Saviem:
The new operators that the 1964 Transport Act launched into the market were open to new products, not hide bound by tradition and receptive to such" inovations" as turbocharging, power steering, and multi speed gearboxes!
Now we’ve found one of the contradictions between your perception of the British buyers at the time and the reality of Bewick’s buying policy at the time.
Just remember CF, when Dennis was starting out in 1964, he was driving a Thames Trader. You were 4 years old dreaming about the second hand toys you had to play with.
CF, remember the Germans, they looked at Power to Weight Ratio and settled on 7hp per tonne iirc. 280hp was on top of its job
If that’s the case then why did Bewick decide that he needed 450 hp in those Scanias (instead of the 250 in those ERF’s etc ) which my maths tells me was 10 bhp/tonne at 45 t.
In 1964, the weight limit had just been raised to 32 ton, it took another 20 years for it to rise 8 tonne but it didn’t give 8 tonne extra payload, the tradeoff was an extra axle, side-guards and spray suppression. In Germany the weight limit was 40 tonne by then
Talking of Bedfords reminds me of the time i drove a TK, think it had Bedfords own engine in it but it was very underpowerd. I was on my way up to Scotland and deceided the air cleaner was restricting the air going into the intake manifold too much. Being mechanicaly inclined i took off the cover and removed the cleaner element, looked like a peice of insulation, and put the cover back on.
It seamed to go a bit better and all was well for a few miles then it started making a horrible rattling noise. Turns out there was a metal mesh piece next to the manifold to stop the filter element getting sucked into the engine and with no filter to slow the intake air down this mesh was sucked into the engine
Wheel Nut:
In 1964, the weight limit had just been raised to 32 ton, it took another 20 years for it to rise 8 tonne but it didn’t give 8 tonne extra payload, the tradeoff was an extra axle, side-guards and spray suppression. In Germany the weight limit was 40 tonne by then
So going by the power to weight ratio of that Scania,assuming that it was specced for 40 t operation,not 32 t or 38 t,that’s more than 10 bhp/tonne .So why was less than 300 hp,and even less than 200 hp in some cases,considered ok for 32 t operation more than 10 years after the 32 t limit had been introduced here .
I’d say that the uk 32 t limit during all of the 1970’s,with known proposals for 38 t operation not long after, would have been reason enough for the uk market to at least make a few inquiries with the home manufacturers in the early 1970’s about the possibilities of supplying a 350-400 hp truck with at least the type of comfort levels and power outputs that were ‘eventually’ provided by both the Volvo F10/12 and DAF 2800/3300/3600 range,amongst other foreign manufacturers,and which those manufacturers were obviously in the design stages of at that time.A TM 3800 fitted with a derated 8V92 or the full 400 hp and if Leyland had kept all rights to the 680 with turbocharging fitted in something better than the T45 seems logical to me.Unless that is those manufacturers were unlucky enough to find themselves in a market distorted by the fact that the development costs of better trucks for the Britsh market were being covered by the more foresighted buyers in the home markets of the foreign manufacturers who then took advantage of that fact when the British buyers eventually came to their senses too late for the home manufacturers to develop,in Bedford’s case sell, competitive products.
kr79:
The bank robbers lost it by the 70s as Jack Regans granada always caught them lol
No Jack Regan’s state of the art new Granada only just about managed to catch the 10 year old,at the time, bog standard,knackered S Types because by then they were cheap enough to buy to be able to afford to wreck them.
However luckily for Regan and the Ford publicity lot none of those Jags was fitted with a race tune 4.5 Litre XK motor running on triple webers let alone a XJ 12 fitted with a manual box and a 6 or 7 Litre motor. .
I was been sarcastic but what about if ford had offered the 5 litre v8 Granada they offered in Australia and south africa.
If you rob banks you tend to steal a car not spend a fortune tuning it and modifying it.
Believe it or not the xj was never a popular getaway car as despite been powerful and handling well it’s low slung stance and not great rear leg room made getting in and out with the loot shotguns etc a bit awkward same for the sd1 rover. Which also had the added problem of breaking down alot.
The big FORD was judged to be too much too soon, it was launched in the UK because they thought there was going to be an imminent weight increase.
Carryfast, you keep banging on about the DAF and the 70’s. The only DAF trucks in that period where the 2000 2100 and 2300, it was 1975 when they launched the heavier 2800. The 3300 came along in 1982 and the 3600 arrived in 1987. Although the early engines were originally based on the Leyland 680, the 1968 K series DAF engine was much better, even the smaller Leyland 575 engine was improved to meet the higher weights in Europe
Saviem:
The new operators that the 1964 Transport Act launched into the market were open to new products, not hide bound by tradition and receptive to such" inovations" as turbocharging, power steering, and multi speed gearboxes!
