ERF-Continental:
Via ■■■■■■■ Diesel & Sales Holland I have been told that ■■■■■■■ had a dedicated type for the “Continental” but UK-produced engines,
NTK where the K indicates United Kingdom and the first 6x4 ERF-chassis (1969) had a NTK310 under the hood…perhaps a genuine UK-start
together with ERF to expand towards the continent? Please no discussions again on tipper and/or tractor…it was the SAME chassis though.
At the headlights …it’s a 3MW ERF
Did C ■■■■ of Northampton have one of the first ■■■■■■■ powered ERFs ?
ERF-Continental: @Bewick…that is ESSENTIAL information and despite my footer “■■■■■■■ anything less is a gamble” I understand your Gardner-choice!
I can totally understand it if comparing the NA 250 ■■■■■■■ with Gardner 8 LXB/C. But equally don’t understand why all of the manufacturers didn’t remove the option and choice of the Gardner in favour of the turbocharged 14 litre ■■■■■■■ take it or leave it.Also thereby providing the advantage of economy of scale.
ERF-Continental: @Bewick…that is ESSENTIAL information and despite my footer “■■■■■■■ anything less is a gamble” I understand your Gardner-choice!
I can totally understand it if comparing the NA 250 ■■■■■■■ with Gardner 8 LXB/C. But equally don’t understand why all of the manufacturers didn’t remove the option and choice of the Gardner in favour of the turbocharged 14 litre ■■■■■■■ take it or leave it.Also thereby providing the advantage of economy of scale.
And there spaketh the TN fountain of all knowledge who I do not think he has ever owned or ran a motor in his life !
ERF-Continental: @Bewick…that is ESSENTIAL information and despite my footer “■■■■■■■ anything less is a gamble” I understand your Gardner-choice!
I can totally understand it if comparing the NA 250 ■■■■■■■ with Gardner 8 LXB/C. But equally don’t understand why all of the manufacturers didn’t remove the option and choice of the Gardner in favour of the turbocharged 14 litre ■■■■■■■ take it or leave it.Also thereby providing the advantage of economy of scale.
And there spaketh the TN fountain of all knowledge who I do not think he has ever owned or ran a motor in his life !
To be fair the choice and battle and superiority thereof, between 14 litre turbo ■■■■■■■ v NA Gardner, is a proven matter of history nothing to do with me.
Bearing in mind it eventually culminated in the N14 long after Gardner had been consigned to history.
As I said the issue with ■■■■■■■ UK seems to have been a lag in the introduction of latest developments in the big cam versions, v ■■■■■■■ US.In a similar way that the option of ■■■■■■■ and Fuller was eventually totally outlawed by and to the advantage of the Euro project.My personal theories regarding all that have no place here by the OP’s instruction.
ERF-Continental:
Via ■■■■■■■ Diesel & Sales Holland I have been told that ■■■■■■■ had a dedicated type for the “Continental” but UK-produced engines,
NTK where the K indicates United Kingdom and the first 6x4 ERF-chassis (1969) had a NTK310 under the hood…perhaps a genuine UK-start
together with ERF to expand towards the continent? Please no discussions again on tipper and/or tractor…it was the SAME chassis though.
At the headlights …it’s a 3MW ERF
Did C ■■■■ of Northampton have one of the first ■■■■■■■ powered ERFs ?
Not sure if the picture reflects to the first (■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ERF C. ■■■■ ran…
ERF-Continental: @Bewick…that is ESSENTIAL information and despite my footer “■■■■■■■ anything less is a gamble” I understand your Gardner-choice!
I can totally understand it if comparing the NA 250 ■■■■■■■ with Gardner 8 LXB/C. But equally don’t understand why all of the manufacturers didn’t remove the option and choice of the Gardner in favour of the turbocharged 14 litre ■■■■■■■ take it or leave it.Also thereby providing the advantage of economy of scale.
As an outsider looking in, I would guess that sales/management of the day would have nervous of loosing loyal customers by restricting options.
ERF-Continental: @Bewick…that is ESSENTIAL information and despite my footer “■■■■■■■ anything less is a gamble” I understand your Gardner-choice!
