BEST 'ERGO' ?

[carryfast]

kr79:
Ok geoffrey your right jags and triumphs were the best cars on the road and were built like they were carved from granite and never broke down.
It was a conspiracy by thatcher the eec and the chinese to make out that if you could get one built inbetween strikes the doors would fall off and the electrics only worked three days a week

Or put it another way.It would have been interesting to have seen what type of car ze Germans would have turned out and the reaction of ze verkers in ze varterland might have been ‘if’ Mercedes’ and BMW’s managements and the German bankers had said that all Mercedes and BMW products had to reduced in price to a level which reflected that of their British competition.Such as a price reduction of around 40 % in cases such as the 450 etc in which much of the savings would need to be met by paying 40% less wages for the same amount of work.In addition to which the same percentage in savings would need to be found concerning all other production and materials and component costs.

[carryfast]

kr79:
I remember reading years ago that the fixed head engine was reduced in size during the design to bring the weight under 1 ton. Dont know if theres any truth in it though.
Also that there was a high rejection rate on the production line but how many also slipped through the net.
So it could be poor tooling and casting that didnt help as it seems by all acounts you got one that was either super reliable or more likely one that [zb] it self on s regular basis.

There seems to be a difference in the reasoning given in some explanations compared to others for the capacity of the 500.IE some say it was all about space while others say it was all about weight.

It wouldn’t be surprising that ‘if’ it had been the case,that Leyland’s bean counters had been stupid enough to order just the downscaling of the 700,instead of ordering the designing a different smaller capacity fixed head engine,and then expected it to work,to have then had to think up an excuse quick to put the blame anywhere else but where it belonged when it inevitably didn’t work. Which might be a possibility considering the documented reports that the thing was manufactured on new machinery which was purchased to do the job which would then make the excuse of so called out of tolerance machining less credible.

It would also explain why Dr Fogg seems to have walked away because of his ‘issues’ concerning the use of the 500 engine design with no documented reports as to his exact reasoning for doing so.Especially if,to add insult to injury of using a too small engine capacity for it’s design aims,the beancounters then also effectively and erroneously butchered the 700 engine design,that he seems to have had faith in,to do it.All because of a bs weight saving crusade,let alone if it had been because Leyland needed something which would fit under the too small/low set ERGO cab.

However engineering logic says that there’s no way that the 500 could have had any connection with the 700 with both having had to have been two different engines.Which would have simply meant that the bean counters in control of Leyland chose the wrong option beween the two ideas possibly in view of the documented compromised engine space available with the ERGO cab.Then true to form tried to cover themselves by putting the blame elsewhere and using misinformation to change story of how it all happened from the outset.Especially if the whole thing had been the result of flawed thinking in following Mueller’s advice.

As for the reliable 500’s v the grenades I’d bet that would have been a case of those that were used in the lighter weight applications running at a lot less than 32 t gross.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

kr79:
I remember reading years ago that the fixed head engine was reduced in size during the design to bring the weight under 1 ton. Dont know if theres any truth in it though.
Also that there was a high rejection rate on the production line but how many also slipped through the net.
So it could be poor tooling and casting that didnt help as it seems by all acounts you got one that was either super reliable or more likely one that [zb] it self on s regular basis.

There seems to be a difference in the reasoning given in some explanations compared to others for the capacity of the 500.IE some say it was all about space while others say it was all about weight.

It wouldn’t be surprising that ‘if’ it had been the case,that Leyland’s bean counters had been stupid enough to order just the downscaling of the 700,instead of ordering the designing a different smaller capacity fixed head engine,and then expected it to work,to have then had to think up an excuse quick to put the blame anywhere else but where it belonged when it inevitably didn’t work. Which might be a possibility considering the documented reports that the thing was manufactured on new machinery which was purchased to do the job which would then make the excuse of so called out of tolerance machining less credible.

It would also explain why Dr Fogg seems to have walked away because of his ‘issues’ concerning the use of the 500 engine design with no documented reports as to his exact reasoning for doing so.Especially if,to add insult to injury of using a too small engine capacity for it’s design aims,the beancounters then also effectively and erroneously butchered the 700 engine design,that he seems to have had faith in,to do it.All because of a bs weight saving crusade,let alone if it had been because Leyland needed something which would fit under the too small/low set ERGO cab.

However engineering logic says that there’s no way that the 500 could have had any connection with the 700 with both having had to have been two different engines.Which would have simply meant that the bean counters in control of Leyland chose the wrong option beween the two ideas possibly in view of the documented compromised engine space available with the ERGO cab.Then true to form tried to cover themselves by putting the blame elsewhere and using misinformation to change story of how it all happened from the outset.Especially if the whole thing had been the result of flawed thinking in following Mueller’s advice.

As for the reliable 500’s v the grenades I’d bet that would have been a case of those that were used in the lighter weight applications running at a lot less than 32 t gross.

