I’m not on the thread as often now but “carryfast’s” goading question of “how many KM’s/TM’s did we run at Bewick Transport” and the answer is a “Big fat zero”.We had plenty of visits from the local Bedford( comedians) dealers,which consisted of “flashing” into and out of the depot,but seriously,they had NO chance! Imagine the riot that would have ensued amongst our drivers if I’d anounced “by the way lads we are going to start running KM’s and TM’s from now on”!!! All our good drivers would have started leaving and we would have ended up with a squad of “carryfast’s” and motors broken down all over the place and shortly after no customers!!! Do me a favour “carryfast” and listen to common sense from someone who operated at the “sharp end” of the industry!!! Give me strength,Bewick.
Bewick:
I’m not on the thread as often now but “carryfast’s” goading question of “how many KM’s/TM’s did we run at Bewick Transport” and the answer is a “Big fat zero”.We had plenty of visits from the local Bedford( comedians) dealers,which consisted of “flashing” into and out of the depot,but seriously,they had NO chance! Imagine the riot that would have ensued amongst our drivers if I’d anounced “by the way lads we are going to start running KM’s and TM’s from now on”!!! All our good drivers would have started leaving and we would have ended up with a squad of “carryfast’s” and motors broken down all over the place and shortly after no customers!!! Do me a favour “carryfast” and listen to common sense from someone who operated at the “sharp end” of the industry!!! Give me strength,Bewick.
Blimey Bewick I thought you was going to say that you would have had to sack all of them because of the fights which would have started between the drivers over who was going to be lumbered with the old Atkis and the KM’s instead of the TM’s.
That’s assuming that you’d have been the only operator in the UK who thought like an Italian one in ordering the proper ones with the big V8 and not the small day cabbed V6 one. 
Carryfast:
Bewick:
I’m not on the thread as often now but “carryfast’s” goading question of “how many KM’s/TM’s did we run at Bewick Transport” and the answer is a “Big fat zero”.We had plenty of visits from the local Bedford( comedians) dealers,which consisted of “flashing” into and out of the depot,but seriously,they had NO chance! Imagine the riot that would have ensued amongst our drivers if I’d anounced “by the way lads we are going to start running KM’s and TM’s from now on”!!! All our good drivers would have started leaving and we would have ended up with a squad of “carryfast’s” and motors broken down all over the place and shortly after no customers!!! Do me a favour “carryfast” and listen to common sense from someone who operated at the “sharp end” of the industry!!! Give me strength,Bewick.Blimey Bewick I thought you was going to say that you would have had to sack all of them because of the fights which would have started between the drivers over who was going to be lumbered with the old Atkis and the KM’s instead of the TM’s.
That’s assuming that you’d have been the only operator in the UK who thought like an Italian one in ordering the proper ones with the big V8 and not the small day cabbed V6 one.
Youv’e got to understand “carryfast” that we could only consider what was “on offer” at the time I am talking about,and what we were being offered was “crap” when compared to the motors we were running! Sadly we did not have the benefit of your ,hitherto,expert advice! Of course,if we had had the benefit of your very considerable bull (zb) at the time, it would have only re-enforced our opinion as been absolutely “spot on”.Were you ever a Bedford salesman? Keep “blowing” out of your rear orifice son,it makes for “fun” reading!!! Bewick
Bewick:
Sadly we did not have the benefit of your ,hitherto,expert advice!
Well, if only you’d had that advice Dennis - then you could have built up a substantial, profitable and well-respected haulage business! What a missed opportunity…
Just my thoughts but I would imagine that it would have taken a brave operator to take a gamble on a relatively unknown “Foreign” truck using in house components such as engines and transmission when they could purchase a British vehicle that used proven mechanical’s such as Gardner, David Brown, Kirkstall etc which had stood them in good stead for a number of years and had probably made good money for them. Experimentation usually involves teething problems which in turn cost money before things get sorted out and it was often the larger fleet operator who would risk bringing in a Continental truck into service as he/she would still have an established fleet, whereas the “one man bands” would stick with trucks that they knew would do the job reliably rather than risk a lot of expensive downtime.
