I never came across a buffalo without power steering ! we had lots of them over the years, early ones were troublesome with the 500, the L12 versions were reliable but hindered by the wide spaced 6 speed, the last versions with the TL11 with a fuller box were the best, quite reliable and gave a good payload.
Sorry to ■■■■ on your bonfire, Trev
The company I worked for in the early eighties had a Buffalo with no power steering, fixed head 500 and a 10 speed Fuller. New in '72, she had 6 years with one driver then a few more with anyone at the wheel and never missed a beat! She was used a yard shunter for a few years after that and finally parked up at about 15 or 16 years old cos the tinworm got her. A couple of years after the boss wanted a clear out so got the scrapman in…we put a pair of batteries on the old girl and she burst into life, first piston up!
Apart from the steering, she was a wonderful machine. So easy to drive and quite comfortable, not to mention the lovely sound she made from the stack up the back of the cab… Cracking motor
Hi, no I wasn’t in anyway implying there weren’t any without power steering, I just thought that it was unusual to see them without it,
we had to run dozens of them on contract to British Leyland.
The 500’s seemed very hit and miss, to many they were a disaster but I know Cowley works ran some that gave little trouble but maybe that was down to the drivers, you’re right about the exhaust note at least they sounded sweet.
I have never seen a Buffalo without p.a.s along with the Bison&Lynx they were designed with a 6ton front axle(they used an integral p.a.s.steering box) Mandators&Beavers with a 6ton axle used the “Hydrosteer” drag link ram system, but Mandators&Beavers with a 5ton axle were available without p.a.s.quite a few were retro fitted with Air-O-Matic conversions(any one remember them?)Guy,Clydesdales,Reivers,Mastiffs&Boxers of the same era all used “Hydrosteer” rams,the point I am making is that the move to 6ton front axles made p.a.s. necessary,unless of course the unassisted Buffalo was a pre production prototype
splitshift:
I have never seen a Buffalo without p.a.s along with the Bison&Lynx they were designed with a 6ton front axle(they used an integral p.a.s.steering box) Mandators&Beavers with a 6ton axle used the “Hydrosteer” drag link ram system, but Mandators&Beavers with a 5ton axle were available without p.a.s.quite a few were retro fitted with Air-O-Matic conversions(any one remember them?)Guy,Clydesdales,Reivers,Mastiffs&Boxers of the same era all used “Hydrosteer” rams,the point I am making is that the move to 6ton front axles made p.a.s. necessary,unless of course the unassisted Buffalo was a pre production prototype
You mention Air-O-Matic steering and it brought back memories of the two motors we had this system fitted to,an Atki Borderer OJM480L and Seddon 32/4 OJM483L.The Atki set up wasn’t so good but the Seddon was perfect you couldn’t tell what kind of P/S it had it was so smooth,unbelievable but true.Cheers Bewick.
We had some Guy’s fitted with the air o matic steering and they were awful, you had a real struggle keeping them in a straight line with the ruts on the motorway, the ones with factory fitted power assisted steering were very good. All the Buffalo’s we had were way too light on the steering and gave no feel through the wheel.
tiptop495:
hey, Can someone tell me the difference between a Buffalo 32 tonner and a Beaver in 32 tons, or replaced the Buffalo the Beaver. Was the Beaver not the top range of Leyland,we knew them so in belgium as a top range but as a 38 tonner. Leyland must go bust as they had all types overlap each other,and then still have the same class with their other brands too as AEC,Albion,Guy and so on. Over here AEC was always the stronger, maybe it helped a bit that they were assembled here and were more geared to our market.
Of course you can say so did other as Volvo’sF86/88 both 38 tons scanies LB86/111and DAF’s 2200/2800-DO/2600 but you can’t compare that because of the different cab size.But with Leyland you see only the Ergo cab so not much difference.
tiptop495:
hey, Can someone tell me the difference between a Buffalo 32 tonner and a Beaver in 32 tons, or replaced the Buffalo the Beaver. Was the Beaver not the top range of Leyland,we knew them so in belgium as a top range but as a 38 tonner. Leyland must go bust as they had all types overlap each other,and then still have the same class with their other brands too as AEC,Albion,Guy and so on. Over here AEC was always the stronger, maybe it helped a bit that they were assembled here and were more geared to our market.
