Shouldn’t this thread be renamed ‘Biggest Ego’ !
Frankydobo:
Shouldn’t this thread be renamed ‘Biggest Ego’ !
Back to the job in hand. From this video, it looks like the AEC V8 models had the seat fixed to the cab, even in low-datum cabs. About half-way through, it shows the non-tilting plate on the floor, around the steering column (Warning- industrial language!)
[zb]
anorak:Frankydobo:
Shouldn’t this thread be renamed ‘Biggest Ego’ !
Back to the job in hand. From this video, it looks like the AEC V8 models had the seat fixed to the cab, even in low-datum cabs. About half-way through, it shows the non-tilting plate on the floor, around the steering column (Warning- industrial language!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e59HyjNDqW8
Well “anorak” im afraid carrypest was right all along about the flawed ergo design ,which those boffins at Leyland could have solved very easily.A passenger door and rear glass and a passenger seat would have made it a whole lot better :wink: .What an awesome motor that looks i wonder why AEC never offered the Fuller instead of the standard 6 speed or the 10 speed semi auto .Ive seen the finished article it looks great
[zb]
anorak:Frankydobo:
Shouldn’t this thread be renamed ‘Biggest Ego’ !
Back to the job in hand. From this video, it looks like the AEC V8 models had the seat fixed to the cab, even in low-datum cabs. About half-way through, it shows the non-tilting plate on the floor, around the steering column (Warning- industrial language!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e59HyjNDqW8
Hey Anorak,nice video is it already restored and are there pics of if, nice trailer too.Hopefully he hasn’t encountered the VOSA 
.Nice to drive such things nowadays for pleasure. But fuel 
.
But I prefer a 13 speed Fuller.
Cheers Eric,
tiptop495:
[zb]
anorak:Frankydobo:
Shouldn’t this thread be renamed ‘Biggest Ego’ !
Back to the job in hand. From this video, it looks like the AEC V8 models had the seat fixed to the cab, even in low-datum cabs. About half-way through, it shows the non-tilting plate on the floor, around the steering column (Warning- industrial language!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e59HyjNDqW8Hey Anorak,nice video is it already restored and are there pics of if, nice trailer too.Hopefully he hasn’t encountered the VOSA
But I prefer a 13 speed Fuller.Here it is fully preserved
Cheers Eric,
ramone:
[zb]
anorak:Frankydobo:
Shouldn’t this thread be renamed ‘Biggest Ego’ !
Back to the job in hand. From this video, it looks like the AEC V8 models had the seat fixed to the cab, even in low-datum cabs. About half-way through, it shows the non-tilting plate on the floor, around the steering column (Warning- industrial language!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e59HyjNDqW8Well “anorak” i
m afraid carrypest was right all along about the flawed ergo design ,which those boffins at Leyland could have solved very easily.A passenger door and rear glass and a passenger seat would have made it a whole lot better :wink: .What an awesome motor that looks i wonder why AEC never offered the Fuller instead of the standard 6 speed or the 10 speed semi auto .Ive seen the finished article it looks great
Hey Ramone,Never did AEC offered a Fuller in the UK,here we were offered the AEC,ZF or Fuller. But with a high reving V8 engine and only 6 speeds was not that I think. You had to dig it in,in low revs whereas it needed high revs to feel it as fish in the water.
Were the options tiny at Leyland ■■? Normally with other British marques you had a wide range of options or■■?
Of course they can say with less grears less changings and being the engine dig in is good,but with a high reving engine ■■?
I want agree that digging in is good but with low reving engines.
As our F88 with the 8 speed box were more powerful as the one with 16 speeds they always had to dig in before you could change, but the snag/catch was that drivers always used all the speeds and never let them work if they had time,and made the engine lazy.
Cheers Eric,
Hey Ramone, thanks for pics it looks great with a load.
