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.
At what payload cost , in 1978 when the test was done we were running at 32 tons ,12.5 bhp per ton is a bit over the top for normal use , I don`t think there would be many takers
Carryfast:
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.
At what payload cost , in 1978 when the test was done we were running at 32 tons ,12.5 bhp per ton is a bit over the top for normal use , I don`t think there would be many takers
No but then you’ve missed the 6v92 with 957 or 1,020 lb/ft at 1,300 rpm and 300 or 335 hp at 2100.A 552 ci V6 obviously being a lot lighter than the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■ that note I’d doubt if CM or Truck even knew the option existed with just a phone call to Bedford.The question then being why were Bedford so keen on lumbering buyers with the obsolete 71 series while keeping the 92 series option effectively a secret only available to special order. Also bearing in mind that DAF obviously saw the need for 300 hp + from day 1 of the 2800 production.While Leyland were still lumbering the T45 with 280 hp TL12 or nothing in 1980.As for the article trashing the Volvo F10/12 cab while going easy on the short sleeper Marathon with the observation just not as ‘spacious’ ,like the TL12 being able to outrun the F12,who were they trying to kid and why in that regard ?.Im still going with conspiracy in all cases not ■■■■ up.
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.
How difficult could it have been for the US government to send a quiet message to our trade and industry ministers along the lines that the combined debts of mainland Europe to the US outweigh the UK’s and while we’ll help you to re build your shattered heavy automotive industry in the form of GM,IH, and ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ it’s conditional that you’ll do nothing which risks Europe’s economic recovery as part of that.Knowing just what effective weapons the UK had its disposal ‘if’ given full access to to the combined might of all those big players as it stood in the late 1970’s v puny Europe/Scandinavia.Also bearing in mind that by then the loyal patriotic big hitters like Benn and Shore had been deliberately sidelined by traitor Callaghan in favour of light weight muppets like Eric Varley,Edmund Dell and John Smith.While no surprise that the equally thick muppets in Jimmy Carter’s administration were too stupid to see that the neutral Sweden would be the biggest winner out of this post war stitch up together with defeated Germany.As a result ze Germans and the Swedes eventually effectively then also owning the US truck manufacturing industry and market as well as ours with the proceeds.
Carryfast:
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.
At what payload cost , in 1978 when the test was done we were running at 32 tons ,12.5 bhp per ton is a bit over the top for normal use , I don`t think there would be many takers
No but then you’ve missed the 6v92 with 957 or 1,020 lb/ft at 1,300 rpm and 300 or 335 hp at 2100.A 552 ci V6 obviously being a lot lighter than the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■ that note I’d doubt if CM or Truck even knew the option existed with just a phone call to Bedford.The question then being why were Bedford so keen on lumbering buyers with the obsolete 71 series while keeping the 92 series option effectively a secret only available to special order. Also bearing in mind that DAF obviously saw the need for 300 hp + from day 1 of the 2800 production.While Leyland were still lumbering the T45 with 280 hp TL12 or nothing in 1980.As for the article trashing the Volvo F10/12 cab while going easy on the short sleeper Marathon with the observation just not as ‘spacious’ ,like the TL12 being able to outrun the F12,who were they trying to kid and why in that regard ?.Im still going with conspiracy in all cases not ■■■■ up.
Are you sure youve had a career in transport , in 1980 250bhp was the norm just like 440 - 460 bhp is today ,so how a 280bhp engine would be lumbering is beyond me ,it wasnt long ago you were triumphing the 280 Roller in the Crusader , are you really an internet troll that just wants to write drivel in the hope that some prick like me will respond ■■?
ramone:
Are you sure you`ve had a career in transport , in 1980 250 bhp was the norm just like 440 - 460 bhp is today
Oh wait I thought this discussion was all about a late 1970’s Euro test including the F12.Meanwhile remind us what the power output of the F10 was in 1978 ?.Bearing in mind I actually drove a late 1970’s reg one obviously specced for UK 32t gross when it was new.Just like the well over 250 hp 1978 reg DAF 2800 I drove.Just like all the numerous others you’ll see in the Paul Gee photos topic.As for 250 hp being the norm in 1980 you’re avin a larf.Also don’t remember the Swedes lumbering the F10 etc with short sleepers like the Marathon and T45.
