The Actros that’s been there since Friday is still there. It only went for a service. I got an Email about an hour ago telling me that the night shift will start repairs and the day shift tomorrow will finish them. So what the hell they’ve done to it I don’t know, they won’t tell me. 
Oh and Franky they don’t employ mechanics nowadays, they’re technicians. 
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
END.I didn’t have time to read it yet but going by the headline the SA with an E 290 in it was the best option ?.
But surely to be fair that should have been an F12 put against it.
Edit to add I was going by the comments that it was an F10 and now see that it was an F12. 
Which suggests that the Brits were always going to lose the fight against the imports anyway regardless of how good the product was.At which point it was realistically all about our government’s economically suicidal trade policies not the worst case example of products like the Marathon.
Didn’t those garages years ago usually have one or two bosses, not layers/dozens of the unproductive sods with fleets of executive company cars parked outside, and didn’t at least one of the old bosses usually hold the ■■■■■ strings.
Transport has gone just the same way, more managers than you could shake a stick at…funny how in the age of computers ‘helping us’ 
and not forgetting the £thousands worth of spying equipment that no self respecting transport operator could possibly cope without 
yet you still need far more people to run a similar size operation than when it was a T Card transport office, a girl in wages and the driver’s phoned in from a call box.
Irony being that nothings actually changed despite the army of admin/management employees now involved, we the drivers or mechanics still know the tiny handful of people in the office who are even worth bothering with, the one or two who actually give a flying ■■■■ while so many of the rest of them we don’t waste our breath on.
Juddian:
Didn’t those garages years ago usually have one or two bosses, not layers/dozens of the unproductive sods with fleets of executive company cars parked outside, and didn’t at least one of the old bosses usually hold the ■■■■■ strings.Transport has gone just the same way, more managers than you could shake a stick at…funny how in the age of computers ‘helping us’
Irony being that nothings actually changed despite the army of admin/management employees now involved, we the drivers or mechanics still know the tiny handful of people in the office who are even worth bothering with, the one or two who actually give a flying [zb] while so many of the rest of them we don’t waste our breath on.
No change Juddian ,I was muckshifting for Budge. Had a wage prob, went to site agent moved to wages woman, no use. Two days later dogging up the haul road Merc car pulls me up Mr Budge, gets into the cab we do a couple of tips while I explain my problem. Next day sorted
Carryfast:
Edit to add I was going by the comments that it was an F10 and now see that it was an F12.
The F10 reference was mine - I was trying to remember a group test from decades ago that had the Marathon and the E290 SA and a Volvo but wrote F10 instead of F12.
I haven’t read all of the scans Robert posted yet but one thing that is commented on is the constant need to drive the E290 in the Sed-Atki in a particular way to get decent speed/ economy. In practice, we all know that the roads aren’t a test lab and flexibility is key.
ParkRoyal2100:
I haven’t read all of the scans Robert posted yet but one thing that is commented on is the constant need to drive the E290 in the Sed-Atki in a particular way to get decent speed/ economy. In practice, we all know that the roads aren’t a test lab and flexibility is key.
To be fair tight control over engine speeds effectively to the point of using a multi speed box as a type of CVT to make best use of the available torque band is the definition of driving a highly strung turbocharged diesel correctly.It’s just that the early generations of such engines could be tighter than later ones in that regard.
While as we all know the TL12 predictably couldn’t hack it and got dropped by Leyland in favour of even bigger power Rolls and ■■■■■■■ developments .As for the road test it seems clear that the SA was lumbered with the wrong final drive gearing and as so often with the Brits a 9 speed box when it ideally needed a 13 speed to cater for its engine speed requirements.
On that note some of the comments,regarding the supposed over powered F12,seem unbelievable.Let alone moaning about the Volvo’s cab while saying that the Marathon’s short sleeper cab wasn’t ‘spacious’ but was ok for ‘short naps’. Having spent nights out with the thing on just UK work that was an understatement. Have to say that I read some silly bias in that.Instead of it calling a spade a spade and which could only have damaged Leyland’s product policy regarding the forthcoming T45 which needed to drop the TL12 and offer just the full size sleeper high datum cab from the start.
Edit to add there seems to be some strange inconsistencies within the data related to the comparison between the F12 and the Marathon.In that firstly the test says that the Volvo’s performance was,not surprisingly,in a class by itself.It also mentions the silly idea that it was over powered and that drivers might take liberties with that extra power.
