The NGC 420 has more than one name. It is often referred to as the 7MW, named after its cab. It is also called by ERF’s model name ‘European’, but as I’ve already pointed out there was more than one ERF ‘European’. Wobbe Reitsma in his articles calls them N-series. In my view NGC 420 is probably the most accurate and certainly the most widely understood name, but only by the skin of its teeth!I’ve been waiting for someone to challenge the name NGC 420. NGC 420 (NG cabbed ■■■■■■■ powered 42-tonner) was ERF’s code for this model. ERF brochures showed two lighter options, which appear not to have materialised in reality. This table (drawn by me - it won’t show up properly on here because you can’t put tables on these blogs) shows what was originally on offer:
Chassis / tyres Rear axle (hub reduction) Gross weight
NGC 420 Waisted & tapered
(on 12.00 x 20 tyres) Kirkstall D85 13.2, rated at 13000 kgs GTW: 42000 kgs
GVW: 19000 kgs
NGC 380 (1974/75 brochures) Straight
(on 11.00 x 20 tyres) Kirkstall D85 10.2, rated at 11000 kgs GTW: 38000 kgs GVW: 17500 kgs
NGC 360 (1973/74 brochures) Straight
(on 11.00 x 20 tyres) Kirkstall D85 10.2, rated at 11000 kgs GTW: 36000 kgs GVW: 16500
In practice, it appears that no straight-framed lightweight models were ever produced with 7MW cabs and that all NGC 420s were supplied as heavy-duty 42-tonners, which were simply plated at permissible weights according to their country of operation (32 tonnes in UK, 38 or 42 tonnes in Belgium and France, and 42 or 50 tonnes in Holland). Early brochures were clearly a declaration of ERF’s intent to supply the optional vehicles according to demand. However, operators who wanted the cheaper, lighter option could buy a Gardner-engined A-series based 5MW. The 5MW ‘European’, which continued to be offered alongside the 7MW-cabbed ‘European’ was already being offered with a choice of straight-framed chassis or waisted heavy-duty chassis, and choice of engines and transmissions, so the ‘light-weight’ market was already covered.
The only real NGC 420 variable was the engine and gearbox combination. The NGC 360 was offered with optional ■■■■■■■ NH 240 or Gardner 240 (8LXB) engines but I know of none supplied with them. In theory, the Gardner option would have received the code NGG 360. Initially, a naturally-aspirated ■■■■■■■ NHC 250 was offered in the NGC 380 but again I know of none having been supplied. As far as I can ascertain, only seven 7MWs were supplied with the optional ■■■■■■■ NTC 290 / 13-speed Fuller combination (all of which went to Trans Arabia). It is possible that there were others. All ERF’s NGC 420 promotional literature indicates quite clearly that the customer could choose either 9-speed or 13-speed Fuller gearboxes. However, in practice most NGC 420s fitted with NTC 335 engines had 9-speed Fullers because apparently, the 13-speed ‘boxes didn’t match well to 335s because of the high torque-loads, but were fine when matched to 290s. I can find only two examples of NGC 420s fitted with the NTC 335 / 9-speed Fuller combination: Corbishley’s preserved vehicle (KCH 95N), and a French NGC 420 operated by R Collin (1557 PF89). There may of course have been others. Robert
ERF-Continental:
Thank you Robert! It’s the last bought NGC420 from 1977 just before the 2 B-sleepers came in.
At the right, one of the BAFMA’s sold as a lot in UK-harbour…I guess Folkestone and at the left
the remainders (still several in operation to canabalise older ones) of a Krupp SF1080 without
the V8-265hp Krupp-■■■■■■■■ Also from France the extra (for cold winters with) StartPilot a
very flamable product, actually a help-explosion internally! Day’s gone…everybody will also
remember the various way driver’s invented front-protection for the radiator.
A-J
Hey ERF, maybe you are about an other opinion, but Krupp ■■■■■■■ V engines and of course their own 2 strokes.
Got nearly all an other built in engine. The experience here was that V ■■■■■■■ engines were not as good as the 6 in lines.
newmercman:
Saviem, as we both share admiration for the pioneer of the proper road test I would like to add to your eulogy.