Well according to what ive read it was Sir Henry Spurrier who was the brains behind the 700 ,he was still in conversation with Dr Mueller whilst the project was going on but his untimely death broke links with Germany and the project was taken over by Norman Tattersall ,no mention anywhere of Dr Fogg .It clearly states that the only reason it was downscaled was the height of it.Now reading into it im sure you would have been a big fan of Sir Henry Spurrier as he wanted back in59/60 an engine that could have produced 300 bhp+ so obviously the forward thinking was there

[valkyrie]

Thanks for the information Ramone Norman Tattersall rings a bell :-
From the Friday,16th November,1956 edition of THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR:-
NORMAN TATTERSALL will become chief engineer of the engine division when his present contract
with the Ministry of Supply Tank factory expires. The engineering organization of Leyland Motors,
Ltd., has been reconstituted into three divisions– vehicle, engine, and industrial and railcar.

Best Ergomatic Cabbed-Lorry Model? PART 21.Page 32.TRUCKNETUK.

Have a Happy WHITSUNTIDE

Bank Holiday

In reply to Saviem:-References for my No.19 Post,page 28,in this thread on the AEC,Albion,Leyland
GKN Sankey Ergomatic Cab:-
Leyland Society Journal No.13.
Leyland Society Journal No.14.
Reference for the Leyland 700-Series and 500-Series Fixedhead Headless Wonder Diesel Engines in
my No.20 Post,page 30,in this thread:-
Leyland Society Journal No.3.

LEYLAND 700-SERIES AND 500-SERIES FIXED CYLINDER HEAD HEADLESS WONDER DIESEL ENGINES.

The article in No.3,is a dissappointment.It’s title includes this statement:“The development of
the 500 engine…”
Although the author worked as an engineer on the chassis side of Leyland’s Truck and Bus
Division,the title is a misnomer since,A,he was not part of the engine development
team,B,although he does provide some details on the engines (QV my No.20 Post),he does not
provide full details on the history of the development of the 700-Series and 500-Series engines
and,C,he does reveal whose idea it was for a fixed cylinder head engine in the first place!

Anyway,during my research for the marque last say feature in this post,I did come across an
article by a former Leyland engineer,who had also worked as an engineer for other companies in
the motor industry,M.R.Dunn - his name will also be mentioned in my reply to [ZB] Anorak.
According to him,the 500-Series engine was designed by a senior engineer who was apparrently on
the verge of retirement and regarded his last design,i.e,the 700-Series-500-Series as something
of a swansong.An unusual feature of the 500-series is that it was a bi-rotational engine:The
flywheel could be fitted at either end of the crankshaft,and the auxiliaries could be fitted on
both sides of the engine.
He also mentions that the 500-Series had resonant engine bending - this was also mentioned in the
500-Series article,but it was a different form of engine bending,as far as I know,becuse
resonance wasn’t involved.

VALKYRIE wrote:-

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!

[ZB] Anorak wrote:-

“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.”

VALKYRIE replies:-

MULTI-MARQUE COMPANIES HAVE THE BIGGEST MARKET SHARES AND PROFITS.

We have covered this subject before,as have several other enthusiasts and the story of the
Leyland Motor Corportion-British Leyland Motor Corporation is essentially tragi-comic
The chief of Leyland,Sir Henry Spurrier III,rightly said that Leyland’s chief objective should
always be “at the top of the tree” Thus,they went empire building and took over some very
successful companies,such as Albion,Scammell,AEC,Rover,Self Changing Gears,and so on,and the
group flourished and did very well in the 1950s and 1960s ,in fact Leyland was the largest
commercial vehicle group in the world! It was one of the flagship British companies! And it dominated the British commercial vehicle market and certain export markets!
And all was well with the world :-
LEYLAND was moving fast in a fast-moving world -

LEYLAND MOTOR CORPORATION ADVERTISEMENT -MULTI-MARQUE LMC WERE MOVING FAST-IN A FAST MOVING WORLD DURING THE HALCYON 1960s.Note the AEC Mk V lorry in the background:D :-

LEYLAND.SIR HENRY SPURRIER III,chief of Leyland,his objective for the company was,in his own words" Leyland should always be at the top of the tree" :-

As a believer in the Afterlife,I’m sure that both Sir Henry Spurrier and Lord William Black of
Barrow In Furness (Spurrier’s successor) had some very harsh words to say to Harold Wilson,Sir
George Harriman,Ron Ellis,Lord Donald Stokes (Henry’s No.1 boy),etc, for leading the Leyland
Group in to bankruptacy,ruin and death!

THE SURREAL LEYLAND WORLD.
But there is another way at looking at the above Leyland story,a story that became true and is
worthy of those delightfully surreal Salvador Dali paintings,the most famous of which is this one :-
Surrealist,Salvador Dali,painted “The Persistence of Memory” in 1931,complete with floppy clocks! :-

Surreal Leyland,though,is anything but delightful!
Leyland Surreal is a nightmare! Thus:the successful Leyland Motors bought successful companies and closed them down,and in doing so Leyland alienated customers,became a failure and vanished! - What a stark contrast to the Leyland moving fast in a fast-moving world image!!!

It’s tragi-comic and surreal! - and anti-commercial!

LEYLAND POSITIVE RATIONALSATION = COMMERCIAL SUCCESS.

