Were The Continental Lorry's Much Better?

[kr79]

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.
[/quote]
If you look back to my earlier posts where i aggree with your points i said the likes of atkinson foden and erf were building trucks suited to the australian market so updating there uk offering to include more modern drivelines than the gardner david brown combo that wasnt up to the motorway age with modern sleeper cabs wasnt a problem.
You say it was the transport managers fault for been resistant to change but if the truck makers had just updated and stopped making the old ones like the european builders did they would have addapted i suppouse they saw it as easy moneyas people knew no different.
I spoke to my dad who was a driver back then and told me about an owner driver of an eight wheel tipper he knew who went to foden and scammell for a new eight wheel tipper and was told it would be a 12 to 18 month wait for a new one.
He went to magirus deutz and had a chasis cab delivered to the body builders within a fortnight the bloke went on to run around 30 tippers and never had a british truck after that. and to top it all the local foden rep came to visit him not long after to tell him what a heap of junk he bought and he would be on there doorstep within six months.
My dad said the deutz wasnt perfect but give years of hard graft tipping and was as reliable as anything else on offer then.
You said the bedford was a match for a scania 141 in italy but which was the better seller.

[ramone]

Like its been mentioned on here earlier 250 bhp was around the standard for late 70s motors.Large fleets werent going to buy 300 - 400bhp motors from a company that was never noted for their heavyweight manufacturing or a relatively unknown american engine .Most 141s and F89s were probably bought by either owner drivers or specialist continental hauliers where the extra power of the time made sense for long journeys with the odd mountain to climb but not by uk only hauliers as the need for the extra power at the time seemed needless,we were running at 32 tons and the big Scanias were introduced over here when the anticipated weight increase never happened.Think back to all those British 6 wheeler units that were produced in the late 60s wasn`t that the reason for the V8 Mandator■■? .Could you imagine Dennis producing a large new cab now and dropping a 610 bhp Volvo engine under the bonnet,how many takers would they get■■?

[suedehead]

One marque that deserves a mention , has gotta be the Unic/Fiat big V of the late 60s/early 70s mutts nutts in their day apparentley.
Never drove one meself . . . anybody on here ever drive one ?

[dave_the_renegade]

I think that Carryfast has been sent over here as a special agent of General Motors to champion the merits of Detroit engines.
Bedford which was a GM company are one of Carryfasts lost causes.
I think as far as the Continental versus British argument is concerned,the facts speak for themselves.The Continental vehicles are here and have nearly all the market for heavy commercials.Its no good blaming the hauliers for what they did or didn’t buy.They bought what was in their opinion the best vehicle for there operation,which by the look of it were the Continental motors.

[saviem]

Hello all, dont want to be boring but I think that Carryfasts unremiting love of all things Detroit needs a little historical context adding. Gingerfold is quite right in setting the scene,in legislative and historic terms, but lets look at why products are produced and how they reach the market. Post WW11 export or die was the position, look how many markets our manufacturers featured in, and not just Commonwealth countries, and how strong was the following. Collaboration in Europe, Willeme/AEC and BMC in France, Licence built Gardners for Bernard, Leyland with DAF, no major quality issues but what happened at home? The impact of the 1964 Transport Act was enormous, the transport market was completly opened up, and product supply was a major problem. Assemblers could not source components due to production and labour problems, (remember just how bad they were). No two vehicles off the line were the same, (in my office I still have three Atkinson Borderer parts manuals, considering all three were ■■■■■■■ 205 Eaton RTO610 spec the difference in detail is enormous. Warranty issues were enormous and chaotic, sometimes it was the manufacturers responsibility, other times the component supplier, pity the poor operator! Ever been a young hopeful entering the portals of a Main Distributor wanting to buy a lorry? then you will remember the disdain with which you were treated. 12

[ramone]

gingerfold:
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.

Not to mention the introduction of motorways,most British motors were designed to run on “A” roads at a steady pace

[carryfast]

ramone:
Like its been mentioned on here earlier 250 bhp was around the standard for late 70s motors.Large fleets werent going to buy 300 - 400bhp motors from a company that was never noted for their heavyweight manufacturing or a relatively unknown american engine .Most 141s and F89s were probably bought by either owner drivers or specialist continental hauliers where the extra power of the time made sense for long journeys with the odd mountain to climb but not by uk only hauliers as the need for the extra power at the time seemed needless,we were running at 32 tons and the big Scanias were introduced over here when the anticipated weight increase never happened.Think back to all those British 6 wheeler units that were produced in the late 60s wasn`t that the reason for the V8 Mandator■■? .Could you imagine Dennis producing a large new cab now and dropping a 610 bhp Volvo engine under the bonnet,how many takers would they get■■?

