Leyland Marathon...The "Nearly" Truck of The 1970s?

[erf-ngc-european]

Carryfast:

Juddian:
CF, what are you on?

Final drive on my SA 401 with the E320 was as near bloody perfect as you could wish for, it would cruise all day long at 70mph @ 1100 rpm, it pulled like a train, was very good on fuel, what else could a lorry driver earning a crust and trying to get home want?

Check out the whole discussion.I’m making the case that the Brits were deliberately crippled to help the foreign competition owing to US and UK government geopolitics.But then ironically the trade media obviously had to make the road tests regarding the Brits look good so as not to derail the plan.Except in this case they went totally OTT with the bs to the point where the plan has been blown wide open if you want to look for it.

On that note read the spec of the offending SA 400 E290 road test offering.IE crippled by final drive gearing of 1,700 rpm at 52 mph. What do you think that did to the road speed v fuel consumption figures and thereby the overall earning’s figure.Probably why they had to drive the thing so slowly that the TL12 powered Marathon supposedly outran it on the test.

Although that still doesn’t explain how the Marathon supposedly also outran it on most of the hill sectors and more importantly also supposedly outran the F12 on numerous sectors. IE sandbagging so as not to show just how far ahead of us that the foreign competition was being deliberately allowed to get in the form of products like the F12.Bearing in mind that all the ingredients were actually available in 1978 to blow the Volvo out of the water with the E320 engine ( had the US chosen to let SA have it then ),13 speed Fuller and the type of final drive gearing which you’ve described.But that obviously wouldn’t have fitted the US and UK government’s geopolitics in which the foreign competition was always meant to win.

I cannot understand why you still appear to be bogged down with this concept of undergearing. On the ERF 1975 thread, I showed that ERF’s policy of providing a final drive ratio in its European export units to suit the lower speed limits on the Continent was fit for purpose and gave excellent performance in the mountains. Eric ‘Tip-top’ backed me up and reminded us all that Swedish marques supplied to Belgium in the '70s were similarly geared to the ERF NGC (94 kph @ 2100). Eric reminded us that this was pretty normal in the '70s and he mentioned that Scanias at that time Scania’s were geared in Belgium to 90 @ 2100rpm (110 or 140) with 4.71 ratio and no overdrive gearbox. He went on to say that even Volvo with the 8 speed box was reving 2200 @ 90 but all drove at 2400/2500 revs). It is probable that the LHD SA 400 was similarly geared, and very likely the Marathon too as all lorries Euro-Tested by Pat Kennett were LHD and fully Euro-specced. So the Volvo F12 in the test was probably geared the same as the Seddon-Atkinson. These are export lorries designed for the Continent. So forget about all those domestic 32-tonners piling up the M1 on a Friday night at 70 mph and stop comparing apples with pears. Those who think there was no difference between UK-spec and Euro-spec should think again! Final drive ratios made a big difference. The EU and rationalisation of rules changed all that and created a more level playing field, but it took theintroduction of the speed limiter to activate them. Perhaps you should be comparing the domestic Marathon TL12 with the export version of it. Robert

[railstaff]

Any pictures of marathon short sleeper interia please.

[carryfast]

ERF-NGC-European:

Carryfast:
Check out the whole discussion.I’m making the case that the Brits were deliberately crippled to help the foreign competition owing to US and UK government geopolitics.But then ironically the trade media obviously had to make the road tests regarding the Brits look good so as not to derail the plan.Except in this case they went totally OTT with the bs to the point where the plan has been blown wide open if you want to look for it.

On that note read the spec of the offending SA 400 E290 road test offering.IE crippled by final drive gearing of 1,700 rpm at 52 mph. What do you think that did to the road speed v fuel consumption figures and thereby the overall earning’s figure.Probably why they had to drive the thing so slowly that the TL12 powered Marathon supposedly outran it on the test.

Although that still doesn’t explain how the Marathon supposedly also outran it on most of the hill sectors and more importantly also supposedly outran the F12 on numerous sectors. IE sandbagging so as not to show just how far ahead of us that the foreign competition was being deliberately allowed to get in the form of products like the F12.Bearing in mind that all the ingredients were actually available in 1978 to blow the Volvo out of the water with the E320 engine ( had the US chosen to let SA have it then ),13 speed Fuller and the type of final drive gearing which you’ve described.But that obviously wouldn’t have fitted the US and UK government’s geopolitics in which the foreign competition was always meant to win.

