John
robert1952:
Many of you will have noticed pictures of HNV 59N, an NGC 420 operated by ■■■■■■■ to pull their mobile training room / hospitality trailer around. It passed to Pountains (anyone got a pic of it in Pountain’s livery?) then to Redcap. It is believed to have had a big cam ■■■■■■■ 290 in it. Well these came on the market after NGC 420s ceased production so I imagine that it was either a prototype, or more likely, it replaced an earlier engine.
The Big Cam 1 was introduced in the mid 1970’s with it’s late use here as usual being a case of the UK market demand being way behind the rate of development going on in engineering terms at the time.As I’ve said there’s no reason as to why the ‘European’ couldn’t have been fitted with a 300 + hp Big Cam and 13 speed Fuller during it’s production life.
Carryfast:
robert1952:
So, apart from left-hand drive, the NGC 420’s other standard features included: a six cylinder, fourteen litre turbo-charged ■■■■■■■ small-cam NTC 335 bhp engine (impressive power in 1973); a nine-speed Fuller RT 9509A (RT 9095 from 1975 onwards) constant-mesh gearbox; ZF power-assisted steering and clutch, a thirteen tonne Kirkstall D85 13.2 heavy duty rear axle with epicyclic hub reduction, a 6.5 tonne front axle and a very well-appointed sleeper cab.
The NGC 420 was a nineteen-tonne unit with a forty-two tonne gross train-weight (GTW). British examples could, of course, only be plated at the maximum permissible weight of thirty-two tonnes. This provided a generous power-to-weight ratio of just over 10 bhp per tonne in the case of the ■■■■■■■ 335, which would certainly have kept the Germans happy. Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community looked promising and ERF, along with other manufacturers, expected an increase in permissible weights. They were to be profoundly frustrated because Britain dragged its feet until 1983 when the disappointingly low thirty-eight tonne upper limit was introduced, alas long after the NGC 420 had ceased production. Holland’s regular traffic had long been running at forty-two tonnes, with an upper weight limit of fifty tonnes; so it is not surprising that a significant number of NGC 420s were exported to Belgium and Holland where many of them ran at 50-tonnes GTW. Here they were respected as a well-engineered truck, fit for purpose and comfortable to drive, even before they were made available to UK operators. Robert0
Or to put it another way the Brits could provide products that were more than capable of matching the Scandinavian and Euro competition especially when you take into account the fact that the 10 hp per tonne Big Cam ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed fuller combination was available during the mid 1970’s.If only the domestic market had been on board at the time.As for the European ‘market’ being the answer,as history proves no chance.
The 335 ■■■■■■■ engine was used in the mid 60s as it was fitted in the Scammell Contractor in turbo charged form rated at 380 BHP this was capable of pulling over 300 tons although it was only rated at 240 tons G T W Pickfords had them on a “E” plate but I am sure Wynns had a “D” reg. so there were a well tried engine when ERF fitted them. R. Crisp also had some Guys on “J” or “K” with the 335 ■■■■■■■ in them sorry for going off topic but I was only pointing out that the 335 was around 9 or 10 years old when they were fitted into the European.
cheers Johnnie
sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
robert1952:
So, apart from left-hand drive, the NGC 420’s other standard features included: a six cylinder, fourteen litre turbo-charged ■■■■■■■ small-cam NTC 335 bhp engine (impressive power in 1973); a nine-speed Fuller RT 9509A (RT 9095 from 1975 onwards) constant-mesh gearbox; ZF power-assisted steering and clutch, a thirteen tonne Kirkstall D85 13.2 heavy duty rear axle with epicyclic hub reduction, a 6.5 tonne front axle and a very well-appointed sleeper cab.
The NGC 420 was a nineteen-tonne unit with a forty-two tonne gross train-weight (GTW). British examples could, of course, only be plated at the maximum permissible weight of thirty-two tonnes. This provided a generous power-to-weight ratio of just over 10 bhp per tonne in the case of the ■■■■■■■ 335, which would certainly have kept the Germans happy. Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community looked promising and ERF, along with other manufacturers, expected an increase in permissible weights. They were to be profoundly frustrated because Britain dragged its feet until 1983 when the disappointingly low thirty-eight tonne upper limit was introduced, alas long after the NGC 420 had ceased production. Holland’s regular traffic had long been running at forty-two tonnes, with an upper weight limit of fifty tonnes; so it is not surprising that a significant number of NGC 420s were exported to Belgium and Holland where many of them ran at 50-tonnes GTW. Here they were respected as a well-engineered truck, fit for purpose and comfortable to drive, even before they were made available to UK operators. RobertOr to put it another way the Brits could provide products that were more than capable of matching the Scandinavian and Euro competition especially when you take into account the fact that the 10 hp per tonne Big Cam ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed fuller combination was available during the mid 1970’s.If only the domestic market had been on board at the time.As for the European ‘market’ being the answer,as history proves no chance.
