Carryfast:
You’ve read it wrong if you think I don’t rate the 420 as a good Brit wagon.The bit that I think was the deal breaker was ERF’s management not having someone out there in the States on the ground supervising the supply of Big Cam 320 motors and 13 speed fullers to put in it instead of the by then obsolete small cam and 9 speed…Blah
The Big Cam E290 ■■■■■■■ was introduced in 1977, after the NGC420 had ceased production. The E320 came out in 1981. ERF would have needed the help of HG Wells to buy those engines in 1973. Idiot.
I think Anorak has missed the date on the title of the topic and then misunderstood the bit where I said that I’d have been in the land of the free sorting out a supply of the 320 Big Cam 1 ■■■■■■■ ( which was actually introduced in 1976 not 1977 ) and was available in outputs ranging from 250-400 from day 1.Which isn’t surprising considering the effect,which telling it’s customers,that they’d have to wait until the 1980’s,for anything more than the 290,in the mid-late 1970’s,would have had on ■■■■■■■■ fortunes. In which case had ERF then also followed my marketing strategy history might have turned out very different. It seems that 1970’s US truck manufacturing history isn’t one of Anorak’s strong points.
And, don’t forget, the only negative press the NGC has received has been from Harry and we know nothing of the maintenance programme of that specific lorry, even so it’s only one or two breakdowns and the lorry that doesn’t break down is yet to
To be fair, the Swiss garage had given up on this money pit. As you can see by the photo they wouldn’t even pay for a wash. The whole debacle lasted four long weeks after which I dumped the thing and got a job where all I had to do was drive . But the Whites were also cursed with the same sickness.
A Swiss mate of mine bought one to do ME. It broke down in Iran. He had to have the truck towed 500 miles to an airport to have the part from Swiss fitted because all American goods were banned in Iran. Simple thing like a water pump ,I believe ,cost him lots of money and time.
Another thing with Whites in Europe , everything was Whitworth? Inches not metric so if you were having a tyre change in Germany the tools didn’t fit & the studs were hollow & could easily be snapped off by power tools. The alloy wheels would crack if they were tightened too much… Too many snags to remember …seem to remember 12volt system, Aaaaah the horror,keep getting flashbacks!
harry:
And, don’t forget, the only negative press the NGC has received has been from Harry and we know nothing of the maintenance programme of that specific lorry, even so it’s only one or two breakdowns and the lorry that doesn’t break down is yet to
To be fair, the Swiss garage had given up on this money pit. As you can see by the photo they wouldn’t even pay for a wash. The whole debacle lasted four long weeks after which I dumped the thing and got a job where all I had to do was drive . But the Whites were also cursed with the same sickness.
A Swiss mate of mine bought one to do ME. It broke down in Iran. He had to have the truck towed 500 miles to an airport to have the part from Swiss fitted because all American goods were banned in Iran. Simple thing like a water pump ,I believe ,cost him lots of money and time.
Another thing with Whites in Europe , everything was Whitworth? Inches not metric so if you were having a tyre change in Germany the tools didn’t fit & the studs were hollow & could easily be snapped off by power tools. The alloy wheels would crack if they were tightened too much… Too many snags to remember …seem to remember 12volt system, Aaaaah the horror,keep getting flashbacks!
Which still leaves the question that other US wagons like Kenworths were doing just fine with much of the same basic componentry in the similarly harsh operating conditions of North America and Australia.While the Swiss in the form of Frederici seemed to have no problems in that regard either doing Europe-Middle East work with KW’s.As for the metric/imperial argument the same could have applied here when Euro imports were being used here.Strangely UK service providers had no problems with dealing with both systems.Unlike the Euros.IE just another form of protectionism against British/American truck manufacturers in the Euro market which should have at least been met by the same treatment in regards to their products sold/used here.
I know that ■■■■■■■ had a whole variety of engines that we never saw in Europe. I’ve also seen a photo of a static ■■■■■■■ that did not have the PT fuel system.
Between CF and [zb] they have hit the nail on the head without knowing it
A few more luxuries and getting shot of that nasty grille from [zb] and the choice of more power and ratios from CF and ERF would’ve had a lorry a cut above the rest, rather than trying to match the 140, ERF should’ve been showing the Swedes how it was done. The NGC had the right flavour, but used the wrong ingredients, oh what could have been…
newmercman:
I know that ■■■■■■■ had a whole variety of engines that we never saw in Europe. I’ve also seen a photo of a static ■■■■■■■ that did not have the PT fuel system.
Between CF and [zb] they have hit the nail on the head without knowing it
A few more luxuries and getting shot of that nasty grille from [zb] and the choice of more power and ratios from CF and ERF would’ve had a lorry a cut above the rest, rather than trying to match the 140, ERF should’ve been showing the Swedes how it was done. The NGC had the right flavour, but used the wrong ingredients, oh what could have been…
^ This.Although I’m sure it wasn’t a case of nail and head without knowing it and the old PT system always seemed to me to be the most logical way to inject a diesel engine at least before the electronic common rail systems not forgetting that Detroit also used a similar type of system too.
