[quote=“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.[/quote]
The company I worked for bought DAF in the 1970s. The dealer support was simply awful. . We called DAF aid - DEAF aid, no one seemed to actually listen to what they were being told so vehicles were sitting beside the road for hours on end because of it; told an engine was making knocking noises and throwing oil out so a hook was needed, they would send a service van . Vehicles would disappear into dealerships for weeks with problems which they seemed either unable to overcome or unable to obtain the correct parts. Unless it was filters then the parts availability was almost non existent. It wasn’t just the service, it was the distance to travel to get to them that mattered as well. The drivers liked them, but trying to find the required number of vehicles for the next day’s work was a continuing nightmare. What was galling about it was that the senior management had swallowed the guff, fallen hook line and sinker for it and refused to have AECs.
Once again Carryfast, you attempt to rewrite history. First Bedford, they produced a line of lorries from the smallest TK to the KM, maximum GVW was 28tons with the KM tractor unit, they decided to offer a heavier duty range to fit the 32ton and have an offering in case the 42/44ton market took off. So what did they do? They researched the market, what was the average power rating, around 200hp for 32ton, historically power had increased from 150hp or so to 180/200hp, so a 230hp engine was, on paper, just what the market needed. This is why the first offerings from the importers were The 2200 Daf, F86 Volvo, Scania 80, FIAT 619, Mercedes Benz 1418 etc. They had done the same research and drawn the same conclusion.
The Bedford/Vauxhall group was, like all British manufacturers at the time, hemorrhaging money from the car division, so a new engine wasn’t an option, but they had the Detroit in the stable, so they picked the one with the 230hp rating and put them on the market. Unfortunately their timing was awful, the Europeans had arrived and were aggressively marketing their own 32tonners. Now buyers were faced with a choice, go for an unknown brand or go for a known brand with an unknown engine, an engine type that had not been without issues in Commers and Fodens, history tells you which choice they made. There were many other factors, service and parts for one, the dealers had no experience of the TM, which put them on a par with the new arrivals, Bedford was not and never would be a premium manufacturer and this and the other factors made the 32ton plus market out of reach for Bedford before they even started.
Leyland had similar cash issues and also had to deal with the infighting among the BL group’s heavy truck division, with the exception of Albion all of them had a 32ton tractor unit on the market, all competing for a slice of the same pie, thanks to the stupid idea of politicians to create British Leyland. Again cash flow decided against a new engine, so the TL12 was born, the same applied to the cab, no money meant a new cab was not an option, so they worked with what they had and in all fairness, they did a pretty decent job.
Had Leyland dumped the ailing car division sooner and launched the T45 a little earlier and skipped over the Marathon, I think they may have had a winner on their hands, it was basically a Marathon with a different cab, so the DNA of the Marathon itself was fine, but it looked like a hastily cobbled together mess and confirmed public perception of British Leyland being a sinking ship.
In my opinion, the Marathon should never have been made, not that it was a bad lorry, test results and operator feedback prove otherwise, I just think the money to create the Marathon should have been invested in the T45 range. And I’m a firm believer that had AEC not been absorbed into BL, we would still have a British truck manufacturer today.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
Once again Carryfast, you attempt to rewrite history. First Bedford, they produced a line of lorries from the smallest TK to the KM, maximum GVW was 28tons with the KM tractor unit, they decided to offer a heavier duty range to fit the 32ton and have an offering in case the 42/44ton market took off. So what did they do? They researched the market, what was the average power rating, around 200hp for 32ton, historically power had increased from 150hp or so to 180/200hp, so a 230hp engine was, on paper, just what the market needed. This is why the first offerings from the importers were The 2200 Daf, F86 Volvo, Scania 80, FIAT 619, Mercedes Benz 1418 etc. They had done the same research and drawn the same conclusion.The Bedford/Vauxhall group was, like all British manufacturers at the time, hemorrhaging money from the car division, so a new engine wasn’t an option, but they had the Detroit in the stable, so they picked the one with the 230hp rating and put them on the market. Unfortunately their timing was awful, the Europeans had arrived and were aggressively marketing their own 32tonners. Now buyers were faced with a choice, go for an unknown brand or go for a known brand with an unknown engine, an engine type that had not been without issues in Commers and Fodens, history tells you which choice they made. There were many other factors, service and parts for one, the dealers had no experience of the TM, which put them on a par with the new arrivals, Bedford was not and never would be a premium manufacturer and this and the other factors made the 32ton plus market out of reach for Bedford before they even started.