Maybe a problem here is certain people are remembering 290hp 855 in a slightly different way to others and what is written on paper i.e the road tests differ slightly to real world performance in favour of the TL12.So by the judgement of 280hp as being refered to as "lumbering"that would then mean the 240hp f88,the 275hp 111,the non ATI (quite obviously)256hp 2800 and any of mercs 25,s 28,s as being lumbering too.Not to mention anything else for the matter.Really?
railstaff:
Maybe a problem here is certain people are remembering 290hp 855 in a slightly different way to others and what is written on paper i.e the road tests differ slightly to real world performance in favour of the TL12.So by the judgement of 280hp as being refered to as "lumbering"that would then mean the 240hp f88,the 275hp 111,the non ATI (quite obviously)256hp 2800 and any of mercs 25,s 28,s as being lumbering too.Not to mention anything else for the matter.Really?
The question is how could and why would a supposedly accurate objective road test possibly end up with a result which shows a TL12 powered Marathon supposedly outrunning an F12 and for that matter a 290 powered SA.As you’ve said it’s not possibly a real world result.As for the 240 hp f88 we’re discussing Leyland making a competitive product with the relevant state of Volvo’s ( and DAF’s ) armoury of 1978 not 1968.In this case in the 900 lb/ft and 300 hp league not F10.That league about to be just as relevant in the UK market at 32t gross as in Euroland.In all cases there’s a pattern going on within the UK truck manufacturing industry at this crucial point in time which can only be explained by deliberate handicapping of the Brit products and that handicapping obviously being glossed over in the trade media using diversionary bs.As for the so called 256 hp DAF 2800 yes only if you totally ignore the higher powered options.Especially the DKS.Which,unlike the TL12,the 680 derived longer stroke motor could tolerate.Strange how Leyland gave away the better motor in that regard while keeping the lemon.
Just read some of the comments regarding road tests. Personally i always thought Truck magazine
were very biased in there truck tests. They nearly always knocked Volvo back in the 1970’s ! Yet
every driver wanted a Volvo or a Scania. In fact there are very few tests involving Scania trucks
with truck magazine back in the 1970s and possibly 80s. They did do test in the 1990’s onwards.
I always wondered if that was because they thought that Volvo were given such unfair treatment.
I have to agree with some of the points Carryfast has made.
As for the Leyland out running a F12 !
Everyone is entitled to there own opinions ! I do think alot of drivers look back through tinted
glasses but seriously if you turned up for work and the boss says i am thinking of buying that
Marathon or the F12 which would you prefer ■■? How many drivers would have climbed into the
Marathon ■■? The F12 was like a rolls royce in comparison. When they first come out,can you
seriously remember seeing photos of the interior for the first time,it just blew everything away
and set a new standard for everyone else to try and catch up. Anyone that disputes that is taking
too much medication,they had a wow factor ! They just oozed quality.
Just read some of the comments regarding road tests. Personally i always thought Truck magazine
were very biased in there truck tests. They nearly always knocked Volvo back in the 1970’s ! Yet
every driver wanted a Volvo or a Scania. In fact there are very few tests involving Scania trucks
with truck magazine back in the 1970s and possibly 80s. They did do test in the 1990’s onwards.
I always wondered if that was because they thought that Volvo were given such unfair treatment.
I have to agree with some of the points Carryfast has made.
As for the Leyland out running a F12 !
Everyone is entitled to there own opinions ! I do think alot of drivers look back through tinted
glasses but seriously if you turned up for work and the boss says i am thinking of buying that
Marathon or the F12 which would you prefer ■■? How many drivers would have climbed into the
Marathon ■■? The F12 was like a rolls royce in comparison. When they first come out,can you
seriously remember seeing photos of the interior for the first time,it just blew everything away
and set a new standard for everyone else to try and catch up. Anyone that disputes that is taking
too much medication,they had a wow factor ! They just oozed quality.
Just read some of the comments regarding road tests. Personally i always thought Truck magazine
were very biased in there truck tests. They nearly always knocked Volvo back in the 1970’s ! Yet
every driver wanted a Volvo or a Scania. In fact there are very few tests involving Scania trucks
with truck magazine back in the 1970s and possibly 80s. They did do test in the 1990’s onwards.
I always wondered if that was because they thought that Volvo were given such unfair treatment.
I have to agree with some of the points Carryfast has made.
As for the Leyland out running a F12 !
Everyone is entitled to there own opinions ! I do think alot of drivers look back through tinted
glasses but seriously if you turned up for work and the boss says i am thinking of buying that
Marathon or the F12 which would you prefer ■■? How many drivers would have climbed into the
Marathon ■■? The F12 was like a rolls royce in comparison. When they first come out,can you
seriously remember seeing photos of the interior for the first time,it just blew everything away
and set a new standard for everyone else to try and catch up. Anyone that disputes that is taking
too much medication,they had a wow factor ! They just oozed quality.