Now we’ve found one of the contradictions between your perception of the British buyers at the time and the reality of Bewick’s buying policy at the time.
Just remember CF, when Dennis was starting out in 1964, he was driving a Thames Trader. You were 4 years old dreaming about the second hand toys you had to play with.
CF, remember the Germans, they looked at Power to Weight Ratio and settled on 7hp per tonne iirc. 280hp was on top of its job
Hi Malc I thought the first hp per ton the germans used was 6 bhp as the MAN 16232 Maggie 16232 and Merc 1624/1924 which put all these just above the 228 bhp min. requirement. The next move up for MAN was the 16240 which was a big leap
cheers Johnnie
altitude:
I’m sure Carryfast will put us all right on this one
One week later and you were spot on John .
Someone’s got to do it.
You could rewrite this Carryfast the Second Epistle to the Corinthians.
They could re title Saviem’s post as war and peace.But even if it was twice as long as that it still won’t make that Renault (or F88) any faster.
CF The fastest standard production lorry on the road in the 60s would have been the AEC Mandator V8 and in the 70s it would have been the F88 290 which I drove one for around 4 years and I still don’t know how fast that would go as the tachograph only went up to 80 mph and it would reach 80 before using the spiltter into top but stopping them was another matter. If you drove them without driving with your foot to the floor they were reasonably good on fuel and 7/8 mpg could be achieved on long runs.
The F10 was derated to 278 bhp when first introduced and though it did have more room in the cab it was not up the F88 pulling wise or as fast and I would say from that period in time that maximum speeds were reduced on production lorries.
The D/D V8 was a very thirsty engine compared to everything else on offer at the time and by a big margin plus you were forever having to change gear to keep it wound up and this is first hand knowledge having driven one quite often. I was always an employed driver but even I knew that something that could drink a lot quicker than me was taking away my next pay rise even though it was capable of doing the job why would anyone want to pay a substantial amount extra in fuel costs to run a green oil leaker
cheers Johnnie
Wheel Nut:
CF, remember the Germans, they looked at Power to Weight Ratio and settled on 7hp per tonne iirc. 280hp was on top of its job
Hi Malc I thought the first hp per ton the germans used was 6 bhp as the MAN 16232 Maggie 16232 and Merc 1624/1924 which put all these just above the 228 bhp min. requirement. The next move up for MAN was the 16240 which was a big leap
cheers Johnnie
I am pleased you posted that. I thought 7bhp was a bit over the top. I had read about the minimum power but couldn’t find it again. At that time the German weight limit was 35 tonne gross so 210hp was sufficient
Perhaps British operators were conservative in someways carryfast but with some of the British truck builders attitude to development who can blame them. Look at the aec v8 it was launched while it still had major design flaws and loyal customers who had run reliable aec trucks for years were left with lemons so they went back to something they knew worked and were dubious of trying newer products.
Everyone on this thread who was involved in transport in the 70s has told of the attitude of the dealers and the long waits for new trucks so if you have a successful business and are trying to expand and are told it’s 12 months for a truck and someone is offering you one with a few weeks what would you do.
This happened with hino a few years back paccar shut foden and thought everyone would buy daf tippers hino stepped in to the foden dealer network which had a strong relationship with tipper and mixer operators and were offering a truck ready to go when all the other makers were quoting 12 18 month lead times for a new truck in a booming construction market.
Look at the cabs of the imports they were modern quiet and they had started to provide a quality environment for the driver.
By the time the Brits realised it was they way forward the foreigners upped the game again. Seddon Atkinson offered the more modern 400 series in 75 erf the b series in 75 and Volvo brought out the f10 f12 in 77 and totally moved the goalposts.
You slate the roadtrain which had a good cab for the era and perhaps if the aec v8 had been developed properly coupled to a fuller box and decent back axle that could have been the truck to save leyland
kr79:
The bank robbers lost it by the 70s as Jack Regans granada always caught them lol
No Jack Regan’s state of the art new Granada only just about managed to catch the 10 year old,at the time, bog standard,knackered S Types because by then they were cheap enough to buy to be able to afford to wreck them.
However luckily for Regan and the Ford publicity lot none of those Jags was fitted with a race tune 4.5 Litre XK motor running on triple webers let alone a XJ 12 fitted with a manual box and a 6 or 7 Litre motor. .
I was been sarcastic but what about if ford had offered the 5 litre v8 Granada they offered in Australia and south africa.
If you rob banks you tend to steal a car not spend a fortune tuning it and modifying it.
