So why were so many hauliers still buying F86 /F7 / FL7 ,Scania 81/82/91/92 s and running them at 32 tons same with Merc 1625s and 1628s in the late 70s and well into the 80s .Why were hauliers still buying 250 ■■■■■■■ and 265 Rolls when 290s were available And just to point out the 480 Turbostar was a V8 the 360 certainly wasn`t but both could perform.
ramone:
So why were so many hauliers still buying F86 /F7 / FL7 ,Scania 81/82/91/92 s and running them at 32 tons same with Merc 1625s and 1628s in the late 70s and well into the 80s .Why were hauliers still buying 250 ■■■■■■■ and 265 Rolls when 290s were available And just to point out the 480 Turbostar was a V8 the 360 certainly wasn`t but both could perform.
By that logic Volvo would have decided not to offer the F12 in the UK market and would have just relied on the F7.While DAF would have only relied on the 2300/2500 no need for the 2800.Scania would have limited itself to the 81/82/91/92.■■■■■■■ and Rolls wouldn’t have even bothered with turbocharging the 855 and Eagle respectively because 780 lb/ft was supposedly more than enough.So if that’s the world you’re saying we were going to be limited to then the TL12 would obviously have totally massacred its pathetic opposition.As opposed to what actually happened in the real world.
As for the IVECO 8210 motor unfortunately for your case that also seems to have had a stroke measurement of more than 6 inches +.So no surprise,unlike the TL12,that was also able to compete with the ■■■■■■■ and the Rolls and the F12 etc.Maybe they should have left that option out of the UK market too as supposedly being too much for it. 
ramone:
So why were so many hauliers still buying F86 /F7 / FL7 ,Scania 81/82/91/92 s and running them at 32 tons same with Merc 1625s and 1628s in the late 70s and well into the 80s .Why were hauliers still buying 250 ■■■■■■■ and 265 Rolls when 290s were available And just to point out the 480 Turbostar was a V8 the 360 certainly wasn`t but both could perform.
You, Ramone, and the vast majority of contributors on here know the answer, especially those who bought and operated trucks in the UK, or those like myself who were and are entrusted with running the trucks bought by others. Manufacturers and assemblers offered a choice of power outputs, but by far the biggest market in the UK, is, and always has been, the fleet spec. truck market. If someone wanted to run a higher powered truck in their own particular operation, for example continental haulage, then the option was, and is there. Let me give you an up to the minute, present day example.
I run 14 trucks at Trafford Park for the UK’s largest privately owned transport and distribution company. My small fleet comprises eleven 61 plate Mercedes Actros 460s and three DAF 85CF 440s; so 14 bog standard fleet spec trucks and I haven’t a clue what the torque output of the engines is, or what the length of the piston stroke is, or whether the engine can be developed to still be viable in another 10 years. That’s all totally irrelevant to me as a depot manager. The Actros’s have surprisingly consistent mileage totals; the lowest being 980,000 km and the highest is 1,045,000 km (at the start of this week). Three of the Actros’s are driven by trampers, the other eight are either day or night trucks, and three are double shifted. The double shifted ones run Manchester to Newmarket and back with fridge trailers. (Round trip = 392 miles). The single duty night ones run Trafford Park to Newmarket to Widnes to Trafford Park. (Round trip = 420 miles). Most nights the drivers use M6 /A14 route, 196 miles and not a serious hill. Occasionally they have a change and go M62 / A1 / A14. I’m not fussed which route they use, there’s little difference in the mileage but there is the long drag up Windy Hill on the M62 if they go that way. Given a delay free run the non-Widnes night drivers do each leg of the run in about 4 hours 15 minutes driving time. (Widnes puts a total of about 20 minutes on the total driving time over the two legs). So, these fleet spec trucks that aren’t in the first flush of youth enable the drivers to do their work in legal driving hours. They are also remarkably consistent in their nightly fuel consumption, returning an average of 8.9 mpg, measured by what is actually pumped into the tanks and not by what a fancy dashboard read out tells me. So as a depot manager entrusted with running my allocated fleet for the owner of the company (who signs the cheques) I run my drivers legally with a very acceptable mpg. That is what running a fleet is all about, using the truck as a tool to do a job as economically as possible and to make profit.
