@ John3300 & Carryfast: yes, I can see where your argument is going and I agree that the cab was fit for purpose and that it seems strange that the bigger engine wasn’t demanded.
However, there are two important factors that may have mitigated against large numbers being bought for the domestic market:
-
The NGC 7MW only ever came with left-hand drive
-
The MGC 5MW did have the 335 lump on option, and RHD on option, but the cab didn’t tilt
Now, I know you’ll say the Crusader cab didn’t tilt either, but it DID have that ingenious swing-out radiator arrangement which meant better engine access than the 5MW.
I imagine that both of you (John / CF) are now asking the question: why on earth didn’t ERF produce a RHD 335-powered NGC with a tilt cab for domestic use? Well make that John, CF and Robert! Because I wouldn’t mind knowing the answer to that too!
The clue might be in the cost. Remember most of the domestic 5MWs didn’t have 335s in them at all, but rather used 220 Rolls, 240 Gardners, 220 ■■■■■■■ NH and the like. The cheaper, lower-powered units were still king in Blighty in the early 70s. Robert
hiya…i know and agree with what you say Robert. the 7mw cab was uniform in all its dimensions the left side of the
cab was identical to the right. where the clocks and switches was the same only a blank covered the fuses and wiring.
the bonnet was in the middle of the cab and the bonnet was uniform shape. where the F88 was right hand cab and the
f89 was left hand(as you know)it would be major task to change from rhd to lhd. the same was with the leyland ERGO
cab the bonnet sloped to the left with aright rhd cab.and of corse the drivers side the floor stayed with the chassis.
we had a lorry at Adams butter that was a reject LHD. the lads whipped of the cab sorted the steering and wiring out
and put a rhd cab onto the chassis, the cab just sat there for maybe 10 years(under cover) before it was scrapped it
was to much trouble to make into a RHD cab it was in primer brand new with no rot…and no good. we did have the
doors and screen…now its easy to see Crusaders run both rhd and lhd. many army
Crusaders are Lhd and Steve Cook has a vast collection of RHD crusader photo,s…maybe ERF didn’t want to know about
RHD so the lorry OR cab was known as the European.it would be interesting to see how much trouble Pountains had changing
the cab over. maybe someone will come out of the woodwork with your book on sale and tell us…i would hope so
john
3300John:
hiya…i know and agree with what you say Robert. the 7mw cab was uniform in all its dimensions the left side of the
cab was identical to the right. where the clocks and switches was the same only a blank covered the fuses and wiring.
the bonnet was in the middle of the cab and the bonnet was uniform shape. where the F88 was right hand cab and the
f89 was left hand(as you know)it would be major task to change from rhd to lhd. the same was with the leyland ERGO
cab the bonnet sloped to the left with aright rhd cab.and of corse the drivers side the floor stayed with the chassis.
we had a lorry at Adams butter that was a reject LHD. the lads whipped of the cab sorted the steering and wiring out
and put a rhd cab onto the chassis, the cab just sat there for maybe 10 years(under cover) before it was scrapped it
was to much trouble to make into a RHD cab it was in primer brand new with no rot…and no good. we did have the
doors and screen…now its easy to see Crusaders run both rhd and lhd. many army
Crusaders are Lhd and Steve Cook has a vast collection of RHD crusader photo,s…maybe ERF didn’t want to know about
RHD so the lorry OR cab was known as the European.it would be interesting to see how much trouble Pountains had changing
the cab over. maybe someone will come out of the woodwork with your book on sale and tell us…i would hope so
john
Some more good insights from you there John! 
Robert 
Carryfast:
robert1952:
@ John3300 & Carryfast:
I imagine that both of you (John / CF) are now asking the question: why on earth didn’t ERF produce a RHD 335-powered NGC with a tilt cab for domestic use? Well make that John, CF and Robert! Because I wouldn’t mind knowing the answer to that too!