If that was correct then ‘what’ changed the uk guvnors’ mind and exactly when considering that around 10-12 bhp per tonne is considered nothing unusual today for uk running trucks and there’s very little difference,if any,these days between what euro hauliers specify and domestic only running ones.

The subject of the discussion is’nt a truck that was overpowered by todays standards it was actually,as I’ve said,built by engineers who’d foreseen the future of truck design at a time when uk buyers had’nt.That’s no fault of those engineers.

The fact that,as you say,the Detroit engine was relatively unknown here at the time,just reinforces the accusation of ignorance among the uk buyers at the time which I’ve made the case as being the problem.The fact that something with a decent sized cab and reasonable power output was considered as inferior to something like an F88 because it’s manufacturer was considered as not being ‘noted’ for it’s heavyweight manufacturing and the fact that it was DAF that was able to develop the 2800-3600 range not Leyland for exactly the same reasons proves the case for the prosecution that it was uk buyers that sank the uk truck manufacturing industry not the manufacturers themselves.

[carryfast]

ramone:

gingerfold:
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.

Not to mention the introduction of motorways,most British motors were designed to run on “A” roads at a steady pace

So you obviously never drove on the M1 and M6 all the way from London to Carlisle in the mid to late 1970’s with an 8V71 powerd TM just like I did’nt unfortunately because even if I could have found a guvnor who’d bought any I was too young to hold the zb licence .

[ramone]

Carryfast:

ramone:

gingerfold:
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.

Not to mention the introduction of motorways,most British motors were designed to run on “A” roads at a steady pace

So you obviously never drove on the M1 and M6 all the way from London to Carlisle in the mid 1970’s .

No but i know a very successful and well respected haulier that did and not a sniff of a TM in his fleet

[dave_the_renegade]

Saviem:
Hello all, dont want to be boring but I think that Carryfasts unremiting love of all things Detroit needs a little historical context adding. Gingerfold is quite right in setting the scene,in legislative and historic terms, but lets look at why products are produced and how they reach the market. Post WW11 export or die was the position, look how many markets our manufacturers featured in, and not just Commonwealth countries, and how strong was the following. Collaboration in Europe, Willeme/AEC and BMC in France, Licence built Gardners for Bernard, Leyland with DAF, no major quality issues but what happened at home? The impact of the 1964 Transport Act was enormous, the transport market was completly opened up, and product supply was a major problem. Assemblers could not source components due to production and labour problems, (remember just how bad they were). No two vehicles off the line were the same, (in my office I still have three Atkinson Borderer parts manuals, considering all three were ■■■■■■■ 205 Eaton RTO610 spec the difference in detail is enormous. Warranty issues were enormous and chaotic, sometimes it was the manufacturers responsibility, other times the component supplier, pity the poor operator! Ever been a young hopeful entering the portals of a Main Distributor wanting to buy a lorry? then you will remember the disdain with which you were treated. 12

Doesn’t appear to be the UK operators who let the UK manufacturers down Carryfast.Not if you read Saviem’s post properly.I think a lot of the operators of the 70’s would agree with him.

[carryfast]

Dave the Renegade:

Saviem:
Hello all, dont want to be boring but I think that Carryfasts unremiting love of all things Detroit needs a little historical context adding. Gingerfold is quite right in setting the scene,in legislative and historic terms, but lets look at why products are produced and how they reach the market. Post WW11 export or die was the position, look how many markets our manufacturers featured in, and not just Commonwealth countries, and how strong was the following. Collaboration in Europe, Willeme/AEC and BMC in France, Licence built Gardners for Bernard, Leyland with DAF, no major quality issues but what happened at home? The impact of the 1964 Transport Act was enormous, the transport market was completly opened up, and product supply was a major problem. Assemblers could not source components due to production and labour problems, (remember just how bad they were). No two vehicles off the line were the same, (in my office I still have three Atkinson Borderer parts manuals, considering all three were ■■■■■■■ 205 Eaton RTO610 spec the difference in detail is enormous. Warranty issues were enormous and chaotic, sometimes it was the manufacturers responsibility, other times the component supplier, pity the poor operator! Ever been a young hopeful entering the portals of a Main Distributor wanting to buy a lorry? then you will remember the disdain with which you were treated. 12

Doesn’t appear to be the UK operators who let the UK manufacturers down Carryfast.Not if you read Saviem’s post properly.I think a lot of the operators of the 70’s would agree with him.

