gingerfold:
The Marathon chassis / cab would have been an ideal installation for a turbo-charged V8, as indeed was the concept test trucks. Plenty of space for air circulation and the Marathon Mk.1 was actually over-cooled with radiator capacity. AEC had gone from one extreme to the other in terms of coolant capacity dictated by the constraints of of the low-datum Ergo cab, to the large radiator in the Marathon. the Marathon Mk, 2 actually had a smaller rad than the Mk. 1, except for the Cu 335 option destined for the Antipodes.
As far as I know Bill Taylor’s collection hasn’t been disposed of… yet, there has been something of a “news blackout” / embargo. I do know who has been to value it for probate purposes, so it could be that something is heard about certain items in the not too distant future.
Did the test beds survive ?
No they were transferred to Leyland for disposal.
[/quote]
No doubt Stokes decision
[zb]
anorak:
Photos and a parts list would be enough for a group of enthusiast engineers to make an 811 V8. Given the cooling issues the V8 had, The rad could come from a ■■■■■■■ NTC380 Scammell Contractor.
The problem seemed to be that only one bank was fed by cold water from the rad the other was supplied by the already heated water from that bank.Not both seperate banks supplied directly from the rad by the water pump.
ramone:
For all you technical guys out there and CF , i have just returned to work after a week and a half break , i drive a 6 x 4 Daf 460 with a 16 speed ZF. When i finished a week last tuesday it was as good as a 10 year old Daf could be within reason . When i set off loaded this morning i noticed at mid revs 1300rpm a deep groan and vibration coming from the transmission , this only happens under load but quite noticable. Any ideas , the box was fine when i left it
Lots of different possibilities propshaft issues or an output shaft bearing maybe.
Carryfast:
How do you compare a front wheel drive Jap zb box with a rear wheel drive 1.8-2.0 litre small saloon range.At the time directed head on against the 2002 series.Wich was replaced by the 3 series which then also shoehorned even larger saloon 6 cylinder motors into them in the form of 323 and 325 to very profitable effect.
That was the point Triumph were a premium brand in the premium JRT division not a BMC wanabee.
So tell us why did BMW avoid/not want your front wheel drive Jap tie up deal if it was supposedly so good for us.
Of course Stokes didn’t want Triumph to compete with Rover.He wanted them to co-operate you know like putting the Rover V8 in the Stag and by implication the 2.5.A Triumph sale was as good to the Group as a Rover sale.If the V8 was supposedly turned down by Triumph why did Spen King need to come up with the bs supply excuse to Stokes.Supply would obviously have been moot.
Edwardes drove a Triumph estate.Yeah right he liked it so much he signed the deal which turned Triumph into a maker of the Acclaim and turned Spen King’s SD1 abortion into the full ■■■■■■ front wheel drive Honda based 820.That ended well for both firms.
As I said BMW were laughing all the way to the bank.Your articles are obviously told from the side of the pro Edwardes faction.
Edwardes wrecked Leyland not Stokes.
Firstly Carryfast I’m going to (sort of) agree the Acclaim wasn’t a suitable replacement for the Dolomite, it should never have carried the Triumph badge Austin or Morris would’ve been more suitable.
If you read the links Stokes is QUOTED as saying Triumph would never compete with Rover and would specialise in smaller sporting saloons.
Ewardes had a Triumph estate he turned up in it on his first day at BL and was ridiculed by the press for turning up in a car which had gone out of production. When he left he was gifted a Jaguar XJS which he liked so much he had it shipped back to South Africa in 1988…
Edwardes never stopped Triumph from putting the V8 in a 2000 saloon because when he arrived at BL Triumph had already ceased making the 2000.Now remind me who was in charge before Edwardes would that be Stokes.So the 2000 saloon was scrapped by STOKES BEFORE Edwardes arrived.
As for Edwardes not allowing Triumph to use the Rover V8,he was at BL from Nov 1977 to 1982 during this time Triumph produced a car called the TR8 which had those Rover V8 engines that you say he wouldn’t let them use.
Spen King is Quoted as saying Triumph told him the Rover engine wouldn’t fit the Stag he said " I believed them maybe I shouldn’t have Believed them but I did"
Stokes wasn’t MD of Leyland Group as of 1975.He was replaced by Alex Park.
2.5 S was still rolling off the line in 1977.
The decision to actually axe production of the 2.5 in favour of Spen King’s SD1 proposed abortion was made after 1975.