I can totally understand it if comparing the NA 250 ■■■■■■■ with Gardner 8 LXB/C. But equally don’t understand why all of the manufacturers didn’t remove the option and choice of the Gardner in favour of the turbocharged 14 litre ■■■■■■■ take it or leave it.Also thereby providing the advantage of economy of scale.
And there spaketh the TN fountain of all knowledge who I do not think he has ever owned or ran a motor in his life !
To be fair the choice and battle and superiority thereof, between 14 litre turbo ■■■■■■■ v NA Gardner, is a proven matter of history nothing to do with me.
Bearing in mind it eventually culminated in the N14 long after Gardner had been consigned to history.
As I said the issue with ■■■■■■■ UK seems to have been a lag in the introduction of latest developments in the big cam versions, v ■■■■■■■ US.In a similar way that the option of ■■■■■■■ and Fuller was eventually totally outlawed by and to the advantage of the Euro project.My personal theories regarding all that have no place here by the OP’s instruction.
In all fairness…■■■■■■■ (don’t bother the origin USA, UK and/or other countries) WAS and still IS a supplier of engines. At the end of the day each customer, read the
manufacturers/assemblers had reason to apply the state of the art…reading: modern, upgraded, available etc
ERF-Continental: @Bewick…that is ESSENTIAL information and despite my footer “■■■■■■■ anything less is a gamble” I understand your Gardner-choice!
I can totally understand it if comparing the NA 250 ■■■■■■■ with Gardner 8 LXB/C. But equally don’t understand why all of the manufacturers didn’t remove the option and choice of the Gardner in favour of the turbocharged 14 litre ■■■■■■■ take it or leave it.Also thereby providing the advantage of economy of scale.
As an outsider looking in, I would guess that sales/management of the day would have nervous of loosing loyal customers by restricting options.
Where would/could those customers have gone if every manufacturer had acted collectively which would have wiped out Gardner anyway ?.
Effectively that’s what happened anyway when those same customers jumped ship to the foreign imports.
Bearing in mind that the resulting economies of scale and allowing ■■■■■■■ UK free reign to produce everything up to the 400 big cam, at the same the time that it was available in the US.
Would have helped the Brit manufacturers to meet the import invasion head on, with superior products and predatory pricing, at the time they needed to.
ERF-Continental: @Bewick…that is ESSENTIAL information and despite my footer “■■■■■■■ anything less is a gamble” I understand your Gardner-choice!
I can totally understand it if comparing the NA 250 ■■■■■■■ with Gardner 8 LXB/C. But equally don’t understand why all of the manufacturers didn’t remove the option and choice of the Gardner in favour of the turbocharged 14 litre ■■■■■■■ take it or leave it.Also thereby providing the advantage of economy of scale.
That worked well for Leyland didn’t it!! If your customer has always had a choice then don’t take that away from them. Give your customer a choice and he’ll stay with you for a long time. Restrict their options and they’ll look elsewhere. In the early 80’s the Scottish Bus Group wanted to buy Leopards with Gardner engines but this wasn’t available from Leyland. They approached Dennis who designed the Dorchester coach chassis for them spurring Leyland into offering the Gardner as an option on the by now developed Tiger. By that time the Dennis brand had been resurrected spawning the Javelin coach which was second only to the B10m in overall sales, Dart and Trident bus and probably helped to kill Leyland off.
ERF-Continental: @Bewick…that is ESSENTIAL information and despite my footer “■■■■■■■ anything less is a gamble” I understand your Gardner-choice!
I can totally understand it if comparing the NA 250 ■■■■■■■ with Gardner 8 LXB/C. But equally don’t understand why all of the manufacturers didn’t remove the option and choice of the Gardner in favour of the turbocharged 14 litre ■■■■■■■ take it or leave it.Also thereby providing the advantage of economy of scale.
