robert1952:
Here’s a train of thought for CF and Anorak to mull over,
Good grief. I’m being bracketed with the loon.
robert1952:
I tried to say this earlier but my Egyptian server wouldn’t let me upload anything. It remains a part-mystery that these fantastic examples of British transport history only ran to a few dozen trucks, when a third of them had proved themselves reliable under the harsh conditions of the Middle East; and why they failed to gain more popularity in Europe after the French, the Dutch, the Belgians, and the Swiss had started adding them to their fleets. Time and again one encounters throw-away comments about ERFs being ‘gaffers’ motors’, when discussing Britain’s failure to hold its own in the international truck market in the ‘70s. This myth has become embedded in our trucking folk-culture and the remarks of careless trade-press journalists help to perpetuate it. I made the point earlier that the NGC 420 was decidedly not a ‘gaffers’ motor’. Older British readers will remember that lorries of that time were perceived very clearly either as ‘gaffers’ motors’ or ‘drivers’ motors’ because there was a vastly bigger gap between those two categories than there is today. However, it can hardly be argued that sales of the NGC 420 suffered from the stigma of the ‘gaffers’ motor’: firstly because it was clearly a ‘drivers’ motor’; and secondly because the market-place for these ERFs lay outside Britain where such distinctions were not so much of an issue.
The most likely reason was that the thirsty old big-banger under the bonnet was looking less attractive than more frugal European machines. This truck would pass just about anything on the road barring filling stations. We know that in Holland, NGC 420 units were replaced by B-series mainly on grounds of fuel-consumption; and at 50-tonnes gross weight the difference would have been evident. I earlier referred to foreign drivers’ preference for the NGC 420 over the B-series, but there is a high likelihood that the B-series edged its predecessor out promptly because it was more frugal.
One of the reasons for ERF’s apparent lack of success on the continent was that the truck markets were significantly more depressed than in Britain during the late ‘70s. It is tempting to wonder if ERF’s European back-up infrastructure, which was still in its infancy, was competitive enough. Gentilucci sent its Volvos to Eastern Europe and Russia but confined its ERF NGC 420 to Western Europe because the back-up was insufficient. As we have seen, Dai Davies who worked at ERF was pretty scathing about the lack of investment in the European infrastructure. However, it is worth remembering that in the ‘seventies a driver was strictly on his own once he’d left the EEC (now the EU) whatever make of truck he was driving. I remember once chatting at the Jordan-Syria border with Chris Hooper who used to run a Ford ‘Transcontinental’ in Astran livery on the Middle-East run; and he pointed out that ■■■■■■■ engines were familiar to mechanics all the way down to the Gulf. The ■■■■■■■ 335 was a like a piece of Meccano that a driver could work on by the roadside if he had to, possibly with the aid of Arabs who were capable of engineering parts out of scrap. In any case it was known to be reliable.
It’s doubtful that there were problems with completing orders within an acceptable time-frame because the Continental dealers kept vehicles in stock. It is not as if the NGC 420 suffered from poor advertising: one of Eric Vick’s robust NGC 420 units undoubtedly enhanced their reputation when it appeared in a full-page Bandag tyres advert in the trade press claiming great savings on return trips to Istanbul. Were they thoroughly marketed though? The NGC 420 was not unduly heavy, or too expensive; and the poor resale value of left-hand drive units was confined only to Britain. to be continued…Robert
, of course - but the baby was probably thrown out with the bathwater! RobertïŠ
Regarding the more palatable points you make:
The difference between “gaffer’s motors” and “drivers’ trucks” exists to this day. The supermarkets and fuel deliverers still use lower-powered, small-cabbed vehicles. The idea of spending a week in one of these would horrify the long-distance driver who, ordinarily, gets the vehicle from the other end of the range. The only difference nowadays is that the gaffer’s wagon is not injurious to the health of the driver- the controls do not wear his body out and the cab does not explode into bits in a crash. I would guess that, in the mid seventies, most people would prefer the more luxurious, quiet, spacious Continental cabs but, as we have discussed before, there was probably room in the market for the more “functional” 7MW.
In the Eurotest report, the NTC335 was competitive with the other 300+bhp engines on performance and fuel consumption so, in that part of the market, it was not at a disadvantage. However, I bet that the 250-300bhp sector was much more popular at the time. Not offering a ■■■■■■■ 250/290 option (if this is true) under the 7MW cab was definitely a mistake. Given the respect that Gardner engines had accrued, in those Continental vehicles which used them in the 1960s, an 8LXB option would have given ERF the cachet of having the most economical, durable engine in Europe. It would have been good marketing, if nothing else. On that note, why not offer the NTC380, even as far back as 1973? It might have appealed only to operators/drivers with big wallets and small dicks, but would have provided a “halo” effect over the lower-powered versions, much like the V8 Scania does.
In short, ERF should have sold a range of 7MW-cabbed vehicles in Europe. Perversely, they avoided the chief advantage of their US-style component-build method, which was customer choice. By offering the NGC420 with the NTC335 alone, they actually put themselves at a disadvantage. How many LB110 or F88 sales could they have stolen, by offering the 1-2mpg extra a Gardner 240 gave? The dealer network might have been stretched even more, with the requirement for extra parts inventory and training, but service support was the weakness anyway- a bit more trouble on that front would have been more than counterbalanced by the manufacturer having another couple of strings to its bow. The extra sales would have covered the cost of expanding the service network more quickly.
