

[ZB] Anorak asked:-Did Paccar not try to buy Leyland before the Daf merger?

Yes.There was a proposed merger between Leyland and General Motors Corporation,a proposed
takeover of Leyland by DAF and a proposed takeover of Leyland by PACCAR,but the British
Government chose DAF to take over Leyland,which happened in 1987.

I personally have never forgiven DAF-PACCAR for what they very misguidedly did to Foden!!! -
I would not touch DAF!!! Yeah,they make good lorries alright,but I would buy Mercedes-Benz,
Volvo,Scania,etc

VALKYRIE

[tiptop495]

Hey boys, listen once to a foreigner’s vision .

Carryfast is hard or not to beat,don’t try or we shall be on the way to hundreds pages .
Surely I like it,but have seen that some contradict oneself.
I think the VT 3 cab was a cab for the yanks maybe it could have had some success down under like Atki and Foden made a cab for there,but as the yanks they wanted a nose in the front of them.Which most couldn’t deliver,surrely not an American styled nose.
About Vovlo,
The 88 came only at the and of '65 on the market,in '64 that cab came on the market as the first own cabover of Volvo on the Titan 495,and I think never on the UK market.
About DAF,
As said the low windscreen was a headache for tall guys,but that applied for Scannies LB 110-141 series too.So I felt me much more comfortable behind the wheel of an 88/89.Daf had always financial problems,first International took share in it,then it sold it to the Spanish,but after their own difficulties they let them alone. But with a belessing in disguise came a still not seen take over from a Yank in contradiction as we saw in the past. Paccar gave them the finacial force they never had had. And why not came the Daf leyland 90 was of my part to save the 95 in the big class. And so came Daf a top seller. Here Daf always was a good seller and customers stayed loyal to them as no other to a marque,what you not can say of Scania who is still dropping here. Because Daf always delivered good reliable products and back up with the leyland or Daf engine,of course they had some weak engines but who not.
About Leyland,
I think they were the first with a tilting cab in the UK in '64 and like Volvo here that must have been very appreciated. And a low cab yes and realy too low for European standards,but was there an ask for high placed cabs in the UK in those days■■?.And everwhere there weren’t than a lot who offered a low and high cabbed top weight truck. Volvo did with the 88 and 86 Scanna with the 110/80/85 but that was only from '68 on.And I can’t remember directly other who did it too. maybe Merc from '65 on with the 1920 and 1918 midrange with the 1418 engine.
About the Marathon and T45,
Short said the maraton was complete disaster for us,if Leylands selling import point was given to Scania. Sales rised quickly most in batches,but as soon as after the delivering of the first ones customers canceled orders.It must had been there in the mid '60’s for us here to compete with others. The T45 had a nice look but still with the TL engine,and it was too late in time and for Leyland. At first some were sold but less as the Marathon.
And it had all against itself no back up,a bad name,you can compare it with the Fiat’s they had too alter their name after suffering reliability for years.
I have no experience with the Maraton but coming very often at Scania and hearing about it ,said something or not ■■ of course driver can easily topple a marque.
Cabs,
Nowadays all offer high an low cabs,of course most driver prefer a high one but if you have to get in and out the whole day I should prefer a low cabbed one as a CF or FM and they deliver the higher powered engines too. The only you can say the CF is less quality built (only cab and comforts not mecanically).
We have seen that after years very hard labour,but most trucks are sold after some years nowadays.
But I speak about a company who uses his lorries 4 times.
First, 1.000.000 km.
Secondly, the next 1.000.000km.
Thirdly, for spare parts.
Fourthly, sold for export fixed with all the bad available parts
collected from earlier repairs.

Contradict me if I am wrong.

Cheers Eric,

[carryfast]

ramone:
Can i ask you a serious question CF well im going to anyway
… Have you ever driven a lorry or just looked at them in books and magazines.The reason why i ask is some of your comments are bewildering to say the least you say that the very average imho 2800 was built for long distance work but the CF wasnt is this because the CF is lower to the ground and cant be used as an extension to your ■■■■■?The CF as won fleet truck of the year a few times so do all these fleet users not realise theyve been buying the wrong vehicle
I drive a CF every day its nothing spectacular but it pays my mortgage just like the equally unspectatacular 2800 did .I think the CF is a pretty poor design with just like the 2800 a low screen and those ridiculous side windows which volvo dumped years ago .The CF does a very adequate job on long distance and short distance much the same way as those old ergos did when they were the modern motor.

1. Yes as I’ve said countless times I’ve driven loads of different trucks starting with some that I’d doubt you even knew existed at the time let alone driven.

2. I’ve got to say I’ve got my doubts though about anyone who’s trying to suggest that the 2800 wasn’t in a totally different league to the Marathon assuming they’ve driven both.IE if I’ve read it right you’ve said that the 2800 was ‘cramped’ but you don’t seem to think that the Marathon was.When the fact is it was totally the opposite not surprising considering the Marathon’s roots.However it’s absolutely unbelievable that anyone who’s driven both could possibly rate the Marathon over the 2800.Especially if they’ve ever spent a few nights out in the Marathon cab.

But no the CF isn’t in the same league or aimed at the same market as the XF just as the 85 wasn’t aimed at the same market as the 95.In just the same way that the Crusader was in a different league to the ERGO or the Marathon.The Crusader was borderline up to it’s job as a top league long haul wagon at the time while the ERGO or the Marathon weren’t.Simples.

