Hey Anorak, what did I say some time ago, that we were up to 100 pages with CF. We can’t just beat him and why,
It is a bit like discussing with a women, if she says it’s white and you prove it’s black than she will reply it’s anthracite 
.
So do like me,I have already unlearnt to discuss with them 
.
Bye Eric,
Hey, We say it must be,had to be,but everything has gone.
It think the same of my favorit F88 WHY but why and wherefore. From the first model after the 495 tiptop,things who had to be solved after bad experience. Still air wipers,no roof hatch,no hydro fan,better heating system,no rest co driver seat and so on and so on.
But forget sometimes the good things with that they became a best seller.
I think the worst thing Leyland or AEC did was selling their own knowledge and not develop their own knowledge.
Bye Eric,
There’s no consistency to his opinions either, on other threads it was the DD two strokes & KTA ■■■■■■■ that blew his frock up, now he gets moist over the even less popular RR305. I wonder what he’ll come up with next ffs…
At least he only has one trailer behind his Crusader now & we haven’t been subjected to a lesson in Americana, I suppose we should be thankful for that!
cargo:
[zb]
anorak:
… Gas Turbine’s cab …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.
Radiators- that’s a good point, something I have not considered, especially in the light of the cooling problems that the cab inflicted upon the engines! However, several other vehicles of the time had “minimal” radiator grilles, for example Berliet. Later on, the narrow T45 cab did not even have a radiator grille. The current MANs have a false grille in the upper panel, and that’s what I reckon those slots either side of the main “hole” are on the GT- styling only. If these were made functional, air could be directed at the rad from these.
The wipers are real, as the restored vehicle shows:
gingerfold:
newmercman:
I’m confused, what Ergo cabbed lorry had the Rolls 305?Confused doesn’t even begin to describe it…
You know, I’ve been around lorries since being 5 years old. I began my working career in 1968 with Rank Hovis and stayed with them until 1981, then joined Spillers Milling until 1991. Back then in Ranks flour milling and agriculture divisions at any one time the ‘heavy’ lorry fleet stood at about 350, none of them needed high power output engines, none needed sleeper cabs. Similarly in Spillers the fleet stood at around 180 ‘heavies’, none needed high power engines, none needed sleeper cabs. What we did need were cost effective and reliable trucks to do the job. OK, reliability did become an issue as Leyland sank into the morass, but in their heyday the hundreds of ERGO cabbed AECs and Leylands that I’ve worked with did what was required of them. If your average journey is 100 miles you specify accordingly. If you want to run to Saudi Arabia you specify accordingly. The majority of ‘bread and butter’ work in road transport is local (define local as 100 - 150 miles). The exotic few go to Saudi or wherever.
Then in 1991 I joined Turners of Soham for the next 14 years. Nothing was high powered there, nothing was fancy. In their time Turners operated well over 100 ERGO cabbed AECs and a few TL12 Marathons. Today, Turners run over 1,000 trucks, nothing over fancy, nothing ultra high powered. Today Turners is the largest and most successful family owned road transport business in the UK. They must have got something right over the years with their buying policy.
My point with this, you buy the truck best suited to your work. Not based on fanciful theories and dreaming.
Gingerfold, I have to tell you that a few years,about 1966,67, prior to you starting on Spillers I was on trunk for the BRS with a Leyland 600 powered Bristol which had a Bus dif fitted presumably by mistake, now this did not make this motor CJ46 very much faster than the other 600 Bristols at Hampstead but was the fastest, but if I used the M1 I would more often than not be passed by two W24 cabbed Leyland Octopus Hovis Flour tankers at very high speed, now I don’t know what engines these had or gearbox’s were fitted but as they were not particularly smokey I suspect these machines were far from standard and at least had the 680 fitted so perhaps memories have dimmed? After moving on to a 680 powered Bristol, a troublesome engine, I moved on to an AEC Mk5 Mandater with the 690 with rotary pump, that could handle the Hovis motors lol,all operating at 24t gross, I then drove the 760 powered Mandater at 32t gross but because of changes to the brake system etc. I prefered the older Mk5, we then had the Ergo which was good in parts and bad in parts, yes it was’nt draughty like the Bristols, yes it had a better heater than Mk5 and it had a clever window handle but unfortunately this broke to often and the engine hump was to high and it seemed to have less room than the older lorries and was to low. I prefered the Guy Big J with the ■■■■■■■ 220 and both had the same gearbox but dodgy brakes. The use of Ergonomic Science is all very good publicity, but I used to like having the light switches down on the rear of the cab as it used to fall to hand so easily and the driving position on the Bristol has never been bettered, they had driver input.
My choice at that time of the British lorries would have been the Atkinson with 220 but much better still the Scania. This of course is my views and I know that Chris Webbfor instance who was also an AEC fan would choose the Ergo over the Mk5…Tony
newmercman:
There’s no consistency to his opinions either, on other threads it was the DD two strokes & KTA ■■■■■■■ that blew his frock up, now he gets moist over the even less popular RR305. I wonder what he’ll come up with next ffs…At least he only has one trailer behind his Crusader now & we haven’t been subjected to a lesson in Americana, I suppose we should be thankful for that!
There’s nothing wrong with Americana either.The idea that the TL12 powered Marathon knocked 2 hours off of the Commercial Motor test route in 1973 just shows how bad everything which they were comparing it with was not how good the TL12 heap was. 
So if it could do all that with 780 lbs/ft of torque at 1,300 rpm just think what the ■■■■■■■ 335 could have done with 1,000 lbs/ft.While it actually shows that the Brits were learning ( slowly ) in 1973 what the Americans already knew in that the idea of naturally aspirated diesels belonged in the stone age.
