Where worked we had one Marathon, an E290 engined full sleeper, decent enough lorry that from memory wasn’t all that different to driving a Scammell Crusader, for some reason i recall it having a Spicer splitter box but that might have been the one Roadtrain (again E290 engined) we had, so take that with a pinch of salt it might easily have been a standard Roadranger.
Due to axle design it didn’t have the tall gearing of the Sed Acks, so wasn’t especially economical at speed, and like the Roadtrain the cab rotted like hell, but then so did everything with a steel cab…and no the foreign motors weren’t any better for rust either.
For pure driving pleasure i actually preferred the Buffalo, which with its fast revving engine and perfect matched gearing could make good progress and handled better to boot being more agile.
Juddian:
Where worked we had one Marathon, an E290 engined full sleeper, decent enough lorry that from memory wasn’t all that different to driving a Scammell Crusader, for some reason i recall it having a Spicer splitter box but that might have been the one Roadtrain (again E290 engined) we had, so take that with a pinch of salt it might easily have been a standard Roadranger.
Due to axle design it didn’t have the tall gearing of the Sed Acks, so wasn’t especially economical at speed, and like the Roadtrain the cab rotted like hell, but then so did everything with a steel cab…and no the foreign motors weren’t any better for rust either.
For pure driving pleasure i actually preferred the Buffalo, which with its fast revving engine and perfect matched gearing could make good progress and handled better to boot being more agile.
Hi Juddian, it sounds like one of the last Marathons with an E290, so your memory’s not playing tricks, it would have had the Spicer 'box.
Carryfast:
I had the misfortune of nights out with that short sleeper as opposed to the longer version shown in the Mid Easter photo.While to add insult to injury it was obviously an excessively narrow cab which then didn’t leave enough room for a decent steering wheel which was another flaw which I hated about the thing.As for the brakes what brakes especially when pulling knackered old unaccompanied trailers.The thing was a joke in trying to make a decent truck out of the Ergo and compared to the DAF 2800 which was the truck it should have been.
I think most manufacturers apart from Mercedes switched to smaller steering wheels. Maybe the poor brakes were down to maintenance , like you said pulling unaccompanied trailers which were knackered won`t have helped, as for the short sleeper that would be your bosses fault for not specking a unit with a full sleeper. Horses for courses , you sound more like a modern day steering wheel attendant than an older experienced driver.
As I remember it the DAF 85/95 also both had decent sized steering wheels.Probably because like the 2800 and unlike the Marathon it wasn’t an after thought caused by a zb cab design.Also don’t see how a preference,for a decent proper truck sized steering wheel and the constant mesh ZF box,makes anyone a car driving steering wheel attendant. While the DAF obviously didn’t offer the guvnor the choice of adding the insult of the short sleeper to the injury of the cheap and nasty narrow Ergo ‘upgrade’.
As for the brakes.I also did the same job with an F10 which to the guvnor’s credit rotated equally with the Marathon between me and the more senior driver he had working for him.Make no mistake I’m always the first to defend Brit trucks.But not afraid to call a spade a spade in the case of heaps like the Marathon which ironically was the type of junk which just added to the unfair stereotypes against other much better products.
Actually, steering wheels did get smaller during that period, simply as a result of widespread use of power-steering. Only the German-built lorries retained full-sized steering wheels because at that time German C&U regs (equivalent) required that a driver should still be able to get home if the power-steering failed (for which you needed a big wheel for full leverage). IIRC, the same regs stipulated that you must have manual wind-up driver’s windows in case of electrics failure. Both entirely sensible in my view. Nowadays, of course, you are required to park and call out a fitter at enormous expense even if your radio fails to receive Radio 3. You mention DAF, which as you say seemed to retain a big wheel for longer than most - BTW, the difference between a DAF 95 and a 95XF steering wheel was huge! Robert
ramone:
There`s no mention of the E290 ■■■■■■■ Graham , could this have been a special order , it had NTE290 on the manufacturers plate which was fixed to the bottom of the passenger side seat.
