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.
2800 DKS 71 lb/ft per litre
2800 DKT 68 lb/ft per litre.
Rolls Eagle 70 lb/ft per litre
■■■■■■■ SC 350 80 lb/ft per litre
TL12 62 lb/ft per litre.
So the TL 12 had a 12 lb/ft per litre advantage v the Gardner and an 18 lb/ft per litre disadvantage v the ■■■■■■■ 350.Why would anyone choose the TL12 to go up against the DAF in that case rather than the ■■■■■■■ 350 ?.Unless that is they’ve made a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with DAF not to compete with them ?.
Carryfast:
Why would anyone choose the TL12 to go up against the DAF in that case rather than the ■■■■■■■ 350 ?.Unless that is they’ve made a ‘gentleman’s agreement’ with DAF not to compete with them ?.
cav551:
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.
Anything which suggests that a TL12 powered Marathon could outrun an F12 can’t possibly be relied on.We’ve also got some ongoing questions that one of the possible main characters in the testing regime might have been applying a slanted not entirely objective approach to the reports in question.To be fair maybe that being the result of misplaced loyalty while not having any idea of the real agenda behind a possible plan of deliberate sabotage of uk industry to benefit the foreign competition for geopolitical reasons,at the highest level including government.While the fact remains that Leyland used an obsolete cab design fitted with worst case obsolete engine options like NA ■■■■■■■ or the flawed turbocharged TL12.When the thing could easily have been standardised with a decent cab and turbo Rolls or preferably turbo and after cooled ■■■■■■■ power for far less if any development outlay.
The Tl 12 was not obsolete,have a read of the design features.In most respects it was as advanced as a small cam 855 up to around the 300hp rating.Its stroke may not be to your requirement but it still made 280 hp which is actually not that far behind the real life installed 315hp of the 335.Perhaps the TL12 was set very wel and i would presume the torque curve would be progressive and not flat as in 855 which would add to a feeling of making good progress.
cav551:
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.
Anything which suggests that a TL12 powered Marathon could outrun an F12 can’t possibly be relied on.We’ve also got some ongoing questions that one of the possible main characters in the testing regime might have been applying a slanted not entirely objective approach to the reports in question.To be fair maybe that being the result of misplaced loyalty while not having any idea of the real agenda behind a possible plan of deliberate sabotage of uk industry to benefit the foreign competition for geopolitical reasons,at the highest level including government.While the fact remains that Leyland used an obsolete cab design fitted with worst case obsolete engine options like NA ■■■■■■■ or the flawed turbocharged TL12.When the thing could easily have been standardised with a decent cab and turbo Rolls or preferably turbo and after cooled ■■■■■■■ power for far less if any development outlay.
Blue: Because it doesn’t fit in with your opinion? Try actually looking at the tabulated results. Speed, Leyland better than F12, Fuel consumption, Leyland better than F12 and finally Productivity - what the buyers took notice of - Leyland better than than the F12.
Orange: So having shut down the in house engine plant in favour of an off the shelf alternative, where does that leave Leyland when its supplier starts dictating the price, conditions and availability? And what has happened subsequently to the loose engine market for trucks? …Oh yes it doesn’t exist in Europe any longer, all the manufacturers rely upon vertical integration, often in collaboration with others in the same field.
Green: The NTC 335 ■■■■■■■ with which comparisons are being made was turbocharged.
railstaff:
The Tl 12 was not obsolete,have a read of the design features.In most respects it was as advanced as a small cam 855 up to around the 300hp rating.Its stroke may not be to your requirement but it still made 280 hp which is actually not that far behind the real life installed 315hp of the 335.Perhaps the TL12 was set very wel and i would presume the torque curve would be progressive and not flat as in 855 which would add to a feeling of making good progress.
Notwithstanding any comparison with the ■■■■■■■ how could it possibly be ‘more advanced’ bearing in mind its specific torque disadvantage v even the Rolls Eagle.As for the ‘illusion’ of good progress that’s not the same thing as a test result showing that a TL12 powered Marathon could ‘actually’ outrun an F12.