Spen King was the designer of the SD1 at no time did he ever advise Stokes or Stoke’s replacements after 1975 that the 2.5 estate with 2.3/2.6 and Rover V8 in it was the superior car.Ditch the SD1 especially knowing that the BMW 5 series was soon going to be released.
When everyone and his wife knew it and most people didn’t even know about the SD1 replacement.I certainly didn’t in 1976/7 even as an avid reader of Motor and Autocar.
We were sure that Leyland wouldn’t possibly be so stupid as to not put the V8 in the 2.5 as the next development and it was a generally accepted that it would happen by Triumph and even P6 fans at that time.
We knew the P6 wasn’t as good, less room, didn’t handle or steer as well as the 2.5 and no estate option.The Triumph just needed the V8’s power and tuning potential in it and newly developed 6 cylinder options.
To say that we were ■■■■■■ off about the Triumph being axed in favour of that ugly live axle piece of Spen King junk is an understatement.
As for the TR8 it’s obvious that was also laughably rationed to be used as publicity exercise not the serious product that it needed to be.
Stokes wouldn’t have much option but to take Triumph out after Spen King had witheld the V8 on grounds of ‘supply’ for obvious reasons.
The two inconsistent and opposing reasons of didn’t fit and insufficient supply don’t add up and both attributable to King.
All moot after Edwardes had signed Rover and Triumph up to making front wheel drive Jap crap.That isn’t the mark of someone committed to the survival of Leyland or with any liking of Triumph products.
As for Jaguar the general consensus of all car enthusiasts knowing what Edwardes had done with Rover and Triumph was get it out of Leyland Group fast.No need to ever say that under Stokes with XJ6, Series 3 V12 E type, XJ12, XJS all being on Stokes’ watch to add to V8 Rover and Triumph 2.5.
While it’s the Acclaim and Rover 820 and all what followed which is Edwardes’ legacy with a lot of prior help from Spen King and King knew it.He and Edawardes destroyed Leyland Group beteen them.Possibly in collusion, during Edwardes’ tenure as boss of the NEB making him the ultimate boss over Stokes and Stokes’ interim replacement until Stokes’ retirement.
Wasn’t it Stokes who put the TL12 in the Marathon ?.
Wasn’t it Edwardes who dropped it from the Roadtrain ?.
Not because he wanted the Roadtrain to compete with DAF but because his handler Thatcher wanted to get the bankers money back before closure.
Wasn’t it Stokes who put the TL12 in the Marathon ?.
Wasn’t it Edwardes who dropped it from the Roadtrain ?.
Not because he wanted the Roadtrain to compete with DAF but because his handler Thatcher wanted to get the bankers money back before closure.
No to all.
The TL12 was developed because the V8 had failed. No one could take individual credit for such a no-brainer of a decision.
Edwardes had left British Leyland by the time the TL12 ceased production. Why don’t you read his book? Every time you make up bs about him, you are proved wrong by people who have.
BL was funded by the state. How do you infer that the banks had money in it? How would dropping one part of one product and replacing it with another affect that?
Wasn’t it Stokes who put the TL12 in the Marathon ?.
Wasn’t it Edwardes who dropped it from the Roadtrain ?.
Not because he wanted the Roadtrain to compete with DAF but because his handler Thatcher wanted to get the bankers money back before closure.
It was Stokes who rushed the V8 through against AECs top engineers advice , a clear action of sabotage a clear indication of his hatred for AEC and of course the rest is history. When the dust settled and he had managed to tarnish AECs excellent reputation he had to look around the group to find an in house engine to turbocharge because they had no money left from the 500 and V8 debacles. Well they had already tried the 680 so again back to AEC for the 760 which ended up an excellent choice in TL guise which proved economical and reliable. Two factors that would be music to hauliers ears but not yours.
Wasn’t it Stokes who put the TL12 in the Marathon ?.
Wasn’t it Edwardes who dropped it from the Roadtrain ?.
Not because he wanted the Roadtrain to compete with DAF but because his handler Thatcher wanted to get the bankers money back before closure.
No to all.
The TL12 was developed because the V8 had failed. No one could take individual credit for such a no-brainer of a decision.
Edwardes had left British Leyland by the time the TL12 ceased production. Why don’t you read his book? Every time you make up bs about him, you are proved wrong by people who have.
BL was funded by the state. How do you infer that the banks had money in it? How would dropping one part of one product and replacing it with another affect that?
Let’s get this right AEC’s failures were all Stokes’ fault but your perceived TL12/Marathon ‘success’ was down to no individual.