Now if we all had as much foresight as we have hindsight we could have been driving around in a super powerful TM Bedford and the company would still be in business, though if it was like the one we had at the quarry on demo the best thing about it was the key that locked the cab door at home time. 
Pete.
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
I have to take issue with you here sammyopisite, the 1418 was never plated at 38tons anywhere. In Germany it was only ever a 28tonne unit, but in the UK they were plated for 32tons, because they were so much lighter than a LPS1924. When the 6bhp/ton rule came in, 1971 I think, they were uprated to 192bhp so as to comply, again this was UK only.
When my family firm took its first LS1418 in May 1966, the biggest Gardner you could get was a 150. The reason that 1418 was bought was that we had had two Foden tractors on order for 2 years, Gardner 150/Foden 12 speed, and had just been told that they would be another 18 months, at least! A shopping expedition for some good second hand either Atkis or Fodens, was undertaken and turned up some brand new Mercs for immediate delivery, one was tried, and the UK truck industry lost a customer for ever.
windrush:
Just my thoughts but I would imagine that it would have taken a brave operator to take a gamble on a relatively unknown “Foreign” truck using in house components such as engines and transmission when they could purchase a British vehicle that used proven mechanical’s such as Gardner, David Brown, Kirkstall etc which had stood them in good stead for a number of years and had probably made good money for them.Pete.
Which all seems to contradict what actually happened in the following years when those same Brit operators deserted those manufacturers who actually carried on building trucks based on that flawed logic for too long.
However there was actually nothing ‘unproven’ about those mechanical components which were used in the TM (Detroit/Fuller etc combination),just like there was nothing ‘unproven’ about the American based components which went into many other similar types of later British trucks when the Brit operators eventually decided that the Gardner/DB combination was as obsolete as a day cab Atki by which time though many of those British operators had changed their buying policy to the continental manufacturers who’d had a head start in fnding customers in their home markets who were calling for more comfortable and more powerful products sooner than ours did.
Were the continental lorries much better ?
or was it the back up.?
Can remember when Anchor foods started locally.
Km 16 tonners.Tm 24 tonners,with the same 500 engine as the Kms.
38 T Tm (muscle truck) with the big cam 290.
Man truck + bus move next door and within 12 months, Anchor fleet is totally Man.
Local Bedford garage carrys on repairing Chevettes.Cavaliers and Cf vans.
240 Gardner:
Bewick:
Sadly we did not have the benefit of your ,hitherto,expert advice!Well, if only you’d had that advice Dennis - then you could have built up a substantial, profitable and well-respected haulage business! What a missed opportunity…
But there seems to be some posts on here that show that more powerful and comfortable foreign trucks were eventually bought instead of British ones to contribute to that which suggests that the firm did recognise the obsolete limitations in that regard of some of the previous British trucks used which certainly seems to suggest that it was’nt a case of if it ain’t broke don’t fix it in respect of those buying criterea 
.The sad thing is that many people still seem to think that the erratic buying policies and criterea of the customers at the time was in some way the fault of the British manufacturers.
Bewick:
Carryfast:
Bewick:
I’m not on the thread as often now but “carryfast’s” goading question of “how many KM’s/TM’s did we run at Bewick Transport” and the answer is a “Big fat zero”.We had plenty of visits from the local Bedford( comedians) dealers,which consisted of “flashing” into and out of the depot,but seriously,they had NO chance! Imagine the riot that would have ensued amongst our drivers if I’d anounced “by the way lads we are going to start running KM’s and TM’s from now on”!!! All our good drivers would have started leaving and we would have ended up with a squad of “carryfast’s” and motors broken down all over the place and shortly after no customers!!! Do me a favour “carryfast” and listen to common sense from someone who operated at the “sharp end” of the industry!!! Give me strength,Bewick.Blimey Bewick I thought you was going to say that you would have had to sack all of them because of the fights which would have started between the drivers over who was going to be lumbered with the old Atkis and the KM’s instead of the TM’s.