As for the 300 hp break point surely that’s what Leyland needed to be aiming to exceed v the DAF DKT/DKS and as above more importantly the specific torque figure.Which then leaves the question why 335 NTC,let alone NA.As opposed to 350 or even better NTA to get the job done.IE that had to take and could only have been a deliberate decision at the highest level to not compete against the DAF.Leyland not being the only ones involved in this seeming agenda of crippling domestic products to benefit the foreign competition.The same applying in the case of Bedford with the 71 series Detroit instead of 92 series and numerous other examples of using NA or 335 ■■■■■■■ instead of 350 or NTA and then also delayed adoption of the after cooled BC options too.The common link seeming to be ■■■■■■■ the things at launch and during the critical customer acceptance period then at least make an effort towards putting the right spec in them at the end to clear the decks before closure.
cav551:
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.
Anything which suggests that a TL12 powered Marathon could outrun an F12 can’t possibly be relied on.We’ve also got some ongoing questions that one of the possible main characters in the testing regime might have been applying a slanted not entirely objective approach to the reports in question.To be fair maybe that being the result of misplaced loyalty while not having any idea of the real agenda behind a possible plan of deliberate sabotage of uk industry to benefit the foreign competition for geopolitical reasons,at the highest level including government.While the fact remains that Leyland used an obsolete cab design fitted with worst case obsolete engine options like NA ■■■■■■■ or the flawed turbocharged TL12.When the thing could easily have been standardised with a decent cab and turbo Rolls or preferably turbo and after cooled ■■■■■■■ power for far less if any development outlay.
Blue: Because it doesn’t fit in with your opinion? Try actually looking at the tabulated results. Speed, Leyland better than F12, Fuel consumption, Leyland better than F12 and finally Productivity - what the buyers took notice of - Leyland better than than the F12.
Orange: So having shut down the in house engine plant in favour of an off the shelf alternative, where does that leave Leyland when its supplier starts dictating the price, conditions and availability? And what has happened subsequently to the loose engine market for trucks? …Oh yes it doesn’t exist in Europe any longer, all the manufacturers rely upon vertical integration, often in collaboration with others in the same field.
Green: The NTC 335 ■■■■■■■ with which comparisons are being made was turbocharged.
The only way that a TL 12 powered Marathon could outrun an F12 would be if the F12 was being deliberately held back.Thereby also distorting the whole fuel consumption/journey time productivety figure.On that note check the figures again.Motorway : Volvo 6.4 mpg v TL12 6.2 mpg,Hills : Volvo 4.3 mpg,TL12 4.2 mpg.The obvious question then being which gear was the Volvo running in to get a slower motorway and main road average speed than the TL12 also bearing in mind its stated dislike of part load operation.Let alone the question how did the TL 12’s motorway fuel consumption disadvantage suddenly turn into a main road advantage ?.
As for in house v outsourced engine production.Didn’t Leyland actually do exactly that by closing down TL12 production when it suited them in the case of the all too late big power Rolls and ■■■■■■■ T45.Having first deliberately alienated its customers when it mattered in the form of the flawed TL12 in that regard ?.In addition to obviously outsourcing engines from Rolls and the inferior ■■■■■■■ options even during TL12 production.
My point then being they did use the 335 and the NA 250 ■■■■■■■■■■■ question being why when it was the turbo and after cooled versions of the ■■■■■■■ which were needed to knock out the DAF 2800.Just as a better cab than a re hashed Ergo was needed.The only possible answer being that Leyland never intended to compete with DAF for obvious reasons.Just as GM didn’t intend to compete with Volvo in the case of the TM.
railstaff:
The Tl 12 was not obsolete,have a read of the design features.In most respects it was as advanced as a small cam 855 up to around the 300hp rating.Its stroke may not be to your requirement but it still made 280 hp which is actually not that far behind the real life installed 315hp of the 335.Perhaps the TL12 was set very wel and i would presume the torque curve would be progressive and not flat as in 855 which would add to a feeling of making good progress.
Notwithstanding any comparison with the ■■■■■■■ how could it possibly be ‘more advanced’ bearing in mind its specific torque disadvantage v even the Rolls Eagle.As for the ‘illusion’ of good progress that’s not the same thing as a test result showing that a TL12 powered Marathon could ‘actually’ outrun an F12.