I cannot understand why you still appear to be bogged down with this concept of undergearing. On the ERF 1975 thread, I showed that ERF’s policy of providing a final drive ratio in its European export units to suit the lower speed limits on the Continent was fit for purpose and gave excellent performance in the mountains. Eric ‘Tip-top’ backed me up and reminded us all that Swedish marques supplied to Belgium in the '70s were similarly geared to the ERF NGC (94 kph @ 2100). It is probable that the LHD SA 400 was similarly geared, and very likely the Marathon too as all lorries Euro-Tested by Pat Kennett were LHD and fully Euro-specced. So the Volvo F12 in the test was probably geared the same as the Seddon-Atkinson. These are export lorries designed for the Continent. So forget about all those domestic 32-tonners piling up the M1 on a Friday night at 70 mph and stop comparing apples with pears. Those who think there was no difference between UK-spec and Euro-spec should think again! Final drive ratios made a big difference. The EU and rationalisation of rules changed all that and created a more level playing field, but it took theintroduction of the speed limiter to activate them. Perhaps you should be comparing the domestic Marathon TL12 with the export version of it. Robert

Let’s get this right we want to gear an E 290 for Euro speed limits.How does that translate as 1,700 rpm at 52 mph in the case of an engine which produces its peak torque of 930 lb/ft at 1,300 rpm ? and for which its manufacturers have also specified its optimum engine speed range at max 'cruising speed as ‘between’ 1,200-1700 rpm.With around 1,700 rpm certainly not fitting the definition of ‘between’ given that lower figure.In this case 1,450 rpm at 50 mph obviously being the max engine speed in top that should have been aimed for to meet that definition.You’ll also note that the road test report also referred to the excessive under gearing ( crippling ) of the product.

None of which explains how the Marathon could possibly have outrun the F12 anywhere on the test.Or for that matter how the F12 warranted any criticising of its cab while the Marathon’s was just referred to as less ‘spacious’.

While if you think that the F12 was geared the same as the SA suggest you read the article again.The Volvo having been stated as having the highest gearing of the group with 34.5 mph per 1,000 rpm v 30.5 mph per 1,000 rpm for the SA.Which means the at the same 52 mph the Volvo motor was turning over at a much more reasonable 1,500 rpm.As opposed to 1,700 rpm for the SA bearing in mind similar torque output at the same engine speed as the ■■■■■■■■■■ what would the SA’s fuel consumption have been given the correct gearing of 35.8 mph per 1,000 rpm and obviously no where near the 41 mph + per 1,000 rpm which a uk spec vehicle would have needed to be geared at to provide the equivalent 1,450 rpm at 60 mph in either case.So there we have it the SA was crippled by excessive under gearing so as to handicap the far better fuel consumption of the ■■■■■■■ v the Volvo.While the test then also bigged up the zb TL 12 powered Marathon while trashing the Volvo cab and moaning about its ‘excessive’ output and multi speed transmission and sandbagging its performance figures,so as to make the Marathon,let alone the deliberately obsolete before it arrived T45,look good.Thereby all leaving the door wide open for the DAF 2800/3300 and Volvo F12 etc by pretending that the deliberately crippled Brits were better than they were.

[carryfast]

railstaff:
Any pictures of marathon short sleeper interia please.

encamion.com/sites/default/f … 2021_3.jpg

I’m taking the F10 you can have that permanently.Look on the bright side you should manage to get home 1 or 2 nights in a week.

[deanb]

railstaff:
Any pictures of marathon short sleeper interia please.

I have a brochure on the Marathon somewhere but cant find it at the moment,will pop it on
when i do.

Just found this advert from a 1978 magazine.

Click on pages twice to view.

[ramone]

Robert , you are flogging a dead horse , no matter how right you are you will be wrong (even though you are 100 % correct) just check other threads . Anyway the Marathon as we know was introduced in 1972 when most vehicles were 180 - 240 bhp with a few exceptions from abroad . I spoke to a friend of mine who had 1 of the first Marathons on demo and he remembers it has a flying machine . He never mentioned the brakes or poor heater or the cab for that matter because he had been driving the usual run of the mill stuff over here which were much worse. Volvo had the F86 which probably made them what they are today , it sold very well but wasnt a spectacular performer but it gave the hauliers what they wanted . 22 tons payload and a cab that was comfortable and quiet , so you didnt need massive power to be successful here ,you didnt need a big cab , many were used as sleepers even though they werent ideal, but they were very popular with drivers. Looking at the advert Dean has posted I cant see too much wrong with the Marathon cab ,its virtually a walk thru because unlike other British manufacturers it didnt have the engine hump in the middle . Im not knocking the F86 but I would imagine most who drove them would have swapped for a Marathon with the extra power and space … just my opinion

