BEST 'ERGO' ?

[tiptop495]

bma.finland:
0
this is the best ergo i got, cheers benkku

hey, nice drawing Benkuu,but the bulky fueltanker should suit better at the time our norm for 33.000 liter capacity which makes 42 tons TT at a time of 38TT law was a good load. Then pulled with 220-270HP on a tandem trailer now inconceivable. You were luky if you had a 16 speed in your F88 but with the 8speed, or a 10 speed Scania it was changing and waiting to gain speed. And don’t think of a disguised gradients. All drivers nowadays who know the Brussels Ostend motorway will never believe it.And don’t mention some years before they carried only a few tons less with only 150-165HP.

Cheers Eric,

[tiptop495]

Hey, capacity or turbo,The high volume engine had in those days more low revs power,but with only a few speeds you were most in the high revs ans so was the turbo the faster with only a few HP more. but with other turbos which took in earlier they got low torque as the high capacity engines.
For very hard work I think the volume is the best but■■? nowadays they use air suspension on off road too so what■■?
A turbo engine has the adantage of lower fuel consumption and lower emission norms so more better with intercooler too.
A high volume has always a higher fuel consumption,but you need capacity; Look nowadays they go slowly step by step higher in capacity so not to increase much the fuel consumption for higher power outputs, because turbos have there ends too.
And reliability has not much to do with it, if the engine is developed for a turbo,look at Volvo’s F86 even with 38 tons was it reliable.
Of course other couldn’t as Scania’s 8 liter even the 92/93 was weak with 40 tons .And the DP 680 had only volume without turbo and was it reliable no, we had them in the Daf’s 2600. End after launch of Daf’s engine could everyone with a DP have a Daf engine for a low price to satisfy customers after there headaches with the DP.

Bye Eric,

[carryfast]

ramone:

kr79:
You recon he was a secret agent for mercedes and man to weaken the british truck builders.

Ha ha mission accomplished

^ That seems the only possible explanation to me unless he was just plain stupid.( Unlikely ).But obviously all those with more sense at AEC had seen through the dastardly German master plan but couldn’t do anything about it because of the politicians and bankers who ran the show and who ze Germans knew would finish ze job for zem.

All of which seems to sum up everything about the way that ze Germans lost the war but won the peace in the post war years.While it was no surprise that the politicians and bankers then used the British workforce as a scapegoat to blame for it all.

[gingerfold]

Only this morning I observed two cyclists pedalling up the very long hill near where I live. The young lady was pedalling furiously but making very little headway. Her more powerful male companion was pedalling much more slowly but easily keeping up with the lady. An engine is exactly the same. Small capacity equals a lot more work to achieve what a bigger engine can do. So, Carryfast is correct.

Back in the 60’s there was a fashion for ‘oversquare’ engines in relation to bore/stroke dimensions. then we get into the realms of relative piston speeds and I don’t think we want to go there…

[carryfast]

tiptop495:
Hey, capacity or turbo,The high volume engine had in those days more low revs power,but with only a few speeds you were most in the high revs ans so was the turbo the faster with only a few HP more. but with other turbos which took in earlier they got low torque as the high capacity engines.
For very hard work I think the volume is the best but■■? nowadays they use air suspension on off road too so what■■?
A turbo engine has the adantage of lower fuel consumption and lower emission norms so more better with intercooler too.
A high volume has always a higher fuel consumption,but you need capacity; Look nowadays they go slowly step by step higher in capacity so not to increase much the fuel consumption for higher power outputs, because turbos have there ends too.
And reliability has not much to do with it, if the engine is developed for a turbo,look at Volvo’s F86 even with 38 tons was it reliable.
Of course other couldn’t as Scania’s 8 liter even the 92/93 was weak with 40 tons .And the DP 680 had only volume without turbo and was it reliable no, we had them in the Daf’s 2600. End after launch of Daf’s engine could everyone with a DP have a Daf engine for a low price to satisfy customers after there headaches with the DP.

Bye Eric,

The important bit is that the 680 ‘eventually’ proved that a ‘good’ big engine will always beat a ‘good’ small engine when DAF ‘eventually’ realised the level of development needed to make the 680 fit for the new age in long haul transport running at relatively higher weights and speeds than those envisaged by the 680’s designers.In which case the F86 ( or F7 ) or even the DAF 2300/2500 didn’t stand a chance against the 3300 which of course took the F12 to beat it.