The 335 ■■■■■■■ engine was used in the mid 60s as it was fitted in the Scammell Contractor in turbo charged form rated at 380 BHP this was capable of pulling over 300 tons although it was only rated at 240 tons G T W Pickfords had them on a “E” plate but I am sure Wynns had a “D” reg. so there were a well tried engine when ERF fitted them. R. Crisp also had some Guys on “J” or “K” with the 335 ■■■■■■■ in them sorry for going off topic but I was only pointing out that the 335 was around 9 or 10 years old when they were fitted into the European.
cheers Johnnie
I’m not sure of the exact dates of the Small Cam’s development but the general lack of knowledge at the time in question at least during the 1970’s,concerning the rate of development and exactly what was available and when, seems to be a reflection of the backward nature of the customer demands in the UK market.Which,unfortunately for the domestic manufacturers,put them way behind before they’d even got started.
sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
robert1952:
So, apart from left-hand drive, the NGC 420’s other standard features included: a six cylinder, fourteen litre turbo-charged ■■■■■■■ small-cam NTC 335 bhp engine (impressive power in 1973); a nine-speed Fuller RT 9509A (RT 9095 from 1975 onwards) constant-mesh gearbox; ZF power-assisted steering and clutch, a thirteen tonne Kirkstall D85 13.2 heavy duty rear axle with epicyclic hub reduction, a 6.5 tonne front axle and a very well-appointed sleeper cab.
The NGC 420 was a nineteen-tonne unit with a forty-two tonne gross train-weight (GTW). British examples could, of course, only be plated at the maximum permissible weight of thirty-two tonnes. This provided a generous power-to-weight ratio of just over 10 bhp per tonne in the case of the ■■■■■■■ 335, which would certainly have kept the Germans happy. Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community looked promising and ERF, along with other manufacturers, expected an increase in permissible weights. They were to be profoundly frustrated because Britain dragged its feet until 1983 when the disappointingly low thirty-eight tonne upper limit was introduced, alas long after the NGC 420 had ceased production. Holland’s regular traffic had long been running at forty-two tonnes, with an upper weight limit of fifty tonnes; so it is not surprising that a significant number of NGC 420s were exported to Belgium and Holland where many of them ran at 50-tonnes GTW. Here they were respected as a well-engineered truck, fit for purpose and comfortable to drive, even before they were made available to UK operators. RobertOr to put it another way the Brits could provide products that were more than capable of matching the Scandinavian and Euro competition especially when you take into account the fact that the 10 hp per tonne Big Cam ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed fuller combination was available during the mid 1970’s.If only the domestic market had been on board at the time.As for the European ‘market’ being the answer,as history proves no chance.
The 335 ■■■■■■■ engine was used in the mid 60s as it was fitted in the Scammell Contractor in turbo charged form rated at 380 BHP this was capable of pulling over 300 tons although it was only rated at 240 tons G T W Pickfords had them on a “E” plate but I am sure Wynns had a “D” reg. so there were a well tried engine when ERF fitted them. R. Crisp also had some Guys on “J” or “K” with the 335 ■■■■■■■ in them sorry for going off topic but I was only pointing out that the 335 was around 9 or 10 years old when they were fitted into the European.
cheers Johnnie
My dear fellow, any mention of the NTC 335 can never be going ‘off-topic’ on this thread! Some rare Leyland Marathons had them, some Ford Continentals had them, Crip’s Big-J’s had them (as you pointed out) and I believe OHS’s LHD Seddon-Atkinson 400s had them! And of course many American makes had 'em. What a marvellous engine (if jolly thirsty)! Robert
It ought to be mentioned that as the NGC 420’s standard chassis was a heavy-duty design, it qualified for ‘special types’ heavy haulage operation at sixty tonnes GTW, and eighty-five tonnes on three axles. NGC 420s ran on 12.00 x 20 tyres and had 1-inch wheel-studs instead of the standard 7/8th inch studs. Many ‘seventies trucks were run in the UK with design-weights that were far higher than the permissible gross train-weight, in anticipation of more generously competitive weight allowances. The operator Trans Arabia ran NGC 420s with two trailers at weights up to a hundred tonnes GTW, in gruelling conditions across mountainous terrain in the Middle East.
