the B series was on the drawing board a long time before 1974 believe me… one person on this site knows that
because i explained to him how things was working on the cab scene
John
Hiya people mention erf running more that one cab…Jennings made the cabs they would have them in stock for repair jobs
some customers would order a KV cab although the LV was in production ERF was trying to keep everyone happy and why not.
the dump type cab was a good seller in Africa we made dozens of them where the glass fibre was no use in hot climates.
i think the MW idea was good just in case the sp cab did nt work for the European market. maybe the F88 come along at the
wrong time for ERF. well it did did nt it… any previous Volvo was nt on the want list was it like any other foreign lorry. i would say that
Mercedes was on the ball with the 1926 in 1968 if only it had better brakes, a good spacious cab quite high up pity it was nt a tilt cab
but the engine was a good product
its been mentioned Foden kept the s39 cab on offer when the s 80 was the new cab…S39s was been fitted onto skip lorries
the s 80 was to wide…why should n t you look after a good product to keep someone happy which let to the mixer market.
the S39 was a good seller for Foden and the Cleanaway company
The reason why you can’t ‘keep everyone happy’ from plastic cabbed naturally aspirated powered heaps to state of the art all metal cabbed turbocharged is the issue of ‘economies of scale’.Especially in a world where it will be the latter which will ( foreseeably ) go on to to make the former extinct including in the domestic market.
Which in this case translates as the NGC 420 ( effectively ) being the first CP ERF by way of natural selection in its case.IE all metal tilt cab turbocharged ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ 
Which logically made the case for the B series,let alone keeping on with the obsolete 5 MW options,a total non starter and waste of cash by splitting resources in development and/or production costs.Not to mention loss of the economies of scale ( buying bargaining power ) caused by the use of all the different component options.
Which ( should have ) meant standardising on the 420 until around 1980 then leading on to its all metal cabbed CP successor which ( should have been ) the CP series with that term meant in its literal sense IE common parts meaning one type of all metal cab and turbocharged ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ driveline.
Instead of which at the time when it mattered ERF were producing obsolete combinations like 5 MW with naturally aspirated power,the more or less state of the art ( effectively CP formula ) NGC 420,and the niether one thing or the other SP cabbed B series with piecemeal component options varying from obsolete to state of the art in an attempt to please everyone,all at the same time. 
ERF:
From the top again (with corrections!)…
MV
Cabs fitted during production were 2MV, 3MV, 4MV and 5MVThe first MV cabbed ERF is recorded as chassis 13263, a 2MV cabbed model 6.4 CU220 -10’1" wheelbase 4x2 tractor unit despatched ex Sun Works on the 28th Feb 1966 and destined for ERF South Africa.
The last MV cabbed ERF is recorded as chassis 23059, a 5MV cabbed model 6.8 CU310 of 18’ wheelbase 8x4 despatched ex Sun Works on the 4th Jan 1972 to I.S & P (New Zealand Dealer) for owner L.E. Elms & Sons and was registered GC3762.
MW
Cabs fitted during production were 3MW, 4MW, 5MW 6MW and 7MW.4MW
The very first recorded MW is chassis 16625, a 4MW2 cabbed model 6.6 RR220 - 13’1" wheelbase 6x4 tractor unit despatched ex Sun Works on the 4th November 1968. It was the first of a large batch of identical vehicles all UK registered PDD 173 to 199G and PDD 201 to 223G and delivered by road to Jordan Phosphate Mines Co., Amman, Jordan.
(Note - it has been reported by John on this forum that an MW cab was built at JH Jennings before July 1967 for an export eight wheel chassis powered by a Detroit V8 engine and bound for New Zealand. No record of this vehicle can be found despite exhaustive searches of the records - we can conclude this vehicle was not issued with an ERF chassis number, was not warrantied by ERF, but could still have been used for product development purposes).The last 4MW was a LHD model MPR360.060 (64R205) Tractor Unit, despatched ex Sun Works on the 29th of Jan 1974 to the Chinese Petroleum Co. via Dunne Spencer.
3MW
The first 3MW cabbed ERF is chassis 17099, a model 6.6CU220, 12’7" wheelbase tipper/tractor despatched ex Sun Works on the 10th March 1969 via the dealer ‘■■■■■■■ Distributor Belgium’ for customer Lecoq.The last 3MW cabbed ERF is chassis 25230, a model 6.6.CU235-SWB. Wheelbase not set, but suit 14’4". Despatched ex Sun Works on the 18th January 1973 to dealer ‘Industrial Steel & Plant’ New Zealand.
5MW
The first 5MW cabbed ERF is chassis 18714, a model 6.8.CU235 to suit 17’0" wheelbase. Despatched ex Sun Works on the 18th January 1973 to dealer ‘Cossens & Black’ New Zealand.The last 5MW was 31490, a model MCC360.240 (64CU220) Tractor Unit despatched ex Sun Works on the 15th of April 1976 to WT ■■■■■ Haulage Ltd UK. via HLH Commercials.
