BEST 'ERGO' ?

[nz_jamie]

Greatings from the "Colonial Markets’ {thanks Carryfast mate}

Well you’ve clearly never been to NZ and defiantly not in the 60’s and 70’s if you think the roads are similar to those in the UK. There are still very few motorways here only in Auckland,Wellington{10kms} Christchurch and Dunedin. There are are very few duel carriageways,really only south of Auckland and around some of the main centres.

The remainder of the roads are single carriageway with the occasional passing lane. There are still single lane bridges where you have to stop and give way. Railways lines are still driven over. Lots of long steep hills some with switch back hair pin bends,one pass in the South Island was re-aligned recently but still has a grade of 12%,one metre climb for every eight metres forward and is 5 kms long. It takes a loaded truck over ten minutes to climb and descend this.

These are the roads in 2013,imagine what they were like 40 years ago? Many were still not sealed

Wellington to Auckland if about 650ks and takes about eight hours. I was recently talking to a couple of old drivers who used to drive the same road in the late 60’s in LAD and Ergo Octopus’s with trailers at near 40 tonne and it took them 27hrs. Like this one below.

I was talking to a mate who told me on one particular long pull he was down in first low in a 680 twin stick Leyland Hippo tractor unit pulling two trailers,with the motor down at 800rpm and a cyclist pulled past him! Some idea of the hills and the weights carried.

Here’s and Octopus fitted with a turbo 690 pullong an ‘A’ trian.

Another Octopus carting wool,with about 100 bales on which works out to roughly 20 tonne payload,truck and trailer probably 15-16 tonne,not a bad all up weight for a 200 horse 680.

These were much better trucks with 13 speed fullers,far more flexible,with a quick change,not like the the twin stick box,where you could roll a smoke and have a cupper between changes. Kiwi Ergo’s both MM8 and Octopus’ worked hard,but as a mate said 'They were on top of the job"

A good load here.

Many Ergo’s were re-powered,but as you can seen not before they did a bit!

Detroit two stroke strait 671’s were a popular choice,they were cheep and most importantly ideally suited to and ergo chassis with it’s restricted chassis access and fixed floor pan. They can be configured with the blower and intake as well as the exhaust manifold on the left hand side of the motor,leaving the right hand side free of any components.

[gingerfold]

An informative post from NZ Jamie, our man on the spot in a faraway country. You cannot beat local knowledge to put the record straight.

[kr79]

Very interesting and there’s a few criticism of UK AEC models not been avalible with a fuller box. Was that a ploy by leyland to make the buffalo a better choice for some?

[carryfast]

NZ JAMIE:
Greatings from the "Colonial Markets’ {thanks Carryfast mate}

Well you’ve clearly never been to NZ and defiantly not in the 60’s and 70’s if you think the roads are similar to those in the UK. There are still very few motorways here only in Auckland,Wellington{10kms} Christchurch and Dunedin. There are are very few duel carriageways,really only south of Auckland and around some of the main centres.

The remainder of the roads are single carriageway with the occasional passing lane. There are still single lane bridges where you have to stop and give way. Railways lines are still driven over. Lots of long steep hills some with switch back hair pin bends,one pass in the South Island was re-aligned recently but still has a grade of 12%,one metre climb for every eight metres forward and is 5 kms long. It takes a loaded truck over ten minutes to climb and descend this.

These are the roads in 2013,imagine what they were like 40 years ago? Many were still not sealed

Wellington to Auckland if about 650ks and takes about eight hours. I was recently talking to a couple of old drivers who used to drive the same road in the late 60’s in LAD and Ergo Octopus’s with trailers at near 40 tonne and it took them 27hrs. Like this one below.

3

I was talking to a mate who told me on one particular long pull he was down in first low in a 680 twin stick Leyland Hippo tractor unit pulling two trailers,with the motor down at 800rpm and a cyclist pulled past him! Some idea of the hills and the weights carried.

Here’s and Octopus fitted with a turbo 690 pullong an ‘A’ trian.