But 'despite the tremendous performance,because of ‘safety’ considerations journey times were not significantly faster.Oh wait according to the data somehow the ‘safety considerations’ were miraculously lifted in the case of the Marathon in that the thing actually showed a ‘higher’ average speed than the F12 of 48.77 mph v 47.91 mph for the motorway sector,38.31 mph v 37.50 mph for the main road sector and 38.86 mph v 38.77 overall ?.The only conclusion being that the Volvo was being held back possibly in a lower gear than it should have been thereby deliberately messing up its average speed v fuel consumption figures.The only people being fooled in that case being Leyland themselves in then going on to fit the relative boat anchor of the TL 12 in the T45 instead of ditching it well before the T45 arrived on the market.
On that note it’s also doubtful that the Marathon’s figures v the SA E290 in that test can be relied on either.Those again over stating the the TL12’s abilities by holding back the SA.On that note the question in that case is how did the SA’s obvious expected advantage over the Marathon in the hill sector on the Liege climb suddenly then turn into the disadvantage of the Spa and Houffalize climbs.In addition to the Marathon’s supposed average speed advantage of 48.77 v 47.91 on the motorway and 38.31 v 37.50 on the main road sectors respectively.Bearing in mind those supposed ‘safety’ speed considerations applied to the Volvo,but which the Marathon also somehow then outran regardless.
The obvious suggestion in the test being the ridiculous conclusion that the Marathon’s TL12 would stand a chance against an E290 powered vehicle. Let alone an F12.BS.
I read the test and I may be wrong here but I took it as a comparison of a cross section of vehicles from the UK and Europe available in different guises. The Maggie had a 300+ bhp naturally aspirated engine ,very high powered for 1978 , The F12 a 300+ turbo engine , then you come down to the new E290 fitted in the SA which was a new generation low revving engine . The Leyland was old school higher revving with the TL12 . Then came the MAN with this new fangled 6x2 configuration ( That will never catch on ). Non were tested against each other directly ,they were more of a comparison to see which system worked better. The Volvo was head and shoulders above everything else because it was the most powerful with a gear for every occasion . I think the speed limit in Europe at the time was 50mph and still is . Where the Volvo came into its own was the hillier sections , the E290 even with its lower gearing didnt perform that well. Today we have most vehicles geared to work at their optimum at 90 kph due to speed limiters but back then Im not sure they were fitted. The testers would more than likely have stuck rigidly to the 50 mph limit ,theres no point publishing a test and saying well we drove the F12 flat out over our route and it stormed round in record time but now we have been hampered with a large fine. If this was a direct head to head test (which it wasnt) then surely the F10 would have been more comparable and a 280 Maggie.
> Carryfast:
> It also mentions the silly idea that it was over powered and that drivers might take liberties with that extra power.
And We Did Just That 
gingerfold:
The Actros that’s been there since Friday is still there. It only went for a service. I got an Email about an hour ago telling me that the night shift will start repairs and the day shift tomorrow will finish them. So what the hell they’ve done to it I don’t know, they won’t tell me.Oh and Franky they don’t employ mechanics nowadays, they’re technicians.
My niece’s partner is a BMW “technician”.
But in fact he knows 0.4 BA. That is two fifths of bugger all really. He uses a computer to tell him what is wrong, replaces the part and it’s job done. When we talk it is quite apparent that he has no knowledge that would allow his brain to diagnose a problem… Nice man but quite helpless if the vehicle has no way of hooking up to his diagnostic gizmo…
whisperingsmith:
> Carryfast:
> It also mentions the silly idea that it was over powered and that drivers might take liberties with that extra power.And We Did Just That
Right up to the limiter days
ramone:
I read the test and I may be wrong here but I took it as a comparison of a cross section of vehicles from the UK and Europe available in different guises. The Maggie had a 300+ bhp naturally aspirated engine ,very high powered for 1978 , The F12 a 300+ turbo engine , then you come down to the new E290 fitted in the SA which was a new generation low revving engine . The Leyland was old school higher revving with the TL12 . Then came the MAN with this new fangled 6x2 configuration ( That will never catch on ). Non were tested against each other directly ,they were more of a comparison to see which system worked better. The Volvo was head and shoulders above everything else because it was the most powerful with a gear for every occasion . I think the speed limit in Europe at the time was 50mph and still is . Where the Volvo came into its own was the hillier sections , the E290 even with its lower gearing didnt perform that well. Today we have most vehicles geared to work at their optimum at 90 kph due to speed limiters but back then Im not sure they were fitted. The testers would more than likely have stuck rigidly to the 50 mph limit ,theres no point publishing a test and saying well we drove the F12 flat out over our route and it stormed round in record time but now we have been hampered with a large fine. If this was a direct head to head test (which it wasnt) then surely the F10 would have been more comparable and a 280 Maggie.