Marathon int.
1
0
That looks like a SA 400 interior Dean
Lol your right,i have a large brochure of the marathon but cant find it !
That looks like a SA 400 interior Dean
[/quote]
Lol your right,i have a large brochure of the marathon but cant find it !
[/quote]
Here’s your LHD SA400 cab! Robert
The test took place in 1978 , Volvo had just introduced their new F10/F12 range , the old F88 was a 290 bhp the new F10 was lumbered with a 278 bhp if you take CFs slant on it . The SA tested was a E290 ,they produced 272 bhp so SA lumbered their lorry with a 272 bhp engine .Leyland had the TL12 at 273 bhp , but for some reason the TL12 was underpowered . Dean quite rightly points out that when Volvos new F range were introduced they were a large leap forward compared to the British offerings , but like I pointed out earlier at what development costs. AEC could have produced something much better than the Marathon with the money Volvo put into their development. There was a market and still is for premier vehicles just like there is for basic models . The road test was showing different options on how you could move 32 tons through Europe . At the time of the test they were questioning why you would need 320 bhp to move 32 tons which equates to 440 bhp to move 44 tons now , which is roughly the average with some preferring 450 bhp and some at 460 bhp. So the conclusion of the test should have been a 320 bhp because in hindsight that’s what the average is now ,around 10 bhp per ton . But then the payload factor was much more critical than it is now so possibly that’s why everyone didnt go out and buy F12s when they were introduced. Dont forget that all the vehicles on test were running at 50 mph so on long flat runs once the limit had been achieved the journey times would be marginal , when they hit the hills the higher powered or lower geared should have come into their own.
ERF-NGC-European:
…and here’s your LHD Marathon cab. Cabs were never high on my list of priorities .Robert
0
That`s the MK1 Marathon Robert , they were much improved with the Marathon 2 , it just took so long to bring the changes in. Looking at the SA interior they were similar in their approach , again a very basic cab with cheap fittings but when the 401 came along they were much improved. What we are forgetting is what they replaced , the Atki cab and the Seddon motor panels cab for the 400 and the Mandator for the Marathon , in both cases they were large leaps forward in comfort and noise terms
Just read some of the comments regarding road tests. Personally i always thought Truck magazine
were very biased in there truck tests. They nearly always knocked Volvo back in the 1970’s ! Yet
every driver wanted a Volvo or a Scania. In fact there are very few tests involving Scania trucks
with truck magazine back in the 1970s and possibly 80s. They did do test in the 1990’s onwards.
I always wondered if that was because they thought that Volvo were given such unfair treatment.
I have to agree with some of the points Carryfast has made.
As for the Leyland out running a F12 !
Everyone is entitled to there own opinions ! I do think alot of drivers look back through tinted
glasses but seriously if you turned up for work and the boss says i am thinking of buying that
Marathon or the F12 which would you prefer ■■? How many drivers would have climbed into the
Marathon ■■? The F12 was like a rolls royce in comparison. When they first come out,can you
seriously remember seeing photos of the interior for the first time,it just blew everything away
and set a new standard for everyone else to try and catch up. Anyone that disputes that is taking
too much medication,they had a wow factor ! They just oozed quality.
Marathon int.
0
1
I think the issue here Dean is that so many drivers’ vision of the Brits was tainted by as you say and as in my case the choice between a zb Marathon v an F10/12 often on the same firm.
As opposed to a well geared SA 400 ( and what could/should have been similar cabbed T45 as of 1978 ) with 13 speed Fuller and ■■■■■■■ 290 preferably 320 +.The big question then being why did that situation happen and who gained from it.As for bias in the trade press as I’ve said more like conspiracy.Bearing in mind that the question what the hell are the Brits doing making junk like this to compete with the F10/12 etc and why would have blown,an obvious agenda,of deliberately handicapping Brit vehicles,to the advantage of Euroland,wide open.Bearing in mind that all the necessary ingredients to absolutely crush the Euro opposition existed at that time.Both in terms of the Big Cam ■■■■■■■ and Detroit 92 series range,SA 400 and Bedford TM type cabs,decent Rockwell/DANA final drive options and 13 speed Fuller.