6MW
The first 6MW cabbed ERF is chassis 23208, a model 66CU310 14’ 4" wheelbase. Despatched ex Sun Works on the 8th May 1972 to Pointer Group. Registered GHY 129K.The last two recorded 6MW’s were…
UGE 852R is chassis number 33315.
Model - MDC852.080 (66CU310)
■■■■■■■ NTC 335
Cab not recorded (in pen 6MW).
Despatch date - 24th February 1977
Customer - West of Scotland Excavations Ltd. Via dealer Bowen.
The archivist is sure this vehicle went through the hands of Pilikington, but may be mistaken.RAN 648R is chassis number 33865 and is the very last 6MW built.
Model - MDC852.080 (66CU310)
■■■■■■■ NTC 335
Cab not recorded (in pen 6MW).
Despatch date - 29th March 1977.
Customer - Leicester Heavy Haulage Ltd.
Uprated by Cossington Commercials to 121924KG on 29th June 1981.7MW
The first 7MW tilt cabbed ERF was chassis 22993, a model NGC 420 - A6.4.CU335 tractor unit. Recorded as a ‘Show Vehicle’. Despatched ex Sun Works on the 1st October 1973 as a stock vehicle to ‘■■■■■■■ Distributor Belgium’ 623/629 Chausses de Haecht, Brussels 3, Belgium. This vehicle was subject to warranty claims for defects found on delivery, and on nine occasions subsequently, the last being the 10th March 1976.
The second 7MW was chassis 24684, a model NGC 420 - A6.4.CU335 LWB. 15’ 9" wheelbase. Despatched the 14th August 1973. Again recorded as a ‘Show Vehicle’ to the same distributor as above. Note the date - we can conclude that this was the first 7MW to actually leave the works.
The last recorded MW is chassis 31927, a model 7MW tilt cabbed model NGC 420 - A6.4.CU335 a 4x2 tractor unit despatched ex Sun Works on the 22nd of December 1977 to Falcon Freight, Jeddah.
8MW
No record of any cabs fitted.Note - the last 3MW and first 5MW left the factory on the same day!. There was no overlap in production as I thought.
The 4MW and 6MW cabs were produced together for circa 18 months.
Your first version of this contained this in the 6MW paragraph:
“The last 6MW was 28781, a model MDC852.080 (64CU335) Tractor Unit despatched ex Sun Works on the 6th of October 1974 to B Boswell (Leicester Heavy Haulage Ltd)”
I think you should reinstate it, mentioning that the last two did not have the cab type noted in the records (which I believe is the case, from memory of your other posts. Nothing is easy to find, with all the research spread out over the various types. Nowt we can do about that now). I say that, because I have a horrible feeling you may need to alter things again. Best to put every detail in. Later versions may be updated. There is no point going back to edit the earlier versions, other than to put a note “Superceded by…” at the bottom, and the location of the latest version. Sorry to be pedantic, but this is ending up like “real” work, and office practice kicks in like the other atavistic pleasures.
[zb]
anorak:
Your first version of this contained this in the 6MW paragraph:“The last 6MW was 28781, a model MDC852.080 (64CU335) Tractor Unit despatched ex Sun Works on the 6th of October 1974 to B Boswell (Leicester Heavy Haulage Ltd)”
I think you should reinstate it, mentioning that the last two did not have the cab type noted in the records (which I believe is the case, from memory of your other posts. Nothing is easy to find, with all the research spread out over the various types. Nowt we can do about that now). I say that, because I have a horrible feeling you may need to alter things again.
Point taken, but do you think reinstating it would be a forward step now that we now know it not to be the case?.
The extra amended last 6MW information has it’s own post on the 4MW thread to make clear the intital list (above it) has been updated.
It is difficult this task!.
The build details were originally spread between paper sheets, and those that had been microfiched.
Sometimes both still existed, and the hand written register of vehicles was taken from one or the other, but not usually both (it could double the research). In the case of these 1977 6MW cabs, the paper records had been amended by ERF to show 6MW, whereas the microfiche shows no record. The paper record had obviously not been double checked at the time to confirm these two cab types, but the amendment was found later, and then scheduled for future inclusion in the register (now done!).
I have tried to keep these lists up-to-date, but it is a hand and eye search for the man with the records, making it an evolving thing at times. It is all taking (especially him) a great deal of time and effort just to compile this little list for TN I assure you!.
ERF:
Point taken, but do you think reinstating it would be a forward step now that we now know it not to be the case?.
The extra amended last 6MW information has it’s own post on the 4MW thread to make clear the intital list (above it) has been updated.
I should have said, “reinstated it with amendment”, or something like that, plus a note that the 1977 vehicles had the “upright” grille.