So what has the above to do with the Marathon of almost 50 years ago and the TL12 engine? Well, in its day The Marathon was an acceptable fleet truck with the TL12 as a very good fleet truck engine that delivered what was needed of it. After all, the market that Leyland (including its premium marques) was targeting was the fleet market, but with other engine options both for fleet operations and higher power, for those so inclined to purchase them.
As a final thought, can anyone name an engine in mainstream usage today in new trucks that has any recognisable ancestry and development from an engine of the period from 1975 to 1999? I think that we all know the answer.
gingerfold:
ramone:
So why were so many hauliers still buying F86 /F7 / FL7 ,Scania 81/82/91/92 s and running them at 32 tons same with Merc 1625s and 1628s in the late 70s and well into the 80s .Why were hauliers still buying 250 ■■■■■■■ and 265 Rolls when 290s were available And just to point out the 480 Turbostar was a V8 the 360 certainly wasn`t but both could perform.You, Ramone, and the vast majority of contributors on here know the answer, especially those who bought and operated trucks in the UK, or those like myself who were and are entrusted with running the trucks bought by others. Manufacturers and assemblers offered a choice of power outputs, but by far the biggest market in the UK, is, and always has been, the fleet spec. truck market. If someone wanted to run a higher powered truck in their own particular operation, for example continental haulage, then the option was, and is there. Let me give you an up to the minute, present day example.
I run 14 trucks at Trafford Park for the UK’s largest privately owned transport and distribution company. My small fleet comprises eleven 61 plate Mercedes Actros 460s and three DAF 85CF 440s; so 14 bog standard fleet spec trucks and I haven’t a clue what the torque output of the engines is, or what the length of the piston stroke is, or whether the engine can be developed to still be viable in another 10 years. That’s all totally irrelevant to me as a depot manager. The Actros’s have surprisingly consistent mileage totals; the lowest being 980,000 km and the highest is 1,045,000 km (at the start of this week). Three of the Actros’s are driven by trampers, the other eight are either day or night trucks, and three are double shifted. The double shifted ones run Manchester to Newmarket and back with fridge trailers. (Round trip = 392 miles). The single duty night ones run Trafford Park to Newmarket to Widnes to Trafford Park. (Round trip = 420 miles). Most nights the drivers use M6 /A14 route, 196 miles and not a serious hill. Occasionally they have a change and go M62 / A1 / A14. I’m not fussed which route they use, there’s little difference in the mileage but there is the long drag up Windy Hill on the M62 if they go that way. Given a delay free run the non-Widnes night drivers do each leg of the run in about 4 hours 15 minutes driving time. (Widnes puts a total of about 20 minutes on the total driving time over the two legs). So, these fleet spec trucks that aren’t in the first flush of youth enable the drivers to do their work in legal driving hours. They are also remarkably consistent in their nightly fuel consumption, returning an average of 8.9 mpg, measured by what is actually pumped into the tanks and not by what a fancy dashboard read out tells me. So as a depot manager entrusted with running my allocated fleet for the owner of the company (who signs the cheques) I run my drivers legally with a very acceptable mpg. That is what running a fleet is all about, using the truck as a tool to do a job as economically as possible and to make profit.
So what has the above to do with the Marathon of almost 50 years ago and the TL12 engine? Well, in its day The Marathon was an acceptable fleet truck with the TL12 as a very good fleet truck engine that delivered what was needed of it. After all, the market that Leyland (including its premium marques) was targeting was the fleet market, but with other engine options both for fleet operations and higher power, for those so inclined to purchase them.
As a final thought, can anyone name an engine in mainstream usage today in new trucks that has any recognisable ancestry and development from an engine of the period from 1975 to 1999? I think that we all know the answer.
Volvo D13.Sorry to be a smart arse.
Nearly a Marathon CKD export
No, Railstaff, it’s a legitimate answer to a serious question and it’s interesting to learn that there is one. I knew for certain that it wasn’t the Rolls Royce.