You also said that Edwardes wasn’t involved in the Rover/Triumph Honda deal.
Are you saying that the ‘decision’ to stop production of the TL12 only took place in 1983 when it actually stopped ?.
State funded doesn’t mean 100 % tax payer funded.
While either way it’s obvious that dropping an inferior product in favour of a known superior product that customers actually want would make the difference between a loss making run down and closure v a relatively more economically viable one for the tax payer and the banks.
How much stake did DAF have in Leyland before the ‘increase’ to a 60% holding for example.Define ‘increase’ from what and when.
While it’s equally obvious that sabotaging the launch of the Roadtrain to the benefit of DAF would be linked to that connection.
The truth is DAF were effectively in control of the Truck Division agenda just like Honda and BMW were in control of the car division.An inconvenient competitor that had to be taken out.
ramone:
It was Stokes who rushed the V8 through against AECs top engineers advice , a clear action of sabotage a clear indication of his hatred for AEC and of course the rest is history. When the dust settled and he had managed to tarnish AECs excellent reputation he had to look around the group to find an in house engine to turbocharge because they had no money left from the 500 and V8 debacles. Well they had already tried the 680 so again back to AEC for the 760 which ended up an excellent choice in TL guise which proved economical and reliable. Two factors that would be music to hauliers ears but not yours.
Oh wait it was those ‘engineers’ who’d actually designed the thing not Stokes.Because they wanted to go one better than even the ■■■■■■■■ vale and vine pieces of junk.Then blame it on a bs US court case regarding a patent on stroke measurements.
In addition to AEC thinking that they needed dustcart accessibility for a 32 tonner cab.
Then we’ve got gingerfold saying it was a great motor when it’s in defence of AEC’s engineers but a piece of junk when it’s crucifying Stokes.The truth is the thing was never going to work from the drawing board stage.
So Stokes made the ‘excellent’ choice of Marathon and TL12 which doesn’t seem consistent with hatred and sabotage of AEC.
Remind me again who was in charge of Leyland Group in 1977.You know the year that the ‘run down’ of AEC ‘Commenced’.
The only sabotage I’m seeing here is witholding of the Rover V8 from Triumph thereby wiping out the 2.5 saloon production.Followed by SD1 and Acclaim and 820 and launching the Roadtrain with the choice of obsolete, crippled at the design stage, TL12 or nothing and letting RR go to to Vickers instead of bringing it into Leyland Group well before that.
With obvious foreign competition beneficiaries in all cases.
While if Stokes really wanted to destroy AEC he would have closed it down at first sight of the AEC V8, 691/760.Not try to make a max weight truck engine with a 114 mm stroke work.
Carryfast:
…
2.5 S was still rolling off the line in 1977.
The decision to actually axe production of the 2.5 in favour of Spen King’s SD1 proposed abortion was made after 1975.
…
It takes four years from concept to production, usually. The SD1 project would have started in about 1973. If they had intended to keep Triumph going, a similar project would have started there but, since they were attempting to cut duplication of work, it didn’t. The decision not to continue with one of the makes would have been made much earlier than 1975.
The SD1, apart from the usual BL build quality issues, was well-received, especially the styling. It had some success in circuit racing and rallying, so the simplified suspension did not hobble it.
Carryfast:
…
2.5 S was still rolling off the line in 1977.
The decision to actually axe production of the 2.5 in favour of Spen King’s SD1 proposed abortion was made after 1975.
…
It takes four years from concept to production, usually. The SD1 project would have started in about 1973. If they had intended to keep Triumph going, a similar project would have started there but, since they were attempting to cut duplication of work, it didn’t. The decision not to continue with one of the makes would have been made much earlier than 1975.
The SD1, apart from the usual BL build quality issues, was well-received, especially the styling. It had some success in circuit racing and rallying, so the simplified suspension did not hobble it.
The concept of SD1 wasn’t the same thing as the actual decision to proceed with it v Triumph.
All bets were off in that regard easily past 1975.To the point where as I said many Triumph owners weren’t even aware of the SD1 replacement until after it appeared in the showrooms and on the roads.The reaction was generally one of disbelief not welcome.
What ‘project’ did Triumph need to replace something which already did everything which the 5 series did with the advantage of an estate option and what would have been a superb V8 motor.
As opposed to an ugly shovel nosed coupe styled dog of a thing with a live axle suspension.
Did you miss the bit which I wrote I was a Triumph owner and the SD1 would never have even got onto my radar and never did.
