Not Bedfords but on the same theme.
Leyland met Mr V at a truck show and wanted him to take some Marathons down to Baghdad
The conversation went something this.
You want me to send your demonstrator on our next Middle East trip?
Yes
And you think they are man enough for the job?
Yes
And you’re going to send a wrecker all the way down there to drag it back when it break’s down?
Ah!
ERF’s were crap trucks but they always got you home. The pigeon coop in two years only let me down once when I broke the power steering hose in Dussledorf. It was repaired at the local Merc garage who were not at all impressed when they found the cab did not tilt
Bewick:
ramone:
If the TM was so good why didn`t anyone buy them?
They were Crap “ramone” and I am speaking from experience as an operator in the 70’s-----absolute crap!!! Cheers Dennis.
Exactly how many TM’s fitted with V8 Detroits did you actually operate Bewick 
.
Right you two, off to the naughty step, the pair of you! viewtopic.php?f=35&t=55233
On the continental old lorry forums, there are lots of pictures of artics and drawbars from the early 1950s, featuring full-width sleeper cabs. Between 1955 and 1960, most of the European manufacturers launched models with such cabs in steel, presumably having spent the earlier part of the decade designing the cabs and making the press tools. These were then line-built vehicles, available from stock, rather than one-off specials or coachbuilt-to-order batches.
200BHP was the norm for maximum weight lorries in Europe from about 1960; by the mid 60s most of the continentals had 240-250BHP vehicles in their ranges. On the question of power ratings, the 1966 LB76 and 1968 LB110 were rated at 256 HP (DIN, I assume) while in the UK it was 250 BHP net to BS141Au- not a great discrepancy.
The answer to the original question must be- “Yes, by a margin of at least a decade of development.” I await your opinions!
[zb]
anorak:
Right you two, off to the naughty step, the pair of you! viewtopic.php?f=35&t=55233
On the continental old lorry forums, there are lots of pictures of artics and drawbars from the early 1950s, featuring full-width sleeper cabs. Between 1955 and 1960, most of the European manufacturers launched models with such cabs in steel, presumably having spent the earlier part of the decade designing the cabs and making the press tools. These were then line-built vehicles, available from stock, rather than one-off specials or coachbuilt-to-order batches.
200BHP was the norm for maximum weight lorries in Europe from about 1960; by the mid 60s most of the continentals had 240-250BHP vehicles in their ranges. On the question of power ratings, the 1966 LB76 and 1968 LB110 were rated at 256 HP (DIN, I assume) while in the UK it was 250 BHP net to BS141Au- not a great discrepancy.
The answer to the original question must be- “Yes, by a margin of at least a decade of development.” I await your opinions!
No anything they could do the Brits ‘could’ have done too (given the customer base and demand for the products here that those foreign manufacturers had in their home markets).However the mindset of the Brit guvnors at the time was always cost and drivers were expected to put up with backward trucks and the type of ‘accomodation’ used in the days of those old Brit day cabbed heaps versus the continental ideas which were under development.
But there’s no way that the foreign trucks were any better than those that the Brits (could have) provided given the type of home customer base of the more forward thinking foreign transport managers that benefitted both foreign drivers and the foreign manufacturers while those products were under development.The British truck industry was held back by the demands of it’s cutomers which is the opposite of what happened to the foreign ones in just the same way that yank trucks were light years ahead of both Brit and European ones in terms of power and accomodation levels which is where Bedford got it’s ideas from in turning out the TM while many Brit guvnors were still calling for day cabbed Gardner powered heaps .
