Dave the Renegade:
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.
[/quote]
My old boss ran several Bedford TM’s,had Detroit Bedford and ■■■■■■■ engines in them.They were got rid of and replaced with several Renaults.
[/quote]
Says it all they were probably V6 TM’s and it’s got to be a zb wind up.Wassocks,Gnomes,and a bunch of barstewards the lot of em.
Dave the Renegade:
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.
My old boss ran several Bedford TM’s,had Detroit Bedford and ■■■■■■■ engines in them.They were got rid of and replaced with several Renaults.
[/quote]
Says it all they were probably V6 TM’s and it’s got to be a zb wind up.Wassocks,Gnomes,and a bunch of barstewards the lot of em.
[/quote]
No wind up Carryfast.The firm was C M Philpotts from Kington Herefordshire.I drove a Bedford KM for him in 1970/71,he ran the TM’s from the late 70’s into the early 80’s.He had The Bedford engines in the fist two,the a ■■■■■■■ and a couple of Detroits,so don’t jump to conclusions.He got rid of them,replacing them with the Daf and three Renaults and a Saviem.
Cheers Dave.
Don’t waste your breath Dave! Have you ever tried “■■■■■■■ into the wind” on Brecon Beacons? It is the same sensation as trying to talk sense into “The Bold One” ----- pointless!! Cheers Dennis.
I remember dad getting a new Leyland Clydesdale 4 wheel tipper in 1978. That was the worst lorry he had. It was broken down more than it was working. after 18 months he had enough and had a fiat 159 instead of it. That went for 10 years without hardly any problems
Bewick:
Don’t waste your breath Dave! Have you ever tried “■■■■■■■ into the wind” on Brecon Beacons? It is the same sensation as trying to talk sense into “The Bold One” ----- pointless!! Cheers Dennis.
Hi Dennis,
I never drove foreign lorry.I drove British motors,some were good,some were crap.The Bedford TK that I drove for C W Griffiths fetching slag from Margam,taking stone down to South Wales had done a lot of work and was under powered,but it earned Clarence Griffiths good money in those days.The KM I drove for Charlie Philpotts pulled better than anything on the firm,but it was a load of trouble.The best British lorry I drove was the Commer Maxiload for Clarence Griffiths. I drove Dodges Leylands,Seddons and BMC’s.They were OK in there day,but those TM’s were crap.
Cheers Dave.
Dave the Renegade:
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.
My old boss ran several Bedford TM’s,had Detroit Bedford and ■■■■■■■ engines in them.They were got rid of and replaced with several Renaults.
Says it all they were probably V6 TM’s and it’s got to be a zb wind up.Wassocks,Gnomes,and a bunch of barstewards the lot of em.
[/quote]
No wind up Carryfast.The firm was C M Philpotts from Kington Herefordshire.I drove a Bedford KM for him in 1970/71,he ran the TM’s from the late 70’s into the early 80’s.He had The Bedford engines in the fist two,the a ■■■■■■■ and a couple of Detroits,so don’t jump to conclusions.He got rid of them,replacing them with the Daf and three Renaults and a Saviem.
Cheers Dave.
[/quote]
Can’t help but ‘jump to conclusions’ when someone is trying to make the case that the big V8 powered full cab TM’s were crap compared with what else was commonly used in service by most British operators during the 1970’s early 1980’s.It would probably all become a bit clearer if you put some more detail in concerning exactly which type of TM and DAF etc etc you’re comparing.
So far we seem to have established that at least two of those ‘crap’ Bedfords were only using the underpowered Bedford engine and probably narrow day cab and this at a time when the 300-400 hp big cab ones were available . Sufficient to say for now that I’m assuming that there’s no way that we can be talking about a Brit operator who traded up from using Bedford powered TM’s to even the 300 hp V8 Detroit powered version,let alone the 400 hp big V8 Detroit powered one considering that,not surprisingly,just as I’ve been arguing,the bigger 400 version ended up going for export (no surprises there then).
