DEANB:
Euro test 1975
Blimey the Transcon having a more torquey version of the ■■■■■■■ matched with a 13 speed Fuller actually,as would be expected,massacres the 335 Marathon and the Marathon this time is told like it is. 
So let’s get this right they put the less powerful TL12 in it and fit it with the short sleeper then get a faster overall journey time and it suddenly turns into a credible contender. 
Fantastic Dean! Thanks for posting Euro-Test No 2. I’ll have a closer look at it. Cheers, Robert
Carryfast:
DEANB:
Euro test 1975Blimey the Transcon having a more torquey version of the ■■■■■■■ matched with a 13 speed Fuller actually,as would be expected,massacres the 335 Marathon and the Marathon this time is told like it is.
So let’s get this right they put the less powerful TL12 in it and fit it with the short sleeper then get a faster overall journey time and it suddenly turns into a credible contender.
The text says that the ■■■■■■■ Marathon was hampered by a poor gear linkage, which cost it lots of time in the hills. The NTC 335 had less than 320bhp net so it was not massively more powerful than the 280?bhp TL12.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
DEANB:
Euro test 1975Blimey the Transcon having a more torquey version of the ■■■■■■■ matched with a 13 speed Fuller actually,as would be expected,massacres the 335 Marathon and the Marathon this time is told like it is.
So let’s get this right they put the less powerful TL12 in it and fit it with the short sleeper then get a faster overall journey time and it suddenly turns into a credible contender.
The text says that the ■■■■■■■ Marathon was hampered by a poor gear linkage, which cost it lots of time in the hills. The NTC 335 had less than 320bhp net so it was not massively more powerful than the 280?bhp TL12.
But it all gets a bit too much to believe when the 245 hp at 1400 rpm to 340 hp at 1950 rpm of the Transcon only manages an overall 38.99 mph overall for a fuel consumption of 5.28 all that with a 13 speed box.
As opposed to the 193 hp at 1300 rpm to 280 hp at 2200 rpm of the Marathon TL12 somehow managing 38.86 mph overall for a fuel consumption of 5.766.IE the TL12 must have been good because it seemed to defy the laws of physics in terms of less means more regarding power output v speed and more means less in terms of engine speed v fuel consumption. 
DEANB:
Trade pic.0
That looks like the original Marathon ,it hasnt got the Marathon 2 badge fitted , Ive seen it before somewhere
Great info from some very well informed chaps and the usual story from the king of the leatherhead gear jammers.
Yes the f12 was a huge leap forward but let’s not forget the 278 bhp f10 would be a bigger seller at first and mercs were hardly power houses the 110-1 Scania was on par with brits on power the daf wasn’t perfect.
The euroscabs were better but many were still buying day cabs due to unions and dimensions.
I’m sure there was a thing the full sleeper marathon couldn’t legally pull a 40 footer.
Merc done a half sleeper too.
kr79:
Great info from some very well informed chaps and the usual story from the king of the leatherhead gear jammers.
Yes the f12 was a huge leap forward but let’s not forget the 278 bhp f10 would be a bigger seller at first and mercs were hardly power houses the 110-1 Scania was on par with brits on power the daf wasn’t perfect.
The euroscabs were better but many were still buying day cabs due to unions and dimensions.
I’m sure there was a thing the full sleeper marathon couldn’t legally pull a 40 footer.
Merc done a half sleeper too.
The point being that manufacturers need to be designing and putting into production the truck for tomorrow today,not a truck for yesterday.Bearing in mind the F12 was Volvo’s biggest seller by 1983.How long did Leyland’s heavy vehicle operations survive at that point.My case being that the sabotaging of our domestic industry was deliberate anyway.
DEANB:
Commercial motor magazine.Click on page twice.
