dazcapri:
Typical Carryfast not actually answering the question "they must carry a 21 ton payload your reply “the payload can look after itself”,your one of the cab happy lot who would rather go bust than run a truck that doesn’t live up to your smokey and the bandit image of trucking
Which can only mean that examples like the DAF 2800,Volvo F10/12,Scania 110/111 were financially unviable to run on grounds of payload.Which doesn’t seem to fit the facts.
While if it’s all supposedly about the best guvnor’s wagon and payload then surely the usual plastic cab and 8 cylinder Gardner combination suspects were better for that than the Marathon and TL12 one.So full marks for Leyland’s attempt to put themselves out of the frame because they actually succeeded in alienating both ends of the erratic UK market in the day.
How come they sold so many ?
How was the F12 Volvo’s biggest seller by 1983 ?.How many 8 cylinder Gardner powered wagons did Bewick have compared to TL12 powered Marathons ?.How many Scania 82/92 v Gardner and 112.Did that create a payload crisis within his operation ?.
As I said Leyland ( and to an extent the small engined screamers ) managed to do the impossible of making a turbocharged motor that was actually inferior to an NA one.Which also explains why you’re more likely to find even the most average truck now with a 12 litre +,6 inch + stroke motor in it than a TL12 type design or a 7-9 litre lawn mower motor.
So remind me what was the UK gross vehicle weight limit at the time of the Marathon’s introduction in 1973? and what is it now?maybe that has got something to do with it. However the Iveco Cursor 10 engine, launched in 1999, manages to kick out 430 hp and 1900 NM from 125mm X 140mm cylinder dimensions, which seems quite adequate for a fleet spec vehicle.
railstaff:
After reading that road test it would seem the Tl12 performed better than its 273 bhp would suggest.
At 32 tonnes I would imagine it was well on top of its work, we were doing a decent days work with 180 bhp Gardner engined rigids running at only two tonnes less? The Marathon would seem like a flying machine in comparison.
Bewick:
Bags of [zb] ! IMHO, others will no doubt disagree Cheers Bewick.
You and Carryfast are becoming like twins, do you have two seperate accounts on this forum?
Pete.
Oh! [zb] it, what a ■■■■■■ being “rumbled” at Christmas ! Cheers “CF”
It’s just that we probably agree for once that the Guy Big J with an 8 LXB in it would have been the better bet ?. So there we have it Leyland deliberately set out to make something with a bigger turbo engine than a DAF 2800,but with a similar output to a Gardner,and worse fuel consumption than both and the Marathon fan boys don’t like the truth.
Oh wait Leyland didn’t actually ever make any Big J’s with 8 LXB’s in them because they knew it would have been a better motor than the Marathon and wreck their plans to ■■■■ off their customers before closing the doors.
cav551:
So remind me what was the UK gross vehicle weight limit at the time of the Marathon’s introduction in 1973? and what is it now?maybe that has got something to do with it. However the Iveco Cursor 10 engine, launched in 1999, manages to kick out 430 hp and 1900 NM from 125mm X 140mm cylinder dimensions, which seems quite adequate for a fleet spec vehicle.
I’d guess that splitting hairs between any payload difference provided a DAF 2800 v a Marathon or even a DAF 2500 would have been seen as no different then as now.While as I’ve said realistically the Marathon was the worst of all worlds in being no competition against something like an ERF or an Atki with a 240 Gardner in it nor was it any good as a competitor to a DAF 2800 or a Volvo 12 or a Scania 110/111.My point being that was actually deliberate sabotage in using the Ergo cab and TL12.Which leaves the question why did Leyland put the E290 in the thing but not the T45 at launch.Oh wait another attempt to get some money back for the bankers this time before closing the doors on AEC.Before succeeding with the same trick with the T45.
cav551:
the Iveco Cursor 10 engine, launched in 1999, manages to kick out 430 hp and 1900 NM from 125mm X 140mm cylinder dimensions, which seems quite adequate for a fleet spec vehicle.
