newmercman:
Lenny, that is a seriously fast lorryThe way the engine pokes out from under the cab reminds me of something though, you sure that isn’t a Gardner
The relevant bit is it’s not a Scania V8 . 
Which just leaves the question of it’s weight v it’s older American opposition. 
bma.finland:
carryfast this is for you,only i had a scannie V8 on mind under the bonnet -83 when a draw it,
730 with an 18 speed Fuller and no limiter .When can you send it and if you’re paying it’s a deal.
[zb]
anorak:newmercman:
Italy had a 48ton weight limit, it also had a minimum power to weight ratio that was only met by four lorries, the uprated F89, the 141, the 170-35 FIAT and the Bedford TM. There were a few TMs around, some of the bigger companies had them too, Dominichelli was one of them, their Milan yard was just around the corner from the Bedford agent (I’m sure some Italian behaviour was involved in that deal) but Bedford were very much the bit part player
Hi nmm. The limit (in 1975, I think) was 8bhp/tonne, or 352bhp at 44tonnes, if I remember correctly. The Fiat was launched at this output, with derated 330bhp versions finding their way to other markets. Other firms were capable of meeting this requirement: Ford’s H4234 Transcon had a 14 litre ■■■■■■■ rated at 355bhp gross. There is a Magirus V12 shown on that maker’s thread, with a post stating that this engine was rated at 360bhp in Italy. Pegaso had 352bhp from about 1972. The 140 had 350bhp gross, so i suppose an extra 2bhp could have been found from somewhere! (Note that cf’s Italian TM spec sheet shows the rated speed 50rpm higher than the British one). Berliet’s TR350 came out in 1977-ish, so I would imagine that they could have easily provided TR320s at that output in 1975 (Monsieur Saviem may know more). I remember reading somewhere that DAF sold uprated DKS’s in Italy. Oddly enough, the 1974-'79 TM4200s only had the 307 net bhp 8v71- did they uprate this engine for Italy?
44tons, not 48tons 
You are, of course, correct about the alternatives, but they sold in smaller numbers than the Bedford, with the possible exception of the Ford. The V12 Maggie would’ve been an interesting vehicle, bet that had a bark to it 
The Italian market was unique, high horsepower was the name of the game, it was dominated by FIAT, second place was Scania, then way down in third were Volvo, with the rest picking up the scraps at the bottom of the pile. They also liked to keep their lorries for a long time, so the market was not very busy and numbers were not that great. Another peculiarity in the Italian market were very expensive list prices, an Italian likes to think he’s getting a really good deal, so discounts of 50% were the order of the day, even though they were paying the same amount of money as everyone else in Europe after the discounts
A number of factors explain the popularity of the V8 in Italy, one was the power to weight ratio requirements, but deep down it was all about the noise, with all the tunnels thay have over there, anything less than a V8 burble would be criminal to the average Italian
newmercman:
You are, of course, correct about the alternatives, but they sold in smaller numbers than the Bedford, with the possible exception of the Ford. The V12 Maggie would’ve been an interesting vehicle, bet that had a bark to itThe Italian market was unique, high horsepower was the name of the game, it was dominated by FIAT, second place was Scania, then way down in third were Volvo, with the rest picking up the scraps at the bottom of the pile. They also liked to keep their lorries for a long time, so the market was not very busy and numbers were not that great. Another peculiarity in the Italian market were very expensive list prices, an Italian likes to think he’s getting a really good deal, so discounts of 50% were the order of the day, even though they were paying the same amount of money as everyone else in Europe after the discounts
A number of factors explain the popularity of the V8 in Italy, one was the power to weight ratio requirements, but deep down it was all about the noise, with all the tunnels thay have over there, anything less than a V8 burble would be criminal to the average Italian
Here’s the picture of the V12 Deutz. According to the text, the operator used it unsilenced- what a superb row that would have made!
