BEST 'ERGO' ?

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS OLD TIME LORRIES, COMPANIES AND DRIVERS (INTERACT
821

kr79:
Not got the astran book to hand but i believe it was a 280 roller in it which wlas more powerful than the scania 110s they ran at the time but along with runnibg repairs it required major repairs in iran.
Id guess anyone doing that work would sacrifice 30bhp for a sleeper cab too.
To be fair the marathon by all acounts was never a great sucsess on the middle east run.
But there was pictures on facebook recently of a guy doing middle east work in an ergo sleeper cab AEC mandator

Reliability can sometimes be a matter of isolated incidents and luck.It usually takes a wider view of a product to get an idea of it’s performance and reliability in general service and as I’ve said the Crusader seems to have made a better name for itself in that regard than many of the ERGO/Marathon products.As for isolated incidents as I remember it the story of the documentary Destination Doha was all about one of Astran’s fitters travelling out to the Middle East to fix an abandoned broken down -----Scania. :smiling_imp: :wink: :laughing:

822

With his devotion to Detroit 2 strokes, and now it seems Rolls Eagles, could Carryfast be a stooge for the fuel companies, a sort of clandestine salesman?

823

acd1202:
With his devotion to Detroit 2 strokes, and now it seems Rolls Eagles, could Carryfast be a stooge for the fuel companies, a sort of clandestine salesman?

So how many engines were doing a lot,if any,better than an SFC of under 215g/KWh at around 280 hp by the standards of the mid 1970’s :question: .The TL12 was around 230 at that output for example.

824

Carryfast:

acd1202:
With his devotion to Detroit 2 strokes, and now it seems Rolls Eagles, could Carryfast be a stooge for the fuel companies, a sort of clandestine salesman?

So how many engines were doing a lot,if any,better than an SFC of under 215g/KWh at around 280 hp by the standards of the mid 1970’s :question: .

Nearly all of them were around 210-215g/kWh at that time, except the Gardner 8LXB: 245bhp net, 200g/kWh. The best, by a noticeable margin over the rest.

825

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

acd1202:
With his devotion to Detroit 2 strokes, and now it seems Rolls Eagles, could Carryfast be a stooge for the fuel companies, a sort of clandestine salesman?

So how many engines were doing a lot,if any,better than an SFC of under 215g/KWh at around 280 hp by the standards of the mid 1970’s :question: .

Nearly all of them were around 210-215g/kWh at that time, except the Gardner 8LXB: 245bhp net, 200g/kWh. The best, by a noticeable margin over the rest.

Not unless you’re looking at a different graph than I am remembering that we’re comparing like with like SFC at 280 hp. :open_mouth:

archive.commercialmotor.com/page … ch-1980/61

scammell-crusader.co.uk/imag … 5specs.PDF

While the Gardner’s 200 g/KWh at 245 hp isn’t exactly the same thing as comparing SFC at 280 hp either.There’s a big difference between minimum SFC figures and comparing SFC on a like with like basis throughout the range.While it’s obviously not even worth bothering with the Gardner on that basis.The relevant comparison in this case being between the Rolls 305 in the Crusader as opposed to the TL 12 in the Marathon and/or T45 throughout their respective ranges up to max power. :bulb:

826

My first post, I was really looking for LAD topics, but I did own some Ergo Leylands, dad had some LAD’s and Ergos.
At the time everyone thought the Ergo was terrific, it didn’t take long to realise she had the usual Leyland disease, management not listening to customers.
Ours overheated, not from an overflow tank problem (which were fitted to ours) but from the plastic fan disintegrating. It took Leyland a long time to come up with a composite fan that survived but a lot of engines cooked.
Then that unbelievable tilt, leaving the driver’s floor etc behind, made access to that side of the engine worse than the LAD’s.
I had a 2nd hand sleeper cab Beaver, no hydraulic tilt, took a couple of very strong blokes to tilt that bugger even with the doors open. You had to remove everything from the storage compartments to reduce the weight. Then stand clear when she came back.
It continually wrecked the mounts so I had it cut off and converted to a day cab.
One of dad’s, also 2nd hand had a bump in the roof and a rip in the driver’s seat. Think she’d done the super tilt. Had the “early” latching system. Later models had the wheelbrace job…honestly was that the best they could come up with.
We had separately framed 2-piece windscreens in most as the one piece was crazy expensive and rocks just loved them.
Leyland’s modification was to cut the single into two and fit a central seal. Trouble was when one broke, you had to remove them both to re-fit, not too clever.
Driving into the sun with that huge expanse of glass, seat up as high as possible, sunvisors right down…good times.
Air wipers…fail.
Plastic binnacle…fail. Later versions were made from a different material which survived but what an epic job to swap over.
Standard 680 gearbox had the layshaft design fault that took Leyland donkey’s years to sort out meanwhile as horsepower increased R/R’s were fitted.
Dad had a 690 Beaver and it really killed fans at an amazing rate.
Poor old 680 block was just overstressed, we pulled head studs or split the block where the studs ended. Sad stuff.
I also had an AEC Monarch, gutless AV505. Fitted a turbo to her but didn’t know enough about fuelling so that was a dead end.
Many owners turbo’d the 760 and had better results, so they should with all those cubes.
Now that I’m much, much older, I think the best Ergo would have been a properly built tilting LAD.