But to return to those halcyon days of the 1950s and 1960s,when the Leyland group was king!
Leyland engines were fitted in Leyland’s,Albion’s and Scammell’s,the group hub reduction axle
was fitted to Leyland and Albion models (Scammell and Guy models as well? ).
AEC-Thornycroft gearboxes were fitted to certain Scammell models,and AEC engines were fitted in
certain Guy,Scammell and Albion vehicles.And there were other component sharing exercises as
well.All the marques went from success to success …and all was well with the world

LEYLAND NEGATIVE RATIONALSATION = COMMERCIAL SUICIDE.
I’m all for rationalsation to a certain extent in the above positive way.BUT Leyland committed
obscene NEGATIVE RATIONALSATION in the 1970s and beyond,with its wholesale mass D E S T R U C T I O N of the most successful and major part of the British Commercial Vehicle Industry!!!

And if anybody agrees with this EVIL policy he or she is objectively totally WRONG!!!

IT WAS ABSOLUTELY FUTILE, COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE AND L U D I C R O U S !!!

AND THE SCANIAS,MERCEDES-BENZS,VOLVOS,DAFS,FODENS,ET AL,ALL DANCED ON LEYLAND’S GRAVE!!!

In other words,the market shares of AEC,Guy,Scammell,Albion,Bristol,Daimler,Leyland,et al,
were taken over by Volvo,Scania,MAN,Hino,Foden,etc - all these manufactures must have
laughed all the way to the bank because of increased market shares! They must have thought that
all their Christmases had all come at once!!!

I’m sure that,although there is component sharing in today’s multi-marque companies,some of the
motor manufacturers within these groups still design and build their own engines,transmissions
and other components

Astute and wise people also state the objective facts too,such as Leyland and Alvis engineer,
M.R.Dunn :-

QUOTE:-"Decisions had been taken to rationalise the various AEC,Albion,BMC Bathgate,
Guy and Leyland lorries by offering only Leylands.The result was that when their favourite
marque was no longer available many previously loyal lorry operators decided to
change to Volvo,Scania or Mercedes-Benz,instead of to the Leyland model that they felt had
upsurped their previous choice.Competitors sensed the demise of Leyland and were on the look out
for opportunities ."UN-QUOTE.

And I myself knew in 1976 that this would happen to Leyland! - I have proof

LORD DONALD GRESHAM STOKES OF LEYLAND.Had a very severe telling off from Henry Spurrier III and
William Black for helping to destroy the Leyland Group.He is now learning the errors of his ways
- and all of the Leyland mis-management will sooner or later:-

Two more photographs that capture the negative,surreal and twilight world of Leyland’s tragi-comic Götterdämmerung :-

SALVADOR DALI.Alfred Hitchcock’s SPELLBOUND - part of the delightfully surreal Wishful Dreaming sequence.The mysterious faceless murderer :-

Salvador Dali.Alfred Hitchcock’s SPELLBOUND - another photo of part of the delightfully surreal
dream sequence by Salvador Dali .This symbolicaly depicted a murder mystery in psychoanalytic
dream interpretation - This is also symbollic of Leyland’s fratricides,prolicide and suicide
in the business and commercial sense of these terms.The faceless man next to the chimney is the
mysterious murderer- in this case it’s the iniquitous Leyland mis-management! :-

And here is a list and explanations of the amazing number of 'cides! :-
phrontistery.info/kill.html

I love surrealism :-
sgillamhumanities.blogspot.co.uk … ntury.html

The mention of Alvis above is very appropriate:ALVIS is the marque to have the last say in this Post No.21:-
Alvis,like Albion,is another rare survivor of the British Leyland tragi-comedy and debacle
Well,at least it was until 2004 when it became part of British Aerospace Land Systems,ALVIS,The
Red Triangle,very sadly lost it’s identity - trust top management to make ludicrous mistakes!
However,Alvis was mainly known for it’s high quality motorcars,sports cars,grand tourers,etc,but
Alvis stopped making their motorcars in 1967,under Leyland policy - trust top management to make
ludicrous mistakes! ,but Alvis continued to make military vehicles,etc

ALVIS marque The Red Triangle badge:-

ALVIS FWD TYPE FA ULSTER OPEN SPORTS CAR,1928.Has front wheel drive,which was quite unusual in 1928:-

ALVIS also built large motorcars and limousines for the Top Hatted Brigade -Alvis Crested Eagle T-Series Limousine.1937:-

ALVIS-STRAUSSLER IIID ALL-WHEEL STEER 4x4 ARMOURED CAR,World War Two:-

In the Post War years Alvis produced a range of six wheel drive military and civilian motor vehicles,all of which were based on the same 6x6 twin steer chassis design that featured Rolls-Royce B-Series in-line 8-cylinder petrol engines,which had a range of different gearboxes,all of which drove through propeller shafts,drive shafts,six bevel gear units each of which had a drive shaft that drove one wheel each.The reason for this unusual transmission system was to have
improved ground clearance and cross-country performance,compared to vehicles that had conventional drive axles:-
The Saladin Armoured Car,Saracen Armoured Personnel Carrier,Salamander Airfield Fire Crash Tender
Fire Engine and the Stalwart Amphibious High Mobility Freight Carrier Lorry

ALVIS SARACEN FV603 6x6 ARMOURED PERSONNEL CARRIER,31 3A 16,CAEN,ex-British Army:-