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=23520&start=120
Regarding the TM and Transcon, they were both launched as 42 tonne GCW vehicles, only becoming 44 tonners in their “Mk2” versions, towards the end of the 1970s. Were they originally aimed at Spain, or did Italy have a 42 tonne limit prior to 1975? I am pretty sure the top TM was the 8V71 version at 307bhp, until about 1980, when the ■■■■■■■ and 92 series engines became available. This suggests that Bedford did not sell them into Italy, until then.
i think the high weight limits in Italy were just the authorities way of making the standard practice legal, of course when they increased the weight limits the Italians just increased their ‘tolerance’ levels
I was waiting for paperwork in a weighbridge office in Caserta and watched as a 190-38 left a trail of rubber from his trailer tyres as he turned into the yard, bearing in mind that their triaxles were almost always rear steer that’s some feat, when he pulled on the weighbridge the display showed over 58,000kgs, this was in a fridge trailer, so not a big lump of steel or anything, it was just the usual Italian practice of it’s not loaded until it’s full up
I worked for an Italian firm, only casual at weekends, used to do a two man run down to Chalons sur Soane and back. had a proper wagon and drag with the demount tilt boxes, pulled by a 143 (on topic ) we used to meet the Italian driver and swap boxes. Many times the weight of each box was over twenty tons, they used to give that 143 a proper workout on the way home, but it still went up the big hill at Wrotham on the M20 at a good rate of knots, quite often we’d be overtaking slower lorries all the way up and we were grossing north of 50tons sometimes
[zb]
anorak:
Regarding the TM and Transcon, they were both launched as 42 tonne GCW vehicles, only becoming 44 tonners in their “Mk2” versions, towards the end of the 1970s. Were they originally aimed at Spain, or did Italy have a 42 tonne limit prior to 1975? I am pretty sure the top TM was the 8V71 version at 307bhp, until about 1980, when the ■■■■■■■ and 92 series engines became available. This suggests that Bedford did not sell them into Italy, until then.
But you’ve also said that the 3800 with the non turbo 8V71 wasn’t available from day 1 when in fact it was as this shows.
ebay.com/itm/1975-BEDFORD-TM … 0418113182
But as I’ve said Tricentrol could mix and match and modify to special order and it was them,not Bedford,who built the first TM 4400’s during the late 1970’s with the turbocharged 8V92.Bedford just followed later with factory standard orders instead of special orders.The ■■■■■■■ didn’t get offered until the failure in sales of the Detroit 8V92 took effect after 1980.
newmercman:
i think the high weight limits in Italy were just the authorities way of making the standard practice legal, of course when they increased the weight limits the Italians just increased their ‘tolerance’ levels
Just like their attitude to speed limits then.
I thought Italy had 70 ton limit before the stupid European Union? It was for 4+4 drawbar combinations and it was vehicle specific, some kind of special permit maybe, that’s why they still used those old Fiats and Scanias a couple of years ago, they couldn’t get the permits for new trucks. Or that’s what I’ve been told at least.
I’ve never own’d any Scania V8’s, but have driven 3 different one’s for the same company…
The first one was a 143 400 tractor unit. This motor pulled like a train . The bosses brother ( a Scania Mechanic) had messed about with It a bit so It had more power than was advertised on the front grill.
It was uncomfortable to drive though,even though It had air suspension. Only drove It for a year before It became the yard shunter…
The second one was a 144 460 topline tractor unit. This truck drove well, defo had the power to do the job,but there was a constant ratteling coming from the cab.The mechanic’s never found out what the problem was. Drove this for 3 year’s before getting a brand new Volvo FH12 460
I drove the FH for 2 year’s.
