Carryfast:
Maybe you’re just conveniently confused because,the fact that Leyland’s management ( bankers and politicians ) decided to invest ( waste ) money,by putting the less efficient TL12 in a wagon with less room,in the form of the Marathon,
The TL12 and RR engines had the same efficiency, according to the graphs you posted. You can’t read graphs, can you?
The Marathon had a more spacious cab than the Crusader- it had two bunks, which were amongst the widest in the business, in 1973. Even the short-sleeper Marathon had a competitive sleeping area. The Scammell just had a pigeon-loft, like a cheap aftermarket conversion. However, the Scammell did have an American-style front panel, which is why you assume its superiority.
You say you worked in the manufacturing industry. Did you ever make a decision which affected the product? Was a drawing ever released, which had your name in the “Drawn” or “Checked” box?
As I’ve said I worked at shop floor level although it might come as a surprise to you to find out that they don’t generally employ anyone who doesn’t know what they’re doing on that job in the industry.However the relevant bit is that where I worked we were all in agreement in that what we were being asked to produce was up to the job being asked of it.Unlike the situation at Leyland trucks from management level to shop floor level in that they knew that they were being asked ( ordered by the bankers and politicians ) to produce compromised designs to keep the costs down.Although in their case the bankers were helped in having backward customers who only realised what was going on when they worked out productivety and fuel figures and/or things started breaking or when drivers started moaning having to spend nights out in a Marathon cab. In which case your measuring abilities are about as good as your graph reading abilities assuming you’ve ever spent a night out in a Marathon cab and considering what actually happened in the real world to the TL12 engine in the T45 as opposed to what happened in your obviously re written version of history.
Carryfast:
As I’ve said I worked at shop floor level
I bet the rest of the staff were never seen without ear defenders, and you were the only employee whose key did not fit the office door. Here’s a job for you. I trust that your skills and qualifications meet the criteria, however I fear they are being a bit generous with the salary.
newmercman:
I’m confused, what Ergo cabbed lorry had the Rolls 305?
In fact how many non military Rolls 305 engined lorries ever went into service?
I had a Matchbox Crusader and that had a Gardner 8LXB in it that I transplanted out of a promotional Guy Big J model. HTH…
Maybe you’re just conveniently confused because,the fact that Leyland’s management ( bankers and politicians ) decided to invest ( waste ) money,by putting the less efficient TL12 in a wagon with less room,in the form of the Marathon,and many buyers were backward in their thinking enough to buy it,when the Crusader was a better wagon with more room and a better more efficient outsourced engine,and then only years later,in the case of the T45,started to realise it,shows that Leyland’s problems had nothing whatsoever to do with it’s workers.
By the way no the Gardner ( rightly ) wasn’t one of the chosen outsourced engines which were ( eventually )
used in the T45 to replace the lame old TL12.It’s just that it took the British buyers that long to understand why.
Gardner was an option on the constructor and although there was a hefty surcharge lots found homes .
newmercman:
I’m confused, what Ergo cabbed lorry had the Rolls 305?
In fact how many non military Rolls 305 engined lorries ever went into service?
I had a Matchbox Crusader and that had a Gardner 8LXB in it that I transplanted out of a promotional Guy Big J model. HTH…
Maybe you’re just conveniently confused because,the fact that Leyland’s management ( bankers and politicians ) decided to invest ( waste ) money,by putting the less efficient TL12 in a wagon with less room,in the form of the Marathon,and many buyers were backward in their thinking enough to buy it,when the Crusader was a better wagon with more room and a better more efficient outsourced engine,and then only years later,in the case of the T45,started to realise it,shows that Leyland’s problems had nothing whatsoever to do with it’s workers.
By the way no the Gardner ( rightly ) wasn’t one of the chosen outsourced engines which were ( eventually )
used in the T45 to replace the lame old TL12.It’s just that it took the British buyers that long to understand why.
Gardner was an option on the constructor and although there was a hefty surcharge lots found homes .
That doesn’t surprise me.I think that says more about the sense of British customers than the superiority of the Gardner over a Rolls or a ■■■■■■■■
Carryfast:
As I’ve said I worked at shop floor level
I bet the rest of the staff were never seen without ear defenders, and you were the only employee whose key did not fit the office door. Here’s a job for you. I trust that your skills and qualifications meet the criteria, however I fear they are being a bit generous with the salary.
0
No one anywhere stands a chance of getting that job now that you’ve proved yourself the best person for the job with your posts on here.
Operator’s ordered a Gardner engined Constructor because that is what they wanted, if they had wanted a Rolls or Leyland engine then they would have specified them. Folk spending hard earned cash normally chose what they think will suit their operating conditions, some get it right and some do not but hey ho, that’s life. RMC had plenty of Constructors with Gardner’s running alongside their Leyland powered brothers and I would imagine that the Patricroft engined version would have cost a Premium price?