As for the 300 hp break point surely that’s what Leyland needed to be aiming to exceed v the DAF DKT/DKS and as above more importantly the specific torque figure.Which then leaves the question why 335 NTC,let alone NA.As opposed to 350 or even better NTA to get the job done.IE that had to take and could only have been a deliberate decision at the highest level to not compete against the DAF.Leyland not being the only ones involved in this seeming agenda of crippling domestic products to benefit the foreign competition.The same applying in the case of Bedford with the 71 series Detroit instead of 92 series and numerous other examples of using NA or 335 ■■■■■■■ instead of 350 or NTA and then also delayed adoption of the after cooled BC options too.The common link seeming to be ■■■■■■■ the things at launch and during the critical customer acceptance period then at least make an effort towards putting the right spec in them at the end to clear the decks before closure.
I didn’t refer to it as being more advanced,i said as advanced.It had some features the SC 855 didn’t have,piston cooling being one of them,end to end cooling being another.As ive previously said the BC1 wasn’t available until 1976 so small cam it was.
Surely in 1972 most uk operators were still happy with the idea of power ratings of between 180hp and 220hp at 32 tonnes,and who actually bought a vehicle on its engine power when in 1972 a 180 gardiner was seen as the bench mark,so at 280hp this must have been a revelation plus the bonus of the sleeper instead of the plank.How could it of been so poor?
cav551:
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.
Anything which suggests that a TL12 powered Marathon could outrun an F12 can’t possibly be relied on.We’ve also got some ongoing questions that one of the possible main characters in the testing regime might have been applying a slanted not entirely objective approach to the reports in question.To be fair maybe that being the result of misplaced loyalty while not having any idea of the real agenda behind a possible plan of deliberate sabotage of uk industry to benefit the foreign competition for geopolitical reasons,at the highest level including government.While the fact remains that Leyland used an obsolete cab design fitted with worst case obsolete engine options like NA ■■■■■■■ or the flawed turbocharged TL12.When the thing could easily have been standardised with a decent cab and turbo Rolls or preferably turbo and after cooled ■■■■■■■ power for far less if any development outlay.
Blue: Because it doesn’t fit in with your opinion? Try actually looking at the tabulated results. Speed, Leyland better than F12, Fuel consumption, Leyland better than F12 and finally Productivity - what the buyers took notice of - Leyland better than than the F12.
Orange: So having shut down the in house engine plant in favour of an off the shelf alternative, where does that leave Leyland when its supplier starts dictating the price, conditions and availability? And what has happened subsequently to the loose engine market for trucks? …Oh yes it doesn’t exist in Europe any longer, all the manufacturers rely upon vertical integration, often in collaboration with others in the same field.
Green: The NTC 335 ■■■■■■■ with which comparisons are being made was turbocharged.
The only way that a TL 12 powered Marathon could outrun an F12 would be if the F12 was being deliberately held back.Thereby also distorting the whole fuel consumption/journey time productivety figure.On that note check the figures again.Motorway : Volvo 6.4 mpg v TL12 6.2 mpg,Hills : Volvo 4.3 mpg,TL12 4.2 mpg.The obvious question then being which gear was the Volvo running in to get a slower motorway and main road average speed than the TL12 also bearing in mind its stated dislike of part load operation.Let alone the question how did the TL 12’s motorway fuel consumption disadvantage suddenly turn into a main road advantage ?.
As for in house v outsourced engine production.Didn’t Leyland actually do exactly that by closing down TL12 production when it suited them in the case of the all too late big power Rolls and ■■■■■■■ T45.Having first deliberately alienated its customers when it mattered in the form of the flawed TL12 in that regard ?.In addition to obviously outsourcing engines from Rolls and the inferior ■■■■■■■ options even during TL12 production.
My point then being they did use the 335 and the NA 250 ■■■■■■■■■■■ question being why when it was the turbo and after cooled versions of the ■■■■■■■ which were needed to knock out the DAF 2800.Just as a better cab than a re hashed Ergo was needed.The only possible answer being that Leyland never intended to compete with DAF for obvious reasons.Just as GM didn’t intend to compete with Volvo in the case of the TM.
