The Carryfast engine design discussion

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS OLD TIME LORRIES, COMPANIES AND DRIVERS (INTERACT
101

gingerfold:
The days of British Leyland being an engineering-led or sales-led organisation were long gone; accountants ruled the roost. Leyland had shelved any plans for future new engines in the mid-70s, causing talented engineers such as Keith Roberts and a former Perkins man (whose name escapes me) to seek new jobs. KR went to Rolls Royce, as discussed earlier, several others went to DAF.

I must admit that this thread has made me re-assess the history of BL, and of course hindsight is a great help. It was really ‘game-over’ for the company from the late 1970s.

Great to see you reflecting on the questions from the different angle.
If I’ve read it right Leyland truck and bus throwing in the towel in that way and at that time , as you correctly describe ( which I agree with ) contradicts the Ryder Report and the government’s ( stated ) response to it ?.
IE the report was a cover plan to wrong foot and lull the work force into a false sense of security as were the lies in response to it from the government and the inconsistencies contained within it.Such as the question of keeping the ball and chain of BMC tied round the group’s neck.But the government happily splitting truck and bus for obvious reasons.

This was clearly a politically driven agenda of deliberate planned run down and sell out to our competitors.
Certainly not an industrial one of fight back for survival, as pretended in the Ryder Report, and I think that the good faith of those like Patt Kennett, in doing his best to put a brave face on the glaring inconsistencies regarding what was going on in the Group’s product development and placement policies, was being taken advantage of by that unholy agenda.

What can only be the glaring inconsistencies regarding the lunch of T45 and the total waste of the resources available to Leyland, in the form of bringing RR in house and keeping AEC’s works employed as part of that, damns the government.
Not Leyland’s committed and shamefully treated workforce.

102

gingerfold:

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:
I bet the T45 was more popular than any ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ vehicle. IIRC, Volvo headed the table in 28 tonne+ sales, with Leyland in second. If you want to disagree with any of that, you will need numbers. :smiling_imp:

Why was the TL12 dropped very shortly after introduction of the Roadtrain as opposed to the TX still being in production well into the 1990’s.At that point by definition TL12 ‘numbers’ were less than zero.

The official reasons for dropping the TL12 was firstly proprietary engines were cheaper to buy than manufacturing the TL12 in-house, economy of scale in production. If ■■■■■■■ for example, sells 1,000 engines annually to each of Leyland, Seddon Atkinson, and ERF, the unit cost to ■■■■■■■ is less than the unit cost of Leyland producing 1,000 TL12s. Secondly, the TL12 engine manufacturing plant needed capital expenditure. Most of the machinery for this engine had come from Southall and it dated back to 1960 when the monobloc A590 / A 690 engines were introduced.

The days of British Leyland being an engineering-led or sales-led organisation were long gone; accountants ruled the roost. Leyland had shelved any plans for future new engines in the mid-70s, causing talented engineers such as Keith Roberts and a former Perkins man (whose name escapes me) to seek new jobs. KR went to Rolls Royce, as discussed earlier, several others went to DAF.

I must admit that this thread has made me re-assess the history of BL, and of course hindsight is a great help. It was really ‘game-over’ for the company from the late 1970s.

Does hindsight help some posters on here Graham. Taking Rolls Royce another loss maker into the already skint BL empire. 30 odd years on not one of the main players buys in engines and didnt at the time the T45 was launched but Leyland decided to ditch engine development and do the opposite. They had all the people on board they needed to develop but didnt , but the management and numerous governments made the wrong decisions which forced their hand. Take the car losses away could they have moved forward with the right funding . Too much infighting and too many wrong decisions and not using the resources at hand

103

ramone:
Does hindsight help some posters on here Graham. Taking Rolls Royce another loss maker into the already skint BL empire.

Taking over Rolls Royce diesels didn’t do firstly Vickers or Perkins any harm.

Much quicker, cheaper and easier than Leyland trying to build something with the same capabilities from nothing.

With the bonus of MoD orders for tank and tank transporter engines with the deal.

So they turn a superior ‘bought in’ product into an in house one while dropping the inferior in house one.What’s not to like.

But by your logic it was better to commit commercial suicide by trying to take Leyland into the late 20th century with a design already obsolete by the early 1970’s and the customers knew it.Although ironically that’s exactly what the government always deliberately intended to do in this case to hand the initiative to the foreign competition.