That’s assuming that you’d have been the only operator in the UK who thought like an Italian one in ordering the proper ones with the big V8 and not the small day cabbed V6 one.
Youv’e got to understand “carryfast” that we could only consider what was “on offer” at the time I am talking about,and what we were being offered was “crap” when compared to the motors we were running! Sadly we did not have the benefit of your ,hitherto,expert advice! Of course,if we had had the benefit of your very considerable bull (zb) at the time, it would have only re-enforced our opinion as been absolutely “spot on”.Were you ever a Bedford salesman? Keep “blowing” out of your rear orifice son,it makes for “fun” reading!!! Bewick
No Bewick I was never a salesman but have got a reasonable idea of how to spec a truck which is more than a lot of British transport managers seemed to have at the time. 
The Americans and Aussies used higher powered lorries due to the fact (especially Aus) that they ran at much higher weights covering vast distances compared with the British.The Aussies turned to American built lorries in the early 70s due to the fact that BL stopped AEC exporting to them , such was the infighting at BL at the time with Lord Stokes hating AEC so much he wanted to kill them off in 68.Look at the AEC ergo cab that was launched in around 66 and when it went out of production in 76,there was vitually no improvement along with the AV760 nothing much changed.In my opinion AEC was the much better product starved of the funds which Leyland poured into the car industry and the disasterious fixed head engine.
ramone:
The Americans and Aussies used higher powered lorries due to the fact (especially Aus) that they ran at much higher weights covering vast distances compared with the British.The Aussies turned to American built lorries in the early 70s due to the fact that BL stopped AEC exporting to them , such was the infighting at BL at the time with Lord Stokes hating AEC so much he wanted to kill them off in 68.Look at the AEC ergo cab that was launched in around 66and when it went out of production in 76,there was vitually no improvement along with the AV760 nothing much changed.In my opinion AEC was the much better product starved of the funds which Leyland poured into the car industry and the disasterious fixed head engine.
The Americans have actually always for years run at around the same and/or lower weights than here and Europe with the exception of specials found in some States and doubles etc.But that did’nt stop them reaching the same conclusions as every other sensible transport manager that the type of spec being called for by most of the British ones,and to some extent British law makers with cab overs versus conventionals,was obsolete long before those British buyers did.Like Scania etc that just gave the yank truck manufacturing industry that same head start in developing decent specced trucks called for by customers who thought nothing of running with big V8 400 + HP engines at 36 t long before most British customers even thought of going for anything better.It was for that reson why the Ozzies then,rightly,went for American products not British ones.
However development of British Leyland Group motors did’nt stop with the AV760.It was actually the TL12 and the turbo charged 680 where it all ended and of course it was DAF who took advantage of developing that 680 Turbo motor in the 2800/3300/3600 range where it seemed to do a good enough job for many buyers throughout Europe and Britain to continue to want to buy it 
.
Carryfast:
ramone:
The Americans and Aussies used higher powered lorries due to the fact (especially Aus) that they ran at much higher weights covering vast distances compared with the British.The Aussies turned to American built lorries in the early 70s due to the fact that BL stopped AEC exporting to them , such was the infighting at BL at the time with Lord Stokes hating AEC so much he wanted to kill them off in 68.Look at the AEC ergo cab that was launched in around 66and when it went out of production in 76,there was vitually no improvement along with the AV760 nothing much changed.In my opinion AEC was the much better product starved of the funds which Leyland poured into the car industry and the disasterious fixed head engine.The Americans have actually always for years run at around the same and/or lower weights than here and Europe with the exception of specials found in some States and doubles etc.But that did’nt stop them reaching the same conclusions as every other sensible transport manager that the type of spec being called for by most of the British ones,and to some extent British law makers with cab overs versus conventionals,was obsolete long before those British buyers did.Like Scania etc that just gave the yank truck manufacturing industry that same head start in developing decent specced trucks called for by customers who thought nothing of running with big V8 400 + HP engines at 36 t long before most British customers even thought of going for anything better.It was for that reson why the Ozzies then,rightly,went for American products not British ones.