Well not strictly true.The first D12 appeared around 94 so not really in the age bracket of what we are talking about,but then was developed into D13 with the timing gears relocated to the rear.
gingerfold:
ramone:
So why were so many hauliers still buying F86 /F7 / FL7 ,Scania 81/82/91/92 s and running them at 32 tons same with Merc 1625s and 1628s in the late 70s and well into the 80s .Why were hauliers still buying 250 ■■■■■■■ and 265 Rolls when 290s were available And just to point out the 480 Turbostar was a V8 the 360 certainly wasn`t but both could perform.You, Ramone, and the vast majority of contributors on here know the answer, especially those who bought and operated trucks in the UK, or those like myself who were and are entrusted with running the trucks bought by others. Manufacturers and assemblers offered a choice of power outputs, but by far the biggest market in the UK, is, and always has been, the fleet spec. truck market. If someone wanted to run a higher powered truck in their own particular operation, for example continental haulage, then the option was, and is there. Let me give you an up to the minute, present day example.
I run 14 trucks at Trafford Park for the UK’s largest privately owned transport and distribution company. My small fleet comprises eleven 61 plate Mercedes Actros 460s and three DAF 85CF 440s; so 14 bog standard fleet spec trucks and I haven’t a clue what the torque output of the engines is, or what the length of the piston stroke is, or whether the engine can be developed to still be viable in another 10 years. That’s all totally irrelevant to me as a depot manager. The Actros’s have surprisingly consistent mileage totals; the lowest being 980,000 km and the highest is 1,045,000 km (at the start of this week). Three of the Actros’s are driven by trampers, the other eight are either day or night trucks, and three are double shifted. The double shifted ones run Manchester to Newmarket and back with fridge trailers. (Round trip = 392 miles). The single duty night ones run Trafford Park to Newmarket to Widnes to Trafford Park. (Round trip = 420 miles). Most nights the drivers use M6 /A14 route, 196 miles and not a serious hill. Occasionally they have a change and go M62 / A1 / A14. I’m not fussed which route they use, there’s little difference in the mileage but there is the long drag up Windy Hill on the M62 if they go that way. Given a delay free run the non-Widnes night drivers do each leg of the run in about 4 hours 15 minutes driving time. (Widnes puts a total of about 20 minutes on the total driving time over the two legs). So, these fleet spec trucks that aren’t in the first flush of youth enable the drivers to do their work in legal driving hours. They are also remarkably consistent in their nightly fuel consumption, returning an average of 8.9 mpg, measured by what is actually pumped into the tanks and not by what a fancy dashboard read out tells me. So as a depot manager entrusted with running my allocated fleet for the owner of the company (who signs the cheques) I run my drivers legally with a very acceptable mpg. That is what running a fleet is all about, using the truck as a tool to do a job as economically as possible and to make profit.
So what has the above to do with the Marathon of almost 50 years ago and the TL12 engine? Well, in its day The Marathon was an acceptable fleet truck with the TL12 as a very good fleet truck engine that delivered what was needed of it. After all, the market that Leyland (including its premium marques) was targeting was the fleet market, but with other engine options both for fleet operations and higher power, for those so inclined to purchase them.
As a final thought, can anyone name an engine in mainstream usage today in new trucks that has any recognisable ancestry and development from an engine of the period from 1975 to 1999? I think that we all know the answer.
Firstly the issue of the TL12’s inherent torque output limitations have nothing whatsoever to do with supposed fleet v premium specs.Just as the the difference between the DAF 2800 and ■■■■■■■ E290 type solution v small engined screamers like the F7 and DAF 2500 didn’t have either.IE the small high revving over stressed solution was a passing fad used in all sectors from haulage to distribution sometimes as in our case together on the same job with the correct conclusion being that bigger capacity lower stressed with more torque was better.Whether on trunking or general haulage.With that bigger torque less stressed solution actually making more sense not less on the trunking fleet.Which is how our 2300’S/2500’s got replaced with 2800 ATI’s and eventually,after a few hiccups like the Scania 93,DAF 85’s and sometimes 95’s on the same job all being supposed ‘fleet spec’ motors.
On that note I think you’ll find that the DAF 85 originally had the same type of motor as the DAF 2800 not the DAF 2500 on that basis.
Which today translates as the 85 CF being fitted with the same capacity MX motor as so called ‘premium’ DAF range with a stroke of well over 6 inches and with torque outputs in line with that ranging from 1,300 lb/ft to 1,850 lb/ft.Now let me guess you’re going to say that the CF is suddenly conveniently now a ‘premium’ truck not a ‘fleet’ truck.Because it doesn’t fit the script of all the bs excuses being made for what was a clear case of institutional level industrial espionage by the standards of the late 1970’s,in the form of the obsolete piece of junk Marathon 2 deliberately being put up against competition like the F12 and the DAF 2800.You can also add the sabotage of the Detroit 71 series powered Bedford TM to that scam.