having had a heart attack 8 weeks ago and having had wonderful treatment (I had a stent fitted ) at my hospital and being glad to draw breath I think life is just too short to argue about 2 different engine makers from 30 years ago who can remember that far with any clarity rose tinted glasses more like, its 80 degrees out there today chaps I am going to pick my grand kids up and enjoy the weather which some of you should and for all those still driving for a living I hope you have a good friday and get home and are not messed about with at some RDC or warehouse by the tossers of this world. cheers fred m
ubym344:
having had a heart attack 8 weeks ago and having had wonderful treatment (I had a stent fitted ) at my hospital and being glad to draw breath I think life is just too short to argue about 2 different engine makers from 30 years ago who can remember that far with any clarity rose tinted glasses more like, its 80 degrees out there today chaps I am going to pick my grand kids up and enjoy the weather which some of you should and for all those still driving for a living I hope you have a good friday and get home and are not messed about with at some RDC or warehouse by the tossers of this world. cheers fred m
Good look with your recovery and take it easy…yep its 80 here too and driving doesn`t get any better
I think the TM was introduced around the same time the Transcontinental,the new Seddon Atkinson the B series ERF and the Marathon give or take a few years,Foden had the S80 around that time too,all big cabbed units.The only 1 with an option for an in house engine was the Marathon,the TM never resembled anything American that i can remember apart from the Detroit engine.Were ERF , Foden ,SA, and Fords all American because they had ■■■■■■■ options.They were all introduced to fight back against imports but Ford and Bedford were never regarded as players in the heavyweight section
Hiya…just had a glance at a 1971 observer book on trucks…the only uk trucks mentioned with a sleeper was
ERF and Scammell. ERF was makeing a full width sleeper cab(not chicken coop fitted to A series post 72).
supplied in kit form in 1967 from coventry motor panels…100 of these was sent to the Jordan with a 220
■■■■■■■ and 10 speed fuller. Shell south africa was taking 6 wheeler ridged chassis with a 205 ■■■■■■■
and the fuller gear box.( I was building these cabs at the time.)the Scammell was on a Crusader i have no
info on the numbers… I looked up Bedford to wich the mention of a TM with or without a sleeper or DD was 'nt
listed… The ERF was well worthy of long haul work in the late 60s if only companys would have payed the
extra for the big cab…One of the First motor panels cab was destined for Aus this was fitted with a GM
engine, to some readers this will be a surprise. as it was in 1967.
John
When the UK led the world in truck exports back in the 60’s it was mainly down to the TK Bedford, Ferrymasters used to ship them out by the crate full in CKD form and we really did believe we were the worlds greatest truck builder, British was best, anything else was foreign rubbish. Anything larger than a Bedford was virtually a bespoke truck, You ordered a chassis and told the manufacturer what you wanted fitted to it. It was common in those days for two consecutive ERF’s off the production line to have switches in different places.
While we were sat back congratulating ourselves on making the best trucks in the world the foreigners were quietly working away and stealing our crown
It was not only the bosses who were against the continental imports but I would have said the unions ( in the bigger companies ) were a far bigger influence as they would not allow sleeper cabs to be used and some companies would not load/unload foreign manufactured lorries with british registration plates. British Road Services was the main culprit in banning sleeper cabs and I think British Leyland were one company who refused to load british hauliers who ran european vehicles. I think this was a major problem as it gave the nationalized industries a license to turn out inferior products in the knowledge that they would still be bought by the other nationalized industries. This created a false sense of security for the nationalized manufacturing industry and complacency set in and this was most likely the beginning of the end of the british automotive industry. British Leyland ploughed all the money from the profit making commercial vehicle sector to prop up the loss making car factorys.
cheers Johnnie
ramone:
I think the TM was introduced around the same time the Transcontinental,the new Seddon Atkinson the B series ERF and the Marathon give or take a few years,Foden had the S80 around that time too,all big cabbed units.The only 1 with an option for an in house engine was the Marathon,the TM never resembled anything American that i can remember apart from the Detroit engine.Were ERF , Foden ,SA, and Fords all American because they had ■■■■■■■ options.They were all introduced to fight back against imports but Ford and Bedford were never regarded as players in the heavyweight section
The TM and some other similar type of designs certainly resembled and could probably match something like a standard euro spec American built cab over KW of the time without an aerodyne cab but the Marathon cab was’nt in that league .The TM’s development was under GM headquarters guidance and direction which is why it was fitted with the Detroit not ■■■■■■■ originally and it was only the unwarranted resistance of Brit guvnors that stopped it blowing everything else out of the water by only offering it with the 8V92 turbocharged engine and the full size 3800 cab instead of all the inferior cab and engine options,from day one of it’s introduction.
