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

[carryfast]

gingerfold:

Carryfast:
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.

So how do you explain the DAF’s ( or ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ) specific torque advantage potential.While the point is the basic bore stroke dimension architecture of the 680 remained whatever DAF did to re engineer/improve the rest.Or the fact that the DAF’s 680 based motor was still there when Leyland finally closed the doors.That’s all there contained in the figures not my ‘opinion’.

Which leaves the question of the TL12’s fuel efficiency v the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ or Rolls Eagle/TX running at 32t let alone 38t.Bearing in mind as I’ve said the deliberate crippling of the ■■■■■■■ at least by not standardising on its available after cooling technology.Both then eventually providing 7 mpg + potential running at 38t gross let alone 32t.Remind us of the TL12’s fuel consumption was ?.Behind that of the F12 in most respects and probably totally without a bit of dodgy manipulation of test results showing it suddenly conveniently somehow beating it on just one sector.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:
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.

So you’re saying that there was no such thing as a 280 + hp import sold in the UK for domestic work at 32t gross ?.

As for the engine that put Leyland on the road to success.That’s if you can call putting the E290 in the Marathon and stopping production of the TL12 mid way into T45 production because buyers rightly wanted a ■■■■■■■ or Rolls in it from the start,then closing the doors for good and handing the firm over to DAF in 1987,a ‘success’.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

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.

Could you actually answer questions regarding your posts?
1 Why would the 240 Gardner be king , firstly back in the early 70s you couldnt get the boat anchors (your description not mine) and with Leyland not offering an option from Gardner it wouldnt affect them because they had a perfectly good reliable economical and more powerful in house engine 2, Why was the Rolls and ■■■■■■■ the way forward when many Leyland customers didnt want them because they were Leyland users . Take a look at how many TL12 Marathons were on the road giving good reliable and economical service
3,Why was the TL12 flawed you mention stroke length , who gives a flying ■■■■ about that, what matters is performance and reliability for hauliers.
4,Were Volvo trying to get closed down offering F12s on the Swedish markets at 330 bhp hauling 60 tons around , was there a conspiracy 5,What is your fixation with 2800s they were very run of the mill motors and the cab was flawed because the windscreen was too low 6,Why would Leyland ditch their cab and take the SA one when firstly, one of their main competitors probably wouldnt sell them it and secondly they were nothing spectacular but very adequate for a British cab
7,Why didn`t any other European manufacturer offer the V8 Detroit
8, Have you ever been used for a medical experiment and received a very large compensation payout

[railstaff]

Carryfast:

gingerfold:

Carryfast:
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.

So how do you explain the DAF’s ( or ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ) specific torque advantage potential.While the point is the basic bore stroke dimension architecture of the 680 remained whatever DAF did to re engineer/improve the rest.Or the fact that the DAF’s 680 based motor was still there when Leyland finally closed the doors.That’s all there contained in the figures not my ‘opinion’.

Which leaves the question of the TL12’s fuel efficiency v the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ or Rolls Eagle/TX running at 32t let alone 38t.Bearing in mind as I’ve said the deliberate crippling of the ■■■■■■■ at least by not standardising on its available after cooling technology.Both then eventually providing 7 mpg + potential running at 38t gross let alone 32t.Remind us of the TL12’s fuel consumption was ?.Behind that of the F12 in most respects and probably totally without a bit of dodgy manipulation of test results showing it suddenly conveniently somehow beating it on just one sector.

Leyland 680 11.1 litres

Daf 1160 11.6 litres

Completley different heads,without the shrouding,totally different block casting,proper turbocharging,European fuel injection.

Its highest rating was 430hp with a bosch inline mechanical pump.Mechanical 855,s of the day were/could be rated at 635hp.Bit of a difference I,d say.Why the obsession with the stroke is beyond me,there are easier ways to obtain increase in power and torque.Perhaps the bottom line is Leyland,who by the way knew more than me and you and probably all this forum users thought 280 hp more than up to the job and maybe couldn’t stand the warranty implications that the higher HP and strain on the engine may have brought.