ALVIS Stalwart Mk1,Mk2 FV620,FV622,FV623,FV624 Amphibious High Mobility Freight Carrier Lorry.Cross sectional illustration:-

ALVIS Stalwart Mk1,Mk2 FV620,FV622,FV623,FV624 Amphibious High Mobility Freight Carrier Lorry:-

ALVIS SALAMANDER FV651A Mk 6 OR FV652A Mk 6A,PYRENE 6x6 AIRFIELD FIRE CRASH TENDER FIRE ENGINE.Coloured painting of cross-sectional view of this Alvis:-

ALVIS SALAMANDER FV651A Mk 6 OR FV652A Mk 6A,PYRENE 6x6 AIRFIELD FIRE CRASH TENDER FIRE ENGINE,73 AG 90.ROYAL AIR FORCE:-

British Leyland,instead of closing down Alvis,like they iniquitously did with almost everything else! ,actually sold Alvis to United Scientific Holdings in late July 1981

Alvis also built aeroplane engines,such as the Leonides radial nine-cylinder 450-650 BHP engine:-
Alvis Leonides Radial Nine-Cylinder 450-650 BHP Aeroplane Engine:-

Alvis took over Unipower in 1994,which made timber-logging road locomotives,and later made
airfield fire crash tender fire engines,military vehicles,heavy haulage ballast road locomotives,
etc,at least - from 1988 - some of which were based on Scammell designs…Scammell being
another tragic victim of the Leyland disaster - trust top management to make ludicrous mistakes!

UNIPOWER FORESTER 4x4 TIMBER LOGGING ROAD LOCOMOTIVE,JAE 412,1945:-

UNIPOWER RE6D/CARMICHAEL 6x6 AIRFIELD FIRE CRASH TENDER FIRE ENGINE,G664 BPJ,1990.DUNSFOLD AERODROME:-

UNIPOWER,ALVIS-UNIPOWER,M-SERIES MH8875 8x8 HEAVY HAULAGE BALLAST ROAD LOCOMOTIVE,P547 HNT,1998.ALE=Abnormal Load Engineering:-

---

Just out of interest,I’ve finally put up an avatar for my TRUCKNETUK Posts :-

Pierce Arrow Silver Arrow V12 4-Door 6-Light Aerodynamic Streamlined Sedan Motorcar,of 1933
Only five were made,the sale price was $10000 each - very expensive in those days - and in
the words of the late great Automotive Historian,Michael Sedgwick,this magnificent motorcar
was a “Dream Car,an aerodynamic monster in the grand manner” :-

VALKYRIE

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:

kr79:
I remember reading years ago that the fixed head engine was reduced in size during the design to bring the weight under 1 ton. Dont know if theres any truth in it though.
Also that there was a high rejection rate on the production line but how many also slipped through the net.
So it could be poor tooling and casting that didnt help as it seems by all acounts you got one that was either super reliable or more likely one that [zb] it self on s regular basis.

There seems to be a difference in the reasoning given in some explanations compared to others for the capacity of the 500.IE some say it was all about space while others say it was all about weight.

It wouldn’t be surprising that ‘if’ it had been the case,that Leyland’s bean counters had been stupid enough to order just the downscaling of the 700,instead of ordering the designing a different smaller capacity fixed head engine,and then expected it to work,to have then had to think up an excuse quick to put the blame anywhere else but where it belonged when it inevitably didn’t work. Which might be a possibility considering the documented reports that the thing was manufactured on new machinery which was purchased to do the job which would then make the excuse of so called out of tolerance machining less credible.

It would also explain why Dr Fogg seems to have walked away because of his ‘issues’ concerning the use of the 500 engine design with no documented reports as to his exact reasoning for doing so.Especially if,to add insult to injury of using a too small engine capacity for it’s design aims,the beancounters then also effectively and erroneously butchered the 700 engine design,that he seems to have had faith in,to do it.All because of a bs weight saving crusade,let alone if it had been because Leyland needed something which would fit under the too small/low set ERGO cab.

However engineering logic says that there’s no way that the 500 could have had any connection with the 700 with both having had to have been two different engines.Which would have simply meant that the bean counters in control of Leyland chose the wrong option beween the two ideas possibly in view of the documented compromised engine space available with the ERGO cab.Then true to form tried to cover themselves by putting the blame elsewhere and using misinformation to change story of how it all happened from the outset.Especially if the whole thing had been the result of flawed thinking in following Mueller’s advice.

As for the reliable 500’s v the grenades I’d bet that would have been a case of those that were used in the lighter weight applications running at a lot less than 32 t gross.

Well according to what ive read it was Sir Henry Spurrier who was the brains behind the 700 ,he was still in conversation with Dr Mueller whilst the project was going on but his untimely death broke links with Germany and the project was taken over by Norman Tattersall ,no mention anywhere of Dr Fogg .It clearly states that the only reason it was downscaled was the height of it.Now reading into it im sure you would have been a big fan of Sir Henry Spurrier as he wanted back in59/60 an engine that could have produced 300 bhp+ so obviously the forward thinking was there

Which still leaves the inconvenient matter as to where did Knowles get the idea that it was Spurrier ( obviously with the connection with Mueller ) who stated that the 500 idea was there from the outset with references to it’s design aims being that of ‘doing the work of an 11 litre + engine in the long haul sector’ .Added to which is that issue that there’s no way that a 700 engine can just be ‘downscaled’ to make it into a 500.The two engines would have needed to have been different designs,using different coponents,from their respective outsets.