None of which has ANYTHING to do with ‘The Best Ergo’, perhaps ‘The Biggest Ego’ would have been a better title?
I refer to my earlier post, “from the Good Book”, “there are non so blind”, or to paraphrase the original Wolverhampton Corporation livery, in Dear Carryfasts case, "there aint no light coming out of the darkness!!!
Have a good day Gentlemen…maybe I will master this b… Valtra today.
Cheerio for now.
what have you done saviem ,not have bought a VALTRA ,ooh lets see then cheers benkku,and i think i know the B word
Evening all, bma, no I have not purchased the Valtra, it was a demonstrator, and sadly not a patch on the John Deeres that I operate! Yes the b… word was uttered frequently!!! No, it will be another John Deere, expensive though they are, the quality shines through!!
On a more relevant note, I do wish that Carryfast would cease his meandering posts, the vitriol must put off potential posters, who really have something of merit to contribute to this thread, The Best Ergo, which really is an interesting subject, given the enormous volume that were sold over the period that they were available. I cannot, in my own personal case, think of any more comfortable vehicle to drive, at that time, (and timescale in such a debate is crucial),than my families AEC Marshalls, even given the modest, but reliable output of the .505 engine.
Well I shall away to my supper, my Bollinger, and reflect on another hard, but succesfull day…(and bma, that b… Valtra is sitting in the yard, waiting to be taken away)!!!
Saviem:
Evening all, bma, no I have not purchased the Valtra, it was a demonstrator, and sadly not a patch on the John Deeres that I operate! Yes the b… word was uttered frequently!!! No, it will be another John Deere, expensive though they are, the quality shines through!!
On a more relevant note, I do wish that Carryfast would cease his meandering posts, the vitriol must put off potential posters, who really have something of merit to contribute to this thread, The Best Ergo, which really is an interesting subject, given the enormous volume that were sold over the period that they were available. I cannot, in my own personal case, think of any more comfortable vehicle to drive, at that time, (and timescale in such a debate is crucial),than my families AEC Marshalls, even given the modest, but reliable output of the .505 engine.
Well I shall away to my supper, my Bollinger, and reflect on another hard, but succesfull day…(and bma, that b… Valtra is sitting in the yard, waiting to be taken away)!!!
windrush:
Operator’s ordered a Gardner engined Constructor because that is what they wanted, if they had wanted a Rolls or Leyland engine then they would have specified them. Folk spending hard earned cash normally chose what they think will suit their operating conditions, some get it right and some do not but hey ho, that’s life. RMC had plenty of Constructors with Gardner’s running alongside their Leyland powered brothers and I would imagine that the Patricroft engined version would have cost a Premium price?
None of which has ANYTHING to do with ‘The Best Ergo’, perhaps ‘The Biggest Ego’ would have been a better title?
Pete.
All of which eventually contributed to the reputation of British made trucks as being underpowered,uncomfortable heaps which were supposedly badly put together by a load of militant,striking,couldn’t care less,workers.
When the reality is it has everything to do with the so called ‘best ERGO’ because there never was a best ERGO or Marathon.Not because they were built by striking couldn’t care less workers but as VALKYRIES’ post shows because their bad points outweighed any of the arguable good points they might have had.The reason for that being that Leyland Group,just like many other parts of British industry, was lumbered with being starved of investment and return of revenues earned into future growth of the business,because the bankers were pulling the strings and it therefore had to base all of it’s development and design programmes on that fact.As I’ve said some divisions did more with less under those conditions than others while things were made worse by a domestic customer base that didn’t know any better until it was all too late.
The way I see it that argument has then turned into a case of shoot the messenger when anyone tells it like it was as opposed to just agreeing with the same old bs that the uk domestic customer base knew a good product when they saw one and Leyland’s products,like the ERGO and the Marathon,were fine and the firm was awash with loads of money.It’s downfall was all the fault of those striking,militant,lazy,workers.
‘It’s downfall was all the fault of those striking,militant,lazy,workers.’
Certainly didn’t help matters though did they, anyway I thought (obviously wrongly) that the topic was still BEST ERGO, ie was the AEC version better than Leyland or Albion and not were they better than other makes of truck! Shouldn’t need 28 pages to decide that surely, those who actually drove, owned or maintained them should be able to clear it up in a few posts.
‘It’s downfall was all the fault of those striking,militant,lazy,workers.’