There were plenty like me.The result was a sales coup for BMW and to an extent the Ford Granada Mk2 actually a better car than the 5 series.But again Ford didn’t seem to want to drop the 302 V8 into the Granada for some reason.( Oh wait all good Germans together and all that ).
Make no mistake we saw a clear plan of sabotage happen with the obvious aim to benefit BMW in the mid range premium saloon sector and BMW took full advantage of it.
As for the SD1’s racing success credit where it’s due but that had everything to do with pushrod Rover V8 power v BMW 6 and turbo Volvo 4 nothing to do with the fact that the Triumph couldn’t have done it better given the same engine.
Carryfast:
…
2.5 S was still rolling off the line in 1977.
The decision to actually axe production of the 2.5 in favour of Spen King’s SD1 proposed abortion was made after 1975.
…
It takes four years from concept to production, usually. The SD1 project would have started in about 1973. If they had intended to keep Triumph going, a similar project would have started there but, since they were attempting to cut duplication of work, it didn’t. The decision not to continue with one of the makes would have been made much earlier than 1975.
The Police liked them , the law enforcement people not the group
The SD1, apart from the usual BL build quality issues, was well-received, especially the styling. It had some success in circuit racing and rallying, so the simplified suspension did not hobble it.
Carryfast:
…
2.5 S was still rolling off the line in 1977.
The decision to actually axe production of the 2.5 in favour of Spen King’s SD1 proposed abortion was made after 1975.
…
It takes four years from concept to production, usually. The SD1 project would have started in about 1973. If they had intended to keep Triumph going, a similar project would have started there but, since they were attempting to cut duplication of work, it didn’t. The decision not to continue with one of the makes would have been made much earlier than 1975.
The SD1, apart from the usual BL build quality issues, was well-received, especially the styling. It had some success in circuit racing and rallying, so the simplified suspension did not hobble it.
I liked the SD1, (and the earlier 3 litre models that ‘officialdom’ used a lot) father had a yellow SD1 with the straight six engine (that was rather prone to overheating though) and the live rear axle was a lot easier to work on than the IRS set-up on the 2000’s etc which fitters at the Rover/Triumph/ Vauxhall dealership I worked at were not impressed with. Keep things nice and simple on a family car, it can save the owner money!
windrush:
I liked the SD1, (and the earlier 3 litre models that ‘officialdom’ used a lot) father had a yellow SD1 with the straight six engine (that was rather prone to overheating though) and the live rear axle was a lot easier to work on than the IRS set-up on the 2000’s etc which fitters at the Rover/Triumph/ Vauxhall dealership I worked at were not impressed with. Keep things nice and simple on a family car, it can save the owner money!
While BMW, Ford, Mercedes and Opel go laughing all the way to the bank on the basis that if anyone is brave or stupid enough to push a semi trailing arm set up into a into negative camber situation the front end has probably already gone in the ditch and a live axle has already let go before that point because it had no negative camber to start with.As poor Mike Hawthorne found out on the Guildford by Pass v Rob Walker’s Merc.
Probably all moot because SD1’s only sell to pre WW2 generation former Vauxhall Victor customers who don’t know any better and who can’t tell the difference between a coupe and an estate and that’s probably why Edwardes thought they even wouldn’t notice the change to front wheel drive in the case of the Honda 820.
The Vapors record Turning Japanese was really meant for Leyland car division under Edwardes.
Any self respecting Triumph fan having ran off to the nearest BMW seller by then as in my case.But really really wish I’d listened to my peers’ advice in the day to keep the faith and put a Rover V8 in my Triumph 2.5.I’d be a lot richer now if I still had it.
ramone:
As restorations go there’s a Mercedes pillarless coupe rotting away near where i work were they any good?
Their V8’s were formidable but rarely if ever put with a manual box and nothing which a pushrod US V8 couldn’t do better, cheaper and simpler.That’s why Ford Germany obiously didn’t want to turn the Granada Mk2 into a BMW/Merc 450/500/560 killer by dropping a 302/351 V8 into it.
All kamaraden together against those nuisance Anglos across the Channel and Atlantic.
This was Merc’s idea of IRS.They obviously needed Spen King’s live axle ideas more than Triumph did. youtube.com/watch?v=R1QkjeKFbSc
Carryfast:
…
2.5 S was still rolling off the line in 1977.
The decision to actually axe production of the 2.5 in favour of Spen King’s SD1 proposed abortion was made after 1975.