Cheers Eric,
tiptop495:
Hey Ramone, thanks for pics it looks great with a load.Cheers Eric,
Ive seen it a couple of times at Newark it looks even better close up.Im not sure if he sold it a few years ago i`ve seen a mk111 mandator pulling that trailor,a ballast tractor with a dolly
That V8 certainly had some poke, the trailer looked like it had some weight on it, judging by the way the wheels folded under when he was doing that blind side reverse 
ramone:
tiptop495:
Hey Ramone, thanks for pics it looks great with a load.Cheers Eric,
I
ve seen it a couple of times at Newark it looks even better close up.Im not sure if he sold it a few years ago i`ve seen a mk111 mandator pulling that trailor,a ballast tractor with a dolly
Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 10.Page 16.TRUCKNETUK
The above AEC Mandator Tin Front MkIII:-
AEC Mandator Tin Front MKIII 4x2 Heavy Haulage Ballast Road Locomotive,YNN 724,Westfield Transport,
Mansfield. YNN 724 has the superb Park Royal Tin Front MKIII Phase 2 Cab 
- certainly a lot better looking
than an Ergomatic-cabbed AEC lorry 
:-
VALKYRIE
Did it become well known that in the 1960`s UK , you could be asked to wait two years for a Leyland , unless you would order 12 or more from the fabrik direck , and dont ask for spare parts please 
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 torally different as for SA and TMs i would take a marathon everytime
And me. I remember how different it was to have some power,speed and less bloody noise when driving a Marathon. This is from a driver who was brought up on AECs - MK3s,MK5s and tilt cabs,8-leggers and artics.Apart from dodgy brakes-which were fixed under warranty - I had no complaints about mine,it had the TL12 and the Fuller RTO9509A box and was a treat to drive. I just wonder how many on this thread have actually worked their way up through AECs and finished up with what in those days (1976)was a premium motor to me.I drove both TM3800 Bedfords and S/A 400s later,on demo, and give me the Marathon every time.
A E Evans were staunch AEC operators and I remember when the first ■■■■■■■ engine Marathon came into the depot at Barking the foreman fitter just cringed.I read on here somewhere that you couldn’t specify a Fuller box in a Mandator,well you could and it made a world of difference to the performance of the AV760 lump.W H Martin from Brigg, Lincs had at least one on steel haulage and I was very impressed when I got a lift in one when on a dodgy back to Stockport over Woodhead.
Just saying…
Chris Webb:
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 torally different as for SA and TMs i would take a marathon everytimeAnd me. I remember how different it was to have some power,speed and less bloody noise when driving a Marathon. This is from a driver who was brought up on AECs - MK3s,MK5s and tilt cabs,8-leggers and artics.Apart from dodgy brakes-which were fixed under warranty - I had no complaints about mine,it had the TL12 and the Fuller RTO9509A box and was a treat to drive. I just wonder how many on this thread have actually worked their way up through AECs and finished up with what in those days (1976)was a premium motor to me.I drove both TM3800 Bedfords and S/A 400s later,on demo, and give me the Marathon every time.
You’re saying that you’d take a TL or ■■■■■■■ powered Marathon over the 318 hp 8V71 full width sleeper version of the TM assuming you were doing at least some night out work.With those type of views I’m not surprised that the Americans walked away having tried to introduce civilisation to the Brit truck market. 
I’m guessing in that case you’d also have preferred a Marathon to an F10/12 
.Which history seems to show wasn’t the case with most drivers and eventually the Brit operators/customers.
I had a mk1 Marathon sleeper for a while, I really liked it, ■■■■■■■ 250 turbo and the 9509 fuller. It was fast, quiet, comfortable and reliable. The bed was comfortable and the interior trim quite plush for the time, in fact the only complaint I had with it was the poor brakes but I found that was the norm for most 60/70’s Leylands. Previous to this I had a Scania 110 and feared the worst when I was presented with a Marathon but to be fair it was a good motor.
Carryfast:
Chris Webb:
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 torally different as for SA and TMs i would take a marathon everytimeAnd me. I remember how different it was to have some power,speed and less bloody noise when driving a Marathon. This is from a driver who was brought up on AECs - MK3s,MK5s and tilt cabs,8-leggers and artics.Apart from dodgy brakes-which were fixed under warranty - I had no complaints about mine,it had the TL12 and the Fuller RTO9509A box and was a treat to drive. I just wonder how many on this thread have actually worked their way up through AECs and finished up with what in those days (1976)was a premium motor to me.I drove both TM3800 Bedfords and S/A 400s later,on demo, and give me the Marathon every time.
You’re saying that you’d take a TL or ■■■■■■■ powered Marathon over the 318 hp 8V71 full width sleeper version of the TM assuming you were doing at least some night out work.With those type of views I’m not surprised that the Americans walked away having tried to introduce civilisation to the Brit truck market.
I just said that after driving older AEC vehicles the Marathon was the dogs knackers for me.We didn’t have sleeper cabs,but bags of nights out,so you don’t miss what you never had.I slept in mine after putting curtains up like a lot of lads did.I only ever drove an F10 once for a shift and it was a nice comfy motor compared to an AEC MK5 but it was a one-off and I didn’t hanker after one. Basic motors always appealed to me,never was a poser,just the way I was brought up,old vehicles were part of the job CF,secondhand. It was the money that counted in the end.
Anyway,that screaming Detroit in the TM would have sent me crackers,noisy,high-revving thirsty lumps,doing about 5 mpg,just rayt for the Yanks.
