I’d never claim to be an “expert” about any subject…X = unknown quantity, spurt = a drip under pressure. But I’ll attempt to give some answers to your questions with information passed down from some former,very senior AEC management I have either spoken to in person or communicated with over the years.
Firstly, AEC in about 1961 / 1962, just prior to the ‘merger’ with Leyland. It goes without saying that being the two largest UK manufacturers of PSV and premium heavy vehicles that AEC and Leyland were fierce rivals both in home markets and overseas. Overseas markets for both companies were mainly in British Commonwealth nations, but not entirely so. For example AEC was successful in several South American countries, as well as Portugal and some other European companies. Leyland also had success in South America and some European companies. Both companies had each entered into joint collaborations with various European manufacturers: - AEC with Willeme in France, Vanaja in Finland, and Barrerios in Spain for the supply of engines and gearboxes, and Leyland with Hotchkiss in France and DAF in Holland with engines. Both companies had assembly plants in South Africa and Australia, either as stand alone ventures or joint collaborations with local companies. Both companies supplied the “loose” engine market in the UK. Both companies had significant presences in industrial, marine, and railcar engine markets. Both companies had acquired other vehicle makers, body builders, and component manufacturers. So to sum up, very similar companies in the range of products produced and markets supplied. Leyland was the larger of the two companies. In the 1930s Leyland and AEC had entered into a joint venture for trolley bus assembly, but for the most part they went their own separate ways.The most fierce rivalry was in passenger vehicle markets which were considered to be more prestigious than lorry markets. And of course AEC was the supplier of choice to London Transport, where the company had its basis when it was founded as The Associated Equipment Company back in 1912.
When AEC was floated as a separate company in 1933 it had an agreement to supply London Transport with 80% of its vehicle chassis for 30 years, so by 1962 this agreement was nearing its conclusion. All of London Transport’s PSVs had been designed and developed jointly with engineers from each organisation, but the PSV market was changing rapidly from the traditional front engine double decker design to rear engine, front entrance models. Leyland had introduced such a PSV with the Atlantean, and Bristol and Daimler had similar models. Because LT could not decide about the suitability, or not, of the rear engine bus configuration for operating in London, neither, they nor AEC has such a vehicle in design or development in the early 1060s. This left AEC very vulnerable in the PSV market which accounted for about 40% of its revenue and 60% of its profit margin. by 1962 the Routemaster contract had only another 3 or 4 years to run. AEC and LT did hastily design and build FRM 1 (it still exists) that was a front entrance, rear engine double-decker based on Routemaster components and running gear. Development of the FRM concept was immediately shelved when Leyland took over.
On the lorry side of the business AEC was probably a bit stronger than Leyland in the early 1960s. AEC Mk.V Mandators and Mammoth Majors were selling well and proving to be reliable. The Mercury range was matching the Leyland Comet in sales figures and Leyland was having reliability issues with its Power Plus engines in Beaver and Octopus models. However, AEC was in a weaker financial position due to uncertainty about its future PSV sales, and it had suffered from indecisive and weak leadership in the Boardroom. Financial institutions had sensed this weakness, and AEC’s share price had been steadily falling. Leyland had a long history of buying and owning shares in competitors, so with AEC’s share price falling, it increased its holding in AEC shares, leaving it in a strong position to mount a takeover bid, which it did. The final agreement was announced as a merger between the two companies, but Leyland had the more forceful personalities in its Boardroom and it was in effect a takeover.
As for wet and dry liner engines, there were large numbers of both types produced by AEC over the years and dating back to the mid-1930s. The AEC engines more familiar to contributors on TN were both types. The AV470, A590, AV690 were all wet liner designs. The AV505, AV760, TL12 were dry liner types.
Hope that this gives some clarification as to what was a complicated AEC and Leyland “merger” and the rationale behind it. I think that it’s accurate to say that when it was announced it left the industry stunned and my sources from AEC said at the time that it would never be a success. I have heard a Leyland man acknowledge that AEC had the better engineers.
On that note the premise stands a good outsourced one beats a bad in house one and vice versa and in house or outsourced is no guarantee of a bullet proof design.