My thoughts to a Tee.AEC were sadly the losers.
Leyland had similar cash issues and also had to deal with the infighting among the BL group’s heavy truck division, with the exception of Albion all of them had a 32ton tractor unit on the market, all competing for a slice of the same pie, thanks to the stupid idea of politicians to create British Leyland. Again cash flow decided against a new engine, so the TL12 was born, the same applied to the cab, no money meant a new cab was not an option, so they worked with what they had and in all fairness, they did a pretty decent job.
Had Leyland dumped the ailing car division sooner and launched the T45 a little earlier and skipped over the Marathon, I think they may have had a winner on their hands, it was basically a Marathon with a different cab, so the DNA of the Marathon itself was fine, but it looked like a hastily cobbled together mess and confirmed public perception of British Leyland being a sinking ship.
In my opinion, the Marathon should never have been made, not that it was a bad lorry, test results and operator feedback prove otherwise, I just think the money to create the Marathon should have been invested in the T45 range. And I’m a firm believer that had AEC not been absorbed into BL, we would still have a British truck manufacturer today.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
railstaff:
newmercman:
Once again Carryfast, you attempt to rewrite history. First Bedford, they produced a line of lorries from the smallest TK to the KM, maximum GVW was 28tons with the KM tractor unit, they decided to offer a heavier duty range to fit the 32ton and have an offering in case the 42/44ton market took off. So what did they do? They researched the market, what was the average power rating, around 200hp for 32ton, historically power had increased from 150hp or so to 180/200hp, so a 230hp engine was, on paper, just what the market needed. This is why the first offerings from the importers were The 2200 Daf, F86 Volvo, Scania 80, FIAT 619, Mercedes Benz 1418 etc. They had done the same research and drawn the same conclusion.The Bedford/Vauxhall group was, like all British manufacturers at the time, hemorrhaging money from the car division, so a new engine wasn’t an option, but they had the Detroit in the stable, so they picked the one with the 230hp rating and put them on the market. Unfortunately their timing was awful, the Europeans had arrived and were aggressively marketing their own 32tonners. Now buyers were faced with a choice, go for an unknown brand or go for a known brand with an unknown engine, an engine type that had not been without issues in Commers and Fodens, history tells you which choice they made. There were many other factors, service and parts for one, the dealers had no experience of the TM, which put them on a par with the new arrivals, Bedford was not and never would be a premium manufacturer and this and the other factors made the 32ton plus market out of reach for Bedford before they even started.
My thoughts to a Tee.AEC were sadly the losers.
Leyland had similar cash issues and also had to deal with the infighting among the BL group’s heavy truck division, with the exception of Albion all of them had a 32ton tractor unit on the market, all competing for a slice of the same pie, thanks to the stupid idea of politicians to create British Leyland. Again cash flow decided against a new engine, so the TL12 was born, the same applied to the cab, no money meant a new cab was not an option, so they worked with what they had and in all fairness, they did a pretty decent job.
Had Leyland dumped the ailing car division sooner and launched the T45 a little earlier and skipped over the Marathon, I think they may have had a winner on their hands, it was basically a Marathon with a different cab, so the DNA of the Marathon itself was fine, but it looked like a hastily cobbled together mess and confirmed public perception of British Leyland being a sinking ship.