Although having said that the fact that the 680 had seemed to perform reliably enough in the colonial markets pulling roadtrains around obviously gave DAF’s engineers a clue that the thing was worth spending time,effort and money on as a basis and start point for what turned out to be one the main competitors against the German and Scandinavian onslaught.

[lilladan]

OK Gingerbread , the man is strong and lady struggel , but they both only want to make the same miles this day ! the big man eats more and the lady less , for SAME WORK DONE , its the same wid engine , but operator pays fuel , and more for the big man ,both for fuel and to put on road , and the worlds best truck Volvo has a engine TODAY pulling 60 ton in Sweden with THE SAME LITER OR LESS THAN A N F86 PER TON at 30 tons , RELATIVLY INTE STOR, NOT BIG per ton , but efficient , AEC Mandator had 12.49 liter big torque ALL WASTED BY CRAP TRANSMISSION, Leyland had good match wid fuller rangs change , getting back to yard 30 mins early does not giv ONE MORE LOAD .

[lilladan]

PS todays transport could not have been seen in 1965

[carryfast]

Lilladan:
OK Gingerbread , the man is strong and lady struggel , but they both only want to make the same miles this day ! the big man eats more and the lady less , for SAME WORK DONE , its the same wid engine , but operator pays fuel , and more for the big man ,both for fuel and to put on road , and the worlds best truck Volvo has a engine TODAY pulling 60 ton in Sweden with THE SAME LITER OR LESS THAN A N F86 PER TON at 30 tons , RELATIVLY INTE STOR, NOT BIG per ton , but efficient , AEC Mandator had 12.49 liter big torque ALL WASTED BY CRAP TRANSMISSION, Leyland had good match wid fuller rangs change , getting back to yard 30 mins early does not giv ONE MORE LOAD .

Blimey you need to try to get your head around basic maths and try to understand the meaning of torque and the effect which that has on fuel consumption and the fact that to get high specific torque outputs you need to optimise bore/stroke measurements and overall capacity.The fact is you’d need almost 5 F86 engines to make the same amount of torque as a modern F16 and a lot of the reason for that can be put down to the larger bore and stroke dimensions of each of the 6 cylinders of the F16 compared to those of the F86 motor.In other words those 5 lady cyclists are going to eat a lot more at the end of the day to move the same amount of weight over the same distance at the same speed.

[newmercman]

There’s no substitute for cubic inches

[crowbar]

As seen at Heathersgill show yesterday
crowbar

[chris_webb]

crowbar:
0
As seen at Heathersgill show yesterday
crowbar

Nice picture Crowbar,I’d take that Mandator out any time.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
There’s no substitute for cubic inches

Some say that’s exactly what Dr Fogg said about the 500 engine as he slammed the door behind him and walked away.

Which just leaves the question of the possible real reasons behind the idea of going back to the fixed head idea.What if it had nothing whatsoever to do with cooling issues at all bearing in mind that head gaskets blowing through cooling issues are a symptom not a cause so logically an overheating issue can’t be cured by getting rid of the head gasket by use of a fixed head engine design.

It would though have possibly been a logical idea to at least circumvent the issues of the head to block joint issues in the case of wanting to use high boost levels but being stopped by the limitations of gasket and head clamping designs of the time which were based on the previous generation demands of naturally aspirated engine design.Thereby removing that issue to start with so allowing concentration on making the rest of the componentry strong enough.While as modern engine design proves the best way of making use of relatively high boost pressures is to then make sure that the engine capacity equation is set high enough to make best use of it.

[lilladan]

Carry , you compare Volvo 409 cu ins TD70 of 1965 developed from VDA of 1940s , wid the TD160 16 liter ? overhead Cam , unit injectors , intercooling ect ect , fact is the 90 ton logger FH16 does not have a big engine for that weight as a 12 liter ■■■■■■■■ that gave 174 BHP (called 180) , as was current wid F86 , Magirus Deutz had a V10 14 Liter and gave 230 BHP , some found FIVE MILES PER GALLON , F86 could do TEN for a gallon , small engine working hard , harf the fuel and a longer life , and all back at the same time , not all Swedish 60 tonners are 16 Liter , many are 12 ! , the small engines did not fail , but speeds and weights went up and up , so a two axel solo truck now has 250 or so horse , hav all your figures ,specs , what mattered was the job was done and how much to fill upp the tank

[valkyrie]

Carryfast:

VALKYRIE:
Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 16.Page 22.TRUCKNETUK

LEYLAND 500-SERIES - LEYLAND 700-SERIES FIXEDHEAD HEADLESS WONDER DIESEL ENGINES.