2

Another Octopus carting wool,with about 100 bales on which works out to roughly 20 tonne payload,truck and trailer probably 15-16 tonne,not a bad all up weight for a 200 horse 680.

1

These were much better trucks with 13 speed fullers,far more flexible,with a quick change,not like the the twin stick box,where you could roll a smoke and have a cupper between changes. Kiwi Ergo’s both MM8 and Octopus’ worked hard,but as a mate said 'They were on top of the job"

A good load here.

0

Many Ergo’s were re-powered,but as you can seen not before they did a bit!

Detroit two stroke strait 671’s were a popular choice,they were cheep and most importantly ideally suited to and ergo chassis with it’s restricted chassis access and fixed floor pan. They can be configured with the blower and intake as well as the exhaust manifold on the left hand side of the motor,leaving the right hand side free of any components.

Whatever.But after all that it still turned out that American designed trucks could do the job better on everything from the rough stuff to small single carriageways or Interstates just as was the case in their domestic market.Which is the point I’m making.The fact is in whatever market they were operated in the Brit designs were always going to be compromised by the conditions which applied in their domestic market.Those being austerity,which was reflected in their penny pinching often primitive design and specs from the outset,and over regulation which held back any real progress which might have been possible.

Some of which still applies even today in the case of the advantages which the Scandinavian regs provide their manufacturers with in being able to develop and then sell decent products for example.While the US designs are obviously still on top of their job enough to be able to meet that head on often helped by the drivers in the colonial markets not being afraid to drive conventional cab designs over cab overs even on the,whatever you say,very similar to the UK road conditions in NZ.Considering that as I’ve said,Brit designers,wether colonial or in the home country,seem to be genetically programmed to be more comfortable with conventional cab designs and the zb ERGO was no exception to that.

The fact is,unless you want to re write history,the Brit heaps certainly weren’t ‘on top of the job’.Which is why the colonial buyers ( rightly ) deserted them in their droves and went for US products instead and as I’ve said from the point of view of the engineers that was the way forward for the Brits if only we’d had the same regs and customer demands here as existed in NZ.

youtube.com/watch?v=E6r7hQ7gr6g

[bma_finland]

most on the video are hino nissan volvo scania mercedes and some yankees

[carryfast]

bma.finland:
most on the video are hino nissan volvo scania mercedes and some yankees

There’s more than enough ‘yankees’ there to make the point and ‘if’ we’d have brought our regs in line with theirs,as to what could and couldn’t be used on Brit roads,things might have turned out very different for Leyland Trucks etc.

[3300john]

kr79:
Very interesting and there’s a few criticism of UK AEC models not been avalible with a fuller box. Was that a ploy by leyland to make the buffalo a better choice for some?

Hiya …did the buffalows have fullers or spicer boxes. the one i drove i’am sure had a spicer…anyhow when we talk about AEC using
fuller boxes(yes i drove one, my mate owned NBF for years)i don’t think there was as many fuller boxers around in the 60’s when
AEC/Leyland was jigging up for the ergo range. i thought that the fuller gearbox arrived at about the same time as the 205 ■■■■■■■
in 1969. i remember ERF making a crew cab for the use of demonstrating the range change gearbox and was certain that was 68/69.
John

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
There’s more than enough ‘yankees’ there to make the point and ‘if’ we’d have brought our regs in line with theirs,as to what could and couldn’t be used on Brit roads,things might have turned out very different for Leyland Trucks etc.

50ft semi-trailers with the axles right at the back and an extra 3 tons on gross weight would have made no difference to Leyland or any other European manufacturer. In the sixties and seventies, they could have built a Yank-spec tractor unit with existing parts. A 1960 Albion Reiver 20 ton 6x4 mixer chassis would have been perfect- just remove the front brakes and offer a petrol engine.

[kr79]

3300John:

kr79:
Very interesting and there’s a few criticism of UK AEC models not been avalible with a fuller box. Was that a ploy by leyland to make the buffalo a better choice for some?