As for the erroneous idea of popularity of a product determining it’s actual capabilities or superiority I think we’ve already dealt with that issue previously in that there have been plenty of examples over the years which prove that garbage can sell well and be produced in large numbers while quality often gets made and sells in relatively less numbers.
As for the ■■■■■■■ KTA I don’t think I’ve ever said that there would be any point in using that to run at 32-38 t gross at uk/european type speeds as opposed to the 14 Litre ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ crossing the states at silly speeds at around 36 t gross or pulling scandinavian,let alone Oz,type weights back in the day might be a different story. 
Carryfast:
Icee:
Carryfast:
bma.finland:
Carryfast:
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 outI 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 ,
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.
As I said. Yes you can get a good consumption but you have to work very hard for it. Forget cruise control, forget just easing of. You have to work, but it will pay of. I’m starting to get better and better but it ain’t easy. Changing gear around 1300rpm, letting of at every crest. The engine is so “wild” that even the slightest change of the throttle position sky rockets the consumption. (the 620s put on a dyno has proved to have close to 700hp and over 3500nm)
Have a driver working for a big company then not giving a ■■■■ about it and you will have a very high fuel bill. Thats why a 620 is not bought on regular basis
Yes, the rest must have been really bad for the TL12 to knock 2 hours off the time. Poor old Volvo F88 and Scania 110, beaten into a cocked hat by a heap of British junk. CF, as you’ve commented on previous threads about journey times and relative vehicle productivity then I’m surprised at your totally negative response, but then again it seems that it is impossible for you to be objective when presented with facts.
As I commented on the Gardner thread ■■■■■■■ conducted a strategic review of the British engine market in the mid-1950s and concluded that there was a huge opportunity for them in the UK.
Icee:
Carryfast:
Icee:
Carryfast:
bma.finland:
Carryfast:
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 outI 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 ,
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.
As I said. Yes you can get a good consumption but you have to work very hard for it. Forget cruise control, forget just easing of. You have to work, but it will pay of. I’m starting to get better and better but it ain’t easy. Changing gear around 1300rpm, letting of at every crest. The engine is so “wild” that even the slightest change of the throttle position sky rockets the consumption. (the 620s put on a dyno has proved to have close to 700hp and over 3500nm)
Have a driver working for a big company then not giving a [zb] about it and you will have a very high fuel bill. Thats why a 620 is not bought on regular basis
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying.However it’s ridiculous to use that case,that well powered vehicles need to be driven with good driver discipline in regards engine management,to then jump to the erroneous conclusion that underpowered ones are easier to be driven more economically.When the fact is there’s absolutely no way that something with a lot less torque than a 620 can be made to haul 60t gross around without it using more fuel to do so,unlike the 620,regardless of how good it’s driver is.
That situation has applied ever since the idea of reasonably large capacity,turbocharged engines,providing at least 10 hp per tonne,started to become the ( rightly ) accepted engineering solution to optimising the productivety and fuel efficiency equation.It’s then just a case of explaining the aims of that engineering solution to the drivers.If,after that,there’s still a problem concerning drivers ‘not giving a zb’ about driving the thing properly,then it’s obviously a driver recruitment issue not an engineering one being that getting the best combination of productivety and fuel efficiency from a well specced truck is one of the pleasures and job satisfaction of doing the job.Although as you say things like cruise control and automated transmissions are actually a hindrance in allowing drivers to get on with that job in the most efficient way possible.
So for me the 620 powered 60 tonner,‘but’ fitted with a fuller box and none of the automation or cruise control bs fitted to it,would be the ultimate combination of productivety and fuel efficiency as the road transport industry stands at the moment and the culmination of all those years of truck development ( and the mistakes made in getting there ) since at least the 1970’s.
gingerfold:
Yes, the rest must have been really bad for the TL12 to knock 2 hours off the time. Poor old Volvo F88 and Scania 110, beaten into a cocked hat by a heap of British junk. CF, as you’ve commented on previous threads about journey times and relative vehicle productivity then I’m surprised at your totally negative response, but then again it seems that it is impossible for you to be objective when presented with facts.As I commented on the Gardner thread ■■■■■■■ conducted a strategic review of the British engine market in the mid-1950s and concluded that there was a huge opportunity for them in the UK.
Yes the Volvo F88 might have been beaten into submission by the Marathon with a TL12 in it in 1973 ‘but’ it wasn’t the outdated 1960’s design F88 which Leyland needed to be worrying about.It was the F12 in this case which was just around the corner and which the Marathon’s combination of ridiculously small cab and having no decent engine options ( except ‘maybe’ but seemingly never existing the 300 hp + ■■■■■■■ 
which most Brit buyers would have thought was way overpowered ),wasn’t going to do the job but of course the uk customers,( and the bankers and politicians who controlled Leyland’s fate ) weren’t looking further ahead than their nose.While even the TL12 powered T45 which followed the Marathon wasn’t going to beat that type of foreign competition.At the point in time we’re talking about nothing less than SA 400 type cab design together with 300 hp + Rolls or ■■■■■■■ engine options stood the slightest chance.While as we’ve seen British customers decided to put a naturally aspirated Gardner in even that instead.While it wasn’t until ‘after’ the T45’s introduction that Leyland and it’s customers finally woke up and started to get their act together in the form of demanding and building the 300 hp + ■■■■■■■ and Rolls powered versions of that having put the TL12 where it belonged in the skip.While even that was a compromised design again being a symptom of Leyland’s long term underfunding and under investment issues.