104

Carryfast:

ramone:
Does hindsight help some posters on here Graham. Taking Rolls Royce another loss maker into the already skint BL empire.

Taking over Rolls Royce diesels didn’t do firstly Vickers or Perkins any harm.

Much quicker, cheaper and easier than Leyland trying to build something with the same capabilities from nothing.

With the bonus of MoD orders for tank and tank transporter engines with the deal.

So they turn a superior ‘bought in’ product into an in house one while dropping the inferior in house one.What’s not to like.

But by your logic it was better to commit commercial suicide by trying to take Leyland into the late 20th century with a design already obsolete by the early 1970’s and the customers knew it.Although ironically that’s exactly what the government always deliberately intended to do in this case to hand the initiative to the foreign competition.

You’ve been inhaling your own exhaust smoke again.

The phased introduction of the T45, regardless of our opinions of it, eventually delivered a full range of engines- TL12 at 280bhp, Rolls at 340bhp, up to ■■■■■■■ E400. The DAF takeover was not envisaged- it just happened, as both firms hit the buffers at the same time, under governments with a similar hands-off approach to business.

Rolls Royce had other customers for the Eagle Diesel. What do you think would have happened to that business, if ERF, SA and Foden had to buy the engines from Leyland? Maybe that was why a merger between LV and RR did not happen?

105

Leyland was a supplier of proprietary engines at one point, as were AEC. As for Leyland and RR becoming part of the same group, ERF launched the CP range which was exclusively ■■■■■■■ powered, not exactly much help to RR. Foden, bang in trouble and not a big RR customer anyway, the same for Seddon Atkinson, the Rolls was third choice engine for them all, so ■■■■ them, if a buyer wanted a Rolls Royce engine, they could have in it a Constructor or Roadtrain and that’s a win win.

Detroit Diesel were big suppliers to all the main brands in the USA and that market’s huge, when they were merged into the Freightliner group by parent company Daimler AG and stopped selling loose engines to their competitors it didn’t hurt them.

106

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
But by your logic it was better to commit commercial suicide by trying to take Leyland into the late 20th century with a design already obsolete by the early 1970’s and the customers knew it.Although ironically that’s exactly what the government always deliberately intended to do in this case to hand the initiative to the foreign competition.

You’ve been inhaling your own exhaust smoke again.

The phased introduction of the T45, regardless of our opinions of it, eventually delivered a full range of engines- TL12 at 280bhp, Rolls at 340bhp, up to ■■■■■■■ E400. The DAF takeover was not envisaged- it just happened, as both firms hit the buffers at the same time, under governments with a similar hands-off approach to business.

Rolls Royce had other customers for the Eagle Diesel. What do you think would have happened to that business, if ERF, SA and Foden had to buy the engines from Leyland? Maybe that was why a merger between LV and RR did not happen?

An ‘introduction’ is either everything there and in place from day 1 and the most important part being creating the right frenzy among the industry publicity fraternity, or it ain’t an ‘introduction’.
What it actually was in this case was take this ( by late 1970’s ) old nail under the cab or leave it.

That’s not going to create the jaw dropping reaction at the launch juncket of a 320 intercooled 13 speed fuller standard fit beast required to make the required statement that we’re in business and we intend to win.More like lots of mutterings among the attending delegations along the lines of we thought we were going to see something more than this.

So DAF gets the all too convenient predictable breathing space to get its 3300 development to market.Which a 320 intercooled 13 speed T45 as the halo product at launch would/could have trumped.
While anyone wanting a 280 can have that derated to around 1,800 rpm just like the Maxidyne, not 2,200 rpm.All with a transmission that most know and love certainly more than Spicer. :bulb:

What actually happened takes such a special type of stupid that it defies belief.
Leaving the question who gained from this and how did it even meet the provisions laid out in the Ryder Report.No mention of closing AEC’s plant in that and certainly nothing in it which would have precluded the idea of bringing RR on board and ditching the TL12 before the T45’s launch.Nor conveniently splitting up the truck and bus division for predictable eventual takeover by the two different foreign competitors.
Instead of which the government was all too keen on selectively following the suicidal parts of the report like let’s keep BMC tied round our necks.Thereby obviously providing ammunition later for the smear campaign directed against JRT and Truck and Bus workers and for the foregone run down and closure of the whole lot using the example of BMC to justify it.