NGC 420s had ZF steering and a Dana-Spicer twin-plate clutch. They also had a full, dual-air spring-brake system with air dryer. Suspension was a multi-leaf spring affair with hydraulic dampers. Daily checks were made via a split front grille, the top three-quarters of which hinged upwards. A Middle-East ‘special’ was made available in limited numbers.
The tractive unit weighed 7.280 tonnes and was based on a new chassis design developed from the A-series, which was waisted in the middle and which then tapered at the rear. This shape was to accommodate the big ■■■■■■■ 335 at the front end and the heavy-duty drive axle at the rear end. However, the chassis shared most of its technology with the standard ERF A-series. The wheel-base was long for a UK truck of the day, at 3.4 metres: significantly longer than the standard RHD A-series chassis (which was just under 2.9 metres) or the 5MW ‘European’ version at 3.09metres. One advantage of this was that it could accept the continental ‘long-pin’ trailers which had a 1.6m overhang at the front. In the nineteen-seventies, British tractive units still endured shorter wheel-bases than did their continental counterparts. Older drivers will remember that units of that period often suffered from ‘cab nod’, a nodding motion that could be eliminated either by adding a tag-axle or by increasing the wheelbase to the 3.8 m or even 4.00 m enjoyed by modern 4x2 units to this day.
Another feature in the NGC 420’s favour was its excellent ride-height, having good ground clearance, unencumbered by under-run fairings or low-slung tanks. It would have been able to cope with East European level crossings, Arabian high curbs and awkward ferry ramps. Robert
robert1952:
sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
robert1952:
So, apart from left-hand drive, the NGC 420’s other standard features included: a six cylinder, fourteen litre turbo-charged ■■■■■■■ small-cam NTC 335 bhp engine (impressive power in 1973); a nine-speed Fuller RT 9509A (RT 9095 from 1975 onwards) constant-mesh gearbox; ZF power-assisted steering and clutch, a thirteen tonne Kirkstall D85 13.2 heavy duty rear axle with epicyclic hub reduction, a 6.5 tonne front axle and a very well-appointed sleeper cab.
The NGC 420 was a nineteen-tonne unit with a forty-two tonne gross train-weight (GTW). British examples could, of course, only be plated at the maximum permissible weight of thirty-two tonnes. This provided a generous power-to-weight ratio of just over 10 bhp per tonne in the case of the ■■■■■■■ 335, which would certainly have kept the Germans happy. Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community looked promising and ERF, along with other manufacturers, expected an increase in permissible weights. They were to be profoundly frustrated because Britain dragged its feet until 1983 when the disappointingly low thirty-eight tonne upper limit was introduced, alas long after the NGC 420 had ceased production. Holland’s regular traffic had long been running at forty-two tonnes, with an upper weight limit of fifty tonnes; so it is not surprising that a significant number of NGC 420s were exported to Belgium and Holland where many of them ran at 50-tonnes GTW. Here they were respected as a well-engineered truck, fit for purpose and comfortable to drive, even before they were made available to UK operators. RobertOr to put it another way the Brits could provide products that were more than capable of matching the Scandinavian and Euro competition especially when you take into account the fact that the 10 hp per tonne Big Cam ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed fuller combination was available during the mid 1970’s.If only the domestic market had been on board at the time.As for the European ‘market’ being the answer,as history proves no chance.
The 335 ■■■■■■■ engine was used in the mid 60s as it was fitted in the Scammell Contractor in turbo charged form rated at 380 BHP this was capable of pulling over 300 tons although it was only rated at 240 tons G T W Pickfords had them on a “E” plate but I am sure Wynns had a “D” reg. so there were a well tried engine when ERF fitted them. R. Crisp also had some Guys on “J” or “K” with the 335 ■■■■■■■ in them sorry for going off topic but I was only pointing out that the 335 was around 9 or 10 years old when they were fitted into the European.
cheers JohnnieMy dear fellow, any mention of the NTC 335 can never be going ‘off-topic’ on this thread! Some rare Leyland Marathons had them, some Ford Continentals had them, Crip’s Big-J’s had them (as you pointed out) and I believe OHC’s LHD Seddon-Atkinson 400s had them! And of course many American makes had 'em. What a marvellous engine (if jolly thirsty)! Robert
I think many of the problems related to fuel consumption of the first generation of turbocharged diesels was more one of drivers needing to realise that using the extra power available wasn’t the object it was ( supposed to be ) all about accessing the extra torque.While the Big Cam development seemed to be based on the realisation that more emphasis was needed regarding fuel consumption after the Arab oil embargo and resulting oil price rises ?.Hence it’s availability from the mid 1970’s. 