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:
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.

Could you actually answer questions regarding your posts?
1 Why would the 240 Gardner be king , firstly back in the early 70s you couldnt get the boat anchors (your description not mine) and with Leyland not offering an option from Gardner it wouldnt affect them because they had a perfectly good reliable economical and more powerful in house engine 2, Why was the Rolls and ■■■■■■■ the way forward when many Leyland customers didnt want them because they were Leyland users . Take a look at how many TL12 Marathons were on the road giving good reliable and economical service
3,Why was the TL12 flawed you mention stroke length , who gives a flying [zb] about that, what matters is performance and reliability for hauliers.
4,Were Volvo trying to get closed down offering F12s on the Swedish markets at 330 bhp hauling 60 tons around , was there a conspiracy 5,What is your fixation with 2800s they were very run of the mill motors and the cab was flawed because the windscreen was too low 6,Why would Leyland ditch their cab and take the SA one when firstly, one of their main competitors probably wouldnt sell them it and secondly they were nothing spectacular but very adequate for a British cab
7,Why didn`t any other European manufacturer offer the V8 Detroit
8, Have you ever been used for a medical experiment and received a very large compensation payout

Blimey so 240 Gardner engined trucks didn’t actually exist because no was actually able to get one.If no one needed an engine producing more than 250 hp then obviously no one would have wanted the TL12 and there would have been no point in developing the AV 760 along those lines.While the Gardner’s fuel efficiency,in the around 700 lb/ft torque league,was invincible, being the exception that proved the rule of BMEP being king.

If the Rolls or ■■■■■■■ wasn’t the way forward for Leyland how do you explain Leyland fitting them in the Marathon,Crusader and Guy Big J.Then finally dropping the TL12 altogether when it was all too late in the T45.

As for who gives a flying zb about stroke length maybe you should ask DAF why it went for a well over 6 inch stroke in the case of the MX as opposed to staying with the old 680’s.

My ‘fixation’ on the 2800 is because I actually drove that and the Marathon and ironically had to spend nights out in the primitive cramped by comparison Marathon cab.As for the 2800 windscreen line this is of course the core product which provided DAF with the resources to takeover Leyland not vice versa.Also don’t ever remember anyone driving off the road or into anything with the thing because they couldn’t see where they were going.Not to mention the inconvenient fact of the DAF engine’s obvious specific torque advantage over the TL12.

I didn’t say Leyland should have taken the SA cab.I said they should have gone to MP and said ‘we need something just like that’.While if you think that the SA cab was only ‘adequate’ what does that say about the narrow,short sleeper Marathon’s.

Unlike Bedford few other Euro manufacturers needed the Detroit although FTF wouldn’t have survived without it.The issue and question in this case being why did Bedford choose to ■■■■■■■ its TM with the obsolete inefficient ( in house ) 71 series rather than standardise on the more efficient ( also obviously in house ) turbo and after cooled 92 series.Bearing in mind,like Leyland in the case of DAF,GM’s obvious ‘business relationship’ with at ‘some’ point Volvo.Strange how you’re all for an inferior in house option in the case of Leyland but not the superior in house option in the case of Bedford.

Are you sure you don’t work for the uk government trade and industry department.If not you should because you’d fit in perfectly.

[gingerfold]

I will stand correcting on this because I don’t have any real knowledge of DAF engine design and development over the years. However, i do know that in the 1950s DAF used Leyland engines when it commenced building its own trucks, but the engine it bought from Leyland in the 1950s was the O.350 / O.375 unit as used in the Leyland Comet, and most definitely not the O.680. Whether DAF actually built any of its own models with the O.680, I don’t know. Can anyone enlighten me please?

[gingerfold]

[zb]
anorak:

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.