In my opinion, the Marathon should never have been made, not that it was a bad lorry, test results and operator feedback prove otherwise, I just think the money to create the Marathon should have been invested in the T45 range. And I’m a firm believer that had AEC not been absorbed into BL, we would still have a British truck manufacturer today.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
My thoughts to a Tee.AEC were sadly the losers.
newmercman:
Once again Carryfast, you attempt to rewrite history. First Bedford, they produced a line of lorries from the smallest TK to the KM, maximum GVW was 28tons with the KM tractor unit, they decided to offer a heavier duty range to fit the 32ton and have an offering in case the 42/44ton market took off. So what did they do? They researched the market, what was the average power rating, around 200hp for 32ton, historically power had increased from 150hp or so to 180/200hp, so a 230hp engine was, on paper, just what the market needed. This is why the first offerings from the importers were The 2200 Daf, F86 Volvo, Scania 80, FIAT 619, Mercedes Benz 1418 etc. They had done the same research and drawn the same conclusion.The Bedford/Vauxhall group was, like all British manufacturers at the time, hemorrhaging money from the car division, so a new engine wasn’t an option, but they had the Detroit in the stable, so they picked the one with the 230hp rating and put them on the market. Unfortunately their timing was awful, the Europeans had arrived and were aggressively marketing their own 32tonners. Now buyers were faced with a choice, go for an unknown brand or go for a known brand with an unknown engine, an engine type that had not been without issues in Commers and Fodens, history tells you which choice they made. There were many other factors, service and parts for one, the dealers had no experience of the TM, which put them on a par with the new arrivals, Bedford was not and never would be a premium manufacturer and this and the other factors made the 32ton plus market out of reach for Bedford before they even started.
Leyland had similar cash issues and also had to deal with the infighting among the BL group’s heavy truck division, with the exception of Albion all of them had a 32ton tractor unit on the market, all competing for a slice of the same pie, thanks to the stupid idea of politicians to create British Leyland. Again cash flow decided against a new engine, so the TL12 was born, the same applied to the cab, no money meant a new cab was not an option, so they worked with what they had and in all fairness, they did a pretty decent job.
Had Leyland dumped the ailing car division sooner and launched the T45 a little earlier and skipped over the Marathon, I think they may have had a winner on their hands, it was basically a Marathon with a different cab, so the DNA of the Marathon itself was fine, but it looked like a hastily cobbled together mess and confirmed public perception of British Leyland being a sinking ship.
In my opinion, the Marathon should never have been made, not that it was a bad lorry, test results and operator feedback prove otherwise, I just think the money to create the Marathon should have been invested in the T45 range. And I’m a firm believer that had AEC not been absorbed into BL, we would still have a British truck manufacturer today.
Let’s get this right GM’s aim was to compete with the Swedes ( efficient turbocharged engines up to 300 + hp and 900 lb/ft + including a big V8 ) not to mention,like Leyland,DAF’s 2800 with efficient turbocharged 300 hp and close as makes not much difference 900 lb/ft.So they make a brilliant cab which did the job.Then they put a torqueless fuel guzzling NA engine in it dating back to the 1930’s.When they’ve got a new efficient turbocharged upgrade capable of delivering 100 lb/ft per litre + about to come online and they leave that on the shelf on the basis if we’ll keep it secret and only let them have it if they ask for it.That’ll work.While the workforce then tells anyone who goes for it we need to be putting this in it as standard but ‘they’ won’t let us.The question being who were ‘they’ and why.
You also talk to Scammell’s workforce who tell you we need a new Crusader but ‘they’ have lumbered us with an upgraded Ergo with a motor which can’t make more than 62 lb/ft per litre without it grenading.When MP,Rolls and ■■■■■■■ have exactly what we need to get the job done for less cash.Then you tell them it must be the same ‘they’ who keep ploughing loads of money into BMC’s fwd heaps and the ugly live axle SD1 when BL fans like me were hoping for a new upgraded Triumph V8 3.5 PI/Vitesse.Ironically we all laughed about it at the time.It didn’t seem so funny later on but at least it confirmed our suspicions as to ‘why’ ‘they’ were doing it and who ‘they’ all were. 