Instead of which SA was still being asked by it’s customers to provide naturally aspirated Gardners in the 400 series. 
A glance at the first part of the epic BBC ‘World About Us’ feature film about the Middle-East run, Destination Doha, is a sobering reminder of how much could go wrong even before hitting the Austrian border in the mid-‘seventies. So it was important to create a network of strategic staging points from which to provide back-up support for operators on international work. As far back as 1969, ERF’s chairman, Peter Foden, established a strong rapport with the Belgian ■■■■■■■ distributor CDB in Brussels, and with Best truck Imports of Oud Beijerland near Rotterdam. MABO in France, also a main ■■■■■■■ distributor, completed the set. However, these were primarily set up for importing ERF trucks into Europe. Later in the decade the service network was extended to include Italy. The relationships with the Belgian and Dutch ■■■■■■■ distributors resulted from ERF’s debut at the 1969 Brussels motor show. ERF didn’t make the NGC 420 available to UK hauliers until early 1975, but from 1973 many were exported to companies on the continent via these agents. Blogger ‘Saviem’ recalls Antwerp’s ■■■■■■■ dealership taking a ‘European’ in part exchange. He describes it as a ‘magnificent machine’ with an American-built NTC 335 and he comments on its high potential for success. As mentioned earlier, in Belgium and Holland these were well-respected trucks.
However, Dai Davies who worked at ERF is pretty scathing about the European project in his book, ERF The Inside Story. He states that ‘ERF was clearly at a disadvantage as it did not have adequate after-sales service facilities in Europe’. Then he goes on to say that the MW-cabbed units ‘had not had sufficient development and, as a result, neither quality nor reliability was to the required standard’. He finishes by saying that ERF withdrew from Europe in 1979 with huge financial losses and attributes the failure to lack of financial back-up and lack of proper infrastructure. He certainly had a point with regard to back-up. Robert
robert1952:
However, Dai Davies who worked at ERF is pretty scathing about the European project in his book, ERF The Inside Story. He states that ‘ERF was clearly at a disadvantage as it did not have adequate after-sales service facilities in Europe’. Then he goes on to say that the MW-cabbed units ‘had not had sufficient development and, as a result, neither quality nor reliability was to the required standard’. He finishes by saying that ERF withdrew from Europe in 1979 with huge financial losses and attributes the failure to lack of financial back-up and lack of proper infrastructure. He certainly had a point with regard to back-up. Robert
It is interesting that he mentions poor reliability, as most of the parts were well proven. Teething troubles in the fledgling CKD assembly plant, or a knock-on effect of the sparse service support?
[zb]
anorak:robert1952:
However, Dai Davies who worked at ERF is pretty scathing about the European project in his book, ERF The Inside Story. He states that ‘ERF was clearly at a disadvantage as it did not have adequate after-sales service facilities in Europe’. Then he goes on to say that the MW-cabbed units ‘had not had sufficient development and, as a result, neither quality nor reliability was to the required standard’. He finishes by saying that ERF withdrew from Europe in 1979 with huge financial losses and attributes the failure to lack of financial back-up and lack of proper infrastructure. He certainly had a point with regard to back-up. RobertIt is interesting that he mentions poor reliability, as most of the parts were well proven. Teething troubles in the fledgling CKD assembly plant, or a knock-on effect of the sparse service support?
It is interesting, Anorak. I think history appears to prove him wrong on that point but right on the sparse service; and as you suggest, he may have meant that poor reliability resulted from that sparse service. Robert.
Carryfast:
robert1952:
sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
robert1952:
So, apart from left-hand drive, the NGC 420’s other standard features included: a six cylinder, fourteen litre turbo-charged ■■■■■■■ small-cam NTC 335 bhp engine (impressive power in 1973); a nine-speed Fuller RT 9509A (RT 9095 from 1975 onwards) constant-mesh gearbox; ZF power-assisted steering and clutch, a thirteen tonne Kirkstall D85 13.2 heavy duty rear axle with epicyclic hub reduction, a 6.5 tonne front axle and a very well-appointed sleeper cab.
