I would imagine that the reason for Scammell not fitting an AEC engine would have been historic. The two were competitors, Windmill Lane and Tolpits Lane were less than 10 miles apart.
Good question CF about the fitting of the higher powered ■■■■■■■ unit and cooling limitations. I did wonder about that myself. I suppose the only way to find out would be to find photos of the relevant front chassis designs and rad. fitting.
gingerfold:
Good question CF about the fitting of the higher powered ■■■■■■■ unit and cooling limitations. I did wonder about that myself. I suppose the only way to find out would be to find photos of the relevant front chassis designs and rad. fitting.
Interesting that a horizontal TL12 was produced ,its a shame they didnt use it in the Reliance before production ended
ramone:
gingerfold:
Good question CF about the fitting of the higher powered ■■■■■■■ unit and cooling limitations. I did wonder about that myself. I suppose the only way to find out would be to find photos of the relevant front chassis designs and rad. fitting.Interesting that a horizontal TL12 was produced ,it
s a shame they didnt use it in the Reliance before production ended
Hazarding a guess maybe the power unit for an updated Reliance to replace the existing Reliance and Leyland Leopard 
The TL12 was also unusual that there weren’t any crane, industrial, marine, or rail traction variants made, which had always been markets supplied by both AEC and Leyland. Obviously the horizontal TL12 could have been a railcar consideration.
I’m only part way through this thread, I’m up to posts made on December the 2nd and I feel like gouging out my eyes with a rusty spoon!
So, my observations so far, Carryfast is accusing Pat Kennett of bias, yet he clearly demonstrates a bias against the TL12 Marathon. Having no experience of the SA 400 with E290 he champions, he still says it’s better than a Marathon, typical Carryfast.
Now to the test matches, spaciousness being one subject that attracted comment, the Volvo F10/12 cab was big, but the driving position itself was quite cramped, look at Robert’s interior shot of the Marathon2, you can see for yourself that the area around the driver is far less cluttered. A win for the Marathon.
Test match winners were decided on a number of things, all added together to give an overall productivity score, payload was a big factor here and I remember the front page of the particular issue referring to the F10 as a fat cat. I believe it was also hard to get it within the overall length limit of the day when coupled to a 40’ trailer too.
As for the figures attained on a euro test, they will have been studied very closely by the competitors, there is no way any skullduggery was going on, not by the testers, that I can say having been there and done that. The manufacturers were a different story though, one, who shall remain nameless had air bellows inside the fuel tank, inflated when filling up to check fuel used on each section of the test, it reduced the capacity of the tank. To this end tests done during my time were done with removable fuel tanks, which were weighed to determine the fuel used and remove the ability to cheat.
Was the TL12 as good as Pat Kennett claims? Probably, on paper it may have lacked a little, but in real life things can be somewhat different. Take a 350hp Merc and Daf, same power, but the Merc would destroy the Daf in the hills, same with a 272hp E290 and a 278hp TD100, the ■■■■■■■ would eat the Volvo for breakfast.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
I’m only part way through this thread, I’m up to posts made on December the 2nd and I feel like gouging out my eyes with a rusty spoon!So, my observations so far, Carryfast is accusing Pat Kennett of bias, yet he clearly demonstrates a bias against the TL12 Marathon. Having no experience of the SA 400 with E290 he champions, he still says it’s better than a Marathon, typical Carryfast.
Now to the test matches, spaciousness being one subject that attracted comment, the Volvo F10/12 cab was big, but the driving position itself was quite cramped, look at Robert’s interior shot of the Marathon2, you can see for yourself that the area around the driver is far less cluttered. A win for the Marathon.
Test match winners were decided on a number of things, all added together to give an overall productivity score, payload was a big factor here and I remember the front page of the particular issue referring to the F10 as a fat cat. I believe it was also hard to get it within the overall length limit of the day when coupled to a 40’ trailer too.
As for the figures attained on a euro test, they will have been studied very closely by the competitors, there is no way any skullduggery was going on, not by the testers, that I can say having been there and done that. The manufacturers were a different story though, one, who shall remain nameless had air bellows inside the fuel tank, inflated when filling up to check fuel used on each section of the test, it reduced the capacity of the tank. To this end tests done during my time were done with removable fuel tanks, which were weighed to determine the fuel used and remove the ability to cheat.
Was the TL12 as good as Pat Kennett claims? Probably, on paper it may have lacked a little, but in real life things can be somewhat different. Take a 350hp Merc and Daf, same power, but the Merc would destroy the Daf in the hills, same with a 272hp E290 and a 278hp TD100, the ■■■■■■■ would eat the Volvo for breakfast.
