If ever proof was needed that you just argue for the sake of argument it is right here.
The definition of best selling is not ambiguous in any way, nor is it open to interpretation. In simple terms it means that more Seddon Atkinson 400 models were sold than any other lorry in the year in question.
I strongly recommend that you have a good think before you respond as any remaining credibility that you have is fast disappearing.
newmercman:
If ever proof was needed that you just argue for the sake of argument it is right here.The definition of best selling is not ambiguous in any way, nor is it open to interpretation. In simple terms it means that more Seddon Atkinson 400 models were sold than any other lorry in the year in question.
I strongly recommend that you have a good think before you respond as any remaining credibility that you have is fast disappearing.
I’m not trying to score points nmm or get yet more stick over nothing.I was just trying to provide a civil answer to Robert’s question,regarding the road test results referred to above and why that wasn’t directly reflected in the success of the vehicle referred to.IE in this case if I’ve got it right the E290 version of the 400 ?.Unless I’ve got it wrong and those results actually refer to the 335 as stated by Robert.In which case that would be some miraculous figures for that compared to the previous similar spec NGC for example. 
While if I’ve got it right then no the definition of ‘take off’ in the market would at least have mean’t sold more than its main competitors like F10 and 111 combined.Of which we’ve got at least Bewick’s example as to why that didn’t happen and the rest being history.
To be the best seller it only had to sell more than the next best seller, not sell more than every other lorry in the market.
I remember reading a post from Berwick about the ■■■■■■■ engines and he wasn’t a fan, maybe he could expand on that and tell us why he went for the 111 over an E290 powered 400?
Having driven both, the ■■■■■■■ was more than a match for the Scania in terms of performance, but the Scania was a more pleasant experience to drive, I don’t think Bewick took the latter into consideration that much, going by the Atkinsons and Guys in his colours.
I know it’s Bewick and not Berwick, but my smartphone thinks it’s smarter than it actually is ffs!
Carryfast:
newmercman:
If ever proof was needed that you just argue for the sake of argument it is right here.The definition of best selling is not ambiguous in any way, nor is it open to interpretation. In simple terms it means that more Seddon Atkinson 400 models were sold than any other lorry in the year in question.
I strongly recommend that you have a good think before you respond as any remaining credibility that you have is fast disappearing.
I’m not trying to score points nmm or get yet more stick over nothing.I was just trying to provide a civil answer to Robert’s question,regarding the road test results referred to above and why that wasn’t directly reflected in the success of the vehicle referred to.IE in this case if I’ve got it right the E290 version of the 400 ?.Unless I’ve got it wrong and those results actually refer to the 335 as stated by Robert.In which case that would be some miraculous figures for that compared to the previous similar spec NGC for example.
While if I’ve got it right then no the definition of ‘take off’ in the market would at least have mean’t sold more than its main competitors like F10 and 111 combined.Of which we’ve got at least Bewick’s example as to why that didn’t happen and the rest being history.
Why don’t you provide us with sales figures for the 400, the 111 and the F10 in the first full year of the E290’s production, then you can support your assertion that the 400 with that engine did not “take off”? The numbers will be there in the CM archives.
The thread is about LHD 400s anyway. The reason the sales of LHD E290-engined vehicles, of any make, did not take off is that there were no serious efforts to sell them into LHD markets. We all knew that anyway, having discussed it before, more than once.
newmercman:
To be the best seller it only had to sell more than the next best seller, not sell more than every other lorry in the market.I remember reading a post from Berwick about the ■■■■■■■ engines and he wasn’t a fan, maybe he could expand on that and tell us why he went for the 111 over an E290 powered 400?
Having driven both, the ■■■■■■■ was more than a match for the Scania in terms of performance, but the Scania was a more pleasant experience to drive, I don’t think Bewick took the latter into consideration that much, going by the Atkinsons and Guys in his colours.
I didn’t realistically mean every other truck on the UK market just its main foreign competitors which is what took them out.IE some previous Atki customers switched their allegiance to Scania some to Volvo and maybe others to to something else.While it was ‘all’ of those customers combined who they needed to keep.In which case it was a false sense of security for Atkinson’s management to just base their sales success projections on the sales comparison with any one particular foreign competitor.When they were actually in a fight for market share on numerous fronts. 
Having said that the rest of your comments there,together with an answer from Bewick,are exactly what would probably answer Robert’s question. Bearing in mind the unarguable fuel consumption/productivety edge which the E290 Atki reputedly had over its competition.While its cab design wasn’t exactly the no hoper shed of previous generations.But in which previously loyal Atki customers at least,and possible new ones, seem to have over looked that then ticked the Gardner option box 
,then predictably ditched the thing for the foreign competition on grounds of obsolescence.If not just over looked it totally and walked away to the nearest Volvo/Scania etc dealer.
I do agree to a certain extent, ERF went ■■■■■■■ only with the CP range and they were the last English assembler to disappear, so there is some merit in your philosophy regarding Gardner power being a hindrance to overall sales.