I take it then that in your world Pat Kennet was one of the JFK assassination conspirators. The sensible operator takes into account the whole picture and does not take some blinkered view dazzled by an obsession with just one technical feature of one component. He selects the vehicle to buy based upon what it can earn potentially, how much it is going to cost him while he owns it and how well it will suit his operation. How well it suits him depends upon what he wants to do with it today and what he thinks he may well be doing with it tomorrow. The more versatile the product is the more pros he will note.
If one is looking for an excuse for the Volvo F12 falling behind the performance of the Leyland then it is apparent that the Leyland was running half a tonne lighter than the Volvo. This being because the Volvo was only able to get within the legal gross weight limit by deleting equipment other vehicles had, because it was carrying around an extra half tonne of ironmongery; ironmongery which I hesitate to mention the Leyland could have converted into payload.
Carryfast:
Notwithstanding any comparison with the ■■■■■■■ how could it possibly be ‘more advanced’ bearing in mind its specific torque disadvantage v even the Rolls Eagle.As for the ‘illusion’ of good progress that’s not the same thing as a test result showing that a TL12 powered Marathon could ‘actually’ outrun an F12.
As for the 300 hp break point surely that’s what Leyland needed to be aiming to exceed v the DAF DKT/DKS and as above more importantly the specific torque figure.Which then leaves the question why 335 NTC,let alone NA.As opposed to 350 or even better NTA to get the job done.IE that had to take and could only have been a deliberate decision at the highest level to not compete against the DAF.Leyland not being the only ones involved in this seeming agenda of crippling domestic products to benefit the foreign competition.The same applying in the case of Bedford with the 71 series Detroit instead of 92 series and numerous other examples of using NA or 335 ■■■■■■■ instead of 350 or NTA and then also delayed adoption of the after cooled BC options too.The common link seeming to be ■■■■■■■ the things at launch and during the critical customer acceptance period then at least make an effort towards putting the right spec in them at the end to clear the decks before closure.
I didn’t refer to it as being more advanced,i said as advanced.It had some features the SC 855 didn’t have,piston cooling being one of them,end to end cooling being another.As ive previously said the BC1 wasn’t available until 1976 so small cam it was.
Surely in 1972 most uk operators were still happy with the idea of power ratings of between 180hp and 220hp at 32 tonnes,and who actually bought a vehicle on its engine power when in 1972 a 180 gardiner was seen as the bench mark,so at 280hp this must have been a revelation plus the bonus of the sleeper instead of the plank.How could it of been so poor?
It’s probably fair to say that whatever features the small cam ■■■■■■■ was missing it was good enough for a reliable 80 lb/ft per litre at least.Unlike the TL12.
Whatever the market demands of 1972 how difficult could it have been for Leyland’s management to look at the DAF 2800 on its introduction and say we’re going to need a better truck.With a competitive cab,and competitive power and more importantly ( specific ) torque output,in the form of either the Rolls Eagle and/or the after cooled SC ■■■■■■■■■■■■ the DKT and the DKS.Also bearing in mind the Marathon 2 was actually fitted with the big cam ■■■■■■■ but as usual with the Brits no more than the 290 version.Then more specifically to the point why didn’t they ?.Bearing in mind the future of the truck division depended on the right answer.Unless of course that future had already been decided somewhere around the mid to late 1970’s with the rest being history.
As for the typical guvnor’s wagon of the day it’s obviously the 8 cylinder Gardner which was the natural competitor to the TL12.With plenty of similar primitive short sleeper options and even better ones like the SA 400,to go with it.No point in asking Bewick which of the two he’d have gone for in that regard.
Carryfast:
The sensible operator takes into account the whole picture and does not take some blinkered view dazzled by an obsession with just one technical feature of one component. He selects the vehicle to buy based upon what it can earn potentially, how much it is going to cost him while he owns it and how well it will suit his operation. How well it suits him depends upon what he wants to do with it today and what he thinks he may well be doing with it tomorrow. The more versatile the product is the more pros he will note.
If one is looking for an excuse for the Volvo F12 falling behind the performance of the Leyland then it is apparent that the Leyland was running half a tonne lighter than the Volvo. This being because the Volvo was only able to get within the legal gross weight limit by deleting equipment other vehicles had, because it was carrying around an extra half tonne of ironmongery; ironmongery which I hesitate to mention the Leyland could have converted into payload.
