BEST 'ERGO' ?

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS OLD TIME LORRIES, COMPANIES AND DRIVERS (INTERACT
81

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

Hahaha! Hook, line and sinker, every time. Just read the rest of the posts on this thread, from people who have actual experience.

PS That KW is lovely, though.

I don’t think that there’s likely to be many people with much experience of driving both something like a well specced 1960’s KW etc and an AEC ERGO in the course of using them as intended for reasonably long haul work.The idea of ‘yank Atkis’ seems to be based on underspecced guvnors’ wagons specced without such essentials as suspension seats back in the day.Or air assisted clutches up to date on the most recent types.While not forgetting that many drivers seem to regard the use of a fuller box,instead of a nasty,slow shifting, heavy euro synchro type,as also fitting that description. :open_mouth:

But the issue in this case is just one of cab design and no one can seriously be trying to suggest that in that regard that ‘lovely’ KW ( for it’s time ) isn’t more than a generation ahead of an AEC ERGO let alone the equivalent Atki back in the day. :confused: :bulb:

While the nearest that you’ll probably get to the relevant comparison actually took place in the old colonial markets and the rest was history. :bulb:

82

The only difference between an Ergo cab and a 60s yank tank is the height of the cab relative to the chassis, a comparable day cab yank has, as saviem says, a pitiful BBC measurement, so much so that half of today’s drivers wouldn’t fit through the door :open_mouth:

As usual Carryfast, bless him, is away in his little fantasy world. Apart from Austrailia and New Zealand, the Ergo was never up against any US products :open_mouth: I know the loon from Leatherhead will come back with the facts, British Leyland were soundly beaten by Paccar in that market, but none of that was the fault of the lorries or the cab, that was down to dear old Donald and his mis management :unamused:

So the Ergo cab vs the competition, the continentals had it soundly beaten, but they had the other Brit cabs beaten too, so no point discussing that really. How did it stack up against its home grown competitors? I would say there was nothing in it, they all had space issues, the earlier Foden cabs along with the mk1 Atki cabs were similar in stature, the later Foden cabs, the Atki mk2 and LV/A series were mounted higher, so the engine hump intruded less, but not enough to make a big difference, the motor panels cabs on Seddons and Guy were, apart from the aesthetics, identical, but the Ergo was more succesful, if only in volume, as it encompassed the complete BL range of heavy lorries, with the exception of the products from the mavericks down in Watford.

For this reason I am of the opinion that the Ergo cab was the best cab on a British lorry in it’s early days, by the time the high datum version used on the Lynx/Bison/Octopus/Buffalo the cabs from the competition (B series/400/Haulmaster) were streets ahead, the Marathon is another story still, lacking in creature comforts compared to the continentals, but the equal of any of the Brits, so another tick in the Ergo cab’s box :sunglasses:

The Ergo also topped some pretty decent lorries, the Super Comet/Mercury, the Retriever/Marshall, the Octopus/Mammoth Major and the Beaver/Mandator, each of which is my personal favourite in it’s class with the Southall built models in top spot except in the tractor unit sector, here the Beaver wins because the narrower front wings look bettter. Yes the mirror arrangement was stupid and the wipers, well, who on earth thought that one up :unamused: But as mentioned, that big lever for opening the windows was a stroke of genius (when it was tight at least) :wink:

83

Well before my time but you can see it was quite advanced when it was launched whith things like steps to get in rather than climb up the wheel.
Seems more a case of as usual it was good when it was launched but hopelessly outdated by the time it was replaced.
As for American trucks yes the sleeper is great but to drive there up there with an erf of 25 years ago.
And that’s the new ones

84

Just picking up on various points mentioned in these excellent, knowlegeable, and well informed posts in this interesting thread.

Yes, Albion Ergo cabbed models tended to be fixed cab versions, and there was also a de-rated Leyland Comet version with a fixed cab listed in the catalogues, but I don’t know if any of these were actually built or sold.

One quirk of the cab spec was that three types of seat could be ordered, basic (thin cushion and cheapest), standard (thicker cushion), and luxury (thickest cushion).

Scammell did enjoy far more autonomy than any other Leyland subsidiary, at least until the early 1970s. When Leyland purchased Scammell in the early 1950s the latter was very much a niche market manufacturer with its own distinctive models and engineering ideas. In those years the senior Leyland management was a completely different kettle of fish to the later Stokes led era of the 1960s. They realised that Scammell had its own unique products and markets and left well alone, except from fitting Leyland engines as options. Also Scammell never competed in the high volume markets for passenger and goods vehicles sales that Leyland and AEC did. Scammell’s annual chassis output numbered in the low hundreds in the 1950’s and '60s compared with the 4,000 or so of AEC and the 5,000 or so of Leyland. Even the latter figures are tiny by comparison with today’s numbers produced by the likes of DAF and Volvo, but it was so much different half a century ago.