Their own advertising seems to go along the lines that the small Cursor range’s ( even that being 11 litres now not 10 ? ) competitors mostly rely on larger engine capacities.The obvious question then being why didn’t/don’t DAF seem as keen to stay with/go back to to their old 680 based dimensions,let alone the TL12’s,in the case of the MX ?.Which seems to go in the ‘fleet’ spec 85 series without any customer issues.
cav551:
So remind me what was the UK gross vehicle weight limit at the time of the Marathon’s introduction in 1973? and what is it now?maybe that has got something to do with it. However the Iveco Cursor 10 engine, launched in 1999, manages to kick out 430 hp and 1900 NM from 125mm X 140mm cylinder dimensions, which seems quite adequate for a fleet spec vehicle.
I’d guess that splitting hairs between any payload difference provided a DAF 2800 v a Marathon or even a DAF 2500 would have been seen as no different then as now.While as I’ve said realistically the Marathon was the worst of all worlds in being no competition against something like an ERF or an Atki with a 240 Gardner in it nor was it any good as a competitor to a DAF 2800 or a Volvo 12 or a Scania 110/111.My point being that was actually deliberate sabotage in using the Ergo cab and TL12.Which leaves the question why did Leyland put the E290 in the thing but not the T45 at launch.Oh wait another attempt to get some money back for the bankers this time before closing the doors on AEC.Before succeeding with the same trick with the T45.
Would the 240 Gardner be one of those boat anchors you referred to on other threads , Im not sure why you keep repeating yourself when its you that champions high horse power . In 73 the TL12 (273 bhp) was a very high powered vehicle and it performed very well . I will tell you a true story of 1 of my rare trips abroad . I was coming back from Italy in a 2800 ATI with 2 other drivers from our firm .1 had a Renault 340 the other an Iveco 220 30 .They were fully freighted I had 15 tons on .Every hill I came to they left me for dead . What did Daf replace the 2800 with ■■? the 95 310 ffs. You keep throwing different engines and vehicles into the mix because at the end of the day you haven`t a clue
cav551:
So remind me what was the UK gross vehicle weight limit at the time of the Marathon’s introduction in 1973? and what is it now?maybe that has got something to do with it. However the Iveco Cursor 10 engine, launched in 1999, manages to kick out 430 hp and 1900 NM from 125mm X 140mm cylinder dimensions, which seems quite adequate for a fleet spec vehicle.
I’d guess that splitting hairs between any payload difference provided a DAF 2800 v a Marathon or even a DAF 2500 would have been seen as no different then as now.While as I’ve said realistically the Marathon was the worst of all worlds in being no competition against something like an ERF or an Atki with a 240 Gardner in it nor was it any good as a competitor to a DAF 2800 or a Volvo 12 or a Scania 110/111.My point being that was actually deliberate sabotage in using the Ergo cab and TL12.Which leaves the question why did Leyland put the E290 in the thing but not the T45 at launch.Oh wait another attempt to get some money back for the bankers this time before closing the doors on AEC.Before succeeding with the same trick with the T45.
Would the 240 Gardner be one of those boat anchors you referred to on other threads , Im not sure why you keep repeating yourself when its you that champions high horse power . In 73 the TL12 (273 bhp) was a very high powered vehicle and it performed very well . I will tell you a true story of 1 of my rare trips abroad . I was coming back from Italy in a 2800 ATI with 2 other drivers from our firm .1 had a Renault 340 the other an Iveco 220 30 .They were fully freighted I had 15 tons on .Every hill I came to they left me for dead . What did Daf replace the 2800 with ■■? the 95 310 ffs. You keep throwing different engines and vehicles into the mix because at the end of the day you haven`t a clue
The facts and figures speak for themselves.273bhp in 1972/3 not exactly under powered.
