ramone:
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
All that seems to overlook the dilema faced by the British manufacturers and the importance of the timeline over which all this took place needs to put into perspective too.It also seems to miss the point that there was actually a shift in the demands of buyers away from those fleet truck specifications (and the actually overrated F88 which was’nt that much better in it’s power output and cab comfort to the British trucks of the period) to the more premium end of the product lists.However that shift took place far sooner in the home markets of the foreign producers than in ours.Which meant that manufacturers like DAF,Volvo,and Scania etc could develop products like the DAF 2800/3300 range,Volvo F10-12 range,and big Scania range with a guarantee that they had a strong market and demand for the products after they had spent the funds required to develop them.
Now look at the situation from the perspective of a British manufacturer,at the same point in time,facing the type of attitude ,by buyers as previously stated,in their home market in that cab comfort for drivers was’nt considered as high a priority as cost and the underpowered Gardner/DB combination was still considered as adequate on the basis of economy without regard to any ideas concerning the fact that a (much) more powerful engine,running at lower load,at higher average speeds,provides better productivety.In that environment there’s no way that a manufacturer could risk the large financial committment required to develop products which would have been competitive with those foreign types which were at that point on the drawing board with a known ready home market for them.The exceptions to that issue were the big UK firms with large American backers like Ford and Bedford/GM who had the funds to make the risk acceptable.They both turned out reasonably competitive products,if not even better in Bedford’s case,with those that the foreign opposition did and the results speak for themselves because they were both introduced onto the British market before those luddite British operators had been shown by the foreign ones that they were wrong and it was the big power more comfortable cabbed trucks which were the way to go.By then it was too late for Bedford and if Leyland had sunk more funds than it did by developing a far better T45,far sooner,the firm probably would have sunk far sooner than it did.
The rest is history and it’s just as common these days to see a foreign built big fleet truck with a decent cab and a reasonable power output as it was to see that sector of the market using day cab Mandators or Gardner powered heaps in the 1970’s because the big fleets know that in addition to better efficiency they will be able to flog the thing easier on the used market when they need to get rid of it.
ramone:
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
All that seems to overlook the dilema faced by the British manufacturers and the importance of the timeline over which all this took place needs to put into perspective too.It also seems to miss the point that there was actually a shift in the demands of buyers away from those fleet truck specifications (and the actually overrated F88 which was’nt that much better in it’s power output and cab comfort to the British trucks of the period) to the more premium end of the product lists.However that shift took place far sooner in the home markets of the foreign producers than in ours.Which meant that manufacturers like DAF,Volvo,and Scania etc could develop products like the DAF 2800/3300 range,Volvo F10-12 range,and big Scania range with a guarantee that they had a strong market and demand for the products after they had spent the funds required to develop them.
Now look at the situation from the perspective of a British manufacturer,at the same point in time,facing the type of attitude ,by buyers as previously stated,in their home market in that cab comfort for drivers was’nt considered as high a priority as cost and the underpowered Gardner/DB combination was still considered as adequate on the basis of economy without regard to any ideas concerning the fact that a (much) more powerful engine,running at lower load,at higher average speeds,provides better productivety.In that environment there’s no way that a manufacturer could risk the large financial committment required to develop products which would have been competitive with those foreign types which were at that point on the drawing board with a known ready home market for them.The exceptions to that issue were the big UK firms with large American backers like Ford and Bedford/GM who had the funds to make the risk acceptable.They both turned out reasonably competitive products,if not even better in Bedford’s case,with those that the foreign opposition did and the results speak for themselves because they were both introduced onto the British market before those luddite British operators had been shown by the foreign ones that they were wrong and it was the big power more comfortable cabbed trucks which were the way to go.By then it was too late for Bedford and if Leyland had sunk more funds than it did by developing a far better T45,far sooner,the firm probably would have sunk far sooner than it did.
The rest is history and it’s just as common these days to see a foreign built big fleet truck with a decent cab and a reasonable power output as it was to see that sector of the market using day cab Mandators or Gardner powered heaps in the 1970’s because the big fleets know that in addition to better efficiency they will be able to flog the thing easier on the used market when they need to get rid of it.
And where do a large chunk of second hand vehicles go,especially manual versions…abroad
I wasn’t alive at the time so can only say how I see it from my angle, I think the British manufacturers were knocking out what people wanted to buy at the time, its easy to say ‘‘they should have bought the big TM instead coz it was better’’ but at the time, that particular area of the market was not strong in the least bit for Bedford hence I think buyers would have poured there hard earned pennies into what were probably inferior products in that they knew and trusted the brands, same could be said for the transconti being they couldn’t give them away even though it should have been a world beater.