Yes, anorak, we all do agree on the points of the inadequacies you mention, and these were covered in my “book” on the Marathon. Improvements were made with the Mark 2 models, but it took the best part of 4 years to get from Mark 1 to Mark 2, when it should have taken 4 months. There wasn’t anything wrong with the Marathon drive line for a 1973 launched truck.

[zb_anorak]

gingerfold:
I will stand correcting on this because I don’t have any real knowledge of DAF engine design and development over the years. However, i do know that in the 1950s DAF used Leyland engines when it commenced building its own trucks, but the engine it bought from Leyland in the 1950s was the O.350 / O.375 unit as used in the Leyland Comet, and most definitely not the O.680. Whether DAF actually built any of its own models with the O.680, I don’t know. Can anyone enlighten me please?

Yes. The DAF 2600 was launched in 1962, with Leyland P680 power (were these engines shipped from Leyland, or built at Eindhoven? Someone help, please). The model was updated in 1964 (Someone check the date!) with DAF’s own development, the DP680. Next came the 11.6 litre version, which was called DK1160, indicating that it was developed far enough from the original to deserve a new name. I think these later 2600s can be distinguished by their horizontal-slotted front panels, in place of the earlier vertically-slotted ones, although I would not swear that both changes happened simultaneously.

[carryfast]

railstaff:
Leyland 680 11.1 litres

Daf 1160 11.6 litres

Completley different heads,without the shrouding,totally different block casting,proper turbocharging,European fuel injection.

Its highest rating was 430hp with a bosch inline mechanical pump.Mechanical 855,s of the day were/could be rated at 635hp.Bit of a difference I,d say.Why the obsession with the stroke is beyond me,there are easier ways to obtain increase in power and torque.Perhaps the bottom line is Leyland,who by the way knew more than me and you and probably all this forum users thought 280 hp more than up to the job and maybe couldn’t stand the warranty implications that the higher HP and strain on the engine may have brought.

We already know that the DK series was a direct development of the 680 fitted in the first 2600’s.The stroke measurement being the same 146 mm with an increased bore size from 127 mm to 130 mm.Which took DAF through to well after the closure of Leyland.Which leaves the question if stroke is unimportant why did DAF show more interest in the 680 than the AV 760 and why the jump from 146 mm to 162 mm having left the bore size at 130mm in the case of the MX ?.

On that note extra leverage at the crank will obviously create more torque for any given force through the piston and con rod and any shortfall in that leverage means the piston to crank component chain needing to be subject to more unnecessary force compared to having more leverage.While more torque at any given engine speed by definition means more power.Torque and power being the same thing in that case.In which case bearing in mind that MX example I’d say that I know as much as DAF having obviously known more than Leyland.

Oh wait not if Leyland were actually always working for DAF since the 1960’s with the 2800/95/XF and eventually the MX engine being the result.Remind us at what point the TL12 then Leyland in its own right was taken out of the frame in that regard.

[railstaff]

[zb]
anorak:

gingerfold:
I will stand correcting on this because I don’t have any real knowledge of DAF engine design and development over the years. However, i do know that in the 1950s DAF used Leyland engines when it commenced building its own trucks, but the engine it bought from Leyland in the 1950s was the O.350 / O.375 unit as used in the Leyland Comet, and most definitely not the O.680. Whether DAF actually built any of its own models with the O.680, I don’t know. Can anyone enlighten me please?

Yes. The DAF 2600 was launched in 1962, with Leyland P680 power (were these engines shipped from Leyland, or built at Eindhoven? Someone help, please). The model was updated in 1964 (Someone check the date!) with DAF’s own development, the DP680. Next came the 11.6 litre version, which was called DK1160, indicating that it was developed far enough from the original to deserve a new name. I think these later 2600s can be distinguished by their horizontal-slotted front panels, in place of the earlier vertically-slotted ones, although I would not swear that both changes happened simultaneously.