Hiya …did the buffalows have fullers or spicer boxes. the one i drove i’am sure had a spicer…anyhow when we talk about AEC using
fuller boxes(yes i drove one, my mate owned NBF for years)i don’t think there was as many fuller boxers around in the 60’s when
AEC/Leyland was jigging up for the ergo range. i thought that the fuller gearbox arrived at about the same time as the 205 ■■■■■■■
in 1969. i remember ERF making a crew cab for the use of demonstrating the range change gearbox and was certain that was 68/69.
John

Before my time but from what I read here the late ones with the tl11 did but the AEC didn’t.

[kr79]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
There’s more than enough ‘yankees’ there to make the point and ‘if’ we’d have brought our regs in line with theirs,as to what could and couldn’t be used on Brit roads,things might have turned out very different for Leyland Trucks etc.

50ft semi-trailers with the axles right at the back and an extra 3 tons on gross weight would have made no difference to Leyland or any other European manufacturer. In the sixties and seventies, they could have built a Yank-spec tractor unit with existing parts. A 1960 Albion Reiver 20 ton 6x4 mixer chassis would have been perfect- just remove the front brakes and offer a petrol engine.

Sums it up perfectly. A lorry is a tool and its great having a big cam but if it stops you carrying as much goods its compromising its profitability. Same reason the longline scania never took off.
For the king of the leatherhead gear jammers the ergomatic cab was way ahead of any British and most European designs as it was the first cab to be built round the driver. Look at it compared to contempary erf atkinsons and fodens. You had steps and a full size door to get in and out the spartan dash had the clocks and warning lights in the right place.
Anything else you had to clamber up the wheel through a tiny door over the handbrake.
Yes it was hopelessly outdated by the time it was dropped but look at scania they went from the lb76 range through the 0 series and 1 series and the 2 series was launched just as the ergo range was been killed off.
Look what AEC managed using the ergo cab on the marathon the sleeper wasn’t bad and the Middle East spec one was quite impressive.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
There’s more than enough ‘yankees’ there to make the point and ‘if’ we’d have brought our regs in line with theirs,as to what could and couldn’t be used on Brit roads,things might have turned out very different for Leyland Trucks etc.

50ft semi-trailers with the axles right at the back and an extra 3 tons on gross weight would have made no difference to Leyland or any other European manufacturer. In the sixties and seventies, they could have built a Yank-spec tractor unit with existing parts. A 1960 Albion Reiver 20 ton 6x4 mixer chassis would have been perfect- just remove the front brakes and offer a petrol engine.

I was actually referring to NZ not the the US and I don’t think that it was US type federal weight limits or 1940’s/50’s petrol engined American wagons,or a Reiver mixer chassis that AEC’s engineers had in mind when they put this idea forward.

flickr.com/photos/blackcount … 369092612/

Nor do I think that many ( if any ) 1960’s cab over Petes,that it was obviously based on,had petrol engines in the 1960’s.Probably more likely ■■■■■■■ etc and the fuller boxes that many ( rightly ) say that most Brits didn’t even know existed until at least the start of the 1970’s.

However the irony of those who seem to be supporting the idea of the ERGO over that of the 3VTG,while at the same time blaming those like Stokes for AEC’s downfall,seems unbelievable considering that he would have supported that same position too.But for different reasons knowing that AEC’s engineers were on the right track with the 3 VTG but it obviously didn’t fit in with the austerity ridden and over regulated Brit domestic market like the ERGO did.

[carryfast]

kr79:

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
There’s more than enough ‘yankees’ there to make the point and ‘if’ we’d have brought our regs in line with theirs,as to what could and couldn’t be used on Brit roads,things might have turned out very different for Leyland Trucks etc.

50ft semi-trailers with the axles right at the back and an extra 3 tons on gross weight would have made no difference to Leyland or any other European manufacturer. In the sixties and seventies, they could have built a Yank-spec tractor unit with existing parts. A 1960 Albion Reiver 20 ton 6x4 mixer chassis would have been perfect- just remove the front brakes and offer a petrol engine.