In terms of power output the TL12 and ■■■■■■■ E290 were similar, so at launch of the Marathon the power range thought necessary were covered by the ■■■■■■■ 250, the TL12, and the CU335, the latter being only thought necessary for the 6x4 version. The Mk.2 Marathon became available when it was thought that the T45 was only a couple of years away from launch in 1979, as it happened the T45 didn’t appear until late 1980. Leyland had decided that the engine options for the T45 were to be TL12 (280 bhp and a 320 bhp development), RR 290 (as introduced into the Marathon Mk. 2 in 1979), and the ■■■■■■■ E290, with the higher powered CU335 as an option. So the E290 was available in the Marathon Mk.2 at the same time roughly as the RR290. In effect from late 1979 until the end of Marathon production the engine options available were the same as the T45 Roadtrain, and as stated in my text the Spicer gear box was also fitted.
The test report posted by DEAN (thank you) is slightly misleading in that there were no plans to phase out the TL12 engine at the end of Marathon production. But, as in all things Leyland at that time, it did get political. Some months before Southall was closed TL12 engine production was transferred to Leyland Motors and even 20 years after the AEC / Leyland “merger” there was still acrimony and by 1983 the writing was on the wall for the TL12. As by then its only chassis application was the T45, Leyland could actually buy in engines from ■■■■■■■ and RR cheaper than its own manufacturing costs of TL12s, so it was discontinued, the last TL12 powered T45 Roadtrains going into service in 1984, and Spillers had some of them, who was my employer then.
Weren’t the last versions called Flexitorque ? Did they perform any different to the earlier models in the Marathons?
Carryfast:
I had the misfortune of nights out with that short sleeper as opposed to the longer version shown in the Mid Easter photo.While to add insult to injury it was obviously an excessively narrow cab which then didn’t leave enough room for a decent steering wheel which was another flaw which I hated about the thing.As for the brakes what brakes especially when pulling knackered old unaccompanied trailers.The thing was a joke in trying to make a decent truck out of the Ergo and compared to the DAF 2800 which was the truck it should have been.
I think most manufacturers apart from Mercedes switched to smaller steering wheels. Maybe the poor brakes were down to maintenance , like you said pulling unaccompanied trailers which were knackered won`t have helped, as for the short sleeper that would be your bosses fault for not specking a unit with a full sleeper. Horses for courses , you sound more like a modern day steering wheel attendant than an older experienced driver.
As I remember it the DAF 85/95 also both had decent sized steering wheels.Probably because like the 2800 and unlike the Marathon it wasn’t an after thought caused by a zb cab design.Also don’t see how a preference,for a decent proper truck sized steering wheel and the constant mesh ZF box,makes anyone a car driving steering wheel attendant. While the DAF obviously didn’t offer the guvnor the choice of adding the insult of the short sleeper to the injury of the cheap and nasty narrow Ergo ‘upgrade’.
As for the brakes.I also did the same job with an F10 which to the guvnor’s credit rotated equally with the Marathon between me and the more senior driver he had working for him.Make no mistake I’m always the first to defend Brit trucks.But not afraid to call a spade a spade in the case of heaps like the Marathon which ironically was the type of junk which just added to the unfair stereotypes against other much better products.
If I ever take up fishing I will take you with me … guaranteed a bite every time
ERF-NGC-European:
Actually, steering wheels did get smaller during that period, simply as a result of widespread use of power-steering. Only the German-built lorries retained full-sized steering wheels because at that time German C&U regs (equivalent) required that a driver should still be able to get home if the power-steering failed (for which you needed a big wheel for full leverage). IIRC, the same regs stipulated that you must have manual wind-up driver’s windows in case of electrics failure. Both entirely sensible in my view. Nowadays, of course, you are required to park and call out a fitter at enormous expense even if your radio fails to receive Radio 3. You mention DAF, which as you say seemed to retain a big wheel for longer than most - BTW, the difference between a DAF 95 and a 95XF steering wheel was huge! Robert
I never knew the XF but ironically the Merc 2534 also had a relatively smaller wheel,which I didn’t like,compared to the old SK.I just found that a larger wheel seemed to provide a more comfortable drive with a better damping effect in addition to the weird over gearing effects which the small wheel created which sort of defeats the object of power steering.