It’s clear enough to me that a ‘sensible’ operator in this case would have gone for one of the imports from DAF,Volvo or Scania or something like an ERF powered by a 240 Gardner,or possibly even a 280 Rolls powered Crusader.
While if you think that the test wasn’t maybe trying to big up the Marathon I’d doubt if 1/2 tonne would make any difference to the type of torque and power to weight advantage which the Volvo had.While why not pile the supposed extra payload on the Marathon to even out the Gross weights anyway ?.
Carryfast:
Notwithstanding any comparison with the ■■■■■■■ how could it possibly be ‘more advanced’ bearing in mind its specific torque disadvantage v even the Rolls Eagle.As for the ‘illusion’ of good progress that’s not the same thing as a test result showing that a TL12 powered Marathon could ‘actually’ outrun an F12.
As for the 300 hp break point surely that’s what Leyland needed to be aiming to exceed v the DAF DKT/DKS and as above more importantly the specific torque figure.Which then leaves the question why 335 NTC,let alone NA.As opposed to 350 or even better NTA to get the job done.IE that had to take and could only have been a deliberate decision at the highest level to not compete against the DAF.Leyland not being the only ones involved in this seeming agenda of crippling domestic products to benefit the foreign competition.The same applying in the case of Bedford with the 71 series Detroit instead of 92 series and numerous other examples of using NA or 335 ■■■■■■■ instead of 350 or NTA and then also delayed adoption of the after cooled BC options too.The common link seeming to be ■■■■■■■ the things at launch and during the critical customer acceptance period then at least make an effort towards putting the right spec in them at the end to clear the decks before closure.
I didn’t refer to it as being more advanced,i said as advanced.It had some features the SC 855 didn’t have,piston cooling being one of them,end to end cooling being another.As ive previously said the BC1 wasn’t available until 1976 so small cam it was.
Surely in 1972 most uk operators were still happy with the idea of power ratings of between 180hp and 220hp at 32 tonnes,and who actually bought a vehicle on its engine power when in 1972 a 180 gardiner was seen as the bench mark,so at 280hp this must have been a revelation plus the bonus of the sleeper instead of the plank.How could it of been so poor?
It’s probably fair to say that whatever features the small cam ■■■■■■■ was missing it was good enough for a reliable 80 lb/ft per litre at least.Unlike the TL12.
Whatever the market demands of 1972 how difficult could it have been for Leyland’s management to look at the DAF 2800 on its introduction and say we’re going to need a better truck.With a competitive cab,and competitive power and more importantly ( specific ) torque output,in the form of either the Rolls Eagle and/or the after cooled SC ■■■■■■■■■■■■ the DKT and the DKS.Also bearing in mind the Marathon 2 was actually fitted with the big cam ■■■■■■■ but as usual with the Brits no more than the 290 version.Then more specifically to the point why didn’t they ?.Bearing in mind the future of the truck division depended on the right answer.Unless of course that future had already been decided somewhere around the mid to late 1970’s with the rest being history.
As for the typical guvnor’s wagon of the day it’s obviously the 8 cylinder Gardner which was the natural competitor to the TL12.With plenty of similar primitive short sleeper options and even better ones like the SA 400,to go with it.No point in asking Bewick which of the two he’d have gone for in that regard.
We don’t actually know what the work rate/load the TL12 was operating at.We are making assumptions due to its stroke.But not forgetting Daf choose the 680 for their power unit which had no tie ups with the 760/TL12.The TL12 was a far better and advanced engine than the 680/TL12/1160 ever was although admittedly the 680 was better than the TL11 due to the liner arrangement.As for the F241 cab was it better than the completely reworked Ergo,the interia shots don’t seem to make it look so.I think in 1972 no driver would be displeased at being handed the keys to a sleeper cabbed marathon.
