Seriously? the size of the steering wheel is dictated by the ratio of the steering box.A steering wheels main reason for being there is to turn the wheels and give the driver some decent comfort levels.With the Marathon cab being what it was and having a low bed,the seat would push right back unlike say a B or C series respectfully.I would think BL could have fitted what ever wheel they felt like and by no means would it have foule the door or A pillar.Sorry to state the obvious to the educated members.
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.
Seems obvious that these are totally different cabs.The latter being a larger cab in overall length than the former including a larger sleeper section as shown by the different windows but not available at launch.While the longer sleeper option in the case of the Marathon also seems to have been removed according to the later Euro test v the F12.
Carryfast:
ramone:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
…My theory is that was conspiracy not ■■■■ up.Just like going for the TL12 narrow short sleeper TL12 Marathon and ‘low datum’ TL12 T45 instead of a Rolls/■■■■■■■ Crusader 2.Where’s the conspiracy? BL offered both of the vehicles you mention, without prejudice toward the success of either. The Crusader was produced until the early 1980s, alongside the Marathoin/Roadtrain, long after the sensible decision to rationalise could have been taken.
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.
You do realise that even if they built a Scammell Crusader 2 it would have been a Marathon with a Scammell badge.
Leyland was an amalgamation of rival companies the management decided to stop competing against themselves.
Scammell were to make specialist vehicles Leyland were to make the normal haulage stuff.
In the car division Rover were going to make the executive saloons and Triumph were going to concentrate on the sports cars as in the TR range
railstaff:
I would think BL could have fitted what ever wheel they felt like and by no means would it have foule the door or A pillar.Sorry to state the obvious to the educated members.
I’m guessing that even Stevie Wonder could see the amount of available width from the engine radiator cover area to the door line and between the centre of the steering column and the door shut line in that photo.Go for it fit a Crusader wheel and see what happens.While it’s obvious that they couldn’t alter the gearing of the steering box to compensate for the smaller wheel hence a horrible twitchy tiller like thing to drive.
All other Ergo variants had big steering wheels, and there was only one cab width. The idea that the Marathon wheel was small because there was insufficient cab space to accommodate an “ordinary” one is insane. It is nearly as daft as the disbelief that a con rod ever has a tensile load on it, or the suggestion that large groups of disconnected organisations conspired to shut down the British lorry-making industry. Such thinking is the work of a bona fide nutcase.
As I’ve posted on more than one occasion previously Scammell was a specialist manufacturer that never, ever, assembled mainstream haulage lorries in any quantity until the 1960s when the Handyman and 6x2 Trunker models were introduced. Ironically with those models it just added another competing option into the 30 / 32 tons market. Then came the Routeman eight-wheeler that did in fact do very well. It was because of Scammell’s niche, specialised models that Leyland bought the company in 1955, not because it was a serious competitor to mainstream Leyland models, and it was also why Scammell management enjoyed more autonomy than any other Leyland group subsidiary. Look at Scammell’s model line-up pre-1960: - the Mechanical Horse, heavy haulage tractors, normal control artic-eights, (that later became the Highwayman), and the Rigid Eight, which again, was never a mainstream eight wheeler model. Scammell never designed, developed, or built its own diesel engine, relying until 1955 on Gardner engines, with optional ■■■■■■■■ or Meadows or Rolls Royce engines. after Leyland bought the company then Leyland engines became the preferred fitment, with Gardner, ■■■■■■■■ and Rolls Royce being options. As noted by Newmercman the Crusader was a joint Scammell and BRS collaboration, similar in concept to the earlier Bristol and BRS joint design.
dazcapri:
You do realise that even if they built a Scammell Crusader 2 it would have been a Marathon with a Scammell badge.Leyland was an amalgamation of rival companies the management decided to stop competing against themselves.
Scammell were to make specialist vehicles Leyland were to make the normal haulage stuff.
In the car division Rover were going to make the executive saloons and Triumph were going to concentrate on the sports cars as in the TR range
Oh wait so they decided to carry on with the old fixed cab Crusader together with the piece of junk Marathon.That’ll worry DAF and Volvo.