Also, I think the issue with ERF is that they were less of a fleet motor than other makes, there corner of the market in those days was tippers and sleeper cabs just weren’t required so they weren’t offered.
Bar Leyland, I agree it wasn’t the manufacturers that shot themselves in the foot by offering inferior motors, it was down to the buyers, they built what people wanted to buy until they were prepared to give johnny foreigner a try by which time the writing was on the wall for the British manufacturers, loyalty gone wrong in a way.
More recently, the rover group finished, they were knocking out cars that went into production 25 years ago in some cases, flat cap and leather driving gloves men were the only people who wanted them, that customer base is all but gone now and the company goes bust and heads for the encyclopaedia’s, same thing I think.
ramone:
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
All that seems to overlook the dilema faced by the British manufacturers and the importance of the timeline over which all this took place needs to put into perspective too.It also seems to miss the point that there was actually a shift in the demands of buyers away from those fleet truck specifications (and the actually overrated F88 which was’nt that much better in it’s power output and cab comfort to the British trucks of the period) to the more premium end of the product lists.However that shift took place far sooner in the home markets of the foreign producers than in ours.Which meant that manufacturers like DAF,Volvo,and Scania etc could develop products like the DAF 2800/3300 range,Volvo F10-12 range,and big Scania range with a guarantee that they had a strong market and demand for the products after they had spent the funds required to develop them.
Now look at the situation from the perspective of a British manufacturer,at the same point in time,facing the type of attitude ,by buyers as previously stated,in their home market in that cab comfort for drivers was’nt considered as high a priority as cost and the underpowered Gardner/DB combination was still considered as adequate on the basis of economy without regard to any ideas concerning the fact that a (much) more powerful engine,running at lower load,at higher average speeds,provides better productivety.In that environment there’s no way that a manufacturer could risk the large financial committment required to develop products which would have been competitive with those foreign types which were at that point on the drawing board with a known ready home market for them.The exceptions to that issue were the big UK firms with large American backers like Ford and Bedford/GM who had the funds to make the risk acceptable.They both turned out reasonably competitive products,if not even better in Bedford’s case,with those that the foreign opposition did and the results speak for themselves because they were both introduced onto the British market before those luddite British operators had been shown by the foreign ones that they were wrong and it was the big power more comfortable cabbed trucks which were the way to go.By then it was too late for Bedford and if Leyland had sunk more funds than it did by developing a far better T45,far sooner,the firm probably would have sunk far sooner than it did.
The rest is history and it’s just as common these days to see a foreign built big fleet truck with a decent cab and a reasonable power output as it was to see that sector of the market using day cab Mandators or Gardner powered heaps in the 1970’s because the big fleets know that in addition to better efficiency they will be able to flog the thing easier on the used market when they need to get rid of it.
And where do a large chunk of second hand vehicles go,especially manual versions…abroad
The issue of the export market for used trucks is a different one but the buying criteria of the average buyer,in the type of markets where those are sold,probably is’nt much different to that of a new start owner driver here looking for a good used wagon for long distance subbing.That criterea is keep it simple,big enough engine with enough power to cover plenty of miles in the course of a working day,and for the thing not to have worked too hard during it’s lifetime and to,hopefully,give it a good chance of having plenty more miles left in it when hauling as much payload as possible,with a comfortable enough cab to live with.
The problem these days is that there’s a conflict between the interests and requirements of those types of used truck buyers and the buyers of new trucks which need to suit modern day Euro emmissions regs etc where the priority is biased more towards emmissions,fuel economy,and something that the type of driver who just likes steering the thing,not driving it prefers,all at the expense of mechanical and electrical simplicity.
However the formula of decent cab and enough power has been proven correct and is universally accepted now as being the right one unlike those days when Bedford tried to sell something like the TM 3800/4400 in the British market place.Ironically though if anyone did have one for sale now some owner driver in Botswana or Zambia would probably (rightly) prefer to buy that,or a DAF 3600,than a one or two year old modern Volvo or Scania .
Although things have progressed since the 1970’s and 1980’s and the Africans (and myself if I was looking for a decent truck as a new start owner driver) would probably prefer to import a later used Ozzie KW with a 60 series and an 18 speed Fuller in it.