Carryfast:
Icee:
Carryfast:
Icee:
Carryfast:
bma.finland:
Carryfast:
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 outI 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 ,
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.
As I said. Yes you can get a good consumption but you have to work very hard for it. Forget cruise control, forget just easing of. You have to work, but it will pay of. I’m starting to get better and better but it ain’t easy. Changing gear around 1300rpm, letting of at every crest. The engine is so “wild” that even the slightest change of the throttle position sky rockets the consumption. (the 620s put on a dyno has proved to have close to 700hp and over 3500nm)
Have a driver working for a big company then not giving a [zb] about it and you will have a very high fuel bill. Thats why a 620 is not bought on regular basis
That’s exactly what I’ve been saying.However it’s ridiculous to use that case,that well powered vehicles need to be driven with good driver discipline in regards engine management,to then jump to the erroneous conclusion that underpowered ones are easier to be driven more economically.When the fact is there’s absolutely no way that something with a lot less torque than a 620 can be made to haul 60t gross around without it using more fuel to do so,unlike the 620,regardless of how good it’s driver is.
That situation has applied ever since the idea of reasonably large capacity,turbocharged engines,providing at least 10 hp per tonne,started to become the ( rightly ) accepted engineering solution to optimising the productivety and fuel efficiency equation.It’s then just a case of explaining the aims of that engineering solution to the drivers.If,after that,there’s still a problem concerning drivers ‘not giving a zb’ about driving the thing properly,then it’s obviously a driver recruitment issue not an engineering one being that getting the best combination of productivety and fuel efficiency from a well specced truck is one of the pleasures and job satisfaction of doing the job.Although as you say things like cruise control and automated transmissions are actually a hindrance in allowing drivers to get on with that job in the most efficient way possible.
So for me the 620 powered 60 tonner,‘but’ fitted with a fuller box and none of the automation or cruise control bs fitted to it,would be the ultimate combination of productivety and fuel efficiency as the road transport industry stands at the moment and the culmination of all those years of truck development ( and the mistakes made in getting there ) since at least the 1970’s.
Well my findings is that a r500 or r580 is much more easier to drive economical. They just don’t react the same way a 620 does to the pedal. Fuller, no way in hell. Normal manual works fine but not for one moment would I want a fuller on the roads I drive. Don’t want to go out and put on chains every time I mess up a gear change in the winter. No matter how perfect the driver is you will mess it up on these roads.
youtube.com/watch?v=wg9yLVe0uMQ imagine this kind of roads in the winter. Just listen how the turbo has to work all the time and try get why I’m saying it’s a bit easier to drive economical with a bit weaker engine. Not a 420 but a 500-580 or at least my findings when driven everything from 420 to 620 and volvo 420-610
gingerfold:
newmercman:
I’m confused, what Ergo cabbed lorry had the Rolls 305?Confused doesn’t even begin to describe it…
You know, I’ve been around lorries since being 5 years old. I began my working career in 1968 with Rank Hovis and stayed with them until 1981, then joined Spillers Milling until 1991. Back then in Ranks flour milling and agriculture divisions at any one time the ‘heavy’ lorry fleet stood at about 350, none of them needed high power output engines, none needed sleeper cabs. Similarly in Spillers the fleet stood at around 180 ‘heavies’, none needed high power engines, none needed sleeper cabs. What we did need were cost effective and reliable trucks to do the job. OK, reliability did become an issue as Leyland sank into the morass, but in their heyday the hundreds of ERGO cabbed AECs and Leylands that I’ve worked with did what was required of them. If your average journey is 100 miles you specify accordingly. If you want to run to Saudi Arabia you specify accordingly. The majority of ‘bread and butter’ work in road transport is local (define local as 100 - 150 miles). The exotic few go to Saudi or wherever.
Then in 1991 I joined Turners of Soham for the next 14 years. Nothing was high powered there, nothing was fancy. In their time Turners operated well over 100 ERGO cabbed AECs and a few TL12 Marathons. Today, Turners run over 1,000 trucks, nothing over fancy, nothing ultra high powered. Today Turners is the largest and most successful family owned road transport business in the UK. They must have got something right over the years with their buying policy.
My point with this, you buy the truck best suited to your work. Not based on fanciful theories and dreaming.
I`ve mentioned this several times when threads have been hijacked ,its horses for courses ,the vehicle that suits your operation best simple as that
Saviem:
Morning all, gingerfold, hear, hear.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.
Being from yorkshire and quite limited i would say "theres a light on but nobodys in " which probably equates to what youre saying
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
Yes, the rest must have been really bad for the TL12 to knock 2 hours off the time. Poor old Volvo F88 and Scania 110, beaten into a cocked hat by a heap of British junk. CF, as you’ve commented on previous threads about journey times and relative vehicle productivity then I’m surprised at your totally negative response, but then again it seems that it is impossible for you to be objective when presented with facts.As I commented on the Gardner thread ■■■■■■■ conducted a strategic review of the British engine market in the mid-1950s and concluded that there was a huge opportunity for them in the UK.