The clue might be in the cost. Remember most of the domestic 5MWs didn’t have 335s in them at all, but rather used 220 Rolls, 240 Gardners, 220 ■■■■■■■ NH and the like. The cheaper, lower-powered units were still king in Blighty in the early 70s. Robert
From my point of view we know that the domestic market was lagging well behind in its demands during the early 1970’s.While that seems to suggest that the 7MW was limited in its use to LHD.The logical question then is probably more along the lines of ERF and Leyland/Scammell following SA in going for the later developments of the MP cab to replace the 7MW and Crusader.Instead of B series and T45 respectively.At which point the big cam ■■■■■■■ range was well into availability and obviously predictably increasingly being more the engine of choice,from the point of view of the domestic market,from late 1970’s going into the 1980’s.
The B series obviously always being the fly in the ointment,in the case of any real possibility of ERF continuing with its MP cabbed line,from the time of its introduction. 
Which then leaves the question of Leyland going for an SA 400 type cabbed Crusader 2,put into production at around similar time,instead of the T45.
Well don’t forget that the enhanced MW cab (7MW) ran parallel with the SP B-series cab, not prior to it. The 7MW appeared in '73 and the B-series with its SP cab came the following year. They were conceived at much the same time, I imagine because the later cab would still have had to undergo the development processes through which the MW cab had already been. British Leyland on the other hand appears to have been after an all-new truck with the TL12 engine and T45 cab, but needed to use established engines during the development period. Robert
robert1952:
Well don’t forget that the enhanced MW cab (7MW) ran parallel with the SP B-series cab, not prior to it. The 7MW appeared in '73 and the B-series with its SP cab came the following year. They were conceived at much the same time, I imagine because the later cab would still have had to undergo the development processes through which the MW cab had already been. British Leyland on the other hand appears to have been after an all-new truck with the TL12 engine and T45 cab, but needed to use established engines during the development period. Robert
I wonder why they bothered developing a tilting version of the Motor Panels cab, when the SP cab was so close to production? If the introduction of the raised-roof SP sleeper had been brought forward to the B-series’ 1974 launch, the European would have had a bang-up-to-date cab, right or left hand drive and ERF would have saved themselves a pile of cash. Apologies if this argument has been pursued before.
[zb]
anorak:
robert1952:
Well don’t forget that the enhanced MW cab (7MW) ran parallel with the SP B-series cab, not prior to it. The 7MW appeared in '73 and the B-series with its SP cab came the following year. They were conceived at much the same time, I imagine because the later cab would still have had to undergo the development processes through which the MW cab had already been. British Leyland on the other hand appears to have been after an all-new truck with the TL12 engine and T45 cab, but needed to use established engines during the development period. Robert
I wonder why they bothered developing a tilting version of the Motor Panels cab, when the SP cab was so close to production? If the introduction of the raised-roof SP sleeper had been brought forward to the B-series’ 1974 launch, the European would have had a bang-up-to-date cab, right or left hand drive and ERF would have saved themselves a pile of cash. Apologies if this argument has been pursued before.
A stimulating thought! I don’t think your precise argument has been used here before and I subscribe to your question. It seriously leaves me wondering if the NGC, far from being a ‘stop-gap’ (between the 3MW and the B-series) was conceived and built as longer term Euro-truck - after all, it was certainly a model in its own right and only had LHD - and that the B-series was actually intended to serve as an updated sleeper-cabbed version of the A-series largely for domestic use. My argument for this being the case is all the more compelling when you look at the early Jennings sleeper conversions and the comparatively low power engines (Gardner 6LXB, 8LXB; ■■■■■■■ NHC250). These were clearly A-series replacements not NGC-series replacements. 
Even early B-series exports to Belgium and Holland were flat-top domestics with LHD! It all falls into place if you stop believing that the B-series was planned to be the new Euro-truck! 