85

Hoveringham Gravels had many Ergo Reivers in 67 and then the Stone division had quite a few and they were all tilt cabs but they then went back to have many LAD cabbed Reivers until the Scotstoun cab appeared.Harry Evans which in 67 was by then part of the Derbyshire Stone empire did have some fixed cab Leyland Comets I think about 4 or 6 but memory fails me.As you will know the cab mudguard on a fixed cab model was one piece.The Ergo Reiver was a nice thing to drive after a LAD but not as handy on rough sites, all underpowered but nationwide a very good servant for the tipper operators of the day.Tarmac at M.peak had all LAD cabbed Reivers until the Scotstoun cab,but there were some tankers at Cawder with Ergos.Always open for memory correction :slight_smile: .
Mike.

KNN 920E.jpg
KNN 920E.jpg546×549 69.6 KB

86

thelongdrag:
Hoveringham Gravels had many Ergo Reivers in 67 and then the Stone division had quite a few and they were all tilt cabs but they then went back to have many LAD cabbed Reivers until the Scotstoun cab appeared.Harry Evans which in 67 was by then part of the Derbyshire Stone empire did have some fixed cab Leyland Comets I think about 4 or 6 but memory fails me.As you will know the cab mudguard on a fixed cab model was one piece.The Ergo Reiver was a nice thing to drive after a LAD but not as handy on rough sites, all underpowered but nationwide a very good servant for the tipper operators of the day.Tarmac at M.peak had all LAD cabbed Reivers until the Scotstoun cab,but there were some tankers at Cawder with Ergos.Always open for memory correction :slight_smile: .
Mike.

0

Hiya mike.a chap who lived across from me in Leek drove for DS (Cauldon Low)all his life, his first lorry i remember was a morris
commercial (suiside doors) black with gold lettering then 2 new Black and gold reivers then a black with a blue cab reiver a kaky
reiver then a s39 foden and then a kaky clydsdale. where did the blue cab idea come from any idea
John

87

newmercman:
The only difference between an Ergo cab and a 60s yank tank is the height of the cab relative to the chassis, a comparable day cab yank has, as saviem says, a pitiful BBC measurement, so much so that half of today’s drivers wouldn’t fit through the door :open_mouth:

As usual Carryfast, bless him, is away in his little fantasy world.

All of the above makes perfect sense to me and, no doubt, everyone else who reads it.

Those KW and Peterbilt cabs were effectively coachbuilt jobs, using aluminium instead of wood, aloominum being cheap in America. If you look at the Paccar website, they are boasting about their latest innovation- presswork. Yes, the new range of KW trucks has a pressed and welded cab, just like an LAD or an Ergo (some of it, at least. I bet there are rivets and a bit of fibreglass on it somewhere). Why did the US market prefer such a crude method of construction for so long? Even with the availability of properly-engineered cabs on Macks and others, they still held the KW and Peterbilt in higher regard.

Another question about US trucks, this time concerning the “glider kits”, that had some popularity in the 1970s and '80s. When the vehicle became worn out, the engine, gearbox and drive axles were reconditioned and fitted into a brand new, ex-factory chassis, complete with cab. What benefit was there to the operator, to buy a vehicle on which all of the structure, fixtures and fittings had a service life no longer than a set of piston rings? How did the manufacturer benefit, by building and selling half-finished vehicles?

No wonder most of the US maufacturers have been taken over by Mercedes and Volvo, and the only significant remaining company gets its engineering done by DAF. Newmercman- you live in the States. Would you mind going into a few truckstops and asking these questions?

88

[zb]
anorak:

newmercman:
The only difference between an Ergo cab and a 60s yank tank is the height of the cab relative to the chassis, a comparable day cab yank has, as saviem says, a pitiful BBC measurement, so much so that half of today’s drivers wouldn’t fit through the door :open_mouth:

As usual Carryfast, bless him, is away in his little fantasy world.

All of the above makes perfect sense to me and, no doubt, everyone else who reads it.

