The impression I get from what I have read, is that it was horrible. One of the drivers blamed its noise for his loss of hearing. I wonder if the Bollekens-cabbed export AECs were better? A swift perusal of Pat Kennett’s book reveals that AEC had numerous affiliations in Europe in the early 1960s, yet none of these is documented in detail anywhere, at least as far as I can see. Given that several posters have selected AEC as their best European chassis of that period, it would be interesting to find out how they compared to the other makes, when fitted with Continental coachwork.
[/quote]
Evening all, forgive me if I am a little less than lucid, we are in the middle of a monsoon, I`ve a potatoe crop, that plainly is not going anywhere, damaged the harvester in deep, deep mud, and now Im here in the office, soaked to the skin, relishing the warmth of the log burner, and already having consumed a rather large Bollinger…so the world is semi rosey!!
Well [ZB], how can I try to answer your questions?
Firstly Pats books, you must remember that Pat had worked with, and supported Leyland for many years, on the world stage. It was something that I used to tease him about, (and he could get quite “shirty” with me, if he thought that I was questioning his “journalistic integrity”). Something I would never do, as, having worked to present vehicles to him for testing, in his professional capacity I knew just how “neutral” he actually was! To a fault, objective, and totally neutral, please believe me.
However in his books maybe a little Leyland prejudice crept in, sadly Pat is not here, so I cannot challenge, or comment on his work, (and together we spent many happy hours “arguing” contrasting pointss of view). And unlike many journalists that I can recall, Pat could see beyond the pure product engineering, he could empathise and feel what the product would be like to live with as a driver, (and he could drive better than any I worked with). Also as an owner, or fleet operator, the man who had sunk his money into that product. In that facet Pat was alone amongst all the UK journalists, (and many European ones) in being able to be objective about the “whole scenario”, around a lorry.“Would it be any good to do the job”■■?
But what I do know, based upon my own inqusitive exploration of the whole “murky” AEC/Leyland affair, (which is a subject that I find fascinating in the extreme), and have tried to research, is that all pertinent relevant, records, board minutes, production briefings, financial data, would seem to have been expunged, and are no more!..Strange is it not??
That ACV and Leyland were giants on the world stage cannot be denied. That they were deadly competitors, both with lorries, and passenger vehicles also. Where one was strong, the other tended to be weaker. For example AEC products were being assembled in France, the Benelux, and South America, whil`st Leyland centred manufacture in the UK.
The Pruden family were “importing” plus 2000 Leyland chassis into Argentina in 1960!! Yet Leyland were blind to the threat that South American countries would want a “local” assembly content. Yet AEC products, along with BMC were being “built”, at the ACV/BMC plant, but Leland, following the acquisition of ACV closed this down!!! (before they could establish their own!!!
Leyland buys Brossel in Belgium, does not build on its designs, but closes it down, after using it for a brief period as an “assembler”, (which is where the Leyland Van Eck originated from). Yet in France you had Willeme, desperate for closer ties with ACV, and importing/assembling BMC vehicles, …and selling quantities,…spurned when they needed help, and the second largest dealer network in France left with nothing to sell!! Yet Leyland at the same time were courting Hotchkiss, with a smaller production facility, less volume, and a small dealer network, and a far more delicate financial health!!
But even more bizarre, ACV, (AEC), buy Verhuil in Holland, major on PSV sales, and knock Leyland about in the process, acquire Kromhout, (and licence built Gardners), yet close Kromhout, and end lorry production,(even though their Belgian Importer cannot get enough AEC product to sell into the Benelux! Let alone the requests from H Emil Frey in Switzerland to have AECto sell!!
I suppose that Leyland management had the arrogance, born of strong financial health, mid 60s the Group was producing in excess of 100000 units, and retained a profit margin of in excess £70,000,000…But then of course came the cars…and Government intervention…Good bye lorries.
Why did the UK industry ignore Europe?..they did not , but everything else got in the way! Not the least of which was a strong, (actually in growth terms the strongest market in Europe from 61, to 80)!!! So there was no real incentive to attack a much larger, but specification wise very different market to our own. Then came a move towards European harmonisation, and we simply did not have the products to compete. Our legislators, and isolationist politicians having “strangled”, our industry with legal parameters in terms of gross, axle, and bhp terms, totally out of kilter with the mainland European manufacturers…oh the fools, (and each and every one , irrespective of party is such), then compounded the issue by allowing “free importation” of Continental product, irrespective of the actual, or covert trade barriers erected by our “new” partners, to protect their own manufacturing industry!
There Gentlemen you have the reason for us losing our Lorry building industry, foolish, chaotic management, coupled with self serving, foolish isolationist Governments.
If you really want to be bored I can provide statistics, …but it does not do my blood pressure much good!!
So, warm once more, I shall away to the house, for my dinner awaits, bon nuit mes braves, Cheerio for now.
.
). Why did I choose the Tin Front Mk III Phase 2 Cab and not the Mk V Cab? 
.