827

cargo:
My first post, I was really looking for LAD topics, but I did own some Ergo Leylands, dad had some LAD’s and Ergos.
At the time everyone thought the Ergo was terrific, it didn’t take long to realise she had the usual Leyland disease, management not listening to customers.
Ours overheated, not from an overflow tank problem (which were fitted to ours) but from the plastic fan disintegrating. It took Leyland a long time to come up with a composite fan that survived but a lot of engines cooked.
Then that unbelievable tilt, leaving the driver’s floor etc behind, made access to that side of the engine worse than the LAD’s.
I had a 2nd hand sleeper cab Beaver, no hydraulic tilt, took a couple of very strong blokes to tilt that bugger even with the doors open. You had to remove everything from the storage compartments to reduce the weight. Then stand clear when she came back.
It continually wrecked the mounts so I had it cut off and converted to a day cab.
One of dad’s, also 2nd hand had a bump in the roof and a rip in the driver’s seat. Think she’d done the super tilt. Had the “early” latching system. Later models had the wheelbrace job…honestly was that the best they could come up with.
We had separately framed 2-piece windscreens in most as the one piece was crazy expensive and rocks just loved them.
Leyland’s modification was to cut the single into two and fit a central seal. Trouble was when one broke, you had to remove them both to re-fit, not too clever.
Driving into the sun with that huge expanse of glass, seat up as high as possible, sunvisors right down…good times.
Air wipers…fail.
Plastic binnacle…fail. Later versions were made from a different material which survived but what an epic job to swap over.
Standard 680 gearbox had the layshaft design fault that took Leyland donkey’s years to sort out meanwhile as horsepower increased R/R’s were fitted.
Dad had a 690 Beaver and it really killed fans at an amazing rate.
Poor old 680 block was just overstressed, we pulled head studs or split the block where the studs ended. Sad stuff.
I also had an AEC Monarch, gutless AV505. Fitted a turbo to her but didn’t know enough about fuelling so that was a dead end.
Many owners turbo’d the 760 and had better results, so they should with all those cubes.
Now that I’m much, much older, I think the best Ergo would have been a properly built tilting LAD.

Welcome to the forum. Excellent first post, if I may say so! I am guessing you are from Oz or NZ. If so, may I apologise on behalf of Poms worldwide, for the constant stream of piffle written by the cretin responsible for the post preceding yours.

828

kr79:
Does anyone have any production figures for the crusader in the civilian market and how does it stack up against the marathon

A very good question indeed. I have the Marathon production / sales figures on my other computer at home, but I don’t have Crusader production figures. I’d wager that if you stripped out Crusdaer sales to the MoD then the Marathon would win hands down.

And why all this obsession with the RR 305, it wasn’t available in that format in the mid-'70s and it took 10 years to make the RR range of automotive engines reliable. Just because something has a prestigious name doesn’t automatically make them world beaters.

829

gingerfold:

kr79:
Does anyone have any production figures for the crusader in the civilian market and how does it stack up against the marathon

A very good question indeed. I have the Marathon production / sales figures on my other computer at home, but I don’t have Crusader production figures. I’d wager that if you stripped out Crusdaer sales to the MoD then the Marathon would win hands down.

And why all this obsession with the RR 305, it wasn’t available in that format in the mid-'70s and it took 10 years to make the RR range of automotive engines reliable. Just because something has a prestigious name doesn’t automatically make them world beaters.

Suggest you check out the date at the bottom of that factory RR 305 specification listing which I’ve posted enough times if anyone could be bothered to read it all. :unamused: As for 10 years to make the Rolls engines reliable the Crusader went out of production in 1981 and the Rolls seemed to be an option throughout most of it’s production life at different output levels.While Leyland then went on to put the things into the T45 at even higher outputs before 1986 and I don’t think that the army chose it’s engine provision on the basis of not bothering about performance and reliability so long as it’s got a so called prestigeous name.Which probably explains why they didn’t spec the TL 12 or AEC V8 in their Crusaders or go to anyone else to provide power for the next generation of tanks after the debacle with the L60 with the CV12 also being used in the Commander instead of the ■■■■■■■ KTA just to make sure.While it’s obvious if reliability of Rolls engines was an issue Leyland would have stuck with just ■■■■■■■ for it’s outside engine provision in the T45.

830

[zb]
anorak:

cargo:
My first post, I was really looking for LAD topics, but I did own some Ergo Leylands, dad had some LAD’s and Ergos.
At the time everyone thought the Ergo was terrific, it didn’t take long to realise she had the usual Leyland disease, management not listening to customers.
Ours overheated, not from an overflow tank problem (which were fitted to ours) but from the plastic fan disintegrating. It took Leyland a long time to come up with a composite fan that survived but a lot of engines cooked.
Then that unbelievable tilt, leaving the driver’s floor etc behind, made access to that side of the engine worse than the LAD’s.
I had a 2nd hand sleeper cab Beaver, no hydraulic tilt, took a couple of very strong blokes to tilt that bugger even with the doors open. You had to remove everything from the storage compartments to reduce the weight. Then stand clear when she came back.
It continually wrecked the mounts so I had it cut off and converted to a day cab.
One of dad’s, also 2nd hand had a bump in the roof and a rip in the driver’s seat. Think she’d done the super tilt. Had the “early” latching system. Later models had the wheelbrace job…honestly was that the best they could come up with.
We had separately framed 2-piece windscreens in most as the one piece was crazy expensive and rocks just loved them.
Leyland’s modification was to cut the single into two and fit a central seal. Trouble was when one broke, you had to remove them both to re-fit, not too clever.
Driving into the sun with that huge expanse of glass, seat up as high as possible, sunvisors right down…good times.
Air wipers…fail.
Plastic binnacle…fail. Later versions were made from a different material which survived but what an epic job to swap over.
Standard 680 gearbox had the layshaft design fault that took Leyland donkey’s years to sort out meanwhile as horsepower increased R/R’s were fitted.
Dad had a 690 Beaver and it really killed fans at an amazing rate.
Poor old 680 block was just overstressed, we pulled head studs or split the block where the studs ended. Sad stuff.
I also had an AEC Monarch, gutless AV505. Fitted a turbo to her but didn’t know enough about fuelling so that was a dead end.
Many owners turbo’d the 760 and had better results, so they should with all those cubes.
Now that I’m much, much older, I think the best Ergo would have been a properly built tilting LAD.

Welcome to the forum. Excellent first post, if I may say so! I am guessing you are from Oz or NZ. If so, may I apologise on behalf of Poms worldwide, for the constant stream of piffle written by the cretin responsible for the post preceding yours.

I think he was actually confirming what I’ve said in that a decent fixed cab is probably better than an underdeveloped,cheap rate,primitive tilt cab as in the case of the ERGO.Which probably explains why we don’t see such complaints in the case of those who used the Crusader.Although no surprise your attitude to anyone that doesn’t agree with your views seems to prove your ignorance yet again. :unamused:

831

Suggest you check out the date at the bottom of that factory RR 305 specification listing which I’ve posted enough times if anyone could be bothered to read it all. :unamused: As for 10 years to make the Rolls engines reliable the Crusader went out of production in 1981 and the Rolls seemed to be an option throughout most of it’s production life at different output levels.While Leyland then went on to put the things into the T45 at even higher outputs before 1986 and I don’t think that the army chose it’s engine provision on the basis of not bothering about performance and reliability so long as it’s got a so called prestigeous name.Which probably explains why they didn’t spec the TL 12 or AEC V8 in their Crusaders or go to anyone else to provide power for the next generation of tanks after the debacle with the L60 with the CV12 also being used in the Commander instead of the ■■■■■■■ KTA just to make sure.While it’s obvious if reliability of Rolls engines was an issue Leyland would have stuck with just ■■■■■■■ for it’s outside engine provision in the T45.

The fact is that any RR engine option was a minority choice in the entire 1970s decade, at whatever power ouput. Early versions were 220 bhp, then 265, and then 290 bhp. I suggest that you stay well clear of bringing sales of vehicles to the MoD into the argument as you would be on a very sticky wicket indeed. From the 1914-18 War until the last vehicles left Southall in 1979 AEC supplied thousands to all branches of the services, Army. Royal Navy, and RAF. Likewise Leyland, and of course Scammell whose niche heavy haulage specialisation was well-recognised, but in actual numbers was nowhere near the quantity supplied by AEC and Leyland. Fact.

And the other consideration with RR being specified by the MoD. In 1974 RR was a failed company and was nationalised, so the MoD would obviously specify RR engines to keep then engine plant at Shreswbury in work.

832

gingerfold:

Suggest you check out the date at the bottom of that factory RR 305 specification listing which I’ve posted enough times if anyone could be bothered to read it all. :unamused: As for 10 years to make the Rolls engines reliable the Crusader went out of production in 1981 and the Rolls seemed to be an option throughout most of it’s production life at different output levels.While Leyland then went on to put the things into the T45 at even higher outputs before 1986 and I don’t think that the army chose it’s engine provision on the basis of not bothering about performance and reliability so long as it’s got a so called prestigeous name.Which probably explains why they didn’t spec the TL 12 or AEC V8 in their Crusaders or go to anyone else to provide power for the next generation of tanks after the debacle with the L60 with the CV12 also being used in the Commander instead of the ■■■■■■■ KTA just to make sure.While it’s obvious if reliability of Rolls engines was an issue Leyland would have stuck with just ■■■■■■■ for it’s outside engine provision in the T45.

The fact is that any RR engine option was a minority choice in the entire 1970s decade, at whatever power ouput. Early versions were 220 bhp, then 265, and then 290 bhp. I suggest that you stay well clear of bringing sales of vehicles to the MoD into the argument as you would be on a very sticky wicket indeed. From the 1914-18 War until the last vehicles left Southall in 1979 AEC supplied thousands to all branches of the services, Army. Royal Navy, and RAF. Likewise Leyland, and of course Scammell whose niche heavy haulage specialisation was well-recognised, but in actual numbers was nowhere near the quantity supplied by AEC and Leyland. Fact.