So it may have been an accident that the NGC stopped in 1977 (because ERF had so much on its plate, pushed for room, NGC needed a more frugal engine etc etc). It is probably no coincidence that the NGC was discontinued in 1977 when the new European LHD sleeper cab B-series was introduced. Robert
Carryfast:
Firstly there’s no way that resources could be split to that level without the economies of scale angle wiping out the whole operation.IE it needed to be one or other not both.On that note the idea of taking a double standards view of the ‘European’ market v the ‘domestic’ one being one of the reasons for the success of the Euro invasion and the often unfair stereotyping of Brit made trucks.
IE the Volvo salesmen had the luxury of the same attitude to product line being offered here as in the Euro market.As opposed to the idea of a plastic F10/12 with a Gardner option just for the Brits and the ‘proper’ one for everyone else.While unfortunately that stereotyping was often also erroneously applied in the case of the choice between big cam SA 400 v F10 etc. 
While obviously that economies of scale issue would have stopped the idea of a two tier Euro v Domestic product line up,in the case of ERF,assuming that was ever the plan.
Didn’t all the other Euro countries have two tier product line ups then? I seem to remember a lot of Euro stuff that never ventured far running alongside the TIR vehicles across the water! Robert
robert1952:
A stimulating thought! I don’t think your precise argument has been used here before and I subscribe to your question. It seriously leaves me wondering if the NGC, far from being a ‘stop-gap’ (between the 3MW and the B-series) was conceived and built as longer term Euro-truck - after all, it was certainly a model in its own right and only had LHD - and that the B-series was actually intended to serve as an updated sleeper-cabbed version of the A-series largely for domestic use. My argument for this being the case is all the more compelling when you look at the early Jennings sleeper conversions and the comparatively low power engines (Gardner 6LXB, 8LXB; ■■■■■■■ NHC250). These were clearly A-series replacements not NGC-series replacements. Even early B-series exports to Belgium and Holland were flat-top domestics with LHD! It all falls into place if you stop believing that the B-series was planned to be the new Euro-truck! So it may have been an accident that the NGC stopped in 1977 (because ERF had so much on its plate, pushed for room, NGC needed a more frugal engine etc etc). It is probably no coincidence that the NGC was discontinued in 1977 when the new European LHD sleeper cab B-series was introduced. Robert
Yes- it is a matter of fact that the B series was a direct replacement for the A, in the lower-specification markets, while the NGC was unashamedly aimed at the high-specification end of things. It still must have been clear to the planners, that the Motor Panels cab was becoming long in the tooth, and that a version of the SP would eventually supercede it.
How about this for another question- why was the NGC the only proper tilting version of the Motor Panels cab (disregarding the earlier efforts, which needed a full set of tools and a crane, or whatever 
, to do the tilting) and why was its development left until the end of the cab’s production life?
My theory is that both ERF and Motor Panels were wary of the new-fangled tilting idea, so decided to use the MV/MW cab as a guinea pig for it. If there was a mistake in their engineering (with potentially horrendous consequences), they could iron out the faults in their new models, and so doing put some marketing distance between the new product and flawed old. The fact that the 7MW was perfectly fine does not alter the other fact that a massive safety-related ■■■■-up could have finished either company, so they took any opportunity to cover themselves.
Carryfast:
robert1952:
Didn’t all the other Euro countries have two tier product line ups then? I seem to remember a lot of Euro stuff that never ventured far running alongside the TIR vehicles across the water! Robert
The analogy in that case would be the idea that the F10/12,DAF 2800,and Scanias were all too good for domestic only work and/or uk market. 
Then those manufacturers splitting their resources to make lesser products based on that erroneous idea.
Having said that Peter Foden also seems to have had the ( correct ) idea that the Euro market was a lost cause and that ERF’s future was all about taking on the foreign invasion at home which might add some credence to the idea of a two tier Euro v Domestic product line up policy at ERF and the reason for the ending of a Euro specific product line.
In which case there is no more reason to think that the B series would have been any better in stopping that invasion at home than it would have been in fighting off Volvo etc in the Euroland market.While ironically that two tier idea just helping to destroy what hard won credibility,that trucks like the SA 400 and the TM etc,might have been able to build against that onslaught of imports in that regard.
