In all fairness to Carryfast there may be some truth in some off it.
Maybe 15 years ago the UK government put the military contract out to tender.Many tendered for it.It is a 25 year contract.MAN won the tender on the promise that all military vehicles would be built in the UK at the now defunct ERF factory.
No longer than the paperwork was signed,the factory was shut and production moved to Germany and Austria.Perhaps not as dramatic as CF suggests but maybe some truth in it.
railstaff:
In all fairness to Carryfast there may be some truth in some off it.Maybe 15 years ago the UK government put the military contract out to tender.Many tendered for it.It is a 25 year contract.MAN won the tender on the promise that all military vehicles would be built in the UK at the now defunct ERF factory.
No longer than the paperwork was signed,the factory was shut and production moved to Germany and Austria.Perhaps not as dramatic as CF suggests but maybe some truth in it.
I can only say I was there working in the industry in the day and formulated my views in large part based on what my elders on the shop floor were telling me at the time ( we were being screwed to benefit Europe especially Germany ) and with hindsight having proved everything they said was correct.I think the analogy is ‘I know where the bodies are buried’ because that’s what they told me and I’ve never had the privilege to have known and worked among a finer generation so I trust what they said to the letter 110%. 
Carryfast:
railstaff:
In all fairness to Carryfast there may be some truth in some off it.Maybe 15 years ago the UK government put the military contract out to tender.Many tendered for it.It is a 25 year contract.MAN won the tender on the promise that all military vehicles would be built in the UK at the now defunct ERF factory.
No longer than the paperwork was signed,the factory was shut and production moved to Germany and Austria.Perhaps not as dramatic as CF suggests but maybe some truth in it.I can only say I was there working in the industry in the day and formulated my views in large part based on what my elders on the shop floor were telling me at the time ( we were being screwed to benefit Europe especially Germany ) and with hindsight having proved everything they said was correct.I think the analogy is ‘I know where the bodies are buried’ because that’s what they told me and I’ve never had the privilege to have known and worked among a finer generation so I trust what they said to the letter 110%.
Working for ERF?
Carryfast:
dazcapri:
Would that be the troublesome lucas injection that they later stopped fitting because it was too unreliable/expensive. You keep slagging off the sd1 hatchback if you look at the Triumph prototypes of that era some of those were hatchback,the dolomite replacement sd2 was going to have a hatchback in the range, because even your beloved Triumph could see that the paying customer would want to buy them. In ten years the sd1 sold over 303000 so someone must have liked them in contrast Triumph took fourteen years to sell almost 317000 cars. It was the Ford Granada that started to eat into the sales of the 2000 and it’s main rival the P6.
You do realise who you have to thank for your favourite car that would be Leyland trucks who took over the virtually bankrupt Standard Triumph motor company in 1961 and injected the cash to build it.
I think that’s something people forget Leyland were a successful profitable company buying into car production was there downfall the inclusion of BMC doing the most damageYou say that people wanted hatchbacks.Then you say that the Granada took sales from Rover yes maybe in the choice between the 4 cylinder Rover P6 v 6 cylinder Granada but not many people would have chosen a 3 litre Granada v a 3500 S Rover because the Granada was two cylinders and half a litre down although it had more space.While which Granada hatchback was that.Or for that matter which hatchback did BMW go for in the case of the E3 then the 5 series.When the fact is the Granada stayed with three box design saloon or like the Triumph a decent looking estate I should know because I had a 2.8i mk2 Granada estate.While BMW only offered the choice of three box styled saloon take it or leave it in both the E3 then the 5 series then only much later offering some reasonable looking estate versions and it obviously didn’t do them any harm.As for Leyland buying into car production being its downfall did you actually read the bit stating that Rover and Triumph were its largest profit earners at this point in time.
As for the SD1 selling.You seem to have missed the point that,unlike the original plan as described by Stokes,it had to replace the ‘combined’ sales of ‘both’ Rover ‘and’ Triumph.IE it might have found a few loyal ( mug ) previous Rover customers and a maybe few new hatchback conquest sales but it didn’t attract many if any Triumph buyers like me.Who went for BMW instead not because the BMW was better than a 3.5-4.6 V8 Triumph would have been.But because Triumph cars no longer existed as we knew it having eventually been turned over to production of the Acclaim and we certainly weren’t going to go for an ugly live rear axle hatchback SD1 even with the Rover V8 in it.