Please do not think I am denigrating your efforts. I love reading this stuff, and hope that my critical (if error-prone ) eye is welcome.
Hiya as Carryfast mentions the mind blowing all steel cab turbocharged mile gulping yank trucks…how many of you remember
the bonneted International tucks the yanks sent over to us in the 60 s ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
you would nt be seen dead in one would you.i think the only company to use them WAS International tractors ha ha ha ha
nurse come quickley i ve split a side
John
3300John:
Hiya as Carryfast mentions the mind blowing all steel cab turbocharged trucks.nurse come quickley i ve split a side
John
All metal cab turbocharged in this case means the Euro and Scandinavian competition. 
But if you’re right leaves the obvious question why at least any all metal cabbed ERF’s after 1974 and no need for turbo engines.Bearing in mind as I’ve said economies of scale mean that its all about standardisation/rationalisation. 
I’m guessing in that case that standardising on naturally aspirated Gardner powered B series might have done it,depending on the definition of done.
[zb]
anorak:
hope that my critical (if error-prone
Yes, of course it is very welcome indeed!.
Any contructive and reasoned input from experienced contributors is welcomed by us all, I’m sure.
Flaccid clichés and constant diatribe on the other hand … 
I’m probably going to regret this, but Carryfast does have a point.
If ERF had concentrated on a single version of the steel cab for Europe, as they did with the B series for the home market, maybe they would’ve been more successful.
I know the MW in all its incarnations was essentially the same structure, but with all the different versions of it on the market in such a short space of time, with many overlapping each other, it does give the impression of a lack of direction within the company.
The rest of you have my sincere apologies for any nonsense that this post generates.
Keep up the good work chaps, I’m intrigued by all this new information, these ERF threads are turning into proper little gold mines.
What is the big thing with steel cabs / turbocharged engine . Were non steel cabs immune from , or allergic to turbocharged power.
I do see that the lack of commonality & sharing of parts , as was becoming more & more common across other sectors of vehicle manufacturing appeared to be somewhat lacking at ERF , with more cabs than days of the week.
Pure conjecture , bit if the head man , in charge of product development , was dogmatic , stuck in his ways & failed to listen to the voice of reason, & thought his way was the way to go to , & took things along this path at any cost .
Bit , that is digression ,& I think it best the thread is kept to discussions as per the title
Imagine where it would lead if it were to open up to discuss the whole of ERFs product development . Would open not a can , but a whole barrel of worms .
newmercman:
I’m probably going to regret this, but Carryfast does have a point.If ERF had concentrated on a single version of the steel cab for Europe, as they did with the B series for the home market, maybe they would’ve been more successful.
I know the MW in all its incarnations was essentially the same structure, but with all the different versions of it on the market in such a short space of time, with many overlapping each other, it does give the impression of a lack of direction within the company.
The rest of you have my sincere apologies for any nonsense that this post generates.
Keep up the good work chaps, I’m intrigued by all this new information, these ERF threads are turning into proper little gold mines.
Let the nonsense roll:
I do not think that the plethora of different steel-cabbed ERFs makes them guilty of cab proliferation, although they were certainly guilty of that, as were Foden. All of the steel cabs were variations made from the same tools, just like the DAF 1600/2200/2800. In this way, Motor Panels was ahead of the game, and ERF was taking advantage of that. It is the other cabs which give the game away. There were two completely different versions of the LV (see elsewhere on these threads- one was made by Boalloy, the other by Jennings), made on two separately designed and built sets of tools! The axle position of the LV cab was accommodated with a different moulding, while Volvo could do a G88 by simply leaving off the step panel (slight over-simplification).
The cutting-and-shutting of roof panels and doors etc. (re 3300John’s posts) was a throwback to an earlier age, and this is the key to the cab proliferation issue, I think- whereas Volvo et al would take years to perfect a new cab design for production, ERF and Foden still had a coachbuilder’s mentality. The development process would consist of a ■■■-packet sketch sent down from the office, whereupon very skilled people would work feverishly to make sense of it. If the result sold, they would simply do another one.
While that may be a facetious exaggeration, I think the Continental makes were more like modern vehicle builders, in that the design process would be more thorough and comprehensive, and the tooling would be more complex. They would plan to build thousands of identical cabs, and write the bigger up-front costs off by doing just that. There would be less need for skilled craftsmen on the shop floor, so the piece price of the finished cabs would be lower, or at least more predictable. The results are there for everyone to see- while ERF and Foden had about ten completely different cabs on offer, Volvo just had its 86 and 88 cabs. I would guess that Gothenburg outsold Sandbach comfortably.
newmercman:
I’m probably going to regret this, but Carryfast does have a point.If ERF had concentrated on a single version of the steel cab for Europe, as they did with the B series for the home market, maybe they would’ve been more successful.