To be fair my point was a bit ( lot ) more complicated than just having a go at Pat Kennett for potential bias.While your final paragraph just helps my case in that it’s all about torque and with it the average power available right across the rev range,not just the headline peak power figure.In which case how could the TL12 have possibly beaten the ■■■■■■■ 335 let alone F12 ?.While my case is that the TL12 couldn’t have made the required torque without it snapping conrods and Leyland knew it.
As for the ‘spaciousness’ of the Marathon it’s obvious that the short sleeper narrow cab couldn’t get near the full width Volvo ( or the DAF 2800 ).Which is why the Marathon needed the silly twitchy small steering wheel to stop it fouling the side of the cab. 
As for nights out in the thing v the Volvo as I said I’ve been there done that in which case even Stevie Wonder would have said ‘less spacious’ was an understatement.
To be fair, you did day that the press were promoting British lorries as part of a big conspiracy, I don’t remember specifics as I just skimmed over it.
I do recall the comments about the gearing handicapping the Seddon Atkinson to make the Marathon look better, have you not considered that instead of a global conspiracy, this was just another bad decision made by the chaps in Oldham? The same chaps that decided to send a chassis that couldn’t couple to the test trailer, the same chaps that seemed to do everything in their power to hinder any assault on the European truck sales market?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
To be fair, you did day that the press were promoting British lorries as part of a big conspiracy, I don’t remember specifics as I just skimmed over it.I do recall the comments about the gearing handicapping the Seddon Atkinson to make the Marathon look better, have you not considered that instead of a global conspiracy, this was just another bad decision made by the chaps in Oldham? The same chaps that decided to send a chassis that couldn’t couple to the test trailer, the same chaps that seemed to do everything in their power to hinder any assault on the European truck sales market?
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Did you have any dealings with the Marathon ,i think but could be wrong that the purpose of this thread was to discuss a lorry designed and built on a shoe string that we all knew had shortcomings but turned out to be a very decent fleet vehicle that could have been so much better with the proper funding which Scania Volvo and Daf had at their disposal. The Marathon 2 was a big improvement but what could Southall have come up with if they had the funds others had ,hence the nearly truck . 
newmercman:
To be fair, you did day that the press were promoting British lorries as part of a big conspiracy,the same chaps that seemed to do everything in their power to hinder any assault on the European truck sales market?
Firstly it was imports taking over the domestic market which did the damage not the impossible never going to happen situation of the Brits trying to take over the Euro one.
While it was more like the trade press ‘promoting’ a certain type of inferior British lorry.The TL12 powered Marathon being one.As opposed to asking the inconvenient question why are Leyland building something with an obsolete inferior cab,using an inferior engine and transmission.As opposed to something like the SA 400 type cab with an after cooled ■■■■■■■ under it and a 13 speed Fuller.Put in the first paragraph of the article.
■■■■ up or conspiracy is obviously the question.It all seems like a few too many ■■■■ ups for it not to be conspiracy.Bearing in mind that your final sentence applied in numerous different areas across numerous different Brit manufacturers.
Combined with the smoking gun of road test results suggesting that a TL 12 powered Marathon could somehow outrun an F12,or a 355 powered Transcon and do it for less fuel consumption.Which is going to be a bit difficult with its torque and power disadvantage and fewer gears. 
While my suggestion is that the trade press were being ‘asked’ to sand bag the foreign opposition and big up the TL12 Marathon so as not to make the end game,of eventual run down and closure of the Brits,seem too obvious.That press obviously not being ‘in’ on that plan and as such more like just pawns in it in that they were just being played and naively went along with it thinking that they were actually helping the Brits,rather than actually helping the establishment to take them out.The establishment in this case being the US and European bankers and their puppets in UK government who’d already decided that the UK manufacturers were going to be the losers in all this.The rest being history.
Well that’s your theory and you are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is - an opinion. We have heard virtually from the horse’s mouth that the results of the road test were not rigged. We also know that Leyland decided to offer customers ■■■■■■■ and Rolls options for the Marathon. We know too that that this was because BL wanted to keep their Guy cutomers happy by offering them a specification similar to the one which they had purchased historically. The same would have been true regarding the TL12 option, BL knew that just as they had customers who were Guy men they also had AEC men. This was still a period when brand actually meant something to some customers. Believe it or not there would have been lorry men who would not have been seen dead with a ■■■■■■■ powered vehicle on their fleet. It was not unheard of for lorry men to regard a ■■■■■■■ as ‘all noise and no go’ . Whether they were right or wrong is immaterial they were just as entitled to their opinion as you are.
