BEST 'ERGO' ?

[zb_anorak]

gingerfold:
I have found the report written in 1971 by Leyland Truck and Bus Division planning department …

We could do with some more of these reports, from the 1950s and '60s. They would be fascinating, documenting the bad decisions that were made, to put the later managers in such a terrible situation. Most BLMC critiques focus on the 1970s, when all the earlier mistakes were bearing fruit. None of them, to my knowledge, emphasise the heroic efforts of the people grappling with the problems of the 1970s. If it were not for the selfish, destructive meddling of the union morons, I reckon they would have turned Leyland into a success.

[fredm]

VALKYRIE:

Carryfast:

[ZB]
Anorak:

Ramone:
ive just read this again and cant understand what was to consider about fitting the high datum cab ,if it helped the cooling it was a no brainer but would more AECs have been sold then ,which apparently Leyland didn`t want.Also AEC engine production transfered to Leyland and AEC producing and developing the already known to be useless, fixed head 500s .I think this report spells out what Leyland were all about

I think Leyland’s strategy is sound. The AEC engines had been in production for some time, whereas the 500 series was a new design, so they would have been looking to produce it for another 20 or 30 years, in various forms. The continuation of the AEC models would have been just to satisfy that marque’s loyal customers, during which period they could be “weaned” onto Leyland products. There was no point in spending any money updating the AEC models- the sooner the group was building a single range of vehicles, with a single parts inventory, marketing campaign and other overheads, the better. They were not to know that the 500 would eventually become a lemon.

The sad fact is AEC was in the catch 22 situation of having an engine range that had run out of development potential and no budget to move forward at the required rate,just like the rest of the Leyland Group,compared to the foreign competition it was facing .Hence the TL12’s failure in the T45.But it wouldn’t have taken a genius to have known that the 500 wasn’t fit for the purpose of it’s documented design aims.Simply because it was too small in capacity to have met the criterea of a single engine range to suit all levels of the market regardless of all it’s other production ‘issues’.AEC’s management would have known that the writing was on the wall at that point if not before.Just as Scammell had already shown and later with the T45 Leyland’s only hope was to abandon dvelopment and use of it’s in house engine production at the very least to even stand a chance of remaining competitive in the fast moving truck market.

Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 12.Page 20.TRUCKNETUK.1st May - MAYDAY

LEYLAND:UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL - BUT LEYLAND BECAME DIS-UNITED AND FELL!

The objective facts were that Leyland’s policy was not sound:It was ludicrous,callous,
commercially disasterous,arrogant,criminal and woefully wrong! It was also tragi-comical!
Leyland built a very successful motor empire,and then through,politicians,mis-management
and other circumstances,the Leyland empire was destroyed!
Because of the following lorry,bus and motorcoach marques within the Leyland empire:-
AEC.
ALBION,
ALVIS.
AVELING-BARFORD.
BMC.
BRISTOL.
DAIMLER.
GUY.
LEYLAND.
SCAMMELL.
THORNYCROFT.

,plus vans and off road motor vehicles made by:-
AUSTIN.
AUSTIN-MORRIS.
MORRIS.
LAND-ROVER.
RANGE ROVER.

,British Leyland were the market leaders in the British commercial vehicle market,and also in
certain markets abroad.But the Leyland group’s very large shares in these markets gradually
vanished,partly because of the phasing out of Leyland marques and models!!!
Leyland was united because of all of the marques,and became dis-united as the marques were criminally dropped!!! - not surprisingly Leyland’s market share dramatically dropped too!!!

A E C
Lord Donald Stokes was impressed by the marque loyalty of AEC customers,of how thousands of them
placed orders for new AEC lorries,motorcoaches,buses,etc,year after year,decade after decade,and
in fact AEC out-sold Leyland and other marques in certain sectors of the market
When the HIGHLY REVERED AEC Marque was criminally dropped ,first from lorries,then from motorcoaches and buses,very many AEC customers both at home and abroad were upset and went right
off Leyland and it’s motor vehicles and,partly out of protest,bought Scanias,Volvos,Fodens,
Mercedes-Benzs,etc,instead!!! -And it served Leyland mis-management right in every way!!!
With AEC gradually phased out,Leyland suffered a big drop in market share It was a terriable marketing disaster!
And so was the phasing out of other Leyland marques!
Other objective facts were that the AEC AV/AH 760 engine was new in 1964,and still had development potential left in it in the late 1970s-early 1980s at least,hence the successful
TL12-derived engine that was fitted in the Leyland-AEC Marathon and Leyland Roadtrain.
Leyland never sold enough TL12- engined Roadtrains,so it was phased out in 1982,even though
the Roadtrain-TL12 set new economy and earning records in 1981

As Ramone wisely said:Overall,it was a case of Leyland giving the customers what it wanted to give ,AND NOT WHAT THE CUSTOMERS REALLY WANTED :AECs,Scammells,Guys,etc .Leyland fatally lost touch with reality What Leyland mis-management did to British Leyland’s part of the British Commercial Vehicle Industry was CRIMINAL!
I’ll let the illustrious AEC marque have the last say in the form of it’s beautiful and highly revered blue,red ,white and silver triangle badge :-

VALKYRIE

just a little aside from me I dont post much but enjoy these discussions very much talking about buses god preserverse us from such sacriledge I know you do not want to hear about buses, however I drove buses for london transport for a few years in the 80s when I left I went lorry driving again but after a few months had the usual fall out with the boss (I was always a bit of a hot head when I was young) I jacked the job and to keep wages coming in I went to work for grey green coaches who had a contract for a couple of routes I had driven before this was when a lot of bus routes had been put out to private tender, I was only there for 3 weeks but did the 173 stratford to dagenham route down the a13 now on early shifts they had rubbish old leyland buses worn out and old but after 6 pm they put out new scania buses which would easily do 60 - 70 mph which was as well as the running time was very tight on the later duties, sorry to bore all you lorry boys but my point is I had driven new leyland titan buses on LT although governed to 47 mph they were not a patch on the scannies the scanias were light years ahead they had an auto box with no discernable steps in the changes, they were just like driving a car around , to me british trucks were the same as the motorbike industry who never seemed to change with the times the japs pulled the rug from under their feet , look at the maraton even the range button stuck on the gearstick looked like an after thought with the cable taped down the length of the g/stick the foreigners had a range change button in a moulded shape. its a crying shame because look at us now if you don`t want to get a good education and work in a bank what job choice have you got if you are a young boy or girl. you can all get back to your lorry tales now. fredm

[ramone]