Yes the Volvo F88 might have been beaten into submission by the Marathon with a TL12 in it in 1973 ‘but’ it wasn’t the outdated 1960’s design F88 which Leyland needed to be worrying about.It was the F12 in this case which was just around the corner and which the Marathon’s combination of ridiculously small cab and having no decent engine options ( except ‘maybe’ but seemingly never existing the 300 hp + ■■■■■■■
I agree with everything youve said Mr Carryfast you are right on the button ,top man , just a few things though ,firstly youre now saying that the F88 was outdated but if you check up it was Volvo hanging onto Leylands coat tails, the F88 was a fine machine but when the TL12 was launched Volvo acted fast and introduced the 290 F88 which was loved by many but wasnt as reliable as the 240 F88.Its been mentioned on this thread many times even by yourself so it must be right that Leyland had massive financial problems so even if they did worry about the F12 which was nearly 5 years down the line ( and they didnt have a crystal ball)there wasnt that much they could have done about it ,but again you quote the F12 when you should be quoting the F10 ,i dont think the Marathon cab was cramped infact it was as near ■■■■ it a walk thru .1 last thing if like you say that the Marathon was total rubbish even though many on here disagree and that the TL12 was in your opinion the same ,well dont forget this was a vehicle that was rushed through with very little investment what could AEC/Leyland have produced with full financial backing,maybe a much improved TL12 ,V8 ,and a cab to match the Swedes?
Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 20.Page 30.TRUCKNETUK.
First of all I must reply to the incorrect comment by Cargo:-
Quote:-“No company could keep its head above water while offering so many similar models in
direct competition with each other.”
VALKYRIE replies:Multi-marque companies have far bigger market shares and profits than single
marque companies.This objective fact was proved by the Leyland Motor Corporation in
the 1950s,1960s and 1970s,and other motor corporations have also proved it,and are still proving
it! 
And now for the main event:-
As I said in my Post 19,page 28,in this thread on Monday,20th May,2013:“With this newly acquired
information,I will hopefully deal with the Leyland 700-Series and 500-Series Fixedhead Diesel
Engines in my next post ”
So here we go:-
LEYLAND 700-SERIES AND 500-SERIES FIXEDHEAD -HEADLESS WONDER- DIESEL ENGINES.
First of all,I will have to repeat the major points again:-
1.Both AEC and Leyland diesel engines were prone to blowing cylinder head gaskets.
2.According to the former secretary of the British Leyland Truck & Bus Division and author of
several books on the history of Leyland motorcoaches and buses,Doug Jack,British Leyland’s
Director of Engineering,Albert D.Fogg,influenced by the five-times Le Mans Motor Race-winning
Bentley fixedhead motorcar engine,Albert formulated the Leyland 700-Series fixedhead diesel engine.
3.The Leyland 700-Series fixedhead engine would eliminate cylinder head gasket issues once and
for all! It would also improve engine cooling,because there would be no cylinder head retaining
bolts disrupting water passsages and the flow of cooling water.
4.The 700-Series had a capacity of 700 CID - 11.4 litres,a single overhead camshaft which was
driven by a timing gear train that was mounted on the rear of the engine.
5.Here is some of what I said in my Post 16:-
“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 ”
LEYLAND 500-SERIES AND 700-SERIES ENGINES - NEW INFORMATION.
A.Apparently,there were two versions of the Leyland O.400 Comet Diesel Engine:One had a U-Flow
cylinder head and the other had a Cross-Flow cylinder head.This cross-flow version in the Comet
and Super Comet lorry range was not reliable:It kept blowing cylinder head gaskets,so Leyland
came up with an uprated version of the O.400 which had a u-flow cylinder head which largely
eliminated the blown gasket problems
B.Leyland engineers looked in to the future and saw that it was turbocharged,but they didn’t
have much confidence in producing turbocharged versions of the O.400,O.600 and O.680 engines
because of all the blown cylinder head gasket problems.
C.This new information does not mention Albert Fogg by the way.But it does mention the same
things that I mentioned in my previous post,No.19:Ergomatic-cabbed AEC,Albion and Leyland
lorries had cooling problems and this harmed export sales.This new information goes on to say
exactly what I said in my above point 3,but it goes further on to say that improved cooling
would result in longer valve life-engine life,and,if it was a fixedhead engine,it would reduce
machining costs.
D.Again,I’ll quote myself from my No.16 Post:"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,so Leyland could properly compete with the similar sized engines of ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■
Royce,AEC,Volvo,etc …but,on the other hand,as [ZB] Anorak says,there were the AEC
11.3,12.47 six-cylinder,and AEC 800-Series/801-Series V8-cylinder,plus the Leyland 680 and 690
11.1-litre six-cylinder engines
E.Well,actually,this new information says that the 500-Series engine was designed to replace
the O.400 engine …and,oh yes! …a 700-Series engine was planned to replace the O.680
engine! …Single-cylinder turbocharged pilot engines were built and tested,and these highly
turbocharged engines passed the tests
F.The maximum power output of the 500-Series turbocharged engine was predicted to be 260 BHP,so
the misguided Leyland Product Planning Division foolishly began questioning the need for the
700-Series engine - bloody short-sighted fools! Thus they very misguidedly dropped the 700-Series
engine - due to cost cutting no doubt - and decreed that the 500-Series at 170 BHP should replace
the O.400 in the Comet,a 200-220 bhp lightly turbocharged version would replace the O.600 and a
turbocharged 500-Series 260 BHP engine would replace the O.680 engine Leyland’s product planning
misadventure failed to take in to account the 10 to 15 and more litre engines of Leyland’s
rivals! My new information reveals that the above decree was controversial within Leyland,which
of course,included Albert Fogg’s decision to resign from his various positions in British Leyland
because of the axing of the 700-Series engine
G.After extensive work on trying to find a solution to the engine cooling problems in Ergomatic-
cabbed lorries,it was concluded that it was the poor engine installation design of the Ergomatic
cab that caused the cooling problems -please SEE My Post 19.It had nothing to do with cylinder
head and gasket design.Work on testing turbocharged O.400 and O.680 engines started up again.