Sounds like an accurate writing of history just as I remember it having been there.
railstaff:
My thoughts to a Tee.AEC were sadly the losers.
More like Scammell,Rover and Triumph.
While AEC helped the establishment to take itself out on the basis of confusing truck engine design with limited formula racing cars and should have left cab design and manufacture to the outside specialists,who,like the engine suppliers,could do the job better and cheaper.
newmercman:
Had Leyland dumped the ailing car division sooner
Oh wait.Rover and Triumph the biggest profit earners in BL.Seems to confirm how I remember it. While the ‘investment plan’ obviously turned out to be let’s knock a profitable range of cars on the head and make Jap crap instead that’ll work.Or at least it would if the idea was to sell out to BMW. 
AEC were the English Scania.Manufactured their own-engine,gearbox,axles,frame,cab.The 800 could have been a success only for BL prematurely releasing it.
railstaff:
AEC were the English Scania.Manufactured their own-engine,gearbox,axles,frame,cab.The 800 could have been a success only for BL prematurely releasing it.
Ironically using the Fuller box in the Scania would have been an improvement.As for their chances if they’d only have had the AEC V8 or TL12 designs in their armoury as in the case of Leyland,who knows.As for the Brits it’s fair to say that the last of the line assembly model T45 using Rolls or ■■■■■■■ was as good as it got for Leyland truck group.
While numerous examples show that there are no conclusions which would show that the assembly model is any worse than the all in house one or vice versa.In that supposed all in house component manufacturers like DB/Detroit Diesel also supply loose engines to assemblers like Western Star while Volvo and Paccar both also offer ■■■■■■■ and Fuller transmissions outside of the stifling protectionist EU type approval regime.While as I’ve said elsewhere a Peterbilt fitted with a loose supplied Scania V8,or here a Scania V8,both fitted an 18 speed Fuller,would probably be as good as it gets.IE the spirit of Scammell’s assembly model still lives on unlike AEC’s in house one.
Commercial Motor dated 2nd February 1979. Volvo F12 Road Test on the CM Scottish test route.
Volvo F12, 326 bhp @ 2,200 rpm
Torque, 985 ft. lb @ 1,300 rpm
8 speed Range Change plus splitter gearbox (16 ratios)
Payload 20 tons 9 cwt, (32 tons GVW)
Total mileage = 736 miles
Average speed = 42.2 mph
Overall mpg = 6.85
The inferior and rubbish Marathon TL12 (in the opinion of some) with 53 less bhp, and 205 fewer ft. lbs. than the F12, and tested over 5 years before the Volvo F12, did exactly the same test route at an average speed of 42.7 mph with an overall mpg of 6.5, and it carried an additional 11 cwts payload. So unless I’m missing something it took Volvo over 5 years development just to equal the Marathon TL12 in performance terms. To my way of thinking it confirms other test results from another magazine, so it was game, set, and match to the TL12.
And that was with 16 gears don’t forget.Says a lot for the torque band or lack of it.
Has anybody got roadtests for an F88 290hp as that is a bit more fair.
Carryfast:
Ironically using the Fuller box in the Scania would have been an improvement.
Why? I am as big a fan of Fuller boxes as you are, but actually the 10-speed Synchro boxes in Scanias of the day were IMHO far superior to the ZF opposition. Constant-mesh gearboxes don’t make better lorries, they’re simply a drivers’ preference - or a life-style choice, to use the modern phrase. I once argued that the 9-sp Fuller in the ERF that beat all-comers in that first Euro-Test helped it do so: I later admitted that it was more likely that the clutch-brake (admittedly only applicable on constant-mesh 'boxes) and the Jake-brake were probably the most salient factors.