The third Scania V8 was a brand new 164 480 topline wagon & A Frame drag.I had my doubt’s about this truck after driving the Volvo,but I was amazed at how well It handled. This was a fantastic truck. A lot more comfortable to drive ( that’s normal with W & Drag’s). I drove It for 3 year’s
With reference to something DEW said on page 1 ( I think) regarding wanting to drive a Daf XF105 with the soundtrack of a Scania V8. The Scania Drag I drove came with sidepipes that stopped just before the drive axle. In the begining I loved the sound,but after a while It became tiresome, so the boss had a system fitted to the exhaust which made It quieter.
Evening all, the Italian market,perhaps one of the most difficult to work within as an Importer, and full of “quirky” legislation. By the way, it was Freight Rovers largest European market, the Italians loving the narrow J4 profile!!So “we” did get some of the action!!
8bhp per tonne, what a power fest the market was! V10 MANs, Merc V10, Magirus V10, and has been mentioned the V12. The market leader, Fiats 17litre V8, and at a consistent number two Scanias V8, followed by the sweet 6cylinder offerings of Volvo.
But the market volume for heavy tractors was quite small, and the market was dominated by small,(1to15, vehicle operators)I, and if I go back into my old records, I expect that i could quote the bare “boring” statistics, gleaned from my time there, but perhaps a few anecdotal memories may be of more interest to you Gentlemen?
Berliet really struggled with the “old” 320 V8, but when the 356hp, (for our Italian operation proudly called the 360)!!! Shades of Bedfords 400hp, (ho, ho). This old girl, and particularly in any variation of Le Centaur specification did quite well, so well in 77 we became number three behind Fiat, and Scania. That is if anyone could believe Italian statistics!
There were all sorts of “dark talk” surrounding the "success of Bedfords TM with certain operators, …most did not involve the “quality” of product!! But most concerned “Italian reasons”!
I found Italian haulage operators a real delight to do business with, and once a deal was struck, they as a matter of “honour” would stick to their side of the deal. No swopped tyres,or anything else! But getting to the “deal” involved a convoluted, and delicate phase of negotiation, almost a “ballet of business”. How they ran, and more importantly, what they ran, must never be criticised, that would be a personal insult, and have dire consequences for the negotiation! Needless to say one of the first “Italian market” modifications to the 356, was to stick some beefier springs on the 13tonne drive axle, and to offer the Telma Retarder at a very low, (subsidised), line fitted opional price. Thereby creating a great advantage over Herr Mercedes, and MANs offerings! No worries about unladen weight here!!
As nmm has indicated, pricing was…creative…as it was in every aspect of Italian life! Support for the product was paramount, if the product broke, however badly it may have been abused, it was without doubt exclusively the fault of the products designer/builder!! How do you overcome this ? You build in little “buffers”, small islands of capital reserves from the initial sale, and drip feed these into the “little incidents” that were bound to, (and always did) occour, so when it came to the bill,…well perhaps there was no bill at all!! And of course everyone was happy, and we all went down to the bar, to celebrate our friendship, and good fortune!!
One aspect of the Italian market that I loved was the specialist conversions, nothing was impossible, at a price, anything was possible! The “milipede” were a classic example, multi axle drawbars, that with any number of steering axles could thread their monsterous loads through the most difficult terrain. I was involved with Rollfo, a specialist converter, who easily changed 356 Renault 4x2 tractors, into low hight 6x4s using ZFaxles, and coupled to their own design low height trailers could carry high weight boxes under 4metre overall height.
Why were Scania so succesful in this market? The package was good, quality driving enviroment, coupled to a magnificent engine, but as in other markets the transmission was the weak point. The big Scania never had the legs of the Fiat, nor it has to be said did anything else! Overall the package held together well, and was marketed as a quality product, which it undeniably was, and that was the reason for the Scania V8s success in Italy, and I suppose the rest of Europe. Cheerio for now.
Saviem:
Berliet really struggled with the “old” 320 V8, but when the 356hp, (for our Italian operation proudly called the 360)!!! Shades of Bedfords 400hp, (ho, ho). This old girl, and particularly in any variation of Le Centaur specification did quite well, so well in 77 we became number three behind Fiat, and Scania. That is if anyone could believe Italian statistics!