Believe it or not the xj was never a popular getaway car as despite been powerful and handling well it’s low slung stance and not great rear leg room made getting in and out with the loot shotguns etc a bit awkward same for the sd1 rover. Which also had the added problem of breaking down alot.
It’s probably more like the blaggers were losing the plot by getting involved with wierd substances by the late 1970’s .
The XJ had long been given a longer wheelbase by Regan’s time,providing a (lot) more rear room than the old Mk2 and S Type had and those seemed to do a good enough job as the getaway motor of choice during the 1960’s (although some say that Bruce Reynolds had a liking for MK 1 Lotus Cortinas for some reason probably because motorways could’nt have been on his getaway route ) and the boot was bigger than all those and even if they’d just nicked a bog standard XJ 12 and used that instead of spending a bit of time in the lock up on making a few decent ‘tweaks’ there was’nt much,if anything,around at the time that could keep up with it in the law’s amoury. But I think the Transit van was actually faster and had more room than a zb Volvo 140 or 240 series at the time especially if it had the 3 litre V6 in it.
Think you’ve been a bit unfair on the old SD1 as it was fast enough to win races.But having drove both the 3 Litre and the later Mk 2 2.8 injection Granadas and looked into converting the 2.8 to Ozzy spec the thing understeered enough with just that V6 let alone putting a 302 in it and then there were the brakes to worry about and there’s no way that the thing could stop like the XJ even on standard brakes let alone with the AP racing ones fitted that mine’s got .
kr79:
Perhaps British operators were conservative in someways carryfast but with some of the British truck builders attitude to development who can blame them. Look at the aec v8 it was launched while it still had major design flaws and loyal customers who had run reliable aec trucks for years were left with lemons so they went back to something they knew worked and were dubious of trying newer products.
Everyone on this thread who was involved in transport in the 70s has told of the attitude of the dealers and the long waits for new trucks so if you have a successful business and are trying to expand and are told it’s 12 months for a truck and someone is offering you one with a few weeks what would you do.
This happened with hino a few years back paccar shut foden and thought everyone would buy daf tippers hino stepped in to the foden dealer network which had a strong relationship with tipper and mixer operators and were offering a truck ready to go when all the other makers were quoting 12 18 month lead times for a new truck in a booming construction market.
Look at the cabs of the imports they were modern quiet and they had started to provide a quality environment for the driver.
By the time the Brits realised it was they way forward the foreigners upped the game again. Seddon Atkinson offered the more modern 400 series in 75 erf the b series in 75 and Volvo brought out the f10 f12 in 77 and totally moved the goalposts.
You slate the roadtrain which had a good cab for the era and perhaps if the aec v8 had been developed properly coupled to a fuller box and decent back axle that could have been the truck to save leyland
While I agree with everything you have posted I still think that they did get it right in the end but far to late when they put the DAF cab on the Seddon Atkinson Strato with the big ■■■■■■■ and twin splitter which I considered just about the perfect lorry. I have the idea that this was done under the ownership of "International " but I would not swear to it.
I always thought that the Scammell Crusader 4x2 could have been developed a lot more and it would have benefited from having a choice of engines makes instead of just Rolls 220,280 &290s as the cab was reasonably fine for the time and would have been better if they had taken some idea’s from the ERF european cab which I think was the same motor panels cab and could have resulted into something which would have been on a similar level to the european imports of the time. When looking back it seems as if they had the design know how but not the inclination to develop and refine what was available to them.
cheers Johnnie
Wheel Nut:
The big FORD was judged to be too much too soon, it was launched in the UK because they thought there was going to be an imminent weight increase.
Carryfast, you keep banging on about the DAF and the 70’s. The only DAF trucks in that period where the 2000 2100 and 2300, it was 1975 when they launched the heavier 2800.
Unless I’ve missed something 1975 (and 78) was in the 1970’s and I know that the DAF motor was a much improved version ‘based’ on the old 680 but ‘based’ is good enough in this case being that the issue is all about pre production design and post production development during the period in question which led eventually to the 3600 during the 1980’s which is a lot better than what actually happened at Leyland during the same period with the zb T45 effort .
But the issue of higher weight limits on the continent is just a red herring diverting attention from the real issues of market delay in ‘customers’ thinking concerning power to weight ‘ratios’ and cab comfort levels here in the domestic manufacturers home markets compared to in the foreign manufactuers home markets.
Totally agree sammy but by the time they along with erf and foden got there act together you had to be selling all over euorpe to survive and it was to far a gap to bridge.