Correct,couldnt have put it better myself.Daf did manage to extract 220hp from the 680 in the 2600.But throughout the years it stayed with the dry liner design.
The main difference between the 680 and 680 derived TL11 was for TL11 the liners lost their flange at the fire ring.Instead relying on interference fit in the counterbore.It didn’t work.The liners would drop,lose protrusion and blow the gasket.Where as Daf stuck with the original 680 style flange liner.Bomb proof.

[gingerfold]

Some comparative data about Leyland and AEC engine development of their respective top power engines. Taking the it from the date of introduction of the “base” engine to its final version.
LEYLAND ENGINES
O.600, Year,1945, 597 cu. ins, (9.8 litres), Bore x Stroke mm = 122 x 139.7, BHP = 125 @ 1,800 rpm, Torque 410 lbs ft @ 900 rpm
O.680, Year,1951, 677 cu. ins, (11.1 litres), Bore x Stroke mm = 127 x 146, BHP = 150 @ 2,000 rpm, Torque 450 lbs ft @1,100 rpm
O.680 Power Plus, Year, 1961, dimensions as for O.680, BHP = 200 @ 2,200 rpm, Torque 548 lbs ft @ 1,200 rpm
TL11A, Year 1979, dimensions as for O.680, BHP = 209 bhp @ 2,200 rpm, Torque, 605 lbs ft @1,300 rpm

AEC ENGINES
AV691, Year 1965, 690 Cu. ins. (11.31 litres), Bore x Stroke mm = 130 x 142, BHP = 218 @ 2,200 rpm, Torque 573 @ 1,200 rpm
AV760, Year 1966, 761 Cu. Ins. (12.47 litres), Bore x Stroke mm = 136 x 142, BHP = 226 @ 2,200 rpm, Torque 618 @ 1,500 rpm
TL12, Year 1973, dimensions as for AV760, BHP = 273 @ 2,200 rpm, Torque 780 lbs ft @ 1,300 rpm
L12, Year, 1977, dimensions as for AV760, BHP = 203 @ 2,200 rpm, Torque 570 lbs ft @1,400 rpm

I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions from the above.

[gingerfold]

Having been brought up with Leylands in my formative years, I have great respect for their products in the days before their decline, but the following table shows why the AEC AV760 was by far the better prospect for development. At least Leyland engineers got that decision correct.

[cav551]

One could arguably trace the AEC lineage back to 1954 and the

AV 590 9.6 litres 120x142mm 588 cu in 125bhp @ 1800 rpm 430 lbft @1000-1100 rpm
AV 690 11.3 litres 130x142mm 690 cu in 150bhp @ 1800 rpm 550 lbft @1000-1100 rpm

however both these engines were of wet liner construction.

Both AEC and Leyland offered their 1950s & '60s engines in a variety of rotational speed and power settings. for example the AV690 being available set at 175 bhp @ 2200rpm for which a fully balanced crankshaft and damper was added.

[carryfast]

gingerfold:
O.680, Year,1951, 677 cu. ins, (11.1 litres), Bore x Stroke mm = 127 x 146, BHP = 150 @ 2,000 rpm, Torque 450 lbs ft @1,100 rpm

I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions from the above.

I did probably just like DAF did.What if we combine the 130 mm bore of the AV 691 with the stroke of the 680.Bingo we’ve now got 51 lb/ft per litre instead of the 40 lb/ft per litre of the 680 or the 50.5 lb/ft per litre of the 691.Then we’ve also got the extra leverage at the crank when we start to turbocharge it therefore less stress needed through the piston to crank component chain for the equivalent output.Eventually resulting in 90 lb/ft per litre in the 3600 v the 62 lb/ft per litre of the TL12.

Which leaves the question could Leyland’s engineers really have been that stupid or did their management tell them to go along with the plan.

[tubbysboy]

Carryfast:

gingerfold:
O.680, Year,1951, 677 cu. ins, (11.1 litres), Bore x Stroke mm = 127 x 146, BHP = 150 @ 2,000 rpm, Torque 450 lbs ft @1,100 rpm

I’ll leave you to draw your own conclusions from the above.