[zb]Anorak.

I’ll quote some of what I said in the following posts,VALKYRIE:-
1.
"Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 10.Page 19.TRUCKNETUK

THE LEYLAND 500-SERIES ENGINE WAS ORIGINALLY PLANNED TO BE THE LEYLAND 700-SERIES ENGINE.

The new engine had an overhead camshaft from the start,very durable Stellite valves and was
to be produced as an 11.4-litre - 700 cubic inch displacement engine with slim and compact
dimensions - several prototypes were built.
At a critical stage,the decision was made to reduce the cubic capacity down to 8.2 litres -
500 cid ,

DR ALBERT D.FOGG MUST HAVE HAD ENOUGH OF THE MAD AND INCOMPETENT WAYS AND POLICIES OF BRITISH LEYLAND MIS-MANAGEMENT!
BRITISH LEYLAND WAS A MADHOUSE!

So obviously,Leyland had planned the 700-Series to,maybe,replace the 0.680 engine,but jumped on the Volvo and Scania small capacity engine bandwagon by turning it in to the reduced capacity
500-Series
But why didn’t Leyland produce the engine in two model-sizes? :The 500-Series and 700-Series
But Leyland Truck and Bus was starved of money ,so Leyland,although it had a new 8.2-litre
engine,it seriously lacked a brand new 11-12-litre engine ,which should have been the 700-Series,

VALKYRIE

That description of the possible arguments,which took place between AEC and Leyland,concerning the 500 ci headless engine v the 700 ci one,seems to miss the documented reports that the Leyland 500 engine project ( as opposed to the AEC 700 project ) seems to have been on the drawing board at Leyland under the direction of Spurrier and Mueller ‘before’ the appointment of Dr Fogg at AEC .

In which case the two ideas,although sharing the fixed head idea,were in all other respects different designs from different designers with the Leyland 500 engine idea ‘pre dating’ the AEC 700 one.IE The Leyland 500 engine was reportedly attributable to Spurrier and Mueller sometime before 1964 ( by all accounts 1960 ) whereas the AEC 700 fixed head was attributable to Dr Fogg obviously after his appointment at AEC .

In which case that can only mean that what followed was an argument between Leyland’s management and AEC’s management concerning ‘which’,of the ‘two’ ‘different’ types,of fixed head engine,should be used and according to the documented report must have been around 1966 when the Leyland 500 design idea was reportedly ‘re introduced’ ‘after’ it’s apparent ‘stalling’/interruption owing to Spurrier’s demise.

Which,of course,would have meant that the argument wasn’t about ‘reducing’ the size of the 700 at all.It was actually more a case of wether to use the larger AEC design of Dr Fogg’s ‘or’ the ‘different’ smaller design of Spurrier and Mueller. That version of events fits in with my view that this was an act of incompetence at best,or industrial vandalism at worst,by Mueller,who was reportedly advising Spurrier.Which Leyland’s management then stupidly later nodded through because it seemed like a cheaper alternative to the bean counters than developing and producing Dr Fogg’s larger 700 idea .Which assuming it was an act of industrial vandalism would probably habe been the outcome which Mueller was betting on when he advised Spurrier to go for such a stupidly small engine size to meet such a large design criterea.Added to which seems to be the other Leyland engine debacle concerning the L60 military order which again is documented as being another of Leyland’s engine designs with Mueller’s involvement.All of which seems more than just a co incidence.

Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 17.Page 22.TRUCKNETUK

VALKYRIE replies to Carryfast.

LEYLAND 700-SERIES AND LEYLAND 500-SERIES WERE ONE AND THE SAME DIESEL ENGINE.

POST 13,Some of what I wrote:-
“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.”

POST 14,Some of what I wrote:-
"LEYLAND 500-SERIES FIXEDHEAD HEADLESS WONDER DIESEL ENGINE - DR.ALBERT D.FOGG’S IDEA AND PROJECT.

Carryfast.