Certainly didn’t help matters though did they, anyway I thought (obviously wrongly) that the topic was still BEST ERGO, ie was the AEC version better than Leyland or Albion and not were they better than other makes of truck! Shouldn’t need 28 pages to decide that surely, those who actually drove, owned or maintained them should be able to clear it up in a few posts.
bma.finland:
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
I know.I was actually quoting the Rolls efficient ‘maximum’ engine speed if you look at the graph 1,300-1,800 rpm is it’s most efficient operating range.Over which range it’s putting out around 210-280 hp.The equivalent matching engine speed range of the TL12 in the Marathon corresponds to an output of around 190-250 hp so obviously less average speed/productivety while even the later flexitorque version used in the T45 isn’t much better.You’ve obviously missed everything I’ve posted previously concerning the fact that it’s all about torque.
no you missed i actually KNOW that fact ,and the fact you do not need 3000nm for every work even whit heavy weights if the geografics isn,t hard , cheers benkku
If you knew that fact then you’d have known that a 620 would be more efficient running at 60t gross than a 420 regardless of terrain considering that you’ll still need to accelerate from a standstill plenty of times during a working day and even on the flat the 620 would be able to run at lower engine speeds for a given road speed.
No it won’t. I’ve been driving a 620 for 2 weeks and to accelerate from standstill is where it loves fuel. You have to be very light on the foot to run it efficient and work a lot harder than a 500 to get decent fuel figures. Only time you need full power is when the hills come. The score system is at 86% right now and I have a very good consumption but I have worked twice as hard compared to ex a 500 to get it there. Pedal to the metal from a standstill and the fuel figures blow away directly. Even on smaller hills you shouldn’t use full power.
But power wise it’s amazing to drive. One of the stints I have driven with every thing from 480, 500, 560, 580 and now 620. With the smaller engines you need pedal to the metal and be on the limiter all the time to make it on 4.30. With the 620 I drove around 82km/h and was 7 minutes faster! (no traffic lights, no heavy traffic, just BIG hills. You are on full power for almost 20minuets at the start before you reach the top then it starts going up and down all the time)
windrush: ‘It’s downfall was all the fault of those striking,militant,lazy,workers.’
Certainly didn’t help matters though did they, anyway I thought (obviously wrongly) that the topic was still BEST ERGO, ie was the AEC version better than Leyland or Albion and not were they better than other makes of truck! Shouldn’t need 28 pages to decide that surely, those who actually drove, owned or maintained them should be able to clear it up in a few posts.
Pete.
That’s the way I read the topic too, but it sounds like you had similar problems in the UK that we had in Aus., way too many choices.
No company could keep its head above water while offering so many similar models in direct competition with each other.
Apart from all the combinations using the Ergo cab (AEC, Albion, Leyland>>>>) we also scored the BMC rebadged as a Leyland.
In that medium truck market the range was so huge any buyer quickly glazed over. Just in engine offerings I can think of the Leyland 401, 410, 680, 690, Lynx 500, AEC 505, 690, 760, the V8 Perkins and also that tiny 4-cylinder in the poverty pack Leyland.
Every make also had their own gearboxes and diffs but not to be outdone along came the Maudsley rear ends.
AND then if your choice was finally made up you’d get the bad news, your truck was still in the UK or on a ship.
So Leyland Aus. would “build” up your truck.
We scored Leylands with AEC cabs, vice versa and drivetrains of every combination.
I clearly remember my first test drive of a Hippo with the 690 and semi auto box, straight from the truck show, it went like a rocket.
In 6 months there was only a pile of parts sitting out in the weather, everything else had been begged/borrowed/stolen.
Meanwhile down the road, Volvo/Mack had a huge assembly plant and picked up a massive Army contract.
Western Star had a small assembly line and were aggressively moving into the larger truck market. No frills tiny old fashioned cab but with U.S. specced drive trains. Add a sleeper box and job done. Cooling problems with those large HP engines were quickly addressed by a local engineering team willing to improve their product. (Every 2nd big truck in Aus in now either a W.S or K.W.)
Dennings (coach builder) shifted from Leyland bus chassis to Volvo and then to MAN.
Everyone saw the writing on the wall except B.L.
Saviem:
… On a more relevant note, I do wish that Carryfast would cease his meandering posts, the vitriol must put off potential posters, who really have something of merit to contribute to this thread, The Best Ergo, which really is an interesting subject, given the enormous volume that were sold over the period that they were available… Cheerio for now.
I have tried words, diagrams, sarcasm- nothing works. It is like talking to one of those automated robot telephones that some fly-by-night large corporations inflict upon their customers. I give up. Given the futility of replying to the nonsense, I will ignore it in future, and suggest the other sensible members do the same.