The NGC 420 was a nineteen-tonne unit with a forty-two tonne gross train-weight (GTW). British examples could, of course, only be plated at the maximum permissible weight of thirty-two tonnes. This provided a generous power-to-weight ratio of just over 10 bhp per tonne in the case of the ■■■■■■■ 335, which would certainly have kept the Germans happy. Britain’s entry into the European Economic Community looked promising and ERF, along with other manufacturers, expected an increase in permissible weights. They were to be profoundly frustrated because Britain dragged its feet until 1983 when the disappointingly low thirty-eight tonne upper limit was introduced, alas long after the NGC 420 had ceased production. Holland’s regular traffic had long been running at forty-two tonnes, with an upper weight limit of fifty tonnes; so it is not surprising that a significant number of NGC 420s were exported to Belgium and Holland where many of them ran at 50-tonnes GTW. Here they were respected as a well-engineered truck, fit for purpose and comfortable to drive, even before they were made available to UK operators. RobertOr to put it another way the Brits could provide products that were more than capable of matching the Scandinavian and Euro competition especially when you take into account the fact that the 10 hp per tonne Big Cam ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed fuller combination was available during the mid 1970’s.If only the domestic market had been on board at the time.As for the European ‘market’ being the answer,as history proves no chance.
The 335 ■■■■■■■ engine was used in the mid 60s as it was fitted in the Scammell Contractor in turbo charged form rated at 380 BHP this was capable of pulling over 300 tons although it was only rated at 240 tons G T W Pickfords had them on a “E” plate but I am sure Wynns had a “D” reg. so there were a well tried engine when ERF fitted them. R. Crisp also had some Guys on “J” or “K” with the 335 ■■■■■■■ in them sorry for going off topic but I was only pointing out that the 335 was around 9 or 10 years old when they were fitted into the European.
cheers JohnnieMy dear fellow, any mention of the NTC 335 can never be going ‘off-topic’ on this thread! Some rare Leyland Marathons had them, some Ford Continentals had them, Crip’s Big-J’s had them (as you pointed out) and I believe OHC’s LHD Seddon-Atkinson 400s had them! And of course many American makes had 'em. What a marvellous engine (if jolly thirsty)! Robert
I think many of the problems related to fuel consumption of the first generation of turbocharged diesels was more one of drivers needing to realise that using the extra power available wasn’t the object it was ( supposed to be ) all about accessing the extra torque.While the Big Cam development seemed to be based on the realisation that more emphasis was needed regarding fuel consumption after the Arab oil embargo and resulting oil price rises ?.Hence it’s availability from the mid 1970’s.
I reckon this is a really good point, Carryfast. Driver awareness (and training) about the difference between torque and power didn’t really kick in until about the early '80s. There was a fair difference between the high torque at low revs Scania V8 and the higher-revving ■■■■■■■ 335, but drivers would still have been looking for performance in the '70s. It is interesting that the Euro Test shows little difference in the fuel consumption between the two; and as someone on here suggested, the test drivers may all have been driving for performance rather than economy. You mention the turbocharger too: in the '70s this was a ticket to make the boat before tea-time so you could meet your mates up the pub before kicking out time. We didn’t even have little green bands on our rev-counters until the very late '70s, as I remember. However, with regard to the ERF, once the LHD B-series came on the scene, this more frugal machine very soon dislodged the NGC 420. Robert
With regard to my last post about thirsty 335s: an ERF demonstrator that had been exhibited during the 1976 Amsterdam Commercial Vehicle Show was operated by a Dutch owner-driver called Barend Sjouw who had bought it from Best Trucks Imports the same year. It was mainly used to pull tandem spread-axle tilts for Rotterdam based Van Uden Transport. He changed it for a B-series after a year because it was too thirsty. This is a poor grainy pic. I have an absolutely superb colour picture of this truck, kind courtesy of Wobbe Reitsma but that must wait unit the book comes out! Robert
Imagine (John Lennon on the background) you have bought a truck that has been sold to you as a very reliable
product of high quality and consisting of numerous worldknown/proven components, absolutely suitable for the
(read your) job:
-
in case you might have a (rare) breakdown…regardles where, as extraordinary locations should then be
have excluded out of the 24 hours service 7 days/week -
regardless the fact your truck is assembled out of different origins when it comes to components and
regardless of where your truck (Sun Works had other/better facilities than CDB had) was assembled -
regardless of the fact dealers and service agents (Germany only had ERF-service agents) had the relevant
spare parts and technician/mechanics (sometimes tinkering or maintaining own fleet) available
you might expect NO discussion about UK-government,board of directors, engineers, assemblers, restricted
assembly area, sales-staff, conditions or YOUR doubtfull choice for this truck■■?