Those KW and Peterbilt cabs were effectively coachbuilt jobs, using aluminium instead of wood, aloominum being cheap in America. If you look at the Paccar website, they are boasting about their latest innovation- presswork. Yes, the new range of KW trucks has a pressed and welded cab (some of it, at least. I bet there are rivets and a bit of fibreglass somewhere on it), just like an LAD or an Ergo. Why did the US market prefer such a crude method of construction for so long? Even with the availability of properly-engineered cabs on Macks, they still held the KW in higher regard. :question:

There’s just the inconvenient issue of both the New Zealand and Australian markets in addition to the US one to add to that.The fact is they can’t all have been wrong and in general natural selection won’t allow any truck manufacturer to survive who’s products don’t make the grade.Blelieve it or not Jaguar Cars actually went from pressed steel welded monocoque construction to bodyshells made up of bonded and rivettet aluminium panels as part of it’s modernisation programme taking it into the 21st century. :bulb: :wink: :laughing:

89

newmercman:
The only difference between an Ergo cab and a 60s yank tank is the height of the cab relative to the chassis, a comparable day cab yank has, as saviem says, a pitiful BBC measurement, so much so that half of today’s drivers wouldn’t fit through the door :open_mouth:

As usual Carryfast, bless him, is away in his little fantasy world. Apart from Austrailia and New Zealand, the Ergo was never up against any US products :open_mouth: I know the loon from Leatherhead will come back with the facts, British Leyland were soundly beaten by Paccar in that market, but none of that was the fault of the lorries or the cab, that was down to dear old Donald and his mis management :unamused:

So the Ergo cab vs the competition, the continentals had it soundly beaten, but they had the other Brit cabs beaten too, so no point discussing that really. How did it stack up against its home grown competitors? I would say there was nothing in it, they all had space issues, the earlier Foden cabs along with the mk1 Atki cabs were similar in stature, the later Foden cabs, the Atki mk2 and LV/A series were mounted higher, so the engine hump intruded less, but not enough to make a big difference, the motor panels cabs on Seddons and Guy were, apart from the aesthetics, identical, but the Ergo was more succesful, if only in volume, as it encompassed the complete BL range of heavy lorries, with the exception of the products from the mavericks down in Watford.

For this reason I am of the opinion that the Ergo cab was the best cab on a British lorry in it’s early days, by the time the high datum version used on the Lynx/Bison/Octopus/Buffalo the cabs from the competition (B series/400/Haulmaster) were streets ahead, the Marathon is another story still, lacking in creature comforts compared to the continentals, but the equal of any of the Brits, so another tick in the Ergo cab’s box :sunglasses:

The Ergo also topped some pretty decent lorries, the Super Comet/Mercury, the Retriever/Marshall, the Octopus/Mammoth Major and the Beaver/Mandator, each of which is my personal favourite in it’s class with the Southall built models in top spot except in the tractor unit sector, here the Beaver wins because the narrower front wings look bettter. Yes the mirror arrangement was stupid and the wipers, well, who on earth thought that one up :unamused: But as mentioned, that big lever for opening the windows was a stroke of genius (when it was tight at least) :wink:

Blimey nmm there’s so many contradictions in all that it defeats all your own arguments also when adding at least one documented fatality caused by it’s design flaws.Trust me all those export markets who knew better by turning their backs on AEC/Leyland ERGO heaps didn’t give a zb who was in charge at Leyland they did it because the yanks made a better product.Simples. :unamused: :wink:

90

kr79:
Well before my time but you can see it was quite advanced when it was launched whith things like steps to get in rather than climb up the wheel.
Seems more a case of as usual it was good when it was launched but hopelessly outdated by the time it was replaced.
As for American trucks yes the sleeper is great but to drive there up there with an erf of 25 years ago.
And that’s the new ones

:confused:

We’re actually discussing the situation as it stood at the time when the ERGO was being designed and introduced to the market.In which case it was a simple choice between the ERGO or something much better based on US design.In which VALKYRIE seems to agree with my view of the situation and obviously AEC’s own engineers had they been left to get on with it.As opposed to most on here and Leyland’s management. :bulb:

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=98062&p=1447482#p1447169

Ironically those who support the idea of the ERGO being the superior option,would probably be in opposition to the AEC engineers of the time and in support of the arguments of the Leyland suits.While then at the same time arguing,that the failures of the products,against the US and continental competition,was the fault of Leyland’s management who they actually support. :open_mouth: :unamused: :laughing:

91

Carryfast:
Blah blah . Blelieve it or not Jaguar Cars actually went from pressed steel welded monocoque construction to bodyshells made up of bonded and rivettet aluminium panels as part of it’s modernisation programme taking it into the 21st century. :bulb: :wink: :laughing:

I suppose these 21st century Jags are built on a fibreglass floorpan, with any complex shapes moulded from fibreglass and the exterior panels just flat sheets, rivetted onto a frame? I don’t remember seeing any exposed rivet-heads on the ones I have seen. In truth, those Jaguar shells are proper monocoque structures, fabricated from proper pressings, similar to the new KW cabs. They have more in common with a European cab than the US cabs of old.