Very interesting little piece! It cannot be emphasised enough the extent to which Fuller gearbox installation varied among manufacturers, and the consequent extent to which performance and driving experience varied. MAN, ERF and Ford could do it, so why couldn’t Seddon-Atkinson, DAF and Leyland do it? This discrepency continued after the Eaton-Fullers and into the period of the Eaton Twin-splitter: the difference between an Iveco installation and a SA one was so wide as lead a driver to believe they were entirely different gearboxes! Robert
Carryfast:
kr79:
Great info from some very well informed chaps and the usual story from the king of the leatherhead gear jammers.
Yes the f12 was a huge leap forward but let’s not forget the 278 bhp f10 would be a bigger seller at first and mercs were hardly power houses the 110-1 Scania was on par with brits on power the daf wasn’t perfect.
The euroscabs were better but many were still buying day cabs due to unions and dimensions.
I’m sure there was a thing the full sleeper marathon couldn’t legally pull a 40 footer.
Merc done a half sleeper too.The point being that manufacturers need to be designing and putting into production the truck for tomorrow today,not a truck for yesterday.Bearing in mind the F12 was Volvo’s biggest seller by 1983.How long did Leyland’s heavy vehicle operations survive at that point.My case being that the sabotaging of our domestic industry was deliberate anyway.
I said years ago that if some organisation had set out to deliberately sabotage the UK commercial vehicle industry then they could not have made a better job of it.
gingerfold:
Carryfast:
kr79:
Great info from some very well informed chaps and the usual story from the king of the leatherhead gear jammers.
Yes the f12 was a huge leap forward but let’s not forget the 278 bhp f10 would be a bigger seller at first and mercs were hardly power houses the 110-1 Scania was on par with brits on power the daf wasn’t perfect.
The euroscabs were better but many were still buying day cabs due to unions and dimensions.
I’m sure there was a thing the full sleeper marathon couldn’t legally pull a 40 footer.
Merc done a half sleeper too.The point being that manufacturers need to be designing and putting into production the truck for tomorrow today,not a truck for yesterday.Bearing in mind the F12 was Volvo’s biggest seller by 1983.How long did Leyland’s heavy vehicle operations survive at that point.My case being that the sabotaging of our domestic industry was deliberate anyway.
I said years ago that if some organisation had set out to deliberately sabotage the UK commercial vehicle industry then they could not have made a better job of it.
I’m 110% in agreement with that gingerfold.
I’d guess that you won’t find a better answer than that which those old wartime generations told me that it was all about the US government wanting its war debts paid back ASAP and the combined debts of mainland Europe were more than ours were so that’s where the bankers and their corrupt government puppets concentrated their investment and product development efforts while deliberately holding us back.
The plan might have been derailed if the industry press had started asking awkward questions like why are the foreign competition forging ahead with trucks like the DAF 2800 and later 3300 and F12 while we were turning out junk like the Marathon 2 and Detroit 71 series powered Bedfords.When all the ingredients were there in the form of the latest big power,US engine designs,13 speed fullers and the SA 400 and Bedford TM type cabs to at least stand a chance of us crushing the imports before they’d got a foothold.
Carryfast:
kr79:
Great info from some very well informed chaps and the usual story from the king of the leatherhead gear jammers.
Yes the f12 was a huge leap forward but let’s not forget the 278 bhp f10 would be a bigger seller at first and mercs were hardly power houses the 110-1 Scania was on par with brits on power the daf wasn’t perfect.
The euroscabs were better but many were still buying day cabs due to unions and dimensions.
I’m sure there was a thing the full sleeper marathon couldn’t legally pull a 40 footer.
Merc done a half sleeper too.The point being that manufacturers need to be designing and putting into production the truck for tomorrow today,not a truck for yesterday.Bearing in mind the F12 was Volvo’s biggest seller by 1983.How long did Leyland’s heavy vehicle operations survive at that point.My case being that the sabotaging of our domestic industry was deliberate anyway.
That’s a thing I certainly agree with you the brits were certainly behind the times.
The brits mid 70s offering on the wholecwee what Scania and Volvo we’re offering in the mid to late 60s and even by the time the t45 range was launched leyland hadn’t learnt lessons.