Oh yes I remember now, dreadful fuel economy and poor driver acceptance.
The Army had a few, but then again they didne care that they only did 4mpg
maybe the council had a few, but with a bottomless pot of money, they could afford them.
I think that a fairly astute operator from ■■■■■■■ would have looked at every vehicle on the market and would be tempted by a couple of freebies. It seems he didnt want them and apart from the parcel firm. I have never even seen another company called Carryfast Galactic International who had a fleet of them.
When the LB76 was launched, it developed, the F84 was launched and further developed, I seem to think they are still on the market, as Scania and Volvo. Remind me where Bedford went, oh yes. I do remember. Renault replaced the Bedford with a club of four and then a Premium.
Wheel Nut:
What was the reason for the failure of the TM?
Oh yes I remember now, dreadful fuel economy and poor driver acceptance.
The Army had a few, but then again they didne care that they only did 4mpg
maybe the council had a few, but with a bottomless pot of money, they could afford them.
I think that a fairly astute operator from ■■■■■■■ would have looked at every vehicle on the market and would be tempted by a couple of freebies. It seems he didnt want them and apart from the parcel firm. I have never even seen another company called Carryfast Galactic International who had a fleet of them.
When the LB76 was launched, it developed, the F84 was launched and further developed, I seem to think they are still on the market, as Scania and Volvo. Remind me where Bedford went, oh yes. I do remember. Renault replaced the Bedford with a club of four and then a Premium.
Don’t think the army spec versions have any connection whatsoever with the ones which are the subject of this discussion.Usually four wheelers fitted with all Bedford power and driveline and the subject of the discussion is’nt just about the reasons for the failure of the TM although that is one of the best examples to prove the case that it was the flawed demands of the British truck market during the 1970’s which caused the problems faced by all the British manufacturers not just Bedford.
The fuel consumption of any truck of comparable spec pulling equal weights at that time would probably look horrific when compared to the type of efficiency available today using modern technology.
But think you’d find that 4 mpg would probably relate to the type of consumption figures that a 12V71 powered KW would return being driven at relatively high speeds across the States not a turbocharged 8V92 powered TM being driven at relatively conservative speeds running at 32t or 38 t gross.I don’t remember any actual test figures at the time for that spec but the thing obviously would’nt have sold on the export market either if it had’nt have been competitive on fuel consumption and productivety with the V8 FIAT or the V8 Scania at the time.Unless you’re saying that the Swedish and Italian buyers were’nt as clever as the ■■■■■■■■ ones either .It seems more than a coincidence though that it’s that same Detroit V8 not a Scania that they still used up to recently to power the Tank Transporters of the modern US and UK armies (Oshkosh 1070 F) and it would be interesting to see the fuel consumption of a modern spec Scania V8 motor running at that type of weight and speed driving through a 5 speed auto box with torque converter.
But ironically we’re probably both in agreement that the DAF 2800-3600 took some beating as a reasonable wagon at the time it’s just ironic that it was the Dutch who built the truck that the T45 should have been but the reasons for that are’nt any fault of the British truck manufacturing industry as I’ve shown.The fact is Bedford was producing trucks with the basic design criterea of the accepted modern day truck design when Volvo were still producing the F88.The fact that it failed in the home market proved Leyland right in not bothering to waste money on further development of it’s products.
Taking away the big powered detroit TM why was the ■■■■■■■ powered TM not a sucsess when you think foden ERF seddon Atkinson and leyland offered trucks with a ■■■■■■■ fuller driveline and sold in bigger numbers than the Bedford did.
If we look at the big Detroit powered one now compared to it’s ford equivalent the transcontinental while neither truck sold aswell as hoped for the ford was the better seller why was that?
It wasn’t just Britain that was speccing low powered trucks if you look across europe I’d bet there was more scania 110 111 and 112s sold than the ever was there v8 equivalent.