Still the opinions differ but imho the money that was used for development was used in the wrong areas or wrong vehicles.CF states that the BL engine range wasnt a valid development option even though DAF seemed to do alright with the old 680 block,so instead of wasting all the money on the headless wonder why didnt they use it on the V8 ,also the turbo version of the AV505 never saw the light of day and im sure the TL12 could have been improved ,alas they all had a something in common AEC.I agree that the T45 cab wasnt up to much but that could have been so much different with the use of quality fittings in the cab and gearbox options which included a fuller and say a zf synchro.The cab was very similar to the Mercedes cab of the time and they didnt do too bad. There was a programme on tv a few years back, i cant remember the name ,it was something like "Designs" ,and one episode was dedicated to the development of the T45.The designers were interviewed and they were more interested in the fact that they had matched "sausage shaped" grille slats with similar markings on the dash.The cabs were very basic and the quality in materials and build just werent there even though plenty of money was thrown at this project

[carryfast]

ramone:
Still the opinions differ but imho the money that was used for development was used in the wrong areas or wrong vehicles.CF states that the BL engine range wasnt a valid development option even though DAF seemed to do alright with the old 680 block,so instead of wasting all the money on the headless wonder why didnt they use it on the V8 ,also the turbo version of the AV505 never saw the light of day and im sure the TL12 could have been improved ,alas they all had a something in common AEC.I agree that the T45 cab wasnt up to much but that could have been so much different with the use of quality fittings in the cab and gearbox options which included a fuller and say a zf synchro.The cab was very similar to the Mercedes cab of the time and they didnt do too bad. There was a programme on tv a few years back, i cant remember the name ,it was something like "Designs" ,and one episode was dedicated to the development of the T45.The designers were interviewed and they were more interested in the fact that they had matched "sausage shaped" grille slats with similar markings on the dash.The cabs were very basic and the quality in materials and build just werent there even though plenty of money was thrown at this project

Firstly a big V8/10/12 is just about the most difficult design to get right in regards to the combination of fuel consumption and torque output.It’s obvious that it’s going to take a lot of development work in turbocharger technology to get anywhere near the required levels of fuel efficiency in addition to getting the bore/stroke dimensions and overall capacity equation right to maximise specific torque output.

In which case for AEC and Leyland group trying to develop a decent V8 really was a case trying to run before they could walk,considering that they needed to get a 6 cylinder engine right to start with to compete with the Volvo F12 for example.History shows that Leyland Group didn’t even have an adequate base in the TL12 to compete at that level of output let alone trying to get the V8 idea right.Which even with today’s levels of technology most manufacturers seem to have gone away from in favour of concentrating on developments of 6 cylinder engines for those reasons.Scania have shown over the years that the V8 is a great idea but getting it right would have taken more money in development than Leyland could have found.The fact is austerity,( which is often a case of spending a pound to save a penny like blowing any development budget that the Leyland Group might have had on production of the 500 for example ),has always been this country’s big problem and it’s why British engineers have historically tried to leave the country if they can.

Which just leaves the question of exactly what really happened in the case of the 500.It’s difficult to believe that any competent engine designer would have chosen such an idea to match it’s stated design aims.It seems to have had all the signs of a German engineer having convinced Leyland’s backers,maybe in government,that something like the 500,that looked cheap on paper,was the answer to Leyland’s future development needs at all levels of the market and then having gone home to Germany laughing in hysterical disbelief that even British bankers or government officials could been stupid enough to believe it.Especially considering that he’d managed to pull the same stunt twice in view of the L60 for the Cheiftain tank.

While obviously DAF knew exactly what they wanted and what they were doing in the case of developing the 680 which ironically was originally a Leyland design not an AEC one.The question is was that level of development budget available to Leyland to do something similar with the TL12.Considering that the result was probably far enough removed from the original design by the time DAF had finished with it that it was effectively a different engine.History tells us it wasn’t.

Then to add insult to injury zb then blames British workers for all that.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

ramone:
Still the opinions differ but imho the money that was used for development was used in the wrong areas or wrong vehicles.CF states that the BL engine range wasnt a valid development option even though DAF seemed to do alright with the old 680 block,so instead of wasting all the money on the headless wonder why didnt they use it on the V8 ,also the turbo version of the AV505 never saw the light of day and im sure the TL12 could have been improved ,alas they all had a something in common AEC.I agree that the T45 cab wasnt up to much but that could have been so much different with the use of quality fittings in the cab and gearbox options which included a fuller and say a zf synchro.The cab was very similar to the Mercedes cab of the time and they didnt do too bad. There was a programme on tv a few years back, i cant remember the name ,it was something like "Designs" ,and one episode was dedicated to the development of the T45.The designers were interviewed and they were more interested in the fact that they had matched "sausage shaped" grille slats with similar markings on the dash.The cabs were very basic and the quality in materials and build just werent there even though plenty of money was thrown at this project

Firstly a big V8/10/12 is just about the most difficult design to get right in regards to the combination of fuel consumption and torque output.It’s obvious that it’s going to take a lot of development work in turbocharger technology to get anywhere near the required levels of fuel efficiency in addition to getting the bore/stroke dimensions and overall capacity equation right to maximise specific torque output.

In which case for AEC and Leyland group trying to develop a decent V8 really was a case trying to run before they could walk,considering that they needed to get a 6 cylinder engine right to start with to compete with the Volvo F12 for example.History shows that Leyland Group didn’t even have an adequate base in the TL12 to compete at that level of output let alone trying to get the V8 idea right.Which even with today’s levels of technology most manufacturers seem to have gone away from in favour of concentrating on developments of 6 cylinder engines for those reasons.Scania have shown over the years that the V8 is a great idea but getting it right would have taken more money in development than Leyland could have found.The fact is austerity,( which is often a case of spending a pound to save a penny like blowing any development budget that the Leyland Group might have had on production of the 500 for example ),has always been this country’s big problem and it’s why British engineers have historically tried to leave the country if they can.

Which just leaves the question of exactly what really happened in the case of the 500.It’s difficult to believe that any competent engine designer would have chosen such an idea to match it’s stated design aims.It seems to have had all the signs of a German engineer having convinced Leyland’s backers,maybe in government,that something like the 500,that looked cheap on paper,was the answer to Leyland’s future development needs at all levels of the market and then having gone home to Germany laughing in hysterical disbelief that even British bankers or government officials could been stupid enough to believe it.

While obviously DAF knew exactly what they wanted and what they were doing in the case of developing the 680 which ironically was originally a Leyland design not an AEC one.The question is was that level of development budget available to Leyland to do something similar with the TL12.Considering that the result was probably far enough removed from the original design by the time DAF had finished with it that it was effectively a different engine.History tells us it wasn’t.

Then to add insult to injury zb then blames British workers for all that.

The V8 was ready for relaunch in the early 70s with the problems ironed out,the best selling 16 tonner of the time (Mercury) had a new turbocharged engine but Leyland decided against it.The TL12 had a good pedigree and money wasted on other projects could have refined it.The problem as i see it was the company that owned AEC didnt want to invest in them even though they knew the AEC product was superior to anything they were producing.Right from the offset of this ill fated “merger” the attitude was us and them with little co operation from Leyland ,this reported from people who actually worked at southall

[saviem]

Evening all, well this thread is developing into areas far from a simple cab design, and ones favourite application of that cab. Just a few very personal observations, and they are personal, for I, (as I suspect most contributors here) , were not there at the time that decisions were made.