With respect,if you carefully read my Post No.10 and Post No.13 I actually state that,to avoid cylinder head gasket problems in the new 700-Series -11.4-litre diesel engine,Dr.Albert D.Fogg,Leyland’s Director of Engineering,strongly favoured a fixed cylinder head for this new engine
Doug Jack,who worked for Leyland as a legal advisor and later became the Secretary of the Truck
and Bus Division,and who has written several books on Leyland motorcoaches and buses,has stated
that the fixedhead engine was Albert Fogg’s idea as was the 700 CID-11.4-litre capacity.
Albert Fogg joined Leyland in 1964,and became a board member in 1965,Dr-Ing Alfred Mueller left
Leyland in the early 1960s and had nothing to do with the 700-Series engine.Albert Fogg developed
this engine,and when the Leyland marketing men called for the engine to be reduced in capacity
to 8.2-litres because supposedly it was too heavy and too physically large,and had to weigh less
than 1000 Kgs ,Albert Fogg walked out of Leyland! He must have known that a 500 CID engine was just too small and was not fit for purpose to work in 32 ton GTW lorries
I also state in Part 10 that this sudden reduction in engine capacity resulted in quality control
problems in the production of these engines "

Gingerfold wrote:-
“Thanks for the link. I will read it over the weekend. All I will say if it is by Mike Knowles…, well,this man is well known in certain circles for opinions and views that are eccentric to say the least.”

Gingerfold also later wrote:-

Gingerfold » Sat May 04, 2013 6:43 am

"We do go off on some weird and wonderful tangents on these threads.

So if you will please indulge me, I managed to wade through Michael Knowles’ waffle of a report last night and would make the following observations.

1. Spurrier had no involvemement in the day-to-day management of Leyland Motors in the days when the 500 series engine was being planned and developed.
   2.The report’s author claims to have been Donald Stokes’ personal assistant…enough said.
2. He makes no mention of AEC who designed the V8 as a “metric engine” some time before the 500 engine even got onto the drawing boards at Leyland. AEC later re-designed the V8 as an “imperial” engine.
3. I can demolish Michael Knowles’ obsessive ramblings about metrication very easily, but I really cannot be bothered. Anyone with any common sense can work out that what he has written is nonsense."UNQUOTE.

Therefore,at least some of what Michael Knowles writes in regard to the Leyland 500-Series Engine,etc,is suspect,as is,in some respects,his pet subject:The Metrication of the British Commercial Vehicle Industry - for one thing,from memory,I think he blames the downfall of the
British Commercial Vehicle Industry on it’s failure to fully adopt metrication! And Meccano
Enthusiast Mr.Knowles has had several articles published on this subject,some of them have been turned down and has apparently made a nuisance of himself in at least some quarters

"AND IT DIDN’T WORK IN’T BLOODAY BENTLEY NEITHER! " - A LEYLAND EMPLOYEE REFFERING TO THE LEYLAND 500-SERIES DIESEL ENGINE.

As I’ve said in this post and earlier posts,it was Albert Fogg’s idea for the Leyland 700-Series
Engine,which later became the downsized 500-Series Engine,which was purely a Leyland design
intended for Leyland marque vehicles,Bristol buses,etc,but not AEC models
The Bentley fixed cylinder head motorcar engine of the 1920s strongly inspired Albert to come out
with the Leyland 700-Series,which,against his wishes,was reduced in capacity to 500 CID which in
turn produced quality control problems
Some Leyland people were having a discussion about the problems of the 500-Series engine,one day,sometime after Albert Fogg had left Leyland,and one of them recalled Albert’s Bentley
fixed cylinder head engine idea,to which someone replied "And it didn’t work in’t blooday
Bentley neither! "

I can say without hesitation,that the fixed cylinder head idea DID WORK IN THE “blooday”
Bentley! - Bentley had five Le Mans victories,speed records,etc

All being well,I will aquire some information on the Leyland 700-Series -500-Series Diesel Engines in the next few days,that hopefully will make things much more clear

So what late much lamented motor vehicle marque,which was cruelly dropped by Leyland mis-management ,is going to have the last say in this POST 17? :The highly respected,classy and historic Thornycroft marque :-

THORNYCROFT MARQUE NAME T BADGES WITH MODEL NAMES:- Swiftsure,Nubian,Trident and Trusty :-

And a rare,wonderful and magnificent Thornycroft Trusty rigid eight-wheeler lorry :-

Thornycroft Trusty PK/QR6 Flat-bodied 8x2 or 8x4 Lorry,Chassis No.62720,WBF 549.1963.New to
owner driver Ron Day,of Basford Bridge,Cheddleton,Leek,Staffordshire.Lorry in the livery of
Hulland Products Ltd, Hulland Ward near Derby,transporting precast concrete products.Recently
restored Courtesy: Old Lorries:-