So were all those domestic Mercedes 1418s, MAN 190s, DAF 2000s, etc etc that used to grind along the Continental motorways hauling three-axle draw-bar trailers not part of an identical two-tier system? Did they, then, fear the invasion of the big banger ERF? That was what transport was like in those days: have you forgotten? Robert
[zb]
anorak:
robert1952:
A stimulating thought! I don’t think your precise argument has been used here before and I subscribe to your question. It seriously leaves me wondering if the NGC, far from being a ‘stop-gap’ (between the 3MW and the B-series) was conceived and built as longer term Euro-truck - after all, it was certainly a model in its own right and only had LHD - and that the B-series was actually intended to serve as an updated sleeper-cabbed version of the A-series largely for domestic use. My argument for this being the case is all the more compelling when you look at the early Jennings sleeper conversions and the comparatively low power engines (Gardner 6LXB, 8LXB; ■■■■■■■ NHC250). These were clearly A-series replacements not NGC-series replacements. Even early B-series exports to Belgium and Holland were flat-top domestics with LHD! It all falls into place if you stop believing that the B-series was planned to be the new Euro-truck! So it may have been an accident that the NGC stopped in 1977 (because ERF had so much on its plate, pushed for room, NGC needed a more frugal engine etc etc). It is probably no coincidence that the NGC was discontinued in 1977 when the new European LHD sleeper cab B-series was introduced. Robert
Yes- it is a matter of fact that the B series was a direct replacement for the A, in the lower-specification markets, while the NGC was unashamedly aimed at the high-specification end of things. It still must have been clear to the planners, that the Motor Panels cab was becoming long in the tooth, and that a version of the SP would eventually supercede it.
How about this for another question- why was the NGC the only proper tilting version of the Motor Panels cab (disregarding the earlier efforts, which needed a full set of tools and a crane, or whatever , to do the tilting) and why was its development left until the end of the cab’s production life?
My theory is that both ERF and Motor Panels were wary of the new-fangled tilting idea, so decided to use the MV/MW cab as a guinea pig for it. If there was a mistake in their engineering (with potentially horrendous consequences), they could iron out the faults in their new models, and so doing put some marketing distance between the new product and flawed old. The fact that the 7MW was perfectly fine does not alter the other fact that a massive safety-related ■■■■-up could have finished either company, so they took any opportunity to cover themselves.
Ah-ha! So the NGC was possibly only a stop-gap in the narrow sense that it served as a test-bed for tilting cabs, other than which it remained a fully discrete model in its own right! Robert
Just out of interest, here are a couple of examples of the early export B-series (A-series replacement programme) that went over the water: just supermarket trolleys, really!
And some even with only day cabs!
Though you have to hand it to ERF, when they decided to replace the NGC in 1977 they did come up with this - and it was good lorry:
Carryfast:
robert1952:
Though you have to hand it to ERF, when they decided to replace the NGC in 1977 they did come up with this - and it was good lorry:
0
I don’t think there can be any doubt that most of the Brit made trucks were outrageously under rated in the UK and Euro markets.But that issue could only have been made worse,in damaging that image even further,by not standardising on a minimum spec of at least E290 13 speed fuller and the arguable best case state of the art SA 400 outsourced MP type cab design.As opposed to SP cab and the option of lesser engine driveline specs in the day.
Which is ironic considering that such a minimum spec would have taken the maximum advantage,of Peter Foden’s ideas,on the flexibility provided by outsourcing and assembly type operations,as opposed to in house production.With the win win situation of adding to the economies of scale in sharing a cab design with SA.
hiya…Carryfast i take it you mean Seddon Atkinson when you say SA…this would never happen …it was sour grapes ERF tried to buy Atkinson and lost out to Seddon. Peter would never share any part with SA after that…i would also say the SA cab was not as good as the ERF SP cab.
John