Hands off approach to business as in the two respective PM’s of the respective countries involved needing to be there to sign off Patel’s takeover of Sainsburys.

107

newmercman:
Leyland was a supplier of proprietary engines at one point, as were AEC. As for Leyland and RR becoming part of the same group, ERF launched the CP range which was exclusively ■■■■■■■ powered, not exactly much help to RR. Foden, bang in trouble and not a big RR customer anyway, the same for Seddon Atkinson, the Rolls was third choice engine for them all, so [zb] them, if a buyer wanted a Rolls Royce engine, they could have in it a Constructor or Roadtrain and that’s a win win.

Detroit Diesel were big suppliers to all the main brands in the USA and that market’s huge, when they were merged into the Freightliner group by parent company Daimler AG and stopped selling loose engines to their competitors it didn’t hurt them.

I might be missing something here but ERF weren’t using them Foden not much too SA had RR as their 3rd choice , why was this , was it customer demand or something else. . What engine was the top seller once the TL12 was dropped in the Roadtrain?

108

ramone:
I might be missing something here but ERF weren’t using them Foden not much too SA had RR as their 3rd choice , why was this , was it customer demand or something else. . What engine was the top seller once the TL12 was dropped in the Roadtrain?

Whatever ever may or may not be the case in that regard it was a 1st division player in the 300-400 hp league with a 20 year + production development life potential in it, unlike the TL12.
Therefore could only have been a better choice for Leyland in the late 1970’s.
Than going back to the engine design drawing board at the point when the DAF 3300 was almost signed off for production and the TD120 was already there and established.

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … flies-high

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … as-landed-

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … foden-4000

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … -erf-was-a

109

Carryfast:

ramone:
Does hindsight help some posters on here Graham. Taking Rolls Royce another loss maker into the already skint BL empire.

Taking over Rolls Royce diesels didn’t do firstly Vickers or Perkins any harm.

Much quicker, cheaper and easier than Leyland trying to build something with the same capabilities from nothing.

With the bonus of MoD orders for tank and tank transporter engines with the deal.

So they turn a superior ‘bought in’ product into an in house one while dropping the inferior in house one.What’s not to like.

But by your logic it was better to commit commercial suicide by trying to take Leyland into the late 20th century with a design already obsolete by the early 1970’s and the customers knew it.Although ironically that’s exactly what the government always deliberately intended to do in this case to hand the initiative to the foreign competition.

Firstly why take over a company that you didnt need to especially when sales were dwindling ( ERF deciding to go with ■■■■■■■ , Foden and SA also not favouring them would be imho decisions made by customer demand) when they could just bring in what customers required? If the RR engine was so good where are they now , they were in trouble for a reason just like Leyland Why was the TL12 inferior to the RR265/290 ... answer it wasnt
AEC were a big supplier to the armed forces , i think one of AECs last big orders before closing was from the Armed Forces so they had the business .
If customers wanted a Roadtrain with 300 + bhp they had the choice of ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ , i agree that they should have been available at the launch but like i mentioned before with the Fuller 9/13 speed or the ZF 16 speed option. Before you go banging on about synchros being too slow it didn`t do any of the european manufacturers any harm using them , and they are still around

110

ramone:

Carryfast:
But by your logic it was better to commit commercial suicide by trying to take Leyland into the late 20th century with a design already obsolete by the early 1970’s and the customers knew it.Although ironically that’s exactly what the government always deliberately intended to do in this case to hand the initiative to the foreign competition.

Firstly why take over a company that you didnt need to especially when sales were dwindling ( ERF deciding to go with ■■■■■■■ , Foden and SA also not favouring them would be imho decisions made by customer demand) when they could just bring in what customers required? If the RR engine was so good where are they now , they were in trouble for a reason just like Leyland Why was the TL12 inferior to the RR265/290 ... answer it wasnt
AEC were a big supplier to the armed forces , i think one of AECs last big orders before closing was from the Armed Forces so they had the business .
If customers wanted a Roadtrain with 300 + bhp they had the choice of ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ , i agree that they should have been available at the launch but like i mentioned before with the Fuller 9/13 speed or the ZF 16 speed option. Before you go banging on about synchros being too slow it didn`t do any of the european manufacturers any harm using them , and they are still around

Rolls Royce as a Group were skint mostly because of the development costs of the RB 211 and other aerospace issues.
The diesels division was relatively ok and the Eagle was a second to none product.
As proven by the fact that it was still there in the 1990’s putting out 400 hp and over 100 lb/ft per litre without going bang and made a fortune for its Vickers and Perkins shareholders.