In that regard the Scania and Volvo offerings were not as thirsty as a ■■■■■■■ when driven in the same way as a Gardner, the DSC11 and TD100 both liked a lot of rpms, where the ■■■■■■■ was a lugger, emphasised by the advertising slogan “let it lug”
I had a 400 ex Watneys breweries that was a full automatic slush box and having only 6 gears it was good for about 65mph flat out, which by coincidence was my cruising speed, it was the fastest lorry off the line I’ve ever had, but I got more free glasses from Esso than all of the other drivers on the firm combined lol.
Another 400 with an E290 and a 9spd was quite the opposite, good on fuel and it would pull like a train, the company that owned it were strict on speeding and 65mph cruising was not allowed and with the 9spd I could drive it the way it was supposed to be driven.
The SA400 I drove had a ■■■■■■■ 250 and 9-sp Fuller. Needless to say, that one didn’t pull like a train! I can confirm that the LHD SA400 in the league table above had the big cam 290 and a 13-sp 'box.
In part answer to my own question I think it’s probably true to say that image played a part in the reluctance to take SA seriously as makers of premium Euro-trucks; for the same reason that ERF and Foden suffered. It was going to take more than a single generation of premium tractors to turn round that super-tanker of ‘the gaffer’s motor’ image. SA started to get that right with the Space-cabbed Strato mk1, but it was only in RHD and basic inside compared with the DAF version!
Robert
Earlier in this thread I posted TRUCK’s 1978 Euro-Test part 1. Here is part 2 (kindly scanned by DEANB). Robert
Just found these on Facebook so not my pictures
LHD Seddon Atkinson 400 promotional adverts
What is that crappy-looking fabrication behind the left front wheelarch? Please don’t tell me it’s the air intake stack.
gazsa401:
Just found these on Facebook so not my pictures
LHD Seddon Atkinson 400 promotional adverts
What a fantastic ‘find’ gaza401. My heart-felt thanks to you for bothering to post this evidence of an really interesting and clearly marketable truck. God alone knows why this unit didn’t wipe the board with some of those European contenders. Perhaps it was because Seddon-Atkinson couldn’t be arsed to make it available to anyone who didn’t beg for it. Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
What a fantastic ‘find’ gaza401. My heart-felt thanks to you for bothering to post this evidence of an really interesting and clearly marketable truck. God alone knows why this unit didn’t wipe the board with some of those European contenders. Perhaps it was because Seddon-Atkinson couldn’t be arsed to make it available to anyone who didn’t beg for it . Robert
More like the US government leaned on IH to not do anything which might affect the security of US banks’ exposure to European post war debt.Which also explains why no big power big cam options before the early 1980’s .I’d also guess that the Wallenbergs held some clout on Wall Street in that regard. 
So another sell out of UK industry.Like the non standardisation on the 92 series powered TM when it mattered and could have counted.
I notice the panel under the picture of a ■■■■■■■ gives a choice of naturally-aspirated or turbo engines. Well, we know from this thread that the earlier ones had NTC 335 lumps and that the later Euro-Test model had an E290, both of which were turbo charged. Perhaps they offered the NHC/K 250 version of that same 14 litre engine, then (just like ERF did with its European). Robert
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
What a fantastic ‘find’ gaza401. My heart-felt thanks to you for bothering to post this evidence of an really interesting and clearly marketable truck. God alone knows why this unit didn’t wipe the board with some of those European contenders. Perhaps it was because Seddon-Atkinson couldn’t be arsed to make it available to anyone who didn’t beg for it . RobertMore like the US government leaned on IH to not do anything which might affect the security of US banks’ exposure to European post war debt.Which also explains why no big power big cam options before the early 1980’s .I’d also guess that the Wallenbergs held some clout on Wall Street in that regard.
We’ve been down these routes before:
Your “Corrupt US banks rule the world” theories are might hold some water, but they do not apply to the 1970s GB lorry industry. There was no one employed by Goldman Sachs to drive down the specification of the 400 or the Bedford TM.
Upon discovering I already have that brochure in my files I thought I’d better check back through this thread: sure enough, ‘En-tour-age’ posted it for us near the beginning ! Robert
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
More like the US government leaned on IH to not do anything which might affect the security of US banks’ exposure to European post war debt.Which also explains why no big power big cam options before the early 1980’s .I’d also guess that the Wallenbergs held some clout on Wall Street in that regard.We’ve been down these routes before:
- The E290 was available for purchase in a 400 in January 1978, when ■■■■■■■ launched it in Europe.
- The 8V92 was available in 1977, for French (340) and Italian (360) operators.
Your “Corrupt US banks rule the world” theories are might hold some water, but they do not apply to the 1970s GB lorry industry. There was no one employed by Goldman Sachs to drive down the specification of the 400 or the Bedford TM.
Firstly the point was that the big cam ■■■■■■■ doesn’t seem to have been specifically limited to 290 when it was introduced and was also introduced earlier than 1978.So why the delay and output limit here for uk use in vehicle manufacture.
As for the TM the point was that the 92 series wasn’t available as standard fit during the mid- late 1970’s.Including the 6v92 for example in the case of UK spec vehicles.If customers generally wanted it then they had to ‘beg’ for it.So it was 71 series powered vehicles with predictable results.
As for Goldman Sachs my theory obviously goes a bit further than just a few bankers regarding US foreign policy.
FFS. R