A Fuller in a Scania 141 would only have been an improvement for you (and of course for me!) but not for the automotive industry, surely. Robert
What are peoples views on fuel wastage with constant mesh gearboxs,ie the blipping of the throttle to equalize road speed and mainshaft speed?
railstaff:
What are peoples views on fuel wastage with constant mesh gearboxs,ie the blipping of the throttle to equalize road speed and mainshaft speed?
My view is that for a diesel engine, with double-declutching, the negligible amount of fuel expended in the aggregate number of throttle blips per journey is probably offset by the amount of fuel saved by the foot being off the accelerator pedal (bearing in mind that no diesel fuel is expended in this mode). This is because for a habitual double de-clutcher any approach to a hazard such as a roundabout demands forward planning and during the downward sequence of gearshifts the only fuel being used is in the ‘blips’. I would argue that brake-wear is massively reduced with such practice but gear-wear is only minimal, especially if secondary braking systems such as Jake-brakes, engine-brakes or exhaust-brakes are used. Even in my car, I am not using the engine as a serious brake because I still use the time-honoured approach to roundabouts that demands an early enough start to the deceleration process. If I remember rightly, Pat Kennett busted the myth that double de-clutching was bad for sychro boxes and he even showed that it was better for them – I will try and hunt out the article he wrote. Robert
gingerfold:
Commercial Motor dated 2nd February 1979. Volvo F12 Road Test on the CM Scottish test route.Volvo F12, 326 bhp @ 2,200 rpm
Torque, 985 ft. lb @ 1,300 rpm
8 speed Range Change plus splitter gearbox (16 ratios)Payload 20 tons 9 cwt, (32 tons GVW)
Total mileage = 736 miles
Average speed = 42.2 mph
Overall mpg = 6.85The inferior and rubbish Marathon TL12 (in the opinion of some) with 53 less bhp, and 205 fewer ft. lbs. than the F12, and tested over 5 years before the Volvo F12, did exactly the same test route at an average speed of 42.7 mph with an overall mpg of 6.5, and it carried an additional 11 cwts payload. So unless I’m missing something it took Volvo over 5 years development just to equal the Marathon TL12 in performance terms. To my way of thinking it confirms other test results from another magazine, so it was game, set, and match to the TL12.
Oh wait and within just a few short years the ■■■■■■■ big cam 320 ( available since the late 1970’s ? ) and big power Rolls Eagle were providing 7.0 mph + at faster journey times at 38t gross.
On that note how can anyone possibly believe the result regarding the F12 in ‘both’ the Euro ‘and’ UK tests and who actually gained from sandbagging the Volvo.
No surprise that Leyland didn’t end the T45’s production life with the TL12 or short sleeper low datum only cab that they deliberately lumbered it with on introduction.Just as the Marathon before it had been another industrial sabotage exercise.Because by then they’d gradually conditioned everyone that they needed to that the firm had no future,including the foreign ‘competition’ like DAF so no longer a threat to them and the bankers didn’t want to be left with a total loss in the form of a load of crippled heaps that no one wanted during the final run down process.Nothing else makes sense.
railstaff:
What are peoples views on fuel wastage with constant mesh gearboxs,ie the blipping of the throttle to equalize road speed and mainshaft speed?
Are you saying you just downshift a synchro and then re engage the clutch,without first matching the engine and road speed just the same.To stop imposing a massive shock loading through the driveline ?.Which leaves the question as to personal preference regarding also double de clutching a synchro box arguably still producing a cleaner lighter shift.
ERF-NGC-European:
Pat Kennett busted the myth that double de-clutching was bad for sychro boxes and he even showed that it was better for them – I will try and hunt out the article he wrote. Robert
That’s interesting because that’s how I always viewed it and was taught including the instruction that it would be expected for all shifts during my HGV driving tests.