The only large scale production trucks which could have offered a similar combination of cab accomodation and power at that time would have been the V8 Fiat or American trucks like the KW.On that note it seems ironic that one of the most powerful and comfortable British built trucks available at the time was never regarded as being a player in the heavyweight sector by customers who were probably happy to buy a less comfortable and less powerful wagon instead. 
Which all seems to reinforce my idea that it was British customers that killed the British truck making industry not those manufacturers. 
Carryfast:
ramone:
I think the TM was introduced around the same time the Transcontinental,the new Seddon Atkinson the B series ERF and the Marathon give or take a few years,Foden had the S80 around that time too,all big cabbed units.The only 1 with an option for an in house engine was the Marathon,the TM never resembled anything American that i can remember apart from the Detroit engine.Were ERF , Foden ,SA, and Fords all American because they had ■■■■■■■ options.They were all introduced to fight back against imports but Ford and Bedford were never regarded as players in the heavyweight section
The TM and some other similar type of designs certainly resembled and could probably match something like a standard euro spec American built cab over KW of the time without an aerodyne cab but the Marathon cab was’nt in that league .The TM’s development was under GM headquarters guidance and direction which is why it was fitted with the Detroit not ■■■■■■■ originally and it was only the unwarranted resistance of Brit guvnors that stopped it blowing everything else out of the water by only offering it with the 8V92 turbocharged engine and the full size 3800 cab instead of all the inferior cab and engine options,from day one of it’s introduction.
The only large scale production trucks which could have offered a similar combination of cab accomodation and power at that time would have been the V8 Fiat or American trucks like the KW.On that note it seems ironic that one of the most powerful and comfortable British built trucks available at the time was never regarded as being a player in the heavyweight sector by customers who were probably happy to buy a less comfortable and less powerful wagon instead.
Which all seems to reinforce my idea that it was British customers that killed the British truck making industry not those manufacturers.
I would say that there was many GUY big Js with the 335 ■■■■■■■ as there was TMs with the V8 DD which would not live with the big ■■■■■■■
cheers Johnnie
3300John:
Hiya…just had a glance at a 1971 observer book on trucks…the only uk trucks mentioned with a sleeper was
The ERF was well worthy of long haul work in the late 60s if only companys would have payed the
extra for the big cab…One of the First motor panels cab was destined for Aus this was fitted with a GM
engine, to some readers this will be a surprise. as it was in 1967.
John
That just proves my case further. The Ozzie transport guvnors knew what they were doing while ours did’nt.
But you would’nt have found the TM in the 1971 book because in was’nt introduced until the mid/late 1970’s but it was obviously developed using the same logic as that which that earlier export spec ERF was.It also proves my case that a manufacturer can’t survive on just an export operation without a strong home market for it’s products too.It’s just a shame that Brit customers at the time did’nt order products using the same logic as most other foreign ones did.
sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
ramone:
I think the TM was introduced around the same time the Transcontinental,the new Seddon Atkinson the B series ERF and the Marathon give or take a few years,Foden had the S80 around that time too,all big cabbed units.The only 1 with an option for an in house engine was the Marathon,the TM never resembled anything American that i can remember apart from the Detroit engine.Were ERF , Foden ,SA, and Fords all American because they had ■■■■■■■ options.They were all introduced to fight back against imports but Ford and Bedford were never regarded as players in the heavyweight section
The TM and some other similar type of designs certainly resembled and could probably match something like a standard euro spec American built cab over KW of the time without an aerodyne cab but the Marathon cab was’nt in that league .The TM’s development was under GM headquarters guidance and direction which is why it was fitted with the Detroit not ■■■■■■■ originally and it was only the unwarranted resistance of Brit guvnors that stopped it blowing everything else out of the water by only offering it with the 8V92 turbocharged engine and the full size 3800 cab instead of all the inferior cab and engine options,from day one of it’s introduction.