ERF has to be praised to show guts…to explore other/different markets with this TOP-truck enabling several
operators to meet their specific/other requirements resulting in a profitable operation, drivers a handy truck,
and all participants in the automtive chain a good feeling to attribute goods are moving!
In short marketing-slogans: pERFect, powERFul, pERFormance!!! Gross lifetime-cycle for NGC is 10-15 years!
Sorry the Sun (Works) doesn’t shine as usual any more in Cheshire Sandbach.
A-J
robert1952:
I reckon this is a really good point, Carryfast. Driver awareness (and training) about the difference between torque and power didn’t really kick in until about the early '80s. There was a fair difference between the high torque at low revs Scania V8 and the higher-revving ■■■■■■■ 335, but drivers would still have been looking for performance in the '70s. It is interesting that the Euro Test shows little difference in the fuel consumption between the two; and as someone on here suggested, the test drivers may all have been driving for performance rather than economy. You mention the turbocharger too: in the '70s this was a ticket to make the boat before tea-time so you could meet your mates up the pub before kicking out time. We didn’t even have little green bands on our rev-counters until the very late '70s, as I remember. However, with regard to the ERF, once the LHD B-series came on the scene, this more frugal machine very soon dislodged the NGC 420. Robert
I’m guessing that the wider ratios of the 9 speed fuller in many circumstances,as opposed to the closer ones of the 13 speed,wouldn’t have helped in that regard being that the engine would probably have needed to be run up to higher speed than ideal before upshifts and lugged down lower than ideal before downshifts.
Then you could add to the compromised driveline the use of the older less fuel efficient small cam design instead of the improved efficiency of the 320 Big Cam for example which I’m sure those testing the wagon would have been aware of being in the pipeline for introduction in the near future.
I’m sure those compromises would have been clear on the test and it’s surprising that both issues weren’t pointed out after the test which possibly would have made an even better case for the truck’s potential against it’s competitors.While hopefully the advice might have worked in making it’s manufacturer realise that things had moved on by the mid 1970’s in that regard.Although I’d bet that ERF’s designers knew that already if only they could find the required market at the right time for a Big Cam 320 powered 13 speed wagon.
ERF-Continental:
Imagine (John Lennon on the background) you have bought a truck that has been sold to you as a very reliable
product of high quality and consisting of numerous worldknown/proven components, absolutely suitable for the
(read your) job:
in case you might have a (rare) breakdown…regardles where, as extraordinary locations should then be
have excluded out of the 24 hours service 7 days/weekregardless the fact your truck is assembled out of different origins when it comes to components and
regardless of where your truck (Sun Works had other/better facilities than CDB had) was assembledregardless of the fact dealers and service agents (Germany only had ERF-service agents) had the relevant
spare parts and technician/mechanics (sometimes tinkering or maintaining own fleet) availableyou might expect NO discussion about UK-government,board of directors, engineers, assemblers, restricted
assembly area, sales-staff, conditions or YOUR doubtfull choice for this truck■■?ERF has to be praised to show guts…to explore other/different markets with this TOP-truck enabling several
operators to meet their specific/other requirements resulting in a profitable operation, drivers a handy truck,
and all participants in the automtive chain a good feeling to attribute goods are moving!In short marketing-slogans: pERFect, powERFul, pERFormance!!! Gross lifetime-cycle for NGC is 10-15 years!
Sorry the Sun (Works) doesn’t shine as usual any more in Cheshire Sandbach.
A-J
Fair point, A-J! Robert
Carryfast:
robert1952:
I reckon this is a really good point, Carryfast. Driver awareness (and training) about the difference between torque and power didn’t really kick in until about the early '80s. There was a fair difference between the high torque at low revs Scania V8 and the higher-revving ■■■■■■■ 335, but drivers would still have been looking for performance in the '70s. It is interesting that the Euro Test shows little difference in the fuel consumption between the two; and as someone on here suggested, the test drivers may all have been driving for performance rather than economy. You mention the turbocharger too: in the '70s this was a ticket to make the boat before tea-time so you could meet your mates up the pub before kicking out time. We didn’t even have little green bands on our rev-counters until the very late '70s, as I remember. However, with regard to the ERF, once the LHD B-series came on the scene, this more frugal machine very soon dislodged the NGC 420. RobertI’m guessing that the wider ratios of the 9 speed fuller in many circumstances,as opposed to the closer ones of the 13 speed,wouldn’t have helped in that regard being that the engine would probably have needed to be run up to higher speed than ideal before upshifts and lugged down lower than ideal before downshifts.