I did probably just like DAF did.What if we combine the 130 mm bore of the AV 691 with the stroke of the 680.Bingo we’ve now got 51 lb/ft per litre instead of the 40 lb/ft per litre of the 680 or the 50.5 lb/ft per litre of the 691.Then we’ve also got the extra leverage at the crank when we start to turbocharge it therefore less stress needed through the piston to crank component chain for the equivalent output.Eventually resulting in 90 lb/ft per litre in the 3600 v the 62 lb/ft per litre of the TL12.

Which leaves the question could Leyland’s engineers really have been that stupid or did their management tell them to go along with the plan.

Carryfast, you’re invited round mine for Christmas next year.

You can do the after lunch entertainment with your tales of bore and stroke, better then monopoly for sure.

I’ll buy the chocolate bars for you to enjoy, snickers not marathons

[windrush]

Anybody ever see the film “Twelve Angry Men” starring Henry Fonda? It is set mostly in a courtroom and his character has around 90 minutes to convert the jury of twelve from eleven who believe the defendant is guilty to his steadfast belief that he is innocent. Eventually he persuades them that he is right and the prisoner is found not guilty and released. A great movie. Now, can the Great Carryfast convert all the folk who actually (a) ran or drove Marathon’s and liked them and (b) those with the technical knowledge who know that they were fitted with a decent Leyland group engine around to his way of thinking in less than 90 pages? Somehow I can’t see it happening but stranger things have occoured in life I guess■■?

Pete.

[gingerfold]

cav551:
One could arguably trace the AEC lineage back to 1954 and the

AV 590 9.6 litres 120x142mm 588 cu in 125bhp @ 1800 rpm 430 lbft @1000-1100 rpm
AV 690 11.3 litres 130x142mm 690 cu in 150bhp @ 1800 rpm 550 lbft @1000-1100 rpm

however both these engines were of wet liner construction.

Both AEC and Leyland offered their 1950s & '60s engines in a variety of rotational speed and power settings. for example the AV690 being available set at 175 bhp @ 2200rpm for which a fully balanced crankshaft and damper was added.

I tried to keep it simple Roy, by quoting maximum outputs. As you know AEC offered operators far more choices than Leyland did. AEC offered various power outputs with either Simms, CAV, or Bosch fuel injection pumps, rotary DPA pumps, Majormec or Minimec pumps. There was really no such thing as a ‘standard’ AEC. Because of the change from wet liner to dry liner, completely re-designed cylinder heads, and other detail design differences I took 1965 as the datum date for the AV691 rather than going back to the AV590 / AV690 which didn’t appear in AEC trucks until 1959. This was unlike the Leyland O.680 which was basically unchanged since its 1951 introduction. The makeover to Power Plus outputs in 1961 caused unreliability issues for a couple of years that were, and are, well documented. In its 1950s guise the O.680 was a fine engine which served operators very well.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:
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.

Could you actually answer questions regarding your posts?
1 Why would the 240 Gardner be king , firstly back in the early 70s you couldnt get the boat anchors (your description not mine) and with Leyland not offering an option from Gardner it wouldnt affect them because they had a perfectly good reliable economical and more powerful in house engine 2, Why was the Rolls and ■■■■■■■ the way forward when many Leyland customers didnt want them because they were Leyland users . Take a look at how many TL12 Marathons were on the road giving good reliable and economical service
3,Why was the TL12 flawed you mention stroke length , who gives a flying [zb] about that, what matters is performance and reliability for hauliers.
4,Were Volvo trying to get closed down offering F12s on the Swedish markets at 330 bhp hauling 60 tons around , was there a conspiracy 5,What is your fixation with 2800s they were very run of the mill motors and the cab was flawed because the windscreen was too low 6,Why would Leyland ditch their cab and take the SA one when firstly, one of their main competitors probably wouldnt sell them it and secondly they were nothing spectacular but very adequate for a British cab
7,Why didn`t any other European manufacturer offer the V8 Detroit
8, Have you ever been used for a medical experiment and received a very large compensation payout