That worked well for Leyland didn’t it!! If your customer has always had a choice then don’t take that away from them. Give your customer a choice and he’ll stay with you for a long time. Restrict their options and they’ll look elsewhere. In the early 80’s the Scottish Bus Group wanted to buy Leopards with Gardner engines but this wasn’t available from Leyland. They approached Dennis who designed the Dorchester coach chassis for them spurring Leyland into offering the Gardner as an option on the by now developed Tiger. By that time the Dennis brand had been resurrected spawning the Javelin coach which was second only to the B10m in overall sales, Dart and Trident bus and probably helped to kill Leyland off.
I was obviously referring to the situation in which none of the assembly manufacturers would have broken ranks leaving the customer with the option of 290-400 ■■■■■■■ powered S/A, ERF etc, sold at a predatory price which the resulting economies of scale would have provided, or nothing.
So Bewick got his wish of 8LXB/C powered S/A v turbocharhged Scania etc.
Remind me how that ended for SA and ■■■■■■■ UK in the Bewick fleet among others.
I’d suggest that history is on my side.
ERF-Continental: @Bewick…that is ESSENTIAL information and despite my footer “■■■■■■■ anything less is a gamble” I understand your Gardner-choice!
I can totally understand it if comparing the NA 250 ■■■■■■■ with Gardner 8 LXB/C. But equally don’t understand why all of the manufacturers didn’t remove the option and choice of the Gardner in favour of the turbocharged 14 litre ■■■■■■■ take it or leave it.Also thereby providing the advantage of economy of scale.
That worked well for Leyland didn’t it!! If your customer has always had a choice then don’t take that away from them. Give your customer a choice and he’ll stay with you for a long time. Restrict their options and they’ll look elsewhere. In the early 80’s the Scottish Bus Group wanted to buy Leopards with Gardner engines but this wasn’t available from Leyland. They approached Dennis who designed the Dorchester coach chassis for them spurring Leyland into offering the Gardner as an option on the by now developed Tiger. By that time the Dennis brand had been resurrected spawning the Javelin coach which was second only to the B10m in overall sales, Dart and Trident bus and probably helped to kill Leyland off.
I was obviously referring to the situation in which none of the assembly manufacturers would have broken ranks leaving the customer with the option of 290-400 ■■■■■■■ powered S/A, ERF etc, sold at a predatory price which the resulting economies of scale would have provided, or nothing.
So Bewick got his wish of 8LXB/C powered S/A v turbocharhged Scania etc.
Remind me how that ended for SA and ■■■■■■■ UK in the Bewick fleet among others.
I’d suggest that history is on my side.
If only British industry had been blessed by your leadership in the 60’s and 70’s we would be leading the way in the heavy truck market. Volvo, Scania and the rest would have been quivering in their boots at the thought of trying to break into the UK market.
Dennis Javelin:
If only British industry had been blessed by your leadership in the 60’s and 70’s we would be leading the way in the heavy truck market. Volvo, Scania and the rest would have been quivering in their boots at the thought of trying to break into the UK market.
I guess that at least one and possibly other UK assemblers, wilfully creating and taking a needless 40% hit, to economies of scale and resulting production costs. Regarding engine procurement, to an already known obsolete liability in the form of the NA Gardner v 14 litre big cam turbo ■■■■■■■■ in the face of the turbocharged import competition, wasn’t an issue of leadership.
Some would call it commercial suicide.
ERF-Continental:
At the end of the day each customer, read the
manufacturers/assemblers had reason to apply the state of the art…reading: modern, upgraded, available etc
Which obviously adds weight to the case for ■■■■■■■ UK manufactured turbocharged and intercooled big cam engines from/at the same time when they were ‘available’ from ■■■■■■■ US.
Also the case for UK assembly model manufacturers to drop the option of NA Gardner in the interests of ‘modern’ and ‘available’ and to create the necessary economy of scale, to compete with the Vertically Integrated foreign competition.
Another good thread wrecked by Carryfast’s faux authoritive, misconceived expertise. Go back to your own planet Carryfast.
Back on topic, which ■■■■■■■ were common/popular there, in the 60s/70s?
We had:
555, usually called triple five or triple trouble.
VT 190, a good engine for regional use.
