kr79:
Do paccar sell any dafs down under?
Yes, definitely a CF cabbed range including eight wheelers and up to 6x4 tractor units, and I have seen photos of 105 cabbed models. Visit the Paccar Australia website
It would never have been a case of a merger between Bedford and Leyland. GM would have taken over and decided what was produced and where they were assembled.
Since the nineteen thirties Bedford had continually produced good products in their product range. Occasionally mistakes were made. We operated about six TM tractor units, and although they had initial problems as time went on with modifications they settled down and certainly were better than any vehicle we had named Leyland. AEC were very good and Guy, but the idiots stopped making them.
Had GM got Landrover, I have no doubt they would have developed and prospered. Perhaps Range Rover might not have achieved their iconic status, but there again with a huge American Market that GM would have had who knows. But had Landrover not have reached production figures they enjoy today under Tata, it would have been a cost worth taking to achieve a strong commercial vehicle industry.
I never was a believer of measuring a vehicle from a month’s test, as apart from very few exceptions problems don’t occur in the first year of any vehicle’s life and you need to measure a vehicles performance over a long period. However like all operators we had our share of vehicles on free loan for testing.
One of these was a Volvo. Vanplan together with Volvo developed the double V, in the early eighties, an integral pantechnicon van built on a Volvo coach chassis, and we had a month’s use of a new one of these for ‘appraisal’ Compared with the Bedford equivalent we were running at the time there was no comparison with Bedford coming on top by every measure. Even the drivers we had driving the test vehicle agreed it was not as good.
As I said in earlier post we bought about 9 new Mercedes 16 gvw as part of a requirement of one of our customers (The customer is always right!) Our drivers preferred Bedfords and so did we .Maybe at higher weights the Europeans might have reigned supreme, but given the chance to take over Leyland and using GM designers I feel sure within a few years GM would have given Scania and Volvo a run for their money
gingerfold:
Just to put the Australian Truck Manufacturing Industry into context because Carryfast seems so determined to keep quoting it, then in 2011 Paccar was the market leader in its heavy sector with sales to a value of 3.0% of the entire Australian Vehicle Manufacturing Industry revenue, Volvo was a very close second with 2.9%, and Iveco had 1.5%. No other manufacturer was large enough to justify an individual mention. The entire Australian Vehicle Manufacturing industry produced vehicles to a value of 10.6 billion Australian Dollars, (roughly £7.2 billion). The industry there has declined by 9.0% in the last 5 years due to the worldwide recession. My source is the IBIS World Industry Report C2811 - Motor Vehicle Manufacturing in Australia. Unfortunately in my trawl through the 60 odd pages of the report I could not find chassis build figures, but using a benchmark European equivalent selling price of £70,000 for a premium spec. tractor unit then I calculate that Paccar produced approximately 3,300 chassis, but it was probably far fewer if the cost of, for example, roadtrain prime movers are factored in.
So what is the point that you’re trying to make 
.As I’ve said Australian built Kenworths are still being made and,unlike the British truck industry,they are still able to compete head on with Euro trucks to date and they are still in the game.Which is all a bit different to what happened in the case of Leyland and all the other British manufacturers.
As I’ve also said a good proportion of those Australian built Kenworths go to the New Zealand market in which operating conditions are very similar to British ones.
As I’ve also said the example of the acceptance Australian built Kenworths,since the time of their introduction,to date,in the New Zealand market,shows (1) that US designed trucks stand more chance of being able to compete against Euro and Scandinavian competition than British ones could and (2) their acceptance in the market,given a customer base that knows what the zb it is doing and wants.
Unfortunately for the British truck manufacturing industry that wasn’t a luxury that it had unlike the Australian one. 