Like i said much earlier horses for courses,but you still havent answered why big cabbed Scania and Volvos sold in the mid seventies and other importers too but the TMs didnt .You are blaming the haulage bosses for wanting Gardner/Brown combinations ,but those same bosses were buying the big cabbed foreigners.I think most but not all lost faith in the British built lorries due to poor design due to lack of funds or infighting or just not having the know how to put a decent vehicle on the road.Look at the Transcontinental,a big foreign cab and you could opt for a big ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ S and W Cartons a waste paper company from around the Morley area bought a brand new Transcon around 77 and specced a 350 ■■■■■■■ in it so that should have been a world beater,they didnt keep it long and eventually swapped it for ..... wait for it a Scania 80 or 81 i cant quite remember which.But my point is that Ford were offering a big cab from Berliet/Renault with a big engine but it wasnt really a success,Renault were still selling the Major into the 90s so what was the difference? I dont think it was the haulage bosses fault that the quality and reliability of British lorries wasnt up to the standards of the foreigners,and i dont include Renault as they were by no means quality and Iveco too still are poor but they have survived where as our industry as gone ,much like our car industry and steel industry and our …
ramone:
Like i said much earlier horses for courses,but you still havent answered why big cabbed Scania and Volvos sold in the mid seventies and other importers too but the TMs didnt .You are blaming the haulage bosses for wanting Gardner/Brown combinations ,but those same bosses were buying the big cabbed foreigners.I think most but not all lost faith in the British built lorries due to poor design due to lack of funds or infighting or just not having the know how to put a decent vehicle on the road.Look at the Transcontinental,a big foreign cab and you could opt for a big ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ S and W Cartons a waste paper company from around the Morley area bought a brand new Transcon around 77 and specced a 350 ■■■■■■■ in it so that should have been a world beater,they didnt keep it long and eventually swapped it for ..... wait for it a Scania 80 or 81 i cant quite remember which.But my point is that Ford were offering a big cab from Berliet/Renault with a big engine but it wasnt really a success,Renault were still selling the Major into the 90s so what was the difference? I dont think it was the haulage bosses fault that the quality and reliability of British lorries wasnt up to the standards of the foreigners,and i dont include Renault as they were by no means quality and Iveco too still are poor but they have survived where as our industry as gone ,much like our car industry and steel industry and our …
Think you’ve got your time lines a bit confused there.The TM was actually in production early enough to be in competition with trucks like the F88 not the bigger cabbed more powerful stuff like the F10-12 that was put into production a bit later at the end of the 1970’s and beginning of the 1980’s.So the question is what was it that stopped the widespread acceptance of decent cabbed 300-400 hp Bedford products at a time when British buyers were still happy enough with their zb Gardner powered heaps and at best F88’s and then what was it that suddenly changed a few years later when Bedford found that all of that investment and effort that they’d put into beating everyone else was wasted but ‘after’ that happened the Brit operators went for DAF 2800’s/3300’s and F10-12’s and the big Scanias etc etc in a big way .
But the fact that an operator would have got rid of a big cabbed 350 hp wagon and replaced it with a small Scania not a bigger one says everything about the reasoning which seems to have nothing to do with the fault of those that built and designed the thing.
ramone:
Like i said much earlier horses for courses,but you still havent answered why big cabbed Scania and Volvos sold in the mid seventies and other importers too but the TMs didnt .You are blaming the haulage bosses for wanting Gardner/Brown combinations ,but those same bosses were buying the big cabbed foreigners.I think most but not all lost faith in the British built lorries due to poor design due to lack of funds or infighting or just not having the know how to put a decent vehicle on the road.Look at the Transcontinental,a big foreign cab and you could opt for a big ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ S and W Cartons a waste paper company from around the Morley area bought a brand new Transcon around 77 and specced a 350 ■■■■■■■ in it so that should have been a world beater,they didnt keep it long and eventually swapped it for ..... wait for it a Scania 80 or 81 i cant quite remember which.But my point is that Ford were offering a big cab from Berliet/Renault with a big engine but it wasnt really a success,Renault were still selling the Major into the 90s so what was the difference? I dont think it was the haulage bosses fault that the quality and reliability of British lorries wasnt up to the standards of the foreigners,and i dont include Renault as they were by no means quality and Iveco too still are poor but they have survived where as our industry as gone ,much like our car industry and steel industry and our …
Think you’ve got your time lines a bit confused there.The TM was actually in production early enough to be in competition with trucks like the F88 not the bigger cabbed more powerful stuff like the F10-12 that was put into production a bit later at the end of the 1970’s and beginning of the 1980’s.So the question is what was it that stopped the widespread acceptance of decent cabbed 300-400 hp Bedford products at a time when British buyers were still happy enough with their zb Gardner powered heaps and at best F88’s and then what was it that suddenly changed a few years later when Bedford found that all of that investment and effort that they’d put into beating everyone else was wasted but ‘after’ that happened the Brit operators went for DAF 2800’s/3300’s and F10-12’s and the big Scanias etc etc in a big way .
