BEST 'ERGO' ?

[tiptop495]

ramone:

[zb]
anorak:
Lots of questions remain unanswered about the design and history of the Ergomatic Leylands, for example:

1. We know it was narrower than some other top-weight lorries’ cabs. What was its actual width, between the doors. I bet it was within a few inches of an F88.
2. Despite Leyland’s winding-down of its European sales efforts, from the mid-1950s onwards, plenty of Ergos found their way into European fleets. The sales networks must have done a good job, considering Leyland’s indifference to the Continent. How were the Ergos regarded by their operators?
3. Why did the Spanish and Portuguese markets dislike the Ergo, sufficiently to engineer their own cab installations?

There will be more interesting points to be raised, and people with the relevant knowledge to provide the answers. I wonder if such people have been put off contributing, by the uninformed, crass, juvenile opinions of a single TNUK member? I am sick of it. I contribute to other forums (not connected with vehicles), and idiots are just bullied off them by the good posters, with unrelenting insults. This forum is delightfully polite and respectful, so that is not an option here. Cf, please give up and go away.

I would be suprised if the F88 was wider than the Marathon it always looked a narrow cab to me and quite cramped but with the aforementioned stigma

Hey, the F88 was a narrow cab because with smaller wings it was within the required swiss 2.30 width (as the CH230 model sold)
About the Iberian countries. Portugal required some work for it’s own workforce,so got Volvo ground by offering to built the cabs there.
Spain was a different country a cloesed market. And I think the Leylands were part built there,as did Mercedes and some other.
Fiat cars built as Seat cars,Chrysler/Simca cars as Barreiros cars.

And Cf become honest otherwise we do you a hold up by computer and brainwash you . At home do you have an arguing room or use you the whole house for it ,AND I’m lucky not to be you neighbour .

Cheers Eric,

[ramone]

When Leyland became BLMC in 68 who was the brains behind this ,was it the government or just a bright idea from someone .If it was the government shouldnt they have had the balls to reverse the decision when they realised the truck and bus division was the only profit making part of the business or better still sell off the individual companies? There`s probably a logical reason behind not doing this but when did logic ever come into whats gone on at BL?

[bma_finland]

have tryed to go back in facts from about 64 when ergo come out ,we had 63 the scaniavabis lb76,not wery spacy and awfull to enter(owned one),we had the merscedes new lp series roomy and nice looking but spartan ,64 a volvo tiptop whit no space at all in (own a88),it had dangerous steering and autodifflock nothing for our roads ,it was livedangerous,then daf get out the first 2600 in thosetime?,if not the old daf2300 is not impressing, then krupp, henschel ,man same consepts,so in fact ergo was well done in it,s time,if we look at early 70 the mandator when launched was not to bad,and same in 80,s when roadtrain came, so it was the poor cuality more then poor design that did the end when times got bad from late 80,s early 90,s

[valkyrie]

Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 6.Page 13.TRUCKNETUK

ramone:
When Leyland became BLMC in 68 who was the brains behind this ,was it the government or just a bright idea from someone .If it was the government shouldnt they have had the balls to reverse the decision when they realised the truck and bus division was the only profit making part of the business or better still sell off the individual companies? There`s probably a logical reason behind not doing this but when did logic ever come into whats gone on at BL?

It was Harold Wilson’s s Labour Govennment’s idea that the Leyland Motor Corporation should
merge with the British Motor Holdings -BMH,it was BMC - British Motor Corporation prior to
it’s takeover of the Jaguar Group in 1966.
BMH-BMC was badly run and on the way to going bust,and the Government held a meeting between
Leyland’s Sir Donald Stokes and BMH’s Sir George Harriman at Chequers,in order to pave the way
for the two companies to merge.The government looked upon Leyland as the saviour of BMH and
the merger would supposedly strengthen the BMH side.
As a matter of fact,talks between Leyland and BMC had been going on,in an on-off basis since 1964,and at one time BMC was on the verge of merging with AEC! - but Leyland beat them to it!
The government promised Donald Stokes a life peerage,and promised much financial help for Leyland
to help bring back the BMH side back to health if he could pull the merger off.
In the end,the so-called merger of Leyland and BMH actually turned in to a Leyland take over of
BMH.
Leyland was a very successful commercial vehicle manufacturer,and with it’s recent take overs of
Standard Triumph and then Rover Alvis,a motorcar manufacturer,but after the BMH take over,Leyland’s priority was to save the BMC-Morris Austin Division at the expense and neglect of Leyland’s original and core business! But most of the BMH side,i.e., Morris,Austin,Wolseley,Riley,MG,etc,was a lost cause in the long run,and it dragged Leyland down in to eventual ruin According to Donald Stokes the money to help Leyland fix BMH never showed up,Leyland’s Truck and Bus Division profits were used to support the Morris Austin car side
And that was the end of Leyland in the long run Donald Stokes said that it would have been
better to let BMH-BMC to go bankrupt,and for Leyland to buy the profitable parts