The Marathon was not competing with the Volvo 12 litre engine for UK use in 1973. The Volvo F88 of the period used the nominal 10 litre engine, the F89 which was fitted with the nominal 12 litre engine was never available in right hand drive form. The Volvo F10 did not appear on the scene until early 1977, followed by the F12 in the summer. Neither the Scania DS 11 nor the DAF DKTD of the time was producing the same output as the Marathon. This was a period of intense competition between manufacturers to produce a more poweful engine than its competitors. At the time Leyland with its TL12 in the Marathon was ahead of its rivals. A period of intense development followed with the beginning of the intercooling age. Cash strapped Leyland did not develop its products quickly enough.
The transport engineering journalists later summed up the Marathon like this:
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 ■■?
This is very similar to the questions I used to put to CPC candidates when I did a bit of CPC course tutoring. (You weren’t on one of my courses were you Ramone?) Multi-drop or groupage loads are by some distance the best paying jobs in hire and reward haulage, (and always have been). The ideal tractor unit for this work, in my opinion, would have been an ERF B Series with ■■■■■■■ 250 engine, or Seddon Atkinson with the same engine, both day cabs. I would look to back load from my final drop area, and double shift on a night trunk for a couple of years, then put the unit onto day work. The ■■■■■■■ wouldn’t have been the most frugal on fuel, but top rates for the work and double-shifting would have meant I could live with that, and of course a bomb proof and reliable engine.
cav551:
The Marathon was not competing with the Volvo 12 litre engine for UK use in 1973. The Volvo F88 of the period used the nominal 10 litre engine, the F89 which was fitted with the nominal 12 litre engine was never available in right hand drive form. The Volvo F10 did not appear on the scene until early 1977, followed by the F12 in the summer. Neither the Scania DS 11 nor the DAF DKTD of the time was producing the same output as the Marathon. This was a period of intense competition between manufacturers to produce a more poweful engine than its competitors. At the time Leyland with its TL12 in the Marathon was ahead of its rivals. A period of intense development followed with the beginning of the intercooling age. Cash strapped Leyland did not develop its products quickly enough.
The transport engineering journalists later summed up the Marathon like this:
Yeah that sums it up,like I said charge cooling was the answer to a lot of issues.Regarding Volvos TD100,rated at 240hp it was fine,but re-rated at 290hp it went bang.As you say with the F89 not being available in RHD due to gear linkage the 290 was a stop gap that didn’t work.Volvo spent serious cash to solve it,low compression pistons,exhaust pressure governor etc.In that respect the TL12 was leagues ahead and the performance figures don’t do it any justice.
Talking of BHP figures alone can be quite misleading, i’m sure we’ve all driven vehicles with all sorts of claimed outputs, how many times have engines with not particularly high claimed bhp figures been superb gutsy pullers proving more than a match for those adorned with bigger badges.
I honestly never found Volvo’s 10 litre efforts to be anything to write home about (just as ■■■■■■■■ L10 which was horrid gutless thing compared to the 14 litre, obvious when you think about for a millisecond) and thats going right back to 88’s, though i had one of the rare FL12 380’s under a lorry and drag transporter body for several years, it was the only transporter i fought against losing when the time came, just a brilliant all round vehicle for the job.
Carryfast:
I’d guess that splitting hairs between any payload difference provided a DAF 2800 v a Marathon or even a DAF 2500 would have been seen as no different then as now.While as I’ve said realistically the Marathon was the worst of all worlds in being no competition against something like an ERF or an Atki with a 240 Gardner in it nor was it any good as a competitor to a DAF 2800 or a Volvo 12 or a Scania 110/111.My point being that was actually deliberate sabotage in using the Ergo cab and TL12.Which leaves the question why did Leyland put the E290 in the thing but not the T45 at launch.Oh wait another attempt to get some money back for the bankers this time before closing the doors on AEC.Before succeeding with the same trick with the T45.