I would regard the F88 and the 110/111 as big cabbed and powerful vehicles ,and comfortable compared with the competion of their time
ramone:
Like i said much earlier horses for courses,but you still havent answered why big cabbed Scania and Volvos sold in the mid seventies and other importers too but the TMs didnt .You are blaming the haulage bosses for wanting Gardner/Brown combinations ,but those same bosses were buying the big cabbed foreigners.I think most but not all lost faith in the British built lorries due to poor design due to lack of funds or infighting or just not having the know how to put a decent vehicle on the road.Look at the Transcontinental,a big foreign cab and you could opt for a big ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ S and W Cartons a waste paper company from around the Morley area bought a brand new Transcon around 77 and specced a 350 ■■■■■■■ in it so that should have been a world beater,they didnt keep it long and eventually swapped it for ..... wait for it a Scania 80 or 81 i cant quite remember which.But my point is that Ford were offering a big cab from Berliet/Renault with a big engine but it wasnt really a success,Renault were still selling the Major into the 90s so what was the difference? I dont think it was the haulage bosses fault that the quality and reliability of British lorries wasnt up to the standards of the foreigners,and i dont include Renault as they were by no means quality and Iveco too still are poor but they have survived where as our industry as gone ,much like our car industry and steel industry and our …
Think you’ve got your time lines a bit confused there.The TM was actually in production early enough to be in competition with trucks like the F88 not the bigger cabbed more powerful stuff like the F10-12 that was put into production a bit later at the end of the 1970’s and beginning of the 1980’s.So the question is what was it that stopped the widespread acceptance of decent cabbed 300-400 hp Bedford products at a time when British buyers were still happy enough with their zb Gardner powered heaps and at best F88’s and then what was it that suddenly changed a few years later when Bedford found that all of that investment and effort that they’d put into beating everyone else was wasted but ‘after’ that happened the Brit operators went for DAF 2800’s/3300’s and F10-12’s and the big Scanias etc etc in a big way .
I would regard the F88 and the 110/111 as big cabbed and powerful vehicles ,and comfortable compared with the competion of their time
F88 versus 300-400hp TM or a 350 Transconti (or even an imported Kenworth at the time)
ramone:
Like i said much earlier horses for courses,but you still havent answered why big cabbed Scania and Volvos sold in the mid seventies and other importers too but the TMs didnt .You are blaming the haulage bosses for wanting Gardner/Brown combinations ,but those same bosses were buying the big cabbed foreigners.I think most but not all lost faith in the British built lorries due to poor design due to lack of funds or infighting or just not having the know how to put a decent vehicle on the road.Look at the Transcontinental,a big foreign cab and you could opt for a big ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ S and W Cartons a waste paper company from around the Morley area bought a brand new Transcon around 77 and specced a 350 ■■■■■■■ in it so that should have been a world beater,they didnt keep it long and eventually swapped it for ..... wait for it a Scania 80 or 81 i cant quite remember which.But my point is that Ford were offering a big cab from Berliet/Renault with a big engine but it wasnt really a success,Renault were still selling the Major into the 90s so what was the difference? I dont think it was the haulage bosses fault that the quality and reliability of British lorries wasnt up to the standards of the foreigners,and i dont include Renault as they were by no means quality and Iveco too still are poor but they have survived where as our industry as gone ,much like our car industry and steel industry and our …
Think you’ve got your time lines a bit confused there.The TM was actually in production early enough to be in competition with trucks like the F88 not the bigger cabbed more powerful stuff like the F10-12 that was put into production a bit later at the end of the 1970’s and beginning of the 1980’s.So the question is what was it that stopped the widespread acceptance of decent cabbed 300-400 hp Bedford products at a time when British buyers were still happy enough with their zb Gardner powered heaps and at best F88’s and then what was it that suddenly changed a few years later when Bedford found that all of that investment and effort that they’d put into beating everyone else was wasted but ‘after’ that happened the Brit operators went for DAF 2800’s/3300’s and F10-12’s and the big Scanias etc etc in a big way .