And I think a lot of the uk manufacturers of the 1970’s would agree with me.

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:

gingerfold:
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.

Not to mention the introduction of motorways,most British motors were designed to run on “A” roads at a steady pace

So you obviously never drove on the M1 and M6 all the way from London to Carlisle in the mid 1970’s .

No but i know a very successful and well respected haulier that did and not a sniff of a TM in his fleet

It does’nt take a genius to work that out and I would be surprised if ‘that haulier’ did’nt subscribe to that 250 hp limit at the time.

[dave_the_renegade]

Carryfast:

Dave the Renegade:

Saviem:
Hello all, dont want to be boring but I think that Carryfasts unremiting love of all things Detroit needs a little historical context adding. Gingerfold is quite right in setting the scene,in legislative and historic terms, but lets look at why products are produced and how they reach the market. Post WW11 export or die was the position, look how many markets our manufacturers featured in, and not just Commonwealth countries, and how strong was the following. Collaboration in Europe, Willeme/AEC and BMC in France, Licence built Gardners for Bernard, Leyland with DAF, no major quality issues but what happened at home? The impact of the 1964 Transport Act was enormous, the transport market was completly opened up, and product supply was a major problem. Assemblers could not source components due to production and labour problems, (remember just how bad they were). No two vehicles off the line were the same, (in my office I still have three Atkinson Borderer parts manuals, considering all three were ■■■■■■■ 205 Eaton RTO610 spec the difference in detail is enormous. Warranty issues were enormous and chaotic, sometimes it was the manufacturers responsibility, other times the component supplier, pity the poor operator! Ever been a young hopeful entering the portals of a Main Distributor wanting to buy a lorry? then you will remember the disdain with which you were treated. 12

Doesn’t appear to be the UK operators who let the UK manufacturers down Carryfast.Not if you read Saviem’s post properly.I think a lot of the operators of the 70’s would agree with him.

And I think a lot of the uk manufacturers of the 1970’s would agree with me.

I think the free market criteria comes into play when selling vehicles,as well as goods

[carryfast]

Dave the Renegade:

Carryfast:

Dave the Renegade:

Saviem:
Hello all, dont want to be boring but I think that Carryfasts unremiting love of all things Detroit needs a little historical context adding. Gingerfold is quite right in setting the scene,in legislative and historic terms, but lets look at why products are produced and how they reach the market. Post WW11 export or die was the position, look how many markets our manufacturers featured in, and not just Commonwealth countries, and how strong was the following. Collaboration in Europe, Willeme/AEC and BMC in France, Licence built Gardners for Bernard, Leyland with DAF, no major quality issues but what happened at home? The impact of the 1964 Transport Act was enormous, the transport market was completly opened up, and product supply was a major problem. Assemblers could not source components due to production and labour problems, (remember just how bad they were). No two vehicles off the line were the same, (in my office I still have three Atkinson Borderer parts manuals, considering all three were ■■■■■■■ 205 Eaton RTO610 spec the difference in detail is enormous. Warranty issues were enormous and chaotic, sometimes it was the manufacturers responsibility, other times the component supplier, pity the poor operator! Ever been a young hopeful entering the portals of a Main Distributor wanting to buy a lorry? then you will remember the disdain with which you were treated. 12

Doesn’t appear to be the UK operators who let the UK manufacturers down Carryfast.Not if you read Saviem’s post properly.I think a lot of the operators of the 70’s would agree with him.

And I think a lot of the uk manufacturers of the 1970’s would agree with me.

I think the free market criteria comes into play when selling vehicles,as well as goods

We’ve got a global free market economy now and it doe’nt seem to be working in our interests.

Seems to me a bit like what happened when Leyland gave DAF the motor for the 2800 instead of keeping it and making a decent cab for the T45 instead but Leyland probably thought that it would be better to save the development costs and at least get a few bob for the drawings for the 680 before shutting up shop because they knew that even when they’d finished the thing it would have been over that 250 hp limit for the uk buyers.