As for the Lucas injection system that was obviously irrelevant and moot by 1976 regardless assuming that Leyland had put the Rover V8 where it belonged in the Triumph,instead of in the SD1,at least in the case of manual transmission cars.Although the thing has proved to be capable of still working fine if maintained properly in 2.5 Triumphs to date or even,as could have happened in the day,converted to electronic control.
As I said deliberate sabotage of the car division to the benefit of the foreign competition just as in the case of the truck division.
The Granada was a 3 box saloon at the time but even Ford introduced a hatchback version in the 80’s along with hatchback versions of the ■■■■■■ and of course the Sierra but they at least had the sense to offer estate and saloon versions alongside the hatch. That shows how far ahead of its time the sd1 was it being the car to take Rover into the 80’s although it should have had at the very least an estate option.
History shows that the Lucas injection was problematic and lost triumph sales, the specialists have got them sorted now as they have with the problems of the Stag and the Dolomite sprint but at the time they were trouble that’s why it was dropped.
Triumph were not going to build a large sporting saloon their puma prototype wasn’t thought to be suitable and that’s why as you said yourself they were to concentrate on the sports cars the management realised that triumph and rover were essentially competing against themselves,our local austin morris dealer were in direct competition with a Triumph dealer a few miles away.
The 2000 was never going to be fitted with the Rover engine because Triumph didn’t want an engine from what they considered a rival company that’s why the Stag was given a Triumph V8 and we all know how that worked out. By the time they fitted it to the TR8 triumph was under new management.
Yes the Rover was meant to replace both the 2000 and the p6 all I was pointing out was the sd1 sold nearly as much as the 2000 did in less time so someone liked them. The met police stockpiled them they liked them that much. The sd1’s downfall was the usual story of the time it was rushed into production before it was ready.
As for the Acclaim they were a cracking little car and a great seller I worked for a Rover dealer and he couldn’t get enough of them second hand cars flew out of the showroom. Should they have been wearing a Triumph badge maybe not.
It was the same with the Crusader they didn’t upgrade it because Scammell were to become the specialist division of Leyland instead of competing against Leyland for the same sales.
The Marathon was available in short sleeper,long haul versions and various other styles to appeal to different operators needs that means if you wanted a long distance hauler you could have one if you needed something to pull a tipper on local work you’d get that from the same dealer,that meant one set of spare parts and one type of engine for the fitter to get used to.
Alas, CF clearly never slept in the SA400 cab. I did. Yes, it was improvement on the MP mark 4 so better than Crusaders and Europeans but it was very basic. And admittedly it looked a lot nicer than the Marathon cab. Was it better? I seriously doubt it! There’s a lot more to a good long-hauler than the creature comforts of its cab - take it from a daft old long-hauler! Robert
dazcapri:
The Granada was a 3 box saloon at the time but even Ford introduced a hatchback version in the 80’s along with hatchback versions of the ■■■■■■ and of course the Sierra but they at least had the sense to offer estate and saloon versions alongside the hatch. That shows how far ahead of its time the sd1 was it being the car to take Rover into the 80’s although it should have had at the very least an estate option.History shows that the Lucas injection was problematic and lost triumph sales, the specialists have got them sorted now as they have with the problems of the Stag and the Dolomite sprint but at the time they were trouble that’s why it was dropped.
Triumph were not going to build a large sporting saloon their puma prototype wasn’t thought to be suitable and that’s why as you said yourself they were to concentrate on the sports cars the management realised that triumph and rover were essentially competing against themselves,our local austin morris dealer were in direct competition with a Triumph dealer a few miles away.
The 2000 was never going to be fitted with the Rover engine because Triumph didn’t want an engine from what they considered a rival company that’s why the Stag was given a Triumph V8 and we all know how that worked out. By the time they fitted it to the TR8 triumph was under new management.
Yes the Rover was meant to replace both the 2000 and the p6 all I was pointing out was the sd1 sold nearly as much as the 2000 did in less time so someone liked them. The met police stockpiled them they liked them that much. The sd1’s downfall was the usual story of the time it was rushed into production before it was ready.