Knowing full well that nobody eased anything past the TRUCK team when I was there (mssrs Salter and Sheer and myself) I was fortunate to do a Trans Euro Test which was truly a dream come true for me as it is, without doubt, the pinnacle of lorry road tests.
The test parameters are still those dreamt up nearly 40yrs ago by Pat Kennett, some sections of the test route are still used, the town of Spa, where some of the photos were taken in that 1975 test being one such section, although greatly extended now to take in Germany, France and Italy, the concept remains the same.
Almost 40yrs and his cockamamie idea lives on and is still firmly on the minds of the manufacturers. Pat’s idea of a test was always going to appeal to engineers, but once it was established it also attracted the attention of the marketing department and the bean counters, for a good result in a test match was a nice accolade for the product.
For this reason, I believe that every lorry driver and owner has Pat Kennett for improving comfort, performance, economy and reliability and giving us the lorries we have today.
A sad thing when speaking of the clearly very good ERF that the message never made it to the boardroom at Sun Works, with proper marketing and the rest of it who knows, maybe ERF could have bought MAN, rather than the other way around if their engineering excellence had been enjoyed by more operators
As I’ve said elsewhere the only way that any of the Brits would have stood a chance would have been if the domestic market was calling for the same,preferably better,type of products,at least in terms of power outputs and cab design as the Euro market to create the type of demand required to justify the investment.Also bearing in mind that we didn’t have the same luxuries in terms of access to funds and trade barriers and other hidden subsidies described by Saviem which the euro competition enjoyed.As for the ERF in question if Pat thought that went well there was no reason why it couldn’t have been fitted with the 13 speed fuller instead of 9 and the following year to the test the Big Cam ■■■■■■■ was available with outputs of 350-400 hp.Sadly it was all about the domestic market which as we know at that time was in general still demanding those day cabbed Gardner powered heaps.
robert1952:
…here’s the rest. Robert ENJOY! Robert:)
Thanks very much for posting that. I have wanted to read it since 1976, when I first learned of its existence. Now I am happy!
I was surprised that the multiplate-sprung lorries had a superior ride to the parabolic Scania and DAF, to the extent that those vehicles became difficult to control on bumpy roads. It seems that only Volvo had worked out that you need a higher damping rate in the dampers, for the advantage of reduced friction in the springs to give its expected improvement to the performance of the suspension. I bet Scania and DAF used the same dampers on multiplate and parabolic-sprung vehicles. Can anyone who had oily hands in those days confirm this?
Hey Anorak, a smooth ride is a strange thing who depends from lots of factors.
In the '60 and begin of the '70’s Volvo had nearly the worst ride (of the top trucks) and MB was de best with its leaf spring cab suspension. And Scania 110/140 was the better as Volvo.
But lots changed as Volvo began to use parabolics,longer springs,cab suspension,a longer wheelbase,and so on. Scania could only keep up again after they mounted cab suspension and longer back springs.
And more king pin place, fifth wheel place,cab overhang,seats and dampers.
An anecdote, the leaf springs at the back of an 88 were so strong,that if you were loaded with 25 tonnes steel, the police never looked at you if they were weighing trucks along the road.
Oh! ■■■■,this sensible thread has become infected by “CF”,what is your problem with Gardner engines “CF”?,they were the Class engine of their time and era although everyone acknowledges that they had indeed passed their “sell by” date by the mid 80’s period,but please don’t dis’ them as all the operators of Gardners cannot all be wrong,how is it that you never heard a bad word about the Gardner engine from decent operators.The only bad mouthing I ever heard about the Gardner was from Hauliers who couldn’t afford them,tear arse drivers who I wouldn’t pay with "middles out of Polo mints and “Blow Hards” like you my Son ! At Bewick Transport we ran something like 40 Gardner engined motors over the years and we never had a bad one,engine that is I do understand that someone of your intelligence is incapable of accepting a true fact so I’m ■■■■■■■ into the wind expecting the “Sage of Leatherhead” to understand a former “real time” operator,Dismally,Bewick.
robert1952:
Well said, Anorak: you are a taller man than I thought! I expect Saviem will have a word or two to say about the gear-matching. Maybe they wanted to discourage him from double-declutching. Robert
I have been 5ft9 for longer than I care to remember .