I don’t think Bedford needed any type of ‘creative accounting’ with the 8V92 Saviem.The emergency vehicle market never accepted power figures at face value it was the performance figures that counted with a calibrated fifth wheel against the stop watch.SAE,DIN etc etc call the figures what you like but it’s the torque curve and figures and how far the engine could sustain it up the rev range that determines power and trust me the 8V92 had a torque curve that was,at least,if not more than,a match for the opposition and could sustain that torque higher up the rev range,at least by the standards of the 1970’s,than the competition hence the 435 and 475 hp ratings in addition to those lower euro commercial ratings which are obviously a result of just governing the engine to relatively lower rpm than in the US and emergency vehicle markets to save fuel with the Italian rating obviously the result of it’s slightly higher engine speed at peak power v that of the lower ratings given by ZB.While the 435 and 475 ratings peaks were at 2000 rpm + with the two stroke idea being able to stand up to that type of treatment better than four strokes at least in terms of stress. 
All that being available at least during the late 1970’s from Bedford all it needed was a phone call to their sales dept saying that the standard offerings weren’t enough for the job in which case they’d have made it a special order enquiry.
Having said that it’s obvious that it was the fuel consumption issue that eventually put the FIAT and the even moreso and therefore even sooner the Bedford out of the race,in which the resulting natural selection seems to have left the Scania as the only survivor from that great horsepower battle being fought out in that small market at that time.But no surprise that the thirstier domestic product was supported better in it’s home market by a typically european,more loyal,domestic customer base,than the Brits had in theirs,at least for a time.
Which just leaves the question of what might have been if Detroit had chosen and had been able to develop it’s 92 series V8 with a longer stroke,electronic fuelling and (much) higher boost levels instead of,or in addition to,going for the 60 series.The electronic 8V92 in the Oskosh HET seems to give an idea of what that might have produced.In which case the fuel consumption issue would probably have been sorted by putting the emphasis on more power produced at much lower engine speeds which just would have left the emissions bs to fix.
Which seems to be another advantage which the Scania V8 has today in seeming to be able to provide big power ouputs together with acceptable (so far) emissions although as I’ve said the diesel engine’s days seem numbered owing to ever increasing diesel costs and supply v demand issues and ever reducing emissions targets regardless of wether it’s two stroke or four stroke.Whereas the two stroke idea seems much more logical for the alternative fuels route.
Carryfast:
I don’t think Bedford needed any type of ‘creative accounting’ with the 8V92 Saviem.The emergency vehicle market never accepted power figures at face value it was the performance figures that counted with a calibrated fifth wheel against the stop watch.SAE,DIN etc etc call the figures what you like but it’s the torque curve and figures and how far the engine could sustain it up the rev range that determines power and trust me the 8V92 had a torque curve that was,at least,if not more than,a match for the opposition and could sustain that torque higher up the rev range,at least by the standards of the 1970’s,than the competition hence the 435 and 475 hp ratings in addition to those lower euro commercial ratings which are obviously a result of just governing the engine to relatively lower rpm than in the US and emergency vehicle markets to save fuel with the Italian rating obviously the result of it’s slightly higher engine speed at peak power v that of the lower ratings given by ZB.While the 435 and 475 ratings peaks were at 2000 rpm + with the two stroke idea being able to stand up to that type of treatment better than four strokes at least in terms of stress.All that being available at least during the late 1970’s from Bedford all it needed was a phone call to their sales dept saying that the standard offerings weren’t enough for the job in which case they’d have made it a special order enquiry.
Having said that it’s obvious that it was the fuel consumption issue that eventually put the FIAT and the even moreso and therefore even sooner the Bedford out of the race,in which the resulting natural selection seems to have left the Scania as the only survivor from that great horsepower battle being fought out in that small market at that time.But no surprise that the thirstier domestic product was supported better in it’s home market by a typically european,more loyal,domestic customer base,than the Brits had in theirs,at least for a time.
