ramone:
The Marathon wasnt available with the E290 until very near the end of production, so it couldnt have been TL12 v E290 , but if you bothered to read the road test of the Marathon E290 the testers from CM repeatedly said that to get the best out of it you need great discipline with your right foot , they also mentioned it wasnt as flexible as the TL12 , so in basic terms you needed a feather foot to get the best out of a E290 ,now explain how you get every driver to drive with great discipline .... it wouldnt happen . The Marathon 2 was a test bed for the T45 ,the TL12 was a very good engine in its day just read the road tests and for a change listen to the drivers that had them long term .
Let’s get this right I’m referring to the critical time between 1978-80 in the lead up to the introduction of the T45.The E 290 was available to use during that time.Instead of which Leyland not only lumbered the Marathon with the TL 12 it also did the same thing during the critical customer acceptance period of the T45.As for using the excuse that drivers couldn’t drive the ■■■■■■■ properly,as Juddian pointed out,that’s bollox too.Which leaves the question where was gingerfold’s mythical 300 hp +,or for that matter more importantly the ■■■■■■■ 930 lb/ft torque output,ever seen from a TL12 in production form.As opposed to possibly temporarily on a dyno with silly unsustainable boost levels at which point,all too predictably,there was no way that it could maintain the type of torque output required,to compete with the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ breaking.
On that note the comments here regarding the T45 and the TL12 are just as valid as things stood in 1978.While also confirming that Leyland needed the T45 with big cam ■■■■■■■ power from that point.Not the Heath Robinson effort of the Marathon let alone that being lumbered with the wrong obsolete engine in the form of the TL12.Arguably even the T45 also following the wrong Ergo developed Marathon cab with the less wrong T45 one.IE history suggests that the retrograde Marathon 2 and the TL12 motor played a large part in the downfall of the Leyland truck group.With the fiasco of the T45 being lumbered with the same motor and weird bulbous cab ,when it needed an SA 400 type cab with big cam ■■■■■■■ under it,finishing the job.
Why was the Marathon lumbered with the TL12 , bearing in mind it was a strong performer and an economical one too , what else would a 273 bhp engine need to do to please you , the E290 was 1 bhp down on the TL12 both very good engines but then again whats the point , Im typing this with a big grin on my face because you are unwittingly funny at times
Carryfast:
Let’s get this right I’m referring to the critical time between 1978-80 in the lead up to the introduction of the T45.The E 290 was available to use during that time.Instead of which Leyland not only lumbered the Marathon with the TL 12 it also did the same thing during the critical customer acceptance period of the T45.As for using the excuse that drivers couldn’t drive the ■■■■■■■ properly,as Juddian pointed out,that’s bollox too.Which leaves the question where was gingerfold’s mythical 300 hp +,or for that matter more importantly the ■■■■■■■ 930 lb/ft torque output,ever seen from a TL12 in production form.As opposed to possibly temporarily on a dyno with silly unsustainable boost levels at which point,all too predictably,there was no way that it could maintain the type of torque output required,to compete with the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ breaking.
On that note the comments here regarding the T45 and the TL12 are just as valid as things stood in 1978.While also confirming that Leyland needed the T45 with big cam ■■■■■■■ power from that point.Not the Heath Robinson effort of the Marathon let alone that being lumbered with the wrong obsolete engine in the form of the TL12.Arguably even the T45 also following the wrong Ergo developed Marathon cab with the less wrong T45 one.IE history suggests that the retrograde Marathon 2 and the TL12 motor played a large part in the downfall of the Leyland truck group.With the fiasco of the T45 being lumbered with the same motor and weird bulbous cab ,when it needed an SA 400 type cab with big cam ■■■■■■■ under it,finishing the job.
Why was the Marathon lumbered with the TL12 , bearing in mind it was a strong performer and an economical one too , what else would a 273 bhp engine need to do to please you , the E290 was 1 bhp down on the TL12 both very good engines but then again whats the point , Im typing this with a big grin on my face because you are unwittingly funny at times
The ‘point’ is that Leyland clearly needed the torque available from the ■■■■■■■ and a cab fit to take on the DAF 2800 ( SA 400 type outsourced MP ? ).As for the E 290 with more than 900 lb/ft at its disposal it’s equally clear that met the spec better than the TL12.On that note remind us what the TL12’s power output was at around 1500 rpm bearing in mind that trucks generally aren’t driven everywhere at 2,000 rpm.
Having said that I don’t agree with the premise in the article that a decent constant mesh box,including Spicer,was supposedly inferior to a typical synchro import.More like the exact opposite.Like getting the best out of the ■■■■■■■ and just as is the case today that said more about operators needing to employ the right drivers than the Brits making the wrong trucks.Based on the premise that if a ‘driver’ can’t handle a superior,faster,lighter to use,constant mesh box,then they shouldn’t be let anywhere near a heavy truck.
While putting the conspiracy hat on it’s possible that the whole sorry mess was deliberately orchestrated to give DAF the upper hand from the point when Leyland mysteriously gave them the rights to the superior 680 motor while keeping the TL12 lemon for itself.A bit like the question of Bedford lumbering its TM with the obsolete Detroit 71 series engine so as to smooth the way for the eventual takeover of GM trucks by Volvo.
I can remember when people used to compare the L10 to the Roller,exactly the same here,the 855 had best part of 2 litre capacity hike.Of course it will have the edge but not by much.
railstaff:
I can remember when people used to compare the L10 to the Roller,exactly the same here,the 855 had best part of 2 litre capacity hike.Of course it will have the edge but not by much.
The ■■■■■■■■ ‘edge’ wasn’t just a case of it’s overall torque output but also its ‘specific’ torque output in the case of the E290 let alone the E320.Which makes the capacity comparison meaningless.IE almost 20% more torque from less than 12% more capacity.
railstaff:
I can remember when people used to compare the L10 to the Roller,exactly the same here,the 855 had best part of 2 litre capacity hike.Of course it will have the edge but not by much.
The ■■■■■■■■ ‘edge’ wasn’t just a case of it’s overall torque output but also its ‘specific’ torque output in the case of the E290 let alone the E320.Which makes the capacity comparison meaningless.IE almost 20% more torque from less than 12% more capacity.
So what we know from this is that the 855 made more torque due to a number of factors with the engine components.Mostly the fuel system and its capabiltys.
Just an observation of the time from the transport office, with a very mixed bag fleet of Marathon’s, Roadtrains and ERFs of all ages The ■■■■■■■ powered tractors seldom went into the garage for other than routine service. There were a few Leyland powered motors and an Eagle powered T45 that virtually had their own pit and their respective drivers had their own mugs in the fitting shop canteen!
railstaff:
I can remember when people used to compare the L10 to the Roller,exactly the same here,the 855 had best part of 2 litre capacity hike.Of course it will have the edge but not by much.
The ■■■■■■■■ ‘edge’ wasn’t just a case of it’s overall torque output but also its ‘specific’ torque output in the case of the E290 let alone the E320.Which makes the capacity comparison meaningless.IE almost 20% more torque from less than 12% more capacity.
So what we know from this is that the 855 made more torque due to a number of factors with the engine components.Mostly the fuel system and its capabiltys.
Volvo TD120 77 lb/ft per litre almost 6 inch stroke
DAF 2800 73 lb/ft per litre 5 3/4 inch stroke
Rolls 300 Li 76 lb/ft per litre 6 inch stroke.
There’s a pattern there.IE for any equivalent given torque output a shorter stroke means more stress because it’s easier on the engine to use a longer lever at the crank than to apply more force through the con rod.
hayday:
Just an observation of the time from the transport office, with a very mixed bag fleet of Marathon’s, Roadtrains and ERFs of all ages The ■■■■■■■ powered tractors seldom went into the garage for other than routine service. There were a few Leyland powered motors and an Eagle powered T45 that virtually had their own pit and their respective drivers had their own mugs in the fitting shop canteen!
With due respect the transport office isn’t always the best perspective to use. Back in the 1990s when we had over 100 ERFs on the road they spent far more time in the workshops as a group of trucks than the Volvos, Scanias and DAFs we had at the same time. It wasn’t the ■■■■■■■ engines in the ERFs that was the problem it was the other parts of the ERFs that gave the problem. Only yesterday I spent most of the morning arguing with my local Mercedes dealership about two Actros tractor units that were with them, one of which has been there since last Friday. In the end the one I got back was so late that it missed its delivery time, earned absolutely no revenue and cost me a driver’s wage for the day. Is the Actros a bad truck? No not necessarily but from yesterday’s performance it could be deduced that it is.
gingerfold:
The late Pat Kennett thought highly of the TL12 Marathon, but he was an ex-Leyland Motors service engineer, so he could have shown a bit of bias. In the main he was objective in his road tests so his comments do carry some weight.
You jogged a vague memory of me reading one of Pat Kennett’s excellent Test Match articles (or was it a Group Test?) with the Marathon and… and… I can’t remember.
For some reason I think it was up against the F10 and the E290 Sed-Atki 400, but that’s a wild guess that I will deny all knowledge of if challenged. Perhaps if you or NMM has a copy or a scan of that (or any comparisons TRUCK did with the Marathon) you’d be kind enough to whack them on here for an appreciative audience.
hayday:
Just an observation of the time from the transport office, with a very mixed bag fleet of Marathon’s, Roadtrains and ERFs of all ages The ■■■■■■■ powered tractors seldom went into the garage for other than routine service. There were a few Leyland powered motors and an Eagle powered T45 that virtually had their own pit and their respective drivers had their own mugs in the fitting shop canteen!
With due respect the transport office isn’t always the best perspective to use. Back in the 1990s when we had over 100 ERFs on the road they spent far more time in the workshops as a group of trucks than the Volvos, Scanias and DAFs we had at the same time. It wasn’t the ■■■■■■■ engines in the ERFs that was the problem it was the other parts of the ERFs that gave the problem. Only yesterday I spent most of the morning arguing with my local Mercedes dealership about two Actros tractor units that were with them, one of which has been there since last Friday. In the end the one I got back was so late that it missed its delivery time, earned absolutely no revenue and cost me a driver’s wage for the day. Is the Actros a bad truck? No not necessarily but from yesterday’s performance it could be deduced that it is.
Thats a regular occurrence with our 2 Mercs ,waiting for parts, ordering the wrong parts but MAN are worse . Where I worked a few years back our local Iveco dealer were appalling Daf werent much better .We ended up using a rental company and leased off them .At least they would give us a replacement vehicle if ours wasn`t ready
gingerfold:
The late Pat Kennett thought highly of the TL12 Marathon, but he was an ex-Leyland Motors service engineer, so he could have shown a bit of bias. In the main he was objective in his road tests so his comments do carry some weight.
You jogged a vague memory of me reading one of Pat Kennett’s excellent Test Match articles (or was it a Group Test?) with the Marathon and… and… I can’t remember.
For some reason I think it was up against the F10 and the E290 Sed-Atki 400, but that’s a wild guess that I will deny all knowledge of if challenged. Perhaps if you or NMM has a copy or a scan of that (or any comparisons TRUCK did with the Marathon) you’d be kind enough to whack them on here for an appreciative audience.
TIA
Ah! I can help you with that one. ;Behold, the 1978 Euro-Test. Here you go chaps . Robert
hayday:
Just an observation of the time from the transport office, with a very mixed bag fleet of Marathon’s, Roadtrains and ERFs of all ages The ■■■■■■■ powered tractors seldom went into the garage for other than routine service. There were a few Leyland powered motors and an Eagle powered T45 that virtually had their own pit and their respective drivers had their own mugs in the fitting shop canteen!
With due respect the transport office isn’t always the best perspective to use. Back in the 1990s when we had over 100 ERFs on the road they spent far more time in the workshops as a group of trucks than the Volvos, Scanias and DAFs we had at the same time. It wasn’t the ■■■■■■■ engines in the ERFs that was the problem it was the other parts of the ERFs that gave the problem. Only yesterday I spent most of the morning arguing with my local Mercedes dealership about two Actros tractor units that were with them, one of which has been there since last Friday. In the end the one I got back was so late that it missed its delivery time, earned absolutely no revenue and cost me a driver’s wage for the day. Is the Actros a bad truck? No not necessarily but from yesterday’s performance it could be deduced that it is.
Thats a regular occurrence with our 2 Mercs ,waiting for parts, ordering the wrong parts but MAN are worse . Where I worked a few years back our local Iveco dealer were appalling Daf werent much better .We ended up using a rental company and leased off them .At least they would give us a replacement vehicle if ours wasn`t ready
Midday update. Despite re-booking the delivery for 06.00 am this morning my driver is still waiting to tip. So going on for two days of reduced earnings now. When I was at the dealership yesterday and trying to explain to them about the economics of road transport I was met with blank looks. They really don’t have a clue. If a was a small haulier or owner driver I’d be going out of business.
gingerfold:
The late Pat Kennett thought highly of the TL12 Marathon, but he was an ex-Leyland Motors service engineer, so he could have shown a bit of bias. In the main he was objective in his road tests so his comments do carry some weight.
You jogged a vague memory of me reading one of Pat Kennett’s excellent Test Match articles (or was it a Group Test?) with the Marathon and… and… I can’t remember.
For some reason I think it was up against the F10 and the E290 Sed-Atki 400, but that’s a wild guess that I will deny all knowledge of if challenged. Perhaps if you or NMM has a copy or a scan of that (or any comparisons TRUCK did with the Marathon) you’d be kind enough to whack them on here for an appreciative audience.
TIA
Ah! I can help you with that one. ;Behold, the 1978 Euro-Test. Here you go chaps . Robert
I didn’t have time to read it yet but going by the headline the SA with an E 290 in it was the best option ?. But surely to be fair that should have been an F12 put against it.
Gingerfold wrote: Midday update. Despite re-booking the delivery for 06.00 am this morning my driver is still waiting to tip. So going on for two days of reduced earnings now. When I was at the dealership yesterday and trying to explain to them about the economics of road transport I was met with blank looks. They really don’t have a clue. If a was a small haulier or owner driver I’d be going out of business.
Not wanting to go off topic too much but seeing as the subject has been raised on dealerships, it seems to be a problem that is becoming more apparent than in the past. Before I recently retired it often became the subject of discussion that in the area I worked dealerships in the Northeast of England in particular, and I would imagine the story is pretty much the same elsewhere, were suffering from poor reliability and customer service. MAN, Renault and Leyland DAF seemed to be bottom of the league regarding this with Scania and Volvo still holding their heads above water but albeit not with the same efficiency these two had in the past. Poor recruitment and experience of good HGV qualified fitters was the main problem put forward which sometimes meant down time was extended longer than it should have been as problems were taking longer to diagnose and correct etc. Then the wait for parts despite a mission statement from dealers that parts would be available within 24 hrs.
On a run to the local Renault dealer for parts just a few years ago my mate and myself were immediately offered employment by the service manager, it seemed he was near distraught that his staff were not up to the job. We also used two Volvo dealers, one near by and another further North on the coast. Despite the distance of the further dealer we found them much better to handle our warranty work from the Volvo appliances we ran and did not try to charge for services and items that the nearer dealer often did. Our workshop manager was constantly arguing the case when they came up with over priced charges and unwillingness to sort warranty claim issues. In the end the further dealer became the first choice. I’m not sure if its all a sign of the times, we are always hearing about inefficiency from organisations whether private or publicly run these days, standards of work certainly don’t seem to be what they were 20 or 30 years ago, let alone way back in the 60’s when most dealerships were spot on. Franky.
. Robert
But surely to be fair that should have been an F12 put against it.