I would regard the F88 and the 110/111 as big cabbed and powerful vehicles ,and comfortable compared with the competion of their time
F88 versus 300-400hp TM or a 350 Transconti (or even an imported Kenworth at the time)
ramone:
Like i said much earlier horses for courses,but you still havent answered why big cabbed Scania and Volvos sold in the mid seventies and other importers too but the TMs didnt .You are blaming the haulage bosses for wanting Gardner/Brown combinations ,but those same bosses were buying the big cabbed foreigners.I think most but not all lost faith in the British built lorries due to poor design due to lack of funds or infighting or just not having the know how to put a decent vehicle on the road.Look at the Transcontinental,a big foreign cab and you could opt for a big ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ S and W Cartons a waste paper company from around the Morley area bought a brand new Transcon around 77 and specced a 350 ■■■■■■■ in it so that should have been a world beater,they didnt keep it long and eventually swapped it for ..... wait for it a Scania 80 or 81 i cant quite remember which.But my point is that Ford were offering a big cab from Berliet/Renault with a big engine but it wasnt really a success,Renault were still selling the Major into the 90s so what was the difference? I dont think it was the haulage bosses fault that the quality and reliability of British lorries wasnt up to the standards of the foreigners,and i dont include Renault as they were by no means quality and Iveco too still are poor but they have survived where as our industry as gone ,much like our car industry and steel industry and our …
Think you’ve got your time lines a bit confused there.The TM was actually in production early enough to be in competition with trucks like the F88 not the bigger cabbed more powerful stuff like the F10-12 that was put into production a bit later at the end of the 1970’s and beginning of the 1980’s.So the question is what was it that stopped the widespread acceptance of decent cabbed 300-400 hp Bedford products at a time when British buyers were still happy enough with their zb Gardner powered heaps and at best F88’s and then what was it that suddenly changed a few years later when Bedford found that all of that investment and effort that they’d put into beating everyone else was wasted but ‘after’ that happened the Brit operators went for DAF 2800’s/3300’s and F10-12’s and the big Scanias etc etc in a big way .
I would regard the F88 and the 110/111 as big cabbed and powerful vehicles ,and comfortable compared with the competion of their time
F88 versus 300-400hp TM or a 350 Transconti (or even an imported Kenworth at the time)
You’d have needed to go to spec savers.
I give up
I’m not surprised.Trying to blame the British manufacturers for the choices made by British buyers at the time is just the same as trying to defend the indefencible.
ramone:
Like i said much earlier horses for courses,but you still havent answered why big cabbed Scania and Volvos sold in the mid seventies and other importers too but the TMs didnt .You are blaming the haulage bosses for wanting Gardner/Brown combinations ,but those same bosses were buying the big cabbed foreigners.I think most but not all lost faith in the British built lorries due to poor design due to lack of funds or infighting or just not having the know how to put a decent vehicle on the road.Look at the Transcontinental,a big foreign cab and you could opt for a big ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ S and W Cartons a waste paper company from around the Morley area bought a brand new Transcon around 77 and specced a 350 ■■■■■■■ in it so that should have been a world beater,they didnt keep it long and eventually swapped it for ..... wait for it a Scania 80 or 81 i cant quite remember which.But my point is that Ford were offering a big cab from Berliet/Renault with a big engine but it wasnt really a success,Renault were still selling the Major into the 90s so what was the difference? I dont think it was the haulage bosses fault that the quality and reliability of British lorries wasnt up to the standards of the foreigners,and i dont include Renault as they were by no means quality and Iveco too still are poor but they have survived where as our industry as gone ,much like our car industry and steel industry and our …
Think you’ve got your time lines a bit confused there.The TM was actually in production early enough to be in competition with trucks like the F88 not the bigger cabbed more powerful stuff like the F10-12 that was put into production a bit later at the end of the 1970’s and beginning of the 1980’s.So the question is what was it that stopped the widespread acceptance of decent cabbed 300-400 hp Bedford products at a time when British buyers were still happy enough with their zb Gardner powered heaps and at best F88’s and then what was it that suddenly changed a few years later when Bedford found that all of that investment and effort that they’d put into beating everyone else was wasted but ‘after’ that happened the Brit operators went for DAF 2800’s/3300’s and F10-12’s and the big Scanias etc etc in a big way .
I would regard the F88 and the 110/111 as big cabbed and powerful vehicles ,and comfortable compared with the competion of their time
F88 versus 300-400hp TM or a 350 Transconti (or even an imported Kenworth at the time)
You’d have needed to go to spec savers.