The 4mph disparity in the main road average speeds of the ERF and Scania does tend to undermine Truck magazine’s claim to impartiality. Such a difference could not be ascribed to traffic conditions alone, as the amount of traffic would fluctuate along the route, averaging about the same for both vehicles. Looking at the results table, increasing the Scania’s main road average speed by 4mph would not have damaged its fuel consumption unduly- maybe 0.1 or 0.15mpg worse, judging by its motorway figure, and the higher speed would have given it a superior average speed and productivity number at the end. If the driver of all of the vehicles was Mr. Kennett, maybe his jingoism influenced his judgment, when testing the vehicles? Having said that, the specification table states that the Scania’s top speed was 64mph, but calculating it from the mph/1000rpm figure gives it a top speed of 67mph. Maybe its tachograph was under-reading speed?
hey Anorak, about Scania’s speed it did at max revs 100kph at 2300revs.
It’s easy to calculate with the formule:
2300rev : 60 minutes : top gearing X 3.425 tyre speed (1200*20 or 13r22.5) : 4.71 ratio : 1000 = 100,35kph @ 2300rev.
Bewick:
Oh! [zb],this sensible thread has become infected by “CF”,what is your problem with Gardner engines “CF”?,they were the Class engine of their time and era although everyone acknowledges that they had indeed passed their “sell by” date by the mid 80’s period,but please don’t dis’ them as all the operators of Gardners cannot all be wrong,how is it that you never heard a bad word about the Gardner engine from decent operators.The only bad mouthing I ever heard about the Gardner was from Hauliers who couldn’t afford them,tear arse drivers who I wouldn’t pay with "middles out of Polo mints and “Blow Hards” like you my Son ! At Bewick Transport we ran something like 40 Gardner engined motors over the years and we never had a bad one,engine that is I do understand that someone of your intelligence is incapable of accepting a true fact so I’m ■■■■■■■ into the wind expecting the “Sage of Leatherhead” to understand a former “real time” operator,Dismally,Bewick.
The inconvenient fact is in this case we’re talking about an all round test which combines average journey times and fuel consumption to reach an overall efficiency figure when at least one of the competitors just happens to be a 140 Scania amongst other typical euro competition in the mid 1970’s.In which case it’s no surprise that Pat didn’t choose the average domestic market Gardner powered ERF of the day for the test in question based on your idea of sell by dates.Whereas my idea for the 1976 spec ‘European’ probably would have totally wiped out the Scania amongst the other competition in the test ‘if only’ ERF could have sold the thing in the domestic market to have made the production operation viable.
well as Robert has said the 13 speed just did not have the torque capacity needed…and with the torque output of the Cu335, who needed 13 speeds!
During my daily grind I got to thinking about ERF, (and their near neighbour Foden), and their European efforts. I can remember when I was thrashing around the bumpy Belgium roads in my S20 4x2 back in the 60s seeing the odd Foden 8x4, but with a local cab, and I do recall seeing a brick carrying lorry, 8x4, with the 8cylinder Gardner sticking out into the load space. The mists of time preclude any attempt at an operators name. Then of course were the 8x4 half cab mixers in Antwerp in the 70s.
But ERF, I cannot recall any volume at all! Certainly the French market statistics of 75-81 do not record any significant volume. The only UK manufacturer to make headway being Leyland, and they did…and could have done more!
Why this adverse reaction to the Patricroft product? Gardner was the world beater, Bernard, Miesse, Latil, all licence builders/importers. One of the best ways to teach a new driver of Gardner was to make him watch the speedometer…when he felt it was time to change gear…well a glance at the speedo would have told him not to!