In the case of the ERGO especially in it’s 500 powered form and the Marathon at least in it’s TL12 powered form v the Crusader we’re not talking about quantity we’re talking about quality.The fact that buyers were demanding the Marathon or even the T45 in their TL12 powered form,as opposed to the Crusader in it’s 305 powered form,says more about those customers inability to read simple engine spec graphs and understand them than it says about the the so called ‘qualities’ of the TL12 by comparison.Much like comparing the amount of room in a Marathon sleeper cab v the Crusader’s.Like many others you seem to be confusing what the manufacturers had available as options with what most customers were demanding and then putting 2 + 2 together and coming up with 5 based on that erroneous comparison concerning the actual rate of development provided by the British manufacturers.As I’ve said there weren’t many uk or foreign competitors,the TL12 powered Marathon being no exception,that could provide anything to compete with the Rolls 305 powered Crusader,or for that matter the SA 400 assuming it had been fitted with that engine option,in the mid 1970’s.That situation would have been even moreso ‘if’ the 3 VTG cab design had been allowed to proceed and developed and then fitted to the Crusader chassis.

As usual on planet trucknet inconvenient truths,like the details on spec sheets and product availability dates,which prove that Leyland’s issues were all about the politicians and bankers who controlled the firm and backward customers who wouldn’t know a decent wagon when they saw one,get overlooked.Obviously so as to make the bs tory case of it was all the fault of the so called militant workers. :imp: :unamused:

Who ironically could actually put together a decent product given the go ahead and the money to do so.The underperforming,relatively fuel inefficient TL12,and the issues concerning the AEC V8,and the uncompetitive ERGO,Marathon and T45 cabs v the foreign competition all being compromised reflections of that starvation of cash.Just as was the case regarding the industrial relations situation at Leyland and throughout most of British industry. :frowning:

833

Unfortunately CF I no longer have the BL Specification “bible” that listed every conceivable model and option in the Leyland Truck and Bus Division in the mid-1970s. This listed models from every Blueline* marque in the group, and ran to about 250 variants in all. If you had any experience of running a transport business and buying trucks then you would understand that you buy the vehicles best suited to your operations. The options were there, but customers chose not to purchase them. Could it be that they were happy with the tried and tested models that made them some money at the end of the week? Or were they just so stupid and thick that they didn’t realise that if if they bought Scammell Crusaders with RR305 engines they would make even more money and have drivers queueing up at the gate to drive these wonderful trucks?

N.B. *The Blueline Range was those produced by Leyland, AEC, Albion, Guy, Scammell. The “Redline” range was the Bathgate produced former BMC truck range.

834

Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 19.Page 28.TRUCKNETUK

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

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

Besides the above engines,I’ve also some detailed information on the AEC,ALBION,LEYLAND GKN SANKEY Ergomatic Cab.I’m not going to go in to every detail,but I will hopefully try to detail the handful of major points :slight_smile:

AEC,ALBION,LEYLAND GKN SANKEY ERGOMATIC CAB:THE GOOD POINTS.

The Ergomatic Cab was introduced in 1964,and was a big step forward in lorry cab design in the United Kingdom and was generally regarded as being the best cab in the UK and export markets,but I would say that at least some cabs of American,European and Scandinavian lorry and heavy motor truck models were just as good in at least most respects :smiley: But the Ergomatic was certainly a marked improvement over the Park Royal cabs for AECs and LAD cabs for Albions,Leylands and Dodges :slight_smile:
The ergonomic word was new to most people,most if not all of whom,must a have thought that Ergomatic was a strange and odd name to use for a lorry cab,and indeed almost anything else! :exclamation: :slight_smile: Until that is they discovered that “ergonomic” means the scientific study and application of the human being’s relationship to his/her working environments,and how best to improve these working conditions for the benefit of human beings :slight_smile:
So the use of ergonomics - possibly for the first time in overall cab design? :question: - showed the advanced thinking of Leyland engineers :smiley: And,as I’ve stated before on this thread,most if not all the lorry drivers who drove Ergomatic-cabbed AECs,Albions and Leylands were quite pleased with this cab :slight_smile: - it meant that it was goodbye to cold,draughty and noisey cabs! :exclamation: amongst other things - and many TRUCKNETUK members on this thread have confirmed that the Ergomatic cab was a good cab! :exclamation: :smiley:

It was a well-appointed cab,and it must have been like entering heaven for a great many lorry drivers,after years of putting up with cold,draughty and noisey cabs! :exclamation: :Besides being draught-proof ,the Ergomatic cab had an 8 kilowatt heater,which worked in conjunction with Adjustable Selectavent that allowed the driver to direct hot air or fresh air to differant areas of the cab.
The cab was rigidly designed,it’s lower part was of double section to increase the strength,and
was mounted on a heavy gauge steel subframe to absorb mounting stresses.The cab was also well-
equipped with sound insulation material - you could easly listen to the optional radio :smiley:
Another piece of advanced thinking was the high roof version of the Ergomatic sleeper cab(1968),which pre-emptied the Volvo Globetrotter High Roof Cab (1980) by 12 years! :exclamation: ,and was offered for mainly European and other export markets :smiley: :-

AEC MANDATOR V8 VTG4R4263 ERGOMATIC HIGH ROOF SLEEPER-CABBED 4x2 BOXVAN ARTIC,RKR 284G,registered Friday,3rd January,1969 in Kent.Anglo Continental Transport:-