No sleeper at launch which in the early 70s could be justified buy by the end of the 70s sleepers were a must.
I remember reading on other threads here during operator trails feedback was fuller box is preferred option of drivers and fleet engineers but leyland fit spicer box as standard.
Same as useless Albion axle when Rockwell was preferred.
This was addressed by the mid 80s but that should of been the truck leyland offered at launch.
I know more about the constructor as tippers are my background.
I know my dad and other operators wouldn’t touch spicer Albion constructors once the fuller and Rockwell was avalible they rated both tl11 and rolls engines though
kr79:
Carryfast:
kr79:
Great info from some very well informed chaps and the usual story from the king of the leatherhead gear jammers.
Yes the f12 was a huge leap forward but let’s not forget the 278 bhp f10 would be a bigger seller at first and mercs were hardly power houses the 110-1 Scania was on par with brits on power the daf wasn’t perfect.
The euroscabs were better but many were still buying day cabs due to unions and dimensions.
I’m sure there was a thing the full sleeper marathon couldn’t legally pull a 40 footer.
Merc done a half sleeper too.The point being that manufacturers need to be designing and putting into production the truck for tomorrow today,not a truck for yesterday.Bearing in mind the F12 was Volvo’s biggest seller by 1983.How long did Leyland’s heavy vehicle operations survive at that point.My case being that the sabotaging of our domestic industry was deliberate anyway.
That’s a thing I certainly agree with you the brits were certainly behind the times.
The brits mid 70s offering on the wholecwee what Scania and Volvo we’re offering in the mid to late 60s and even by the time the t45 range was launched leyland hadn’t learnt lessons.
No sleeper at launch which in the early 70s could be justified buy by the end of the 70s sleepers were a must.
I remember reading on other threads here during operator trails feedback was fuller box is preferred option of drivers and fleet engineers but leyland fit spicer box as standard.
Same as useless Albion axle when Rockwell was preferred.
This was addressed by the mid 80s but that should of been the truck leyland offered at launch.
I know more about the constructor as tippers are my background.
I know my dad and other operators wouldn’t touch spicer Albion constructors once the fuller and Rockwell was avalible they rated both tl11 and rolls engines though
Although a totally different sector to the max weight haulage one I’d guess the Rolls engined Constructor would have been similar to the Foden in the day and therefore second to none for the job it was designed for.Unlike putting the TL12 T45 let alone the Marathon up against the F12.While the common link seems to be a deliberate instruction from high places along the lines of do everything possible to run down the Brit industry v its foreign competition but don’t make it look too obvious.Giving the imports a decent ( more like massive ) head start in terms of product development,while hiding it as best they could in industry media reports,seeming to be one of the main methods they chose to do it.That and starving us of investment capital.IE make no mistake my contention is that the issue of us being ‘behind the times’ was no mistake,accident,or coincidence,it was deliberate.As also seeming to be a hypothetical at least view held by gingerfold. 
I read these threads and can see sense in every post,and when you think at the time what the UK had at its disposal for building a vehicle you can only but think there was a bigger ploy going on behind the scenes.
Only today we learn that a bigger majority has voted against May regarding a Brexit final say and deal.So when and if the time comes to leave the EU were are the uk going to be.At this present time the uk couldn’t even make a radiator hose never mind a hose clip.What kind of leader could lead a country into a situation of this type.
An article in January’s Heritage Commercial about the Mk 2 Marathon, they appear to have been liked by drivers at least.
Pete.
Carryfast:
…Unlike putting the TL12 T45 let alone the Marathon up against the F12.While the common link seems to be a deliberate instruction from high places along the lines of do everything possible to run down the Brit industry v its foreign competition but don’t make it look too obvious.Giving the imports a decent ( more like massive ) head start in terms of product development,while hiding it as best they could in industry media reports,seeming to be one of the main methods they chose to do it.That and starving us of investment capital.IE make no mistake my contention is that the issue of us being ‘behind the times’ was no mistake,accident,or coincidence,it was deliberate.As also seeming to be a hypothetical at least view held by gingerfold.