While if you really want to find out the difference between ■■■■ up v conspiracy look no further than the gutless German V6 piece of junk the early 1990’s Merc 2534 ( powerliner 
).The difference being that even the Germans didn’t try to make the excuse that the thing was only mean’t to be a poverty spec ‘fleet’ motor.They just pretended it could do the job by sticking the powerliner badge on it when they knew it wasn’t up to it. 
gingerfold:
No, Railstaff, it’s a legitimate answer to a serious question and it’s interesting to learn that there is one. I knew for certain that it wasn’t the Rolls Royce.
Don’t see the relevance wen comparing the production life expectancy requirements of the TL12.In which 10-15 years would be a reasonable expectation which as we know both the ■■■■■■■ and Rolls Eagle easily surpassed also having left the TL12 behind in terms of reliable output before the end of the 1970’s.As I said the TL12’s unfixable stroke disadvantage can’t be over stated in being the main cause of that.Which leaves the question why did Leyland want to ■■■■■■■ it’s products with that obsolete boat anchor when even Stevie Wonder could have seen the problem and the solution.Which Leyland then took when it was all predictably too late.Let alone adding the insult of the Ergo cab and then the still at best dodgy T45 to the injury of the obsolete motor.Too much to be ■■■■ up when added to the similar crippling of the TM in terms of engine choice.
Carryfast:
ramone:
So why were so many hauliers still buying F86 /F7 / FL7 ,Scania 81/82/91/92 s and running them at 32 tons same with Merc 1625s and 1628s in the late 70s and well into the 80s .Why were hauliers still buying 250 ■■■■■■■ and 265 Rolls when 290s were available And just to point out the 480 Turbostar was a V8 the 360 certainly wasn`t but both could perform.By that logic …
Why are you looking for logic, CF? Shouldn’t you be concerning yourself with preference? When was choosing a lorry a wholly logical process? Do you think in black and white? Are you not aware of grey areas? Were not some 32-tonners not excellent long-haulers in their day? Just askin’. R
If everyone chose what was ‘logical’ in all walks of life then ultimately there would only be one choice of each item! 
I could never understand ‘the logic’ of our gaffer buying three new Foden eight legged tippers plated at 32 tonnes gross but only running them at 31 tonnes, everyone else was upping the payload and he was reducing it. Presumably he saw ‘the logic’ in his decision just as folk did when they (presumably wrongly?) purchased a Marathon against a “far better” Volvo etc, it was their choice and rightly or wrongly they made that decision and generally speaking they served them well.
Pete.
ERF-NGC-European:
Carryfast:
ramone:
So why were so many hauliers still buying F86 /F7 / FL7 ,Scania 81/82/91/92 s and running them at 32 tons same with Merc 1625s and 1628s in the late 70s and well into the 80s .Why were hauliers still buying 250 ■■■■■■■ and 265 Rolls when 290s were available And just to point out the 480 Turbostar was a V8 the 360 certainly wasn`t but both could perform.By that logic …
Why are you looking for logic, CF? Shouldn’t you be concerning yourself with preference? When was choosing a lorry a wholly logical process? Do you think in black and white? Are you not aware of grey areas? Were not some 32-tonners not excellent long-haulers in their day? Just askin’. R
Where do you get the idea that the DAF 2800,among numerous other options in the over 10 litre league,like the F12 and Scania 110/111 and Rolls Eagle and ■■■■■■■ E290 powered Brits sold in the domestic market to domestic operators,before 1983,weren’t by definition ‘32 tonners’ and possibly bought on the basis of being a ‘fleet truck’.On that note it wasn’t competitors like the Volvo F7 which put the Marathon out of the frame.It was more like the question why go for the Marathon when something like the DAF 2800 or even other less primitive Rolls Eagle or ■■■■■■■ powered Brits can do everything the Marathon can do and do it better.
While having driven the F7 and the DAF 2300/2500 and Scania 93 the whole small capacity over stressed engine idea was anything but excellent for the driver or the operator even often running at less than 32 t gross and a red herring in this discussion.