The head of a Nationalised industry is a Government appointee, and their “personal” qualities are in line with what the powers that be require of the person.Simply that , nothing else.

As I have remarked before, in a Nationalised industry, decisions regarding product, and production do not ever follow strict business reasoning. Far more “subtle” influences hold sway.

If one wears a mid 60s hat, then the design ethos of the 500 series was totally correct. Net installed weight, bhp output, overall size of the package. But why, (as ever in British engineering, refine the product at the customers expence)!!!

I think from the overall contributions to this thread , the unnamious view is that the Ergomatic cab, was in its day, the market leader.

Having operated a reasonable number of TL12s, I can only say that they were reliable, did not break down, and were good on fuel, and acceptable to the men who drove them.

When adverse remarks are made about the T45 range I can only assume that the writers have little experience of them. Mine were without exception “up to the job”, reliable, ran within budget, (actually lower operational cost than F10 Volvos on the same own account work), and despite a lower residual value at 48months, because of the lower acquisition cost, made me more money!

Oh, and the Leyland people , and Dealers I spent my money with, gave me value for each pound. And I do not forget that!

The Leyland AEC merger/takeover fascinates me no end, particularly the lack of “real” documentary information on what actually transpired. I, and no doubt all of us, are grateful to gingerfold for sharing what he knows, (probably more than all of us together)! All that I know is a little from documents that came into my possesion when I was part of the team evaluating the potential of absorbing the Willeme TG heavy haulage range designs as an add on to the Saviem lorry range in the mid 70s.

That Willeme, from the early 60s relying heavily on AEC as a major component supplier, and suffering lack of progress in stagnant French market place. Having already developed additional areas of business from the BMC lightweights introduced on the back of AEC, (as in South America), were prepared to entertain a more involved role with AEC, proffering themselves as a real European base for AECs involvement in Europe. Possesing a similar sized production facility at Nanterre to Southall, and capable of utilising one line for passenger vehicles as well as lorry production. In terms of outlets, Willeme had over 400 outlets in France, plus The Benelux, and Spain, and North Africa. Quite a catch I would have thought. Yet Leyland management still pursued the illogical tie up with Hotchkiss, a small player in the European scene, and allowed the AEC Willeme merger/takeover to die!

But lest we allow those who cheerfully denegrate the reputation of the Marathon, to dominate this thread, for in truth it was not a bad vehicle, my memory takes me back to a product meeting regarding export markets at Quai Leon Blum, in I think 1975, when to make a point I had to reveal that Leyland had sold more tractor units in France, than Saviem and Berliet had sold in the UK during the same period…so Gentlemen the Leyland product was not that bad!!!

Cheerio for now.

[ramone]

Saviem:
Evening all, well this thread is developing into areas far from a simple cab design, and ones favourite application of that cab. Just a few very personal observations, and they are personal, for I, (as I suspect most contributors here) , were not there at the time that decisions were made.

The head of a Nationalised industry is a Government appointee, and their “personal” qualities are in line with what the powers that be require of the person.Simply that , nothing else.

As I have remarked before, in a Nationalised industry, decisions regarding product, and production do not ever follow strict business reasoning. Far more “subtle” influences hold sway.

If one wears a mid 60s hat, then the design ethos of the 500 series was totally correct. Net installed weight, bhp output, overall size of the package. But why, (as ever in British engineering, refine the product at the customers expence)!!!

I think from the overall contributions to this thread , the unnamious view is that the Ergomatic cab, was in its day, the market leader.

Having operated a reasonable number of TL12s, I can only say that they were reliable, did not break down, and were good on fuel, and acceptable to the men who drove them.

When adverse remarks are made about the T45 range I can only assume that the writers have little experience of them. Mine were without exception “up to the job”, reliable, ran within budget, (actually lower operational cost than F10 Volvos on the same own account work), and despite a lower residual value at 48months, because of the lower acquisition cost, made me more money!

Oh, and the Leyland people , and Dealers I spent my money with, gave me value for each pound. And I do not forget that!

The Leyland AEC merger/takeover fascinates me no end, particularly the lack of “real” documentary information on what actually transpired. I, and no doubt all of us, are grateful to gingerfold for sharing what he knows, (probably more than all of us together)! All that I know is a little from documents that came into my possesion when I was part of the team evaluating the potential of absorbing the Willeme TG heavy haulage range designs as an add on to the Saviem lorry range in the mid 70s.

That Willeme, from the early 60s relying heavily on AEC as a major component supplier, and suffering lack of progress in stagnant French market place. Having already developed additional areas of business from the BMC lightweights introduced on the back of AEC, (as in South America), were prepared to entertain a more involved role with AEC, proffering themselves as a real European base for AECs involvement in Europe. Possesing a similar sized production facility at Nanterre to Southall, and capable of utilising one line for passenger vehicles as well as lorry production. In terms of outlets, Willeme had over 400 outlets in France, plus The Benelux, and Spain, and North Africa. Quite a catch I would have thought. Yet Leyland management still pursued the illogical tie up with Hotchkiss, a small player in the European scene, and allowed the AEC Willeme merger/takeover to die!

But lest we allow those who cheerfully denegrate the reputation of the Marathon, to dominate this thread, for in truth it was not a bad vehicle, my memory takes me back to a product meeting regarding export markets at Quai Leon Blum, in I think 1975, when to make a point I had to reveal that Leyland had sold more tractor units in France, than Saviem and Berliet had sold in the UK during the same period…so Gentlemen the Leyland product was not that bad!!!

Cheerio for now.

Regarding my thoughts on the Roadtrain and in particular the cab i thought it had quite a resemblence to the mercedes of the time but in my opinion wasnt put together as well, this was a long term project which if you compare say to a 112 or a F10 of the time didnt offer the same prestige ,maybe Leyland weren`t looking for that market but i thought it could have been better with a little more thought to what the opposition were putting out at the time.I have no doubt you could make a decent living with them but they just didnt really go far enough considering the timescale they had in developing the range .Only in my opinion but they were up there with what was left of the UK manufacturers

[zb_anorak]

Saviem:
When adverse remarks are made about the T45 range I can only assume that the writers have little experience of them. Mine were without exception “up to the job”, reliable, ran within budget, (actually lower operational cost than F10 Volvos on the same own account work), and despite a lower residual value at 48months, because of the lower acquisition cost, made me more money!
Cheerio for now.

Therein lies the rub for Leyland. They had to sell cheap. What was the difference in purchase price between an F10 and a Roadtrain, of similar specification? To bring this back to Ergos, how about the same comparison for a Marathon and an F88, or a Marathon 2 and an F10?