I’ve often wondered why those styling/interior modifications were not applied to the production cab. Of course, they may have added a bit to the cost, compared to that horrid extruded rubber strip that the 500 series Leylands had instead of a radiator grille, but that Gas Turbine’s cab looks superb, as modern as anything else in the early 1970s. It would have kept the Ergo looking fresh until the T45 came along, and helped Leyland sell into image-conscious fleets.
bma.finland:
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
I know.I was actually quoting the Rolls efficient ‘maximum’ engine speed if you look at the graph 1,300-1,800 rpm is it’s most efficient operating range.Over which range it’s putting out around 210-280 hp.The equivalent matching engine speed range of the TL12 in the Marathon corresponds to an output of around 190-250 hp so obviously less average speed/productivety while even the later flexitorque version used in the T45 isn’t much better.You’ve obviously missed everything I’ve posted previously concerning the fact that it’s all about torque.
no you missed i actually KNOW that fact ,and the fact you do not need 3000nm for every work even whit heavy weights if the geografics isn,t hard , cheers benkku
If you knew that fact then you’d have known that a 620 would be more efficient running at 60t gross than a 420 regardless of terrain considering that you’ll still need to accelerate from a standstill plenty of times during a working day and even on the flat the 620 would be able to run at lower engine speeds for a given road speed.
No it won’t. I’ve been driving a 620 for 2 weeks and to accelerate from standstill is where it loves fuel. You have to be very light on the foot to run it efficient and work a lot harder than a 500 to get decent fuel figures. Only time you need full power is when the hills come. The score system is at 86% right now and I have a very good consumption but I have worked twice as hard compared to ex a 500 to get it there. Pedal to the metal from a standstill and the fuel figures blow away directly. Even on smaller hills you shouldn’t use full power.
If you use pedal to the metal on any decently powered wagon it’ll use loads of fuel which is then made even worse if you then combine that with high engine speeds.Which is why an underpowered engine with less torque will use more fuel than a higher powered one which has a lot more.It’s then just a matter of finding a driver who understands that and who knows that keeping engine speeds in the most efficient band possible is just as important as not putting the pedal to the metal when accelerating through the gears and you’ve got a lot more chance to make best use of that way of driving with a 620 running at 60t than with a 500 let alone a 480 or 420.If you’re finding it more difficult to get better fuel consumption figures with a 620 running at 60t gross than with a 500 or 480 then you’re not making best use of the extra ‘torque’ ( as opposed to the extra ‘power’ ) provided by the 620 simples.
[zb]
anorak:
Here’s another candidate for “Best Ergo”:
0
I’ve often wondered why those styling/interior modifications were not applied to the production cab. Of course, they may have added a bit to the cost, compared to that horrid extruded rubber strip that the 500 series Leylands had instead of a radiator grille, but that Gas Turbine’s cab looks superb, as modern as anything else in the early 1970s. It would have kept the Ergo looking fresh until the T45 came along, and helped Leyland sell into image-conscious fleets.
[/quote]
I agree, that cab looks as modern as anything on offer today.
Probably wouldn’t look so good once a radiator was cut into that front section though.
Were the wipers moved to that spot or is that photographic licence? Good idea if they were.
Still has a lot of glass for our climate.
Maybe someone could do a photoshop job on it.
The Marathon had a modified ERGO cab. Some days ago a poster asked for the production figures. Here they are
1973, Mk.1 Marathon (available Oct. 1973) production = 60
1974, Mk.1 production = 350
1975, Mk.1 production = 310
1976, Mk.1 production = 855
1974-1976 Mk.1 CKD production = 64
1974 - 1976 total Mk.1 production = 1,639
1977, Mk.2 production = 1,135
1978. Mk.2 production = 1,302
1979, Mk.2 production = 266 at Southall until end of March 1979. Assembly then transferred to Scammell
1979 - 1980, Mk.2 production 811 at Scammell until end of May 1980
1977- 1980. Mk.2 CKD 140
1977 - 1980, total Mk.2 production = 3,654
Total Marathon production = 5,293
Scammell Crusader announced 1968. Production ceased June 1981. Assembly at Guy Wolverhampton from 1975 to 1981. Total built there 1,998 approx. (assuming every number in the chassis number sequence was used). No figures for Tolpits Lane assembly are available, but Scammell could build no more than 1,500 chassis per annum of all types.
All power outputs are nett installed figures after deductions for engine driven auxiliaries.
All power and torque outputs are to BS AU 141a:1971 criteria. For modern metric equivalents increase the figure by 9%.
The Marathon was designed as a 32 tons gvw vehicle. The Commercial Motor road tester, Gibbs Grace, completed their 2-day test run with a TL12 powered Marathon in August 1973 a full 2 hours quicker than it had ever been done before. Loaded to a maximum 32 tons.
In which case your measuring abilities are about as good as your graph reading abilities assuming you’ve ever spent a night out in a Marathon cab and considering what actually happened in the real world to the TL12 engine in the T45 as opposed to what happened in your obviously re written version of history. 
cheers benkku,and i think i know the B word 
,cheers benkku 