As for the Acclaim they were a cracking little car and a great seller I worked for a Rover dealer and he couldn’t get enough of them second hand cars flew out of the showroom. Should they have been wearing a Triumph badge maybe not.
It was the same with the Crusader they didn’t upgrade it because Scammell were to become the specialist division of Leyland instead of competing against Leyland for the same sales.The Marathon was available in short sleeper,long haul versions and various other styles to appeal to different operators needs that means if you wanted a long distance hauler you could have one if you needed something to pull a tipper on local work you’d get that from the same dealer,that meant one set of spare parts and one type of engine for the fitter to get used to.
Firstly we know that the Granada Mk 2 was produced from the same late 1970’s point as the SD1 until '85.While the Scorpio alienated some of the older Mk2’s styling fans like myself.Although,unlike Rover,at least Ford didn’t go full ■■■■■■ with a live rear axle and hatchback styling take it or leave it with the Scorpio still retaining three box styling for those who wanted it.While BMW obviously didn’t follow the silly ugly hatchback/coupe trend either following the E3 with the E12,E28 and E34 all taking them well into the 1990’s followed by the E39 which again wasn’t a hatchback design either.That again being more shorter tailed three box than coupe.
c1.staticflickr.com/2/1207/1234 … 0139_b.jpg
Which leaves the questions why did BMW see the three box styled performance saloon as essential to their line up but Leyland didn’t.Bearing in mind the still totally satisfactory IRS three box styled Triumph in that regard.
While how did getting rid of the Triumph fit the description of Triumph supposedly concentrating on ‘sports cars’.When that obviously didn’t even include a performance saloon in the range to compete with the BMW E12 and E28.Let alone the final insult of that somehow translating as making the Acclaim.
Also how did Rover putting the V8 and a manual box in the SD1 supposedly translate as it concentrating ‘‘on the 2000 pipe and slippers market sector’’.When that obviously should have just mean’t offering the 2300 with an auto box in it which at least would have fitted the supposed target market.Bearing in mind performance saloon customers obviously would have preferred the three box styled Triumph V8 3.5-4.6 PI with Triumph also keeping its rightful Vitesse name.Thereby an obvious competitor to the BMW 5 series especially the 535 and E28 M5.Last but not least where is the proof that even many loyal Rover customers wanted an ugly hatchback as opposed to a 3 box P6 replacement.IE why not put the 2600 engine in the Triumph too to satisfy that market sector.That would have given Leyland it’s hatchback option.While also stopping the exodus of justified SD1 haters,who justifiably wanted the finer points of three box styling and IRS,from Rover and Triumph to BMW.On that note it’s clear that the SD1 justifiably alienated more customers than it gained for Leyland.
While as I said your SD1 sales figures totally miss the point that it replaced both the Triumph and Rover premium/sports saloon range which actually makes those figures catastrophic.Not surprising when the BMW 5 series was the target market to which Leyland answered with the zb SD1 let alone the poverty fwd Acclaim and then the fwd 800.While do you really believe that Triumph would have turned down the Rover V8 as opposed to making the compromised OHC abortion that ended up in the Stag.As opposed to them being denied the use of it by Leyland’s treacherous management.
So why would anyone looking for a decent looking three box styled,rwd,performance or premium saloon,have wanted an ugly SD1 hatchback let alone a zb Acclaim or an 800.While if you’re really trying to suggest that they were all reasonable products for the job then why didn’t BMW agree with you in the case of the doing the same to the 5 series.
As for Scammell what would have been so bad about ditching the AEC and Leyland marques and just making the max weight truck range Scammells using a decent upgraded MP cab and ■■■■■■■ or Rolls engine options.Instead of the Marathon and the so called ‘low datum’ ( small cab ) TL12 powered T45.
As I said conspiracy not ■■■■ up.In that the Marathon,Rover SD1,Triumph Acclaim,and Rover 800 and T45 as introduced to the market were all evidence of the deliberate sabotage of the UK automotive industry to aid,if not sell out to,the foreign competition.