However without that Shore and Powell led coalition government we’d still have had the problem of having joined the EEC a few years earlier and effectively having told our old OZ and NZ markets to get stuffed in doing so or at least that’s how they saw it.While then trying to flog British products based on US major components to a bunch of foreign speaking philistines around just 20 miles away across the channel who didn’t know,or want to know,how to work on,or drive,proper engineered wagons and who’s idea of trade was all one way to their benefit.Then to add insult to injury we couldn’t flog the things in the domestic market either because of a government,which having put us into the EEC,was also dragging it’s feet in allowing a bit more gross weight on the roads and too many customers who were still looking for a mid-late 1960’s spec wagon not a mid-late 1970’s one.
Reading through the last dozen or so posts, it may just that we’ve lost sight of one thing: '70s lorries, glorious though they were, for far less reliable and more prone to irritating minor breakdowns than are modern ones. I drove a wide range of '70s trucks both UK and European - of many makes - and they were all more or less as bad as each other for breaking down unless my memory serves me ill. Robert
newmercman:
I know that ■■■■■■■ had a whole variety of engines that we never saw in Europe. I’ve also seen a photo of a static ■■■■■■■ that did not have the PT fuel system.
Between CF and [zb] they have hit the nail on the head without knowing it
A few more luxuries and getting shot of that nasty grille from [zb] and the choice of more power and ratios from CF and ERF would’ve had a lorry a cut above the rest, rather than trying to match the 140, ERF should’ve been showing the Swedes how it was done. The NGC had the right flavour, but used the wrong ingredients, oh what could have been…
Oi! Don’t accuse me of collaborating with the loon, even unintentionally!
The design and specification of the lorry was not ERF’s downfall. It might have been a bit rough round the edges but, as many have said, it was fun to drive. My (our) tastes in styling and interior trim are inconsequential, because there will always be a sector of the market which thinks differently, or does not care about such details. Apart from the acknowledged deficiencies in service support, I am more interested in reading the memories of people who experienced the poor build quality that afflicted Harry’s example.
Build quality, or rather the lack of, appears to be a trait of British built products
My Transcon was put together at Elworth and it was always falling apart, whereas a lot of Transcon operators speak highly about it, maybe the Dutch built ones were better put together
The Destination Doha Marathon was plagued with (off camera) problems
I did a thing for TRUCK in a Foden Alpha and remember writing that you could tell where the Daf parts ended and the Foden parts began…and I wasn’t being nice
newmercman:
Build quality, or rather the lack of, appears to be a trait of British built products
My Transcon was put together at Elworth and it was always falling apart, whereas a lot of Transcon operators speak highly about it, maybe the Dutch built ones were better put together
The Destination Doha Marathon was plagued with (off camera) problems
I did a thing for TRUCK in a Foden Alpha and remember writing that you could tell where the Daf parts ended and the Foden parts began…and I wasn’t being nice
I think we can take it as read that Britain cannot engineer its way out of a paper bag, at least in volume-produced machinery, without the guiding hand of foreign ownership. The reasons for that have been discussed at length here and elsewhere. I do not think that ordinary British shoddiness was the reason for Harry’s bad experience, given that ERFs were considered reliable workhorses in GB (at least until they had electronics to grapple with, remembering Gingerfold’s experiences with EC’s).
The NGC’s convoluted build process contains two banana skins:
The cab construction method, according to 3300John’s account, looks like a comedy of errors.
Trusting final assembly of the vehicles to a third-party subcontractor is a recipe for disaster. In contrast, Scania’s Zwolle plant was a wholly owned subsidiary, and that factory was well-established by the time the European ERFs were being built, so any bad habits will have been eradicated.
newmercman:
I know that ■■■■■■■ had a whole variety of engines that we never saw in Europe. I’ve also seen a photo of a static ■■■■■■■ that did not have the PT fuel system.
Between CF and [zb] they have hit the nail on the head without knowing it
A few more luxuries and getting shot of that nasty grille from [zb] and the choice of more power and ratios from CF and ERF would’ve had a lorry a cut above the rest, rather than trying to match the 140, ERF should’ve been showing the Swedes how it was done. The NGC had the right flavour, but used the wrong ingredients, oh what could have been…
Yes, it would have been nice if the 7MW had kept its split windscreen and rather elegant front, much as I idolise the NGC! Robert
3300John:
Hiya…your knocking the uk trucks I’d have been happier with a big ■■■■■■■ in a Volvo
rather than the Volvo engine.an 88 i drove in the 80,s, i had to emery tape no 4 big end every 4 weeks to keep some
oil pressure…running repairs!!!
John
That’s exactly the type of comparison which ‘would’ have been valid ‘if’ only it hadn’t have been for the penny pinching Brit guvnors in too many cases.IE in reality the comparison would have been if the penny pinching British operators weren’t still using an obsolete old Scandinavian screamer in the 1970’s let alone 1980’s they were using an old obsolete British plodder in the form of a Gardner powered heap instead.I don’t think there would have been any complaints whatsoever if the British customer base had been the same as all the other English speaking world in using the right engines and transmissions,in the right wagons,at the right time.Even if the odd window winding handle might have fallen off after a year of running to and from the Middle East.