[carryfast]

ramone:
Robert , you are flogging a dead horse , no matter how right you are you will be wrong (even though you are 100 % correct) just check other threads . Anyway the Marathon as we know was introduced in 1972 when most vehicles were 180 - 240 bhp with a few exceptions from abroad . I spoke to a friend of mine who had 1 of the first Marathons on demo and he remembers it has a flying machine . He never mentioned the brakes or poor heater or the cab for that matter because he had been driving the usual run of the mill stuff over here which were much worse. Volvo had the F86 which probably made them what they are today , it sold very well but wasnt a spectacular performer but it gave the hauliers what they wanted . 22 tons payload and a cab that was comfortable and quiet , so you didnt need massive power to be successful here ,you didnt need a big cab , many were used as sleepers even though they werent ideal, but they were very popular with drivers. Looking at the advert Dean has posted I cant see too much wrong with the Marathon cab ,its virtually a walk thru because unlike other British manufacturers it didnt have the engine hump in the middle . Im not knocking the F86 but I would imagine most who drove them would have swapped for a Marathon with the extra power and space … just my opinion

Look at the road test.The Marathon,like the T45,wasn’t aimed at the poverty F86 market sector.The F86 sector eventually effectively having made itself redundant because there is a point where cheap and nasty can be just too cheap and nasty.You also seem to have missed the fact that the F12 was Volvo’s biggest seller of all its range by 1983.If you can’t see anything wrong with the narrow short sleeper Marathon cab for nights out here or on the continent you need to go to spec savers.

But yes the Marathon was a ‘nearly truck’ v the F88 let alone the F86 if you really must base a late 1970’s product on the standards of a mid 1960’s one.You should have worked for Leyland management or the government in the day you’d have fitted in perfectly.

[juddian]

I used to use an 86 now and again covering a colleague’s shift when he was on holiday, at the time my regular steed was an pre facelift A series ERF with that prize of night trunking, the Gardner 180 with, you guessed it, no power steering.

Those A series was so out of time as to be little short of a very poor joke, in dead of winter the front of the cab inside and out was full of sticky back foam trying desperately to keep the wind and rain from howling straight through the gaps that you could actually see through, the mk 2 A series were used at other depots with 205/220 ■■■■■■■ engines, these not only had power steering but the heater worked and the cab to be fair was a lot better, being longer wheelbase so the cats eyes let alone pot holes didn’t shatter the watch off your wrist.

Compared to those agricultural machines the Volvo 86 was fanatastic, being turbocharged it romped along, it went where you steered it, the cab was warm and draught free, and the soundproofing was amazing, plus being that small cab the handling was in another league, but its unfair to compare the 86 to the early A series, of which ours were the most basic model which were really 60’s designs, we then got the B series though again hobbled with the 180, then later on the 201 Gardners, notwithstanding the lack of power the B’s were very good lorries indeed.

British makers were caught with their pants down when the foreign stuff arrived in force, instead of constant evolution they had to come up with some new designs quickly, the Marathon would have been better received, as other Brit makers such as Sed Ack, if their cabs had at least been more corrosion resistant than they were, as it was by year 3 if not sooner side storage sections and panels under the sleeper section and cab doors and floors could be rotting completely through, which must have come as a shock to those who might have stayed with the British motors if they could have lasted the many years that fibre glass cabs did without falling apart.
The T45 was no better than Sed Acks for this either, rotten as a pear in far too short a time.
The irony being that a manufacture stage rustproofing would have cost so little, what a shame none of those overpaid suits had the nous.

Is corrosion resistance, so at least the vehicle looked presentable, maybe only needing the odd lick of paint now and again instead of major surgery/welding, part of the reason ERF lasted longer?

[erf-ngc-european]

ramone:
Robert , you are flogging a dead horse , no matter how right you are you will be wrong (even though you are 100 % correct) just check other threads .

Yes Ramone and the subject will pop up on another thread in ten months time! Fortunately, I’m blessed with a ‘let it lug’ temperament which enables me to iron out the peaks of these trials and tribulations before gliding sedately home to base (at approx. 95 kph @ 2100 rpm)! Robert

[erf-ngc-european]

Juddian:
Is corrosion resistance, so at least the vehicle looked presentable, maybe only needing the odd lick of paint now and again instead of major surgery/welding, part of the reason ERF lasted longer?

Not sure of the full answer to that, but the Sheet Moulded Compound (SMC) ‘plastic’ SP cab introduced with the B-series certain led to cab longevity. Not so the metal Motor Panels MW cabs, however, which tended to rot. I’ve heard from a couple of sources that those cabs were not carefully enough primed at birth, leaving loop-holes for the dreaded tin-worm before the cab was even fitted! Robert

[ramone]

Juddian:
I used to use an 86 now and again covering a colleague’s shift when he was on holiday, at the time my regular steed was an pre facelift A series ERF with that prize of night trunking, the Gardner 180 with, you guessed it, no power steering.