I give up
I’m not surprised.Trying to blame the British manufacturers for the choices made by British buyers at the time is just the same as trying to defend the indefencible.
Or trying to educate pork ,which it seems is what i`m trying to do
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.
Hi acd2102 I made an assumption based on at the time 67/68 we had a german haulier deliver machines for storage several times a year and he came with a 1418 6x2 and 4 wheeled drag before he got a brand new Bussing with the under floor engine so I assumed with 5 axles they would be 38 tons and wrongly but as you say the 1418s were a reliable wagon as a relation of mine had one for Simpson’s Malt bull nose model and he loved it mostly running Berwick to Inverness when it was the old A9.
I also recall the ridiculous lead times for Atki’s,ERFs and Fodens I think that the other big manufacturers thought they could turn almost anything out and that people would buy them as they were unable to purchase what they really wanted.
There was also a lot of politics between the different manufacturers as well by blackmailing customers that if they bought a rival companys lorry they would not be sold any more from them which as you have said opened the door for the continental manufacturers to gain a foothold in the U K market.
I also believe that the engine manufacturers did them selves as much harm by limiting the amount of engines they turned out which led to the long lead times for lorries instead of increasing production which opened the door for ■■■■■■■ and then Rolls to be a major supplier by the 70s and considering there was a vast amount of engineering talent about which was not used by the management who seemed to have a stick in the mud / head in the sand attitude thinking that the industry would have things in their time and not when the customers required them and as all the main roads were being upgraded around this time so higher speeds and mileages were being done.
I would say there was not one but a whole series of things together which started the downfall
The lack of foresight by management
The unions trying to run the factory’s instead of just looking after the workers rights and conditions.
The sub standard quality control which was relevant through out the entire auto motive industry.
The nationalisation of firms like AEC and guy etc.thus destroying competition .
5 Not seeing the opportunity to move with the times and trying to just upgrade what was on offer instead of developing new products not all company’s were guilty of all these but most at least one.
cheers Johnnie
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.
Hi acd2102 I made an assumption based on at the time 67/68 we had a german haulier deliver machines for storage several times a year and he came with a 1418 6x2 and 4 wheeled drag before he got a brand new Bussing with the under floor engine so I assumed with 5 axles they would be 38 tons and wrongly but as you say the 1418s were a reliable wagon as a relation of mine had one for Simpson’s Malt bull nose model and he loved it mostly running Berwick to Inverness when it was the old A9.
I also recall the ridiculous lead times for Atki’s,ERFs and Fodens I think that the other big manufacturers thought they could turn almost anything out and that people would buy them as they were unable to purchase what they really wanted.
There was also a lot of politics between the different manufacturers as well by blackmailing customers that if they bought a rival companys lorry they would not be sold any more from them which as you have said opened the door for the continental manufacturers to gain a foothold in the U K market.
I also believe that the engine manufacturers did them selves as much harm by limiting the amount of engines they turned out which led to the long lead times for lorries instead of increasing production which opened the door for ■■■■■■■ and then Rolls to be a major supplier by the 70s and considering there was a vast amount of engineering talent about which was not used by the management who seemed to have a stick in the mud / head in the sand attitude thinking that the industry would have things in their time and not when the customers required them and as all the main roads were being upgraded around this time so higher speeds and mileages were being done.
I would say there was not one but a whole series of things together which started the downfall
The lack of foresight by management
The unions trying to run the factory’s instead of just looking after the workers rights and conditions.
The sub standard quality control which was relevant through out the entire auto motive industry.
The nationalisation of firms like AEC and guy etc.thus destroying competition .
5 Not seeing the opportunity to move with the times and trying to just upgrade what was on offer instead of developing new products not all company’s were guilty of all these but most at least one.
cheers Johnnie
Sounds like an unwarranted claim to me directed at most of those involved in the British truck manufacturing industry at the time and as I’ve showed previously the question of the Bedford TM and it’s acceptance and performance,in those export markets that bought it at the time,while the home market would’nt,blows that argument out of the water.
If the British truck manufacturing industry are guilty of anything it’s of having the good sense to not throw money away on development,in the trading environment of the home market at the time,caused by the zb British road transport management buying policies and having seen the results of what having done that did for those manufacturers that did make that mistake of doing.
To be fair carryfast the truck makers should of just carried on developing trucks and stopped building the old ones look at scania they came to the uk with the lb76 in about 64 in 1968 they introduced the 80 110 and 140 range as there truck range for the 70s they saw the fact weights would rise and there would be more motorways and the best tool for the job was a bigger more powerful truck. They didn’t just keep building the lb76.