And it’s interesting to think that the Leyland Motor Corporation almost on it’s own made the “ergonomic” word an household word :smiley: ,and is now used by several other lorry manufacturers such as

MAN:-
TGM TGL cabs | United Kingdom
mantruckandbus.co.uk/en/truc … _cabs.html?
After all, only a driver in top form can also produce top performances at the … LX cab. High-roof cab for long-haul transport. Comfortable access, equipped to a high … The interior is made even more ergonomic by the user-friendly dashboard …

IVECO:-
new trakker - Hi-Comfort and Ergonomics - Iveco
IVECO | Choose your market | Iveco?
The cab of the New Trakker is designed around the driver. Class-leading … Hi-Comfort and Ergonomics · Hi-Land … o long with high roof (Hi-Track) The driver’s …

MERCEDES-BENZ:-
which is ergonomic, functional and stylish has been designed with high …
[PDF]
The Atego. The Axor - Mercedes-Benz UK
tools.mercedes-benz.co.uk/current/trucks/.../atego-axor-distribution.pdf?
The comfort air-sprung suspension seat with its ergonomic design and … Ergonomic

ISUZU:-
ISUZU:Ready & Reliable ISUZU F-Series
isuzu.co.jp/world/product/f_ … mfort.html?
Pure pleasure - it’s the only way to describe the comfort of the F-Series cab. … the cab features ergonomic seating and a wide variety of storage solutions. … For the ultimate in comfort, an air-suspension seat, high-roof cab, spacious bunk and …

So all the above,including the MAN,ISUZU,IVECO and MERCEDES-BENZ quotes,shows you what an advanced,influential and pace-setting design the Ergomatic Cab was in 1964! :exclamation: :smiley:

AEC,ALBION,LEYLAND GKN SANKEY ERGOMATIC CAB:THE BAD POINTS.

The design and groundbreaking ideals of the Ergomatic Cab were largely sound,and became reality in the AEC,Albion and Leyland production versions of this cab :smiley: But,alas! :exclamation: It did have problems,some of which were never fully resolved during it’s production life :frowning: :unamused:

1.The Ergomatic Cab was designed and promoted as a tilt cab,but some lightweight lorry models
were fitted with none-tilting fixed Ergomatic cabs :unamused: ,access to the engine was obtained in the old-
fashioned way:Getting in to the cab and lifting the bonnet! :exclamation: :unamused:

2.Because of the low cab floor,which was lower than in the LAD Cab for example,the engine cover-bonnet took up more space in the cab than previously,and because the service points were mounted
on top and on the left hand side of the engine,the bonnet-cover was offset from the centre towards the lefthand side.This caused the passenger area to be cramped,and on lefthand drive versions :unamused: - which is where the driver was positioned of course :unamused: - the cramped conditions were even worse because of all of the driving controls :unamused: In this LHD version the engine was inclined to the right to make more room for the driver and handbake and gearlever controls - in the RHD version the engine was inclined towards the left to allow more room for the said controls.
To allow as much room in the cab as possible,the bonnet-engine cover panels were positioned really close to the engine,which restricted the air flow over the engine,which in turn produced engine cooling problems especially in the tropical climates of certain export countries :unamused:

3.The above cooling problems were further compounded by the fact that the engine bay and engine-bonnet- engine cover panels were just not big enough for the largest engines,namely the AEC AV690,AV691 and AV760,and Leyland O.600,0.680 and 0.690,because the cab designers unbelievably failed to take in to account these engines! :exclamation: :open_mouth: :unamused: They just used engine outline drawings for the smaller AEC and Leyland engines for setting the engine bay measurements for the production Ergomatic cabs! :exclamation: :open_mouth: :unamused:
GKN Sankey had tooled up and it was too late to make major cab structure alterations :unamused:
According to my information,this cooling problem was never fully resolved throughout the cab’s production life :unamused: Although the later higher mounted Ergomatic Datum Cab did improve things.

4.Another problem was metal corrosion of these cabs due to box section-type design for at least some parts of the cab,minimal anti-corrosion protection and outside storage in all weathers of new vehicles at the factories and/or dealers :unamused:

AEC MANDATOR V8 ERGOMATIC THROUGH-WAY CAB.

The AEC 800-Series and 801-Series V8-cylinder engines took up less space than the AEC and Leyland straight six engines that usually powered the Ergomatic-cabbed lorry models.
The size of the engine cover and bonnet were reduced to such an extent,that this gave unrestricted cross-cab access,hence the Through-Way name :smiley: But alas! :exclamation: The standard height of the cab mounting caused engine cooling problems :unamused: ,and some of the alterations that were made to try and get
rid of these cooling problems included the fitting of the Ergomatic Datum Cab that was mounted 5 1/2 inches higher than the standard Ergomatic cab.The Mandator V8 was the only AEC lorry model that was fitted with the datum cab,although all the Leyland 500-System lorry models were so fitted.

AEC MANDATOR V8 VTG4R047 4x2 REFRIGERATED BOXVAN ARTICULATED LORRY,MEE 910F,registered on Friday,7th June,1968 in Grimsby.Humber Warehousing Group:-

LEYLAND-AEC MARATHON ERGOMATIC-BASED HIGH TOWER CAB.