We can draw a parrallel with those current companies who like to have assets, so prefer to own their vehicles rather than lease them or even to have them on R&M. It is today as it was back in the 1970s, the customer’s money to do with what he pleases. If he wanted a TL12 powered vehicle and BL wanted his custom then it made sense for them to offer what that customer wanted. The same applied to the Buffalo and the Octopus, BL offered an AEC derived engine (L12) because they had customers who wanted that option. For a different reason BL also offered their bus customers a Gardner powered Leyland National and later a similarly powered Leyland Lynx bus chassis.
As an owner driver at the time (75/76), I was interested in the MK1 Marathon as a replacement to my trusty & unbreakable 1418 Merc for ME work.
Only Merc, Man & Maggie Deutz offered a walk through cab until the Marathon arrived.
My friendly AEC agent took me to Southall where I was able to see all the Marathon variants for both home & export markets.
We came up with a 6x4 with cross locks & inter locks, big cab, vertical stacks etc. etc. circa £8,000
A complete one off to customer spec – so no problem there !!
I just couldn’t feel enough confidence that it would go To & Fro to Saudi etc… with the same degree of certainty as the old Merc, so I ended paying 50% more for a one yr old Merc1932 320 bhp V10, the LPS not the NG – and in hindsight I would say worth 50% more.
But the point here is that Leyland(AEC) offered me (an Owner Driver) a tailored made to my spec motor, as far as I am concerned you could have the Marathon you wanted not just the one in the advert.
Firstly it was imports taking over the domestic market which did the damage not the impossible never going to happen situation of the Brits trying to take over the Euro one.
While it was more like the trade press ‘promoting’ a certain type of inferior British lorry.The TL12 powered Marathon being one.As opposed to asking the inconvenient question why are Leyland building something with an obsolete inferior cab,using an inferior engine and transmission.As opposed to something like the SA 400 type cab with an after cooled ■■■■■■■ under it and a 13 speed Fuller.Put in the first paragraph of the article.
Leyland were building something with in your words an obsolete cab because it was coming to the end of its life. Why would they spend what little money they had completely redesigning a truck which was due to be replaced 2 years later. You Slag off the 1964 designed ergo cab as obsolete junk but in an earlier post state that Michael Edwards could have saved BL by continuing to build the 1963 designed Triumph 2000 priceless
dazcapri:
Firstly it was imports taking over the domestic market which did the damage not the impossible never going to happen situation of the Brits trying to take over the Euro one.While it was more like the trade press ‘promoting’ a certain type of inferior British lorry.The TL12 powered Marathon being one.As opposed to asking the inconvenient question why are Leyland building something with an obsolete inferior cab,using an inferior engine and transmission.As opposed to something like the SA 400 type cab with an after cooled ■■■■■■■ under it and a 13 speed Fuller.Put in the first paragraph of the article.
Leyland were building something with in your words an obsolete cab because it was coming to the end of its life. Why would they spend what little money they had completely redesigning a truck which was due to be replaced 2 years later. You Slag off the 1964 designed ergo cab as obsolete junk but in an earlier post state that Michael Edwards could have saved BL by continuing to build the 1963 designed Triumph 2000 priceless
I actually said that outsourcing an MP SA 400 type knock off ( bearing in mind the existing relationship with MP in the case of the Crusader ) would have saved them all the money spent on the design and production of both the Marathon ‘and’ the T45 cabs.Not to mention also being a better product than either.Let alone the no brainer choice between 350 ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed Fuller to go with it v TL12 and 9 speed. 
As for the ( what should have been ) V8 Triumph 3.5 - 4.6 PI/Vitesse. 
Oh wait the ugly SD1 hatchback with live rear axle,let alone the later fwd 800 Honda knock off,was so much better to compete with BMW.Than putting the Rover V8 in an upgrade of the superior better looking three box design IRS Triumph.That also predictably didn’t end well for Rover and Triumph.Luckily Jaguar didn’t share your view in the case of continuing with the 1960’s designed XJ range into the 1990’s.Obviously not being part of the same industrial sabotage and suicide plan.Probably because the establishment liked them just enough to not allow the bankers to take out Jaguar in favour of Mercedes in the way that they happily sacrificed Rover and Triumph to the benefit of BMW.
express.co.uk/news/royal/724 … amous-cars
whisperingsmith:
As an owner driver at the time (75/76), I was interested in the MK1 Marathon as a replacement to my trusty & unbreakable 1418 Merc for ME work.Only Merc, Man & Maggie Deutz offered a walk through cab until the Marathon arrived.