Saviem:
The new operators that the 1964 Transport Act launched into the market were open to new products, not hide bound by tradition and receptive to such" inovations" as turbocharging, power steering, and multi speed gearboxes!
Now we’ve found one of the contradictions between your perception of the British buyers at the time and the reality of Bewick’s buying policy at the time.
Just remember CF, when Dennis was starting out in 1964, he was driving a Thames Trader. You were 4 years old dreaming about the second hand toys you had to play with.
CF, remember the Germans, they looked at Power to Weight Ratio and settled on 7hp per tonne iirc. 280hp was on top of its job
If that’s the case then why did Bewick decide that he needed 450 hp in those Scanias (instead of the 250 in those ERF’s etc ) which my maths tells me was 10 bhp/tonne at 45 t.
Well CF I fully appreciate that you lack that most basic of requirements-----common sense----and are quite incapable of accepting a reasoned argument from people who actually purchased and operated premium tractors in the 70s/80s! I didn’t just wake up one day and say to my-self,OK where can I buy a dozen 450bhp tractors Doh!! I bought my first F88s in early '76 and didn’t buy a 450bhp motor until circa '92 a gap of 16 years! In between times I took delivery of many tractors with power outputs ranging from 180LXBs,240LXBs 265LXCs then,of course,Scanias various 81’s,82’s,111’s,112’s,113’s 92’s and 93’s not to mention F10’s and FL10’s this is whats known as development over the years! No doubt in your case CF you came straight out of nappies( aged 21!!) and ran the mile in 10 secs.!!! Give me strength,Bewick.
Bewick:
T’was an interesting time in the 70’s with regards to British built tractor units and engine choices.The premier “assemblers” were Atkinson,ERF,Foden,Seddon and Guy and the main engine suppliers being Gardner,■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Royce and,to a lesser extent,I suppose, Leyland with the supply of 680’s to Foden( where Leyland had a large shareholding).I would say that Gardner were the preferred supplier to Atki/ERF & Foden and to a lesser extent to Guy and Seddon (Oldham).Because Gardner would never increase engine building capacity beyond what their Patricroft plant could produce the main builders could never satisfy demand from their customers for a Gardner chassis.This enabled ■■■■■■■ to step in and fill in the gap with their in-line engines which they developed from 180 through 205 and 220 and then finally up to 250(which I found to be thirsty!) The 205/220’s were very reliable engines and always gave excellent service.Obviously when 6 BHP per ton became law the Gardner LXB took a “dive” as demand fell away but the 240LXB had been launched albeit with a hefty “premium” on the chassis price which I believed further helped ■■■■■■■ to improve their market share with the premiun builders.During this time I think RR only picked up the tail end of the engine market and this was mainly via big orders from the Oil cos. and other big own account operators who weren’t overly bothered about economy or reliability although were concerned with the initial cost of the chassis( as in cheap!) For a number of years from the launch of the Seddon 32/4 their standard offering was a 220 RR Eagle with a few Gardner 180LXBs(probably only when they could get an allocation) Seddon did start fitting the ■■■■■■■ 220 in (IIRC) '73 to compete against the other builders as I believe the vast majority of hauliers didn’t reckon much to the RR220,although you did
see a number of RR engined Atki,ERF and Guy’s enter service with one or two hauliers but this was definitely the exception,We had both a RR 32/4 and a ■■■■■■■ 220 32/4 in the fleet,the RR was a noisey bag of (zb) whereas the ■■■■■■■ was “ace” in every respect!!In the mid 70’s we moved into 8LXB engined Sed/Atks and ERF B series with a Borderer and an ERF A series both fitted with 8LXB’s! Interesting times,Iv’e done enough spouting,anyway that was my take on the 70’s!! Cheers Bewick.
The late Dion Houghton, who was Sales Director of Gardner, was convinced that ■■■■■■■ decided to build a manufacturing plant here to target the UK market after ■■■■■■■ executives had visited Gardners at Patricroft in the 1950s. ■■■■■■■ were amazed at the antiquated methods and labour intensive practises still used at Patricroft. They obviously believed that they could build engines at a lower cost. Not only were Gardner engines more expensive ex-factory the chassis builders such as ERF, Atkinson, Foden, Seddon Guy etc could command a premium price from customers who were willing to pay extra for Gardner’s fabled fuel economy and reliability. Gardner could sell all the engines it could make throughout the 1960’s and into the early 1970s, so even if such as Carryfast is under the impression that Gardner engines were rubbish, plenty of operators thought differently. (was Carryfast traumatised in the distant past by a Gardner engine?). Hugh Gardner allocated his engines on a rationing basis to his customers and because Atkinson upset him at one time he halved their allocation for the next 12 months. A strange way of doing business to be sure, but Hugh Gardner knew that he could sell the engines elsewhere.