TAG157 ,Marathon 2 ,this one is pictured out side the workshops at the Oxford depot after just driven pushed out the workshops , written off with a bent chassis ,driven by the late Pete Betteridge .
railstaff:
We don’t actually know what the work rate/load the TL12 was operating at.We are making assumptions due to its stroke.But not forgetting Daf choose the 680 for their power unit which had no tie ups with the 760/TL12.The TL12 was a far better and advanced engine than the 680/TL12/1160 ever was although admittedly the 680 was better than the TL11 due to the liner arrangement.As for the F241 cab was it better than the completely reworked Ergo,the interia shots don’t seem to make it look so.I think in 1972 no driver would be displeased at being handed the keys to a sleeper cabbed marathon.
We do know that the TL12 never at any point matched the potential reliable output of the 680 based DAF motor from day 1 of the 2800’s introduction.That engine also seeing DAF through to the end of Leyland’s production and unbelievably for its capacity was more or less able to compete with the larger capacity outsourced ■■■■■■■ and Rolls types,which Leyland eventually rightly standardised on in the T45 shortly before closing the whole lot down.
On that note how can something which can’t do more than 62 lb/ft per litre possibly be better,than something which can do at least 70 lb/ft per litre or more.With the simplest explanation for that being the 680’s stroke advantage.
As for the obsolete narrow,let alone short sleeper,Marathon cab being better than the 2800’s that’s even more delusional regardless of what the carefully staged publicity might try to suggest.I’m going with intentional sabotage to hand the initiative to the foreign competition being the only logical explanation as to why the the Marathon 2 at least wasn’t fitted with an SA 400 type cab and ■■■■■■■ 350 or preferably 370 NTA as standard.Followed by at least the 320 big cam as soon as it became available.Or for that matter why the Bedford TM wasn’t fitted with turbo and after cooled Detroit 6 and 8 v 92 as standard from the mid 1970’s.
outstanding discusion ,even from far out in finland the arguments for dd v8 and big ■■■■■■■■ seems odd,not before we moved up to 42 tonnes in 73 and 48 in the 80,s there was no need for more then the about 250 segment , overhere the big motors was for big weights ,as in britain volvo fb86 .sisu vid 400 leyland even bedfords hauled 32 tonnes aswell as lb80 scanias ,as the brittis (leyland) was not sold here but sisu and vanaja used Leyland and AEC components,well back to the thing ,in paper the Marathon looks as god as any other ,and all of te engines ment on this tread had they problems ,so volvo ■■■■■■■ as daf aswell as scania ,there where different problems whit every of them ,an if is not as relevant then talking about why it get wrong , 2 sweeds made the perfect lorry once ,fitted the F12 whit Scania V8
Possibly in the early 70’s operators were sceptical about having more power than they actually needed at that time for the weights allowed? 'More power=more fuel 'might have been the thoughts of a few when they were coping OK with Gardner and 220 Rolls engines, and many thought that the Rolls was way too heavy on juice at around 6mpg, we only had two of them and returned to the Gardner as soon as they became available again? What I do know is back in the 90’s when we were managing fine with 265li Rolls or 250 ■■■■■■■ in 30 tonne eight wheelers one OD bought a Foden with a 350 Cat fitted!! Everyone thought him crazy (and he drove it like crazy as well!) and wondered why he needed that big engine but these days that would probably be thought of as underpowered for an eight wheeler.
railstaff:
We don’t actually know what the work rate/load the TL12 was operating at.We are making assumptions due to its stroke.But not forgetting Daf choose the 680 for their power unit which had no tie ups with the 760/TL12.The TL12 was a far better and advanced engine than the 680/TL12/1160 ever was although admittedly the 680 was better than the TL11 due to the liner arrangement.As for the F241 cab was it better than the completely reworked Ergo,the interia shots don’t seem to make it look so.I think in 1972 no driver would be displeased at being handed the keys to a sleeper cabbed marathon.
We do know that the TL12 never at any point matched the potential reliable output of the 680 based DAF motor from day 1 of the 2800’s *introduction.*That engine also seeing DAF through to the end of Leyland’s production and unbelievably for its capacity was more or less able to compete with the larger capacity outsourced ■■■■■■■ and Rolls types,which Leyland eventually rightly standardised on in the T45 shortly before closing the whole lot down.