My friendly AEC agent took me to Southall where I was able to see all the Marathon variants for both home & export markets.We came up with a 6x4 with cross locks & inter locks, big cab, vertical stacks etc. etc. circa £8,000
A complete one off to customer spec – so no problem there !!I just couldn’t feel enough confidence that it would go To & Fro to Saudi etc… with the same degree of certainty as the old Merc, so I ended paying 50% more for a one yr old Merc1932 320 bhp V10, the LPS not the NG – and in hindsight I would say worth 50% more.
But the point here is that Leyland(AEC) offered me (an Owner Driver) a tailored made to my spec motor, as far as I am concerned you could have the Marathon you wanted not just the one in the advert.
I`ve heard this before , AEC would bend over backwards for their customers virtually custom building what was required. The point you make though shows just how far they would go bearing in mind you only wanted 1 lorry , it would be interesting to see how many of todays manufacturers would do this and at what price. Foden did it in their latter years ,you could order what you wanted and 1 of my neighbours did just that ,a 6 x 2 rear lift with iirc a Cat 450 ,and I think the engine proved troublesome (I wonder if it was 1 of those short stroke boat anchors) , he was even invited to Sanbach to look around and see the production line. He traded his 3300 Daf for the Foden and kept it until he retired
ramone:
whisperingsmith:
As an owner driver at the time (75/76), I was interested in the MK1 Marathon as a replacement to my trusty & unbreakable 1418 Merc for ME work.Only Merc, Man & Maggie Deutz offered a walk through cab until the Marathon arrived.
My friendly AEC agent took me to Southall where I was able to see all the Marathon variants for both home & export markets.We came up with a 6x4 with cross locks & inter locks, big cab, vertical stacks etc. etc. circa £8,000
A complete one off to customer spec – so no problem there !!I just couldn’t feel enough confidence that it would go To & Fro to Saudi etc… with the same degree of certainty as the old Merc, so I ended paying 50% more for a one yr old Merc1932 320 bhp V10, the LPS not the NG – and in hindsight I would say worth 50% more.
But the point here is that Leyland(AEC) offered me (an Owner Driver) a tailored made to my spec motor, as far as I am concerned you could have the Marathon you wanted not just the one in the advert.
I`ve heard this before , AEC would bend over backwards for their customers virtually custom building what was required. The point you make though shows just how far they would go bearing in mind you only wanted 1 lorry , it would be interesting to see how many of todays manufacturers would do this and at what price. Foden did it in their latter years ,you could order what you wanted and 1 of my neighbours did just that ,a 6 x 2 rear lift with iirc a Cat 450 ,and I think the engine proved troublesome (I wonder if it was 1 of those short stroke boat anchors) , he was even invited to Sanbach to look around and see the production line. He traded his 3300 Daf for the Foden and kept it until he retired
Firstly the CAT engine’s reliability issues were well known but certainly no problems regarding its ability to make torque and plenty of it or it breaking through doing it.
While the fact that,as in the case of the Bedford TM,customers often had to jump through loads of hoops,to get the product that the thing should have been offered as standard ( 71 series v 92 series ),is just yet more evidence that the Brits were being deliberately sabotaged.With the obvious result that many customers would have just gone elsewhere rather than spend the time and trouble trying to do the job that the manufacturer was being paid to do in speccing the basics properly.Which translated in this case as the choice between a DAF 2800 v a Marathon for example for many customers would have been a no brainer.Bearing in mind that the numerous photographic evidence suggests that the DAF was as good an option even for Mid East work,let alone UK domestic work,as any.All the evidence suggesting that Leyland never intended to compete pro actively and enthusiastically with its foreign competition,as part of a deliberate plan of the run down of UK industry in favour of Europe.The rest is history and on that note remind us what happened to Foden when again push came to shove between UK v European manufacturing interests,under the Paccar Group.
Carryfast, go and have a look through the Paul Gee photos thread, this will give you a real view of what people were buying during the time of the Marathon.
I’ll give you a clue, lots of day cabs, lots of c.200hp lorries. The TL12 Marathon, 290 F88, 111 and the 2800 were, with rare exception, the most powerful lorries on the road in those days, all of them sub 300hp.