Are you seriously suggesting that the TL12 was even close to that league.Or the fact that DAF itself hadn’t gone bust before the end of the Eagle’s production life.

The fact is Leyland had an open goal in front of it with Rolls Royce diesels looking for a home in the late 1970’s and instead decided ( deliberately ) to commit commercial suicide by bringing the T45 to market with the TL12 anchor in it.Bearing in mind an inhouse components use business plan.

To add to the government’s decision to split the truck and bus division and keep the sinking BMC mess tied to the struggling Group.

111

Another conundrum into the equation a few years later was Perkins acquisition of Gardner, after buying Perkins. There didn’t seem much logic to that deal, - Gardner was in serious decline despite having finally got turbo-charged engines into its catalogue, and a new engine the 6LYT. Perkins re-branded the Gardner range and re-introduced the 1LW as a narrow boat engine (plenty of potential sales there :open_mouth: ). However it wasn’t long before Gardner production ceased.

The former Perkins engineer whose name I couldn’t remember, who went to AEC, and who was highly thought of was ‘Mac’ Porkiss, an unusual name, he was a Scotsman.

An the answer to the question I posed earlier in the thread - what was the cheap and easy modification to crankshafts that greatly improved bottom end reliability for continuous high revs running? It was the crankshaft dampner.

112

With regard to the ERF CP series, it was a short-lived marketing ploy. By the late 1980s, ERF and Foden were plugging their RR/Perkins 330LE(?)-400Tx models strongly.

113

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:
But by your logic it was better to commit commercial suicide by trying to take Leyland into the late 20th century with a design already obsolete by the early 1970’s and the customers knew it.Although ironically that’s exactly what the government always deliberately intended to do in this case to hand the initiative to the foreign competition.

Firstly why take over a company that you didnt need to especially when sales were dwindling ( ERF deciding to go with ■■■■■■■ , Foden and SA also not favouring them would be imho decisions made by customer demand) when they could just bring in what customers required? If the RR engine was so good where are they now , they were in trouble for a reason just like Leyland Why was the TL12 inferior to the RR265/290 ... answer it wasnt
AEC were a big supplier to the armed forces , i think one of AECs last big orders before closing was from the Armed Forces so they had the business .
If customers wanted a Roadtrain with 300 + bhp they had the choice of ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ , i agree that they should have been available at the launch but like i mentioned before with the Fuller 9/13 speed or the ZF 16 speed option. Before you go banging on about synchros being too slow it didn`t do any of the european manufacturers any harm using them , and they are still around

Rolls Royce as a Group were skint mostly because of the development costs of the RB 211 and other aerospace issues.
The diesels division was relatively ok and the Eagle was a second to none product.
As proven by the fact that it was still there in the 1990’s putting out 400 hp and over 100 lb/ft per litre without going bang and made a fortune for its Vickers and Perkins shareholders.

Are you seriously suggesting that the TL12 was even close to that league.Or the fact that DAF itself hadn’t gone bust before the end of the Eagle’s production life.

The fact is Leyland had an open goal in front of it with Rolls Royce diesels looking for a home in the late 1970’s and instead decided ( deliberately ) to commit commercial suicide by bringing the T45 to market with the TL12 anchor in it.Bearing in mind an inhouse components use business plan.

To add to the government’s decision to split the truck and bus division and keep the sinking BMC mess tied to the struggling Group.