My point was why try to split the domestic market from any other.Added to which was the issue of engine rationalisation.IE Volvo etc etc seemed to do ok in the uk market by saying same cab for Europe/UK and standardised turbo motors take it or leave it.The sad point being that ERF was where it needed to be with the 420.Then instead chose to split its resources and even worse,being reliant on outsourced components,its buying power ( economies of scale ) by continuing to offer loads of different options varying from the obsolete to state of the art and somewhere in between.Ironically the 5 MW being arguably the former while the B series fitted the latter.
Casual Observer:
What is the big thing with steel cabs / turbocharged engine . Were non steel cabs immune from , or allergic to turbocharged power.I do see that the lack of commonality & sharing of parts , as was becoming more & more common across other sectors of vehicle manufacturing appeared to be somewhat lacking at ERF , with more cabs than days of the week.
Pure conjecture , bit if the head man , in charge of product development , was dogmatic , stuck in his ways & failed to listen to the voice of reason, & thought his way was the way to go to , & took things along this path at any cost .
Bit , that is digression ,& I think it best the thread is kept to discussions as per the title
Imagine where it would lead if it were to open up to discuss the whole of ERFs product development . Would open not a can , but a whole barrel of worms .
The question as to why was the 5 MW even in existence after 1973 seems to be relevant to the topic and by definition obviously involving all the above questions.The issue of throwing away all the potential economies of scale in rationalising on the most up to date/state of the art build processes and components not just being an ERF issue.That question having changed my views to a point,as to less of the blame being on the admittedly retro thinking domestic customer base,but more on the manufacturers for not forcing that market bearing in mind the foreseeable results of not doing so. 
I assume that one of the reasons for the steel and “plastic” cabs were the different weight limits in the markets.
Then there’s the workforce. Quite a few employees with coach building skills handed down through the generations, ERF was a family firm and part of the community, laying them all off over night as their jobs were replaced by presses would not have even been considered in the boardroom.
I suppose that companies like ERF and Foden made cabs to suit individual operator’s applications? Certainly Foden had the S80/83 cab in the 70’s but that wasn’t ideal for mixer duties, heavy and vulnerable to damage, so the S39 all plastic cab was offered for that application as it was much lighter and more easily repaired, likewise dumper’s were a big part of their market so the steel half cab was still made. Then you had crane carriers which used a split cab, also the S60/70 steel cab which was also offered in fibreglass as well as some operator’s didn’t want the rusting qualities of steel and needed to save weight.! ERF did similar special vehicles so there must have been a market for them, I guess the motto from Foden/ERF was “Give the buyer the choice of choosing the cab that suits them” rather than “Here is what we make, take it or leave it” which other larger manufacturer’s did?
Pete.
newmercman:
I assume that one of the reasons for the steel and “plastic” cabs were the different weight limits in the markets.Then there’s the workforce.
Notwithstanding the above arguments,which might have helped to sway the decision making process,regards 420 v B series.However the fact that the NGC was eventually dropped in favour of all out reliance on the SP series shows the dilemma in having to deal with the contradiction between the often retrograde demands of the domestic market v others.Which the foreign competition was able to ignore and eventually force into unification.
The question of the 5 MW v NGC is obviously a different one along the lines of Volvo having kept the F88/9 in production ‘after’ the F10/12 had been introduced. That’s even without the issue in addition to that of continuing to split resources and reduction in economies of scale by also continuing with naturally aspirated engine options in the case of ERF etc.
You said it yourself there Geoffrey, naturally aspirated OPTIONS.
Nobody was forced to buy them, you could tailor an ERF to your particular operation with an endless list of permutations.
Bespoke engineering with a soul, a Rolls Royce philosophy (also Cheshire based) rather than the one size fits all designs of the interlopers from Europe.
ERF would’ve been the place for you to go to order your dream lorry and you would’ve got what you wanted, designed on the back of a packet and Woodbines and hand crafted.
They could’ve helped you change the course of history.
Regarding MW vs. SP, how did the NGC420 compare to the works high roof B/C series sleeper, from the standpoint of the driver? Does anyone have any first-hand knowledge?
newmercman:
Bespoke engineering with a soul, a Rolls Royce philosophy (also Cheshire based) rather than the one size fits all designs of the interlopers from Europe.ERF would’ve been the place for you to go to order your dream lorry and you would’ve got what you wanted, designed on the back of a packet and Woodbines and hand crafted.
They could’ve helped you change the course of history.
The problem being that bespoke individual ■■■ packet engineering doesn’t come cheap.Probably to the point where something has to give.In this case both the obsolete 5 MW and the state of the art NGC in favour of a somewhere in between B series take it or leave it.With a probably massive turbocharged ■■■■■■■ price penalty to match.In which case the Euro invaders dealers were probably just waiting to flog the disappointed would be buyer something.