Reading between the lines of all the different accounts there was definitely plenty of forward thinking going on in at least one of the firms that made up the Leyland Truck Group.However all the evidence seems to suggest that the forward thinking in question was all on the part of Dr Fogg and AEC not Spurrier and Leyland.What followed seems to have been a an orchestrated campaign of misinformation to cover up what actually took place concerning the bean counters backing the wrong choices in the case of Spurrier’s ( and Mueller’s ) 500 engine idea and the ERGO/Marathon cab as opposed to Dr Fogg’s 700 engine idea and the 3 VTG project.In this case,as I’ve said,the VTG cab would have at least made for a more competitive product than the ERGO/Marathon while the 700 engine might just have given Leyland the breathing space and time it needed to develop the TL12 asuming that it was cost effective to do so v the use of outsourced engines.

It’s my bet that Mueller might have foreseen Leyland’s development programme possibly moving forward along those lines which would explain his advice to Spurrier concerning wasting loads of money on the 500 engine project especially when it seems that Mueller had no long term plans of becoming a German ex pat Englander working for the long term interests of Leyland.

Which leaves the question as to why was such an immigrant worker was brought in from BMW to ‘advise’ the Brits when it had already been shown that British engineering could easily sort out anything which BMW’s engineers could produce in the case of the Mk IX Spitfire v the Focke Wulf 190 and then when ze Germans ( rightly ) junked the BMW radial in favour of the Jumo 213 to keep up the Brits just answered that with the Griffon powered versions of the Spit.

As I’ve said the whole story of the ERGO/Marathon and the 500 engine v the Mercedes LP range is just another story in the sad case of how the Brits won the war but lost the peace all because of the stupid British ‘bankers’ who seemed to have been working more in the interests of the post war German economy than their own.

[kr79]

Im sure ive read on other threads on here that the lp range of mercs were often jokingly refered to as ■■■■ atkinsons

[carryfast]

kr79:
Im sure ive read on other threads on here that the lp range of mercs were often jokingly refered to as ■■■■ atkinsons

I think it was a better product by the standards of the day than a 500 powered ERGO.

img.fotocommunity.com/photos/14751164.jpg

[ramone]

kr79:
Im sure ive read on other threads on here that the lp range of mercs were often jokingly refered to as ■■■■ atkinsons

German Gardners or Hitlers revenge !!!

[ramone]

CF, how can you say that the 3VTG cab would have been more successful than the Marathon when you know absolutely nothing about it ,all you know is what you`ve seen on here a few photos of a prototype that looked like a yank mounted on an AEC chassis for testing.You dont know what the ride was like ,the space inside, the visibility ,you know absolutely nothing whatsoever ,like most of your postings on here its either hindsight with your usual quote of history shows ,or just disagreement for the sake of it .I still cant quite make out why you compare the Marathon with the much higher powered F12 when it was the F10 which had a very similar output,maybe you wouldnt like the results of a test match between those 2.

[carryfast]

ramone:
CF, how can you say that the 3VTG cab would have been more successful than the Marathon when you know absolutely nothing about it ,all you know is what you`ve seen on here a few photos of a prototype that looked like a yank mounted on an AEC chassis for testing.You dont know what the ride was like ,the space inside, the visibility ,you know absolutely nothing whatsoever ,like most of your postings on here its either hindsight with your usual quote of history shows ,or just disagreement for the sake of it .I still cant quite make out why you compare the Marathon with the much higher powered F12 when it was the F10 which had a very similar output,maybe you wouldnt like the results of a test match between those 2.

Firstly ‘the ride’ of any wagon will be more dependent on the chassis engineering in the form of suspension design and axle placement than cab design although fitting suspension seats as standard would help.As for why I think the 3 VTG cab would have been better than a Marathon having spent enough nights out in the Marathon cab I’d certainly have preferred that LP in the pic.But an educated guess,based on US cab development,tells me that the 3 VTG cab would probably have had more potential for making something that was more competitive with that and the later Volvo F 10/12 than the Marathon ever was.Which seems to have been the same logic that AEC’s engineers were using.

As for comparing the TL12 powered Marathon and T45 with the F12 as opposed to the F10 maybe you’re forgetting about their comparative engine capacities.In which case it’s no good trying to lower the target to suit the fact that the TL12 was underperforming in terms of it’s specific outputs compared to the F12.Or for that matter the Rolls which was ‘eventually’ put into the T45 to try to make it competitive in terms of power output.

Yes I do often use the term ‘history shows’ because that’s exactly the term which proves the facts and the only way that you can make the facts show that the ERGO/Marathon were competitive designs would be by re writing history.