Then you could add to the compromised driveline the use of the older less fuel efficient small cam design instead of the improved efficiency of the 320 Big Cam for example which I’m sure those testing the wagon would have been aware of being in the pipeline for introduction in the near future.
I’m sure those compromises would have been clear on the test and it’s surprising that both issues weren’t pointed out after the test which possibly would have made an even better case for the truck’s potential against it’s competitors.While hopefully the advice might have worked in making it’s manufacturer realise that things had moved on by the mid 1970’s in that regard.Although I’d bet that ERF’s designers knew that already if only they could find the required market at the right time for a Big Cam 320 powered 13 speed wagon.
I think I can see where you are coming from, Carryfast, but your argument about the closer ratioed 13-speed Fuller would work with later ZF splitter 'boxes in which the whole gearbox was actually designed to ‘stage’ each ratio. However, the 13-speed 'box was simply a 9-speed 'box with overdrive on the top four gears (or underdrive in some cases). Nonetheless, the point you make about driving up to higher revs to ensure that the next gear is useful is, of course, entirely valid. Robert
A word about the NGC 420’s 7MW cab:
As already mentioned, this model was named after its cab. It had its own version of the then ubiquitous Motor Panels of Coventry cab design, code-named the 7MW by ERF. This was Motor Panels’ Mark 4 version and it was the first ever British-built 2.5m wide steel sleeper cab. It was introduced at the 1966 Motor Show after which it began to appear on Dutch-built FTFs, British-built Scammell Crusaders, French-built Macks, Hungarian-built Rabas and, of course, ERFs with 5MW cabs and eventually, the NGC 420 where it was named 7MW. The 7MW version of this cab was far better appointed than those offered in other models, it having been designed with long-haul operation in mind. It had a host of mod-cons not previously found in ERFs, being spacious with twin-bunks and having lower noise levels and a three-way roof-hatch designed to take an air-conditioning unit if required. The controls were more modern, with the indicators, lights, wipers and washers incorporated in the steering column stalks. Furthermore, it could be tilted to sixty-eight degrees for easy engine access. The driver’s seat had its own suspension, though the cab did not.
As already mentioned, this model was named after its cab. It had its own version of the then ubiquitous Motor Panels of Coventry cab design, code-named the 7MW by ERF. This was Motor Panels’ Mark 4 version and it was the first ever British-built 2.5m wide steel sleeper cab. It was introduced at the 1966 Motor Show after which it began to appear on Dutch-built FTFs, British-built Scammell Crusaders, French-built Macks, Hungarian-built Rabas and, of course, ERFs with 5MW cabs and eventually, the NGC 420 where it was named 7MW. The 7MW version of this cab was far better appointed than those offered in other models, it having been designed with long-haul operation in mind. It had a host of mod-cons not previously found in ERFs, being spacious with twin-bunks and having lower noise levels and a three-way roof-hatch designed to take an air-conditioning unit if required. The controls were more modern, with the indicators, lights, wipers and washers incorporated in the steering column stalks. Furthermore, it could be tilted to sixty-eight degrees for easy engine access. The driver’s seat had its own suspension, though the cab did not.
A piece in the spring 1974 edition (no. 20) of ERF’s in-house journal called Chassis magazine, refers to the ERF’s debut the previous year as follows:
Designed expressly to capture a larger share of the European market for ERF, following the foothold gained on the Continent with earlier models, the new ‘Europeans’ have cabs which woo the discerning Common Market lorry driver with a host of luxury features. Special suspension seats to iron out the jolts on long trans-continental hauls, aircraft-type fresh air nozzles, a cigar lighter, lockable glove compartment and provision for electric shaver point are among the standard creature comforts in the ERF ‘European’.
ERF’s 7MW cab stood much higher than the older 5MW at 2972 mm and had a protruding front grille, the better to accommodate that big ■■■■■■■ NTC 335. Because the grille protruded, it gave the impression that the front wheels were set further back than they actually were. This boxy front grille has always been a little controversial because it bore a striking resemblance to that of a Scania 140, with its square frame and lateral slats. Actually, the boxy effect was softened by the slightly bevelled top and sides of the grille panel. It appears that ERF was not content just to put up a competitor in the TIR-truck market, but that it strove to produce a competitor that even looked like its most successful rival, earning it the nickname: the ‘Sandbach Scania’. One can view this as a ‘bit of a cheek’ or as a spirited attempt to compete in a fierce market place — or indeed as a piece of entirely unconscious emulation. Some argue that the front end would have been more aesthetically pleasing if it had emulated the Scammell Crusader rather than the Scania. Handsome though the Crusader’s cab was, it would not have worked for the ERF because it was fixed, so the lower front panels were not designed for tilting and instead they swung out. The tall, external American-style grab handles which ran up the side of the cab behind the driver’s door were a great touch.