It was probably more a case of,like the Volvo,the SA being deliberately made to not perform as well as it could/should have done.With the addition of its own manufacturer also crippling the SA.
On that note the whole test was a contradictory unbelievable mess of manufacturers like SA not having a clue how to gear a ■■■■■■■ properly,nothing new there.Then the other extreme of the contradiction in the Volvo showing the future but the testers deciding to just treat it’s 16 speed box as a wide ratio box anyway.That together with moaning about the Volvo’s cab while understating the primitive nature of that of the Ergo derived Marathon heap. Then whatever the speed regime we’re still left with the fact of the Marathon somehow unbelievably beating both the Volvo and the SA in terms of average speeds in numerous sectors thereby distorting the combined productivety figures which is just silly.
Which leaves the question why.Was it an exercise in self delusion to confirm Leyland’s ongoing attachment to its boat anchor TL12.In which case the only ones being fooled were themselves.
Or was it something more sinister in the form of bigging up the Marathon being for the consumption of Leyland’s own workforce and dealerships.To divert attention from the real agenda,that being Leyland deliberately committing commercial suicide to leave DAF to get on with competing against Volvo without Leyland getting in the way.My bet is on the latter.Just as making way for Volvo being the only realistic explanation for GM crippling the TM with the obsolete 71 series Detroit.
Which then follows onto the question,was people like IH also crippling their own products with silly gearing,or for that matter was the delayed nature of the introduction of the bigger power big cam options when it mattered,also an act of deliberate sabotage to put the Brits out of the frame leaving the way clear for the Euro imports to wipe us out.In which case it all fits into the US post war geopolitical and economic agenda.In which we were always meant to lose v our Euro competitors. 
What is certain is that there was no place for retrograde obsolete heaps like the Marathon in 1978 and bigging the thing up,as opposed to saying what the hell were Leyland doing making retarded junk like this to compete with products like the F12,did the Brit truck manufacturers no favours,it just helped to hasten their demise.
ramone:
I read the test and I may be wrong here but I took it as a comparison of a cross section of vehicles from the UK and Europe available in different guises. The Maggie had a 300+ bhp naturally aspirated engine ,very high powered for 1978 , The F12 a 300+ turbo engine , then you come down to the new E290 fitted in the SA which was a new generation low revving engine . The Leyland was old school higher revving with the TL12 . Then came the MAN with this new fangled 6x2 configuration ( That will never catch on ). Non were tested against each other directly ,they were more of a comparison to see which system worked better. The Volvo was head and shoulders above everything else because it was the most powerful with a gear for every occasion . I think the speed limit in Europe at the time was 50mph and still is . Where the Volvo came into its own was the hillier sections , the E290 even with its lower gearing didnt perform that well. Today we have most vehicles geared to work at their optimum at 90 kph due to speed limiters but back then Im not sure they were fitted. The testers would more than likely have stuck rigidly to the 50 mph limit ,theres no point publishing a test and saying well we drove the F12 flat out over our route and it stormed round in record time but now we have been hampered with a large fine. If this was a direct head to head test (which it wasnt) then surely the F10 would have been more comparable and a 280 Maggie.
Maybe newmercman could enlighten us on this one
ramone:
Maybe newmercman could enlighten us on this one
Especially the question as to how the Marathon was somehow faster overall than the F12 and why the F12 was only around 1.5 mph quicker than the Marathon in the hills.It brings a whole new meaning to the term sand bagging for whatever agenda.
If I’d have been the tester my conclusion would have been along the lines of if only the SA had a 13 speed box and a decent final drive,let alone the 320 not 290 in it.While the Volvo would have been perfect with a 13 speed Fuller in it.But whatever anyone buys don’t buy that heap of junk Marathon.While you can bet that the Volvo would have been way ahead of the Marathon regardless and there’s also no way that the Marathon could possibly have beaten the SA anywhere either,even with the SA crippled by the silly gearing bearing in mind continental speed limits.
While my comparison of the Marathon’s cab with the others would have been a bit stronger than just less ‘spacious’ although it would have begun with the letter s.