The only large scale production trucks which could have offered a similar combination of cab accomodation and power at that time would have been the V8 Fiat or American trucks like the KW.On that note it seems ironic that one of the most powerful and comfortable British built trucks available at the time was never regarded as being a player in the heavyweight sector by customers who were probably happy to buy a less comfortable and less powerful wagon instead.
Which all seems to reinforce my idea that it was British customers that killed the British truck making industry not those manufacturers.
I would say that there was many GUY big Js with the 335 ■■■■■■■ as there was TMs with the V8 DD which would not live with the big ■■■■■■■
cheers Johnnie
Probably because you’re not comparing the TM fitted with the 8V92 option.Which is why the Italians went for the big Detroit option to compete with their own V8 Fiat during the late 1970’s not other British ■■■■■■■ powered trucks.A KW fitted with a CAT 3408 or maybe a V8 Scania would have been the only other options in that league at the time and definitely not a ■■■■■■■ powered Guy Big J .
It was not just British firms continental firms used 1418 mercs for 38 tons which was a 180 bhp and in the early 70s I think Germany brought in 6 bhp per ton and there was a lot of wagons around the 230 bhp mark at least we were only running at 32 tons and it was mid to late 70s when the higher powered wagons became popular after british manufacturers had led the way before being passed and left behind.
cheers Johnnie
Carryfast:
sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
ramone:
I think the TM was introduced around the same time the Transcontinental,the new Seddon Atkinson the B series ERF and the Marathon give or take a few years,Foden had the S80 around that time too,all big cabbed units.The only 1 with an option for an in house engine was the Marathon,the TM never resembled anything American that i can remember apart from the Detroit engine.Were ERF , Foden ,SA, and Fords all American because they had ■■■■■■■ options.They were all introduced to fight back against imports but Ford and Bedford were never regarded as players in the heavyweight section
The TM and some other similar type of designs certainly resembled and could probably match something like a standard euro spec American built cab over KW of the time without an aerodyne cab but the Marathon cab was’nt in that league .The TM’s development was under GM headquarters guidance and direction which is why it was fitted with the Detroit not ■■■■■■■ originally and it was only the unwarranted resistance of Brit guvnors that stopped it blowing everything else out of the water by only offering it with the 8V92 turbocharged engine and the full size 3800 cab instead of all the inferior cab and engine options,from day one of it’s introduction.
The only large scale production trucks which could have offered a similar combination of cab accomodation and power at that time would have been the V8 Fiat or American trucks like the KW.On that note it seems ironic that one of the most powerful and comfortable British built trucks available at the time was never regarded as being a player in the heavyweight sector by customers who were probably happy to buy a less comfortable and less powerful wagon instead.
Which all seems to reinforce my idea that it was British customers that killed the British truck making industry not those manufacturers.
I would say that there was many GUY big Js with the 335 ■■■■■■■ as there was TMs with the V8 DD which would not live with the big ■■■■■■■
cheers Johnnie
Probably because you’re not comparing the TM fitted with the 8V92 option.Which is why the Italians went for the big Detroit option to compete with their own V8 Fiat during the late 1970’s not other British ■■■■■■■ powered trucks.A KW fitted with a CAT 3408 or maybe a V8 Scania would have been the only other options in that league at the time and definitely not a ■■■■■■■ powered Guy Big J .
Most definitely GUY big Js " R. Crisp " had several with the 335 ■■■■■■■ as I ran over with a few on a J/K plate early 70s and I believe there is some on " bubbs " thread and there was one or two others who ran them as well.
cheers Johnnie
P S the 335 ■■■■■■■ ( turbo charged to 380 ) was in service over in the mid 60s Scammell contractor on a E plate
sammyopisite:
It was not just British firms continental firms used 1418 mercs for 38 tons which was a 180 bhp and in the early 70s I think Germany brought in 6 bhp per ton and there was a lot of wagons around the 230 bhp mark at least we were only running at 32 tons and it was mid to late 70s when the higher powered wagons became popular after british manufacturers had led the way before being passed and left behind.
cheers Johnnie
Assuming that we could produce 400+ HP trucks in the late 1970’s with competitive levels of cab comfort that matched anything from Scania etc exactly what was it that left us behind and when .