Carryfast:
You’re saying that you’d take a TL or ■■■■■■■ powered Marathon over the 318 hp 8V71 full width sleeper version of the TM assuming you were doing at least some night out work.With those type of views I’m not surprised that the Americans walked away having tried to introduce civilisation to the Brit truck market.
Same old nonsense. These blokes’ opinions are based on their own experience- are you saying they are too stupid to form an opinion, based on first-hand knowledge? Same old nonsense, ignoring good advice every time. If you have spent your entire life ignoring attempts to educate you, where do you get your opinions from?
Hi all , some excellent stuff on this thread , not much has been mentioned about the gas turbine models , just wondered why Leyland bothered with it or was it because of the rover connection ?
Carryfast:
You’re saying that you’d take a TL or ■■■■■■■ powered Marathon over the 318 hp 8V71 full width sleeper version of the TM assuming you were doing at least some night out work.With those type of views I’m not surprised that the Americans walked away having tried to introduce civilisation to the Brit truck market.
Just spent an hour reading this from the start (I’m new on here) and I have come to a quick conclusion based on what I’ve read so far. This carryfast bloke is a raving nutcase!
A Detroit powered Dunstable Dustcart? Why on earth would that be relevant to a discussion about Ergomatic cabs? Not only that, they were junk and I’m not the only one who thinks that, as proven by the chaps that bought lorries, you may remember not many of them bought Bedford TMs! Not a bad lorry as it happens, but only with a 290 ■■■■■■■ under the floor!
I refer you to a road test in the much respected Truck magazine, by the even more respected Mr Pat Kennett, between a Volvo F10 and a Leyland Marathon, the Marathon soundly thrashed the Volvo. A real driver would take the Marathon, a steering wheel holder would want an F10 and a raving nutcase would take a TM with a gas guzzling, noisy, unreliable, grenade of an engine!
I am suprised that “CF” hasn’t appeared to defend the “indefensible” but if there is a Full Moon at the moment? the blokes in White coats whip him into the asylum for a day or so,but have no fear when Matron allows him out he’ll be straight on the attack,it is too good an opertunity for him,someone new on the site to shower with his “verbage” but it is too late I fear as “spreadaxle” has already got him “bang to rights” as a certified head the ball !! Oh! dear! Bewick.
Chris Webb:
Carryfast:
Chris Webb:
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 torally different as for SA and TMs i would take a marathon everytimeAnd me. I remember how different it was to have some power,speed and less bloody noise when driving a Marathon. This is from a driver who was brought up on AECs - MK3s,MK5s and tilt cabs,8-leggers and artics.Apart from dodgy brakes-which were fixed under warranty - I had no complaints about mine,it had the TL12 and the Fuller RTO9509A box and was a treat to drive. I just wonder how many on this thread have actually worked their way up through AECs and finished up with what in those days (1976)was a premium motor to me.I drove both TM3800 Bedfords and S/A 400s later,on demo, and give me the Marathon every time.
You’re saying that you’d take a TL or ■■■■■■■ powered Marathon over the 318 hp 8V71 full width sleeper version of the TM assuming you were doing at least some night out work.With those type of views I’m not surprised that the Americans walked away having tried to introduce civilisation to the Brit truck market.
I just said that after driving older AEC vehicles the Marathon was the dogs knackers for me.We didn’t have sleeper cabs,but bags of nights out,so you don’t miss what you never had.I slept in mine after putting curtains up like a lot of lads did.I only ever drove an F10 once for a shift and it was a nice comfy motor compared to an AEC MK5 but it was a one-off and I didn’t hanker after one. Basic motors always appealed to me,never was a poser,just the way I was brought up,old vehicles were part of the job CF,secondhand. It was the money that counted in the end.
Anyway,that screaming Detroit in the TM would have sent me crackers,noisy,high-revving thirsty lumps,doing about 5 mpg,just rayt for the Yanks.
Make your mind up you said that you drove both the Marathon and the TM 3800 and you preferred the Marathon. 
The bit I don’t get is you then seem to think that the 8V71 in the TM was noisy when it was just about one of the quitest motors to drive available owing to the development work done on it’s cab sound insulation.That’s even without the issue of seeming to base all your comparisons on day cabbed examples preferring nights out in a day cab anyway.
While unfortunately for me the sleeper cabbed TM 3800’s that I drove were fire trucks while I had to put up with the ■■■■■■■ engined Marathon on general haulage with occasional nights out.
As for the 8V71 9 litres, more power,at lower rpm,and a lot more reliability than AEC’s larger capacity V8.