H.If the poor engine installation design of the Ergomatic cab was bad for AEC and Leyland
engines,it was even worse for the 500-Series engine - this engine would NOT FIT! It was
discovered that the 500-Series engine designers had used the LAD cab floor dimensions,NOT the
Ergomatic ones,to set the installation measurements of the 500-Series engine! Just what the hell
were they playing at?!!!
There was no way to get around it,the Ergomatic cab was already tooled up and had been in
production for two years already,so major design changes to this cab just could not be made.
I.There was no way around the above problem,except to raise the cab by 5 inches,so all the
Leyland lorry models in the 500-System had Ergomatic cabs that were 5 inches higher,compared to
the Leyland Freightline Ergomatic cabs.The raising of the cab introduced further problems,but
these were eventually resolved.
J.The Leyland 500-Series engine was a commercial and engineering disaster,the late great Pat
Kennett said the engine had a rejection rate of 60%! and warranties were very high :-
1B.The rear timing gear train was intended to allow rear-mounted engine auxiliaries and service
access,etc,at the front,but for some reason or reasons,it was not successful and a front-mounted
gear train was added to drive the cooling fan and some other auxiliaries
2B.The building costs of this engine were far,far higher than the O.400 engine,and,as I’ve
already said several times in this thread,manufacturing quality ranged from good to mainly
terrible - as I say:60% rejection rate
3B.All of the following problems showed up in service:The housing for the rear-mounted timing
gear train was not stiff enough and caused “engine bending”,noise and vibration.The engines
used to go stiff - some would seize up,and so on,and so on
4B.So much money was spent on 500-Series engine warranty payouts,modifications in trying to get
the engine to work properly that management would not consent to development work on the O.400
and O.680 engines,so the engineers had to do this work in secret Furthermore,the cost of a 500-
Series engine was higher than,say an O.680 engine,and this gave Leyland’s rivals a price
advantage
THE LEYLAND 8 TO 11 ENGINE PROGRAMME - THE IRONY OF IT ALL.
So Leyland carried on…on the Leyland 500-Series Engine Rocky Road,poor engine manufacturing
quality,engine seize ups and all But in 1976,there were changes in Leyland’s top management and
the Leyland 8 to 11 Engine Programme was started:The scrapping of the 500-Series engine in favour
of a revised and uprated O.680 engine,the TL11A This turbocharged engine was powerful and
smooth-running,and not only powered Leyland lorries,but also motorcoaches and buses and was
further developed to produce 245 BHP and then 260 BHP - notably for motorcoaches and buses
It was one of the best pure Leyland engines that Leyland ever made ,and should have been made
from the late 1960s at least instead of wasting money on the 500-Series Engine fiasco!
It was really ironical
LEYLAND 500-SERIES FIXEDHEAD HEADLESS WONDER DIESEL ENGINE - A FIASCO:-
…and one of it’s victims - a representative example…the engine change says it all :-
LEYLAND BUFFALO 500-SYSTEM 4x2 FLAT-BODIED ARTICULATED LORRY,HUD 377L.1972.It originally had a
500-Series 510 engine,now has a TL11A engine.Preserved :-
Leyland TL11 260 BHP Diesel Engine IN EXCELSIS! :A silky smooth running and sounding,powerful
and very reliable Leyland TL11 260 BHP Diesel Engine powers this magnificent motorcoach :-
LEYLAND TIGER 260 TRCTL11/3RZ/DUPLE 340SL C51T MOTORCOACH,Chassis No.8700022,Body No.8795/0452,
Reg E52 URH,KINGSTON STAR.Previously registered 152 FRH and 834 EYD.March 1988.East Yorkshire
Motor Services No.52.Sold to Motorcoach Leasing in 1999:-
DAIMLER Motor Vehicle Marque.Yes.The splendid ex-British Leyland Daimler marque is the eighth
marque to have the last say so far:- WHAT? !Another motorcoach and bus marque? I here you say. Well,this Post No.20 will reveal that besides motorcoaches and buses,Daimler
also made lorries - one lorry model was quite spectacular! - and the company had a brief
agreement with AEC…Daimler also continue to make high quality luxury motorcars
DAIMLER MARQUE MOTORCOACH AND BUS BADGE:-
DAIMLER COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS Stand No.236,R.A.S.E Show,Wollaton
Park,Nottingham,Summer 1915.Daimler Y-Type Lorry on the right:-
DAIMLER CB,FLAT-BODIED,2-TON 4x2 LORRY,PW 104,1915.Watts,Lydney:-
Daimler made the spectacular Daimler Renard Roadtrain - Road Locomotives,which pulled 3-axle
drawbar trailers,the middle axle of each trailer was powered by a series of universally-jointed
power shafts.The front one of which was connected to the road locomotive’s transmission system,
so these shafts went from trailer to trailer.The Daimler Road Locomotive was powered by a Daimler
Knight 16.1-litre sleeve valve 6-cylinder 80 BHP petrol engine.
roadtrains.com.au/article_ar … ticleId=79
DAIMLER RENARD ROADTRAIN - Road Locomotive and three powered drawbar trailers in preservation:-
AEC and Daimler entered in to a marketing agreement under the ADC = Associated Daimler Company
name.