But sadly this thread, and the research so diligently carried out, shows but one fact…the malaise, and lack of strategic thinking of British Management…but in all fairness, they were constantly mis led by our legislators…
Im away to my Bollinger, and I think a little Brie, for I am told that it makes ones hide waterproof…and I need it tonight!
robert1952:
in practice most NGC 420s fitted with NTC 335 engines had 9-speed Fullers because apparently, the 13-speed ‘boxes didn’t match well to 335s because of the high torque-loads, but were fine when matched to 290s. I can find only two examples of NGC 420s fitted with the NTC 335 / 9-speed Fuller combination: Corbishley’s preserved vehicle (KCH 95N), and a French NGC 420 operated by R Collin (1557 PF89). There may of course have been others. Robert
Hey Robert, wasn’t the high torque 13 speed Fuller available RTO 12513 as used in Berliets TR350 instead of the 9513.
But in some Scania’s the RTO9513 gave good service,some put out the Scanny box at the first problems.
tiptop495:
hey Anorak, about Scania’s speed it did at max revs 100kph at 2300revs.
It’s easy to calculate with the formule:
2300rev : 60 minutes : top gearing X 3.425 tyre speed (1200*20 or 13r22.5) : 4.71 ratio : 1000 = 100,35kph @ 2300rev.
Cheers Eric,
The test report says, on page 72, that the 140’s top speed is 60mph (I must have misread it when I said 64mph earlier). On page 73, it says 29mph per 1000rpm, which equals 67mph at 2300rpm. Also on page 73, it says the wheels are 8.0x20 and the tyres 11.00-20. My Continental Tyre catalogue gives the rolling circumference of this wheel/tyre combination as 3295mm±2%. This gives 60.3mph at 2300rpm. Page 72 is right, page 73 is wrong. This brochure pic of the rev counter allows you to drive at 2400rpm, so you can do 63mph=100.7km/h.
At risk of being considered a rivet counter, I will say that the wheels are secured by zero rivets. However, without counting, I would guess that they are held on by ten nuts, or thereabouts.
Hey to all, First about the ERF I will never blame them because never driven them or worked on and such drivelines are unbeatable. The only thing is that we here know the ■■■■■■■ as a thirsty engine with the Transconti.
And before fuel wasn’t measured the only need was power and quality.
About the test drive,I don’t say that they did it wrong,everything is Always good plant.
But there are ways of difference between tests and reality,even at today tests.
As I read that MB pulled well and was economical,I can only say that everyone here know them as fuelwasters without power,and even its cab suspension wasn’t anymore as the older LP’s.
Today it is even better to test on the Liège - Spa - Bastogne way,because of the re-routing of the francorchamps circuit.
You have some big climbs after every roundabout were you arrive downwards.
Only its now forbidden to go down to Spa on the long climb.
But it is still the best way togheter with the N4 to test oldies on the climbs with 10hp/ton.
And if you not have enough of it,you can find a lot of B roads with climbs between 15 and 20% over there.
As a favourite it is nice to test nowadays new ones at La Roche as it is placed in a valley and with 5 roads out of there with long climbs.
tiptop495:
hey Anorak, about Scania’s speed it did at max revs 100kph at 2300revs.
It’s easy to calculate with the formule:
2300rev : 60 minutes : top gearing X 3.425 tyre speed (1200*20 or 13r22.5) : 4.71 ratio : 1000 = 100,35kph @ 2300rev.
Cheers Eric,
The test report says, on page 72, that the 140’s top speed is 60mph (I must have misread it when I said 64mph earlier). On page 73, it says 29mph per 1000rpm, which equals 67mph at 2300rpm. Also on page 73, it says the wheels are 8.0x20 and the tyres 11.00-20. My Continental Tyre catalogue gives the rolling circumference of this wheel/tyre combination as 3295mm±2%. This gives 60.3mph at 2300rpm. Page 72 is right, page 73 is wrong. This brochure pic of the rev counter allows you to drive at 2400rpm, so you can do 63mph=100.7km/h.
0
At risk of being considered a rivet counter, I will say that the wheels are secured by zero rivets. However, without counting, I would guess that they are held on by ten nuts, or thereabouts.
Hey, oh sorry yes if they had other tyres, I never looked very well the test brochure; I assumed off the French and belgian legislation for 38 gross tons with 13 ton drive axle which need the 120020’s.