I have just spent a happy half hour or so reading the report that Gingerfold posted above (thanks for the email Graham. If anyone wants more detail out of the report, I will be happy to trawl through it). Here is Option 4, from the above list of things that Leyland were considering for AEC:

The fourth point in the text mentions that the easy build cab was aimed at Southern Hemisphere markets. Given that the 3VTG prototype looks a bit like an Aussie Atki, maybe this gives a clue to why the 3VTG was built- it was a try-out for this easy-build idea, so that cabs could be built on simple tools, possibly supplied by Leyland, anywhere in the world.

[carryfast]

Saviem:
If one wears a mid 60s hat, then the design ethos of the 500 series was totally correct. Net installed weight, bhp output, overall size of the package.

Where was the logic in spending loads of Leyland’s budget on an engine design of less than 9 litres to run for use in top weight trucks bearing in mind that the design criterea is documented as including the long haul uk and euro export markets.When even by the 1960’s standards something of the capacity of the AV690 was ( rightly ) considered as being needed just to provide a satisfactory engine for the Green Line Routemaster buses.

youtube.com/watch?v=2q10L2TW2CA

Bearing in mind that the idea also seems to have caused at least one of AEC’s engineers to have walked away for exactly the reasons which I’m saying,in that even AEC’s original fixed head idea,was meant to have a lot larger capacity because of the simple reason that the only way that you’ll get a reasonable output from a small capacity engine is to run it at higher speeds.Which is the last thing that’s needed for a top weight truck.In this case it seems obvious that the idea was put forward by a German engineer when development of the TL12 seemed to be an obviously superior basis for the stated design aims.The future development of which would obviously be compromised if funds were diverted into develpment and production of the 500 instead.It seems obvious that if Leyland’s in house engine development was to have the slightest chance of remaining competitive it was development of the TL12 which provided the only credible possibility of meeting all the aims required of the 500.Just to prove that both AEC’s engineers ( an my ) thinking is correct,the small capacity,highly stressed,high speed engine idea was tried by Volvo and DAF in the F7 and the 2300/2500 for top weight use.But the idea eventually failed and fell by the wayside when operators realised that it doesn’t work in the real world even in the lower weight ranges as low as 16 tonners let alone max weight trucks.

Although even in that case the question why remains,when Rolls and ■■■■■■■ could provide proven alternatives without needing any money for development of an in house engine.Which is just what history proved in the case of the Crusader and the the T45 anyway.

[newmercman]

One important thing to consider is that profits for the Truck Division at BL were consistently higher than the overall group profits during the 70s, most of the profit came from the Ergo range too.

If those profits had been reinvested in the company & not used as a cash cow for Austin, Morris, Triumph, Jaguar, Rover & MG they might just still be around today:!:

[gingerfold]

Who is this German engine designer we keep reading about?

The AEC V8 was designed by Keith Roberts at AEC

The TL12 was designed by Keith Roberts at AEC. When fitted into the Marathon at 280 bhp it forced Volvo to uprate its F88 engine from 240 bhp to 290 bhp and as a consequence Volvo suffered relibility problems with the uprated versions. The TL12 was a good engine, as Saviem says, and we operated plenty at Spillers Milling. They were powerful, reliable, and very acceptable on fuel consumption. First life running before needing overhaul was 350,000 to 400,000 miles, again very acceptable in that period and more than comparable with any other engines apart from ■■■■■■■■ The late Pat Kennett who was the authority on the trucks in service from that time really rated the TL12 engine. It was purely economics that killed the TL12, unit sales in the recession of the early 1980s when truck sales bottomed meant that it was costly to manufacture and proprietary engines fro RR and ■■■■■■■ were cheaper.

The first Rolls Royce Eagle engines were terrible, unreliable and heavy on fuel. Keith Roberts left AEC and went to RR, where he re-worked the Eagle into a good, reliable unit as fitted into the Crusader, but the early years of the engine were difficult for RR.

[zb_anorak]

gingerfold:
Who is this German engine designer we keep reading about?

He crops up in here:
mk-marketing.eu/Publications … ionM-E.pdf

The author of that report has done other work, which has been used to good effect on this forum in the past. This one, while full of apparently well-researched detail, seems a bit confused in its deductions. I will have to read it again, properly, before I am accused of the same!

As an example, on page 5, he compares the O680 Power Plus engine with the Mercedes OM355. He says that the PP was 20bhp down on its advertised power output (with no supporting data), then knocks off a notional 20bhp to convert from gross to net (8bhp would be more normal, remembering the net figures for the Gardner 180), all the while forgetting that metric hp is 1.4% smaller than imperial. This is in a comparison between a 1960 (was this when the PP was first built?) engine and one launched in 1970. European contributors to this forum may care to compare their experiences of the Power Plus to the Mercedes engines of 1960.

[gingerfold]

Thanks for the clarification Anorak. Yes, the Leyland Power-Plus engine range was introduced 1960 / 1961, and you’re, correct there is a difference between British Imperial hp ratings and metric hp ratings.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

gingerfold:
Who is this German engine designer we keep reading about?

He crops up in here:
mk-marketing.eu/Publications … ionM-E.pdf

The author of that report has done other work, which has been used to good effect on this forum in the past. This one, while full of apparently well-researched detail, seems a bit confused in its deductions. I will have to read it again, properly, before I am accused of the same!

As an example, on page 5, he compares the O680 Power Plus engine with the Mercedes OM355. He says that the PP was 20bhp down on its advertised power output (with no supporting data), then knocks off a notional 20bhp to convert from gross to net (8bhp would be more normal, remembering the net figures for the Gardner 180), all the while forgetting that metric hp is 1.4% smaller than imperial. This is in a comparison between a 1960 (was this when the PP was first built?) engine and one launched in 1970. European contributors to this forum may care to compare their experiences of the Power Plus to the Mercedes engines of 1960.

That report does seem a bit confusing zb.You just need to read between the lines and seperate the relevant bits in the form of the names of those provided as they apply to the engineers in question ( in this case Spurrier and Mueller the so called British Werner von Braun ) from some of the other stuff like his seeming obsession with different nut/bolt thread types.He seems to say that all the different thread types between Whitworth and other UK and US and Continental type thread patterns all needed different tool sizes when as far as I know bolt head and nut types just differ in either being either one of the three AF,Whitworth,or Metric from the point of view of tool requirements at least in the case of my time.

Those names can then be put together with VALKYRIES reference to the AEC engineer who walked out because of the 500 engine size issue.Then when the the 500 debacle is added to that of the L60 an accurate idea that the two issues were more than just a coincidence can be deduced for the purposes of this topic.While it seems we’ve got agreement here that if Leyland were going to stand a chance of remaining competive using in house engines it was the TL12 which was only credible product they had to do it with.That’s ‘if’ the development budget had been there to make the thing even remotely good enough to compete with something like the Volvo F12 engine.Which it obviously wasn’t and is how most of the best T45’s were fitted with a Rolls or a ■■■■■■■ not the TL12.