92

At the end of the day the bulk of the British builders sales were in the UK and the ergo was ideal for the conditions at the time.
Someone said sleeper cabs were illegal and if we look at length limits tractors of the period were very short so they could couple to maximum length trailers. What good would it be to most operators if you stuck a sleeper cab on that the driver couldn’t use and had to pull a trailer that was 4 foot to short.
Perhaps British legislation held things back in that respect.
Australia is a very different enviroment to Britain especially then and American trucks were better suited. Even now American stuff is better suited to there heavier operation.
Even in the home market there seems to be complaints of cooling problems on the bigger power models. We’re leyland asking to much of one cab. Perhaps if the mandator etc had raised the cab to the level of the marathon would this issue have been resolved.
It’s very niave to say American trucks are better or vice versa. No American truck builder has realistically cracked Europe and Volvo the only one to have made a real presence both sides of the pond offer two very different machines to there respective customers.
It would make financial sense for paccar if they could sell one range either side of the pond but they know neither product is sutiable for the other market.
The ergo cab seems to have been a big step forward until the leyland group lost its way and was left to soilder on to long.
I know people get nostalgic but realistically would Volvo have survived if the was still offering the f86 and f88.

93

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
Blah blah . Blelieve it or not Jaguar Cars actually went from pressed steel welded monocoque construction to bodyshells made up of bonded and rivettet aluminium panels as part of it’s modernisation programme taking it into the 21st century. :bulb: :wink: :laughing:

I suppose these 21st century Jags are built on a fibreglass floorpan, with any complex shapes moulded from fibreglass and the exterior panels just flat sheets, rivetted onto a frame? I don’t remember seeing any exposed rivet-heads on the ones I have seen. In truth, those Jaguar shells are proper monocoque structures, fabricated from proper pressings, similar to the new KW cabs. They have more in common with a European cab than the US cabs of old.

Whatever.But the fact is there is documented proof posted here that AEC’s own engineers seemed to share my view in that they preferred to take the US design route to make a better product as opposed to your view and that of Leyland’s management which obviously produced an inferior one. :bulb: :wink:

94

kr79:
At the end of the day the bulk of the British builders sales were in the UK and the ergo was ideal for the conditions at the time.
Someone said sleeper cabs were illegal and if we look at length limits tractors of the period were very short so they could couple to maximum length trailers.
Perhaps British legislation held things back in that respect.

Now you’re talking just like Stokes etc in concentrating on the domestic market who nmm etc seem to think was to blame for it all. :unamused: While also agreeing with my ideas that it wasn’t his fault that he was just lumbered with a backward thinking domestic market based on austerity and over regulation which,as I’ve said previously,is what all the uk manufacturers,not just the Leyland group,had to base their designs on.Whereas I’m talking from the point of view of the engineers not the bean counters and the suits.Which,as I’ve said,explains why the Euro and Scandinavian competition got ahead of us. :smiling_imp: :laughing:

95

bit off topic lol-
lord donald stokes was also responsible for axing the mini cooper s in 1971 - he asked the late great john cooper what he did as far as british leyland was concerned, “consultant” was coopers reply.stokes decided BL didnt need consultants (cooper was at this time paid £1 for every mini cooper s sold) and axed the cooper s,and replaced it with the 1275 GT clubman which was not a sales success at the time-very sought after now though!!

96

One of the problems with the original “Ergo” was the lack of a left hand drive option the high datum version resolved this, but not many were made,IIRC Traders Continental of Surbiton ran an LHD Lynx wagon & drag,re Yank motors in Ozz the early imports suffered just as many problems as Pommie motors but the the Yanks were more proactive in getting things sorted and building a motor for Ozz conditions which are different to the US, UK or Europe I am told by friends in Ozz that the Yank motors there are a very different spec to the US!