Those A series was so out of time as to be little short of a very poor joke, in dead of winter the front of the cab inside and out was full of sticky back foam trying desperately to keep the wind and rain from howling straight through the gaps that you could actually see through, the mk 2 A series were used at other depots with 205/220 ■■■■■■■ engines, these not only had power steering but the heater worked and the cab to be fair was a lot better, being longer wheelbase so the cats eyes let alone pot holes didn’t shatter the watch off your wrist.

Compared to those agricultural machines the Volvo 86 was fanatastic, being turbocharged it romped along, it went where you steered it, the cab was warm and draught free, and the soundproofing was amazing, plus being that small cab the handling was in another league, but its unfair to compare the 86 to the early A series, of which ours were the most basic model which were really 60’s designs, we then got the B series though again hobbled with the 180, then later on the 201 Gardners, notwithstanding the lack of power the B’s were very good lorries indeed.

British makers were caught with their pants down when the foreign stuff arrived in force, instead of constant evolution they had to come up with some new designs quickly, the Marathon would have been better received, as other Brit makers such as Sed Ack, if their cabs had at least been more corrosion resistant than they were, as it was by year 3 if not sooner side storage sections and panels under the sleeper section and cab doors and floors could be rotting completely through, which must have come as a shock to those who might have stayed with the British motors if they could have lasted the many years that fibre glass cabs did without falling apart.
The T45 was no better than Sed Acks for this either, rotten as a pear in far too short a time.
The irony being that a manufacture stage rustproofing would have cost so little, what a shame none of those overpaid suits had the nous.

Is corrosion resistance, so at least the vehicle looked presentable, maybe only needing the odd lick of paint now and again instead of major surgery/welding, part of the reason ERF lasted longer?

Did you mention rust , those F88s suffered from it !!!.. but your experience with the ERFs are exactly my point . Not just ERFs mind but the the whole British lorries of the time were a much of a muchness and the Marathon was the first attempt from a British manufacturer to improve the situation with others following i.e SAs ,TMs, B series , Transcons ,S80s , so the Marathon was a more attractive proposition than the stuff that was available in 72 imports exempt .Its all down to personal taste after that

[ramone]

ERF-NGC-European:

ramone:
Robert , you are flogging a dead horse , no matter how right you are you will be wrong (even though you are 100 % correct) just check other threads .

Yes Ramone and the subject will pop up on another thread in ten months time! Fortunately, I’m blessed with a ‘let it lug’ temperament which enables me to iron out the peaks of these trials and tribulations before gliding sedately home to base (at approx. 95 kph @ 2100 rpm)! Robert

Now there`s a voice of reason and experience

[gingerfold]

ERF-NGC-European:
[A refreshingly excellent post. Robert

Thank you Robert. I was trying to bring the thread back into calmer waters and return posters to more reasoned and objective discussion. I’m sure that I’m speaking for most of us more restrained (well we try to be ) posters that everyone has a right to their own opinions and trucks in particular
are very capable of polarising opinions, and much of it is down to good or bad personal experiences with certain makes. If poster A disagrees with Poster B, fine, but what is unnecessary, I believe, is the what appears to be deliberately provocative posts which can have little or none basis in fact. If someone didn’t like the Marathon (or any other make) then fine say so and give objective reasons, but don’t be deliberately insulting to those who thought otherwise. You’ll probably have noticed that personally I don’t contribute to your excellent threads, I read them but I’ve nothing constructive to add because I haven’t had any personal experience of the subject matter. I’ve never been involved in much European work, and never driven to the Middle East (I have been there for Spillers Milling) so I’ve nothing useful to add so I keep quiet.

[windrush]

I’m the same Gingerfold, only drove rigid tippers for 20+ years so the last thing I wanted was a big cab! The Sed Ak 400 seemed a massive cab compared to the S80/83 Foden one which in turn were huge compared to the S50 halfcabs and S39’s that preceeded those! So, although I can’t believe that the Marathon was as bad as CF makes out, and having had no experience of the ‘marvellous’ Swedish machines that killed it off I’m not commenting much. However I will say though that speaking personally I find it hard to comprehend the size of the steering wheel making much difference to a driver,the Foden S80/83/Haulmaster range had a smaller wheel than the preceeding models (power steering making the difference of course, it was optional before) but we all drove them with no problems? Also the obsession with the fuller 13 speed gearbox, yes I had one but the previous and later trucks that I drove ‘only’ had the nine speed version and went just as well and did the same work and earned the gaffer and me a wage.