This gives a clear insight into why there wasn’t a 350 ■■■■■■■ “no brainer” chassis on offer, because there was no need for one, transport is a business, not a ■■■■■■■ contest.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Firstly the CAT engine’s reliability issues were well known but certainly no problems regarding its ability to make torque and plenty of it or it breaking through doing it.
While the fact that,as in the case of the Bedford TM,customers often had to jump through loads of hoops,to get the product that the thing should have been offered as standard ( 71 series v 92 series ),is just yet more evidence that the Brits were being deliberately sabotaged.With the obvious result that many customers would have just gone elsewhere rather than spend the time and trouble trying to do the job that the manufacturer was being paid to do in speccing the basics properly.Which translated in this case as the choice between a DAF 2800 v a Marathon for example for many customers would have been a no brainer.Bearing in mind that the numerous photographic evidence suggests that the DAF was as good an option even for Mid East work,let alone UK domestic work,as any.All the evidence suggesting that Leyland never intended to compete pro actively and enthusiastically with its foreign competition,as part of a deliberate plan of the run down of UK industry in favour of Europe.The rest is history and on that note remind us what happened to Foden when again push came to shove between UK v European manufacturing interests,under the Paccar Group.
[/quote]
In early 1970’s Britain it probably was a no brainer they’d have stuck with what they knew and bought a Leyland,Atkinson etc and not the unknown DAF. There was no r+m contracts then a lot of firms had a garage with fitters who were used to the British trucks and they bought what they knew and when it was beyond repair they stuck it at the back of the yard and robbed it for spares. The likes of Bewick and others have said on here many times that they shifted over to the foreigners because they were available immediately instead of having to wait months for an Atky ERF etc. In 72 when the Marathon was launched 180 bhp gardeners were the norm according to aronline.co.uk the 220 ■■■■■■■ was an expensive option and at that time ■■■■■■■ had an uncertain reputation.
As for the TM Bedford should never have fitted the Detroit most Bedford operators would have been running Gardener engined Atkinsons,ERF"s etc on artic work if they fitted them in the TM they have sold more.
Carryfast:
ramone:
whisperingsmith:
As an owner driver at the time (75/76), I was interested in the MK1 Marathon as a replacement to my trusty & unbreakable 1418 Merc for ME work.Only Merc, Man & Maggie Deutz offered a walk through cab until the Marathon arrived.
My friendly AEC agent took me to Southall where I was able to see all the Marathon variants for both home & export markets.We came up with a 6x4 with cross locks & inter locks, big cab, vertical stacks etc. etc. circa £8,000
A complete one off to customer spec – so no problem there !!I just couldn’t feel enough confidence that it would go To & Fro to Saudi etc… with the same degree of certainty as the old Merc, so I ended paying 50% more for a one yr old Merc1932 320 bhp V10, the LPS not the NG – and in hindsight I would say worth 50% more.
But the point here is that Leyland(AEC) offered me (an Owner Driver) a tailored made to my spec motor, as far as I am concerned you could have the Marathon you wanted not just the one in the advert.
I`ve heard this before , AEC would bend over backwards for their customers virtually custom building what was required. The point you make though shows just how far they would go bearing in mind you only wanted 1 lorry , it would be interesting to see how many of todays manufacturers would do this and at what price. Foden did it in their latter years ,you could order what you wanted and 1 of my neighbours did just that ,a 6 x 2 rear lift with iirc a Cat 450 ,and I think the engine proved troublesome (I wonder if it was 1 of those short stroke boat anchors) , he was even invited to Sanbach to look around and see the production line. He traded his 3300 Daf for the Foden and kept it until he retired
Firstly the CAT engine’s reliability issues were well known but certainly no problems regarding its ability to make torque and plenty of it or it breaking through doing it.
While the fact that,as in the case of the Bedford TM,customers often had to jump through loads of hoops,to get the product that the thing should have been offered as standard ( 71 series v 92 series ),is just yet more evidence that the Brits were being deliberately sabotaged.With the obvious result that many customers would have just gone elsewhere rather than spend the time and trouble trying to do the job that the manufacturer was being paid to do in speccing the basics properly.Which translated in this case as the choice between a DAF 2800 v a Marathon for example for many customers would have been a no brainer.Bearing in mind that the numerous photographic evidence suggests that the DAF was as good an option even for Mid East work,let alone UK domestic work,as any.All the evidence suggesting that Leyland never intended to compete pro actively and enthusiastically with its foreign competition,as part of a deliberate plan of the run down of UK industry in favour of Europe.The rest is history and on that note remind us what happened to Foden when again push came to shove between UK v European manufacturing interests,under the Paccar Group.