ERF-NGC-European:
Alas, CF clearly never slept in the SA400 cab. I did. Yes, it was improvement on the MP mark 4 so better than Crusaders and Europeans but it was very basic. And admittedly it looked a lot nicer than the Marathon cab. Was it better? I seriously doubt it! There’s a lot more to a good long-hauler than the creature comforts of its cab - take it from a daft old long-hauler! Robert
Did you ever do nights out in a short cab Marathon ?.So it’s too narrow to fit a decent steering wheel to drive it with and it’s too small to live in on UK work let alone international.I’ll take the 400 thanks just as luckily I shared a Volvo F10 v the Marathon on a rota.
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
Alas, CF clearly never slept in the SA400 cab. I did. Yes, it was improvement on the MP mark 4 so better than Crusaders and Europeans but it was very basic. And admittedly it looked a lot nicer than the Marathon cab. Was it better? I seriously doubt it! There’s a lot more to a good long-hauler than the creature comforts of its cab - take it from a daft old long-hauler! RobertDid you ever do nights out in a short cab Marathon ?.So it’s too narrow to fit a decent steering wheel to drive it with and it’s too small to live in on UK work let alone international.I’ll take the 400 thanks just as luckily I shared a Volvo F10 v the Marathon on a rota.
Oh lordy, CF! Once again you’re comparing apples with pears. The SA/MP cab (I lived in one) and the F10 cab (I lived in one) don’t compare with the short or narrow Marathon; they do compare with the full sleeper version. So the question is surely: was that cab any worse than the SA/MP cab or the F10/12 cab? I re-assert: I doubt it. And don’t get bogged down with cabs either, because most of us who did long-haul work just wanted reliability above all else 
Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
Alas, CF clearly never slept in the SA400 cab. I did. Yes, it was improvement on the MP mark 4 so better than Crusaders and Europeans but it was very basic. And admittedly it looked a lot nicer than the Marathon cab. Was it better? I seriously doubt it! There’s a lot more to a good long-hauler than the creature comforts of its cab - take it from a daft old long-hauler! RobertDid you ever do nights out in a short cab Marathon ?.So it’s too narrow to fit a decent steering wheel to drive it with and it’s too small to live in on UK work let alone international.I’ll take the 400 thanks just as luckily I shared a Volvo F10 v the Marathon on a rota.
Oh lordy, CF! Once again you’re comparing apples with pears. The SA/MP cab (I lived in one) and the F10 cab (I lived in one) don’t compare with the short or narrow Marathon; they do compare with the full sleeper version. So the question is surely: was that cab any worse than the SA/MP cab or the F10/12 cab? I re-assert: I doubt it. And don’t get bogged down with cabs either, because most of us who did long-haul work just wanted reliability above all else
And some were to sleep instead of a plank of wood but in all honesty the topic shouldn’t have come about because as said the vast percentage of Europeans were over length anyway with full sleepers.Old ground getting re covered with respect.
railstaff:
In all fairness to Carryfast there may be some truth in some off it.Maybe 15 years ago the UK government put the military contract out to tender.Many tendered for it.It is a 25 year contract.MAN won the tender on the promise that all military vehicles would be built in the UK at the now defunct ERF factory.
No longer than the paperwork was signed,the factory was shut and production moved to Germany and Austria.Perhaps not as dramatic as CF suggests but maybe some truth in it.
At the same time, the so-called Private Finance Initiative was selling the rights to do building and maintenance work on public property to the highest bidder. All good free-market stuff, until you consider that they were huge 25 year contracts. Only large companies could afford to underwrite them, or get the banks to insure it for them. Local councils were bound by law to channel our money to them.
Nowt to do with British Leyland, of course- that had been blown apart a quarter of a century beforehand. The only conspiracy there was between the Government and everyone else involved, to keep it alive.
> railstaff:
> And some were to sleep instead of a plank of wood but in all honesty the topic shouldn’t have come about because as said the vast percentage of Europeans were over length anyway with full sleepers.Old ground getting re covered with respect.
Fortunately almost all Old Bill across Europe didn’t have a tape measure nor could be assed how long you were if you passed the attitude test 
[zb]
anorak:railstaff:
In all fairness to Carryfast there may be some truth in some off it.Maybe 15 years ago the UK government put the military contract out to tender.Many tendered for it.It is a 25 year contract.MAN won the tender on the promise that all military vehicles would be built in the UK at the now defunct ERF factory.