855/14 litre* in its many guises from NH 220 to N14+ delivering 525hp. The best engine ever built.
KT, an incredibly robust engine of 19 litre displacement and 450hp, pretty much reserved for extreme applications due to being overweight on a single steer axle.
L10, a bit of a dud, quickly superseded by the new, improved M11.
This engine evolved over many years, the bore and stroke remained the same from the NH 250 to the “black” NTC 444 and N14+, but various changes were made to the block, to strengthen it as outputs increased. The liners tended to chatter once the 400hp threshold was broken.
Star down under.:
Another good thread wrecked by Carryfast’s faux authoritive, misconceived expertise. Go back to your own planet Carryfast.
Back on topic, which ■■■■■■■ were common/popular there, in the 60s/70s?
We had:
555, usually called triple five or triple trouble.
VT 190, a good engine for regional use.
855/14 litre* in its many guises from NH 220 to N14+ delivering 525hp. The best engine ever built.
KT, an incredibly robust engine of 19 litre displacement and 450hp, pretty much reserved for extreme applications due to being overweight on a single steer axle.
L10, a bit of a dud, quickly superseded by the new, improved M11.
This engine evolved over many years, the bore and stroke remained the same from the NH 250 to the “black” NTC 444 and N14+, but various changes were made to the block, to strengthen it as outputs increased. The liners tended to chatter once the 400hp threshold was broken.
At least I know that the NH 220 was a 743 not 855/14 litre.
The N14, like ■■■■■■■ UK and Fuller transmissions, here all became a victim of the Euro project as in ‘failing’ Euroland type approval.
If my reply to Bewick’s comments were supposedly off topic then so was Bewick and never would have passed pre mod.
ERF-Continental:
Via ■■■■■■■ Diesel & Sales Holland I have been told that ■■■■■■■ had a dedicated type for the “Continental” but UK-produced engines,
NTK where the K indicates United Kingdom and the first 6x4 ERF-chassis (1969) had a NTK310 under the hood…perhaps a genuine UK-start
together with ERF to expand towards the continent? Please no discussions again on tipper and/or tractor…it was the SAME chassis though.
At the headlights …it’s a 3MW ERF
Did C ■■■■ of Northampton have one of the first ■■■■■■■ powered ERFs ?
Not sure if the picture reflects to the first (■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ERF C. ■■■■ ran…
i’m wondering if this ERF survives? it’s still registered on the Gov. website as a 1961 lorry,and the last V5c was issued 28th Feb 1994. not on SORN so hopefully parked up in a shed somewhere?
sorry to interrupt the arguing by the way
Star down under.:
Another good thread wrecked by Carryfast’s faux authoritive, misconceived expertise. Go back to your own planet Carryfast.
Back on topic, which ■■■■■■■ were common/popular there, in the 60s/70s?
We had:
555, usually called triple five or triple trouble.
VT 190, a good engine for regional use.
855/14 litre* in its many guises from NH 220 to N14+ delivering 525hp. The best engine ever built.
KT, an incredibly robust engine of 19 litre displacement and 450hp, pretty much reserved for extreme applications due to being overweight on a single steer axle.
L10, a bit of a dud, quickly superseded by the new, improved M11.
This engine evolved over many years, the bore and stroke remained the same from the NH 250 to the “black” NTC 444 and N14+, but various changes were made to the block, to strengthen it as outputs increased. The liners tended to chatter once the 400hp threshold was broken.
At least I know that the NH 220 was a 743 not 855/14 litre.
The N14, like ■■■■■■■ UK and Fuller transmissions, here all became a victim of the Euro project as in ‘failing’ Euroland type approval.
If my reply to Bewick’s comments were supposedly off topic then so was Bewick and never would have passed pre mod.
Fortunately “CF” if someone posts the truth the Mods won’t get involved so if the cap fits Son —wear it !
ERF-Continental:
Via ■■■■■■■ Diesel & Sales Holland I have been told that ■■■■■■■ had a dedicated type for the “Continental” but UK-produced engines,
NTK where the K indicates United Kingdom and the first 6x4 ERF-chassis (1969) had a NTK310 under the hood…perhaps a genuine UK-start
together with ERF to expand towards the continent? Please no discussions again on tipper and/or tractor…it was the SAME chassis though.