[bma_finland]

the g volvo was not liked by drivers becouse of the axle montage 30cm foward whit short elliptic springs did the motor bumpy ,just a tought about US specs in europe ,cheers benkku

[carryfast]

bma.finland:
the g volvo was not liked by drivers becouse of the axle montage 30cm foward whit short elliptic springs did the motor bumpy ,just a tought about US specs in europe ,cheers benkku

There’s a difference between a totally British designed and built truck just using American ‘influenced’ cab design built on a British chassis as opposed to a British built American truck using American cab and chassis design.The 3 VTG project seemed to have been a case of the former not the latter.

As I’ve said putting the 3 VTG cab on the Crusader chassis maybe using the 700 fixed head and TL12,assuming that they could have been developed to be competitive,or using outsourced Rolls and ■■■■■■■ options if not,probably would have been a more competitive product that the Marathon was.It’s obvious that the money wasted on development and fixing the ‘issues’ concerning both the 500 engine and the ERGO cab set Leyland back to a level against it’s competition which could never be made up.

[tiptop495]

Carryfast:

kr79:
Im sure ive read on other threads on here that the lp range of mercs were often jokingly refered to as ■■■■ atkinsons

I think it was a better product by the standards of the day than a 500 powered ERGO.

img.fotocommunity.com/photos/14751164.jpg

Hey, I’m not sure if everything was better, LOOK at the cardboard underneath the engine .
You compare here it with the worst engine (500) but have not all nowadays overhead cameshafts and gear at the back. But some years before the 0680 was the better engine as Mercs OM326 which had even no direct injection. And only a few years later the first Merc direct injection OM346 was even worse as the P680 in our Daf’s.
The biggest bugbears were the closed markets look at spain or Italy the haulier had to buy what was built at home,we had the same here with electic things all built but never developed. Of course the Germans are clever men but built bad things too look at Krupp and other. And wasn’t Britain, that was a pioneer in adventing the industial area BUT never developed further.
Yes it was the better,but a big fuel waster and underpowered even with a V10 engine. But the Germans had always the hands on bigger comfort,even this here has a finishing coachbuilder’s touch. In the beginning of the LP cab,MB couldn’t deliver the longer sleeper and was done by coach-builders. Because that was the standard of the Germanen buyer (the haulier), here we had to sleep on the seats for the odd night out. And most sold here had the shorter sleeper, all depends from country to country. In the UK you could sleep in a warm café couldn’t you?? the Germans were allowed to take a hotel in bad conditions, and we were allowed to sleep on the seats without a nightheater in winter. It only became better when there was a shortage of drivers in the '80’s with nightheaters,but lots had to be pleased with the very inflammable stove or to lug with gasbottles .

Cheers Eric,

[saviem]

Evening all, Valkyrie, thank you for the reference post…and the Dali images, we have quite a collection of his work…(prints, not originals I hasten to add)!!!

You know bma, and tiptop 495 give some great information, thanks.

Well while you all enjoy your break, well we are all working…tis ever the way!!

Have an enjoyable break, cheerio for now.

[carryfast]

tiptop495:

Carryfast:

kr79:
Im sure ive read on other threads on here that the lp range of mercs were often jokingly refered to as ■■■■ atkinsons

I think it was a better product by the standards of the day than a 500 powered ERGO.

img.fotocommunity.com/photos/14751164.jpg

Hey, I’m not sure if everything was better, LOOK at the cardboard underneath the engine .
You compare here it with the worst engine (500) but have not all nowadays overhead cameshafts and gear at the back. But some years before the 0680 was the better engine as Mercs OM326 which had even no direct injection. And only a few years later the first Merc direct injection OM346 was even worse as the P680 in our Daf’s.
The biggest bugbears were the closed markets look at spain or Italy the haulier had to buy what was built at home,we had the same here with electic things all built but never developed. Of course the Germans are clever men but built bad things too look at Krupp and other. And wasn’t Britain, that was a pioneer in adventing the industial area BUT never developed further.
Yes it was the better,but a big fuel waster and underpowered even with a V10 engine. But the Germans had always the hands on bigger comfort,even this here has a finishing coachbuilder’s touch. In the beginning of the LP cab,MB couldn’t deliver the longer sleeper and was done by coach-builders. Because that was the standard of the Germanen buyer (the haulier), here we had to sleep on the seats for the odd night out. And most sold here had the shorter sleeper, all depends from country to country. In the UK you could sleep in a warm café couldn’t you?? the Germans were allowed to take a hotel in bad conditions, and we were allowed to sleep on the seats without a nightheater in winter. It only became better when there was a shortage of drivers in the '80’s with nightheaters,but lots had to be pleased with the very inflammable stove or to lug with gasbottles .

Cheers Eric,

The Germans in general have always been just average engineers compared to the Brits but somehow managed to invest loads more money in it’s industries especially in the post war years and it’s that investment which has always been reflected in it’s products.Whereas the Brits have always been better engineers but for some reason,unlike Germany,the banks have always been hostile to investment in British industry by comparison.To the point now where the British manufacturing industry has effectively been wiped out.It’s just that ironically it was our own bankers that did it not Hitler.As for the flaws contained in German trucks Mueller obviously knew that which would explain why he seems to have helped to make sure that the future British competition would more likely to be along the lines of the 500 ERGO rather than a 700,TL12,Rolls or ■■■■■■■ powered 3 VTG.With a lot of help from Leyland’s bean counters of course.