Which just leaves the question of what might have been if Detroit had chosen and had been able to develop it’s 92 series V8 with a longer stroke,electronic fuelling and (much) higher boost levels instead of,or in addition to,going for the 60 series.The electronic 8V92 in the Oskosh HET seems to give an idea of what that might have produced.In which case the fuel consumption issue would probably have been sorted by putting the emphasis on more power produced at much lower engine speeds which just would have left the emissions bs to fix.
Which seems to be another advantage which the Scania V8 has today in seeming to be able to provide big power ouputs together with acceptable (so far) emissions although as I’ve said the diesel engine’s days seem numbered owing to ever increasing diesel costs and supply v demand issues and ever reducing emissions targets regardless of wether it’s two stroke or four stroke.Whereas the two stroke idea seems much more logical for the alternative fuels route.
Regarding the TM4400/8V92TA: The Italian “400CV” designation is easily explained by the extra 50rpm and the fact that Metric horses are 0.14% smaller than Imperial ones. Your explanation of the different peak torque speed is good, plus there are tolerances from engine to engine and test to test. I would guess that the DIN measurements were done on a different engine to the one tested to BS141Au, for the British market.
I would like to hear from any operators who had one of these mythical “Tricentrol Specials.” However, I still do not think it is relevant, when comparing standard vehicles on sale to everyone. All manufacturers experiment with higher-than-standard power ratings in the field. At the time you mention (late 1970s), Scania would have had 142-spec engines in 141s all over Europe. Accelerated testing is the norm in development engineering, IE the thing will be tested with an overload, the resulting wear and fatigue correlated to normal loads by calculation.
I remember reading at least one magazine roadtest of the 386bhp/400cv TM. If I remember correctly, its performance and fuel consumption were competitive, but not quite as good as the 142. I agree with you, Bedford should have fitted the 435bhp engine from the outset (1974), as an option, if only for the bragging rights. A small part of the market will always have the biggest and best, and the prestige dribbles down over the bread-and-butter models in the range, which brings us back to the Scania V8!
A fire appliance and a highway tractor unit don’t share much do they
The requirements from each are chalk and cheese, a fire appliance needs maximum acceleration, fuel consumption and reliability over many miles are not even considerations, whereas a highway engine needs reasonable fuel economy and long term reliability
Of course a fire appliance needs to start first time every time, but they have maintenance programmes to make sure this happens
A high revving engine, like a two stroke, will always perform better with an automatic transmission, the wider rpm range of a two stroke will make them better than the relatively narrow power bands of a four stroke diesel
As for the demise of the FIAT V8, it became obsolete because the clever folk in Turin could easily squeeze 560hp from the 13ltr straight six, so the outputs of the V8 would need to start at 650hp to remove any overlap, the market for that kind of power is too small to invest millions in R&D to get the engine through all the emission ■■■■■■■■. Scania had a worldwide market for their V8, so it made sense to spend the money, the FIAT never did too well outside of its home country, mainly due to the fact that they kept the V8 to themselves, which is a shame, with a bigger audience the title of this thread could have FIAT in place of Scania
Hi Guys
During my time as an Owner Driver I only ever owned two trucks. The first was a Danish Spec 141 6x2 which some of you would have come across during the 80’s-90’s. Pictured below at the Telex Motel.
I had some problems with the old girl, which I was to learn were common, but they were probably due to " Excessive weight". I had gearbox problems, the synchro’s kept failing which meant that it kept jumping out of gear !! The worst trip was when I was just South of Baghdad, heading to Safwhan Border with Kuwait when I’m flying along in top gear, doing about 120kmh and “BANG” the gearstick came flying forward as it jumped out of top !!. This was not good, so, after a while I pulled over and got a small cargo strap which I looped round the bracket under the top bunk. I would then pull away and progress through the gears until I got into top, then I would loop the strap round the gear stick and ratchet it tight so that it held in gear…I got it down to a fine art by the time I reached Doha. Coming home empty wasnt too bad until the range change went “Bang” as I came through the Wadi after exiting Saudi at Ar Ar Border. I managed to get it back into low range and creep upto the Iraqi side of the border and in the morning Gary Glass towed me 500km to baghdad where I then rebuilt the range change and fitted new synchros at the Mivan camp.