However development of British Leyland Group motors did’nt stop with the AV760.It was actually the TL12 and the turbo charged 680 where it all ended and of course it was DAF who took advantage of developing that 680 Turbo motor in the 2800/3300/3600 range where it seemed to do a good enough job for many buyers throughout Europe and Britain to continue to want to buy it
America is slightly bigger than Britain so the difference in mileage would be quite substantial as you will know i.e a transport manager in LA “just nip over to New York with that trailer” in a low bhp motor wouldn`t make sense i.e the higher bhp to keep up high average speed to make the journey time quicker.As for the AV760 comment, AV stood for AEC Vertical the TL stood for Leyland Turbo my point was that Leyland were bleeding AEC dry and anything that got developed in the latter years had a Leyland badge on the front.Was the Marathon really a Leyland the only bit being the back axle.Maybe the AEC engineers were cleverer (is that a word??) than their Leyland counterparts.Like you said the 680 became the big DAF engine why couldnt Leyland do that instead?
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
The Americans and Aussies used higher powered lorries due to the fact (especially Aus) that they ran at much higher weights covering vast distances compared with the British.The Aussies turned to American built lorries in the early 70s due to the fact that BL stopped AEC exporting to them , such was the infighting at BL at the time with Lord Stokes hating AEC so much he wanted to kill them off in 68.Look at the AEC ergo cab that was launched in around 66and when it went out of production in 76,there was vitually no improvement along with the AV760 nothing much changed.In my opinion AEC was the much better product starved of the funds which Leyland poured into the car industry and the disasterious fixed head engine.The Americans have actually always for years run at around the same and/or lower weights than here and Europe with the exception of specials found in some States and doubles etc.But that did’nt stop them reaching the same conclusions as every other sensible transport manager that the type of spec being called for by most of the British ones,and to some extent British law makers with cab overs versus conventionals,was obsolete long before those British buyers did.Like Scania etc that just gave the yank truck manufacturing industry that same head start in developing decent specced trucks called for by customers who thought nothing of running with big V8 400 + HP engines at 36 t long before most British customers even thought of going for anything better.It was for that reson why the Ozzies then,rightly,went for American products not British ones.
However development of British Leyland Group motors did’nt stop with the AV760.It was actually the TL12 and the turbo charged 680 where it all ended and of course it was DAF who took advantage of developing that 680 Turbo motor in the 2800/3300/3600 range where it seemed to do a good enough job for many buyers throughout Europe and Britain to continue to want to buy it
America is slightly bigger than Britain so the difference in mileage would be quite substantial as you will know i.e a transport manager in LA “just nip over to New York with that trailer” in a low bhp motor wouldn`t make sense i.e the higher bhp to keep up high average speed to make the journey time quicker.As for the AV760 comment, AV stood for AEC Vertical the TL stood for Leyland Turbo my point was that Leyland were bleeding AEC dry and anything that got developed in the latter years had a Leyland badge on the front.Was the Marathon really a Leyland the only bit being the back axle.Maybe the AEC engineers were cleverer (is that a word??) than their Leyland counterparts.Like you said the 680 became the big DAF engine why couldnt Leyland do that instead?
The American transport manager comparison (should’nt have been) any different to their British counterparts.The distances between tipping and loading points were the only difference but the efficiency of using high powered trucks versus underpowered ones stays the same wherever the wagon is used on a daily driving time basis.Which is why most transport managers these days usually spec a decent truck used on long distance uk or euro work (and even local supermarket type jobs) with the type of reasonable power outputs which those old type guvnors would’nt have done .