The early Rolls Royce diesel engines weren’t very good and suffered plenty of problems in service. RR recruited an engine designer called Keith Roberts from AEC to re-design an existing design into the Eagle. There is a distinct external similarity between an AEC AV760 engine and a RR Eagle. Keith Roberts was the lead designer on the AEC V8-8-- development programme.
Hello all, gingerfold, the RR info is really interesting. I had heard of Keith Roberts, but never met him. In the early days I remember someone from RR collecting a new Gardner piston from Gordon Cadwallader at Oswestry to study the ring arrangement, and I think RR used a number of local operators for testing. Before I went out this morning I had a quick look at my old records,(sad keeping things is it not), the rolls that was fitted into the Saviem was rated at 320hp, which was above the UK output, but I do not know which scale was used to calculate it, DIN or BS. What I do know is that the ONATRA agencies that trialed it, Tancarville, (Le Havre) and Vitrolles, raved about the driveability and outstanding economy! It was up against Saviem 320 V8s (MAN 16 litre naturally aspirated) 280TU and Berliet TR280. ONATRA at that time ran over 4000 vehicles in Europe. Got to go , load of fertilizer has arrived, will try to finish story later. Cheerio.
Saviem:
The new operators that the 1964 Transport Act launched into the market were open to new products, not hide bound by tradition and receptive to such" inovations" as turbocharging, power steering, and multi speed gearboxes!
Now we’ve found one of the contradictions between your perception of the British buyers at the time and the reality of Bewick’s buying policy at the time.
Just remember CF, when Dennis was starting out in 1964, he was driving a Thames Trader. You were 4 years old dreaming about the second hand toys you had to play with.
CF, remember the Germans, they looked at Power to Weight Ratio and settled on 7hp per tonne iirc. 280hp was on top of its job
If that’s the case then why did Bewick decide that he needed 450 hp in those Scanias (instead of the 250 in those ERF’s etc ) which my maths tells me was 10 bhp/tonne at 45 t.
Well CF I fully appreciate that you lack that most basic of requirements-----common sense----and are quite incapable of accepting a reasoned argument from people who actually purchased and operated premium tractors in the 70s/80s! I didn’t just wake up one day and say to my-self,OK where can I buy a dozen 450bhp tractors Doh!! I bought my first F88s in early '76 and didn’t buy a 450bhp motor until circa '92 a gap of 16 years! In between times I took delivery of many tractors with power outputs ranging from 180LXBs,240LXBs 265LXCs then,of course,Scanias various 81’s,82’s,111’s,112’s,113’s 92’s and 93’s not to mention F10’s and FL10’s this is whats known as development over the years! No doubt in your case CF you came straight out of nappies( aged 21!!) and ran the mile in 10 secs.!!! Give me strength,Bewick.
Blimey Bewick so your ideal truck manufacturer would be one who could rationalise it’s product list for ‘premium tractors’ to anything ranging from a 180 hp Gardner powered heap to a zb great big Scania 143 450 .But previously you’ve said that your ideas in the 1970’s were mostly based on Gardner powered heaps and did’nt say zb all about any F88 although some on here would probably have been happy if you’d have traded in an F10/12 (or a 400hp V8 TM if you’d have bought any ) and given them an old F88 instead. :shock
However you still have’nt answered the question as to why it was that you decided that the power to weight ratio,that you seemed happy with,when you specced the 180-240 Gardners,presumably running at 32t gross , then changed 16 years later to around more than 10 hp/tonne for the Scania and why did it take that long for British buyers to figure out that the power to weight ratio,and probably cab comfort levels ,provided by those Gardner powered heaps,was’nt good enough, considering that the home manufacturers would have been capable of supplying something just as powerful and just as comfortable as an F10/F12/110/111/112/140/141/142/143 ‘if’ their customers,at the time,had asked them to develop that type of truck and had then put their money where their mouth was just like Scania’s customers in it’s home market did long before the British ones even thought of running 300-400 + hp trucks .
In that context those foreign ‘customers’ in those foreign manufacturers home markets did come straight out of nappies aged 21 and ran the mile in 10 seconds,more like 5 in the yanks case,compared to their British counterparts.The reason that Scania was making the 140 series and was able to develop the modern trucks of today,while the Brits were buying Gardner powered zb,was because of the ■■■■■■ Brit customers not because that’s what the British manufacturers wanted to waste their time developing and making and which eventually sank their industry unlike those lucky Swedish and other foreign manufacturers.
) which my maths tells me was 10 bhp/tonne at 45 t. 