Sums it up perfectly. A lorry is a tool and its great having a big cam but if it stops you carrying as much goods its compromising its profitability. Same reason the longline scania never took off.
For the king of the leatherhead gear jammers the ergomatic cab was way ahead of any British and most European designs as it was the first cab to be built round the driver. Look at it compared to contempary erf atkinsons and fodens. You had steps and a full size door to get in and out the spartan dash had the clocks and warning lights in the right place.
Anything else you had to clamber up the wheel through a tiny door over the handbrake.
Yes it was hopelessly outdated by the time it was dropped but look at scania they went from the lb76 range through the 0 series and 1 series and the 2 series was launched just as the ergo range was been killed off.
Look what AEC managed using the ergo cab on the marathon the sleeper wasn’t bad and the Middle East spec one was quite impressive.

As I’ve said that’s exactly the thinking of most of the Brit customers in the domestic market at the time and yet if I’ve read it right you’re one of those who’ve got the nerve to blame people like Stokes for bringing the whole lot crashing down when your idea ran into the buffers of trucks like the F10/12 etc etc a few years down the line.Trust me any one who said at that time that trucks made along the lines of the 3VTG would be a better idea than the zb ERGO or Marathon would have been called Leatherhead/Southall gearjamming dreamers and the ERGO and the Marathon was the way to go and the rest is history.

[kr79]

The marathon was a lash up to try and compete with the continental trucks that come later. Look at another less maligned leyland group product the scammell crusader.
No tilt cab and for big power a Detroit engine which was totally alien to European hauliers why not a more conventional ■■■■■■■■
The ergo was ideal for 1965not 1975. The European truck industury changed more in that period than it has since and a group the size of leyland should have been able to survive. Those minnows in Sweden did and even iveco and Renault did and they turned out some very dubious machinery at times.

[ramone]

NZ Jamie how very dare you try to explain the road conditions of NZ and the buying habits of NZ hauliers , you only live there for God sake .You might well have spoken to old drivers who actually drove the vehicles this thread posed the question about but the answers were all wrong that they gave you.The British vehicles were rubbish those old drivers were either backward thinking or just plain stupid because everyone knows they should have been driving conventional yank motors at the time irrespective of the narrow roads they were driving on.And fitting 6v Detroits into AECs after the original engines had worn out was scandalous ,why didnt they fit much better 8v turbo Detroits ,ok it might have been a tight fit under the ergo cab but they could have lengthened the chassis and introduced the first conventional ergo to the world. I ,just like Carryfast dont need telling anything about NZ i know all about it ,i watch “Lion man” and havent missed an episode (r.i.p african lion expert) .So next time you think of coming on here and try posting a sensible reply with hard solid facts youll be wasting your time and effort, the bloke from Leatherhead is a knobhead … but after reading your post which i found very interesting and informative i had to smile at Carryfasts first word in his reply “whatever” ■■?

[bewick]

I’ll second your reprimand “ramone” how dare someone from a far flung corner of the Empire question the integrity of “The Knobhead” from Leatherhead by stating correct and well revised facts,what is the site coming to,what ever next ? Someone will be on next telling us that a round wheel is superior to the square one ! Cheers Dennis.

[chris_webb]

I’ve been reading this thread with interest,being an ex AEC driver. All I can say is that to get out of a MK3 then a MK5 and into an ergomatic cabbed AEC/Leyland/Albion was like heaven wi t’door shut. What a contrast and I wonder how many on here have actually driven a tilt cabbed AEC to notice the difference to previous models. They were a great cab for those days,I liked mine anyroad,even though I still have a soft spot for the MK5.
I think the first tilt cabs came out in 1965 under the Albion badge,I’ve not seen one registered before then but doesn’t mean to say they didn’t exist.

Oh,and lash up or no lash up I liked my Marathon as well.

[zb_anorak]

One of the advantages of bypasses is that residents are out of earshot of the noise of lorries. Was the Leatherhead bypass built so that lorry drivers were out of earshot of the noise of one of the residents?