Again and again you suggest the TL12 was an anchor please give evidence , maybe use the CM or Truck magazine test results where the Marathon or Roadtrain were put through their paces for these little known facts. See the test results of the E290 ■■■■■■■ engined Marathon or any other E290 engined vehicle put against the TL12 . The Rolls or ■■■■■■■ didnt fare any better at the same or similar outputs. What you want to do is put higher output variants from your new favourite engine , the Rolls to compare. Leyland ceased production of the TL12 because they werent prepared to develop it any further due to costs that have already been explained to you by a well informed contributor but you dont want to listen to that even though you have already said yourself that the management made many mistakes , in your mind with weird conspiracy theories. How do you know that the TL12 couldnt be developed further , when there was evidence that it hade been developed to 320 bhp . You keep banging on about stroke but very experienced engineers on here disagree with you . Remind us all of what qualifications you have in engineering. We know you worked in a fire engine factory , you spoke to some older workers at Scammell , you drove a Marathon and didnt like it , you like lorries with big engines maybe a V8 Detroit and of course the Fuller gearbox and you drove a lorry for the local council . If you dont like it its crap , and everyone is wrong that disagrees with you . The T45 was developed to cover the full range from 7.5 tons to heavy haulage , i dont think but this is my opinion only, that in the time it took to develop this range that they had a refined product , definitely compared with the Swedes . The top Interstate was never going to have the prestige of a Globetrotter , but was that really what Leyland were after . I think not , more like the fleet buyers oil companies and supermarkets , the bread and butter markets .

114

The Rolls Royce engine was the third choice engine among ERF, Foden and Seddon Atkinson customers, this is true, but that doesn’t mean that it was an inferior product and those companies were not major competitors to Leyland in sales terms, their combined output was less than Leyland and would’ve been even less had RR become the in house engine supplier to Leyland.

The fact that both companies were being bailed out by GB Ltd makes a merger a no brainer in financial terms, in engineering terms it also made sense as proven by the lifespan of the basic design.

I’m convinced that Leyland would still be producing truck and bus chassis today if they hadn’t committed commercial suicide in the 70s. And it was the heavy trucks that were the problem, the Roadrunner was a fantastic little lorry, the Freighter was more than the equal to the foreign competition, the Scammell Constructor six and eight wheelers were second to none too, it was only the Roadtrain that let the side down and that wouldn’t have happened if it had the right driveline from the start.

That 300hp tractor unit market was the one that really established the competition, the F10, 112, 3300, E290, L10 etc and the T45 as it was had no chance, had it been launched with a full range of cab options, a 265hp to 320hp engine range and a 9/10/13spd Fuller, it would’ve been a very different story, one that had a happy ending.

115

newmercman:
The Rolls Royce engine was the third choice engine among ERF, Foden and Seddon Atkinson customers, this is true, but that doesn’t mean that it was an inferior product and those companies were not major competitors to Leyland in sales terms, their combined output was less than Leyland and would’ve been even less had RR become the in house engine supplier to Leyland.

The fact that both companies were being bailed out by GB Ltd makes a merger a no brainer in financial terms, in engineering terms it also made sense as proven by the lifespan of the basic design.

I’m convinced that Leyland would still be producing truck and bus chassis today if they hadn’t committed commercial suicide in the 70s. And it was the heavy trucks that were the problem, the Roadrunner was a fantastic little lorry, the Freighter was more than the equal to the foreign competition, the Scammell Constructor six and eight wheelers were second to none too, it was only the Roadtrain that let the side down and that wouldn’t have happened if it had the right driveline from the start.

That 300hp tractor unit market was the one that really established the competition, the F10, 112, 3300, E290, L10 etc and the T45 as it was had no chance, had it been launched with a full range of cab options, a 265hp to 320hp engine range and a 9/10/13spd Fuller, it would’ve been a very different story, one that had a happy ending.

Yeah but why did the other 3 offer ■■■■■■■ and Gardner ahead of Rolls could it have been customer demand , the writing was on the wall well before the T45 probably nearer the mid to late '60s

116

Don’t forget those customers were dyed in the wool Gardner fans, ■■■■■■■ was second choice and only because they couldn’t get a Gardner, that pattern was established before Rolls entered the market.

117

newmercman:
Don’t forget those customers were dyed in the wool Gardner fans, ■■■■■■■ was second choice and only because they couldn’t get a Gardner, that pattern was established before Rolls entered the market.