Carryfast:
sammyopisite:
It was not just British firms continental firms used 1418 mercs for 38 tons which was a 180 bhp and in the early 70s I think Germany brought in 6 bhp per ton and there was a lot of wagons around the 230 bhp mark at least we were only running at 32 tons and it was mid to late 70s when the higher powered wagons became popular after british manufacturers had led the way before being passed and left behind.
cheers Johnnie
Assuming that we could produce 400+ HP trucks in the late 1970’s with competitive levels of cab comfort that matched anything from Scania etc exactly what was it that left us behind and when .
They were not put together very good as bits kept falling off it was not the engine or drive line but just about everything else
this was after making quite a lot of unbreakable wagons previously so I would say it most likely through the use of inferior materials giving poor reliability and poor back up was a major contributing factor
cheers Johnnie
sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
ramone:
I think the TM was introduced around the same time the Transcontinental,the new Seddon Atkinson the B series ERF and the Marathon give or take a few years,Foden had the S80 around that time too,all big cabbed units.The only 1 with an option for an in house engine was the Marathon,the TM never resembled anything American that i can remember apart from the Detroit engine.Were ERF , Foden ,SA, and Fords all American because they had ■■■■■■■ options.They were all introduced to fight back against imports but Ford and Bedford were never regarded as players in the heavyweight section
The TM and some other similar type of designs certainly resembled and could probably match something like a standard euro spec American built cab over KW of the time without an aerodyne cab but the Marathon cab was’nt in that league .The TM’s development was under GM headquarters guidance and direction which is why it was fitted with the Detroit not ■■■■■■■ originally and it was only the unwarranted resistance of Brit guvnors that stopped it blowing everything else out of the water by only offering it with the 8V92 turbocharged engine and the full size 3800 cab instead of all the inferior cab and engine options,from day one of it’s introduction.
The only large scale production trucks which could have offered a similar combination of cab accomodation and power at that time would have been the V8 Fiat or American trucks like the KW.On that note it seems ironic that one of the most powerful and comfortable British built trucks available at the time was never regarded as being a player in the heavyweight sector by customers who were probably happy to buy a less comfortable and less powerful wagon instead.
Which all seems to reinforce my idea that it was British customers that killed the British truck making industry not those manufacturers.
I would say that there was many GUY big Js with the 335 ■■■■■■■ as there was TMs with the V8 DD which would not live with the big ■■■■■■■
cheers Johnnie
Probably because you’re not comparing the TM fitted with the 8V92 option.Which is why the Italians went for the big Detroit option to compete with their own V8 Fiat during the late 1970’s not other British ■■■■■■■ powered trucks.A KW fitted with a CAT 3408 or maybe a V8 Scania would have been the only other options in that league at the time and definitely not a ■■■■■■■ powered Guy Big J .
Most definitely GUY big Js " R. Crisp " had several with the 335 ■■■■■■■ as I ran over with a few on a J/K plate early 70s and I believe there is some on " bubbs " thread and there was one or two others who ran them as well.
cheers Johnnie
P S the 335 ■■■■■■■ ( turbo charged to 380 ) was in service over in the mid 60s Scammell contractor on a E plate
The point I was making was that the ■■■■■■■ powered Guy,or in fact just about anything ■■■■■■■ powered at the time,was’nt in the same league as something powered by a big V8 Detroit (not to be confused with the smaller 8V71 bus engine powered ones),CAT 3408,V8 Fiat and V8 Scania. And putting a 380 ■■■■■■■ into a Contractor says everything about how fast engine development took place in the next 10-15 years although running a heavy haulage truck with a relatively less powerful engine is made up for by much slower running speeds and therefore much lower gearing which makes for a lot more torque at the wheels than the output figures at the flywheel suggest.