VALKYRIE.

[zb_anorak]

ramone:
When Leyland became BLMC in 68 who was the brains behind this ,was it the government or just a bright idea from someone .If it was the government shouldnt they have had the balls to reverse the decision when they realised the truck and bus division was the only profit making part of the business or better still sell off the individual companies? There`s probably a logical reason behind not doing this but when did logic ever come into whats gone on at BL?

It was a good decision, in my opinion. Mercedes-Benz and Fiat made the full range of vehicles. Much of the engineering is common, between cars and lorries, so that work could be shared for the sake of efficiency. During the 1960s, mergers were happening all over Europe, creating bigger, stronger companies. Britain had lagged behind, in this respect. Leyland and Austin Morris both had glaring weaknesses: Leyland’s decision to ignore Europe and the car-makers’ knife-and-fork engineering meant that both firms were about to get a kicking by their competitors. They needed to become more efficient, just to weather the storm. I believe that the merger should have happened ten or fifteen years earlier, for the benefit of both firms- they would have had the opportunity to beat each other into shape, if nothing else.

[saviem]

It was a good decision, in my opinion. Mercedes-Benz and Fiat made the full range of vehicles. Much of the engineering is common, between cars and lorries, so that work could be shared for the sake of efficiency. During the 1960s, mergers were happening all over Europe, creating bigger, stronger companies. Britain had lagged behind, in this respect. Leyland and Austin Morris both had glaring weaknesses: Leyland’s decision to ignore Europe and the car-makers’ knife-and-fork engineering meant that both firms were about to get a kicking by their competitors. They needed to become more efficient, just to weather the storm. I believe that the merger should have happened ten or fifteen years earlier, for the benefit of both firms- they would have had the opportunity to beat each other into shape, if nothing else.
[/quote]
Interesting thought Anorak. One major obstacle would have been the management of BMCs total inability to manage the production of product. Anyone who has not worked through the 70s,and the rule of Union Barons, and the consequential lack of managerial direction within major industrial conglomerates, could scarce believe just how bad things actually were. It must have been impossible to put any direction or forward planning into product development. Yet alone demand quality of work.

We tend to think about “the Austin” in Birmingham, as the major culprit, but do not forget Cowley, or the “planted” factories at Bathgate, and Renfrew. The Unions were openly in defiance of the Socialist Government, and the attitude of, “the world owes us a job” was totally prevalent both within the conglomerates, and associated sub contractors.

The commercial vehicle industry was affected by the lack of component supply, in the main due to industrial unrest, how could any manufacturer keep his production lines going, and produce a quality product without continuity of supply?

Sorry anorak, I do not think that they would have beaten each other into shape, I think that the hemorage of Leylands cash would have come sooner rather than later. And Birmingham was a massive voter catchment, and the motor car industry in general was a massive tax earner, and no politician, socialist or tory would “bash” such a sacred cow,…only at their own peril.

No doubt others may disagree,

[carryfast]

tiptop495:
And Cf become honest otherwise we do you a hold up by computer and brainwash you . At home do you have an arguing room or use you the whole house for it ,AND I’m lucky not to be you neighbour .

Cheers Eric,

No mate it’s just that planet trucknet often seems to lose the plot as to the realities in the real world.As I’ve read it we’ve got a load of those,who’d like to think,that they’re ‘experts’ on the running of a truck manufacturing operation,who on one hand moan about the Leyland ‘take over’ of AEC and it’s results.Who then contradict themselves by saying that Leyland was correct in it’s policy concerning AEC’s product development through the 1960’s into the 1970’s.When the fact is simply that both AEC’s and Leyland’s management knew that both the ERGO and the Marathon weren’t the ideal level of product development at the time but they didn’t have the money needed to do anything about it.