…
It takes four years from concept to production, usually. The SD1 project would have started in about 1973. If they had intended to keep Triumph going, a similar project would have started there but, since they were attempting to cut duplication of work, it didn’t. The decision not to continue with one of the makes would have been made much earlier than 1975.
The SD1, apart from the usual BL build quality issues, was well-received, especially the styling. It had some success in circuit racing and rallying, so the simplified suspension did not hobble it.
The concept of SD1 wasn’t the same thing as the actual decision to proceed with it v Triumph.
All bets were off in that regard easily past 1975.To the point where as I said many Triumph owners weren’t even aware of the SD1 replacement until after it appeared in the showrooms and on the roads.The reaction was generally one of disbelief not welcome.
What ‘project’ did Triumph need to replace something which already did everything which the 5 series did with the advantage of an estate option and what would have been a superb V8 motor.
As opposed to an ugly shovel nosed coupe styled dog of a thing with a live axle suspension.
Did you miss the bit which I wrote I was a Triumph owner and the SD1 would never have even got onto my radar and never did.
There were plenty like me.The result was a sales coup for BMW and to an extent the Ford Granada Mk2 actually a better car than the 5 series.But again Ford didn’t seem to want to drop the 302 V8 into the Granada for some reason.( Oh wait all good Germans together and all that ).
Make no mistake we saw a clear plan of sabotage happen with the obvious aim to benefit BMW in the mid range premium saloon sector and BMW took full advantage of it.
As for the SD1’s racing success credit where it’s due but that had everything to do with pushrod Rover V8 power v BMW 6 and turbo Volvo 4 nothing to do with the fact that the Triumph couldn’t have done it better given the same engine.
The SD1 was developed in 1971 en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_S … 0is%20both,)%2C%20under%20the%20Rover%20marque.
I’ll not quote the whole thing it’s there for people to read but basically it says in 1971 (when Stokes was in charge Carryfast) that Rover were to build a new car to replace both the P6 and 2000 range of cars. Both design teams submitted designs and the management (Stokes Included) choose the Rover design. The project original code name was actually RT1 which stood for ROVER TRIUMPH no 1 it was changed to SD1 named after the newly formed specialist division no 1
.Here’s a link to a 1973 interview with Stokes (just for Carryfast an interview in this case means someone wrote down what someone else said in this case it was what STOKES said) aronline.co.uk/people/peopl … interview/ again I’ll not quote everything. The interviewer (Graham Robson) asks Stokes about the future of names and Stokes (that’s STOKES carryfast and not as you insist Edwardes) says Rover and Triumph are being MERGED we have a Rover 2000 and a Triumph 2000 and I (meaning Stokes Carryfast) think it makes sense not to perpetuate that in the future-two similar cars of exactly the same capacity. Rather we are going to put our resources into making better cars which do not compete with each over but there will continue to be Triumph sports cars.
Here’s another link in which Stokes says of Rover, people putting XL or GT badges on a car is nothing like the " mystique of having a Rover .You’ve arrived with a Rover" aronline.co.uk/people/peopl … ld-stokes/ so maybe he wasn’t as big a fan of the Triumph 2000 as you seem to think Carryfast
Carryfast:
While BMW, Ford, Mercedes and Opel go laughing all the way to the bank on the basis that if anyone is brave or stupid enough to push a semi trailing arm set up into a into negative camber situation the front end has probably already gone in the ditch and a live axle has already let go before that point because it had no negative camber to start with…
What the hell are you on about now? You can’t even work out the load on a conn rod. Don’t tell me you’re an expert on suspension design too?
Carryfast:
Edwardes thought they even wouldn’t notice the change to front wheel drive in the case of the Honda 820.
Having got the SD1 story 4+years out of sync with reality (“After 1975” vs. 1971, referring to Dazcapri’s post above. Ta Daz), you are now attempting to blame Mr. Edwardes for something had nothing to do with. The 800 project commenced in 1984/5, years after the man had moved on.
Carryfast:
… Ford Germany obviously didn’t want to turn the Granada Mk2 into a BMW/Merc 450/500/560 killer by dropping a 302/351 V8 into it.
All kamaraden together against those nuisance Anglos across the Channel and Atlantic.
So the Germans and the Americans were in a pact to undermine GB? How does this fit in with your declared Confederate Nationalist credentials? Was it the other Americans- the non-Confederate ones (Yankees?)- who teamed up with the Jerries, to have a cold war against the Confederates and the British?
Given the cooling issues the V8 had, The rad could come from a ■■■■■■■ NTC380 Scammell Contractor.