Drivers adapt to whatever they are expected to drive, I left Tilcon in 1997 I was driving a one year old 3000 Series Foden with 13 speed box and Rolls/Perkins 335 engine which I had from new and started the following week with a different firm on an eleven year old Foden with a 250 ■■■■■■■ L10 and fuller nine speed box but it was just a tool to do a job of work and it did it equally as well as the newer one had done! Anyway after two years they gave me another much newer Foden, only ten years old that one and it was still running and earning money a handful of years ago!

Pete.

[ramone]

windrush:
I’m the same Gingerfold, only drove rigid tippers for 20+ years so the last thing I wanted was a big cab! The Sed Ak 400 seemed a massive cab compared to the S80/83 Foden one which in turn were huge compared to the S50 halfcabs and S39’s that preceeded those! So, although I can’t believe that the Marathon was as bad as CF makes out, and having had no experience of the ‘marvellous’ Swedish machines that killed it off I’m not commenting much. However I will say though that speaking personally I find it hard to comprehend the size of the steering wheel making much difference to a driver,the Foden S80/83/Haulmaster range had a smaller wheel than the preceeding models (power steering making the difference of course, it was optional before) but we all drove them with no problems? Also the obsession with the fuller 13 speed gearbox, yes I had one but the previous and later trucks that I drove ‘only’ had the nine speed version and went just as well and did the same work and earned the gaffer and me a wage.

Drivers adapt to whatever they are expected to drive, I left Tilcon in 1997 I was driving a one year old 3000 Series Foden with 13 speed box and Rolls/Perkins 335 engine which I had from new and started the following week with a different firm on an eleven year old Foden with a 250 ■■■■■■■ L10 and fuller nine speed box but it was just a tool to do a job of work and it did it equally as well as the newer one had done! Anyway after two years they gave me another much newer Foden, only ten years old that one and it was still running and earning money a handful of years ago!

Pete.

I had a few Ivecos with the 13 speed Fuller and a Foden with the 9 speed Fuller later on , I never thought twice about the 9 speed , I was just glad to
get shut of the 18 speed G290 Renault I was driving before the Foden , oh the Foden being an 84 the Renault being a 86 with double the amount of gears

[ramone]

Mr Tweedie didn`t like the L word on the front of his Marathon

[zippy155]

Alfred Manchester & Sons had some, one, in particular, had a registration number ending 707 and was therefore called the Boeing. 90mph + and special Goodyear tyres that were used as an experiment by Goodyear and taken off after 100K after using only 4mm ! you see it can be done in the UK!

[carryfast]

ERF-NGC-European:
I’m blessed with a ‘let it lug’ temperament which enables me to iron out the peaks of these trials and tribulations before gliding sedately home to base (at approx. 95 kph @ 2100 rpm)! Robert

Blimey assuming that’s an E290 what did the average fuel consumption figure work out at when you filled it up. As for let it lug might as well keep it at 2100 rpm over those peaks on the basis of in for a penny in for a pound.

[railstaff]

Thanks DEANB for the interia shot.I honestly cant see what all the fuss is about,plenty big enough infact i,d probably say as big as an R series scania in the bed.
The reason for the shortening of the sleeper was to enable the Marathon to stay under 15 mtre while pulling a 40 ft trailer,the only other motor i know of that could do that was the fleetmaster/haulmaster although i may be wrong.So during the early 70,s the foreigners broke certain C and U regs.

[zb_anorak]

railstaff:
Thanks DEANB for the interia shot.I honestly cant see what all the fuss is about,plenty big enough infact i,d probably say as big as an R series scania in the bed.
The reason for the shortening of the sleeper was to enable the Marathon to stay under 15 mtre while pulling a 40 ft trailer,the only other motor i know of that could do that was the fleetmaster/haulmaster although i may be wrong.So during the early 70,s the foreigners broke certain C and U regs.

There was also a short-sleeper Merc, which was launched a year or two after the Marathon 2. IIRC, Leyland “officially” discontinued the full-length cab, but there are pictures of Marathon 2’s with the long cab on the internet.

Regarding the points made above- you are right, the Marathon was way ahead of its British competition, apart from, arguably, the one with the tilting Motor Panels cab. I forget which one that was . Compared to the most modern of the Europeans of 1973, it might have looked old-fashioned, but it was far from outclassed. The F88 was hardly any wider. Scanias were 2300mm wide across the outside of the doors; IIRC the Ergo was 2100mm, although I stand to be corrected on that.