You mentioned earlier that AEC and Leyland were suppliers and users of their own engines , it shows how far they fell back when suggestions are made that they should have bought another company to build engines foe them .
After reading an earlier post of yours i didn’t realise how big AEC and Leyland were. When they merged which they never really did they should have ruled the world but for many reasons already discussed it never happened
My point about Rolls is they weren’t regarded too highly and neither were Leyland near the end so why would it be a good move to take them on board.
On a completely different note was there no monopolies commission in the early 60s , i know when Ford were selling Volvo cars Volvo Trucks wanted them back but were blocked

118

gingerfold:
An the answer to the question I posed earlier in the thread - what was the cheap and easy modification to crankshafts that greatly improved bottom end reliability for continuous high revs running? It was the crankshaft dampner.

Torsional vibration is one of the downsides of relatively long crankshaft lengths also more about harmonics regardless of type than engine speeds.Being just as relevant on an MX13 with peak power produced at well under 2,000 rpm for example as a TL12. :bulb:
metaldyne.co.uk/design-skills/

119

[zb]
anorak:
With regard to the ERF CP series, it was a short-lived marketing ploy. By the late 1980s, ERF and Foden were plugging their RR/Perkins 330LE(?)-400Tx models strongly.

Realistically it needed to be all about saving the British manufacturing sector as a whole wherever possible.
It was clearly the foreign import assault which was creating havoc right across every sector including automotive manufacturing.
So the government broker, fund and implement a deal taking RR in house into Leyland on the proviso that loose engine supplies to British assembly operations continue as before.
With the win win that Leyland still take the engine sales profits either way.
Bearing in mind that loose engine sales hadn’t harmed Leyland or AEC previously.

We shouldn’t lose sight of the fact that Volvo and DAF would/should have been the two main targets of such a counter attack plan at least for Leyland.

Instead of which it’s clear that the government was enthusiastically courting such a takeover of our domestic market by these two players especially, in the case of Leyland Truck and Bus as events proved.

120

Ramone, obviously we have the benefit of hindsight and you’ll see in my earlier posts that I think Leyland played a good hand with the cards they were dealt, however they could’ve been dealt a Royal Flush, not just truck and bus, but cars too and they had the complete deck of cards to choose from.

Austin Morris should have gone into a partnership with Datsun, Honda or Toyota, Triumph producing a 3 series/C class alternative, Rover a 5 series/E class and Jaguar a 7 series/S class rival, Land Rover left to do it’s thing and vans just shut down, why try to compete against the Transit. This would all be financed by the investment of the Japanese in Austin Morris, this would leave truck and bus free to invest in their own future.

Truck and bus had a loyal customer base and a massive export market, their engineering departments compromised of AEC, Albion, Guy, Leyland and Scammell were as good as any and they weren’t afraid of innovation, the fixed head, gas turbine and V8 projects proved that. Yes the gas turbine was a bit futuristic but the concept was sound, as was the V8, head gasket problems in previous engines made that concept a good idea, starved of funds and R&D we all know how that turned out, the same applies to the V8, conceptually a good idea, but hindered by a lack of funds. I would still split truck and bus up though, two completely different markets requiring different strategies and engineering solutions.

So my hindsight fuelled solution, concentrated on trucks as this isn’t busnetuk is to keep all the factories open for T45 production, Leyland and Southall producing multi axle rigid and mainstream 32/38 ton tractor units. Watford a truly specialized division for heavy haul, military and the like. Wolverhampton for lightweight tractor units and multi axle rigid and finally Bathgate for lightweight rigids.

Now the trucks, the Roadrunner and Freighter didn’t need any changes, they were good enough to leave as is, the same applies to the multi axle and specialized trucks, the bread and butter tractor units needed the attention. The Cruiser lightweight 28/32 ton unit fitted with a TL11 at around 220hp with a 9spd Fuller. This engine also powering the lightweight multiaxle rigids. Now to the crux of the matter, we’ve already absorbed Rolls Royce diesels, so the engineers had been working on that rather than wasting time on the TL12 project and had ironed out all it’s issues as they later did in real life. This is the power unit for heavy rigids and tractor units, available in naturally aspirated, turbocharged, derated turbocharged and turbocharged and intercooled with 220/265/290 and 320/340 power ratings going through a 9/10/13spd Fuller and sat under a day cab and both a low and high datum sleeper cab.

If that had happened Leyland would still be a leader in the light and heavy truck markets and the car factories would all still be in operation providing jobs and business for suppliers. If only they’d asked me in 1973 it would all be different lol