Would the 240 Gardner be one of those boat anchors you referred to on other threads , Im not sure why you keep repeating yourself when its you that champions high horse power . In 73 the TL12 (273 bhp) was a very high powered vehicle and it performed very well . I will tell you a true story of 1 of my rare trips abroad . I was coming back from Italy in a 2800 ATI with 2 other drivers from our firm .1 had a Renault 340 the other an Iveco 220 30 .They were fully freighted I had 15 tons on .Every hill I came to they left me for dead . What did Daf replace the 2800 with ■■? the 95 310 ffs. You keep throwing different engines and vehicles into the mix because at the end of the day you haven`t a clue
Yes the Gardner was a boat anchor compared to most of the decent turbocharged competition.Which of course the TL 12 wasn’t.
The TL12’s production run went right through the 1970’s into the 1980’s in the T45.
The DAF 2800 DKS let alone the 3300 and 3600 were all in a different league to the TL12.The 2800 ATI was never designed or meant as the big power option but still well ahead of the TL12 where it mattered in terms of specific torque ?.If you were running to Italy using a 2800 ATI that probably says more about the operator’s choice than the basic premise that the TL12 was no competitor to the 11.6 litre DAF motor.Bearing in mind that I drove the 2800 in what from memory was either the DKT 290 or possibly DKS 1970’s spec and the 2800 ATI and I didn’t find the ATI to be too far behind the earlier version.But the 3300 spec engine,which we were supplied with by mistake in one of them from the factory,was just about one of the quickest trucks I ever drove.Not to mention its regular driver being reported to the firm by the law at a silly speed which is how the wrong engine fit in it came to light because no one including the fleet engineer or the dealer that supplied it could believe it.
As for the 240 Gardner v the TL12 my point was that there wasn’t much in it between them especially where it mattered in terms of torque because trucks generally aren’t driven like racing cars.While,another exception proving rules,the Gardner was also ahead on fuel consumption.So exactly what was the point of the TL12 other than Leyland using it to alienate customers at both ends of the market ?.In that it was no competitor to any of its turbocharged rivals including the 2800 or the F12 at one end of the spectrum of the 240 Gardner at the other.
The common theme being that its comparable turbocharged rivals predictably had it beat on specific torque output with the TL12 being closer to the 8 lxb in that regard.My theory being that was no accident on the part of Leyland in it deliberately setting out to alienate both the guvnor’s wagon market and the turbocharged 12 litre one both in terms of retarded cab design and lumbering its products with the pointless TL12 regardless.My theory being that was no accident with the decision to sell out to DAF probably having been decided by the end of the 1970’s and the decision to take out AEC well before that.Obviously not doing anything to harm the 2800’s market position being part of that.
cav551:
This was a period of intense competition between manufacturers to produce a more poweful engine than its competitors. At the time Leyland with its TL12 in the Marathon was ahead of its rivals. A period of intense development followed with the beginning of the intercooling age. Cash strapped Leyland did not develop its products quickly enough.
The transport engineering journalists later summed up the Marathon like this:
I wouldn’t call 780 lb/ft v the 240 Gardner’s 709 lb/ft big leap forwards in terms of output for a turbocharged 12.4 litre engine.
As for a cash strapped Leyland what cash did it need to just standardise on turbocharged ■■■■■■■ and SA 400 type outsourced cab thereby ending up with a better product for no cash outlay development costs at all.That would of course have probably wrecked any hypothetical behind closed doors deal to eventually close down and sell out to DAF though by threatening the 2800’s market position.
Carryfast:
I’d guess that splitting hairs between any payload difference provided a DAF 2800 v a Marathon or even a DAF 2500 would have been seen as no different then as now.While as I’ve said realistically the Marathon was the worst of all worlds in being no competition against something like an ERF or an Atki with a 240 Gardner in it nor was it any good as a competitor to a DAF 2800 or a Volvo 12 or a Scania 110/111.My point being that was actually deliberate sabotage in using the Ergo cab and TL12.Which leaves the question why did Leyland put the E290 in the thing but not the T45 at launch.Oh wait another attempt to get some money back for the bankers this time before closing the doors on AEC.Before succeeding with the same trick with the T45.