[dave_the_renegade]

Carryfast:

Dave the Renegade:

Carryfast:

Dave the Renegade:

Saviem:
Hello all, dont want to be boring but I think that Carryfasts unremiting love of all things Detroit needs a little historical context adding. Gingerfold is quite right in setting the scene,in legislative and historic terms, but lets look at why products are produced and how they reach the market. Post WW11 export or die was the position, look how many markets our manufacturers featured in, and not just Commonwealth countries, and how strong was the following. Collaboration in Europe, Willeme/AEC and BMC in France, Licence built Gardners for Bernard, Leyland with DAF, no major quality issues but what happened at home? The impact of the 1964 Transport Act was enormous, the transport market was completly opened up, and product supply was a major problem. Assemblers could not source components due to production and labour problems, (remember just how bad they were). No two vehicles off the line were the same, (in my office I still have three Atkinson Borderer parts manuals, considering all three were ■■■■■■■ 205 Eaton RTO610 spec the difference in detail is enormous. Warranty issues were enormous and chaotic, sometimes it was the manufacturers responsibility, other times the component supplier, pity the poor operator! Ever been a young hopeful entering the portals of a Main Distributor wanting to buy a lorry? then you will remember the disdain with which you were treated. 12

Doesn’t appear to be the UK operators who let the UK manufacturers down Carryfast.Not if you read Saviem’s post properly.I think a lot of the operators of the 70’s would agree with him.

And I think a lot of the uk manufacturers of the 1970’s would agree with me.

I think the free market criteria comes into play when selling vehicles,as well as goods

We’ve got a global free market economy now and it doe’nt seem to be working in our interests.

Seems to me a bit like what happened when Leyland gave DAF the motor for the 2800 instead of keeping it and making a decent cab for the T45 instead but Leyland probably thought that it would be better to save the development costs and at least get a few bob for the drawings for the 680 before shutting up shop because they knew that even when they’d finished the thing it would have been over that 250 hp limit for the uk buyers.

Lord Stokes was responsible for the demise of Leyland when he got hold of them,not the British hauliers.

[saviem]