The Leyland-AEC Marathon was a stop-gap premium-specification lorry range,developed on a restricted budget,designed to compete with the Volvo F88s and Scania 111s of this world :slight_smile: The Leyland-AEC design team knew that the Ergomatic cab was too small for a premium long distance heavy lorry.So the team designed a new cab that employed both new parts and also incorporated certain Ergomatic cab components :slight_smile:
Because the Marathon used high power output engines,a great deal of attention was paid to vastly improving the cooling system of the engine:A major step was that the engine cover-bonnet was lowered by mounting the cab higher than on previous models.
Leyland and AEC engines seem to have been jinxed with cooling problems :unamused: ,even in the Marathon,where
the cooling system had been improved:Some Marathon demonstrators were sent to Middle East countries and experienced cooling problems :unamused:
The Marathon’s high tower cab was better appointed than the standard Ergomatic cab,had increased
interior space and the modular design provided equal ergonomics for both righthand and lefthand
drive models :smiley:

AEC-LEYLAND MARATHON Mk2 2T25/27 4x2 TRACTIVE UNIT,PSG 572V,owned by John Tweedie:-

I think that I have covered,hopefully,all -or most at least - of the major aspects of the AEC,ALBION,LEYLAND GKN SANKEY ERGOMATIC CAB in this post.The Ergomatic Cab certainly set new standards - in righthand drive form at least - in cab design for British lorries,and almost certainly in certain lorry ranges made by at least some overseas commercial vehicle manufacturers :smiley: And,as I have already stated several times in this thread,many lorry drivers,many of whom are TRUCKNETUK Members,not only liked the AEC,Albion and Leyland Ergomatic-cabbed lorries,they also liked driving the Leyland-AEC Marathon lorry models too :smiley:

THINGS TO COME.
With this newly acquired information,I will hopefully deal with the Leyland 700-Series and 500-Series Fixedhead Diesel Engines in my next post :slight_smile:

Meanwhile…I will reply to Newmercman’s post :slight_smile: :-

Newmercman:
The politicians were not making decisions at BL, they were only throwing money at it, huge amounts of money that were being used as operating funds rather than investments for the future, as they were supposed to be. The reason for this was the lost revenue from strikes hurt the finances of the group so much that it needed constant bail outs just to remain in business.

Carryfast’s remedy would have been to add to the financial problems by buying in engines! This would have then set the group engine plants off, they would have gone on strike, their brothers on the assembly lines would have done their ‘one out, all out’ thing and nothing would have been built!

The history of BL is well documented, the failure of the group had SFA to do with the truck division, the Ergo cab, the 500 series engines or anything else. However, we won’t let the facts interfere in a good argument…

VALKYRIE replies:-

From 1968 to 1975 the British Leyland Motor Corporation was an independent,financially self-
supporting corporation,with no Government money supporting it at all.
It is well known that Truck and Bus Division profits were used to support the lost cause
Austin Morris Division that mass produced motorcars,which deprived British Leyland of money
to spend on developing new lorry,motorcoach,bus and engine ranges.This situation proved to be a
disaster for Leyland’s Truck and Bus Division.
Government money began supporting British Leyland when the company became state-owned in 1975.
British Leyland always bought many engines from outside engine builders,such as ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Diesel,Gardner,Perkins and Rolls-Royce :slight_smile:

…and still meanwhile :slight_smile: …Bristol motorcoaches and buses are better known than Bristol
lorries,but the great Bristol marque is the marque that is going to have The Last Say in this Post No.19:
Bristol is the seventh ex-British Leyland marque to have the last say,the other marques are featured in my other recent posts in this thread.This feature honours these marques :slight_smile: ,which is in direct contrast to what British Leyland mis-management criminally did to them!!! :exclamation: :exclamation: :exclamation: :imp: :unamused:
Well known motorcoach and bus engineer,Geoffrey Hilditch,used the “FIRM FOUNDATION - BRISTOL FASHION” title for the Bristol chapter in one of his great books,and with good reason,because the Bristol make generally became synonymous with high quality,reliability and durability :slight_smile:

BRISTOL MARQUE BADGES ON A BRISTOL PV2 RADIATOR FOR L AND K MODELS -GHT 127 Bristol K5G ECW O56R
Double Decker Bus,Bristol C3315:-

BRISTOL 4-TON TYPE,DROPSIDE-BODIED,4x2 LORRY,CHASSIS No.1270,BUILT IN 1920,USED AS BRISTOL TRAINING VEHICLE,REGISTERED IN 1935 AS BAE 592,SOLD TO C.HAWKINS AND SON AS A FURNITURE VAN:-

BRISTOL.TOURS FROM BATH BY BRISTOL MOTOR COACHES,Bristol Tramways and Carriage Co.Ltd,advertisement:-

BRISTOL L5G/EAST LANCS 4x2 TOWER LORRY,CET 440,1940,EX-ROTHERHAM 157,AS A B32C SD BUS.Converted in to a Tower Lorry for the trolleybus system.Preserved:-