In which case the whole question is realistically how ‘near’ did the TL12 powered Marathon get to its own ‘logical’ competitors in its own league.Not even close seems to be the answer.My contention being that was no accident it wasn’t actually meant to because the decision to take out Leyland,probably like Bedford,had already been made before the end of the 1970’s.It was then just a question of the establisment hiding it and doing it in a way which created the least financial upheaval or political shocks among the sheep like electorate.So what better than to firstly wreck the customer base then create just enough sales with the improved Rolls/■■■■■■■ powered T45 near the end so as not to leave too many people out of pocket when the doors were finally closed and DAF took over. 
I can’t resist a go at gingerfold’s quiz above. My guess is the ■■■■■■■ L9 mentioned earlier. IIRC, it is based on the C series 8.3 litre engine.
So it`s 1978 , ABC Haulage have just set up , they have a contract to haul 21 ton payloads of goods to 4 destinations in a 100 mile radius , the rates are excellent but they must get 21 tons payload on their 32 tonners , what vehicle do they buy ■■?
ramone:
So it`s 1978 , ABC Haulage have just set up , they have a contract to haul 21 ton payloads of goods to 4 destinations in a 100 mile radius , the rates are excellent but they must get 21 tons payload on their 32 tonners , what vehicle do they buy ■■?
Is it only one 200 mile bulk drops run per day ?.Does it involve some decent hills ?.Can the overall payload requirement in terms of runs/drops be averaged out so it all doesn’t have to go on the truck at the same time.Is the job as you’ve described it worth taking on anyway.If it is then is the the Marathon the best tool for the job ?.
So it’s 1978.
I’ll take that thanks in preference to the piece of junk Marathon or the cramped small engined screamers.The payload can look after itself and I’m not interested in the local multi drop job anyway at any rate because it’s too many drops within a too small radius from base for me.
As i recall the Buffalo i used at the time together with me usual 40ft York flat, tared at just under 10 tons, so for the job in question that wouldn’t have been a bad choice with little to no danger of the ministry finding an overloaded axle carrying a mere 21 tons, and rapid progress to boot.
Carryfast:
ramone:
So it`s 1978 , ABC Haulage have just set up , they have a contract to haul 21 ton payloads of goods to 4 destinations in a 100 mile radius , the rates are excellent but they must get 21 tons payload on their 32 tonners , what vehicle do they buy ■■?Is it only one 200 mile bulk drops run per day ?.Does it involve some decent hills ?.Can the overall payload requirement in terms of runs/drops be averaged out so it all doesn’t have to go on the truck at the same time.Is the job as you’ve described it worth taking on anyway.If it is then is the the Marathon the best tool for the job ?.
So it’s 1978.
I’ll take that thanks in preference to the piece of junk Marathon or the cramped small engined screamers.The payload can look after itself and I’m not interested in the local multi drop job anyway at any rate because it’s too many drops within a too small radius from base for me.
What a prick
Juddian:
As i recall the Buffalo i used at the time together with me usual 40ft York flat, tared at just under 10 tons, so for the job in question that wouldn’t have been a bad choice with little to no danger of the ministry finding an overloaded axle carrying a mere 21 tons, and rapid progress to boot.
Thats exactly what Im getting at , a lightweight tractor a light trailer and it was quite nimble , there`s a reason why they build them
I would be surprised if Carryfasts Sed Ak could manage that payload as the eight legger version was too blooming heavy even with a Gardner engine! A Foden might have managed it though!
Pete.
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
So it`s 1978 , ABC Haulage have just set up , they have a contract to haul 21 ton payloads of goods to 4 destinations in a 100 mile radius , the rates are excellent but they must get 21 tons payload on their 32 tonners , what vehicle do they buy ■■?Is it only one 200 mile bulk drops run per day ?.Does it involve some decent hills ?.Can the overall payload requirement in terms of runs/drops be averaged out so it all doesn’t have to go on the truck at the same time.Is the job as you’ve described it worth taking on anyway.If it is then is the the Marathon the best tool for the job ?.
So it’s 1978.
I’ll take that thanks in preference to the piece of junk Marathon or the cramped small engined screamers.The payload can look after itself and I’m not interested in the local multi drop job anyway at any rate because it’s too many drops within a too small radius from base for me.
What a prick
I can just imagine the dealer saying exactly that about you when you told him to keep the SA because it was too heavy for your idea of a haulage operation.