Me preparing for the long tow.
All the parts were bought at SCANIA IRAQ in Baghdad for not very much black market Iraqi Dinar. I was on my way within a week. Thanks to Gary Glass who helped me rig up the block and tackle to lift out the gearbox. Saved topping it up to come home.
The only other problem I had was a set of liner seals which started to leak from the telltale holes on the block after I blitzed a Turkish Mack with a fridge on the last stretch of road in Jordan heading to the Saudi Border. And they thought they Poggiani and his Scammel was fast… No problem there, just kept topping up the radiator and rebuilt the engine when I got home.
Below, Just after the engine re-build.
Those of you who know the motor will remember that It had a straight through exhaust fitted. Boy did the old girl sound sweet, I can still hear the Turbo whistling and see the firey glow out of the tail pipe behind the tank…Happy days. What a tool. 400hp
newmercman:
A fire appliance and a highway tractor unit don’t share much do theyThe requirements from each are chalk and cheese, a fire appliance needs maximum acceleration, fuel consumption and reliability over many miles are not even considerations, whereas a highway engine needs reasonable fuel economy and long term reliability
Of course a fire appliance needs to start first time every time, but they have maintenance programmes to make sure this happens
A high revving engine, like a two stroke, will always perform better with an automatic transmission, the wider rpm range of a two stroke will make them better than the relatively narrow power bands of a four stroke diesel
There’s just the inconvenient matter of the amount of engines that GM sold for use in highway applications from the introduction of the 71 series to the end of the 92 series and the fact that if they’d have just relied on emergency vehicle sales there would never have been a 60 series because Detroit probably would have gone under some time in the 1970’s.
While the best way to make a bad situation much worse in the case of it’s ‘drinking habits’ was to use all of that wide power band by running the thing up to max power in every gear .When,just like any other diesel engine,what’s needed is to keep the thing running as close as possible to it’s torque peak not too far over it. Which is why there were (rightly) plenty of them ordered for road use with the 13 speed fuller. But definitely not a 6 speed Allison unless fuel consumption was less of a consideration than the need for a fire fighter,with a truck licence,to be able to drive the thing as fast as possible,to where it was going.
Although having said that it wasn’t,probably still isn’t,unknown for many fire services to spec manual fire trucks because they had the confidence that their drivers were good enough to drive them.In which case short shifting ‘slightly’ under the power peak and getting back into the better part of the torque curve in a higher gear was usually faster when loaded than trying to wring every last rpm out of the thing but,at least in the case of Detroit powered ones,that doesn’t mean limiting it’s rating to less than 2,000 rpm either and every TM fire truck that I knew were all specced as manuals some with the Fuller and some with the Spicer.
But as I’ve said elsewhere running a two stroke at consistently higher rpm than a four stroke doesn’t cause the same type of reliabilty issues because the combination of speed and load is reduced massively by sharing it across double the amount of power strokes than the same combination of engine speed and load using half the amount of power strokes.
GS OVERLAND:
Hi Guys
During my time as an Owner Driver I only ever owned two trucks. The first was a Danish Spec 141 6x2 which some of you would have come across during the 80’s-90’s. Pictured below at the Telex Motel.