Blimey so 240 Gardner engined trucks didn’t actually exist because no was actually able to get one.If no one needed an engine producing more than 250 hp then obviously no one would have wanted the TL12 and there would have been no point in developing the AV 760 along those lines.While the Gardner’s fuel efficiency,in the around 700 lb/ft torque league,was invincible, being the exception that proved the rule of BMEP being king.

If the Rolls or ■■■■■■■ wasn’t the way forward for Leyland how do you explain Leyland fitting them in the Marathon,Crusader and Guy Big J.Then finally dropping the TL12 altogether when it was all too late in the T45.

As for who gives a flying zb about stroke length maybe you should ask DAF why it went for a well over 6 inch stroke in the case of the MX as opposed to staying with the old 680’s.

My ‘fixation’ on the 2800 is because I actually drove that and the Marathon and ironically had to spend nights out in the primitive cramped by comparison Marathon cab.As for the 2800 windscreen line this is of course the core product which provided DAF with the resources to takeover Leyland not vice versa.Also don’t ever remember anyone driving off the road or into anything with the thing because they couldn’t see where they were going.Not to mention the inconvenient fact of the DAF engine’s obvious specific torque advantage over the TL12.

I didn’t say Leyland should have taken the SA cab.I said they should have gone to MP and said ‘we need something just like that’.While if you think that the SA cab was only ‘adequate’ what does that say about the narrow,short sleeper Marathon’s.

Unlike Bedford few other Euro manufacturers needed the Detroit although FTF wouldn’t have survived without it.The issue and question in this case being why did Bedford choose to ■■■■■■■ its TM with the obsolete inefficient ( in house ) 71 series rather than standardise on the more efficient ( also obviously in house ) turbo and after cooled 92 series.Bearing in mind,like Leyland in the case of DAF,GM’s obvious ‘business relationship’ with at ‘some’ point Volvo.Strange how you’re all for an inferior in house option in the case of Leyland but not the superior in house option in the case of Bedford.

Are you sure you don’t work for the uk government trade and industry department.If not you should because you’d fit in perfectly.

The 240 was in such high demand that there was a very long waiting list was my point … they were the boat anchors if you remember
The Rolls/■■■■■■■ were fitted because Leyland were about to phase out the Big J and were offering the Marathon as an alternative for Rolls/■■■■■■■ users
Well to this day I have never heard of any haulier buying a lorry on the stroke length
I actually drove a 2800 and at over 64 I had to stoop to see through the windscreen ,as for torque ,the ones I drove were very average on the hills Leyland didnt have the money to get Motor Panels to design a cab , the Marathon was a stop gap for the T45 which took longer to design and test than the Marathon ever did with copious amounts of money spent up in Lancashire
Why didnt Bedford offer the E290 ,oh they did and the L10 but nobody wanted them . Brought up and worked in transport all my life ........ have you ■■■■??? I noticed you didnt answer my last question
I notice you didn`t answer my last question

[erf-ngc-european]

I’ve driven commercials with the 0.600 engine and I’ve driven DAF 2800s. A couple of comments.

First, the Leyland 0.600 was a very sound design. It was very torquey for its time. The fact that customers were still ordering 0.600s in buses thirty years after their invention in 1945 bears testimony to this.

As for the DAF 2800, I don’t remember there being much special about it. The Swedes were making better cabs. The Fuller installation was on a par with Seddon-Atkinson.

Just saying, like! Robert

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:
Blimey so 240 Gardner engined trucks didn’t actually exist because no was actually able to get one.If no one needed an engine producing more than 250 hp then obviously no one would have wanted the TL12 and there would have been no point in developing the AV 760 along those lines.While the Gardner’s fuel efficiency,in the around 700 lb/ft torque league,was invincible, being the exception that proved the rule of BMEP being king.