The cab itself was an ingenious design, being subtly layered upwards from a solid base, giving it an impression of strength. It was four-square without being slab-sided or utilitarian in appearance. Even the roof was fluted for strength, rather than plainly panelled. Its cab doors were cut short at the bottom like those of the Scammell Crusader rather than following the curve of the wheel-arches. These doors had a most interesting shape in that they formed a truncated ‘A’ design with massive hinges. They appeared to be slightly asymmetrical and inclined forward, though this might be an optical illusion created by the way the back of the cab raked slightly forward to give an impression of forward thrust. All this, combined with the well-proportioned near-vertical windscreen, the protruding front grille and the sun-visor gave the cab a very purposeful air. With the added effect of its imposing ride-height, this truck really looked as if meant business, yet there was nothing pugnacious or overly aggressive about it. The cab may not have possessed the graceful roundness of the 5MW but this particular ERF-Motor Panels creation gave the 7MW the appearance of a rugged truck entirely in keeping with its merchant-adventurer role. With its very efficient 7-inch Lucas double headlamps and triple windscreen wipers it was a classic ‘seventies cab, especially when it was fitted with a sun visor which seemed to counteract the protruding front panel and give the front end a much more balanced, harmonious and pleasing appearance — NGC 420s always seemed to look naked without that visor. Dutch NGC 420s wore those transparent plastic continental visors that came in all colours and appeared on the cabs of just about every make of lorry going.
Unlike other ERFs, offered for domestic consumption, the MW cab was made of steel rather than glass-reinforced plastic, as fitted to most of its stable-mates. The ‘M’ in MW is believed to have stood for ‘metal’. One of the main reasons for ERF producing metal, rather than GRP export cabs was a general foreign mistrust of plastic cab-shells. Germany, in particular, outlawed such cabs and with Britain just entering the European Economic Community it seems likely that ERF saw Germany as much too large a country to ignore. Of course, the downside was that metal cabs rusted away whereas GRP cabs did not. Unfortunately, the 7MW cab had no external access to wet-gear lockers under the bunk.
The British roof-mounted illuminated moulded headboard tradition appears never to have affected a 7MW cab, though Pountains, Corbishley and ■■■■■■■ added detachable ones. On the Vijore thread, 3300John describes how the ‘European’ cabs arrived as flat packs from Motor Panels for assembly in the old Jennings workshops at ERF. These workshops were apparently quite antiquated with no storage area. John portrays a very busy scene with 4MW, 5MW and 7MW cabs being assembled and cab parts all over the place. All the interiors were fitted here, doors were cut down and step positions were changed according to which model they were to fit. Cabs were built one at a time. He reckoned the cab was good for its day.
Unlike today’s trucks, no information was written on the cab that would have helped to identify it. All that was written on an NGC 420 was: ‘ERF’, in big chunky white 3D letters. Those letters were framed in a pleasing white rectangular surround, a distinctive design which started with the A-series 7LV and finished in early B-series models, when the surround was dropped. Both letters and surround were apt to fall off after a while, leaving some older ERFs with no identifying marks whatsoever. Robert
Here’s a couple of Shell tankers with LHD that were definitely not ‘Europeans’. One has the 5MW cab and the artic has an MV cab. Robert
Nice and clear pictures! It was long ago these Shell-vehicles were mentioned in this thread. Not to correct
you but merely more precise: cab-definition is 4MW for truck and 4MV for artic because of axle-position.
Always a pleasure to discover your research, best regards, A-J
robert1952:
Here’s a couple of Shell tankers with LHD that were definitely not ‘Europeans’. One has the 5MW cab and the artic has an MV cab. Robert10
Where did they live, if not Europe?
Is the top one not a 4MW, on account of its forward axle? The lower one appears to have the narrower cab, like a Seddon or a Guy. Would that make it a 3MV, or is the 3 the narrow-cab, set-back axle variant? Please note that, so far, I have been wrong every time I have tried to put a code to these vehicles!
Edit: having looked at them again, the lower one is definitely the narrow version. There are lots of detail differences between it and the 4MW above it: the cab is mounted lower and the doors are different- look at the spacing of the hinges. I reckon it is an MV or a 3MV, depending on which number denoted axle position on these narrow-cab lorries.