I had some problems with the old girl, which I was to learn were common, but they were probably due to " Excessive weight". I had gearbox problems, the synchro’s kept failing which meant that it kept jumping out of gear !! The worst trip was when I was just South of Baghdad, heading to Safwhan Border with Kuwait when I’m flying along in top gear, doing about 120kmh and “BANG” the gearstick came flying forward as it jumped out of top !!. This was not good, so, after a while I pulled over and got a small cargo strap which I looped round the bracket under the top bunk. I would then pull away and progress through the gears until I got into top, then I would loop the strap round the gear stick and ratchet it tight so that it held in gear…I got it down to a fine art by the time I reached Doha. Coming home empty wasnt too bad until the range change went “Bang” as I came through the Wadi after exiting Saudi at Ar Ar Border. I managed to get it back into low range and creep upto the Iraqi side of the border and in the morning Gary Glass towed me 500km to baghdad where I then rebuilt the range change and fitted new synchros at the Mivan camp.
GS I think that there were a lot of examples of the ones sold in the Australian market being fitted with Fuller gearboxes.The combination of the Scania V8 and that transmission sounds about as good as it gets 
.
carryfast you are going soft, 
,and your right to, cheers benkku
Carryfast:
But no surprise that the thirstier domestic product was supported better in it’s home market by a typically european,more loyal,domestic customer base,than the Brits had in theirs,at least for a time.Must hand it to them for supporting their own , yet when it was Brits doing the same either with their engine choice or vehicle choice , then castigation would appear to be the order of the day . This support should have ended a lot sooner because everyone was so backward in doing so & when it was all too late , again it appears we looked to the wrong shores for the correct vehicles to save us .
Casual Observer:
Carryfast:
But no surprise that the thirstier domestic product was supported better in it’s home market by a typically european,more loyal,domestic customer base,than the Brits had in theirs,at least for a time.Must hand it to them for supporting their own , yet when it was Brits doing the same either with their engine choice or vehicle choice , then castigation would appear to be the order of the day . This support should have ended a lot sooner because everyone was so backward in doing so & when it was all too late , again it appears we looked to the wrong shores for the correct vehicles to save us .
It’s obvious that the Scandinavian products were alway going to be a very hard act to follow.But there’s no way that,with the battering that the UK economy had suffered during WW2,that the British truck manufacturers had any chance of doing that in the post war years.It really was a case of the American way or no way.While the type of outdated customer demands here when it mattered were just the final nail.In the case of this topic it would have taken a manufacturer like AEC to have developed a better,or at least as good an,engine as/than the Scania in all respects of reliability/outputs/fuel consumption and to have done it sooner with a domestic customer base that was demanding it at the time together with the type of development rate over the years which has resulted in the 730 of today.
As history showed it was only the Germans,Italians and the Americans who came close enough all based on the demands in their home markets and the fact that the Italians and the Americans weren’t lumbered with the type of financial burdens which Britain and British industry was during those post war years.While if we’d just have had US type fuel prices throughout Europe and Britain and a more open minded British customer base then the Scania V8 probably might have found itelf facing much more competition from at least the two main US competitors in the 8V92 and the CAT 3408 in the domestic market just as was the case in the colonial markets.
The next make or break point will be who gets ahead in the race for commercial truck engines which can run on alternative fuels with similar,if not better,capabilities as/than current diesel engine technology,which will probably be another leveller in which there’s no reason why the Brits shouldn’t now start with a clean sheet and maybe,just for once,come out ahead assuming that the investment money can be found instead of British money being used to fund foreign industry or even totally rebuild it in the case of Germany.
Carryfast:
But there’s no way that,with the battering that the UK economy had suffered during WW2,that the British truck manufacturers had any chance of doing that in the post war years.
I have never understood this argument. The British manufacturers were at the head of Europe in 1945, in terms of products. If you read Eric-Björn Lindh’s book about Scania Vabis, they desperately needed the engineering assistance that they got from Leyland. The British factories took less of a pounding than those of the Germans, so less money and time needed to be wasted to progress forward from the War. However, in the event, the Germans and Scandinavians effortlessly eased ahead, with superior products and increased sales across Europe. Why?