Of course you can say so did other as Volvo’sF86/88 both 38 tons scanies LB86/111and DAF’s 2200/2800-DO/2600 but you can’t compare that because of the different cab size.But with Leyland you see only the Ergo cab so not much difference.
Greetings Eric,
Hi Tiptop. The Buffalo replaced the Beaver in 1971, at least in UK. The error in not providing more than one cab size was rectified with the Marathon in 1973. The overlap in the various ranges of similar vehicles carried on through the 1970s, because the individual models still had a following amongst some operators in the UK.
drove one for a while hot ,noisey ,no room ,even with a jennings sleeper on ,kept blowing injector pipes result cab full of fumes ,and a host of other probs fitted with tl11 motor ,i think they were a pile of do-do and why brits stuck with them i never know ,supose thats why the uk truck builders went down the pan produceing crap like that when other folks had 111 scanias,f88-89,etc etc who would honstly want to drive a bufflo instead of someting like a 111 or simalar , the erf was not too bad a truck fodens ,transcons,etc but a bufflo good riddens to them i say ,just something we had to drive at the time
shirly temple:
drove one for a while hot ,noisey ,no room ,even with a jennings sleeper on ,kept blowing injector pipes result cab full of fumes ,and a host of other probs fitted with tl11 motor ,i think they were a pile of do-do and why brits stuck with them i never know ,supose thats why the uk truck builders went down the pan produceing crap like that when other folks had 111 scanias,f88-89,etc etc who would honstly want to drive a bufflo instead of someting like a 111 or simalar , the erf was not too bad a truck fodens ,transcons,etc but a bufflo good riddens to them i say ,just something we had to drive at the time
I’d forgotten just how leaky the Jennings cabs were. I think it was a design problem where it was a choice between leaving gaps for ventilation or sealing everything and letting condensation rot the plywood. My bedding always smelt of oil & fuel by the end of the week.
As for the Air-O-Matic power steering- we used to have many old-fashioned coal yards and scrap metal merchants as customers, entailing loads of shunting with the Atki to get into position. After about three shunts it was necessary to sit in the cab looking and feeling a right pillock while waiting for the air to build back up.
Who would want to drive a Buffalo ? well Leyland did that Atkinson , AEC ect, could not do ie match the transmission to the engine and that 510 just wanted to fly , so it was fun to drive and would ■■■■ all over any Scania 111 , just needed a Better Kabine , remember DAF developed Good engines from Leyland designs , its not Torque that gets you about if most of the torque is lost in wrong transmission matchings
I drove a Buffalo with a TL12 & six speed box , gave you a nasty whack on the palm till you got the hang of it but sweet when you did , wide steps in it tho , could have used a splitter , the moter i had (T reg) was fitted with a jennings sleeper & you had to take out the matress & lift a hatch in the bunk to get to the header tank, it had the exhaust across the front underneath the bumper , on a cold morning she would blow perfect smoke rings before firing up one cylinder at a time it sounded like with a massive gout of black smoke , but by jingo you could get her perculating you knew when you were doing over 70 the instrument binacle was shaking so much you couldnt read it !! and the noise !! I still have ringing in the ears over 30 years later ( but i think thats a fact for most drivers from that era) , I remember smiling at the advert from that time for the Buffalo “penthouse above a power house” & thinking " well you wouldnt be smiling like that pal if you had to drive one " , the Buff with the TL 11/TL12 was not a bad truck engine wise , but it was in the same pond as volvo F7 , Daf 2300 & Scania 81 , & it could blast past most of them , but cab wise , well, it still had pull down windows for gods sake (needed 2 hands to pull them down till you went over a bump & they dropped down of their own accord , so cut yourself a stick for the passenger side) it was like most Leyland products of those days underfunded , but bad as they were I think you felt more “alive” when driving them , unlike todays trucks when you “give her the oil” its like pressing your foot into cotton wool
unclegargameld:
I drove a Buffalo with a TL12 & six speed box , gave you a nasty whack on the palm till you got the hang of it but sweet when you did , wide steps in it tho , could have used a splitter , the moter i had (T reg) was fitted with a jennings sleeper & you had to take out the matress & lift a hatch in the bunk to get to the header tank, it had the exhaust across the front underneath the bumper , on a cold morning she would blow perfect smoke rings before firing up one cylinder at a time it sounded like with a massive gout of black smoke , but by jingo you could get her perculating you knew when you were doing over 70 the instrument binacle was shaking so much you couldnt read it !! and the noise !! I still have ringing in the ears over 30 years later ( but i think thats a fact for most drivers from that era) , I remember smiling at the advert from that time for the Buffalo “penthouse above a power house” & thinking " well you wouldnt be smiling like that pal if you had to drive one " , the Buff with the TL 11/TL12 was not a bad truck engine wise , but it was in the same pond as volvo F7 , Daf 2300 & Scania 81 , & it could blast past most of them , but cab wise , well, it still had pull down windows for gods sake (needed 2 hands to pull them down till you went over a bump & they dropped down of their own accord , so cut yourself a stick for the passenger side) it was like most Leyland products of those days underfunded , but bad as they were I think you felt more “alive” when driving them , unlike todays trucks when you “give her the oil” its like pressing your foot into cotton wool
The Buffalo had the L12 as an option - not the TL12, which was found in the Marathon. The six-speed box behind the L12 was usually the old Thorneycroft model. I know someone who tried selling an L12 with the same box on the back and couldn’t get rid of it. Ended-up getting weighed-in for scrap.
unclegargameld:
I drove a Buffalo with a TL12 & six speed box , gave you a nasty whack on the palm till you got the hang of it but sweet when you did , wide steps in it tho , could have used a splitter , the moter i had (T reg) was fitted with a jennings sleeper & you had to take out the matress & lift a hatch in the bunk to get to the header tank, it had the exhaust across the front underneath the bumper , on a cold morning she would blow perfect smoke rings before firing up one cylinder at a time it sounded like with a massive gout of black smoke , but by jingo you could get her perculating you knew when you were doing over 70 the instrument binacle was shaking so much you couldnt read it !! and the noise !! I still have ringing in the ears over 30 years later ( but i think thats a fact for most drivers from that era) , I remember smiling at the advert from that time for the Buffalo “penthouse above a power house” & thinking " well you wouldnt be smiling like that pal if you had to drive one " , the Buff with the TL 11/TL12 was not a bad truck engine wise , but it was in the same pond as volvo F7 , Daf 2300 & Scania 81 , & it could blast past most of them , but cab wise , well, it still had pull down windows for gods sake (needed 2 hands to pull them down till you went over a bump & they dropped down of their own accord , so cut yourself a stick for the passenger side) it was like most Leyland products of those days underfunded , but bad as they were I think you felt more “alive” when driving them , unlike todays trucks when you “give her the oil” its like pressing your foot into cotton wool
The Buffalo had the L12 as an option - not the TL12, which was found in the Marathon. The six-speed box behind the L12 was usually the old Thorneycroft model. I know someone who tried selling an L12 with the same box on the back and couldn’t get rid of it. Ended-up getting weighed-in for scrap.
quite right it was a slip of the keyboard , also right they were hard to sell I think this one went to cyprus or malta to be stretched into a rigid as they liked the non turbo engines
AEC 4-spring suspension, cannot see the hubs clearly but look as if they might be Albion hub reduction axles rather than AEC (Maudslay) axles. Obviously very well freighted in true Malta fashion.
Don’t think we saw anything like that in Aus.
Springs are underslung and the axle spacing seems larger than the norm.
Can’t see the hubs clearly enough but yes they’re not Maudsley hubs, might be the standard AEC bullgear reduction diffs?
But I’m wandering off topic. Last Buffalo I got close up to was the 900 cu inch bonneted Leyland, showing my age.
Cracking motor