The reason why DAF beat Leyland in the development race was probably because of the reasons given in that they just could’nt sell anything much better on the home market than trucks like the zb Ergo cab Mandator etc and the Marathon fitted with underspecced underpowered motors at the time when it mattered just like Bedford were stuck with orders by their customers for the narrow/day cab TM V6 even though they had the decent 3800 full size one fitted with a reasonably powerful 300 hp V8 and the more powerful 400 hp V8 available.The T45 was the final underdeveloped throw of the dice but it’s cab and engine options just were’nt a competitive package versus the DAF 2800/3300 for example and even worse when compared with something like a V8 Scania .However as Bedford found with the TM it was the erratic buying habits of the customers on the home market at the time that was the cause of the problem not the manufacturers.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
The Americans and Aussies used higher powered lorries due to the fact (especially Aus) that they ran at much higher weights covering vast distances compared with the British.The Aussies turned to American built lorries in the early 70s due to the fact that BL stopped AEC exporting to them , such was the infighting at BL at the time with Lord Stokes hating AEC so much he wanted to kill them off in 68.Look at the AEC ergo cab that was launched in around 66and when it went out of production in 76,there was vitually no improvement along with the AV760 nothing much changed.In my opinion AEC was the much better product starved of the funds which Leyland poured into the car industry and the disasterious fixed head engine.The Americans have actually always for years run at around the same and/or lower weights than here and Europe with the exception of specials found in some States and doubles etc.But that did’nt stop them reaching the same conclusions as every other sensible transport manager that the type of spec being called for by most of the British ones,and to some extent British law makers with cab overs versus conventionals,was obsolete long before those British buyers did.Like Scania etc that just gave the yank truck manufacturing industry that same head start in developing decent specced trucks called for by customers who thought nothing of running with big V8 400 + HP engines at 36 t long before most British customers even thought of going for anything better.It was for that reson why the Ozzies then,rightly,went for American products not British ones.
However development of British Leyland Group motors did’nt stop with the AV760.It was actually the TL12 and the turbo charged 680 where it all ended and of course it was DAF who took advantage of developing that 680 Turbo motor in the 2800/3300/3600 range where it seemed to do a good enough job for many buyers throughout Europe and Britain to continue to want to buy it
America is slightly bigger than Britain so the difference in mileage would be quite substantial as you will know i.e a transport manager in LA “just nip over to New York with that trailer” in a low bhp motor wouldn`t make sense i.e the higher bhp to keep up high average speed to make the journey time quicker.As for the AV760 comment, AV stood for AEC Vertical the TL stood for Leyland Turbo my point was that Leyland were bleeding AEC dry and anything that got developed in the latter years had a Leyland badge on the front.Was the Marathon really a Leyland the only bit being the back axle.Maybe the AEC engineers were cleverer (is that a word??) than their Leyland counterparts.Like you said the 680 became the big DAF engine why couldnt Leyland do that instead?
The American transport manager comparison (should’nt have been) any different to their British counterparts.The distances between tipping and loading points were the only difference but the efficiency of using high powered trucks versus underpowered ones stays the same wherever the wagon is used on a daily driving time basis.Which is why most transport managers these days usually spec a decent truck used on long distance uk or euro work (and even local supermarket type jobs) with the type of reasonable power outputs which those old type guvnors would’nt have done
The reason why DAF beat Leyland in the development race was probably because of the reasons given in that they just could’nt sell anything much better on the home market than trucks like the zb Ergo cab Mandator etc and the Marathon fitted with underspecced underpowered motors at the time when it mattered just like Bedford were stuck with orders by their customers for the narrow/day cab TM V6 even though they had the decent 3800 full size one fitted with a reasonably powerful 300 hp V8 and the more powerful 400 hp V8 available.The T45 was the final underdeveloped throw of the dice but it’s cab and engine options just were’nt a competitive package versus the DAF 2800/3300 for example and even worse when compared with something like a V8 Scania
How can you say that the distance the American lorries travel compared with their British counterparts makes no difference when they could be travelling a couple of thousand miles between deliveries compared with British vehicles that could be travelling a couple of hundred miles.You are contradicting yourself by blaming the British customers buying polices, because their buying of higher spec foreign vehicles actually happend ,just because they didnt buy the Dunstable dustbins in wide cabbed 400bhp form doesnt mean they were wrong.Mr Bewick is living proof of a well respected haulier who gave British built vehicles as good a chance as any of the foreign offerings but when it came down to reliability he chose the Swedish which for him proved the best.Its horses for courses and what worked for 1 may not have worked for another but i dont think the TM worked for many as Bedford werent renown in the heavyweight market with maybe BOC as 1 of their bigger customers on the then M+S contract