While we know that the same situation also applied to our car industry at the time.Which is why Vauxhall and Ford didn’t offer small block V8 options in the Granada and Ventora for example.Because the US government again knew that would have smashed the executive Euro competition here in the day.IE too much to be coincidence which leaves only one other possibility conspiracy in that the US wanted its European post war rebuilding debts exposure paid off and they wanted it paid fast all at our expense.
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 ?.
[/quote]
Sorry CF I have had enough of you putting down what was a decent British vehicle which performed well and was as reliable as anything else on the road at the time.
If your gaffer at the time (and his drivers) thought the Marathon was that bad :-
Sorry my english is not too good ,but i have to try, in my opinion the thing what they didn,t (put in a scania volvo ■■■■■■■ cat ) isn,t the intresting point ,sorry CF ,the intrest for my is why they did what they did,how it preformed ,what get wrong(exept the seddon cab etc etc), history is what it is ,it needs a other tread för speculations ,called what if Leyland Marathon had a , cheers Benkku
tyneside:
Sorry CF I have had enough of you putting down what was a decent British vehicle which performed well and was as reliable as anything else on the road at the time.
If your gaffer at the time (and his drivers) thought the Marathon was that bad :-
Why did he buy it in the first place ■■
Why not just sell it and buy another Volvo ■■
Job done, presumably everyone happy !!!
Fine if your idea of a decent vehicle is zb cramped Ergo derived cab powered by an obsolete motor v an F12.So I’m guessing that you’d have been happy to drive the Marathon on a permanent basis being such a ‘decent’ motor v the Volvo.
As for the guvnor we’re talking about the lowest level of the industry in the mid 1980’s in that case which meant whatever could be bought cheap and relatively reliable in the form of the old late 70’s Volvo and even cheaper and unfortunately bleedin bullet proof in the case of the even older Marathon ( NA 250 ■■■■■■■ in it from memory ).
None of which is relevant in the case of a comparison of Brit products ( Leyland and SA ) v the best that the foreign invasion had in its armoury being the subject of the road test ( F12 ).In which case the questions remain.As to how did the Marathon supposedly outrun an F12 ,why did the tester moan about the Volvo cab while understating the zb nature of the Marathon’s,and why did SA lumber their offering with the wrong gearing and a 9 speed box let alone not using the 320 big cam,as opposed to the 290.Oh wait Brit use of the 320 at least for ‘some’ reason being delayed a long way off from 1978.While Leyland later added the insult of the short sleeper TL12 powered T45 to the injury of the Marathon in 1980.While the F12 went on to be Volvo’s biggest seller by 1983.
bma.finland:
Sorry my english is not too good ,but i have to try, in my opinion the thing what they didn,t (put in a scania volvo ■■■■■■■ cat ) isn,t the intresting point ,sorry CF ,the intrest for my is why they did what they did,how it preformed ,what get wrong(exept the seddon cab etc etc), history is what it is ,it needs a other tread för speculations ,called what if Leyland Marathon had a , cheers Benkku
We have a saying in England Benkku … "You can`t put in what God left out "
As an ‘outsider’ reading this (who never drove anything other than a British built truck) it gives me the impression that everything made in Sweden or Holland was fantastic, or was that just in ‘Carryfastland’ and the truth was that apart from more spacious cabs (and again I’m guessing that the Continental lads probably covered more mileage and nighted out more than the Brits?) there wasn’t a lot between them really? They all did the job of work adequately, and the Marathon must have suited a lot of operators as there were plenty of them around and folk on here who drove them seemed to like them, apart from one person of course. Anyway no doubt this thread will have a few more pages to run…
Also bearing in mind that DAF obviously saw the need for 300 hp + from day 1 of the 2800 production.While Leyland were still lumbering the T45 with 280 hp TL12 or nothing in 1980.As for the article trashing the Volvo F10/12 cab while going easy on the short sleeper Marathon with the observation just not as ‘spacious’ 
,like the TL12 being able to outrun the F12,who were they trying to kid and why in that regard ?.Im still going with conspiracy in all cases not ■■■■ up. 
,why did the tester moan about the Volvo cab while understating the zb nature of the Marathon’s,and why did SA lumber their offering with the wrong gearing and a 9 speed box let alone not using the 320 big cam,as opposed to the 290.Oh wait Brit use of the 320 at least for ‘some’ reason being delayed a long way off from 1978.While Leyland later added the insult of the short sleeper TL12 powered T45 to the injury of the Marathon in 1980.While the F12 went on to be Volvo’s biggest seller by 1983.