97

How the hell ,from a thread titled Best Ergo? do we get onto the subject of American cabs and no doubt the V8 Detroit .In `64 when the ergo was launched it was streets ahead of anything in Britain with its large 1 piece screen ,a tilting cab ,quieter believe it or not than anything in its class available ,a heater,a dashboard binnacle and controls at your fingertips…Yes 10 years on they were outdated so the high datum cab was fitted along with cheap brown plastic panels and the same dash binnacle.So not really any improvements,like have said before would it have been possible to lower the marathon cab to a sensible level as the interior was much better.As for the best ergo i would say the AEC version with full top grille and the triangle in the middle looked the best.The best model in my opinion would have been the Mandator with a 9 speed Fuller or a 13 speed in Oz or NZ.I wonder if Carryfast is aware that some AECs were retro fitted with Detroits when the AV760s finally wore out in the Southern Hemisphere

98

splitshift:
re Yank motors in Ozz the early imports suffered just as many problems as Pommie motors but the the Yanks were more proactive in getting things sorted and building a motor for Ozz conditions which are different to the US, UK or Europe I am told by friends in Ozz that the Yank motors there are a very different spec to the US!

Oz conditions aren’t always about running across rough unmade outback roads and New Zealand isn’t much,if any,different to the road conditions of the UK.In many cases American based designs were used on made up road based trunking operations in both Oz and NZ which before had been carried out by Brit imported wagons and beat them with a better combination of reliable higher power outputs and cab designs etc.The rest was history the ERGO being one of those which fell by the wayside in just the same way as it did in the euro/uk markets against it’s euro/scandinavian opposition.

99

ramone:
How the hell ,from a thread titled Best Ergo? do we get onto the subject of American cabs and no doubt the V8 Detroit .In `64 when the ergo was launched it was streets ahead of anything in Britain with its large 1 piece screen ,a tilting cab ,quieter believe it or not than anything in its class available ,a heater,a dashboard binnacle and controls at your fingertips…Yes 10 years on they were outdated so the high datum cab was fitted along with cheap brown plastic panels and the same dash binnacle.So not really any improvements,like have said before would it have been possible to lower the marathon cab to a sensible level as the interior was much better.As for the best ergo i would say the AEC version with full top grille and the triangle in the middle looked the best.The best model in my opinion would have been the Mandator with a 9 speed Fuller or a 13 speed in Oz or NZ.I wonder if Carryfast is aware that some AECs were retro fitted with Detroits when the AV760s finally wore out in the Southern Hemisphere

Strange how if it was so good that it failed against it’s foreign competition.The relevance of American design is that AEC engineers were obviously looking to that solution to the problem at the time in question knowing that the ERGO wasn’t up to the job. :bulb: :unamused:

It’s no surprise to me that anyone in the colonial markets,where they knew what they were doing,would have eventually replaced AEC motors with Detroits which just reinforces my arguments.But no doubt those wagons were probably replaced with one of the real deal US products not British in the longer term.

100

Carryfast:

ramone:
How the hell ,from a thread titled Best Ergo? do we get onto the subject of American cabs and no doubt the V8 Detroit .In `64 when the ergo was launched it was streets ahead of anything in Britain with its large 1 piece screen ,a tilting cab ,quieter believe it or not than anything in its class available ,a heater,a dashboard binnacle and controls at your fingertips…Yes 10 years on they were outdated so the high datum cab was fitted along with cheap brown plastic panels and the same dash binnacle.So not really any improvements,like have said before would it have been possible to lower the marathon cab to a sensible level as the interior was much better.As for the best ergo i would say the AEC version with full top grille and the triangle in the middle looked the best.The best model in my opinion would have been the Mandator with a 9 speed Fuller or a 13 speed in Oz or NZ.I wonder if Carryfast is aware that some AECs were retro fitted with Detroits when the AV760s finally wore out in the Southern Hemisphere

Strange how if it was so good that it failed against it’s foreign competition.The relevance of American design is that AEC engineers were obviously looking to that solution to the problem at the time in question knowing that the ERGO wasn’t up to the job. :bulb: :unamused:

It’s no surprise to me that anyone in the colonial markets,where they knew what they were doing,would have eventually replaced AEC motors with Detroits which just reinforces my arguments.But no doubt those wagons were probably replaced with one of the real deal US products not British in the longer term.

The reason it failed (IF IT ACTUALLY DID??) was that it was never improved and i would say it was quite successful in the early years and was in production for 16 years in 1 form or another .Its been mentioned on here that the design was flawed but was still put into production without rectification.It wasnt Leyland designed but outsourced so who took the blame? Not the only time Leyland have rushed a design through without thorough testing (V8). Its good to see that the europeans took the American stance and produced similar cab designs to their US counterparts NOT.Theres many Volvo,Scania and Mercedes running around OZ and NZ i wonder why the Aussies still buy euro motors when those wonderfull yanks are available :wink: