The colour photo of the day cab interior shows the the 9-speed fuller gearlever stuck foward and down,
common problem with the linkage when you pumped the cab down, the cab would bounce on the tilt/ pump stroke
and the lever would flop foward inside the cab then jam in the remote funnel, requiring the cab to be tilted back up again.
Then lowered back down you could nip the plate under the cab up but this made the gear lever stiff for the driver. 
This set-up was so poor when you had the great set up on the MERC NG of the time. -
8LXBV8BRIAN:
The colour photo of the day cab interior shows the the 9-speed fuller gearlever stuck foward and down,
common problem with the linkage when you pumped the cab down, the cab would bounce on the tilt/ pump stroke
and the lever would flop foward inside the cab then jam in the remote funnel, requiring the cab to be tilted back up again.
Then lowered back down you could nip the plate under the cab up but this made the gear lever stiff for the driver.
This set-up was so poor when you had the great set up on the MERC NG of the time.
Interesting observation. Mind you, the ZF in the NG could be stiff too! Robert
Now here’s a turn up for the books! I’ve found the 20th LHD Seddon-Atkinson 400 on the M20 photos website; and it’s a rigid-4 tilt! What’s the betting that WPY 796Y was originally a draw-bar outfit? Robert
PS You can ditch your Bedford now, CF; I’ve found you a better model!
robert1952:
Now here’s a turn up for the books! I’ve found the 20th LHD Seddon-Atkinson 400 on the M20 photos website; and it’s a rigid-4 tilt! What’s the betting that WPY 796Y was originally a draw-bar outfit? RobertPS You can ditch your Bedford now, CF; I’ve found you a better model!
0
Blimey it’s at least going to need the proper SA cab and a 400 ■■■■■■■ in it to tempt me away from the wide sleeper and the 8v92 in the Bedford. While also not too sure about the tilt either in that it looks like it’s more a purpose built cage sider for the hay job it seems to be doing.In which case it’s anyone’s guess as to the LHD connection but it doesn’t look like it was ever going to leave the county it was based in let alone taking on any big V8 Fiats over the Alps. 
Earlier in the thread I posted the 1978 Euro Test results from TRUCK mag. DEANB yesterday posted a table he found in the same mag giving an overview of results from these tests (see below) and the LHD Seddon-Atkinson 400 comes out of it very well indeed and tops the productivity table. God only knows why this lorry didn’t take off! Robert
Probably for the same reason that other British built lorries never realised their potential in Europe, no dealer/repair network to speak of outside Britain.
Driver acceptability would also play a part, give a driver a choice between a 111, F10, 2800 and a 400 and there wouldn’t be many that would drive away in the Seddon Atkinson. Even if it was the better lorry on paper.
robert1952:
Earlier in the thread I posted the 1978 Euro Test results from TRUCK mag. DEANB yesterday posted a table he found in the same mag giving an overview of results from these tests (see below) and the LHD Seddon-Atkinson 400 comes out of it very well indeed and tops the productivity table. God only knows why this lorry didn’t take off! Robert
You’ll find elsewhere some comments regarding the buying choice between Scania v SA by Bewick.Which firstly seems to confirm the idea that in house component manufacture ( in this case the ‘Group Axle’ ) might be good when it goes right but can equally cause loads of damage to the reputation of the product when it doesn’t.Together with the other question as to why order the thing with obsolete Gardner power when the superior efficiency of the E290 option had been well proven in every test.Then to add insult to injury changing allegiance to turbo Scania on the grounds that the SA was past its sell by date. 
In which case it’s probably fair to say that it was unfairly tarnished by both an erroneous but temporary and fixable driveline component decision made by its manufacturer and the confused contradictory buying ideas of its customer base.The latter arguably being a bigger problem than the former.On that note the domestic truck manufacturing industry really needed the help of trade barriers.Together with a change in management attitudes regarding component buying policy which in this case just offered the customer the choice of turbo ■■■■■■■ powered SA,with correct outsourced driveline components,take it or leave it.
That’s fighting talk!
Carryfast:
robert1952:
Earlier in the thread I posted the 1978 Euro Test results from TRUCK mag. DEANB yesterday posted a table he found in the same mag giving an overview of results from these tests (see below) and the LHD Seddon-Atkinson 400 comes out of it very well indeed and tops the productivity table. God only knows why this lorry didn’t take off! RobertYou’ll find elsewhere some comments regarding the buying choice between Scania v SA by Bewick.Which firstly seems to confirm the idea that in house component manufacture ( in this case the ‘Group Axle’ ) might be good when it goes right but can equally cause loads of damage to the reputation of the product when it doesn’t.Together with the other question as to why order the thing with obsolete Gardner power when the superior efficiency of the E290 option had been well proven in every test.Then to add insult to injury changing allegiance to turbo Scania on the grounds that the SA was past its sell by date.
In which case it’s probably fair to say that it was unfairly tarnished by both an erroneous but temporary and fixable driveline component decision made by its manufacturer and the confused contradictory buying ideas of its customer base.The latter arguably being a bigger problem than the former.On that note the domestic truck manufacturing industry really needed the help of trade barriers.Together with a change in management attitudes regarding component buying policy which in this case just offered the customer the choice of turbo ■■■■■■■ powered SA,with correct outsourced driveline components,take it or leave it.
If I’m not mistaken your first paragraph appears to be vaguely irrelevant because I think Dennis was referring to a previous generation of both Atkinsons and Scanias. Even if he wasn’t, we are talking on this thread not about a domestic Gardner-engined slogger, but about a specialist LHD ■■■■■■■ 335-powered Euro-truck. You’re doing apples compared with pears again. Your second paragraph displays a valid and interesting opinion, but again is quite irrelevant, it seems to me, to the export model which on other threads you appear more than keen to champion as a serious way forward in the '70s for British Euro-trucks against the like of ERF etc. You are living up to your reputation for playing devil’s advocate for the sake of an argument! lol. Robert
robert1952:
Carryfast:
robert1952:
Earlier in the thread I posted the 1978 Euro Test results from TRUCK mag. DEANB yesterday posted a table he found in the same mag giving an overview of results from these tests (see below) and the LHD Seddon-Atkinson 400 comes out of it very well indeed and tops the productivity table. God only knows why this lorry didn’t take off! RobertYou’ll find elsewhere some comments regarding the buying choice between Scania v SA by Bewick.Which firstly seems to confirm the idea that in house component manufacture ( in this case the ‘Group Axle’ ) might be good when it goes right but can equally cause loads of damage to the reputation of the product when it doesn’t.Together with the other question as to why order the thing with obsolete Gardner power when the superior efficiency of the E290 option had been well proven in every test.Then to add insult to injury changing allegiance to turbo Scania on the grounds that the SA was past its sell by date.
In which case it’s probably fair to say that it was unfairly tarnished by both an erroneous but temporary and fixable driveline component decision made by its manufacturer and the confused contradictory buying ideas of its customer base.The latter arguably being a bigger problem than the former.On that note the domestic truck manufacturing industry really needed the help of trade barriers.Together with a change in management attitudes regarding component buying policy which in this case just offered the customer the choice of turbo ■■■■■■■ powered SA,with correct outsourced driveline components,take it or leave it.
If I’m not mistaken your first paragraph appears to be vaguely irrelevant because I think Dennis was referring to a previous generation of both Atkinsons and Scanias. Even if he wasn’t, we are talking on this thread not about a domestic Gardner-engined slogger, but about a specialist LHD ■■■■■■■ 335-powered Euro-truck. You’re doing apples compared with pears again. Your second paragraph displays a valid and interesting opinion, but again is quite irrelevant, it seems to me, to the export model which on other threads you appear more than keen to champion as a serious way forward in the '70s for British Euro-trucks against the like of ERF etc. You are living up to your reputation for playing devil’s advocate for the sake of an argument! lol. Robert
Well said Robert
robert1952:
Carryfast:
robert1952:
Earlier in the thread I posted the 1978 Euro Test results from TRUCK mag. DEANB yesterday posted a table he found in the same mag giving an overview of results from these tests (see below) and the LHD Seddon-Atkinson 400 comes out of it very well indeed and tops the productivity table. God only knows why this lorry didn’t take off! RobertYou’ll find elsewhere some comments regarding the buying choice between Scania v SA by Bewick.Which firstly seems to confirm the idea that in house component manufacture ( in this case the ‘Group Axle’ ) might be good when it goes right but can equally cause loads of damage to the reputation of the product when it doesn’t.Together with the other question as to why order the thing with obsolete Gardner power when the superior efficiency of the E290 option had been well proven in every test.Then to add insult to injury changing allegiance to turbo Scania on the grounds that the SA was past its sell by date.
In which case it’s probably fair to say that it was unfairly tarnished by both an erroneous but temporary and fixable driveline component decision made by its manufacturer and the confused contradictory buying ideas of its customer base.The latter arguably being a bigger problem than the former.On that note the domestic truck manufacturing industry really needed the help of trade barriers.Together with a change in management attitudes regarding component buying policy which in this case just offered the customer the choice of turbo ■■■■■■■ powered SA,with correct outsourced driveline components,take it or leave it.
If I’m not mistaken your first paragraph appears to be vaguely irrelevant because I think Dennis was referring to a previous generation of both Atkinsons and Scanias. Even if he wasn’t, we are talking on this thread not about a domestic Gardner-engined slogger, but about a specialist LHD ■■■■■■■ 335-powered Euro-truck. You’re doing apples compared with pears again. Your second paragraph displays a valid and interesting opinion, but again is quite irrelevant, it seems to me, to the export model which on other threads you appear more than keen to champion as a serious way forward in the '70s for British Euro-trucks against the like of ERF etc. You are living up to your reputation for playing devil’s advocate for the sake of an argument! lol. Robert
Firstly,hopefully he’ll correct me if I’m wrong,but I’m sure that Bewick was referring to the choice between SA 400 v Scania 111 ?.While it’s equally clear that we’re discussing the E290 powered 400 in the specific road test data,specifically referred to there by yourself,regards fuel consumption and productivety ?.
While the question was why didn’t such a spec ‘400’ deservedly take off ( in ‘the market’ ) ?.The definition of ‘market’ being operators like Bewick etc regardless of whether they bought LHD or RHD or ran domestic operations or international operations or even both.In which case as I said its reputation was always going to be all about here.IE based on the domestic ‘market’ whether it was LHD bought for use on Euro work or RHD bought for domestic only or even vice versa,used for either or.Like all the other Brits it was never going to be a contender in taking large scale European sales from the respective European manufacturers on their own turf.
While in all cases we’ve then got a decent product,with a second to none cab and second to none fuel consumption/productivety package regardless of whether it was used in Euroland or used here,so long as it was specced properly.But unfortunately in which numerous customers either bought Gardner powered options and/or then walked away in their droves and bought 111,F10,etc etc.In addition to stated driveline issues,caused by its manufacturer choosing to use a dodgy in house option for however long,before rectifying the problem by returning to the correct more reliable outsourced option/s.
IE you specifically asked why didn’t the E290 powered SA referred to above not take off and I think I’ve provided a reasonable answer.In that the 400’s reputation generally was unfairly damaged by a short term mistaken driveline component choice and too many buyers preferred either a Gardner powered version and/or Scania/Volvo etc on the basis that the SA was past its sell by date.
Edit to add the question was E290 powered 400.In which case the E290 was clearly the most efficient option regardless of whether it was used here or in mainland Europe at that point.
Carryfast:
While the question was why didn’t such a spec ‘400’ deservedly take off
[/quote]
I think the answer to the above, is that the British manufacturers at that time still believed that sales & service was something offered on their terms, whereas Johnny Foreigener with their off the shelf standarised packages would move mountains to get a sale & would supply a chassis in a much shorter lead time.
Dave…
Carryfast:
Blah
If anything, you’re getting better. Usually, you make one incorrect conclusion based on a series of logical steps from a fabricated starting point. On this page, there are multiple arguments, all of which could fall down by themselves, all connected by flawed logic.
In short, the E290 400 did “take off”. UK operators bought them in their thousands. The LHD version might have been less successful, but it was nothing to do with UK operators’ preference for Gardner engines, SA’s policy of not removing that engine from the options list or the British Government’s failure to ban imports. SA’s having only one Continental dealership (the Greek one) might have had something to do with it.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
BlahIf anything, you’re getting better. Usually, you make one incorrect conclusion based on a series of logical steps from a fabricated starting point. On this page, there are multiple arguments, all of which could fall down by themselves, all connected by flawed logic.
In short, the E290 400 did “take off”. UK operators bought them in their thousands. The LHD version might have been less successful, but it was nothing to do with UK operators’ preference for Gardner engines, SA’s policy of not removing that engine from the options list or the British Government’s failure to ban imports. SA’s having only one Continental dealership (the Greek one) might have had something to do with it.
Sales of the E290 400 obviously didn’t ‘take off’ here in the way that the comparable foreign competition did that much is fact.Of which I then provided the example of Bewick’s stated buying policy regards SA v Scania and his reasons for that policy for just one example.
While a foreign dealership network obviously creates the chicken and egg question and catch 22 situation of how do you build a financially viable Continent wide dealership network before you’ve first got the secure customer base and sufficient sales there to justify it.Without that SA was logically dependent on the domestic market.Which itself wasn’t mutually exclusive with the LHD or RHD premium spec products being discussed within the stated test report and data and also shown by your own comments,while also bearing in mind the domestic market was worth more anyway.
I wonder why SA used the ‘group axle’ in the LHD versions as all our 400’s from 1977 onwards had Eaton back ends? Then again, they shed teeth from their crownwheels so were almost as bad and the cabs were rotting after only six years in service! 
Pete.
Carryfast:
Sales of the E290 400 obviously didn’t ‘take off’ here in the way that the comparable foreign competition did that much is fact…
The 400 was GB’s best-selling tractor in at least one of the years of its production. You should know which years they were, and you should know the date of the introduction of the E290 in GB, having been spoon-fed that date on this forum. You’re as close to lying as it gets now.
that much is fact…
FFS.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Sales of the E290 400 obviously didn’t ‘take off’ here in the way that the comparable foreign competition did that much is fact…The 400 was GB’s best-selling tractor in at least one of the years of its production. You should know which years they were, and you should know the date of the introduction of the E290 in GB, having been spoon-fed that date on this forum. You’re as close to lying as it gets now.
that much is fact…
FFS.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Sales of the E290 400 obviously didn’t ‘take off’ here in the way that the comparable foreign competition did that much is fact…The 400 was GB’s best-selling tractor in at least one of the years of its production. You should know which years they were, and you should know the date of the introduction of the E290 in GB, having been spoon-fed that date on this forum. You’re as close to lying as it gets now.
that much is fact…
FFS.
Your definition of ‘top selling’ is obviously different to my idea of what it meant and what it would have taken.Yes maybe ‘top seller’ when compared with any ‘one’ of it’s foreign competitors but not the ‘combined’ figure of ‘all’ of them.Which is what eventually put the Brits out of the frame.With Bewick’s buying policy being one example of that.As for the date of the introduction of the E290 I thought it was the E290 versions of the 400 that we were discussing in the road test data referred to as of 1978 on.