Then on planet trucknet that gets translated by assorted ‘experts’ into the ERGO and Marathon were great products and better than AEC’s own 3 VTG idea. While aslo saying that Leyland were out to get AEC by forcing it to build zb products instead of allowing AEC to go it’s own way partly because of the bonkers idea that Stokes had been refused a job at AEC at some point in the past even though the facts show he never wanted to work there.In addition to which the workers were all supposedly at home on strike most of the time so nothing was getting done anyway and they weren’t bothering to bolt the products together properly even when they were at work.

In the words of at least one of those ‘experts’ I don’t give a flying zb what anyone else thinks.I’ll just carry on with the real version of history,as I know it,having worked in the truck manufacturing industry,based on the facts not bs.

[dave_the_renegade]

The Ergonomic Cab — 1960’s
Leyland were to make another significant contribution to British truck design when they launched their new ‘Ergomatic’ cab in 1964 as a replacement for the comparatively short-lived ‘Vista-Vue’ cab. The ‘Ergomatic’ cab was designed to give the best combination of driver comfort, safety and efficient use of space possible within its intended price bracket. Its most notable feature was its ability to ‘tilt’ forward thereby exposing the engine, giving better access than the previous fixed cab designs. So good was this cab that it was still being fitted in mildly updated form to some Leyland chassis as late as 1981

[zb_anorak]

Saviem:
Interesting thought Anorak. One major obstacle would have been the management of BMCs total inability to manage the production of product. Anyone who has not worked through the 70s,and the rule of Union Barons, and the consequential lack of managerial direction within major industrial conglomerates, could scarce believe just how bad things actually were. It must have been impossible to put any direction or forward planning into product development. Yet alone demand quality of work.

We tend to think about “the Austin” in Birmingham, as the major culprit, but do not forget Cowley, or the “planted” factories at Bathgate, and Renfrew. The Unions were openly in defiance of the Socialist Government, and the attitude of, “the world owes us a job” was totally prevalent both within the conglomerates, and associated sub contractors.

The commercial vehicle industry was affected by the lack of component supply, in the main due to industrial unrest, how could any manufacturer keep his production lines going, and produce a quality product without continuity of supply?

Sorry anorak, I do not think that they would have beaten each other into shape, I think that the hemorage of Leylands cash would have come sooner rather than later. And Birmingham was a massive voter catchment, and the motor car industry in general was a massive tax earner, and no politician, socialist or tory would “bash” such a sacred cow,…only at their own peril.

No doubt others may disagree,

I think the government should have intervened in the 1950s. Austin/Morris had been lagging behind in most areas of design since before the war, and Stokes’ blithe decision to leave the Continental lorry-builders to it should have set the alarm bells ringing. A politician with engineering or manufacturing experience would have raised questions about both firms’ management. A ruthless shake-up, while sales were still strong, may have prepared them both for the future. Get the fighting over while the profits were still there to pay for it, so to speak.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Saviem:
Interesting thought Anorak. One major obstacle would have been the management of BMCs total inability to manage the production of product. Anyone who has not worked through the 70s,and the rule of Union Barons, and the consequential lack of managerial direction within major industrial conglomerates, could scarce believe just how bad things actually were. It must have been impossible to put any direction or forward planning into product development. Yet alone demand quality of work.

We tend to think about “the Austin” in Birmingham, as the major culprit, but do not forget Cowley, or the “planted” factories at Bathgate, and Renfrew. The Unions were openly in defiance of the Socialist Government, and the attitude of, “the world owes us a job” was totally prevalent both within the conglomerates, and associated sub contractors.

The commercial vehicle industry was affected by the lack of component supply, in the main due to industrial unrest, how could any manufacturer keep his production lines going, and produce a quality product without continuity of supply?

Sorry anorak, I do not think that they would have beaten each other into shape, I think that the hemorage of Leylands cash would have come sooner rather than later. And Birmingham was a massive voter catchment, and the motor car industry in general was a massive tax earner, and no politician, socialist or tory would “bash” such a sacred cow,…only at their own peril.

No doubt others may disagree,

I think the government should have intervened in the 1950s. Austin/Morris had been lagging behind in most areas of design since before the war, and Stokes’ blithe decision to leave the Continental lorry-builders to it should have set the alarm bells ringing. A politician with engineering or manufacturing experience would have raised questions about both firms’ management. A ruthless shake-up, while sales were still strong, may have prepared them both for the future. Get the fighting over while the profits were still there to pay for it, so to speak.