To go back a little to my “ailing car division” comment, it was just as I described, historically the car division members may have produced some decent plant, but there was no way all of them were going to survive long term.
Now the reasons for this are not just about the quality of what they produced, but how many they produced, back in the day when they were making good cars they were mostly assembled by hand in a big shed, but as they made money the big sheds became vast factories, all of them churning out cars in the thousands and all competing for the same customer base, obviously there were going to be casualties.
Triumph and Rover could have stayed the course and joined Jaguar, Mini and Land Rover in still being successful brands, but the reason they’re not lies within, in simple terms their products were crap, the Stag was a joke, far worse than the SD1, which build quality apart wasn’t a bad motor, but the market for 3.5litre V8 gas guzzlers was very small, so they were never going to be anything more than a niche market builder with their very limited range of cars.
Now onto lorries, the whole concept of British Leyland was madness, a group producing cars, vans, trucks and buses was never going to work, even the Soviet regime with its completely captive audience realised that. The merging of the car manufacturers and truck and bus manufacturers should have been done separately and then one would not be dragged down by the other.
Carryfast, you mentioned an updated Crusader, now as we know, the Crusader was designed as a replacement for the BRS only Bristol, because of this it was flawed from the outset, no sleeper because the unionised BRS didn’t want them, no tilt cab because the BRS depots all had big workshops with far too many staff so easy access was only going to save time and time was money in the pockets of the union members and more subs for the union.
All the nationalised industries were crippled by incompetence, dictated to by politicians and union leaders and forced to make ridiculous decisions in order to appease their puppet masters.
Look at IVECO, similar in many ways to BL, but run by businessmen instead of idiots, they amalgamated all the Italian manufacturers into the FIAT brand and then did the same with Magirus, Unic and later Pegaso, they took the best parts from each brand and put them together and more importantly, they didn’t try to compete with each other. They figured out that a competition had winners and losers and if you own all the horses in the race, you will lose far more than you win.
This is why I stated that they (Leyland truck and bus) should have split from the “ailing car division” and introduced the T45 range much sooner, concentrating on taking the best bits from AEC, Albion, Guy, Leyland and Scammell and producing a range of lorries that kept all the old customers happy and streamlined the group as a whole. It would’ve been quite simple, lightweight rigids built by Albion, heavy duty tipper chassis, heavy haul and Military chassis produced by Scammell, lightweight tractor units made by Guy, premium tractor units and premium rigid chassis made by AEC and Leyland. Exactly what those brands did to make them succeed in the first place.
At first they could have had little Albion, AEC, Guy and Scammell badges on them to identify them as such and retain customers, just as IVECO did, until the customers were happy enough to buy Leyland lorries at least, MAN did the same with Bussing and OAF, Renault did it with Berliet and Saviem, they’re all still making lorries.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
newmercman:
To go back a little to my “ailing car division” comment, it was just as I described, historically the car division members may have produced some decent plant, but there was no way all of them were going to survive long term.Now the reasons for this are not just about the quality of what they produced, but how many they produced, back in the day when they were making good cars they were mostly assembled by hand in a big shed, but as they made money the big sheds became vast factories, all of them churning out cars in the thousands and all competing for the same customer base, obviously there were going to be casualties.
Triumph and Rover could have stayed the course and joined Jaguar, Mini and Land Rover in still being successful brands, but the reason they’re not lies within, in simple terms their products were crap, the Stag was a joke, far worse than the SD1, which build quality apart wasn’t a bad motor, but the market for 3.5litre V8 gas guzzlers was very small, so they were never going to be anything more than a niche market builder with their very limited range of cars.
Now onto lorries, the whole concept of British Leyland was madness, a group producing cars, vans, trucks and buses was never going to work, even the Soviet regime with its completely captive audience realised that. The merging of the car manufacturers and truck and bus manufacturers should have been done separately and then one would not be dragged down by the other.