VALKYRIE

[carryfast]

Lilladan:
Carry , you compare Volvo 409 cu ins TD70 of 1965 developed from VDA of 1940s , wid the TD160 16 liter ? overhead Cam , unit injectors , intercooling ect ect , fact is the 90 ton logger FH16 does not have a big engine for that weight as a 12 liter ■■■■■■■■ that gave 174 BHP (called 180) , as was current wid F86 , Magirus Deutz had a V10 14 Liter and gave 230 BHP , some found FIVE MILES PER GALLON , F86 could do TEN for a gallon , small engine working hard , harf the fuel and a longer life , and all back at the same time , not all Swedish 60 tonners are 16 Liter , many are 12 ! , the small engines did not fail , but speeds and weights went up and up , so a two axel solo truck now has 250 or so horse , hav all your figures ,specs , what mattered was the job was done and how much to fill upp the tank

Yet another erroneous comparison that shows that you’ve got no understanding of the need to optimise bore/stroke dimensions and overall capacity in order to make an engine with good torque characteristics and the fact that durability,productivety,and fuel efficiency, are all about creating an engine with a high specific and a high overall torque output,while keeping stress within reasonable limits and there’s no way that you’ll be able to do that using a small engine,of around the type of capacity which you’re describing,then or now.

Which is why,as you’ve said,a 12 Litre ( or 14 Litre ) naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ wasn’t a fuel efficient engine.But that all changed with the numerous turbocharged developments of the 14 Litre.Which is why no one with any sense these days is running 32-40 tonners,either on local let alone long haul work,using 7-8 Litre engines and it’s why something like the Volvo F12 was a more efficient truck than the F7 let alone the F86.Probably just as would also be the case when comparing the Volvo F16 with something powered by a 12 Litre engine running at 60 tonnes.

[carryfast]

VALKYRIE:
Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 17.Page 22.TRUCKNETUK

VALKYRIE replies to Carryfast.

LEYLAND 700-SERIES AND LEYLAND 500-SERIES WERE ONE AND THE SAME DIESEL ENGINE.

POST 13,Some of what I wrote:-
“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.”

POST 14,Some of what I wrote:-
"LEYLAND 500-SERIES FIXEDHEAD HEADLESS WONDER DIESEL ENGINE - DR.ALBERT D.FOGG’S IDEA AND PROJECT.

Carryfast.

With respect,if you carefully read my Post No.10 and Post No.13 I actually state that,to avoid cylinder head gasket problems in the new 700-Series -11.4-litre diesel engine,Dr.Albert D.Fogg,Leyland’s Director of Engineering,strongly favoured a fixed cylinder head for this new engine
Doug Jack,who worked for Leyland as a legal advisor and later became the Secretary of the Truck
and Bus Division,and who has written several books on Leyland motorcoaches and buses,has stated
that the fixedhead engine was Albert Fogg’s idea as was the 700 CID-11.4-litre capacity.
Albert Fogg joined Leyland in 1964,and became a board member in 1965,Dr-Ing Alfred Mueller left
Leyland in the early 1960s and had nothing to do with the 700-Series engine.Albert Fogg developed
this engine,and when the Leyland marketing men called for the engine to be reduced in capacity
to 8.2-litres because supposedly it was too heavy and too physically large,and had to weigh less
than 1000 Kgs ,Albert Fogg walked out of Leyland! He must have known that a 500 CID engine was just too small and was not fit for purpose to work in 32 ton GTW lorries
I also state in Part 10 that this sudden reduction in engine capacity resulted in quality control
problems in the production of these engines

Gingerfold also later wrote:-

Gingerfold » Sat May 04, 2013 6:43 am

1. Spurrier had no involvemement in the day-to-day management of Leyland Motors in the days when the 500 series engine was being planned and developed.