However from the point of view of the workers and the different European economies and the individuality of their products closed markets are a good thing not a bad one and it was the British market’s exposure to large scale imports,at least since we joined the EEC/EU,which was the final nail.

[cargo]

I can’t believe the fixed head engines were pulled due to a height problem■■?
This coming from a company that had no trouble modifying the cab for the Marathon, or splaying the chassis to fit the GM in the Crusader.
A company that manufactured trucks as futuristic as the gas turbine powered prime mover or strange engines like the L60 horizontally opposed tank engine.
To me this engine was a fail from the get-go and it took the bean counters to finally do the deed.
Why a fixed head at all, what were they thinking.
OK they had a cylinder head to block sealing problem, it could have been solved without resorting to this idea.
Most modern high powered diesels today have twin overhead cam and a head gasket…can be done.

[zb_anorak]

cargo:
I can’t believe the fixed head engines were pulled due to a height problem■■?
This coming from a company that had no trouble modifying the cab for the Marathon, or splaying the chassis to fit the GM in the Crusader.
A company that manufactured trucks as futuristic as the gas turbine powered prime mover or strange engines like the L60 horizontally opposed tank engine.
To me this engine was a fail from the get-go and it took the bean counters to finally do the deed.
Why a fixed head at all, what were they thinking.
OK they had a cylinder head to block sealing problem, it could have been solved without resorting to this idea.
Most modern high powered diesels today have twin overhead cam and a head gasket…can be done.

I think the 1960s was an exciting time for engine designers, especially in a big company like Leyland which, at the time, was at the forefront of innovation. There were all sorts of ideas floating about- high speed V’s, even higher-speed short stroke V’s, Foden were still enthusing about the future for their two-strokes, while the turbocharged in-line six asserted itself as the standard. Mack were engineering the future of every lorry engine, but nobody recognised that fact, even when the Maxidyne was in production! In that climate, Leyland could be forgiven for pursuing a theoretically superior concept. I suspect that, if they had a few more Dr. Engineers in the office, they would have made it work. The field now known as Design for Manufacture seems to have been short of brains at Leyland, as it was in many British companies. It still is, come to think of it. In the past few years I have paid countless invoices to firms with the word “Engineering” on their letterheads, and the proprietors would not even know how to add up a tolerance stack.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

bma.finland:
the g volvo was not liked by drivers becouse of the axle montage 30cm foward whit short elliptic springs did the motor bumpy ,just a tought about US specs in europe ,cheers benkku

There’s a difference between a totally British designed and built truck just using American ‘influenced’ cab design built on a British chassis as opposed to a British built American truck using American cab and chassis design.The 3 VTG project seemed to have been a case of the former not the latter.

As I’ve said putting the 3 VTG cab on the Crusader chassis maybe using the 700 fixed head and TL12,assuming that they could have been developed to be competitive,or using outsourced Rolls and ■■■■■■■ options if not,probably would have been a more competitive product that the Marathon was.It’s obvious that the money wasted on development and fixing the ‘issues’ concerning both the 500 engine and the ERGO cab set Leyland back to a level against it’s competition which could never be made up.

How on earth did the ergo set Leyland back when it was streets ahead of its rivals when introduced in `64,what set Leyland back was not improving it until its demise in 1980.It was the same basic design with a few modifications in the 16 years it was built thats what let it down it was never improved.Which of course leads to the question ,if it was so bad why did they sell so many and history shows they sold thousands .
Putting a concept cab on a Crusader chassis and then fitting a concept engine into it?The cab was a test bed they only built one 700 engine you seem to be assuming quite alot here and if this 700 engine was a flop just like the 500 what then.And why would the Crusader chassis be the one to use.Just because Scammell gave the option of a DD engine doesnt make the Crusader a world beater,it was just a motor panels cab sat higher on the chassis

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:
the g volvo was not liked by drivers becouse of the axle montage 30cm foward whit short elliptic springs did the motor bumpy ,just a tought about US specs in europe ,cheers benkku

There’s a difference between a totally British designed and built truck just using American ‘influenced’ cab design built on a British chassis as opposed to a British built American truck using American cab and chassis design.The 3 VTG project seemed to have been a case of the former not the latter.

As I’ve said putting the 3 VTG cab on the Crusader chassis maybe using the 700 fixed head and TL12,assuming that they could have been developed to be competitive,or using outsourced Rolls and ■■■■■■■ options if not,probably would have been a more competitive product that the Marathon was.It’s obvious that the money wasted on development and fixing the ‘issues’ concerning both the 500 engine and the ERGO cab set Leyland back to a level against it’s competition which could never be made up.

How on earth did the ergo set Leyland back when it was streets ahead of its rivals when introduced in `64,what set Leyland back was not improving it until its demise in 1980.It was the same basic design with a few modifications in the 16 years it was built thats what let it down it was never improved.Which of course leads to the question ,if it was so bad why did they sell so many and history shows they sold thousands .
Putting a concept cab on a Crusader chassis and then fitting a concept engine into it?The cab was a test bed they only built one 700 engine you seem to be assuming quite alot here and if this 700 engine was a flop just like the 500 what then.And why would the Crusader chassis be the one to use.Just because Scammell gave the option of a DD engine doesnt make the Crusader a world beater,it was just a motor panels cab sat higher on the chassis

Firstly the larger capacity,lower speed,lower stressed 700 would have had a lot more of a chance of meeting it’s design aims than the smaller capacity,higher speed,higher stressed 500 ever did.