AEC and Daimler.ASSOCIATED DAIMLER Commerial Vehicles advertisement,showing an ADC - Associated
Daimler Company Sturdy 70-CWT Lorry model.1926-1928 - that’s how long Associated Daimler lasted:-
ASSOCIATED DAIMLER 416A/WYATT C30D MOTORCOACH,BR 6496.1928.Northern General D376.Preserved.South Yorkshire Transport Rally 2011,Meadowhall Shopping Centre Motorcoach Park,Sheffield:-
ASSOCIATED DAIMLER 802 LS/EAGLE ENGINEERING 6x4 9-TON HEAVY BREAKDOWN TENDER HEAVY RECOVERY
VEHICLE,one of four ex-L.G.O.C.LS Class double decker buses converted in to HRV’s:-
ASSOCIATED DAIMLER 802 LS/EAGLE ENGINEERING 6x4 9-TON HEAVY BREAKDOWN TENDER HEAVY RECOVERY
VEHICLE,one of four ex-L.G.O.C.LS Class double decker buses converted in to HRV’s -
1.Chassis No.802015,Reg UC 2299,BT 219U,ex-LS6.
2.CN.802017,Reg YW 7989,BT 220U,LS8.
3.CN.802011,Reg UC 2201,BT 221U,LS3.
4.CN.802018,Reg YW 7986,BT 222U,LS10.
Portrait-painting profiles:-
Daimler is better known as a luxury motorcar manufacturer,and at one time was THE choice of
motorcars for the British royal family,and the royal families of other countries :-
DAIMLER DOUBLE 6-50,6.5-Litre OHV V12,ROYAL STATE LIMOUSINE.1935,King George V.Front nearside
view.India.In 1947 it was bought by the Maharaja of Darbhanga.Now owned by car dealer Sharad
Sanghi:-
DAIMLER Mk2 4x4 ARMOURED CAR,British Army,WW2:-
DAIMLER CVD6SD/DUPLE A-TYPE FS1 C35F MOTORCOACH,ORB 277,JULY 1950.Blue Bus,Willington
DR12,BAMMOT,Wythall:-
Jaguar needed increased motorcar production capacity by 1974,so they started producing cars in
Daimler’s Radford,Coventry,factory and transferred Daimler Fleetline bus production to Leyland.
Last Coventry-built Daimler Fleetline-
Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX,Metsec WO6 H61,41D 102-Seat Double Decker Bus,Chassis No.67993,BG 1223.
March 1974. China Motor Bus Company LF14:-
Sadly,I cannot find a photograph of the complete omnibus,but I have found a photograph of the
last but one Coventry-built Daimler Fleetline :-
Daimler Fleetline CRG6LX,Metsec WO6 H61,41D 102-Seat Double Decker Bus,Chassis No.67992,BG 3635.
May 1974. China Motor Bus Company LF30.The last but one Coventry-built Daimler Fleetline:-
Production details:-
67992 CRG6LX-33 BG3635 Metsec W06 H61/41D 5/1974 China Motor Bus LF30
67993 CRG6LX-33 BG1223 Metsec W06 H61/41D 3/1974 China Motor Bus LF14
There is no wonder why I’m doing tributes to British Leyland marques! Because,in common with all
of the other marques,the Daimler marque name was criminally dropped!!! 
This kind of ludicrous and callous act rightly put people off Leyland and all it’s works!!!
The Daimler name survived on motorcars ,but was replaced by the Leyland name on DAIMLER bus
models
DAIMLER.Last Daimler (“Leyland”) Fleetline to be built-Daimler Fleetline FE30ALR/ECW H44/31F 75-
Seat Double Decker Bus,Chassis No.8002356,Body No.25067,SCH 117X,1981.South Notts 117,then
Hulleys 20:-
The Daimler CB,CC,CD,CK,etc,were built for multi-purpose use,suitable for bus and lorry use,as is shown in the next photograph,below.
100 Years of Motorbuses in Sheffield 1913-2013,and the first bus to be operated by Sheffield
Corporation happened to be this Daimler bus :-
DAIMLER,SHEFFIELD.First omnibus to be bought by Sheffield Transport,
Daimler CC419/Dodson OT18/16R 34-Seat Double Decker Bus,W 3201,1913.Sheffield No.1 :-
So it was appropriate that the last bus that entered service with Sheffield Corporation was the
Daimler bus below in 1973.South Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive took over bus and
motorcoach operations from April 1974 …and the glorious Sheffield light cream,azure blue
relief,livery gradually disappeared…which was scandalous!!!
DAIMLER,SHEFFIELD.Last omnibus to be bought by Sheffield Transport -
Daimler Fleetline CRG6LXB/Park Royal H43/27D 70-Seat Double Decker Bus,Chassis No.67602,WWJ
754M,1973.Sheffield No. 754.Preserved.Seen at Sandtoft Transport Centre,near Doncaster :-
VALKYRIE
Valkyrie mate so many engine models you’ve lost me.
But in all my 680 years I only found fault with the head studs, not the actual gasket.
Our problem was stretched head studs which would lead to a blown head gasket and that was a basic design flaw with the puny 9/16" BSF tapped thread in the cast iron block, they just pulled out.
And the length of thread into the block was far too short. We split blocks where the stud ended and thus the coolant pumped out through the crack.
In my opinion the 680 was passed its use by date, time to move on.
But not with that crazy fixed head thing.
cargo:
Valkyrie mate so many engine models you’ve lost me.
But in all my 680 years I only found fault with the head studs, not the actual gasket.
Our problem was stretched head studs which would lead to a blown head gasket and that was a basic design flaw with the puny 9/16" BSF tapped thread in the cast iron block, they just pulled out.
And the length of thread into the block was far too short. We split blocks where the stud ended and thus the coolant pumped out through the crack.
In my opinion the 680 was passed its use by date, time to move on.