Re glider kits, mentioned earlier- thanks to Saviem and Newmercman for the info. If the price of one was 60-70% that of a complete vehicle, I can see the advantage for a US truck assembler- they were not making the driveline, so why bother with the handling and fitting of it, then processing the warranty claims? I suppose the operators reckoned their recon. engines/gearboxes were nearly as good as factory-fresh items, and a bit cheaper, although it would take a tax dodge or two, as mentioned, to make all the hassle worthwhile. Nowadays, the idea of having a “new” vehicle without electronics or emissions b.s. must be very attractive. I wonder if it will catch on in Europe?

[bewick]

Chris Webb:

I’ve been reading this thread with interest,being an ex AEC driver. All I can say is that to get out of a MK3 then a MK5 and into an ergomatic cabbed AEC/Leyland/Albion was like heaven wi t’door shut. What a contrast and I wonder how many on here have actually driven a tilt cabbed AEC to notice the difference to previous models. They were a great cab for those days,I liked mine anyroad,even though I still have a soft spot for the MK5.
I think the first tilt cabs came out in 1965 under the Albion badge,I’ve not seen one registered before then but doesn’t mean to say they didn’t exist.

Oh,and lash up or no lash up I liked my Marathon as well.

I re-call that Bradys had a C reg '65 Ergo Badger (amongst C reg LAD Beavers and Badgers) and this lone Ergo was supposed to be one of the first produced,but I think the next Ergos they got were D reg, “Leyland 680” would have a better idea than me though,if he is on the thread to-night.Cheers Dennis.

[carryfast]

kr79:
The marathon was a lash up to try and compete with the continental trucks that come later. Look at another less maligned leyland group product the scammell crusader.
No tilt cab and for big power a Detroit engine which was totally alien to European hauliers why not a more conventional ■■■■■■■■
The ergo was ideal for 1965not 1975. The European truck industury changed more in that period than it has since and a group the size of leyland should have been able to survive. Those minnows in Sweden did and even iveco and Renault did and they turned out some very dubious machinery at times.

Firstly the ERGO was a typical outdated Brit heap from day 1.

As I’ve said ( and having first hand knowledge of much of the thinking that took place at Scammell amongst it’s engineers ),they were probably ( rightly ) going by the thinking that we’d prefer to be making the Crusader as a conventional but a fixed cab over is better than an underdeveloped tilt cab over and,as the ‘issues’ related to the ERGO’s flaws show,that thinking was correct.While,as my previous posts show,AEC’s engineers were thinking along similar lines with the 3VGT cab design v the ERGO in that the ERGO was obviously recognised as being an inferior design compared to what they would have preferred to be making based on US cab over technology.

While,also knowing Scammell thinking,it’s no surprise to me that they chose to put the Detroit engine in the Crusader bearing in mind that it was one of the best options for providing reliable power outputs at that time.Regardless of the issues concerning what European hauliers found alien or not ( usually anything that wasn’t domestically produced was considered alien by most Euro and Scandinavian customers just like British ones at the time ) the way forward for the Brits would have been a merged Scammell and AEC producing trucks with continuing developments such as the 3VGT cab.Preferably also together with more acceptance of,and ability to use, conventional cab design,with all the usual American engine and transmission options not just the Detroit although the 60 series would have been a logical follow on to the two strokes when it became available.Which just leaves that issue of the austerity thinking and road transport hostile policies in the domestic market which made such products unviable for sale here,resulting in the loss of the colonial markets first then the domestic one when the Brit market eventually decided to leave the 1950’s behind.The rest is history with the ERGO being one of the contributors to the failure of the Leyland group of truck manufacturers.

As for the French and Italian truck manufacturing industry it’s survival was probably mostly all about that issue of more customer loyalty to domestically produced trucks enjoyed by their manufacturers than that which the Brits could eventually rely on regardless of what the Brits produced.Much of which was owing to the difference in thinking between what the austerity ridden and over regulated British market was calling for at the time when it mattered compared to that in it’s old colonies.Although wether firms like Saviem/Berliet/Renault and FIAT can be considered as minnows in their respective domestic markets is open to question.

[zb_anorak]

Whatever.