I would have thought the point was fairly obvious. The Australian truck market is not massive by any standards and there is still a substantial presence of European type trucks. New Zealand today is likened by knowlegeable pundits to the UK in the 1970s with regards to operating conditions. The output of the biggest Australian manufacturer (or assembler) is less than the AEC output of trucks in 1972 (3,800 units) and substantially less than the Leyland plant at 5,500 units in the same year. Sorry I wasted my time researching the Australian market for you, I thought that you might find it interesting and useful. 
gingerfold:
I would have thought the point was fairly obvious. The Australian truck market is not massive by any standards and there is still a substantial presence of European type trucks. New Zealand today is likened by knowlegeable pundits to the UK in the 1970s with regards to operating conditions. The output of the biggest Australian manufacturer (or assembler) is less than the AEC output of trucks in 1972 (3,800 units) and substantially less than the Leyland plant at 5,500 units in the same year.
All that proves is that producing zb outdated and/or inferior products,in large volumes,just means that the firm (Leyland in this case) will eventually go under even faster when,in the case of the British market,those customers that had been calling for such zb products,eventually come to their senses and then turned to the european manufacturers instead who,as I’ve said,unlike their British competitors,had the advantage of more forward thinking customers when it mattered,to provide the revenues required,for development and production start up costs.
In the case of the Australian truck manufacturing industry it seems obvious that it understands that overcapacity will sink a firm faster than just keeping pace with demand no more and that it’s customer base is a lot more well informed and open to the idea of buying American designed trucks,in competition with euro types,without continuously applying stereotypical,badly informed,ideas in their buying decisions and choices.
In the issue of the demise of the British truck manufacturing industry the comparison to the Australian one is relevant in the sense that the issue was about the products and the erratic ideas of the British domestic customer base at the time compared to the Australian and New Zealand one and comparing volumes between the two then or now is totally irrelevant to that issue.The fact is that the Australian industry was started up using American designed trucks which,unlike the British ones,have shown then and to date that they are capable of competing against euro types when sold in a market where they have to compete on equal terms in the absence of any bs European Type Approval protection and given an open minded customer base.Which as I’ve said would have been the only way that the British truck manufacturing industry could have survived.
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
I would have thought the point was fairly obvious. The Australian truck market is not massive by any standards and there is still a substantial presence of European type trucks. New Zealand today is likened by knowlegeable pundits to the UK in the 1970s with regards to operating conditions. The output of the biggest Australian manufacturer (or assembler) is less than the AEC output of trucks in 1972 (3,800 units) and substantially less than the Leyland plant at 5,500 units in the same year.All that proves is that producing zb outdated and/or inferior products,in large volumes,just means that the firm (Leyland in this case) will eventually go under even faster when,in the case of the British market,those customers that had been calling for such zb products,eventually come to their senses and then turned to the european manufacturers instead who,as I’ve said,unlike their British competitors,had the advantage of more forward thinking customers when it mattered,to provide the revenues required,for development and production start up costs.
In the case of the Australian truck manufacturing industry it seems obvious that it understands that overcapacity will sink a firm faster than just keeping pace with demand no more and that it’s customer base is a lot more well informed and open to the idea of buying American designed trucks,in competition with euro types,without continuously applying stereotypical,badly informed,ideas in their buying decisions and choices.
In the issue of the demise of the British truck manufacturing industry the comparison to the Australian one is relevant in the sense that the issue was about the products and the erratic ideas of the British domestic customer base at the time compared to the Australian and New Zealand one and comparing volumes between the two then or now is totally irrelevant to that issue.The fact is that the Australian industry was started up using American designed trucks which,unlike the British ones,have shown then and to date that they are capable of competing against euro types when sold in a market where they have to compete on equal terms in the absence of any bs European Type Approval protection and given an open minded customer base.Which as I’ve said would have been the only way that the British truck manufacturing industry could have survived.
For the umpteenth time American trucks were not wanted or suitable for the British market which has nothing to do with the original question “what went wrong” They could even end up like their British counterparts if their stubborn hauliers over in the States dont smell the coffee and realise that theres much better vehicles available .Maybe its the American hauliers fault that the American manufacturers havent moved forward with designs due to market demand for outdated designs maybe they think whats the point no ones gonna buy them … now where have i heard that theory before ■■?