[bma_finland]

CF i,ll think you bee dreaming or have rosa spectacules, know many that think their own favorite is best ,but it depends of aftermarketing what you transport how long distance in what weater and road condisions,how you know the mark you drive and so on. my likes scanias because of simply reason that i always have worked whit them,so i know them and fix them and can tell to workshop what,s wrong ,we have a F12 to ,now 4 years and soon i learn it,s common stong and weakness .and in some jobs and in reabilyty ia as good as the scannies have to say somethimes even better so it,s wrong to try to tell folk,s working whit other tool,s they wrong,listen and learn dear CF,one who have, cheers benkku

[carryfast]

bma.finland:
CF i,ll think you bee dreaming or have rosa spectacules, know many that think their own favorite is best ,but it depends of aftermarketing what you transport how long distance in what weater and road condisions,how you know the mark you drive and so on. my likes scanias because of simply reason that i always have worked whit them,so i know them and fix them and can tell to workshop what,s wrong ,we have a F12 to ,now 4 years and soon i learn it,s common stong and weakness .and in some jobs and in reabilyty ia as good as the scannies have to say somethimes even better so it,s wrong to try to tell folk,s working whit other tool,s they wrong,listen and learn dear CF,one who have, cheers benkku

How can it possibly be a case of dreaming or rose tinted spectacles to suggest that the DAF 2800 cab design was in a different league to that of the Marathon.

It’s a fact because the Marathon had been based on a previous design ( ERGO ) which,like the Marathon,wasn’t fit for purpose in the case of a truck designed for long haul work as the state of the art stood at the time of it’s introduction and during it’s production.The reason for that being the combination of the lack of development funds,for Leyland to have made what was needed,and a backward thinking customer base that didn’t understand the difference at the time in question anyway in many cases.

As in the case of thinking that putting a set of TIR plates on a truck with a cab design more suited to work as a dustcart was state of the art for long haul work from at least the mid 1960’s and then that just bolting the thing a bit higher on the chassis was the answer for meeting the challenge of the 1970’s.However maybe you should try to swap that F 12 for an old Marathon as you seem to think it was so good.

[bma_finland]

good night, korea rules it seem,s

[ramone]

Carryfast:

ramone:
Can i ask you a serious question CF well im going to anyway
… Have you ever driven a lorry or just looked at them in books and magazines.The reason why i ask is some of your comments are bewildering to say the least you say that the very average imho 2800 was built for long distance work but the CF wasnt is this because the CF is lower to the ground and cant be used as an extension to your ■■■■■?The CF as won fleet truck of the year a few times so do all these fleet users not realise theyve been buying the wrong vehicle
I drive a CF every day its nothing spectacular but it pays my mortgage just like the equally unspectatacular 2800 did .I think the CF is a pretty poor design with just like the 2800 a low screen and those ridiculous side windows which volvo dumped years ago .The CF does a very adequate job on long distance and short distance much the same way as those old ergos did when they were the modern motor.

1. Yes as I’ve said countless times I’ve driven loads of different trucks starting with some that I’d doubt you even knew existed at the time let alone driven.

2. I’ve got to say I’ve got my doubts though about anyone who’s trying to suggest that the 2800 wasn’t in a totally different league to the Marathon assuming they’ve driven both.IE if I’ve read it right you’ve said that the 2800 was ‘cramped’ but you don’t seem to think that the Marathon was.When the fact is it was totally the opposite not surprising considering the Marathon’s roots.However it’s absolutely unbelievable that anyone who’s driven both could possibly rate the Marathon over the 2800.Especially if they’ve ever spent a few nights out in the Marathon cab.

But no the CF isn’t in the same league or aimed at the same market as the XF just as the 85 wasn’t aimed at the same market as the 95.In just the same way that the Crusader was in a different league to the ERGO or the Marathon.The Crusader was borderline up to it’s job as a top league long haul wagon at the time while the ERGO or the Marathon weren’t.Simples.

Well some of your comments leave a lot to be desired sometimes verging on childlike replies.Well for a start the Daf 2800 ,and i have driven quite a few had the engine hump in the middle and some plastic tray hindering cross cab access ,the marathon was virtually walk through i have nothing against the 2800 but they were nothing special and had many faults just like the marathon did.Ive never been cab happy i work for wages not a big flashy motor which i would have to subsidise with lower pay.newmercman hit the nail on the head with his comments on the focus and golf gti its all about the stigma .I have no interest in sitting high in a cab thinking im king of the road im doing a job to earn a wage.Yes its very nice to have a good motor but there arent any bad motors about now just some that hold that stigma nmm mentioned .Back in 65 the ergo you slate at every opportunity was the equivillent to the latest top motor now .Most were coach built cabs in 64 with no heaters or sound insulation ,not that the ergo did much in the sound insulation stakes .How come so many liked them and so many were sold if these were crap■■?
Well just take a look at the photos below,the first is what you think was streets ahead of a marathon,the motor panels Crusader what could have been Leylands saviour ffs
The second is the last generation 3200 cab wich looks awful cramped to me but then again i only drove a few so i could be wrong
The third is the absolute disaster what was the Marathon ,which when you look closely was virtually walk through
Well the mk2 Marathon wasnt too bad at all not perfect just not bad and on a par with the rest of the budget motors england were producing at the time ,and the Daf just like today dont impress me much ,my choice would be a Scania not a new 1 just a decent 1

[zb_anorak]

bma.finland:
good night, korea rules it seem,s

Leatherhead, I thought. I was wrong. It all makes sense now.