[zb]
anorak:
I think we can take it as read that Britain cannot engineer its way out of a paper bag, at least in volume-produced machinery, without the guiding hand of foreign ownership.
If that was true you’d have been writing this in German during your 10 minute rest period in 20 hours of work.Instead of at least making the Euros pay something to take the place over out of their ill gotten gains having been given our market on a plate.
newmercman:
Build quality, or rather the lack of, appears to be a trait of British built products
My Transcon was put together at Elworth and it was always falling apart, whereas a lot of Transcon operators speak highly about it, maybe the Dutch built ones were better put together
The Destination Doha Marathon was plagued with (off camera) problems
I did a thing for TRUCK in a Foden Alpha and remember writing that you could tell where the Daf parts ended and the Foden parts began…and I wasn’t being nice
The owner of this seems to be happy enough with it.
ERF-Continental: @Anorak: I hear you but who was the 3rd party subcontractor for the NGC a.k.a. A-series with 7MW-cab?
On the 7MW-cabbed lorry, I stand corrected. The report of cab problems on the Belgian-assembled 5MW lorries might support my argument but, as you say, the NGC was finished at Sandbach, alongside the many A and B series which gave reliable service. Therefore, Harry’s account of poor detail engineering may be explained otherwise. I offer you the example of the Seddon Atkinson 400, as reported in many threads on this forum: it was an assembly of ■■■■-ups, by a firm which made the most dependable old-fashioned British lorry of them all. It seems that the British firms just did not know how to engineer a sophisticated, 1970s-standard vehicle. They were, after all, attempting to compress the progress of a decade or two into one design step. The Continentals had done it gradually, learning along the way. Maybe the NGC420 was afflicted by the same malaise. If more posters can identify detail faults in the NGC, we will have a clearer picture.
@Anorak: pfff you squired me…but corrected in time!
By the way, Scania-Vabis did not had the problems with METRIC, INCHES and WITHWORTH,
so that was a major benefit as well as being on the continent!
Otherwise, CDB/Denonville was quite familiar with US/UK as after WW2 they (and Best Truck
in Holland) had a lot of army-surplus (Mack, White, Foden, Bedford etc) to get operational, to
have the country moving and building-up again!
Before moving on to supposed small snags we still haven’t cleared up the alleged ‘issues’ concerning the ancillaries falling apart on ■■■■■■■ engine installations at least in the ERF type in question.Maybe all of the so called ‘issues’ were in reality just small inevitable faults that can affect any wagon that have then been exaggerated out of all proportion for another agenda.Just like all the bs impossibility of being able to handle imperial and metric and continental operators not being able to maintain ■■■■■■■ powered wagons in general and their drivers not being able to drive constant mesh boxes etc etc etc was all just part of the same bs plot to put the Brits out of the frame.
[zb]
anorak:
I think we can take it as read that Britain cannot engineer its way out of a paper bag, at least in volume-produced machinery, without the guiding hand of foreign ownership.
If that was true you’d have been writing this in German during your 10 minute rest period in 20 hours of work.Instead of at least making the Euros pay something to take the place over out of their ill gotten gains having been given our market on a plate.
It is true- look at the evidence: every British volume car or lorry factory which survives has done so by doing what it is told by better-educated foreign engineers.
I have worked for a German firm, in Germany. The working shift was shorter than a typical British one, the dinner break was at least as long and the canteen was ausgezeichnet. There was a beer dispenser in the office and you could go for a smoke in the corridor. In short, the working conditions were lavish, by UK standards. Poke that down your chrome-plated stack.
[zb]
anorak:
I think we can take it as read that Britain cannot engineer its way out of a paper bag, at least in volume-produced machinery, without the guiding hand of foreign ownership.
If that was true you’d have been writing this in German during your 10 minute rest period in 20 hours of work.Instead of at least making the Euros pay something to take the place over out of their ill gotten gains having been given our market on a plate.
It is true- look at the evidence: every British volume car or lorry factory which survives has done so by doing what it is told by better-educated foreign engineers.
I have worked for a German firm, in Germany. The working shift was shorter than a typical British one, the dinner break was at least as long and the canteen was ausgezeichnet. There was a beer dispenser in the office and you could go for a smoke in the corridor. In short, the working conditions were lavish, by UK standards. Poke that down your chrome-plated stack.
That actually helps my case.The Germans were given preferential treatment by the bankers to keep everyone happy and to stop those like Heath from being zb scared of ever having to fight the zb’s again.While the British workers had to struggle on less pay doing more hours,while at the same time making a better product,when they were allowed to that is which wasn’t often,if ever.
In which case had ERF then also followed my marketing strategy history might have turned out very different. 
It seems that 1970’s US truck manufacturing history isn’t one of Anorak’s strong points. 
and the old PT system always seemed to me to be the most logical way to inject a diesel engine at least before the electronic common rail systems not forgetting that Detroit also used a similar type of system too.