The reason given for PACCAR ending Foden production was,2 or 3 Dafs could be sent down the line instead of 1 Foden due to them being specialized.So now basically the customer has to except what is available and run his/her business around it.
newmercman:
Carryfast, go and have a look through the Paul Gee photos thread, this will give you a real view of what people were buying during the time of the Marathon.I’ll give you a clue, lots of day cabs, lots of c.200hp lorries. The TL12 Marathon, 290 F88, 111 and the 2800 were, with rare exception, the most powerful lorries on the road in those days, all of them sub 300hp.
This gives a clear insight into why there wasn’t a 350 ■■■■■■■ “no brainer” chassis on offer, because there was no need for one, transport is a business, not a ■■■■■■■ contest.
Unfortunately for Leyland it was a ■■■■■■■ contest between the manufacturers in terms of who could do the best appointed cab and the best engine output which means torque forget all about the power.Bearing in mind that 1000 lb/ft + doesn’t have to mean 350 hp because the top end power output can be de rated back to around 280/290 without compromising the peak torque and the Marathon needed to be the truck for the 1980’s not just the 1970’s.As for that topic I know I was there in the day listening to all the comments of those working at the sharp end of making the things not operating them.That also included hearsay from Scammell’s and Bedford’s workforce as part of that.IE I haven’t just made all my views up out of my imagination.On that note everything I heard was proved right in that they were deliberately being held back and starved of investment in favour of the European competition for geopolitical reasons.
As for the Paul Ghee topic it’s obviously contains a typically extreme variation of the past in the form of nasty Brit guvnors wagons and the future and certainly nothing which would suggest that things wouldn’t progress fast in that regard.Which perfectly represents the times and in which there’s no way that anyone could draw any conclusions from that in favour of the retrograde Marathon.More like all the clues are there as to which way the wind was blowing in the Marathon’s market sector just as I remember it.Although ironically even I’d over looked just how advanced the Transcon’s spec actually was.
download/file.php?id=205582&t=1
download/file.php?id=205579&t=1
download/file.php?id=205532&t=1
download/file.php?id=203831&t=1
download/file.php?id=204232&t=1
download/file.php?id=204233&t=1
download/file.php?id=205272&t=1
download/file.php?id=205273&t=1
download/file.php?id=205275&t=1
download/file.php?id=205531&t=1
download/file.php?id=205721&t=1
download/file.php?id=205811&t=1
download/file.php?id=205813&t=1
All those examples being within the first 7 pages of the topic.Bearing in mind that I’ve left out the all the F88’s within that on the grounds that they were as obsolete at that point as the Marathon.The difference being that Volvo had the F10/12 soon to arrive on the scene.
dazcapri:
In early 1970’s Britain it probably was a no brainer they’d have stuck with what they knew and bought a Leyland,Atkinson etc and not the unknown DAF. There was no r+m contracts then a lot of firms had a garage with fitters who were used to the British trucks and they bought what they knew and when it was beyond repair they stuck it at the back of the yard and robbed it for spares. The likes of Bewick and others have said on here many times that they shifted over to the foreigners because they were available immediately instead of having to wait months for an Atky ERF etc. In 72 when the Marathon was launched 180 bhp gardeners were the norm according to aronline.co.uk the 220 ■■■■■■■ was an expensive option and at that time ■■■■■■■ had an uncertain reputation.
As for the TM Bedford should never have fitted the Detroit most Bedford operators would have been running Gardener engined Atkinsons,ERF"s etc on artic work if they fitted them in the TM they have sold more.
The TL12 and Marathon obviously wasn’t designed to appeal to dyed in the wool Gardner customers either.
Although ironically it was the worst of all worlds combination of turbocharged 12 litre motor that was as close as makes no difference in output to the Gardner 8 LXB.On that note Bewick has already made his view of the Marathon clear.IE Leyland had achieved the impossible of alienating both ends of the domestic market.In that neither Gardner powered Atki buyers didn’t want it nor did DAF 2800 buyers.
As for the TM they certainly weren’t going to improve it’s chances by lumbering it with the 71 series Detroit v the 92 series.While like the Marathon it wasn’t meant to compete against Gardner powered Atkis.It’s mission was meant to be a Volvo/Scania killer which if fitted with the right Detroit motor it was more than capable of doing.Instead of which GMC decided to firstly ■■■■■■■ the TM and then take it out completely together with the Astro and the rest is history.