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
The Americans and Aussies used higher powered lorries due to the fact (especially Aus) that they ran at much higher weights covering vast distances compared with the British.The Aussies turned to American built lorries in the early 70s due to the fact that BL stopped AEC exporting to them , such was the infighting at BL at the time with Lord Stokes hating AEC so much he wanted to kill them off in 68.Look at the AEC ergo cab that was launched in around 66and when it went out of production in 76,there was vitually no improvement along with the AV760 nothing much changed.In my opinion AEC was the much better product starved of the funds which Leyland poured into the car industry and the disasterious fixed head engine.The Americans have actually always for years run at around the same and/or lower weights than here and Europe with the exception of specials found in some States and doubles etc.But that did’nt stop them reaching the same conclusions as every other sensible transport manager that the type of spec being called for by most of the British ones,and to some extent British law makers with cab overs versus conventionals,was obsolete long before those British buyers did.Like Scania etc that just gave the yank truck manufacturing industry that same head start in developing decent specced trucks called for by customers who thought nothing of running with big V8 400 + HP engines at 36 t long before most British customers even thought of going for anything better.It was for that reson why the Ozzies then,rightly,went for American products not British ones.
However development of British Leyland Group motors did’nt stop with the AV760.It was actually the TL12 and the turbo charged 680 where it all ended and of course it was DAF who took advantage of developing that 680 Turbo motor in the 2800/3300/3600 range where it seemed to do a good enough job for many buyers throughout Europe and Britain to continue to want to buy it
America is slightly bigger than Britain so the difference in mileage would be quite substantial as you will know i.e a transport manager in LA “just nip over to New York with that trailer” in a low bhp motor wouldn`t make sense i.e the higher bhp to keep up high average speed to make the journey time quicker.As for the AV760 comment, AV stood for AEC Vertical the TL stood for Leyland Turbo my point was that Leyland were bleeding AEC dry and anything that got developed in the latter years had a Leyland badge on the front.Was the Marathon really a Leyland the only bit being the back axle.Maybe the AEC engineers were cleverer (is that a word??) than their Leyland counterparts.Like you said the 680 became the big DAF engine why couldnt Leyland do that instead?
The American transport manager comparison (should’nt have been) any different to their British counterparts.The distances between tipping and loading points were the only difference but the efficiency of using high powered trucks versus underpowered ones stays the same wherever the wagon is used on a daily driving time basis.Which is why most transport managers these days usually spec a decent truck used on long distance uk or euro work (and even local supermarket type jobs) with the type of reasonable power outputs which those old type guvnors would’nt have done
The reason why DAF beat Leyland in the development race was probably because of the reasons given in that they just could’nt sell anything much better on the home market than trucks like the zb Ergo cab Mandator etc and the Marathon fitted with underspecced underpowered motors at the time when it mattered just like Bedford were stuck with orders by their customers for the narrow/day cab TM V6 even though they had the decent 3800 full size one fitted with a reasonably powerful 300 hp V8 and the more powerful 400 hp V8 available.The T45 was the final underdeveloped throw of the dice but it’s cab and engine options just were’nt a competitive package versus the DAF 2800/3300 for example and even worse when compared with something like a V8 Scania
How can you say that the distance the American lorries travel compared with their British counterparts makes no difference when they could be travelling a couple of thousand miles between deliveries compared with British vehicles that could be travelling a couple of hundred miles.You are contradicting yourself by blaming the British customers buying polices, because their buying of higher spec foreign vehicles actually happend ,just because they didn
t buy the Dunstable dustbins in wide cabbed 400bhp form doesnt mean they were wrong.Mr Bewick is living proof of a well respected haulier who gave British built vehicles as good a chance as any of the foreign offerings but when it came down to reliability he chose the Swedish which for him proved the best.Its horses for courses and what worked for 1 may not have worked for another but i dont think the TM worked for many as Bedford werent renown in the heavyweight market with maybe BOC as 1 of their bigger customers on the then M+S contract
I based that issue of US distances versus British ones on the simple idea that what matters is the ‘efficiency’ of better journey times and the better fuel efficiency of using an engine that’s mainly running more often at part load than under full load which all adds up at the end of the year to more or less the same thing wether it’s here,the US,or the Continent and that’s why it’s common now to find even relatively local running uk trucks specced with much higher powered engines than would have been the case during those years that are the subject of this discussion when it all started going wrong for the Brit truck manufacturing industry.