The idea of the advantages,contained in the fixed head idea,to be able to make a leap forward in specific torque outputs,by way of high forced induction boost pressures,in an environment where the head to block joint issue was a real problem needing investment and time to sort out, v the drawbacks such as regular servicing etc seem to be arguably in favour of the integral block head type design as I’ve said ‘at that point in time’.Which then would have allowed breathing space to get on with developing the TL12 which was the Leyland Group’s only real credible contender in the in house engine range.

As for the Crusader chassis,even with it’s compromised fixed cab,it’s record in service seems to show that it was one of the Leyland group’s best with the ability to easily accept fitment of all types of engines with the added benefit of being able to do so without cooking them.So there’s no reason to think that putting the 3 VTG cab on it wouldn’t have made it an even better product.Which puts your continuing flawed reliance,on introduction dates being everything,when actually it’s what happens during the production life of the product which matters,into perspective.IE the thing ‘might’ have ‘arguably’ been ‘slightly’ ahead when it was introduced but that wasn’t much use a few years later in an environment where your competitors are moving forwards much faster.That’s even without taking into account the actual flaws in the design from day 1.

Mueller seems to have been bright enough to have foreseen all that which is why Leyland’s answer to that Merc LP which I posted was examples like the 500 ERGO instead of the Crusader with the 3 VTG cab and ‘possibly’,depending on it’s endurance testing results,the 700 fixed head engine producing well over 300 hp at around 2,000 rpm with no blown head gasket issues to worry about.

Although having said that the already available and proven 8V71 T would have easily provided a lot more power than that,at less engine speed,from just 9 litres but then the Brits never could get their heads around the idea and advantages of two stroke diesels at the time.Which is one of the reasons why the Brits lost the colonial market to the Americans.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

bma.finland:
the g volvo was not liked by drivers becouse of the axle montage 30cm foward whit short elliptic springs did the motor bumpy ,just a tought about US specs in europe ,cheers benkku

There’s a difference between a totally British designed and built truck just using American ‘influenced’ cab design built on a British chassis as opposed to a British built American truck using American cab and chassis design.The 3 VTG project seemed to have been a case of the former not the latter.

As I’ve said putting the 3 VTG cab on the Crusader chassis maybe using the 700 fixed head and TL12,assuming that they could have been developed to be competitive,or using outsourced Rolls and ■■■■■■■ options if not,probably would have been a more competitive product that the Marathon was.It’s obvious that the money wasted on development and fixing the ‘issues’ concerning both the 500 engine and the ERGO cab set Leyland back to a level against it’s competition which could never be made up.

How on earth did the ergo set Leyland back when it was streets ahead of its rivals when introduced in `64,what set Leyland back was not improving it until its demise in 1980.It was the same basic design with a few modifications in the 16 years it was built thats what let it down it was never improved.Which of course leads to the question ,if it was so bad why did they sell so many and history shows they sold thousands .
Putting a concept cab on a Crusader chassis and then fitting a concept engine into it?The cab was a test bed they only built one 700 engine you seem to be assuming quite alot here and if this 700 engine was a flop just like the 500 what then.And why would the Crusader chassis be the one to use.Just because Scammell gave the option of a DD engine doesnt make the Crusader a world beater,it was just a motor panels cab sat higher on the chassis

Firstly the larger capacity,lower speed,lower stressed 700 would have had a lot more of a chance of meeting it’s design aims than the smaller capacity,higher speed,higher stressed 500 ever did.

The idea of the advantages,contained in the fixed head idea,to be able to make a leap forward in specific torque outputs,by way of high forced induction boost pressures,in an environment where the head to block joint issue was a real problem needing investment and time to sort out, v the drawbacks such as regular servicing etc seem to be arguably in favour of the integral block head type design as I’ve said ‘at that point in time’.Which then would have allowed breathing space to get on with developing the TL12 which was the Leyland Group’s only real credible contender in the in house engine range.

As for the Crusader chassis,even with it’s compromised fixed cab,it’s record in service seems to show that it was one of the Leyland group’s best with the ability to easily accept fitment of all types of engines with the added benefit of being able to do so without cooking them.So there’s no reason to think that putting the 3 VTG cab on it wouldn’t have made it an even better product.

Mueller seems to have been bright enough to have foreseen all that which is why Leyland’s answer to that Merc LP which I posted was examples like the 500 ERGO instead of the Crusader with the 3 VTG cab and ‘possibly’,depending on it’s endurance testing results,the 700 fixed head engine producing well over 300 hp at around 2,000 rpm with no blown head gasket issues to worry about.

Although having said that the already available and proven 8V71 T would have easily provided a lot more power than that,at less engine speed,from just 9 litres but then the Brits never could get their heads around the idea and advantages of two stroke diesels at the time.Which is one of the reasons why the Brits lost the colonial market to the Americans.

And as history shows all engines are now 2 stroke V8s