No longer than the paperwork was signed,the factory was shut and production moved to Germany and Austria.Perhaps not as dramatic as CF suggests but maybe some truth in it.At the same time, the so-called Private Finance Initiative was selling the rights to do building and maintenance work on public property to the highest bidder. All good free-market stuff, until you consider that they were huge 25 year contracts. Only large companies could afford to underwrite them, or get the banks to insure it for them. Local councils were bound by law to channel our money to them.
Nowt to do with British Leyland, of course- that had been blown apart a quarter of a century beforehand. The only conspiracy there was between the Government and everyone else involved, to keep it alive.
Learn something new everyday.
ERF-NGC-European:
Oh lordy, CF! Once again you’re comparing apples with pears. The SA/MP cab (I lived in one) and the F10 cab (I lived in one) don’t compare with the short or narrow Marathon; they do compare with the full sleeper version. So the question is surely: was that cab any worse than the SA/MP cab or the F10/12 cab? I re-assert: I doubt it. And don’t get bogged down with cabs either, because most of us who did long-haul work just wanted reliability above all else
If I’ve read it right the ‘big’ cab Marathon was actually removed from the options list as explained in the Euro test v the F12 ?. 
Which then leaves the question why was the T45 also only offered with a compromised cab on its introduction and if that was considered good enough why bother with the bigger ‘high datum’ upgrade.While even the ‘big’ cab Marathon still seems to have been the same width narrow cab design resulting in the toy town steering wheel at least ?.
While,as in the case of the car division stitch up.Why didn’t Leyland’s competitors like Volvo and DAF not choose to follow the same compromised cab formula of the Marathon and early T45 in the case of the F10/12 and 2800 at least.As for reliabilty,unlike the TL12,there’s no evidence that the Rolls and ■■■■■■■ engine model didn’t meet that together with providing 7.0 mpg + potential at 38t gross.While if long haul only required reliability ‘above all else’ then why did ERF go to all the trouble of the NGC and 7MW cab when the lesser types could have provided that.
The T45 high datum upgrade was to enable an 855 or chargecooled Rolls to fit under it.The internal dimensions stayed the same.Longer doors,external lockers fitted.
railstaff:
The T45 high datum upgrade was to enable an 855 or chargecooled Rolls to fit under it.The internal dimensions stayed the same.Longer doors,external lockers fitted.
The same as the 2800, but that jacked up 2300 didn’t even have side lockers. Carryfast conveniently doesn’t mention that. He also fails to mention the P cab Scania and the FL10, lorries that came after the T45 and lorries that sold in huge numbers, despite their low datum cabs, the FL10 even earning the nick name Wendy House, such was its compactness. Add the Daf 85 cab which cost so much to design and tool that it sent Daf down the pan and you can clearly see that there was a significant market for the low datum 300hp on paper tractor unit right up until the turn of the century and beyond with the P range, FM and CF, even MAN, Merc and Renault got into the game, yet according to our resident loony, Leyland got it all wrong when they launched the T45 with low datum cab in 1979. I’ll leave you all to draw your own conclusions on that.
Cars, hmm, not really the place, but it’s a very interesting subject, it also does have a bearing on this topic, so talking about them is fine, however it would be nice if someone who doesn’t talk out of their arse was to comment, I’ve got nothing sensible to add, except to disagree with you know who. My personal thoughts are that it didn’t matter if BL rebadged a Rolls Royce and knocked them out for the price of a Mini, they would’ve somehow managed to make a balls up of it. The whole car division was a complete joke.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
Oh lordy, CF! Once again you’re comparing apples with pears. The SA/MP cab (I lived in one) and the F10 cab (I lived in one) don’t compare with the short or narrow Marathon; they do compare with the full sleeper version. So the question is surely: was that cab any worse than the SA/MP cab or the F10/12 cab? I re-assert: I doubt it. And don’t get bogged down with cabs either, because most of us who did long-haul work just wanted reliability above all elseIf I’ve read it right the ‘big’ cab Marathon was actually removed from the options list as explained in the Euro test v the F12 ?.