On the subject of US trucks if their transport managers and more often owner operators were really serious about prioritising something that was specced for the really big US mileages and fast journey times,in total disregard of the old double nickel speed limit,they would have been looking for something with a lot more power than just that big V8 400 hp Detroit that the TM had or the V8 Scania though 
and in that case that TM would have needed to have something like a turbocharged 12V71,or even a 12V92,in it .
Somehow though,at the time when all this issue mattered,to the British manufacturers in the development of better British products,I can’t see as Bewick,like many other Brit buyers, would have been looking for anything in the league of even the V8 Scania,let alone a really fast yank truck.That would have been more likely left to the Irish and the Italians.
I’m with carryfast here sort of foden erf and Atkinson were building large sleeper cabbed trucks with 350 hp engines for the Australian Market in the early 70s but offering 180 gardner engined trucks with 1950s style cabs because that’s what people wanted the continentals developed there trucks and the customer had to take it if Volvo were still offering a 240 f88 people wouldn’t buy them as they are old fashioned.
It must be a British thing as the mini was past it by the early 70s but they were still making it in 2000.
If you cast your mind back to the early 70s the British motorway network was a shadow of what it is today ,unlike on the continent ,the USA and the vast roads in Austrailia pulling several trailers yes ERF,Foden etc offered export models with bigger cabs mainly for the Austrailian and South African markets and they werent offered here because as you say our boses didnt want them,but at what price,albeit much higher than a standard cab with a 180 Gardner.So if your theory is right that British bosses didnt want high powered motors with sleeper cabs fitted how on earth did Scania,Volvo,Mercedes and DAF manage to get their feet in the door.Volvo and Scania offered small cabbed and small engined vehicles alongside the higher powered and bigger cabbed variants.The F86 was a roaring success as was the F88 240 and 290 versions.You still get drivers on here raving about how good the 240 F88 was The others also offered both small and big versions of their models.So if your theory is correct Volvo would have only sold F86s and Scania would have only sold day cabbed 80s (Harrys favourite motor)Right up to the phasing out of the Mandator the oil companies stayed loyal to AEC as they liked the product.Why on earth would an oil company in the mid 70s buy a fleet of Bedford 4400 TMs?Like i said before its horses for courses.The Aussies used Leyland , Atkinson ,Foden , ERF and AECs into the early 70s, the Mandators with AV760s and 13 speed Fullers never an option here but the operation over there warranted it.Maybe if that option was offered here then the Mandator would have performed much better.They offered the 9 speed Fuller but there werent many takers.I asked Mr Bewick when i first started using this site why he never bought AECs and was suprised by his answer,at the time they were too expensive compared with other makes and by the time he could afford them ,their name was tarnished.Im a bit cynical but i still think it was part of Mr Stokes plot to kill off AEC much was his hatred of the firm.On a different note the last British lorry i drove was a 1986 Foden with a 320 Gardner in it and apart from the headroom i couldnt fault it.They cured that with the higher roof version
240 Gardner:
Bewick:
Sadly we did not have the benefit of your ,hitherto,expert advice!Well, if only you’d had that advice Dennis - then you could have built up a substantial, profitable and well-respected haulage
business! What a missed opportunity…
Couldn’t agree more with you Chris!!! but maybe I should have sought advice from your consultancy prior to me joining the WRM group!!!What do you think the outcome would have been,apart from large invoices to Bewick Transport for “services rendered”!!! I’m listening!! Cheers Dennis.
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 JohnnieAssuming 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
i’d say our own british transport industry let us down ,our own worst enemy and its still goin on today !!!..and that includes the drivers !!!