Hello all, dont want to be boring but I think that Carryfasts unremiting love of all things Detroit needs a little historical context adding. Gingerfold is quite right in setting the scene,in legislative and historic terms, but lets look at why products are produced and how they reach the market. Post WW11 export or die was the position, look how many markets our manufacturers featured in, and not just Commonwealth countries, and how strong was the following. Collaboration in Europe, Willeme/AEC and BMC in France, Licence built Gardners for Bernard, Leyland with DAF, no major quality issues but what happened at home? The impact of the 1964 Transport Act was enormous, the transport market was completly opened up, and product supply was a major problem. Assemblers could not source components due to production and labour problems, (remember just how bad they were). No two vehicles off the line were the same, (in my office I still have three Atkinson Borderer parts manuals, considering all three were ■■■■■■■ 205 Eaton RTO610 spec the difference in detail is breathtaking . Warranty issues were enormous and chaotic, sometimes it was the manufacturers responsibility, other times the component supplier, pity the poor operator! Ever been a young hopeful entering the portals of a Main Distributor wanting to buy a lorry? then you will remember the disdain with which you were treated. 12months delivery would be quoted, or longer, every thing would be pre sold, no hope son, “but weve a second hand” So the imports arrived, some via operators who had suffered the laissez fair attitude of UK Distributors and manufacturers,Jim McKelvie with Volvo, Mercedes with Normand, Frank Tinsdale with Magirus Deutz, MAN with TKM, Scania via independent Concessionaires Berliet with Citroen Citax, the list can go on and on. Individually no threat to our domestic manufacturers, but collectivly the impact on home market share of the TIV (total industry volume, the means by which market penetration and share is measured by new chassis registration) was significant. Why? well the majority of importers appointed fledgling Dealer networks, some operators, some repairers, some investors, but they all shared one thing, they were hungry for success, they needed that new sale, and any customer was well looked after. Personal contact sold many vehicles, and provided that the client was well supported in aftersales the product became almost secondary to the business relationship. In themselves not all products were better than their UK equivelent,but almost universally the attitude of the Dealers staff, and the Importer was more receptive and positive the customer was king, something very new in our industry. The volume Distributors of UK product, Ford, Bedford, Dodge, really did not view the importers as a serious threat, they did not in the main compete in the same market segment most importers concentrating on the booming Tractor market post 1964 Transport Act. ?(When they did it was too late, a parallel of the UK motorcycle industry and the Japanese)! The assemblers, well they produced a reasonable quality product, and could sell their production capacity, and more, so why worry! oh dear oh dear! And what of Leyland? I am amazed that no insider has ever written a true expose of what really did happen! it would be a best seller. Political interference leading to irrational decision making, poor R&D To many competing products, Distributors, Production Plants, many can speculate, but no one really knows, all we know is that product and service deteriorated and importers sliced up the Leyland client base. What a tragedy in National, Human,and Industry terms. So in broad terms “Were the Continental lorries much better” No. but their UK Dealers were more active, had shorter lines of communication to the Importer, or Concessionaire, and thence to the Factory. They could respond to a problem more quickly, and positivley, and the customer was in the main happy, and remained loyal to the brand.My dear Gentlemen, you will have noted that I have not resorted to individual vehicle comparison in my missive, but now I must respond to Carryfasts opinions. The F88 Volvo was not over rated, as many who enjoy this forum, and have experienceof this vehicle in the 60s and 70s will explain. 230 240 8 or the sensational 16speed, F FB or G models.The Italian market,(of which I have some experience) mainly concentrated in the Northern Industrial areas, in the 70s to 90s one of the highest concentrations of owner drivers and small operators in Europe.Biggest seller in the tractor market in the 70s, Fiat 170.35 350HP 13 speed Fuller 4x2 (suedehead if ever you get a chance to drive one in preservation do so!! they are wonderful! (and re exporting new ones back to Italy earned many pounds for UK Fiat dealers in the 70s, much to the dispair of dear late Dr Giovanni Brasca in Grosvenor Square).Followed by Scania V8, vOLVO, MAN, Saviem Berliet, Mercedes, Bedford hardly figured! True they sold some, but reliability issues, did not help sales. American specifications, Carryfast this is an old chesnut,In retirement in the 90s I indulged an old interest and started to import US trucks, cab overs and conventionals. Mainly ■■■■■■■ Fuller Rockwell, easy specs. My one mistake was two K100 long coffin cab 8V92 DDA 13 speed od Fullers with 8 bag air. Love the sound, what horrible (no Orrible lorries) totally unsuited to European application.They ended up with a French Circus, I hope the Lions enjoyed them. As for American operations, my eyes were opened in the 80s whilst working there, seeing the day shift clocking on carrying blow up seat cushions, plug in CBs as they made their way over to the still warm K100s 86inch BBC tractors, then 20years old!! Its all about productivity and profit, not day dreams dear friend!!Sorry to go on so long, Cheerio bye bye.

[gunnerheskey]

Without trying to feel like a turncoat in the late 70s, i’d currently been riding with my grandad from the early 70s in his Atki RNR 817H, ERF LV OEW 547J Both with 180 gardners, then an A series ERF OBC ***L , then a brand new Leyland Marathon ■■■■■■■ 250 DLG 370S . I loved it went all over the uk and scotch. Then my mums new partner announced he drove an F88-290 on an R plate . Impressed was an understatement, power up hills, air sprung passenger seat, electric passenger window a double bunk and HEAT ! But still have brilliant memories of both for different reasons . But just felt like nothing ever touched the 88.

[gingerfold]

Saviem has given an excellent summary.

Just a few more thoughts for discussion. When Volvo entered the UK lorry market in '67 they already sold cars here (B18 / Amazon) in small numbers and these had a very good reputation. So was there a perception that because Volvo cars were good then their lorries would also be good? Contrast the situation less than 10 years later with British Leyland, i.e. rubbish cars therefore rubbish lorries.