[valkyrie]

Fredm:

VALKYRIE:

Carryfast:

[ZB]
Anorak:

Ramone:
ive just read this again and cant understand what was to consider about fitting the high datum cab ,if it helped the cooling it was a no brainer but would more AECs have been sold then ,which apparently Leyland didn`t want.Also AEC engine production transfered to Leyland and AEC producing and developing the already known to be useless, fixed head 500s .I think this report spells out what Leyland were all about

I think Leyland’s strategy is sound. The AEC engines had been in production for some time, whereas the 500 series was a new design, so they would have been looking to produce it for another 20 or 30 years, in various forms. The continuation of the AEC models would have been just to satisfy that marque’s loyal customers, during which period they could be “weaned” onto Leyland products. There was no point in spending any money updating the AEC models- the sooner the group was building a single range of vehicles, with a single parts inventory, marketing campaign and other overheads, the better. They were not to know that the 500 would eventually become a lemon.

The sad fact is AEC was in the catch 22 situation of having an engine range that had run out of development potential and no budget to move forward at the required rate,just like the rest of the Leyland Group,compared to the foreign competition it was facing .Hence the TL12’s failure in the T45.But it wouldn’t have taken a genius to have known that the 500 wasn’t fit for the purpose of it’s documented design aims.Simply because it was too small in capacity to have met the criterea of a single engine range to suit all levels of the market regardless of all it’s other production ‘issues’.AEC’s management would have known that the writing was on the wall at that point if not before.Just as Scammell had already shown and later with the T45 Leyland’s only hope was to abandon dvelopment and use of it’s in house engine production at the very least to even stand a chance of remaining competitive in the fast moving truck market.

Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 12.Page 20.TRUCKNETUK.1st May - MAYDAY

LEYLAND:UNITED WE STAND DIVIDED WE FALL - BUT LEYLAND BECAME DIS-UNITED AND FELL!

The objective facts were that Leyland’s policy was not sound:It was ludicrous,callous,
commercially disasterous,arrogant,criminal and woefully wrong! It was also tragi-comical!
Leyland built a very successful motor empire,and then through,politicians,mis-management
and other circumstances,the Leyland empire was destroyed!
Because of the following lorry,bus and motorcoach marques within the Leyland empire:-
AEC.
ALBION,
ALVIS.
AVELING-BARFORD.
BMC.
BRISTOL.
DAIMLER.
GUY.
LEYLAND.
SCAMMELL.
THORNYCROFT.

,plus vans and off road motor vehicles made by:-
AUSTIN.
AUSTIN-MORRIS.
MORRIS.
LAND-ROVER.
RANGE ROVER.

,British Leyland were the market leaders in the British commercial vehicle market,and also in
certain markets abroad.But the Leyland group’s very large shares in these markets gradually
vanished,partly because of the phasing out of Leyland marques and models!!!
Leyland was united because of all of the marques,and became dis-united as the marques were criminally dropped!!! - not surprisingly Leyland’s market share dramatically dropped too!!!

A E C
Lord Donald Stokes was impressed by the marque loyalty of AEC customers,of how thousands of them
placed orders for new AEC lorries,motorcoaches,buses,etc,year after year,decade after decade,and
in fact AEC out-sold Leyland and other marques in certain sectors of the market
When the HIGHLY REVERED AEC Marque was criminally dropped ,first from lorries,then from motorcoaches and buses,very many AEC customers both at home and abroad were upset and went right
off Leyland and it’s motor vehicles and,partly out of protest,bought Scanias,Volvos,Fodens,
Mercedes-Benzs,etc,instead!!! -And it served Leyland mis-management right in every way!!!
With AEC gradually phased out,Leyland suffered a big drop in market share It was a terriable marketing disaster!
And so was the phasing out of other Leyland marques!
Other objective facts were that the AEC AV/AH 760 engine was new in 1964,and still had development potential left in it in the late 1970s-early 1980s at least,hence the successful
TL12-derived engine that was fitted in the Leyland-AEC Marathon and Leyland Roadtrain.
Leyland never sold enough TL12- engined Roadtrains,so it was phased out in 1982,even though
the Roadtrain-TL12 set new economy and earning records in 1981

As Ramone wisely said:Overall,it was a case of Leyland giving the customers what it wanted to give ,AND NOT WHAT THE CUSTOMERS REALLY WANTED :AECs,Scammells,Guys,etc .Leyland fatally lost touch with reality What Leyland mis-management did to British Leyland’s part of the British Commercial Vehicle Industry was CRIMINAL!
I’ll let the illustrious AEC marque have the last say in the form of it’s beautiful and highly revered blue,red ,white and silver triangle badge :-

VALKYRIE

just a little aside from me I dont post much but enjoy these discussions very much talking about buses god preserverse us from such sacriledge I know you do not want to hear about buses, however I drove buses for london transport for a few years in the 80s when I left I went lorry driving again but after a few months had the usual fall out with the boss (I was always a bit of a hot head when I was young) I jacked the job and to keep wages coming in I went to work for grey green coaches who had a contract for a couple of routes I had driven before this was when a lot of bus routes had been put out to private tender, I was only there for 3 weeks but did the 173 stratford to dagenham route down the a13 now on early shifts they had rubbish old leyland buses worn out and old but after 6 pm they put out new scania buses which would easily do 60 - 70 mph which was as well as the running time was very tight on the later duties, sorry to bore all you lorry boys but my point is I had driven new leyland titan buses on LT although governed to 47 mph they were not a patch on the scannies the scanias were light years ahead they had an auto box with no discernable steps in the changes, they were just like driving a car around , to me british trucks were the same as the motorbike industry who never seemed to change with the times the japs pulled the rug from under their feet , look at the maraton even the range button stuck on the gearstick looked like an after thought with the cable taped down the length of the g/stick the foreigners had a range change button in a moulded shape. its a crying shame because look at us now if you don`t want to get a good education and work in a bank what job choice have you got if you are a young boy or girl. you can all get back to your lorry tales now. Fredm

Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 13.Page 20.TRUCKNETUK.

MOTORCOACHES AND BUSES.

Fredm:-
If you have read some of my other posts on TRUCKNETUK I’ve got no inhibitions in writing about
motorcoaches and buses on TRUCKNETUK ,since I am a Motor Vehicle Enthusiast of motor vehicles of
all kinds and types …besides,motorcoaches and buses have a lot in common with lorries!

I do understand your preferences for Scania buses and motorcoaches compared to driving
London Transport Leyland Titan TN double decker buses and Grey Green Leyland Leopard motorcoaches,etc.For one thing,the Scanias had superior power to weight ratios than the Leylands
because they had more powerful engines than the Titans and Leopards - and the early Tiger TRs -
and also AEC Reliances.It was just the same with the Volvo B10M motorcoach:It could leave AEC
Reliance and Leyland Leopard motorcoaches standing!

MULTI MARQUE COMPANIES HAVE FAR BIGGER MARKET SHARES.