Then over the years they kept tweaking the design to iron out problems and by the time the 2 series came out they had a pretty decent product that you still saw on the road years after production stopped.
Look at the Brits they were offering something straight out of the 50s until the 70s if you don’t offer people new things they will just assume what they know is the best.
By the time people started realising the way trucks needed to be they were to far behind to catch up.
kr79:
To be fair carryfast the truck makers should of just carried on developing trucks and stopped building the old ones look at scania they came to the uk with the lb76 in about 64 in 1968 they introduced the 80 110 and 140 range as there truck range for the 70s they saw the fact weights would rise and there would be more motorways and the best tool for the job was a bigger more powerful truck. They didn’t just keep building the lb76.
Then over the years they kept tweaking the design to iron out problems and by the time the 2 series came out they had a pretty decent product that you still saw on the road years after production stopped.
Look at the Brits they were offering something straight out of the 50s until the 70s if you don’t offer people new things they will just assume what they know is the best.
By the time people started realising the way trucks needed to be they were to far behind to catch up.
That might all have been correct ‘if’ it was’nt for the inconvenient truth of the timeline over which the TM was developed and brought onto the market.People knew the way trucks needed to be which is why Bedford went to their parent firm in the States where they knew even sooner than the Scandinavians did and then designed and built the right product during the time period in question using proven American power and driveline components and a decent cab.But as history shows it was only some export markets that were ready to accept trucks at that level of development not the home market.There certainly was’nt a big demand for the big Scania range here either at that time but unlike the Brits they already had a strong enough home market for the bigger better products to recoup the development costs .
kr79:
To be fair carryfast the truck makers should of just carried on developing trucks and stopped building the old ones look at scania they came to the uk with the lb76 in about 64 in 1968 they introduced the 80 110 and 140 range as there truck range for the 70s they saw the fact weights would rise and there would be more motorways and the best tool for the job was a bigger more powerful truck. They didn’t just keep building the lb76.
Then over the years they kept tweaking the design to iron out problems and by the time the 2 series came out they had a pretty decent product that you still saw on the road years after production stopped.
Look at the Brits they were offering something straight out of the 50s until the 70s if you don’t offer people new things they will just assume what they know is the best.
By the time people started realising the way trucks needed to be they were to far behind to catch up.
That might all have been correct ‘if’ it was’nt for the inconvenient truth of the timeline over which the TM was developed and brought onto the market.People knew the way trucks needed to be which is why Bedford went to their parent firm in the States where they knew even sooner than the Scandinavians did and then designed and built the right product during the time period in question using proven American power and driveline components and a decent cab.But as history shows it was only some export markets that were ready to accept trucks at that level of development not the home market.There certainly was’nt a big demand for the big Scania range here either at that time but unlike the Brits they already had a strong enough home market for the bigger better products to recoup the development costs .
As per normal “carryfast” you are spouting bull (zb)!! There was indeed a strong demand for Scania chassis in the 70’s,you were never offered anywhere near the same discounts on Scanias that were offered by British manufacturers and as for Bedford KM & TM’s well you could more-or-less name your own terms,and they’ed through you in a CF van if you were daft enough to give them an order for a few tractor units!! I’m glad to say that the likes of Ford,Bedford,Foden,Leyland ect were never able to make an impression on “yours truly” no matter what inducements they offered or crawling they did!! Keep taking the tablets son!! Bewick.
kr79:
To be fair carryfast the truck makers should of just carried on developing trucks and stopped building the old ones look at scania they came to the uk with the lb76 in about 64 in 1968 they introduced the 80 110 and 140 range as there truck range for the 70s they saw the fact weights would rise and there would be more motorways and the best tool for the job was a bigger more powerful truck. They didn’t just keep building the lb76.
Then over the years they kept tweaking the design to iron out problems and by the time the 2 series came out they had a pretty decent product that you still saw on the road years after production stopped.
Look at the Brits they were offering something straight out of the 50s until the 70s if you don’t offer people new things they will just assume what they know is the best.
By the time people started realising the way trucks needed to be they were to far behind to catch up.
That might all have been correct ‘if’ it was’nt for the inconvenient truth of the timeline over which the TM was developed and brought onto the market.People knew the way trucks needed to be which is why Bedford went to their parent firm in the States where they knew even sooner than the Scandinavians did and then designed and built the right product during the time period in question using proven American power and driveline components and a decent cab.But as history shows it was only some export markets that were ready to accept trucks at that level of development not the home market.There certainly was’nt a big demand for the big Scania range here either at that time but unlike the Brits they already had a strong enough home market for the bigger better products to recoup the development costs .