Carryfast, you mentioned an updated Crusader, now as we know, the Crusader was designed as a replacement for the BRS only Bristol, because of this it was flawed from the outset, no sleeper because the unionised BRS didn’t want them, no tilt cab because the BRS depots all had big workshops with far too many staff so easy access was only going to save time and time was money in the pockets of the union members and more subs for the union.
All the nationalised industries were crippled by incompetence, dictated to by politicians and union leaders and forced to make ridiculous decisions in order to appease their puppet masters.
Look at IVECO, similar in many ways to BL, but run by businessmen instead of idiots, they amalgamated all the Italian manufacturers into the FIAT brand and then did the same with Magirus, Unic and later Pegaso, they took the best parts from each brand and put them together and more importantly, they didn’t try to compete with each other. They figured out that a competition had winners and losers and if you own all the horses in the race, you will lose far more than you win.
This is why I stated that they (Leyland truck and bus) should have split from the “ailing car division” and introduced the T45 range much sooner, concentrating on taking the best bits from AEC, Albion, Guy, Leyland and Scammell and producing a range of lorries that kept all the old customers happy and streamlined the group as a whole. It would’ve been quite simple, lightweight rigids built by Albion, heavy duty tipper chassis, heavy haul and Military chassis produced by Scammell, lightweight tractor units made by Guy, premium tractor units and premium rigid chassis made by AEC and Leyland. Exactly what those brands did to make them succeed in the first place.
At first they could have had little Albion, AEC, Guy and Scammell badges on them to identify them as such and retain customers, just as IVECO did, until the customers were happy enough to buy Leyland lorries at least, MAN did the same with Bussing and OAF, Renault did it with Berliet and Saviem, they’re all still making lorries.
Firstly I’ve given you the confirmation that Rover and Triumph were unsurprisingly the two biggest earners within the whole group.IE in general this was the time when even the average working class boy racer ( like me in the day ) either bought a 2.5 Triumph or a ( P6 ) V8 Rover or a 1600 E Cortina or if they could insure it a 3 litre Capri among some other interesting 1960’s GM and Ford custom jobs.FWD junk including the Mini could only be moved at a loss to those who preferred spending what little cash they had on other things rather than cars.That was just in the used market.So when you say cut the car division loose that needed to be BMC.While Rover and Triumph was a case of it wasn’t broke so don’t fix it.The SD1 and Triumph V8 both being a case of catastrophically fixing something that wasn’t broke as opposed to just concentrating on getting the Rover V8 into the big Triumph range on the basis that the Triumphs looked better and could run rings around the P6 Rover in terms of handling with almost the ride quality of a Jag while doing it.Let alone the evil ugly live axle SD1.IE the first signs of sabotage going on within the most profitable part of the car division.As for volume that’s not much help if it’s the premium stuff that’s earning the money and the volume stuff just means bigger losses.
As for the truck division.Have another look at the Paul Ghee topic.It’s my bet that might just confirm the suggestion that the Crusader was rightly more popular than the Marathon ?.Including this example.IE certainly not a BRS owned day cab heap.
download/file.php?id=203829&t=1
So what did Leyland do.Instead of going to MP and saying we need an upgrade along the lines of the the SA 400 type cab with a decent Rolls or ■■■■■■■ engine under it.They decide to spend their effort on producing an upgraded Ergo and then stuck a turbocharged 12.4 litre motor in it capable of no more than 62 lb/ft per litre.Then to add insult to injury having at least finally put a ■■■■■■■ E 290 in it they then replace it with the T45 but the customers can’t have a decent high datum proper sleeper or a ■■■■■■■ or a Rolls in it.They’ll have to wait for that until DAF are happy that Leyland is finally going to close the doors and hand them the keys to the firm.However look on the bright side BMW didn’t even trust them to actually go through with destroying Rover and Triumph until they saw the fwd 800 Honda knock off put into production.Some say ze Germans are still laughing about how they all got away with that stunt even now.