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 .
Scania 140 with 350bhp was launched in 1968 the TM wasn’t launched until 1974 and scania launched the updated 141 with 375bhp and improved torque in 1975
kr79:
Taking away the big powered detroit TM why was the ■■■■■■■ powered TM not a sucsess when you think foden ERF seddon Atkinson and leyland offered trucks with a ■■■■■■■ fuller driveline and sold in bigger numbers than the Bedford did.
If we look at the big Detroit powered one now compared to it’s ford equivalent the transcontinental while neither truck sold aswell as hoped for the ford was the better seller why was that?
It wasn’t just Britain that was speccing low powered trucks if you look across europe I’d bet there was more scania 110 111 and 112s sold than the ever was there v8 equivalent.
Can’t see how a 400 hp V8 TM could be considered as the ‘equivalent’ of the Ford Transconti at the time and 350 hp these days would’nt be considered as being adequate for a premium or even a fleet wagon even it was running at the old 32-38 t weights of the time.But if the ■■■■■■■ option was that good and widely accepted in the transport industry worldwide it would be ■■■■■■■ engines that would have been chosen more than Detroit although of course it’s Detroit that,rightly,beat ■■■■■■■■
The sales of the lesser specced Scania models etc are irrelevant because there would’nt have been any advantage in buying those if the TM just standardised on the big V8 Detroit option rated at whatever output the market and operation required but of course they never got the chance to prove that idea because the home market was erattically veering between ■■■■■■■ powered Brit models and other lower specced foreign stuff none of which could be considered as up to modern accepted standards of power outputs at which point Bedford just desperately pandered to that demand and the results were clear when you compare sales of the big V8 Detroit version in Italy with sales of the ■■■■■■■ powered version on the home market.The failure was,as I’ve said,the result of the home market buyers not having a clue when it came to logical progress in truck engineering,not a fault of the British manufacturers.
However much you try to make the case differently ERF,SA,and Leyland all concentrated on producing trucks fitted with lower rated engines than the Scania V8 but they all went under whereas Scania carried on with producing it’s big power V8,which was always accepted more in it’s home market than here,and ‘then’,just like Detroit,went on to develop more powerful versions of it’s inline six cylinder range to get that balance between power outputs and economy etc which forms the basis of most modern truck design thinking.However it was Bedford that was in a far better position to have followed that same idea than any of the other British manufacturers but unlike Scania did’nt have the same type of home market to allow that.
this is getting to be a big thread I think I have put my two pennorth worth in earlier, I have always wondered why bedford made the narrow cab on the TM fair enough on a 4 wheeler lower weight motor but when it was fitted to a heavy artic it looked so wrong, I will retreat quietly now as I don`t want to cop any shrapnel, fred m
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 .
Scania 140 with 350bhp was launched in 1968 the TM wasn’t launched until 1974 and scania launched the updated 141 with 375bhp and improved torque in 1975
So how many Brits bought the 140-141 in 1968-1975 versus sales in it’s home market and it’s not surprising that Scania updated the the 140 considering that they knew the Brits were designing something even better.
ubym344:
this is getting to be a big thread I think I have put my two pennorth worth in earlier, I have always wondered why bedford made the narrow cab on the TM fair enough on a 4 wheeler lower weight motor but when it was fitted to a heavy artic it looked so wrong, I will retreat quietly now as I don`t want to cop any shrapnel, fred m
But they also made a four wheeler with the right cab and with that big 400 hp V8 Detroit motor in it. It’s just that the Brit guvnors did’nt buy them.
I was trying to compare like for like in the mid 70s 250 bhp was considered as an acceptable figure for a 32 ton artic so I’m saying why did the Bedford with a ■■■■■■■ engine not sell as well as a truck with the same engine from another British maker or as well as some of the euro truck builders with that sort of power.