Therefore,at least some of what Michael Knowles writes in regard to the Leyland 500-Series Engine,etc,is suspect

As I’ve said in this post and earlier posts,it was Albert Fogg’s idea for the Leyland 700-Series
Engine,which later became the downsized 500-Series Engine,which was purely a Leyland design
intended for Leyland marque vehicles,Bristol buses,etc,but not AEC models
The Bentley fixed cylinder head motorcar engine of the 1920s strongly inspired Albert to come out
with the Leyland 700-Series,which,against his wishes,was reduced in capacity to 500 CID which in
turn produced quality control problems

All being well,I will aquire some information on the Leyland 700-Series -500-Series Diesel Engines in the next few days,that hopefully will make things much more clear

VALKYRIE

I wouldn’t like to bet on that theory of what happened in this case.The fact is the report seemed definite and specific in referring to those names and dates and therefore obviously makes it clear that the design aims and capacity of the Leyland 500 were set by Spurrier and Mueller and pre dated the AEC 700 idea designed by Dr Fogg.While it seems obvious that there’s actually no way that anyone could just ‘reduce’ the capacity of a 700 ci engine down to 500 ci without that engine being a totally different engine from the design stage with no major parts being common.As you’ve said the 500 was a Leyland design not an AEC one,just as I’ve said,which just leaves the only common feature being the use of the fixed head idea which Dr Fogg just coincidentally also used on what was obviously the AEC 700 engine not the Leyland 500.

Which,as I’m betting,would more likely to have been an idea to circumvent possible head sealing and clamping issues,in the event of planning to subject the design to high forced induction boost pressures,than an idea to cure possible inherent overheating issues,by just attempting to fix the symptoms in continous head gasket failure,obviously resulting from them being that,as I’ve said,head gasket failure is a symptom of overheating not a cause of it.

[valkyrie]

Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 18.Page 22.TRUCKNETUK

ERGOMATIC CAB PARK ROYAL.
PARK ROYAL ERGOMATIC CAB.

In my PART 4 of this thread I mentioned the Park Royal Vehicles Experimental Fibreglass Ergomatic Cab,but I didn’t have any photographs of it - but now I have

PARK ROYAL EXPERIMENTAL FIBREGLASS ERGOMATIC CAB.
B53345 was the serial number of the one-off Park Royal Experimental Fibreglass Ergomatic Cab of 1964-1965.It differed from the usual steel production version in that it had a two-piece windscreen,which was more panoramic,it didn’t have front quarter lights on the forward part of the doors and the doors had narrower top sections.This cab could have been a prototype for UTIC of Portugal,since UTIC built fibreglass versions of the Ergomatic cab.

PHOTOGRAPHS:-

AEC-ALBION-LEYLAND.PARK ROYAL EXPERIMENTAL FIBREGLASS ERGOMATIC CAB.Semi-leftside on view:-

AEC-ALBION-LEYLAND.PARK ROYAL EXPERIMENTAL FIBREGLASS ERGOMATIC CAB.Rear nearside view:-

AEC-ALBION-LEYLAND.PARK ROYAL EXPERIMENTAL FIBREGLASS ERGOMATIC CAB.Front offside view:-

What is this Australian fire engine hiding behind this motor vehicle enthusiast? :-

AN ATKINSON ERGOMATIC-CABBED? ! FIRE ENGINE.

Yes! I wonder if AtkiPete and Chris Gardner know about this Ergomatic-cabbed Atkinson fire engine
…it’s a real turn up for the books! And it makes you wonder why the builders selected the
Ergomatic cab.

Atkinson/Wormald,AEC-Albion-Leyland-GKN Sankey Ergomatic Crew-cabbed,Limousine Pump Escape Fire Engine.
Specifications:-

AEC-Albion-Leyland-GKN Sankey Ergomatic Crew Cab.

Detroit 8V71 Two Stroke Diesel Engine.

Fuller Roadranger RT910 10-Speed Transmission.

Kirkstall Front Steering and Rear Driving Axles.

Hale 2000 GPM Water Pump.

Only two of these Atkinson Ergomatic-cabbed fire engines were built,and Wormald Fire Equipment of Australia and New Zealand developed these motor vehicles:-

Atkinson/Wormald,AEC-Albion-Leyland-GKN Sankey Ergomatic Crew-cabbed,Limousine Pump Escape Fire Engine.On the road FNSV:-

Atkinson/Wormald,AEC-Albion-Leyland-GKN Sankey Ergomatic Crew-cabbed,Limousine Pump Escape Fire Engine.Close up FNSV:-

AEC ERGOMATIC FIRE ENGINES.