But not with that crazy fixed head thing.
Was the head-clamping arrangement improved on later O680s and the TL11? What about the DAF 1160 engine- did that have a different top end design?
VALKYRIE:
Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 20.Page 30.TRUCKNETUK.First of all I must reply to the incorrect comment by Cargo:-
Quote:-“No company could keep its head above water while offering so many similar models in
direct competition with each other.”VALKYRIE replies:Multi-marque companies have far bigger market shares and profits than single
marque companies.This objective fact was proved by the Leyland Motor Corporation in
the 1950s,1960s and 1970s,and other motor corporations have also proved it,and are still proving
it!
VALKYRIE
Thanks for another enjoyable read, Valkyrie.
Regarding multiple-marque conglomerates, I tend to agree with Cargo on this. Successful firms of this type use common main components- the different products are created by detail styling/marketing. The Leyland group had a massive plethora of different components, so rationalisation was essential.
I am still unsure about the need for the fixed-head engine to compete in the 11 litre market. The O680 still had plenty of development potential, as demonstrated by DAF. The AEC AV760 was still quite a new design, so would be expected to stay in production for some time. Given that, why was the AEC V8 a similar capacity? Its higher rated speed would allow it more power than the 760, but there seems to have been an unhealthy obsession with compact overall dimensions. Was the decision to mount the Ergo low made before the V8’s specification was finalised, and this forced AEC down the compact size/high speed route?
Earlier in the thread, there was mention of the the original Ergo concept including a higher-mounted version, at the outset. I wonder why this did not make it into production? I also wonder why the Ergo was so low-mounted- I can only guess that the eronomics studies, which informed much of its design, made a big deal of entry/egress, and the engineers took this at face value.
[zb]
anorak:cargo:
Valkyrie mate so many engine models you’ve lost me.
But in all my 680 years I only found fault with the head studs, not the actual gasket.
Our problem was stretched head studs which would lead to a blown head gasket and that was a basic design flaw with the puny 9/16" BSF tapped thread in the cast iron block, they just pulled out.
And the length of thread into the block was far too short. We split blocks where the stud ended and thus the coolant pumped out through the crack.
In my opinion the 680 was passed its use by date, time to move on.
But not with that crazy fixed head thing.Was the head-clamping arrangement improved on later O680s and the TL11? What about the DAF 1160 engine- did that have a different top end design?
VALKYRIE:
Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 20.Page 30.TRUCKNETUK.First of all I must reply to the incorrect comment by Cargo:-
Quote:-“No company could keep its head above water while offering so many similar models in
direct competition with each other.”VALKYRIE replies:Multi-marque companies have far bigger market shares and profits than single
marque companies.This objective fact was proved by the Leyland Motor Corporation in
the 1950s,1960s and 1970s,and other motor corporations have also proved it,and are still proving
it!
VALKYRIE
Thanks for another enjoyable read, Valkyrie.
Regarding multiple-marque conglomerates, I tend to agree with Cargo on this. Successful firms of this type use common main components- the different products are created by detail styling/marketing. The Leyland group had a massive plethora of different components, so rationalisation was essential.
I am still unsure about the need for the fixed-head engine to compete in the 11 litre market. The O680 still had plenty of development potential, as demonstrated by DAF. The AEC AV760 was still quite a new design, so would be expected to stay in production for some time. Given that, why was the AEC V8 a similar capacity? Its higher rated speed would allow it more power than the 760, but there seems to have been an unhealthy obsession with compact overall dimensions. Was the decision to mount the Ergo low made before the V8’s specification was finalised, and this forced AEC down the compact size/high speed route?
Earlier in the thread, there was mention of the the original Ergo concept including a higher-mounted version, at the outset. I wonder why this did not make it into production? I also wonder why the Ergo was so low-mounted- I can only guess that the eronomics studies, which informed much of its design, made a big deal of entry/egress, and the engineers took this at face value.
I think the reasoning concerning the idea of using a new fixed head design v development of the 680 is clearly contained in VALKYRIES’ listing under the heading ‘New Information’ which seems to fit my previous comments related to the 500 v 700 fixed head engine issue.
Firstly it seems obvious that the designers were looking well ahead to the use of high forced induction boost pressures ( see E ) but the issue of the head to block joint integrity of the 680 was already suspect at that point for whatever reasons ( see B ).Which could have been gasket quality or clamping design or a combination of both.In view of E and B the idea of circumventing those issues using the fixed head idea to avoid costly re designing of the 680 with limited budgets seems entirely logical .
Then added to that they seem to have got wrong footed,as I’ve said,in confusing head gaskets blowing as a ‘symptom’ of overheating,‘caused’ by ‘other’ reasons ( in this case what obviously turned out to be putting the thing into a too confined cab over design arrangement ),with overheating being caused by gasket failure ( see G ).Which really seems a basic failing in logical diagnostic thinking in that overheating based head gasket failiure is always a ‘symptom’ of an inherent overheating problem,which needs to be identified and sorted out,never a ‘cause’.
The New Information also,contrary to VALKYRIES’ view, seems to support my comments that there was actually no connection whatsoever between the 500 and the 700.They were,in fact,two ‘different’ engines which just coincidentally shared the fixed head idea and engineering logic says they would have had to be because there’s no way that any of the components used to make a 500 engine could also be used for a 700 engine.( See E again ) IE it says ‘the 500 engine’ was designed to replace the 400 and ‘a 700 engine’ was planned to replace the 680.It then goes on to say that highly turbocharged single cylinder pilot ‘engines’ were tested and passed.It’s obvious in that case that the respective ‘engines’ would have been single cylinder designs with totally different capacities based on the two respective ‘different sized’ engines.IE the 500 ‘and’ the 700.