Carryfast:
Or was it something more sinister in the form of bigging up the Marathon being for the consumption of Leyland’s own workforce and dealerships.To divert attention from the real agenda,that being Leyland deliberately committing commercial suicide to leave DAF to get on with competing against Volvo without Leyland getting in the way.My bet is on the latter.Just as making way for Volvo being the only realistic explanation for GM crippling the TM with the obsolete 71 series Detroit.Which then follows onto the question,was people like IH also crippling their own products with silly gearing,or for that matter was the delayed nature of the introduction of the bigger power big cam options when it mattered,also an act of deliberate sabotage to put the Brits out of the frame leaving the way clear for the Euro imports to wipe us out.In which case it all fits into the US post war geopolitical and economic agenda.In which we were always meant to lose v our Euro competitors.
What is certain is that there was no place for retrograde obsolete heaps like the Marathon in 1978 and bigging the thing up,as opposed to saying what the hell were Leyland doing making retarded junk like this to compete with products like the F12,did the Brit truck manufacturers no favours,it just helped to hasten their demise.
■■■■-up before conspiracy is my view.
ParkRoyal2100:
Carryfast:
Or was it something more sinister in the form of bigging up the Marathon being for the consumption of Leyland’s own workforce and dealerships.To divert attention from the real agenda,that being Leyland deliberately committing commercial suicide to leave DAF to get on with competing against Volvo without Leyland getting in the way.My bet is on the latter.Just as making way for Volvo being the only realistic explanation for GM crippling the TM with the obsolete 71 series Detroit.Which then follows onto the question,was people like IH also crippling their own products with silly gearing,or for that matter was the delayed nature of the introduction of the bigger power big cam options when it mattered,also an act of deliberate sabotage to put the Brits out of the frame leaving the way clear for the Euro imports to wipe us out.In which case it all fits into the US post war geopolitical and economic agenda.In which we were always meant to lose v our Euro competitors.
What is certain is that there was no place for retrograde obsolete heaps like the Marathon in 1978 and bigging the thing up,as opposed to saying what the hell were Leyland doing making retarded junk like this to compete with products like the F12,did the Brit truck manufacturers no favours,it just helped to hasten their demise.
■■■■-up before conspiracy is my view.
Wasn`t this test done by Truck Magazine and another test by Commercial Motor , both editions giving the Marathon a good write up . Maybe the testers from both publications had a hidden agenda … or maybe they wrote what had actually happened . On another note the Volvo engineers took 3 weeks to prepare their test vehicle whereas Leyland supplied theres from stock , but that says as much about Leyland as it does about anything else . Corruption in the media , no wonder newmercman disappeared from England before all this came out … Did I just read C/F saying his beloved Detroit was obsolete ■■?
ramone:
ParkRoyal2100:
Carryfast:
Or was it something more sinister in the form of bigging up the Marathon being for the consumption of Leyland’s own workforce and dealerships.To divert attention from the real agenda,that being Leyland deliberately committing commercial suicide to leave DAF to get on with competing against Volvo without Leyland getting in the way.My bet is on the latter.Just as making way for Volvo being the only realistic explanation for GM crippling the TM with the obsolete 71 series Detroit.Which then follows onto the question,was people like IH also crippling their own products with silly gearing,or for that matter was the delayed nature of the introduction of the bigger power big cam options when it mattered,also an act of deliberate sabotage to put the Brits out of the frame leaving the way clear for the Euro imports to wipe us out.In which case it all fits into the US post war geopolitical and economic agenda.In which we were always meant to lose v our Euro competitors.
What is certain is that there was no place for retrograde obsolete heaps like the Marathon in 1978 and bigging the thing up,as opposed to saying what the hell were Leyland doing making retarded junk like this to compete with products like the F12,did the Brit truck manufacturers no favours,it just helped to hasten their demise.
■■■■-up before conspiracy is my view.
Wasn`t this test done by Truck Magazine and another test by Commercial Motor , both editions giving the Marathon a good write up . Maybe the testers from both publications had a hidden agenda … or maybe they wrote what had actually happened . On another note the Volvo engineers took 3 weeks to prepare their test vehicle whereas Leyland supplied theres from stock , but that says as much about Leyland as it does about anything else . Corruption in the media , no wonder newmercman disappeared from England before all this came out … Did I just read C/F saying his beloved Detroit was obsolete ■■?