Would the 240 Gardner be one of those boat anchors you referred to on other threads , Im not sure why you keep repeating yourself when its you that champions high horse power . In 73 the TL12 (273 bhp) was a very high powered vehicle and it performed very well . I will tell you a true story of 1 of my rare trips abroad . I was coming back from Italy in a 2800 ATI with 2 other drivers from our firm .1 had a Renault 340 the other an Iveco 220 30 .They were fully freighted I had 15 tons on .Every hill I came to they left me for dead . What did Daf replace the 2800 with ■■? the 95 310 ffs. You keep throwing different engines and vehicles into the mix because at the end of the day you haven`t a clue
Yes the Gardner was a boat anchor compared to most of the decent turbocharged competition.Which of course the TL 12 wasn’t.
The TL12’s production run went right through the 1970’s into the 1980’s in the T45.
The DAF 2800 DKS let alone the 3300 and 3600 were all in a different league to the TL12.The 2800 ATI was never designed or meant as the big power option but still well ahead of the TL12 where it mattered in terms of specific torque ?.If you were running to Italy using a 2800 ATI that probably says more about the operator’s choice than the basic premise that the TL12 was no competitor to the 11.6 litre DAF motor.Bearing in mind that I drove the 2800 in what from memory was either the DKT 290 or possibly DKS 1970’s spec and the 2800 ATI and I didn’t find the ATI to be too far behind the earlier version.But the 3300 spec engine,which we were supplied with by mistake in one of them from the factory,was just about one of the quickest trucks I ever drove.Not to mention its regular driver being reported to the firm by the law at a silly speed which is how the wrong engine fit in it came to light because no one including the fleet engineer or the dealer that supplied it could believe it.
As for the 240 Gardner v the TL12 my point was that there wasn’t much in it between them especially where it mattered in terms of torque because trucks generally aren’t driven like racing cars.While,another exception proving rules,the Gardner was also ahead on fuel consumption.So exactly what was the point of the TL12 other than Leyland using it to alienate customers at both ends of the market ?.In that it was no competitor to any of its turbocharged rivals including the 2800 or the F12 at one end of the spectrum of the 240 Gardner at the other.
The common theme being that its comparable turbocharged rivals predictably had it beat on specific torque output with the TL12 being closer to the 8 lxb in that regard.My theory being that was no accident on the part of Leyland in it deliberately setting out to alienate both the guvnor’s wagon market and the turbocharged 12 litre one both in terms of retarded cab design and lumbering its products with the pointless TL12 regardless.My theory being that was no accident with the decision to sell out to DAF probably having been decided by the end of the 1970’s and the decision to take out AEC well before that.Obviously not doing anything to harm the 2800’s market position being part of that.
The TL12 wasn`t pointless it was one of the highest powered and economical engines on the road when introduced .
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 ■■?
This is very similar to the questions I used to put to CPC candidates when I did a bit of CPC course tutoring. (You weren’t on one of my courses were you Ramone?) Multi-drop or groupage loads are by some distance the best paying jobs in hire and reward haulage, (and always have been). The ideal tractor unit for this work, in my opinion, would have been an ERF B Series with ■■■■■■■ 250 engine, or Seddon Atkinson with the same engine, both day cabs. I would look to back load from my final drop area, and double shift on a night trunk for a couple of years, then put the unit onto day work. The ■■■■■■■ wouldn’t have been the most frugal on fuel, but top rates for the work and double-shifting would have meant I could live with that, and of course a bomb proof and reliable engine.
I do have a CPC National but I did a home study and a 1 day refresher course at the now long gone Hargreaves Training Centre at Leeds , I took the exams at Rothwell in 2002 . My point was not all hauliers need high powered high premium vehicles so there will always be a market for the cheaper lighter lower powered stuff . Most on here will get that
Admittedly more power on the latter two engines,but not night and day.I remember actually being a test pilot(but only a passenger) in a 310hp 95 many years ago as Daf were looking to go the 500hp route with the help of ■■■■■■■■■■ was painful.When we finished the test,i open the doors to see what weight we had on.It was empty,we hooked up to the wrong trailer.