As I’ve said it then seems obvious that the 700 of those ‘two different’ engine choices was dropped in favour of just keeping the 500.As VALKYRIE says due to typical ( banker driven ) cost cutting by Leyland’s so called product planners.Based on the ridiculous idea that a 260 hp 8 Litre engine could do the same job as an equally turbocharged 700 could do.( See F )
In none of those cases does that contain evidence that the 700 was ever ‘reduced’ in capacity.The 700 was in fact dropped in favour of just using different much smaller in capacity 500 and using that to do the same job as the removed 700 choice.
A VALKRIE rightly says that ‘banker’ driven decision obviously took no account of the fact that there’s no way that a small engine can be made to do the job of a larger one.Which is why the foreign competition kept it’s development of such larger engines going and it’s why Dr Fogg rightly walked away from the job.
Assuming that the fixed head 700 engine wouldn’t have had the same problems as the 500 in service ( big question ) there’s no reason to think that it wouldn’t have been a much better option,than throwing non existent money at the 680,thereby providing Leyland Group with a spring board to get ahead of it’s competition in the horse power race and provide much needed breathing space to design,or outsource,a later generation of conventional seperate block/head engines later designed from the outset with high boost pressures in mind.
None of which would have solved the engine cooking abilities of the ERGO cab though or the fact that if you’re going to produce a V8 ( or a 12 litre + 6 cylinder ) then make sure it’s a good one.In which case it’s obvious that in the case of the V8 it needed to reflect the capacity of the CAT 3408,FIAT,or at least the 15 litres + of the modern Scania design.As for the TL12 why bother when you could just outsource a better Rolls or a ■■■■■■■■
Banker led decisions, that’s how business works in the real world ffs!
The problem at Leyland Trucks was that the Labour Government forced an alliance with BMC and all the other struggling poorly run car manufacturers, all of which required money from the profitable Truck Division to remain in business. There was no rationalization, not in the products or the sales and aftermarket sides of the business, internal competition and pig headednessin the boardroom combined to make a bad situation even worse.
The result was the Government had to step in to protect the jobs of the workers (coincidentally they were mostly Labour Party members) The bankers had already seen the writing on the wall & would, quite rightly, not support a sinking ship.
Yes the Ergo cabbed lorries had some design flaws, which could easily have been ironed out if the resources of the Truck Division were ploughed back into Leyland and Southall, but instead the money was sent to Bathgate, Canley, Cowley, Longbridge, Solihull & Speke were it was swallowed up by badly designed and made cars and militant striking workers who cost the group hundred’s of millions in profits and lost market share which would never be recovered.
That is the real reason behind the shortcomings of the Ergo cab. Even so it was a better cab than any of the homegrown competition and as good as anything on offer from the foreign manufacturers at the time of its launch.
newmercman:
Banker led decisions, that’s how business works in the real world ffs!The problem at Leyland Trucks was that the Labour Government forced an alliance with BMC and all the other struggling poorly run car manufacturers, all of which required money from the profitable Truck Division to remain in business. There was no rationalization, not in the products or the sales and aftermarket sides of the business, internal competition and pig headednessin the boardroom combined to make a bad situation even worse.
The result was the Government had to step in to protect the jobs of the workers (coincidentally they were mostly Labour Party members) The bankers had already seen the writing on the wall & would, quite rightly, not support a sinking ship.
Yes the Ergo cabbed lorries had some design flaws, which could easily have been ironed out if the resources of the Truck Division were ploughed back into Leyland and Southall, but instead the money was sent to Bathgate, Canley, Cowley, Longbridge, Solihull & Speke were it was swallowed up by badly designed and made cars and militant striking workers who cost the group hundred’s of millions in profits and lost market share which would never be recovered.
That is the real reason behind the shortcomings of the Ergo cab. Even so it was a better cab than any of the homegrown competition and as good as anything on offer from the foreign manufacturers at the time of its launch.
Exactly banker ‘led’ decisions are what killed Leyland just like loads of the other British manufacturing industry.It was ‘because of’ those banker ‘led’ decisions that the place was a sinking ship in the first place not vice versa.
As for Canley and Solihull the Jaguar,Rover,Triumph division of the Leyland Group was actually profitable it was just mainly Austin Morris where the problems were in that regard concerning the car side of Leyland.Which can again be blamed on those banker led decisions in stopping production of cars like the Westminster and Healey 3 Litre etc etc in favour of zb front wheel drive heaps like the Maxi etc etc and reducing living standards amongst the general workforce in the economy as a whole,including automotive manufacturing,thereby removing sales of profitable decent quality cars like those big Jags,Rovers and Triumphs and,just like the truck making divisions,starving them of cash to develop their products and pay the workforce properly for the work they were doing.In which case it should be no surprise
that the workers answer to that was to first ask,diplomatically,for their wages to be re instated in line with inflation and when that failed had to resort to strike action and/or the good old fashioned work ethic of you pretend to pay us we pretend to work.While engineers like Dr Fogg just decided to ( rightly ) walk away.
Those ‘banker led decisions’ were then applied in much greater form amongst the economy as a whole under the administration of their great leader Thatcher and that’s why the whole country and what’s left of it’s economy is now in the same position that Leyland was in and it’s probably why you’ve decided to leave the sinking ship just like Dr Fogg did.The difference is that I doubt if Dr Fogg blamed the workers for it all instead of putting the blame where it really belonged.