But you must attend at Scania rev counters from time to time some red bands began earlier or later why■■?
And the 2300 revs I used is when it had its max power of 350hp. If you drove them they went with ease over 2500revs.
So you can calculate which speed my 141 has with a 3.44 ratio and 120020 at 2500 revs .
well as Robert has said the 13 speed just did not have the torque capacity needed…and with the torque output of the Cu335, who needed 13 speed
Is that a coincidence, or what?
On a visit to the Sun Works, I enquired why my favourite gearbox (before the wonderful Twin Splitter!) could not be supplied behind the ■■■■■■■ 335 I was told, “When you’ve got this much power, you’ll not need all those gears”.
Must have been taken from the standard ERF script!
Hi, Eric,
With tongue in cheek (it’s a British thing!) could I ask in all innocence if the tyres would have been brand new or 80% worn? And just how much would it have affected the figures?
well as Robert has said the 13 speed just did not have the torque capacity needed…and with the torque output of the Cu335, who needed 13 speed
Is that a coincidence, or what?
On a visit to the Sun Works, I enquired why my favourite gearbox (before the wonderful Twin Splitter!) could not be supplied behind the ■■■■■■■ 335 I was told, “When you’ve got this much power, you’ll not need all those gears”.
Must have been taken from the standard ERF script!
Ironically it’s the power that costs fuel while it’s the torque that does the work and the more gears it’s got the more it can be kept where the torque is and away from the power.Which is why it’s the splitter that put the eco in the eco split just like in the case of the 13 speed fuller v the 9 speed.
Retired Old ■■■■:
Hi, Eric,
With tongue in cheek (it’s a British thing!) could I ask in all innocence if the tyres would have been brand new or 80% worn? And just how much would it have affected the figures?
I’m off to the shed to count some rivets.
Hey ■■■■, Ok you don’t need so much speed with big power,but on long climbs its easy to drive at the best revs.
And with 9 or 10 I don’t think that it is so easy. Of course nowadays you can let fall the engine much lower ok.
Retired Old ■■■■:
Hey-up, cf,
My point exactly! But those at ERF would not admit that the otherwise brilliant 13-speeder wasn’t up to the job with 335bhp -ish!
I think the word is ‘was’ up to the job it’s just that they needed to get their head around the idea that more gears means better economy and fit the right one.
I realise that this shot is not one of an “Erfkinson” and I’ve read with interest the previous posts about “gearing”,however,this Borderer had a ■■■■■■■ 220 engine,a Fuller RTO 610 box and an Eaton 2 speed drive axle.Never having been a qualified “Techno” all I can say is that this driveline performed superbly albeit with a competent driver at the wheel .In it’s day there was little or nothing that could out perform it on the M/ways as you could change gear at 250 rev intervals so such little steps gave it the ability to sustain a steady constant speed without the wide variation encountered by lesser geared motors.I hope my limited explanation makes sense to those of you far more technical advanced than I. Bewick.
tiptop495:
Hey, oh sorry yes if they had other tyres, I never looked very well the test brochure; I assumed off the French and belgian legislation for 38 gross tons with 13 ton drive axle which need the 120020’s.
But you must attend at Scania rev counters from time to time some red bands began earlier or later why■■?
And the 2300 revs I used is when it had its max power of 350hp. If you drove them they went with ease over 2500revs.
So you can calculate which speed my 141 has with a 3.44 ratio and 120020 at 2500 revs .
Bye Eric.
150km/h (93mph). Oddly enough, the 141 spec sheet says that, if you order the 3.44 axle, you must have 315/70 tyres, as if they do not want you to go fast! The maximum speed they quote is 67mph, which is what the calculation gives.
Regarding Fuller RTO9513 gearboxes, I thought that the “9” at the beginning signified 900lbft, which should have made the 'box adequate for a 140 or a ■■■■■■■ 350.
I do understand that someone of your intelligence is incapable of accepting a true fact so I’m ■■■■■■■ into the wind expecting the “Sage of Leatherhead” to understand a former “real time” operator,Dismally,Bewick.
.
Bewick.