The GB Government did its best to make British Leyland strong, at all stages in history, at least until it ran out of patience and left it for the foreign vultures. If you read Michael Edwardes’ autobiography, he has praise for both Labour and Conservative administrations. Even the unions deserve some credit for their efforts- their more reasonable, conciliatory stance in the 1980s was a great help. There was no conspiracy to kill off British manufacturing. Why would there be?
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
…Unlike putting the TL12 T45 let alone the Marathon up against the F12.While the common link seems to be a deliberate instruction from high places along the lines of do everything possible to run down the Brit industry v its foreign competition but don’t make it look too obvious.Giving the imports a decent ( more like massive ) head start in terms of product development,while hiding it as best they could in industry media reports,seeming to be one of the main methods they chose to do it.That and starving us of investment capital.IE make no mistake my contention is that the issue of us being ‘behind the times’ was no mistake,accident,or coincidence,it was deliberate.As also seeming to be a hypothetical at least view held by gingerfold.The GB Government did its best to make British Leyland strong, at all stages in history, at least until it ran out of patience and left it for the foreign vultures. If you read Michael Edwardes’ autobiography, he has praise for both Labour and Conservative administrations. Even the unions deserve some credit for their efforts- their more reasonable, conciliatory stance in the 1980s was a great help. There was no conspiracy to kill off British manufacturing. Why would there be?
How does products like the Marathon 2,or even the T45 on introduction,v DAF 2800 and Volvo F12.Or allowing GM to ■■■■■■■ the Bedford TM with the obsolete Detroit 71 series.Or applying ridiculous under gearing to ■■■■■■■ powered vehicles in addition to not using the latest best power/torque ■■■■■■■ engine options available.Failure to standardise on the Fuller 13 speed box.Allowing ‘type approval’ issues to hamper such product development let alone eventually remove the option of using such components altogether.Failure to offer V8 options in uk manufactured Ford and GM car products to make them more competitive with German imports.Then transferring uk production of uk built Ford and GM car products to Germany anyway.Allowing BMC to ■■■■ the life out of BL car division.Crippling Rover and Triumph products by failing to make best use of the Rover V8 engine let alone flawed poverty design like the SD1 with its ugly hatchback body and live rear axle design.In addition to other examples of starving UK industry of investment Capital.Also maybe a few other examples which I’ve missed which gingerfold might like to add.All fit the script of the government ‘doing its best to make UK industry strong’.
IE surely that mantra would have meant the Marathon 2 had an SA 400 type cab development,300 + hp ■■■■■■■ engine and 13 speed Fuller box as standard.In which case who needed the TL12 powered short sleeper T45 let alone the even more primitive Ergo derived Marathon 2.
As for the reasons.It’s clear enough that numerous geopolitical and economic reasons existed.In large part based on erroneous European ‘security’ issues which meant keeping the Germans onside ( happy ).In addition to economic ones regarding the US wanting its exposure to European war debt paid off ASAP obviously even if that meant at our expense.Ironically neutral Sweden and no hoper Netherlands being two of the largest beneficiaries of that in terms of truck manufacturing.
Carryfast:
How does products like the Marathon 2,or even the T45 on introduction,v DAF 2800 and Volvo F12.Or allowing GM to ■■■■■■■ the Bedford TM with the obsolete Detroit 71 series.Or applying ridiculous under gearing to ■■■■■■■ powered vehicles in addition to not using the latest best power/torque ■■■■■■■ engine options available.Failure to standardise on the Fuller 13 speed box.Allowing ‘type approval’ issues to hamper such product development let alone eventually remove the option of using such components altogether…
Those were decisions made by Leyland to satisfy its customers, while maximising its own profits. They were nothing to do with a Government conspiracy. Michael Edwardes, in his book, praises the Government for not interfering too much. Type approval would have helped a large, vertically-integrated company like Leyland compete against assemblers using US engines.
After a period of relative calm, you have struck another rich vein of silliness.