Carryfast:
I’d guess that splitting hairs between any payload difference provided a DAF 2800 v a Marathon or even a DAF 2500 would have been seen as no different then as now.While as I’ve said realistically the Marathon was the worst of all worlds in being no competition against something like an ERF or an Atki with a 240 Gardner in it nor was it any good as a competitor to a DAF 2800 or a Volvo 12 or a Scania 110/111.My point being that was actually deliberate sabotage in using the Ergo cab and TL12.Which leaves the question why did Leyland put the E290 in the thing but not the T45 at launch.Oh wait another attempt to get some money back for the bankers this time before closing the doors on AEC.Before succeeding with the same trick with the T45.
Would the 240 Gardner be one of those boat anchors you referred to on other threads , Im not sure why you keep repeating yourself when its you that champions high horse power . In 73 the TL12 (273 bhp) was a very high powered vehicle and it performed very well . I will tell you a true story of 1 of my rare trips abroad . I was coming back from Italy in a 2800 ATI with 2 other drivers from our firm .1 had a Renault 340 the other an Iveco 220 30 .They were fully freighted I had 15 tons on .Every hill I came to they left me for dead . What did Daf replace the 2800 with ■■? the 95 310 ffs. You keep throwing different engines and vehicles into the mix because at the end of the day you haven`t a clue
Yes the Gardner was a boat anchor compared to most of the decent turbocharged competition.Which of course the TL 12 wasn’t.
The TL12’s production run went right through the 1970’s into the 1980’s in the T45.
The DAF 2800 DKS let alone the 3300 and 3600 were all in a different league to the TL12.The 2800 ATI was never designed or meant as the big power option but still well ahead of the TL12 where it mattered in terms of specific torque ?.If you were running to Italy using a 2800 ATI that probably says more about the operator’s choice than the basic premise that the TL12 was no competitor to the 11.6 litre DAF motor.Bearing in mind that I drove the 2800 in what from memory was either the DKT 290 or possibly DKS 1970’s spec and the 2800 ATI and I didn’t find the ATI to be too far behind the earlier version.But the 3300 spec engine,which we were supplied with by mistake in one of them from the factory,was just about one of the quickest trucks I ever drove.Not to mention its regular driver being reported to the firm by the law at a silly speed which is how the wrong engine fit in it came to light because no one including the fleet engineer or the dealer that supplied it could believe it.
As for the 240 Gardner v the TL12 my point was that there wasn’t much in it between them especially where it mattered in terms of torque because trucks generally aren’t driven like racing cars.While,another exception proving rules,the Gardner was also ahead on fuel consumption.So exactly what was the point of the TL12 other than Leyland using it to alienate customers at both ends of the market ?.In that it was no competitor to any of its turbocharged rivals including the 2800 or the F12 at one end of the spectrum of the 240 Gardner at the other.
The common theme being that its comparable turbocharged rivals predictably had it beat on specific torque output with the TL12 being closer to the 8 lxb in that regard.My theory being that was no accident on the part of Leyland in it deliberately setting out to alienate both the guvnor’s wagon market and the turbocharged 12 litre one both in terms of retarded cab design and lumbering its products with the pointless TL12 regardless.My theory being that was no accident with the decision to sell out to DAF probably having been decided by the end of the 1970’s and the decision to take out AEC well before that.Obviously not doing anything to harm the 2800’s market position being part of that.
Try going back to pages 6 and 10 of the thread and reading the conclusions drawn, following trials against the Marathon’s contemporaries, by the transport engineering journalists who were paid to compare competitive vehicles of the period (in this case 1978) . What is most noticeable is that these men do not seem to share your opinion of the Leyland Marathon. Backed by the data recorded during the test, their balanced opinions were formed following making notes shortly after getting out of the driving seat. Notice particularly the league table placings of the TL12 Marathon 2, the DKS powered DAF 2800 and the ■■■■■■■ powered Marathon 1.