While,as in the case of the car division stitch up.Why didn’t Leyland’s competitors like Volvo and DAF not choose to follow the same compromised cab formula of the Marathon and early T45 in the case of the F10/12 and 2800 at least.As for reliabilty,unlike the TL12,there’s no evidence that the Rolls and ■■■■■■■ engine model didn’t meet that together with providing 7.0 mpg + potential at 38t gross.While if long haul only required reliability ‘above all else’ then why did ERF go to all the trouble of the NGC and 7MW cab when the lesser types could have provided that.
‘Above all else’ doesn’t mean the same as ‘only’; it implies an order of preferences and if you can have the whole set of preferences at the right price you have a saleable lorry.
I don’t understand your idea fixe about toytown steering wheels in Marathons. '60s lorries had huge steering wheels in tiny cabs. Have you ever driven a Leyland Titan half-cab double-decker? The choice of steering wheel size clearly had bugger all to do with the cab width! robert
newmercman:
railstaff:
The T45 high datum upgrade was to enable an 855 or chargecooled Rolls to fit under it.The internal dimensions stayed the same.Longer doors,external lockers fitted.The same as the 2800, but that jacked up 2300 didn’t even have side lockers. Carryfast conveniently doesn’t mention that. He also fails to mention the P cab Scania and the FL10, lorries that came after the T45 and lorries that sold in huge numbers, despite their low datum cabs, the FL10 even earning the nick name Wendy House, such was its compactness. Add the Daf 85 cab which cost so much to design and tool that it sent Daf down the pan and you can clearly see that there was a significant market for the low datum 300hp on paper tractor unit right up until the turn of the century and beyond with the P range, FM and CF, even MAN, Merc and Renault got into the game, yet according to our resident loony, Leyland got it all wrong when they launched the T45 with low datum cab in 1979. I’ll leave you all to draw your own conclusions on that.
Cars, hmm, not really the place, but it’s a very interesting subject, it also does have a bearing on this topic, so talking about them is fine, however it would be nice if someone who doesn’t talk out of their arse was to comment, I’ve got nothing sensible to add, except to disagree with you know who. My personal thoughts are that it didn’t matter if BL rebadged a Rolls Royce and knocked them out for the price of a Mini, they would’ve somehow managed to make a balls up of it. The whole car division was a complete joke.
Blimey leave it out.I spent enough time in both the 2800 and the 2300/2500 to know that they were totally different cabs and totally different trucks aimed at totally different market sectors.The 2800 being a full width decent sleeper and the 2300/2500 being narrow cab small sleeper if not diabolically cramped day cabs as in our case.The Marathon clearly being aimed at the 2800 sector.While the large T45 cab also wasn’t just a lifting job it was a totally different larger cab,unlike the poxy Marathon.
As for the car division,like the Marathon,putting an Acclaim,an SD1 and an 800 against a 5 series BMW isn’t a balls up it’s sabotage and which part of Rover and Triumph ‘were’ the best earners in the Leyland Group,did you miss.
Carryfast:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Was the Marathon narrower than the Crusader?The relevant comparison in the case of an upgraded Crusader ‘2’ ( would have been ) the SA 400.Although even the Crusader ‘1’ seems to have been a full width cab by the standards of the day.
Edit to add the Crusader obviously didn’t need the silly small steering wheel while the Marathon did because there wasn’t clearance at the side for a decent sized one.
So what were the dimensions of the SA 400 Crusader and Marathon cabs in comparison , i think that Daf may disagree with you on the small steering wheel comments , have you been in a CF or a 105 lately neither are that big , and to be honest most drivers would soon adapt to whatever size of steering wheel that was fitted it`s called experience
I’ve driven and slept in both Seddon Atkinson 400s and 401s and the 401 was a big improvement with plenty of storage especially under the bunk
I’ve stated before that I’d never driven a Marathon but I’ve driven Roadtrains and the 80 Series both low cabs and my own opinion the SA had a roomier cab
ERF-NGC-European:
The choice of steering wheel size clearly had bugger all to do with the cab width! robert
How could they have fitted an even slightly larger steering wheel without the wheel and/or driver’s arm fouling against the driver’s door.