I made the point about the ford as 350 was big power back then if you think the daf 2800 dks only offered 307 bhp the Volvo f89 330bhp mercs biggest truck was the 320bhp v10 but I bet if they opened up the ford to a 400 it would have still sold more than the Bedford did.
Say we compare the scania 141 in the uk to the big Bedford it sold in small numbers compared to the 111 but more than the Bedford did so why was this.
Bedford had a strong presence in the commonwealth did the Detroit powered TM sell well in these markets?
A very interesting and informative thread. As a newcomer to this site maybe I can offer the following opinions for my first post?
With its TM model Bedford was entering the heavyweight sector for the first time. Remember back then that the lorry market was divided into three distinct sectors, namely lightweights, medium weights, and heavyweights. This was a legacy of the requirements of the old ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ licence regieme. Traditionally Bedford had always been in the lightweight, or at best medium weight sectors (with the KM for example). There was an awful lot of snobbery amongst operators in those days. Bedford was perceived as marketing cheap, mass produced lorries, so no matter what the driveline fitted into the TM it had the disadvantage of its Bedford badge on the front, and many operators were not interested because of that factor alone. Interestingly Ford had more success with its Transcontinental despite targetting the same low price lorry market for its mainstream business. Just my view but I personally preferred the Ford D Series to either a Bedford TK or KM and I drove both Bedfords and Fords.
Just to throw a few more thoughts into the melting pot. The 1960s was a time of monumental changes in lorry operating legislation. The 1964 C & U Regs and gross weight increases favoured artics over rigid 8-wheelers for the first time, resulting in demand for artics increasing greatly. Annual Testing and Plating from 1969 meant many older lorries had to be replaced. The introduction of Operator Licensing ( a Quality scheme) to replace ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ Licensing (a Quantity scheme) opened up the market for much easier entry. The Beeching Report on the railways closed thousands of miles of uneconomical railway lines, putting over 2 million tons of freight onto the roads in about 7 years. All this created an unprecedented demand for new lorries that British manufacturers could not satisfy, so this helped to create an opening for Continental makes, irrespective if they were better or not than the home product.
kr79:
I was trying to compare like for like in the mid 70s 250 bhp was considered as an acceptable figure for a 32 ton artic so I’m saying why did the Bedford with a ■■■■■■■ engine not sell as well as a truck with the same engine from another British maker or as well as some of the euro truck builders with that sort of power.
I made the point about the ford as 350 was big power back then if you think the daf 2800 dks only offered 307 bhp the Volvo f89 330bhp mercs biggest truck was the 320bhp v10 but I bet if they opened up the ford to a 400 it would have still sold more than the Bedford did.
Say we compare the scania 141 in the uk to the big Bedford it sold in small numbers compared to the 111 but more than the Bedford did so why was this.
Bedford had a strong presence in the commonwealth did the Detroit powered TM sell well in these markets?
It was the fact that the home market thought that underpowered trucks were acceptable which was the problem for anyone wishing to progress truck design here at that time.
The Bedford with the ■■■■■■■ option was’nt even listed until much later towards the end of it’s production when the market resistance to Detroit power here was recognised so they finally admitted defeat and gave up.
The never was any sales comparisons here between the V8 Scania and the 8V92 powered TM because they just decided,in the same way as when they introduced the ■■■■■■■ option,to give up on the idea of it selling on the home market in large enough numbers.The correct comparison between the 8V92 version and the Scania V8 would be in markets where those were both sold head to head like Italy and the Bedford was certainly more than a match for it in that market.
Bedford did’nt have a strong presence in the commonwealth in places where heavy trucks sold like Australia.The relevant question in that context is why did the Ozzies decide to start building their own Kenworths under licence from 1971 instead of continuing with British imports .By the time the TM was introduced the Ozzies were already building trucks to suit their own heavy truck market and that did’nt include any big demand for 250 hp tractor units just as ours did’nt include 400 hp Detroit powered ones.
.