BRISTOL L6G/DUPLE C31F MOTORCOACH,DDF 44,1939.BLACK AND WHITE MOTORWAYS 100:-

BRISTOL HA6LL,LONGWELL GREEN FGC/2-CABBED,4x2 FLAT-BODIED ARTICULATED LORRY,CHASSIS No.182045,339 DOA,1961.BRITISH ROAD SERVICES 1E1045:-

No survey of Bristol Commercial Vehicles would be complete without a Bristol Fairground Bus! :exclamation: :smiley: ,or Fairground Motorcoach! :exclamation: :smiley: - these were very popular fairground vehicles :smiley: :-
BRISTOL JO5G/ROE B32F BUS/WILKES AND MEADE C33F MOTORCOACH,DT 9084,1937.DONCASTER 10,then Kildare Motorcoaches who had it converted as a motorcoach -a fairground vehicle later on:-

BRISTOL VRT/SL-2/320-2/EAST LANCS H73F DOUBLE DECKER BUS,OWE 271K,August,1972.SHEFFIELD No.271.
Preserved:-

BRISTOL HG6L,HOLMES-CABBED,BRISTOL FLAT-BODIED,8x2 LORRY,CHASSIS No.88197,RGC 251,JUNE 1955.BRITISH ROAD SERVICES 61A444:-

BRISTOL.The last motor vehicle to be built by Bristol - Leyland Olympian ONLXB/1R/ECW Double Decker Bus,Chassis No.ON995,A686 KDV,September 1983.Devon General No. 1814.Preserved:-

VALKYRIE.

835

gingerfold:
Unfortunately CF I no longer have the BL Specification “bible” that listed every conceivable model and option in the Leyland Truck and Bus Division in the mid-1970s. This listed models from every Blueline* marque in the group, and ran to about 250 variants in all. If you had any experience of running a transport business and buying trucks then you would understand that you buy the vehicles best suited to your operations. The options were there, but customers chose not to purchase them. Could it be that they were happy with the tried and tested models that made them some money at the end of the week? Or were they just so stupid and thick that they didn’t realise that if if they bought Scammell Crusaders with RR305 engines they would make even more money and have drivers queueing up at the gate to drive these wonderful trucks?

It wasn’t a case of the uk customer base being stupid and thick in regards to doing what they were good at,that being operating trucks.But.That still leaves the issue of the fact that the rate of truck manufacturing development was running way ahead of those customer’s level of understanding and probably more likely in many cases their willingness to pay for it and the bankers willingness to invest in it in addition to paying the workers to put the products together.

Which is one of the reasons why,as I’ve said,Leyland ‘could’ have been answering the foreign competition with trucks like a 3VTG cabbed,Rolls 305 powered,Crusader instead of the TL12 powered Marathon.Which seems to have been a similar line of thinking which all concerned,including many customers,‘eventually’ realised relatively very soon after in the case of products like the higher powered Rolls T45 as opposed to the TL12 powered version on it’s introduction.Just as was the case in the general large scale swing away from the old over conservative primitive specs to the more civilised,higher powered,foreign competition in general.Unfortunately for the British manufacturers,unlike their foreign competition in places like Germany and Scandinavia etc,they were lumbered with a slow to change backward thinking domestic market ( not stupid and thick ) together with a political and banking system that was hostile to investment in the domestic manufacturing industry both in regards to developing it’s products and paying it’s workforce.No suprise all of which then gets covered up by those who were to blame for that by trying to put the blame on the workers,for fighting to maintain their living standards,instead. :unamused:

836

Carryfast:

kr79:
Does anyone have any production figures for the crusader in the civilian market and how does it stack up against the marathon

Sales figures don’t always provide a guide to the actual superiority of a product.IE I think Jaguar,Rover,Triumph,Merc,and BMW probably sold less cars here combined in each year of the ERGO and Marathon’s production life than Austin Morris did. :laughing:

As for a Rolls 305 pwered Crusader v a TL12 Marathon it would have been no contest form the point of view of which one was the superior product.At least from the point of view of anyone who was bright enough to have specced that version of the Crusader.Which,as history unfortunately shows,knowing how to spec a decent truck wasn’t a strong point of the British buyers at the time. :smiling_imp: :wink: :laughing:

Comparing jags and mercs to austin an morris is totaly stupid. Thats like saying the ford focus is tve best car avalible now because they sell more than other cars
Could one reason the army specced rolls engines be that they were an option with Foden who supplied lots of trucks to them so it helps in kepping spares on site.
Ultamtly what decides how good a product is id how many you sell and how much profit you make.
Was the marathon a failure. Id say yes it never sold in the numbers britains biggest truck builder should have been selling. But tgen again tge crusader didnt save leyland either.