If the Rolls or ■■■■■■■ wasn’t the way forward for Leyland how do you explain Leyland fitting them in the Marathon,Crusader and Guy Big J.Then finally dropping the TL12 altogether when it was all too late in the T45.

As for who gives a flying zb about stroke length maybe you should ask DAF why it went for a well over 6 inch stroke in the case of the MX as opposed to staying with the old 680’s.

My ‘fixation’ on the 2800 is because I actually drove that and the Marathon and ironically had to spend nights out in the primitive cramped by comparison Marathon cab.As for the 2800 windscreen line this is of course the core product which provided DAF with the resources to takeover Leyland not vice versa.Also don’t ever remember anyone driving off the road or into anything with the thing because they couldn’t see where they were going.Not to mention the inconvenient fact of the DAF engine’s obvious specific torque advantage over the TL12.

I didn’t say Leyland should have taken the SA cab.I said they should have gone to MP and said ‘we need something just like that’.While if you think that the SA cab was only ‘adequate’ what does that say about the narrow,short sleeper Marathon’s.

Unlike Bedford few other Euro manufacturers needed the Detroit although FTF wouldn’t have survived without it.The issue and question in this case being why did Bedford choose to ■■■■■■■ its TM with the obsolete inefficient ( in house ) 71 series rather than standardise on the more efficient ( also obviously in house ) turbo and after cooled 92 series.Bearing in mind,like Leyland in the case of DAF,GM’s obvious ‘business relationship’ with at ‘some’ point Volvo.Strange how you’re all for an inferior in house option in the case of Leyland but not the superior in house option in the case of Bedford.

Are you sure you don’t work for the uk government trade and industry department.If not you should because you’d fit in perfectly.

The 240 was in such high demand that there was a very long waiting list was my point … they were the boat anchors if you remember
The Rolls/■■■■■■■ were fitted because Leyland were about to phase out the Big J and were offering the Marathon as an alternative for Rolls/■■■■■■■ users
Well to this day I have never heard of any haulier buying a lorry on the stroke length
I actually drove a 2800 and at over 64 I had to stoop to see through the windscreen ,as for torque ,the ones I drove were very average on the hills Leyland didnt have the money to get Motor Panels to design a cab , the Marathon was a stop gap for the T45 which took longer to design and test than the Marathon ever did with copious amounts of money spent up in Lancashire
Why didn`t Bedford offer the E290 ,oh they did and the L10 but nobody wanted them .
Brought up and worked in transport all my life … have you ■■?

The 240 Gardner was in such high demand because if anyone wanted less than 800 lb/ft that was just about the best way to get it.Regardless of it being a boat anchor compared to turbo ■■■■■■■ and Rolls in the around 800-900 lb/ft + league.

You seem to have missed the fact that Leyland also offered the Rolls and ■■■■■■■ in the Marathon and effectively exclusively in the Crusader with Scammell more or less refusing to use the ‘in house’ Leyland options.Then for ‘some’ reason lumbering the T45 with the TL12 before dropping the thing and following Scammell’s lead by effectively only offering Rolls and ■■■■■■■ it before closing the doors.Much like they did in the case of putting the E290 in the Marathon v AEC.

I’m sure that going to MP and asking them for an SA 400 copy would have been cheaper than the development and production costs of the Marathon cab.

I didn’t say anything about Bedford using the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ in mind that using the in house turbo and after cooled 92 series Detroit was a much better option for them than using the TL12 was for Leyland.The TM’s reputation having been predictably wrecked regardless by using the 71 series in it by that point.

I was brought up working in a truck manufacturing operation with a wider customer base to keep happy than Leyland including the USA,making things which lives depended on.One of my jobs there being to tell the management about anything which I thought didn’t meet the grade.