Carryfast:-
My heart has got nothing to do with it! I’m just stating real,cold,hard,sensible objective
commercial facts! General Motors,PACCAR,Daimler Benz,Volkswagen,etc,are all successful multi-marque motor vehicle manufacturers who have far bigger market shares now than they would if they only had one marque each! It was the same with Leyland,but they blew it when they dropped AEC,
Guy,Albion,etc -and this was admitted by at least THREE Leyland executives in the Truck and Bus Division!
Leyland’s calamitous and very misguided policy was,in some respects,tantamount to the German Nero Decree - Nerobefehl - Scorched Earth Policy ,which eventually proved to be the
Gotterdammerung of Leyland in it’s long drawn out death from 1974 to 2000! How delicious
it would be to see Leyland mis-management witness the long drawn out Gotterdammerung of Leyland!

THE LEYLAND AEC TL12 ENGINE WAS A VERY GOOD ENGINE.

As I’ve stated in my PART No.12 in this thread, re the Leyland TL12 “was the successful
TL12-derived engine that was fitted in the Leyland-AEC Marathon and Leyland Roadtrain.
Leyland never sold enough TL12- engined Roadtrains,so it was phased out in 1982,even though
the Roadtrain-TL12 set new economy and earning records in 1981 ”
And all these facts are also confirmed by Pat Kennett,Saviem,Gingerfold and other people

THE GERMANS ARE VERY CLEVER ENGINEERS.

I have always admired the Germans in regard to their engineering know-how,innovation,invention
and perfectionism,the Germans are very clever,precise and intelligent engineers They have
excelled in radio communications engineering,motor vehicle engineering,electrical engineering,
aerospace engineering,and so on And do not forget that a great German engineer-scientist,
Dr.Wernher Von Braun,who is one of my HEROES ,masterminded America’s highly successful space
programme,that included the Apollo men on the moon missions He is credited as being the “Father of Rocket Science”

Thus the German engineer,Dr-Ing Alfred Mueller,was Leyland’s Head of Engineering Development
from 1953 to at least the early 1960s,who,amongst other things, played a major role in the design and introducton of the highly successful rear-engined Leyland Atlantean Double Decker Omnibus

Dr.Wernher Magnus Maximilian, Freiherr Von Braun was a good looking and brilliant Aerospace engineer-scientist who masterminded America’s Space Programme and Moon Landings He also obviously converted millions of Americans in to the joys of space travel and space exploration via the
Walt Disney Organanisation and nationwide television programmes :Walt Disney is on the left,and
the great Wernher Von Braun is on the right :-

And Wernher and his very impressive,fascinating and mighty Saturn V Multistage Spaceship-Rocket used for the Apollo Moon Landings Programme:-

[ZB] Anorak:-

LEYLAND 500-SERIES FIXEDHEAD HEADLESS WONDER DIESEL ENGINE.

I too have read the following report:-
mk-marketing.eu/Publications … ionM-E.pdf

But Michael Knowles seems to be obsessed with feet,inches,fractions,meters,centimeters,milimeters,
fixings and fastenings in the British Commercial Vehicle Industry,and has had several articles
published on this overall subject,namely The Metrication of the British Commercial Vehicle Industry,
in various publications,including the HISTORIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SOCIETY’S Historic Commercial
Magazine.
Some of what he says in this report is wrong.For example,as I said in my PART No. 10 of this thread:-
“The Leyland Group had cylinder head gasket problems with some of it’s AEC and Leyland
engines,but,although these blown gasket problems were largely cured,it was our old friend
Dr.Albert Fogg that came up with the idea of using a fixed cylinder head for the new engine range”.
So it wasn’t Dr.Mueller’s idea.

I also said in PART 10 "At a critical stage,the decision was made to reduce the cubic capacity down to 8.2 litres -500 cid ,one of the reasons was to get the engine’s weight down below 1000 kg.Leyland wanted to offer a better power to weight ratio - the 700-Series was too heavy.Because of this interference from Leyland management in regard to the engine capacity ,the development engineer walked out!!!

I have since found out that the engineer who walked out of Leyland was none other than Dr.Alfred
D.Fogg!

AEC SUPER MANDATOR V8 3VTG CONCEPT-PROJECT-PROTOTYPE 6x4 TRACTIVE UNIT.

Albert Fogg’s AEC Super Mandator V8 3VTG High Tower 6x4 Tractive Unit,which looked like a Peterbilt High Tower COE,and was also in the same idiom as an Australian Atkinson High Tower COE,
was designed for better engine cooling,better driver comfort and high power for long distance
heavy duty freight trunking,and would have been for sale in British,European,Australian,New Zealand and other markets - as I said my PART 4:AEC and Albert Fogg were wisely doing a Volvo F88-F89!

VALKYRIE

[carryfast]

VALKYRIE:
MULTI MARQUE COMPANIES HAVE FAR BIGGER MARKET SHARES.

Carryfast:-
My heart has got nothing to do with it! I’m just stating real,cold,hard,sensible objective
commercial facts! General Motors,PACCAR,Daimler Benz,Volkswagen,etc,are all successful multi-marque motor vehicle manufacturers who have far bigger market shares now than they would if they only had one marque each! It was the same with Leyland,but they blew it when they dropped AEC,
Guy,Albion,etc -and this was admitted by at least THREE Leyland executives in the Truck and Bus Division!
Leyland’s calamitous and very misguided policy was,in some respects,tantamount to the German Nero Decree - Nerobefehl - Scorched Earth Policy

THE LEYLAND AEC TL12 ENGINE WAS A VERY GOOD ENGINE.

As I’ve stated in my PART No.12 in this thread, re the Leyland TL12 “was the successful
TL12-derived engine that was fitted in the Leyland-AEC Marathon and Leyland Roadtrain.
Leyland never sold enough TL12- engined Roadtrains,so it was phased out in 1982,even though
the Roadtrain-TL12 set new economy and earning records in 1981 ”
And all these facts are also confirmed by Pat Kennett,Saviem,Gingerfold and other people

THE GERMANS ARE VERY CLEVER ENGINEERS.

I have always admired the Germans in regard to their engineering know-how,innovation,invention
and perfectionism,the Germans are very clever,precise and intelligent engineers They have
excelled in radio communications engineering,motor vehicle engineering,electrical engineering,
aerospace engineering,and so on And do not forget that a great German engineer-scientist,
Dr.Wernher Von Braun,who is one of my heros,masterminded America’s highly successful space
programme,that included the Apollo men on the moon missions He is credited as being the “Father of Rocket Science”

Thus the German engineer,Dr-Ing Alfred Mueller,was Leyland’s Head of Engineering Development
from 1953 to at least the early 1960s,who,amongst other things, played a major role in the design and introducton of the highly successful rear-engined Leyland Atlantean Double Decker Omnibus

Dr.Wernher Magnus Maximilian, Freiherr Von Braun was a good looking and brilliant Aerospace engineer-scientist who masterminded America’s Space Programme and Moon Landings:D He also obviously converted millions of Americans in to the joys of space travel and exploration via the
Walt Disney Organanisation and nationwaide television programmes :Walt Disney is on the left,and
the great Wernher Von Braun is on the right :-

And Wernher with his very impressive,fascinating and mighty Saturn V Multistage Spaceship-Rocket used for the Apollo Moon Landings Programme:-

[ZB] Anorak:-

LEYLAND 500-SERIES FIXEDHEAD HEADLESS WONDER DIESEL ENGINE.