As I remember it Austin Morris were making reasonable quality rear wheel drive cars up to the point where they decided to go down market by producing mostly mickey mouse front wheel drive products.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … front2.jpg

While according to most here Leyland were actually producing a world beater first with the ERGO and then with the Marathon. Yeah right a ruthless shake up to aceive what when the real problem was lack of funds to develop decent wagons,assuming that is you think that the 3VTG was a better idea than the ERGO/Marathon which many seem to think that it wasn’t and lack of wages to pay the workforce properly.Most of which were problems throughout British industry not just Leyland and probably still are at least in the case of paying decent wages.

[kr79]

Though technically advanced and despite the mini and the 1100 1300 range been best sellers they didn’t actualy make much profit.

[dave_the_renegade]

Even though I had Ford Cortina’s at the time.I thought the Maxi was years ahead as one of the first hatchbacks.If they had got that mechanically reliable it would have outsold everything in its class.

[andrew_s]

to quote carryfast-

“As I remember it Austin Morris were making reasonable quality rear wheel drive cars up to the point where they decided to go down market by producing mostly mickey mouse front wheel drive products.”

so the monte carlo rally winning mini coopers were mickey mouse were they? how come they wernt beaten by superior rwd rivals then?
the mini obviously and the austin 1100/1300 were massive sellers -what reasonable quality rwd cars were they turning out before they went down market? and what mickey mouse front wheel drive products were they making?
and before you start talking about allegro/maxi etc and all the seventies crap,i mean in the early days when the “mickey mouse front wheel drive” mini was introduced in 59.
do you think a morris minor or austin cambridge was better than an austin 1300? dream on.

and talking of rear wheel drive,
get some pics up of your mythical v12 xjs thats been converted to a manual box that youve posted about before.as a member of the jaguar enthusiasts club and owner of a few old jags previously this would really be of interest.

[dave_the_renegade]

andrew.s:
to quote carryfast-

“As I remember it Austin Morris were making reasonable quality rear wheel drive cars up to the point where they decided to go down market by producing mostly mickey mouse front wheel drive products.”

so the monte carlo rally winning mini coopers were mickey mouse were they? how come they wernt beaten by superior rwd rivals then?
the mini obviously and the austin 1100/1300 were massive sellers -what reasonable quality rwd cars were they turning out before they went down market? and what mickey mouse front wheel drive products were they making?
and before you start talking about allegro/maxi etc and all the seventies crap,i mean in the early days when the “mickey mouse front wheel drive” mini was introduced in 59.
do you think a morris minor was better than an austin 1300? dream on.
and get some pics up of your mythical v12 xjs thats been converted to a manual box that youve posted about before.as a member of the jaguar enthusiasts club and owner of a few old jags previously this would really be of interest.

The Morris Minor 1000 was a far better car than the 1100/1300 range,a bit old fashioned,but they were far more reliable.The Mini’s and the 1100/1300 range all had drive shaft problems and the hydrolastic suspension wasn’t good.Nice looking cars in their day,but like most of the range let down by reliability.

[tiptop495]

Hey, Aren’t we leading away from our ergo tread, wouldn’t it not better to call it the BLMC tread .
Some replies are very interesting,but what has it to do with the Ergo cabbed lorries.
And some here are like women,they have always right,even if you show it is black as they said it is white.
Then they tell you it is charcoal (dark grey/anthracte coloured) .
I have already unlearnt discussing with women .

Cheers Eric,

[dave_the_renegade]

tiptop495:
Hey, Aren’t we leading away from our ergo tread, wouldn’t it not better to call it the BLMC tread .
Some replies are very interesting,but what has it to do with the Ergo cabbed lorries.
And some here are like women,they have always right,even if you show it is black as they said it is white.
Then they tell you it is charcoal (dark grey/anthracte coloured) .
I have already unlearnt discussing with women .

Cheers Eric,

Here you are Eric,just to get the thread back on track.
Cheers Dave.