It’s strange that while Ergomatic-day and sleeper cabbed AEC,Albion and Leyland lorries have
been documented and illustrated on this thread,I cannot recall any Ergomatic crew-cabbed
motor vehicles ever beng mentioned and/or appearing on this TRUCKNETUK Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? Thread - until now …
NOTE:The Ergomatic cab variations on these fire engines:-

AEC Mercury 505 TGM4R Ergomatic/HCB-Angus Limousine Pump Escape Fire Engine,YTO 999K,City of Nottingham,Central Fire Brigade:-

AEC Mercury 505 TGM4R Ergomatic/Merryweather Limousine 100 Ft Turntable Ladder Fire Escape Fire Engine,GDY 99F,GOODY,1968.East Sussex Fire Brigade.Preserved:-

AEC Mercury 505 TGM4R Ergomatic-Merryweather Limousine Pump Escape Fire Engine,FWE 984J,City of Sheffied.Preserved:-

Some motor vehicle enthusiasts TRUCKNETUK members might be suprised in regard to the choice of
ex-British Leyland marque that I’ve made for the last say in my POST 18,considering that I’ve
blitzed the marque’s mis-management several times in this thread .Yes.The marque is Leyland,but
the Leyland marque name and it’s motor vehicles,which I greatly admire,are seperate from the
terriable Leyland mis-management ,who so mis-directed British Leyland that they did severe
damage not only to AEC,Albion,Guy,Thornycroft,Scammell and other members of the group ,but also
damaged the Leyland name and company to such an extent that,in the long run,Leyland itself became extinct -twice over! ! !: The Leyland marque was dropped from motorcoaches and buses in 1994 by Volvo ,and then from lorries by DAF in 2000! ! !
The Leyland marque :-

LEYLAND MARQUE NAME TRADITIONAL SCRIPT BADGE:-

LEYLAND DIESEL ENGINE SHIELD BADGE:-

LEYLAND ROYAL TIGER DOYEN MOTORCOACH BADGE:-

LEYLAND OCTOPUS 24.O4 MARQUE AND MODEL BADGES AND RADIATOR GRILLE.648 DXL,READER BROTHERS LTD:-

LEYLAND FREIGHTLINE OCTOPUS 240T/260T,REEFER BOXVAN,8x2 OR 8x4 LORRY,ECA 695C,1965.Made when the Leyland Motor Corporation was highly successful and was King! :-

For me,the wonderful,charismatic and beautiful archetypal image of the great Leyland marque
has always been an exposed radiator Leyland motorcoach,bus or lorry,especially an half cab
motorcoach or bus :They were a universal everyday sight at one time in many parts of the United Kingdom right in to the mid-1970s or so - an ideal and classic example is this magnificent Leyland Tiger PS2 motorcoach,GDM 494 - THE BEAUTIFUL ARCHETYPAL LEYLAND MARQUE LOOK :-
LEYLAND TIGER PS2/3/HARRINGTON DORSAL FIN C33F MOTORCOACH,GDM 494,1950.Chassis No.500266,Body No.820.Wakley’s,Northop:-

And another photograph that captures the ubiquitous,attractive archetypal Leyland marque look and image :-
LEYLAND TITAN PD2/12/MCW H58R DOUBLE DECKER BUS,RWJ 713,1954,SHEFFIELD 713.West Street,Sheffield,April 1968:-

Returning to the same motorcoach,GDM 494,here it’s with it’s previous owner,doing motorcoach holday tours in Scotland :-
LEYLAND TIGER PS2/3/HARRINGTON DORSAL FIN MOTORCOACH,GDM 494,JANICE,IN SERVICE WITH CLASSIQUE MOTORCOACHES,DEAN,PAISLEY,SCOTLAND.With the wonderful and stylish hallmark dorsal fin on view! :-

And another view of the magnificent dorsal fin of Leyland Tiger motorcoach,GDM 494! :-

VALKYRIE

[zb_anorak]

Another great post Valkyrie. Your research is always wide-ranging and informative. I don’t think that 'glass Ergo had anything to do with the Portuguese, though. I posted some phots of AECs, with cabs built in that country, earlier in this thread, and they look nothing like that Park Royal effort. God knows why a Leyland subsidiary would have bothered to produce a set of fibreglass moulds to do that, when they could have the proper steel version, off the shelf.

[lilladan]

PRICE ?

[lilladan]

Carry , under the 30 /32 limits , som wanted 22 ton load , so small engine had to be , Gardner 255 hp eight (called 240) had lots of torque but NO GO , no transmission matched and fuel not in the same street as a Volvo F86 and only legal 20 ton load or 18 /19 ton wid heavy trailer , YOU HAD TO BE THERE