I too have read the following report:-
mk-marketing.eu/Publications … ionM-E.pdf

But Michael Knowles seems to be obessed with feet,inches,fractions,meters,centimeters,milimeters,
fixings and fastenings in the British Commercial Vehicle Industry,and has had several articles
published on this overall subject,namely The Metrication of British Commercial Vehicle Industry,
in various publications,including the HISTORIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SOCIETY’S Historic Commercial
Magazine.
Some of what he says in this report is wrong.For example,as I said in my PART No. 10 of this thread:-
“The Leyland Group had cylinder head gasket problems with some of it’s AEC and Leyland
engines,but,although these blown gasket problems were largely cured,it was our old friend
Dr.Albert Fogg that came up with the idea of using a fixed cylinder head for the new engine range”.
So it wasn’t Dr.Mueller’s idea.

I also said in PART 10 "At a critical stage,the decision was made to reduce the cubic capacity down to 8.2 litres -500 cid ,one of the reasons was to get the engine’s weight down below 1000 kg.Leyland wanted to offer a better power to weight ratio - the 700-Series was too heavy.Because of this interference from Leyland management in regard to the engine capacity ,the development engineer walked out!!!

I have since found out that the engineer who walked out of Leyland was none other than Dr.Alfred
D.Fogg!

AEC SUPER MANDATOR V8 3VTG CONCEPT-PROJECT-PROTOTYPE 6x4 TRACTIVE UNIT.

Albert Fogg’s AEC Super Mandator V8 3VTG High Tower 6x4 Tractive Unit,which looked like a Peterbilt High Tower COE,and was also in the same idiom as an Australian Atkinson High Tower COE,
was designed for better engine cooling,better driver comfort and high power for long distance
heavy duty freight trunking,and would have been for sale in British,European,Australian,New Zealand other markets - as I said my PART 4:AEC and Albert Fogg were wisely doing a Volvo F88-F89!

VALKYRIE

Firstly I think we agree on a lot of the issues concerning what it takes to make a successful product.But.I think we disagree on the best way to get to that result and few of other details.Firstly as we agree the Brits in general were well behind in the horsepower race v their rivals and by horsepower I’m talking about ‘reliable’ high torque outputs combined with good fuel efficiency.It seems obvious that the TL12 as developed for the T45 was nowhere near good enough in regard to it’s output levels although maybe the reliabilty and fuel consumption part of the equation was acceptable.Hence the use of Rolls and ■■■■■■■ products in the Crusader and the T45.The 500 was obviously not up to it’s design aims from day 1 in view of it’s capacity and therefore lack of high enough torque output regardless of all it’s other issues which eventually came to light.

Which just leaves the question of the part played in all this by the ‘British answer to Wernher von Braun’ in Dr Mueller.As you say the Germans are no idiots but in general history shows that anything ze Germans can do ze Englanders can do better.Hence the reason why the Centurion tank had a better V12 petrol engine based on the Merlin than the absolute dog of an engine which was put into the Cheiftain which was based on a German aircraft diesel engine. The debacles concerning both the too small to be credible 500 and the unreliable L60 ( which of course cost Leyland loads a money in trying to fix their problems ) seem to be more than just a coincidence and seem to have Dr Muellers dodgy German paw prints all over them.While it’s no surprise that the MOD then went to Rolls Royce again to make sure that a decent British Rolls V12 diesel engine went into both the Challenger tank and the transporter needed top shift it around. .Keeping to that theme yes ze Germans did come up with the idea of the V2 rocket but it took ethnic British Americans helped by more than a few ex pat British aircraft workers to then turn that into the Saturn 5.

Having said all that it’s obvious that the German truck manufacturing industry would have benefitted to some extent by having a weakened Leyland truck empire.Which just leaves the question as to wether Dr Mueller actually knew exactly what he was doing by sorting out both the too small 500 ( bearing in mind that the idea of producing it in 500 ci capacity seems to have been Dr Mueller’s idea ) for Leyland’s heavy long haul truck range and the already known to be a problem Jumo aircraft diesel for Leyland’s MOD tank orders.While not forgetting that the ultimate heads of the Leyland Group would have been some high up leaders in the Brit government and a few bankers who knew absolutely zb all about what it takes to put a decent truck together.

[fredm]

Carryfast:

VALKYRIE:
MULTI MARQUE COMPANIES HAVE FAR BIGGER MARKET SHARES.

Carryfast:-
My heart has got nothing to do with it! I’m just stating real,cold,hard,sensible objective
commercial facts! General Motors,PACCAR,Daimler Benz,Volkswagen,etc,are all successful multi-marque motor vehicle manufacturers who have far bigger market shares now than they would if they only had one marque each! It was the same with Leyland,but they blew it when they dropped AEC,
Guy,Albion,etc -and this was admitted by at least THREE Leyland executives in the Truck and Bus Division!
Leyland’s calamitous and very misguided policy was,in some respects,tantamount to the German Nero Decree - Nerobefehl - Scorched Earth Policy

THE LEYLAND AEC TL12 ENGINE WAS A VERY GOOD ENGINE.
This is of course the ■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ whose v2 rocket killed a lot of people including some of my ancestors, fredm
As I’ve stated in my PART No.12 in this thread, re the Leyland TL12 “was the successful
TL12-derived engine that was fitted in the Leyland-AEC Marathon and Leyland Roadtrain.
Leyland never sold enough TL12- engined Roadtrains,so it was phased out in 1982,even though
the Roadtrain-TL12 set new economy and earning records in 1981 ”
And all these facts are also confirmed by Pat Kennett,Saviem,Gingerfold and other people

THE GERMANS ARE VERY CLEVER ENGINEERS.

I have always admired the Germans in regard to their engineering know-how,innovation,invention
and perfectionism,the Germans are very clever,precise and intelligent engineers They have
excelled in radio communications engineering,motor vehicle engineering,electrical engineering,
aerospace engineering,and so on And do not forget that a great German engineer-scientist,
Dr.Wernher Von Braun,who is one of my heros,masterminded America’s highly successful space
programme,that included the Apollo men on the moon missions He is credited as being the “Father of Rocket Science”

Thus the German engineer,Dr-Ing Alfred Mueller,was Leyland’s Head of Engineering Development
from 1953 to at least the early 1960s,who,amongst other things, played a major role in the design and introducton of the highly successful rear-engined Leyland Atlantean Double Decker Omnibus

Dr.Wernher Magnus Maximilian, Freiherr Von Braun was a good looking and brilliant Aerospace engineer-scientist who masterminded America’s Space Programme and Moon Landings:D He also obviously converted millions of Americans in to the joys of space travel and exploration via the
Walt Disney Organanisation and nationwaide television programmes :Walt Disney is on the left,and
the great Wernher Von Braun is on the right :-

And Wernher with his very impressive,fascinating and mighty Saturn V Multistage Spaceship-Rocket used for the Apollo Moon Landings Programme:-

[ZB] Anorak:-

LEYLAND 500-SERIES FIXEDHEAD HEADLESS WONDER DIESEL ENGINE.