/quote]
Absolute and utter rubbish. The Leyland O.680 was well past its sell by date in the mid-1970s and whatever components DAF had taken from the O.680 design had no worthwhile comparison to the original O.680. DAF had improved and developed the engine into something completely different, just as AEC had developed the TL12 from the AV760, which in itself was a better engine than the O.680 (Power Plus versions). Whatever you say about the TL12 is your own misguided opinions and not borne out in fact, or experience of ever operating, buying, or running them. The TL12 was a very good engine. End of.
gingerfold:
Absolute and utter rubbish. The Leyland O.680 was well past its sell by date in the mid-1970s and whatever components DAF had taken from the O.680 design had no worthwhile comparison to the original O.680. DAF had improved and developed the engine into something completely different, just as AEC had developed the TL12 from the AV760, which in itself was a better engine than the O.680 (Power Plus versions). Whatever you say about the TL12 is your own misguided opinions and not borne out in fact, or experience of ever operating, buying, or running them. The TL12 was a very good engine. End of.
The Marathon had rubbish brakes, suspension and interior trim. We must all agree on that. The appearance of the cab may not suit some tastes- so what? The engine must not be tarred with any of those brushes. At a time when the best makes in Europe were offering 240-260bho engines as standard, or 300+ in their luxury long distance machines, Leyland were offering 280bhp in a vehicle aimed at ordinary British hauliers. If the rest of the vehicle had been up to scratch, the engine would have been lauded, retrospectively, as the centrepiece of the vehicle which put Leyland back on the road to success.
windrush:
Possibly in the early 70’s operators were sceptical about having more power than they actually needed at that time for the weights allowed? 'More power=more fuel 'might have been the thoughts of a few when they were coping OK with Gardner and 220 Rolls engines, and many thought that the Rolls was way too heavy on juice at around 6mpg, we only had two of them and returned to the Gardner as soon as they became available again? What I do know is back in the 90’s when we were managing fine with 265li Rolls or 250 ■■■■■■■ in 30 tonne eight wheelers one OD bought a Foden with a 350 Cat fitted!! Everyone thought him crazy (and he drove it like crazy as well!) and wondered why he needed that big engine but these days that would probably be thought of as underpowered for an eight wheeler.
Pete.
I don’t get the fixation and over emphasis on peak power outputs.When no one ever specced an engine to run at its max rated power on anything like a regular basis if even occasionally.While the idea of turbocharging was all about maximising torque output especially specific torque with silly resulting peak power figures just being an unwanted by product.On that note the idea of derating big power engines by just governing peak engine revs and without comprimising torque output was already well known by this point.In which case it would have been no problem to have derated something like a 370 NTA back to around 320 net or even less while keeping the beneficial torque output and efficiency of the up to date after cooling technology.
As for 250 being enough and 300 hp being way too much in the day then DAF obviously wouldn’t have bothered with selling the DKS in 4 x 2 32 t form here and nothing whatsoever over 250 would have been sold here before 1983 to run at 32t gross.In which case the 8 cylinder Gardner would have been king until that point with no need for the TL12 let alone turbo Rolls or turbo ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ is obviously a bs version of history.When the fact is the turbo Rolls and ■■■■■■■ were already known as being the way forward for Leyland even at 32t gross operation but Leyland deliberately chose to push the flawed TL12,when it mattered in its products,for obvious reasons.While it would be an under estimation of the intelligence of the customer base to suggest that it generally didn’t know the difference and the importance of torque and specific torque in the case of choosing the Rolls or ■■■■■■■■
Which just leaves the question of Leyland’s designers either being very stupid in that regard or their managers deliberately putting themselves out of the frame on government orders.Remind us what happened to Leyland Trucks in 1987 in that regard bearing in mind the question why offer at least the E290 at the end of the Marathon line but not offer it,let alone standardise on it,at launch of the T45.
that’s even more delusional regardless of what the carefully staged publicity might try to suggest.I’m going with intentional sabotage to hand the initiative to the foreign competition being the only logical explanation as to why the the Marathon 2 at least wasn’t fitted with an SA 400 type cab and ■■■■■■■ 350 or preferably 370 NTA as standard.Followed by at least the 320 big cam as soon as it became available.Or for that matter why the Bedford TM wasn’t fitted with turbo and after cooled Detroit 6 and 8 v 92 as standard from the mid 1970’s.