While at this time the Marathon was certainly an oddball in that regard with even the old Bathgate Clydesdale etc having a large old school type of wheel.
Which then changed to the later standard Leyland type shown here which seemed to be used across the Leyland range from around the late 1970’s and through the 1980’s in everything from 12 tonners to the Scammell Commander which again was a reasonably large wheel which I also liked.The advantages of the big wheel combined with power steering regards lightness and damping effect etc shown here albeit an extreme example.Trust me he couldn’t have driven the evil Marathon’s horrible steering like that and they might as well have given it a bleedin tiller type steering because that’s what the silly small wheel felt like to me in my hands.
Ive just read the road test and the tester seems to like the Marathon , Im not sure some hauliers would though with the E290 in , trying to persuade some drivers to hold off on the right foot would be difficult.
The black and red Marathon A95HBU was a motor I had when I worked on boxes for Ossie Inghams, it had only been on the road for about 6mths, Ossie it bought it new and put it in store for a few years. It was a 290 Big Cam ■■■■■■■ with the 9 speed Fuller, it pulled like a train but wasn’t the best at stopping.
No, the list is correct compiled from the BCVM Archive records. There has always been a big question mark against that registration number, the most plausible answer being that it was a Leyland owned number that was recycled on various Marathons. The Marathon was a 32 ton GVW design for UK markets, and there was absolutely no reason to design a 6x4 for 32 ton operation, That configuration for “normal” operation in the UK had been discounted in the 1960s, so WHY would the first Marathon have been a 6x4 when there was never going to be a big market for it? Did you not see the list of TL12 Marathons and models listed for 1973?
The black and red Marathon A95HBU was a motor I had when I worked on boxes for Ossie Inghams, it had only been on the road for about 6mths, Ossie it bought it new and put it in store for a few years. It was a 290 Big Cam ■■■■■■■ with the 9 speed Fuller, it pulled like a train but wasn’t the best at stopping.
Regards
Dave Penn;
Hi Dave, the pic again with Len Rogers info at the time it was snapped.
quote “Leyland Marathon. First registered in 1983, this truck was manufactured for the Middle East run. The truck is seen here in 1999 broken down in Central London”
Oily
No, the list is correct compiled from the BCVM Archive records. There has always been a big question mark against that registration number, the most plausible answer being that it was a Leyland owned number that was recycled on various Marathons. The Marathon was a 32 ton GVW design for UK markets, and there was absolutely no reason to design a 6x4 for 32 ton operation, That configuration for “normal” operation in the UK had been discounted in the 1960s, so WHY would the first Marathon have been a 6x4 when there was never going to be a big market for it? Did you not see the list of TL12 Marathons and models listed for 1973?
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … on-is-here
The article shows WTJ with a dark band above the grille, which corresponds to its (assumed) as-new white/green livery. The picture on the TNUK link I posted shows it with a white/blue livery, which corresponds to the livery it had when Astran used it in 1974. All of the pictures show it with those odd rear-sloping wings, which are shown cut off in the Astran article, with text referring to the reason for the cutting. Given its presence in the CM launch issue photo, I do not doubt its existence.
WTJ…L is a Lancashire reg no for February 1973, with XTJ registered in March 73 and YTJ in April 73, so as Graham says there is something of a question mark about this Marathon’s reg plate, although it does seem to appear in the August 73 Comm Motor article! The spec sheet shows the first 6x4 TL12 unit as a 74 build and the 335 ■■■■■■■ as a 76 build. Franky.
Maybe it was built as the first off the line, registered for road use in February 1973, then kept on as a demonstrator after the August launch. Regarding the logic of building 6x4 tractors- if the Marathon was aimed at export markets, then a 6x4 would be a necessary part of the range.
blimey i remembered right, thanks for that.
![Marathon0018[1].jpg](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/uploads/trucknetuk/original/3X/4/e/4e66192a769b15e3ead1b7011f9df6a30db83f5c.jpeg)