While you haven’t answered the question how does putting the V8 in the ugly live axle SD1 hatchback fit the description of just a supposed Rover and Triumph 2000 replacement and how can you have a ‘sports car’ range without a decent looking 3 box styled IRS performance saloon to compete directly with the BMW 5 series.So what did we get by your logic.The SD1 live axle hatch back with a V8 in it and the Honda Acclaim followed by the fwd 800.That’ll work.At least for BMW it did who went laughing all the way to bank.Just like DAF etc in the case of the Marathon,Crusader 1 and TL12 short cab T45.
Carryfast:
dazcapri:
You do realise that even if they built a Scammell Crusader 2 it would have been a Marathon with a Scammell badge.Leyland was an amalgamation of rival companies the management decided to stop competing against themselves.
Scammell were to make specialist vehicles Leyland were to make the normal haulage stuff.
In the car division Rover were going to make the executive saloons and Triumph were going to concentrate on the sports cars as in the TR rangeOh wait so they decided to carry on with the old fixed cab Crusader together with the piece of junk Marathon.That’ll worry DAF and Volvo.
While you haven’t answered the question how does putting the V8 in the ugly live axle SD1 hatchback fit the description of just a supposed Rover and Triumph 2000 replacement and how can you have a ‘sports car’ range without a decent looking 3 box styled IRS performance saloon to compete directly with the BMW 5 series.So what did we get by your logic.The SD1 live axle hatch back with a V8 in it and the Honda Acclaim followed by the fwd 800.That’ll work.At least for BMW it did who went laughing all the way to bank.Just like DAF etc in the case of the Marathon,Crusader 1 and TL12 short cab T45.
Oh wait so they decided to carry on with the old fixed cab Crusader together with the piece of junk Marathon.That’ll worry DAF and Volvo.
Maybe you werent experienced enough to cope with a proper lorry , many hauliers disagreed with you as the Marathon out sold the Crusader , you still havent come back with the dimensions of the Marathon compared with the 400 SA
Carryfast:
dazcapri:
You do realise that even if they built a Scammell Crusader 2 it would have been a Marathon with a Scammell badge.Leyland was an amalgamation of rival companies the management decided to stop competing against themselves.
Scammell were to make specialist vehicles Leyland were to make the normal haulage stuff.
In the car division Rover were going to make the executive saloons and Triumph were going to concentrate on the sports cars as in the TR rangeOh wait so they decided to carry on with the old fixed cab Crusader together with the piece of junk Marathon.That’ll worry DAF and Volvo.
While you haven’t answered the question how does putting the V8 in the ugly live axle SD1 hatchback fit the description of just a supposed Rover and Triumph 2000 replacement and how can you have a ‘sports car’ range without a decent looking 3 box styled IRS performance saloon to compete directly with the BMW 5 series.So what did we get by your logic.The SD1 live axle hatch back with a V8 in it and the Honda Acclaim followed by the fwd 800.That’ll work.At least for BMW it did who went laughing all the way to bank.Just like DAF etc in the case of the Marathon,Crusader 1 and TL12 short cab T45.
The rest cab T45 was built for a good reason.Remember how many Tesco ran?Someone did their home work on that one.
[zb]
anorak:
All other Ergo variants had big steering wheels, and there was only one cab width. The idea that the Marathon wheel was small because there was insufficient cab space to accommodate an “ordinary” one is insane. It is nearly as daft as the disbelief that a con rod ever has a tensile load on it, or the suggestion that large groups of disconnected organisations conspired to shut down the British lorry-making industry. Such thinking is the work of a bona fide nutcase.
It’s bleedin obvious that mounting the ERGO cab on a proper truck chassis isn’t exactly the same thing as something designed to be a dustcart like a Mercury.Everything gets thrown out.You know important stuff like steering column v chassis position relative to the steering column centre line where it enters the cab relative to the side of the cab.Not to worry just fit a mini steering wheel that’ll fix it.
As for supposed con rod tension on induction supposedly being greater on a long stroke engine.As I said how does an equivalent amount of torque at the crank supposedly apply a greater tension to the conrod on the induction stroke regardless of how that torque was put into it.IE it’s the bleedin crankshaft that pulls it down with the same amount force regardless of which method was used to generate the force to start with on the power stroke.Your bs theory only works if you’ve got a longer stroke on induction than you have on power 
although I’d guess in the minds of AEC fan boys anything is possible.
On YOUTUBE there is actually a clip from when Scammel shut at Watford.The interview is with the then MD of Daf trucks Holland.Seems Daf were involved long before people thought.
railstaff:
The rest cab T45 was built for a good reason.Remember how many Tesco ran?Someone did their home work on that one.
I think the point was that there seems to have been no ‘sleeper’ cab when the T45 was introduced ?.While DAF and Volvo seemed to do just fine with no ‘rest cab’ option in the case of the 2800 and the F10/12.
railstaff:
On YOUTUBE there is actually a clip from when Scammel shut at Watford.The interview is with the then MD of Daf trucks Holland.Seems Daf were involved long before people thought.
DAF took a controlling interest over Leyland truck group in 1987.Probably just part of a tour telling the workforce at Scammell that they were wrong about wanting a new upgraded Crusader back in the 1970’s.It was always so much better to run the whole lot down then close it and let DAF take over.
Carryfast:
dazcapri:
You do realise that even if they built a Scammell Crusader 2 it would have been a Marathon with a Scammell badge.Leyland was an amalgamation of rival companies the management decided to stop competing against themselves.
Scammell were to make specialist vehicles Leyland were to make the normal haulage stuff.
In the car division Rover were going to make the executive saloons and Triumph were going to concentrate on the sports cars as in the TR rangeOh wait so they decided to carry on with the old fixed cab Crusader together with the piece of junk Marathon.That’ll worry DAF and Volvo.
While you haven’t answered the question how does putting the V8 in the ugly live axle SD1 hatchback fit the description of just a supposed Rover and Triumph 2000 replacement and how can you have a ‘sports car’ range without a decent looking 3 box styled IRS performance saloon to compete directly with the BMW 5 series.So what did we get by your logic.The SD1 live axle hatch back with a V8 in it and the Honda Acclaim followed by the fwd 800.That’ll work.At least for BMW it did who went laughing all the way to bank.Just like DAF etc in the case of the Marathon,Crusader 1 and TL12 short cab T45.
They carried on with the Crusader because the army bought them and I think gingerfold has summed up the scammell story better than I ever could.
You keep slagging off the live axle in the rover do you think it would have been better if they used the IRS from the Triumph which someone described as troublesome and that particular cars achilles heel,who said that again oh hang on it was you.
I’ve never said that the sd1 was a success like you pointed out the sales figures don’t match the joint figures of the older cars.
The Triumph and P6 were designed as an executive saloons and we’re originally meant to take sales from Jaguar,a rival company when they were launched,BMW were barely in the picture in 1963.
Triumph were actually the Standard Triumph motor company the 2000 was designed to replace the standard vanguard mk111 but it was thought the Triumph name was better known.
The sd1’s price at launch was £2000 less than the BMW it was supposed to be luxury at a bargain price.
The Rover cars were traditionally sold to your local business owner,bank manager and as I’ve already said should have had a estate and saloon version sold alongside the hatch. Ford did exactly that 7 years later with the Granada although even they added them afterwards.
Again triumph were to concentrate on the sports cars as in small usually 2 seater pocket rockets as thats what management thought they did best.
Read up on the history of the Stag it’s in black and white that they were offered the Rover engine but declined as in Triumphs own words,it wouldn’t fit,they also thought that Rover wouldn’t be able to supply enough for the expected demand.
A sports car and a sports saloon are two different vehicles and always will be
I’m going to do something revolutionary here, I’m going to answer as best I can, the question indirectly posed by the OP, the success or failure of the Leyland Marathon. Firstly why the Marathon came into being and secondly with the benefit of hindsight, what mistakes were made, obviously I will be repeating myself as it’s not my first post on the subject, but I think this thread has become a gong show and it needs tidying up a little. I ask that you all follow my example and state your case regarding the Marathon too.
So British Leyland came into being, a new top weight tractor unit was on the cards and the pen pushers set to work, then the accountants came along and screwed all their offerings into a ball and gave them the parameters under which they could work with, basically they had to work with what they had, there were to be no clean sheet designs. There was no money in the kitty for outsourcing, save for the bits that were already contracted out to suppliers. Long story short, they had to modify what they had. So the men in brown polyester suits sat down and looked at the current range, chassis was no big deal, it’s only a few girders bolted together, sorted, axles, again, easy, now to the cab, the only viable option was to use the Ergomatic cab, the basic structure was a square box with a non fixed floor pan, easy enough to add some height to that and that’s exactly what they did. Now onto engines, it was a toss up between the 680 and the 760, the boys at AEC won the toss and the 760 was to be turbocharged and become the TL12, job done, we’ll call it the Marathon. The accountants were happy, the sales and marketing bods were happy and it went into production.
Now to the mistakes, first and foremost, it looked exactly what it was, a parts bin special, it’s launch coincided with never before seen designs from its competitors, in my opinion this was the biggest mistake, the industrial unrest that plagued BL had yet to surface and the appalling build quality of later years was still in its infancy, so the Marathon wasn’t a bad lorry at all, it just looked like it.
If I could turn back the clock and chair that first meeting I would’ve clipped the accountants and salesmen round the ear and told them to forget all about it, what was needed was a new range from the ground up with all the marques under the BL umbrella concentrating on a specific sector, as I said before, Albion making lightweight rigids and tractor units, including lightweight 8 wheelers, Guy making fleet spec tractor units, Scammell doing heavy duty rigids, heavy haul and military chassis, leaving AEC and Leyland to concentrate on premium rigids and tractor units. The T45 range should have been the priority.
Sent from my SM-T805W using Tapatalk
I won’t quote you newmercman but that’s exactly what should have happened. BMC should have been left to there own devices if that had happened Leyland might still be here unfortunately it’s something we’ll never know.
IIRC from the previous threads, there were some reports of increasing shopfloor unreliability from the 1960s, so that would have affected the build quality of the Marathon.
In one of the recent discussions, there was mention of AEC staff en masse ignoring drawings which activity is one of the cornerstones of GB’s industrial decline- the engineers not knowing what was happening on the shop floor.
Carryfast:
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.
Seems obvious that these are totally different cabs.The latter being a larger cab in overall length than the former including a larger sleeper section as shown by the different windows but not available at launch.While the longer sleeper option in the case of the Marathon also seems to have been removed according to the later Euro test v the F12.
Its the same cab.The high datum is lifted up for the reasons I said.It has external underfloor lockers at the rear quarters.It has infill panels around the bottom of the frame and the door skins are extended.The cab floor was not altered in any way.The pictures show a high datum sleeper and low datum rest.Quite obvious the rear of the cab is different.But what a good idea for supermarkets,fleet and tippers.Europeans done same thing but instead with width for Switzerland.
[zb]
anorak:
IIRC from the previous threads, there were some reports of increasing shopfloor unreliability from the 1960s, so that would have affected the build quality of the Marathon.In one of the recent discussions, there was mention of AEC staff en masse ignoring drawings which activity is one of the cornerstones of GB’s industrial decline- the engineers not knowing what was happening on the shop floor.
And leaving screwdrivers in doors to rattle around.
railstaff:
[zb]
anorak:
IIRC from the previous threads, there were some reports of increasing shopfloor unreliability from the 1960s, so that would have affected the build quality of the Marathon.In one of the recent discussions, there was mention of AEC staff en masse ignoring drawings which activity is one of the cornerstones of GB’s industrial decline- the engineers not knowing what was happening on the shop floor.
And leaving screwdrivers in doors to rattle around.
It got worse than that ever encountered 760s breaking crankshafts?,due to the pulley being fitted incorrectly with no clearance for the keyway (topping) therefore running out of line, when I was on the tools I replaced crankshafts under warranty during my time with a main dealer