Ramone is quite correct. Motorway running placed completely new strains on designs that were better suited to steady running on A roads, and even many of the main trunk routes were still single carriageways in the early '60s. Although, for example, the AEC/ Leyland/ Albion Ergomatic cab ranges were marketed as new models at the 1964 Commercial Motor Show in reality they contained many components that were updated versions of earlier designs. For instance Leyland Power Plus engines had been introduced in 1960/61. AEC AV760 and AV505 units contained new design features but could trace their origins back to the 1950s. The Ergomatic cab was a “one size fits all” concept, acceptable for models with AEC AV505 or Leyland 400 engines, but too small for Mandators and Beavers with AV760 and Power Plus 680 units. This cab design limited radiator coolant capacity and restricted airflow around the engines resulting in overheating and reliability problems even in the UK, but especially so in demanding climates such as Australia and South Africa, where AEC and Leyland had enjoyed strong sales for many years.The standard offerings of the new Continental marques offered turbo-charged engines and multi-ratio gearboxes. AEC and Leyland did offer multi-ratio gearboxes but as optional extras at additional cost.

The demise of Leyland and its subsidiary companies is a story that still has to be told. There was on-going research and development on new, high power output engines beginning in the early '60s, the AEC V8 covered in another thread that was killed off by Leyland when AEC claimed that it had sorted out the design faults. I recently disposed of all my authentic research data for the turbocharged AEC V8 rated at 350 bhp in 1971. The disastrous Leyland fixed head 500 series was a design too far for the technology and manufacturing capabilities of the time. The rejection rate for 500 engines on the production line was 35%, and the failure rate in service was unsustainable. All in all it’s a very sorry tale.

[erf]

Excellent Gingerfold.
Many thanks for your educated and infomed posts - just what this site needs.
Welcome to the forum.

[carryfast]

Saviem:
Hello all, dont want to be boring but I think that Carryfasts unremiting love of all things Detroit needs a little historical context adding.The F88 Volvo was not over rated, as many who enjoy this forum, and have experienceof this vehicle in the 60s and 70s will explain. 230 240 8 or the sensational 16speed, F FB or G models.The Italian market,(of which I have some experience) mainly concentrated in the Northern Industrial areas, in the 70s to 90s one of the highest concentrations of owner drivers and small operators in Europe.Biggest seller in the tractor market in the 70s, Fiat 170.35 350HP 13 speed Fuller 4x2 (suedehead if ever you get a chance to drive one in preservation do so!! they are wonderful! (and re exporting new ones back to Italy earned many pounds for UK Fiat dealers in the 70s, much to the dispair of dear late Dr Giovanni Brasca in Grosvenor Square).Followed by Scania V8, vOLVO, MAN, Saviem Berliet, Mercedes, Bedford hardly figured! True they sold some, but reliability issues, did not help sales. American specifications, Carryfast this is an old chesnut,In retirement in the 90s I indulged an old interest and started to import US trucks, cab overs and conventionals. Mainly ■■■■■■■ Fuller Rockwell, easy specs. My one mistake was two K100 long coffin cab 8V92 DDA 13 speed od Fullers with 8 bag air. Love the sound, what horrible (no Orrible lorries) totally unsuited to European application.They ended up with a French Circus, I hope the Lions enjoyed them. As for American operations, my eyes were opened in the 80s whilst working there, seeing the day shift clocking on carrying blow up seat cushions, plug in CBs as they made their way over to the still warm K100s 86inch BBC tractors, then 20years old!! Its all about productivity and profit, not day dreams dear friend!!Sorry to go on so long, Cheerio bye bye.

If the F88 was’nt overrated then are you saying that the F10/12 was’nt better .If not then exactly what were the improvements that they developed into the F10/12 that were’nt already there in the F88 and exactly what did the F10/12 have to offer that the TM 3800/4400 did’nt .FIAT V8 no argument it was built like a Ferrari you bought a zb fast motor and everything else did’nt matter and came free so my type of wagon .

American specifications you seem to have shot down your own argument.They were built for a market in which a 20 year lifetime of double shift trunking over US distances and at US speeds were one of expected criterea.

The idea that a 8V92 ‘TTA’ powered US wagon with US driveline was’nt suited to Eurpoean operations seems to be written by someone who could’nt possibly have used one to blow the doors off of a Sania V8 (or FIAT) running up to the Blanc and keep doing it for a lot longer in just the same way that it would have done in it’s home market which is why the yanks,or the Ozzies,did’nt bother to import many euro wagons.

But French buying habits seem to be even worse than Brits in that they’d rather use a 450 hp KW for the circus than a zb Renault .

But as for blow up seats.I’m not surprised if the seats in those trucks were as old as the trucks themselves.But you don’t know the meaning of back ache until you’ve driven a Merc 2534 on a 400 mile night trunk.