At the headlights …it’s a 3MW ERF
Did C ■■■■ of Northampton have one of the first ■■■■■■■ powered ERFs ?
Not sure if the picture reflects to the first (■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ ERF C. ■■■■ ran…
i’m wondering if this ERF survives? it’s still registered on the Gov. website as a 1961 lorry,and the last V5c was issued 28th Feb 1994. not on SORN so hopefully parked up in a shed somewhere?
sorry to interrupt the arguing by the way
Perhaps some day this chassis will see daylight again then? I checked Peter Davies’ book “E.R.F.: The worldś best oil engined lorry” and on page 53 the eight wheeler for C. ■■■■ was delivered in May 1961 (indeed registration ONH567) with chassisnumber #10173, ■■■■■■■ NHK180 and David Brown 657 gearbox. It also mentions that this chassis
in 1993 is undergoing a restoration…so likely it’s still somewhere in a shed/garage nowadays.
Star down under.:
Another good thread wrecked by Carryfast’s faux authoritive, misconceived expertise. Go back to your own planet Carryfast.
Back on topic, which ■■■■■■■ were common/popular there, in the 60s/70s?
We had:
555, usually called triple five or triple trouble.
VT 190, a good engine for regional use.
855/14 litre* in its many guises from NH 220 to N14+ delivering 525hp. The best engine ever built.
KT, an incredibly robust engine of 19 litre displacement and 450hp, pretty much reserved for extreme applications due to being overweight on a single steer axle.
L10, a bit of a dud, quickly superseded by the new, improved M11.
This engine evolved over many years, the bore and stroke remained the same from the NH 250 to the “black” NTC 444 and N14+, but various changes were made to the block, to strengthen it as outputs increased. The liners tended to chatter once the 400hp threshold was broken.
At least I know that the NH 220 was a 743 not 855/14 litre.
The N14, like ■■■■■■■ UK and Fuller transmissions, here all became a victim of the Euro project as in ‘failing’ Euroland type approval.
If my reply to Bewick’s comments were supposedly off topic then so was Bewick and never would have passed pre mod.
As do I my venerated (insert sarcastic emoji here) alien, but they’re both of the same family, with the later motors having a larger bore.
The difference between you and Dennis, is that Dennis has walked the walk and earned the respect. His input is relivant rather than the ramblings of a loony tunes.
Star down under.:
Another good thread wrecked by Carryfast’s faux authoritive, misconceived expertise. Go back to your own planet Carryfast.
Back on topic, which ■■■■■■■ were common/popular there, in the 60s/70s?
We had:
555, usually called triple five or triple trouble.
VT 190, a good engine for regional use.
855/14 litre* in its many guises from NH 220 to N14+ delivering 525hp. The best engine ever built.
KT, an incredibly robust engine of 19 litre displacement and 450hp, pretty much reserved for extreme applications due to being overweight on a single steer axle.
L10, a bit of a dud, quickly superseded by the new, improved M11.
This engine evolved over many years, the bore and stroke remained the same from the NH 250 to the “black” NTC 444 and N14+, but various changes were made to the block, to strengthen it as outputs increased. The liners tended to chatter once the 400hp threshold was broken.
At least I know that the NH 220 was a 743 not 855/14 litre.
The N14, like ■■■■■■■ UK and Fuller transmissions, here all became a victim of the Euro project as in ‘failing’ Euroland type approval.
If my reply to Bewick’s comments were supposedly off topic then so was Bewick and never would have passed pre mod.
As do I my venerated (insert sarcastic emoji here) alien, but they’re both of the same family, with the later motors having a larger bore.
The difference between you and Dennis, is that Dennis has walked the walk and earned the respect. His input is relivant rather than the ramblings of a loony tunes.
G’day mate how’s it going with you ? Well one thing “CF” has achieved is his “BS” has spread worldwide as he is managing to ■■■■ off TN Members 14,000 miles away ! Best Regards Dennis.