I too have read the following report:-
mk-marketing.eu/Publications … ionM-E.pdf

But Michael Knowles seems to be obessed with feet,inches,fractions,meters,centimeters,milimeters,
fixings and fastenings in the British Commercial Vehicle Industry,and has had several articles
published on this overall subject,namely The Metrication of British Commercial Vehicle Industry,
in various publications,including the HISTORIC COMMERCIAL VEHICLE SOCIETY’S Historic Commercial
Magazine.
Some of what he says in this report is wrong.For example,as I said in my PART No. 10 of this thread:-
“The Leyland Group had cylinder head gasket problems with some of it’s AEC and Leyland
engines,but,although these blown gasket problems were largely cured,it was our old friend
Dr.Albert Fogg that came up with the idea of using a fixed cylinder head for the new engine range”.
So it wasn’t Dr.Mueller’s idea.

I also said in PART 10 "At a critical stage,the decision was made to reduce the cubic capacity down to 8.2 litres -500 cid ,one of the reasons was to get the engine’s weight down below 1000 kg.Leyland wanted to offer a better power to weight ratio - the 700-Series was too heavy.Because of this interference from Leyland management in regard to the engine capacity ,the development engineer walked out!!!

I have since found out that the engineer who walked out of Leyland was none other than Dr.Alfred
D.Fogg!

AEC SUPER MANDATOR V8 3VTG CONCEPT-PROJECT-PROTOTYPE 6x4 TRACTIVE UNIT.

Albert Fogg’s AEC Super Mandator V8 3VTG High Tower 6x4 Tractive Unit,which looked like a Peterbilt High Tower COE,and was also in the same idiom as an Australian Atkinson High Tower COE,
was designed for better engine cooling,better driver comfort and high power for long distance
heavy duty freight trunking,and would have been for sale in British,European,Australian,New Zealand other markets - as I said my PART 4:AEC and Albert Fogg were wisely doing a Volvo F88-F89!

VALKYRIE

Firstly I think we agree on a lot of the issues concerning what it takes to make a successful product.But.I think we disagree on the best way to get to that result and few of other details.Firstly as we agree the Brits in general were well behind in the horsepower race v their rivals and by horsepower I’m talking about ‘reliable’ high high torque outputs combined with good fuel efficiency.It seems obvious that the TL12 as developed for the T45 was nowhere near good enough in regard to it’s output levels although maybe the reliabilty and fuel consumption part of the equation was acceptable.Hence the use of Rolls and ■■■■■■■ products in the Crusader and the T45.The 500 was obviously not up to it’s design aims from day 1 in view of it’s capacity and therefore lack of high enough torque output regardless of all it’s other issues which eventually came to light.

Which just leaves the question of the part played in all this by the ‘British answer to Wernher von Braun’ in Dr Mueller.As you say the Germans are no idiots but in general history shows that anything ze Germans can do ze Englanders can do better.Hence the reason why the Centurion tank had a better V12 petrol engine based on the Merlin than the absolute dog of an engine which was put into the Cheiftain which was based on a German aircraft diesel engine. The debacles concerning both the too small to be credible 500 and the unreliable L60 ( which of course cost Leyland loads a money in trying to fix their problems ) seem to be more than just a coincidence and seem to have Dr Muellers dodgy German paw prints all over them.While it’s no surprise that the MOD then went to Rolls Royce again to make sure that a decent British Rolls V12 diesel engine went into both the Challenger tank and the transporter needed top shift it around. .Keeping to that theme yes ze Germans did come up with the idea of the V2 rocket but it took ethnic British Americans helped by more than a few ex pat British aircraft workers to then turn that into the Saturn 5.

Having said all that it’s obvious that the German truck manufacturing industry would have benefitted to some extent by having a weakened Leyland truck empire.Which just leaves the question as to wether Dr Mueller actually knew exactly what he was doing by sorting out both the too small 500 ( bearing in mind that the idea of producing it in 500 ci capacity seems to have been Dr Mueller’s idea ) for Leyland’s heavy long haul truck range and the already known to be a problem Jumo aircraft diesel for Leyland’s MOD tank orders.While not forgetting that the ultimate heads of the Leyland Group would have been some high up leaders in the Brit government and a few bankers who knew abslutely zb all about what it takes to put a decent truck together.

[ramone]

Do i sense a hint of backtracking from someone who earlier on here and other threads had no good words for the TL12 ■■?

[tiptop495]

Hey, An AEC,Leyland baged??, Natural has always driven AEC’s, so it must be a late one, or a V8 ■■?. Do you see an engine hump■■?
Who knows more.
Compare with the mid-class Merc it is not much higher.

Bye Eric,

[carryfast]

ramone:
Do i sense a hint of backtracking from someone who earlier on here and other threads had no good words for the TL12 ■■?

No I think if you check back through all my posts on different topics I’ve consistently said that the TL12 was the best of a bad bunch but just not capable of being developed to the required output levels to remain competitive against Leyland’s rivals at least without a lot more money being spent on development than the Leyland Group could have found.Wether that still would have been the case without the money wasted on the 500,L60,and fixing the ERGO cab’s driver injury and engine cooking abilities is another matter.As I’ve said I think the Rolls powered Crusader and then the Rolls and ■■■■■■■ engined T45 were about the best that could be expected in view of the financial resources that the Leyland Group had available to it.

While even if AEC had remained independent it’s difficult to see how anything would have really changed in that regard.By the way this is one of my previous posts concerning a different discussion concerning the 3 VTG.As I’ve said I think that a merged Scammell and AEC using the 3 VTG as a quick replacement for the Crusader ‘might’ have been more successful for the British truck manufacturing industry than bothering with the Marathon and the T45.Which still leaves the question of the no brainer decision between using outsourced 300 HP + ■■■■■■■ and Rolls options to power it instead of trying to develop the TL12 to the required levels of power output to at least be competitive with those options let alone something like the F12.

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=71451&p=914250&hilit=TL12#p914220

However one of the most interesting findings in this topic seems to be the link found between Leyland’s German engineering ‘advisor’ and both the 500 and L60 engine ideas both of which were very costly ‘mistakes’ for the Leyland Truck Group that seem to be more than a coincidence.Then added to that seems to be the design flaws contained in the ERGO cab.With the Leyland Group’s workforce being used as a scapegoat to cover up for the political and financial elite who were really pulling the strings at Leyland in the case of starving it of investment while at the same time employing a German engineering ‘advisor’ who seems to have cost Leyland much of the small amount of investment that it actually had.