837

kr79:

Carryfast:

kr79:
Does anyone have any production figures for the crusader in the civilian market and how does it stack up against the marathon

Sales figures don’t always provide a guide to the actual superiority of a product.IE I think Jaguar,Rover,Triumph,Merc,and BMW probably sold less cars here combined in each year of the ERGO and Marathon’s production life than Austin Morris did. :laughing:

As for a Rolls 305 pwered Crusader v a TL12 Marathon it would have been no contest form the point of view of which one was the superior product.At least from the point of view of anyone who was bright enough to have specced that version of the Crusader.Which,as history unfortunately shows,knowing how to spec a decent truck wasn’t a strong point of the British buyers at the time. :smiling_imp: :wink: :laughing:

Comparing jags and mercs to austin an morris is totaly stupid. Thats like saying the ford focus is tve best car avalible now because they sell more than other cars
Could one reason the army specced rolls engines be that they were an option with Foden who supplied lots of trucks to them so it helps in kepping spares on site.
Ultamtly what decides how good a product is id how many you sell and how much profit you make.
Was the marathon a failure. Id say yes it never sold in the numbers britains biggest truck builder should have been selling. But tgen again tge crusader didnt save leyland either.

You’ve contradicted yourself there.Exactly you’re right the Focus isn’t the world’s best car although it probably outsells loads of others like the Merc AMG 6.3.

But then you say that ultimately what decides how good a product is is how many you sell and how much profit you make.Which of course is bs and it’s why Austin Morris are no longer around but Mercedes and BMW are.IE you can’t make a profit in the long term if the idea of short term high turnover and profits based on sales won on just cost eventually sink the firm when many of those who were buying Austin Morris products decided to buy a Merc or a BMW instead. :bulb:

On that basis I’d say that the Rolls powered Crusader and the Rolls and ■■■■■■■ powered T45 did more to keep Leyland in the game for longer than the 500 powered ERGO or the TL12 powered Marathon an T45 ever did. :bulb: :wink:

838

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

acd1202:
With his devotion to Detroit 2 strokes, and now it seems Rolls Eagles, could Carryfast be a stooge for the fuel companies, a sort of clandestine salesman?

So how many engines were doing a lot,if any,better than an SFC of under 215g/KWh at around 280 hp by the standards of the mid 1970’s :question: .

Nearly all of them were around 210-215g/kWh at that time, except the Gardner 8LXB: 245bhp net, 200g/kWh. The best, by a noticeable margin over the rest.

Not unless you’re looking at a different graph than I am remembering that we’re comparing like with like SFC at 280 hp. :open_mouth:

archive.commercialmotor.com/page … ch-1980/61

scammell-crusader.co.uk/imag … 5specs.PDF

While the Gardner’s 200 g/KWh at 245 hp isn’t exactly the same thing as comparing SFC at 280 hp either.There’s a big difference between minimum SFC figures and comparing SFC on a like with like basis throughout the range.While it’s obviously not even worth bothering with the Gardner on that basis.The relevant comparison in this case being between the Rolls 305 in the Crusader as opposed to the TL 12 in the Marathon and/or T45 throughout their respective ranges up to max power. :bulb:

You are telling lies to support your skewed views, as usual. If you want to avoid the unanimous derision of the other members of this forum, screen-grab the graphs you are braying about and present them together- all three engines- so readers can compare the specifications. If you cannot do that, STFU.

839

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

acd1202:
With his devotion to Detroit 2 strokes, and now it seems Rolls Eagles, could Carryfast be a stooge for the fuel companies, a sort of clandestine salesman?

So how many engines were doing a lot,if any,better than an SFC of under 215g/KWh at around 280 hp by the standards of the mid 1970’s :question: .

Nearly all of them were around 210-215g/kWh at that time, except the Gardner 8LXB: 245bhp net, 200g/kWh. The best, by a noticeable margin over the rest.

Not unless you’re looking at a different graph than I am remembering that we’re comparing like with like SFC at 280 hp. :open_mouth:

archive.commercialmotor.com/page … ch-1980/61

scammell-crusader.co.uk/imag … 5specs.PDF

While the Gardner’s 200 g/KWh at 245 hp isn’t exactly the same thing as comparing SFC at 280 hp either.There’s a big difference between minimum SFC figures and comparing SFC on a like with like basis throughout the range.While it’s obviously not even worth bothering with the Gardner on that basis.The relevant comparison in this case being between the Rolls 305 in the Crusader as opposed to the TL 12 in the Marathon and/or T45 throughout their respective ranges up to max power. :bulb:

You are telling lies to support your skewed views, as usual. If you want to avoid the unanimous derision of the other members of this forum, screen-grab the graphs you are braying about and present them together- all three engines- so readers can compare the specifications. If you cannot do that, STFU.

How is it supposedly a ‘lie’ in your view to say that the graphs which are clearly contained in those two posts show that at around the 1,800 rpm which the Rolls 305 is putting out 280 hp it’s SFC is around 215g/KWh.While at around the 2,100 rpm which the TL12 in the Marathon is putting out around that power it’s SFC is around 230g/KWh while even the T45 spec TL12 doesn’t show a large difference in those figures either and certainly not any which are close to those of the Rolls 305 at the equivalent level of output.If you’re saying I’m wrong then you put the relevant graphs on here if you think it’s too difficult for anyone to just read them from the links and then you tell us all exactly what you read as being the relevant figures at the relevant engine speeds and outputs.I’d suggest if you’re not prepared to do that to support your bs then it’s you who needs to STFU. :unamused:

840

carryfast dear ,the new messias ,nobody else then heavy haulage transporters looks at fuelconsuming in 2100 rmp ,you look at the figures in high torque range in those days 1300 to 1700 now 900 to 1300 ,there is the real money to win,amen and out