As per normal “carryfast” you are spouting bull (zb)!! There was indeed a strong demand for Scania chassis in the 70’s,you were never offered anywhere near the same discounts on Scanias that were offered by British manufacturers and as for Bedford KM & TM’s well you could more-or-less name your own terms,and they’ed through you in a CF van if you were daft enough to give them an order for a few tractor units!! I’m glad to say that the likes of Ford,Bedford,Foden,Leyland ect were never able to make an impression on “yours truly” no matter what inducements they offered or crawling they did!! Keep taking the tablets son!! Bewick.
I was losing the will to live Dennis so i gave up there`s a light on but no ones home
kr79:
To be fair carryfast the truck makers should of just carried on developing trucks and stopped building the old ones look at scania they came to the uk with the lb76 in about 64 in 1968 they introduced the 80 110 and 140 range as there truck range for the 70s they saw the fact weights would rise and there would be more motorways and the best tool for the job was a bigger more powerful truck. They didn’t just keep building the lb76.
Then over the years they kept tweaking the design to iron out problems and by the time the 2 series came out they had a pretty decent product that you still saw on the road years after production stopped.
Look at the Brits they were offering something straight out of the 50s until the 70s if you don’t offer people new things they will just assume what they know is the best.
By the time people started realising the way trucks needed to be they were to far behind to catch up.
That might all have been correct ‘if’ it was’nt for the inconvenient truth of the timeline over which the TM was developed and brought onto the market.People knew the way trucks needed to be which is why Bedford went to their parent firm in the States where they knew even sooner than the Scandinavians did and then designed and built the right product during the time period in question using proven American power and driveline components and a decent cab.But as history shows it was only some export markets that were ready to accept trucks at that level of development not the home market.There certainly was’nt a big demand for the big Scania range here either at that time but unlike the Brits they already had a strong enough home market for the bigger better products to recoup the development costs .
As per normal “carryfast” you are spouting bull (zb)!! There was indeed a strong demand for Scania chassis in the 70’s,you were never offered anywhere near the same discounts on Scanias that were offered by British manufacturers and as for Bedford KM & TM’s well you could more-or-less name your own terms,and they’ed through you in a CF van if you were daft enough to give them an order for a few tractor units!! I’m glad to say that the likes of Ford,Bedford,Foden,Leyland ect were never able to make an impression on “yours truly” no matter what inducements they offered or crawling they did!! Keep taking the tablets son!! Bewick.
So in that case you and most other British buyers were ordering 300-400 hp Scanias in the 1970’s then Bewick .
How many of those spec Scanias did you order at that time and how do you know that the TM’s were crap if you never even ran one.
That also does’nt seem to explain how they managed to sell ok in export markets but not in the home market.
As per normal “carryfast” you are spouting bull (zb)!! There was indeed a strong demand for Scania chassis in the 70’s,you were never offered anywhere near the same discounts on Scanias that were offered by British manufacturers and as for Bedford KM & TM’s well you could more-or-less name your own terms,and they’ed through you in a CF van if you were daft enough to give them an order for a few tractor units!! I’m glad to say that the likes of Ford,Bedford,Foden,Leyland ect were never able to make an impression on “yours truly” no matter what inducements they offered or crawling they did!! Keep taking the tablets son!! Bewick.
[/quote]
So in that case you and most other British buyers were ordering 300-400 hp Scanias in the 1970’s then Bewick .
How many of those spec Scanias did you order at that time and how do you know that the TM’s were crap if you never even ran one.
[/quote]
My old boss ran several Bedford TM’s,had Detroit Bedford and ■■■■■■■ engines in them.They were got rid of and replaced with a Daf and several Renaults.They didn’t make him any money and he had some good experienced drivers on them.
Cheers Dave.
“ramone” is quite right Dave,I don’t know why we keep trying to reason with the stupid barsteward!!! I reckon I can get more sense out of Geoffrey the Gnome stood at the side of the pond in my garden!! At least he will listen to a well crafted explanation,based upon years of operational experience,which is more than that “wassock” carryfast will do!! Imagine having that T**T as a shop steward in the old days!! There would be a good case for bringing back Transportation to the colonies again! and first berth would be occupied by----------FILL IN THE BLANK--------- Cheers Dennis.
. 