The Marathon was quite clearly not a rubbish lorry: it deserves better than this. I have read most of Pat Kennett’s Euro Tests, which started in 1975, and I can see no clear evidence of skulduggery! The tests were meticulously carried out to the best of their ability in the day. This subject came up a couple of years ago, again triggered by CF, and John ‘Saviem’ came to Pat’s defence and roundly defended Pat’s integrity. To speculate about corrupt testing and reporting is simply to add to all the rest of the grubby rumour and gossip that trashed the reputation of several excellent UK-built / assembled models. A shining example of which is the ERF NGC whose reputation I have spent nearly six years rescuing from the ditch! Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
ramone:
ParkRoyal2100:
Carryfast:
Or was it something more sinister in the form of bigging up the Marathon being for the consumption of Leyland’s own workforce and dealerships.To divert attention from the real agenda,that being Leyland deliberately committing commercial suicide to leave DAF to get on with competing against Volvo without Leyland getting in the way.My bet is on the latter.Just as making way for Volvo being the only realistic explanation for GM crippling the TM with the obsolete 71 series Detroit.Which then follows onto the question,was people like IH also crippling their own products with silly gearing,or for that matter was the delayed nature of the introduction of the bigger power big cam options when it mattered,also an act of deliberate sabotage to put the Brits out of the frame leaving the way clear for the Euro imports to wipe us out.In which case it all fits into the US post war geopolitical and economic agenda.In which we were always meant to lose v our Euro competitors.
What is certain is that there was no place for retrograde obsolete heaps like the Marathon in 1978 and bigging the thing up,as opposed to saying what the hell were Leyland doing making retarded junk like this to compete with products like the F12,did the Brit truck manufacturers no favours,it just helped to hasten their demise.
■■■■-up before conspiracy is my view.
Wasn`t this test done by Truck Magazine and another test by Commercial Motor , both editions giving the Marathon a good write up . Maybe the testers from both publications had a hidden agenda … or maybe they wrote what had actually happened . On another note the Volvo engineers took 3 weeks to prepare their test vehicle whereas Leyland supplied theres from stock , but that says as much about Leyland as it does about anything else . Corruption in the media , no wonder newmercman disappeared from England before all this came out … Did I just read C/F saying his beloved Detroit was obsolete ■■?
The Marathon was quite clearly not a rubbish lorry: it deserves better than this. I have read most of Pat Kennett’s Euro Tests, which started in 1975, and I can see no clear evidence of skulduggery! The tests were meticulously carried out to the best of their ability in the day. This subject came up a couple of years ago, again triggered by CF, and John ‘Saviem’ came to Pat’s defence and roundly defended Pat’s integrity. To speculate about corrupt testing and reporting is simply to add to all the rest of the grubby rumour and gossip that trashed the reputation of several excellent UK-built / assembled models. A shining example of which is the ERF NGC whose reputation I have spent nearly six years rescuing from the ditch! Robert
With the exception of the gearing ( slightly more understandable by the knowledge of the early 1970’s ) I’ve never trashed the NGC more like the opposite.However in the case of the Marathon cab at least I’m speaking from experience of luckily rotating a typical short sleeper Marathon with an F10 on general haulage involving nights out.Because the guvnor and the the longer serving senior driver both agreed that it was unfair to lumber anyone with the evil heap on that work on a permanent basis v the Volvo.
As for the integrity of the performance testing in the example how do you explain the anomaly in the Marathon being able to outrun both the F12 and the SA anywhere let alone in numerous sectors ?.
What youve got to remember here Robert is the money that wasnt available to produce the Marathon ,and despite this the lads at Southall did a great job with what they had at their disposal. Ive nothing against Volvo but it would have been interesting to see what they could have produced in the timescale they had and the same money at their disposal .The Marathon was nowhere near perfect but many hauliers dont need big fancy lorries, some do , this lorry was produced for a purpose a no frills bread n butter vehicle that could perform more than adequately and the price tag suited many. I just read some of the postings from certain people and scratch my head , it makes me wonder if they have ever driven a lorry before and they certainly haven`t got a clue on how to run a fleet . The ERF you mentioned was again a vehicle produced for a purpose , probably more for continental work maybe with a operator using ERFs for UK work and the same operator wanting to keep with them for overseas . It was an option .When the B Series came out it there were many options from the same model.
ramone:
Did I just read C/F saying his beloved Detroit was obsolete ■■?
Bearing in mind that Bedford had the choice of the in house 92 series with up to around 400 hp providing a similar fuel consumption at 40t as the TL12 was providing at 38t yes the 71 series was an obsolete liabilty.Strange how GM chose to lumber the TM with the latter option at all in that case.