[andrew_s]

have to disagree dave-ive owned about a dozen minis,the one i currently have has a 1380cc engine,stage 4 head etc etc and is running about 115 bhp-quite a bit more than standrd youll agree!! the driveshafts are standard spec items and are more than up to the job.
my parents have owned loads of minis- up to four at any one point-not a prob with driveshafts i’m afraid.perhaps you were unlucky with yours?
the hydrolastic suspension was not very sporty on the mk2 minis,most that survive have been converted to dry.and the 1100/1300 austins the hydrolastic units gave a very good ride.
heres my mini with standard drive shafts at the nurbergring…

[dave_the_renegade]

andrew.s:
have to disagree dave-ive owned about a dozen minis,the one i currently have has a 1380cc engine,stage 4 head etc etc and is running about 115 bhp-quite a bit more than standrd youll agree!! the driveshafts are standard spec items and are more than up to the job.
my parents have owned loads of minis- up to four at any one point-not a prob with driveshafts i’m afraid.perhaps you were unlucky with yours?
the hydrolastic suspension was not very sporty on the mk2 minis,most that survive have been converted to dry.and the 1100/1300 austins the hydrolastic units gave a very good ride.
heres my mini with standard drive shafts at the nurbergring…0

I never had a mini myself Andrew,as they weren’t as good in the 1960’s.I had an Austin A35 van which was excellent followed by an Anglia 105E then Cortina’s MK2 and MK3.My late Mother had a Mini which was a rust bucket.But its all about luck and opinions.
Anyway back to the Ergo’s before we get into trouble,here’s a nice example that we saw at Gaydon a couple of years back.
Cheers Dave.

[andrew_s]

Dave the Renegade:

andrew.s:
have to disagree dave-ive owned about a dozen minis,the one i currently have has a 1380cc engine,stage 4 head etc etc and is running about 115 bhp-quite a bit more than standrd youll agree!! the driveshafts are standard spec items and are more than up to the job.
my parents have owned loads of minis- up to four at any one point-not a prob with driveshafts i’m afraid.perhaps you were unlucky with yours?
the hydrolastic suspension was not very sporty on the mk2 minis,most that survive have been converted to dry.and the 1100/1300 austins the hydrolastic units gave a very good ride.
heres my mini with standard drive shafts at the nurbergring…0

I never had a mini myself Andrew,as they weren’t as good in the 1960’s.I had an Austin A35 van which was excellent followed by an Anglia 105E then Cortina’s MK2 and MK3.My late Mother had a Mini which was a rust bucket.But its all about luck and opinions.
Anyway back to the Ergo’s before we get into trouble,here’s a nice example that we saw at Gaydon a couple of years back.
Cheers Dave.

all minis are rustbuckets dave, bit like the ergos lol
we used to own a leyland badger ,think the old man liked that quite alot,but it got stolen !!

[zb_anorak]

I’d better clarify my earlier sweeping statement about Austin/Morris lagging in most areas of engineering, before I start another row!
The sheetmetal design of the Morris Minor and Mini was poor- the Minor’s sill section was a hotch-potch of small folded bits and its spring-hangers were located by nothing, in the middle of a flat sheet floorpan. The Mini’s wings and front panel were joined by a seam which curved in all three planes. The first Minis had the floor/bulkhead joint the wrong way round, so the shell leaked (I was told this detail, I have no direct experience of it). Those shells were not “designed for manufacture”, to use a modern phrase. It looked as if the firm did not have enough heavy presses to make large panels with deep swages etc, so there were lots of small bits joined together. The Mini body production line had lots of big blokes with levers and hammers on it, just to get the panels to fit the jigs, and each other. This also applied to Jaguar- the E-type and Mk2 are both slated by the restoration fraternity for these reasons. The European and American shells of the period did not have these problems.

The ‘A’ series engine in the Minor and Mini had about the same torque per litre as the VW engine from the 1930s. The German engine was about half the weight and lasted about twice as long. The Italians were using aluminium heads and overhead cams, on cars competing directly with Austin/Morris products.

While the products of Austin/Morris may have been innovative and well-liked, they had cost, quality and durability problems designed in. They appeared to be the result of insufficient investment in R&D in both product and manufacturing engineering, some two decades before this could be said about Leyland Motors, hence my speculation that the merger should have happened earlier. Stokes telling Issigonis his shell designs were lousy and Issigonis telling Stokes to sell into Europe or else may have benefitted both! The Ergo might have turned out as impressively spacious as the Daf 2600 and Merc LP1620. Speculation, of course…