That is a very good point, Ramone. While we may miss the variety of different US marques, they are nearly all gone now, or owned by European manufacturers. The only significant US-owned truck builder remaining, Paccar, is adopting the European “vertically integrated” model, by offering the DAF MX as its standard engine. The old “pick and mix” US truck is almost dead. It took longer than in GB, but the template set out by the European manufacturers in the 1950s has been proved correct again.
ramone:
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
I would have thought the point was fairly obvious. The Australian truck market is not massive by any standards and there is still a substantial presence of European type trucks. New Zealand today is likened by knowlegeable pundits to the UK in the 1970s with regards to operating conditions. The output of the biggest Australian manufacturer (or assembler) is less than the AEC output of trucks in 1972 (3,800 units) and substantially less than the Leyland plant at 5,500 units in the same year.All that proves is that producing zb outdated and/or inferior products,in large volumes,just means that the firm (Leyland in this case) will eventually go under even faster when,in the case of the British market,those customers that had been calling for such zb products,eventually come to their senses and then turned to the european manufacturers instead who,as I’ve said,unlike their British competitors,had the advantage of more forward thinking customers when it mattered,to provide the revenues required,for development and production start up costs.
In the case of the Australian truck manufacturing industry it seems obvious that it understands that overcapacity will sink a firm faster than just keeping pace with demand no more and that it’s customer base is a lot more well informed and open to the idea of buying American designed trucks,in competition with euro types,without continuously applying stereotypical,badly informed,ideas in their buying decisions and choices.
In the issue of the demise of the British truck manufacturing industry the comparison to the Australian one is relevant in the sense that the issue was about the products and the erratic ideas of the British domestic customer base at the time compared to the Australian and New Zealand one and comparing volumes between the two then or now is totally irrelevant to that issue.The fact is that the Australian industry was started up using American designed trucks which,unlike the British ones,have shown then and to date that they are capable of competing against euro types when sold in a market where they have to compete on equal terms in the absence of any bs European Type Approval protection and given an open minded customer base.Which as I’ve said would have been the only way that the British truck manufacturing industry could have survived.
For the umpteenth time American trucks were not wanted or suitable for the British market which has nothing to do with the original question “what went wrong” They could even end up like their British counterparts if their stubborn hauliers over in the States dont smell the coffee and realise that there
s much better vehicles available .Maybe its the American hauliers fault that the American manufacturers havent moved forward with designs due to market demand for outdated designs maybe they think whats the point no ones gonna buy them … now where have i heard that theory before ■■?
The difference is that in the example of that theory as it applied here during the 1970’s it would be right but in the case of US trucks,US truck manufacturers and US truck buyers and drivers it’s (rightly) more a case of them all singing from the same hymn sheet ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ and it all depends on your definition of better compared to theirs.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
I would have thought the point was fairly obvious. The Australian truck market is not massive by any standards and there is still a substantial presence of European type trucks. New Zealand today is likened by knowlegeable pundits to the UK in the 1970s with regards to operating conditions. The output of the biggest Australian manufacturer (or assembler) is less than the AEC output of trucks in 1972 (3,800 units) and substantially less than the Leyland plant at 5,500 units in the same year.All that proves is that producing zb outdated and/or inferior products,in large volumes,just means that the firm (Leyland in this case) will eventually go under even faster when,in the case of the British market,those customers that had been calling for such zb products,eventually come to their senses and then turned to the european manufacturers instead who,as I’ve said,unlike their British competitors,had the advantage of more forward thinking customers when it mattered,to provide the revenues required,for development and production start up costs.
In the case of the Australian truck manufacturing industry it seems obvious that it understands that overcapacity will sink a firm faster than just keeping pace with demand no more and that it’s customer base is a lot more well informed and open to the idea of buying American designed trucks,in competition with euro types,without continuously applying stereotypical,badly informed,ideas in their buying decisions and choices.
In the issue of the demise of the British truck manufacturing industry the comparison to the Australian one is relevant in the sense that the issue was about the products and the erratic ideas of the British domestic customer base at the time compared to the Australian and New Zealand one and comparing volumes between the two then or now is totally irrelevant to that issue.The fact is that the Australian industry was started up using American designed trucks which,unlike the British ones,have shown then and to date that they are capable of competing against euro types when sold in a market where they have to compete on equal terms in the absence of any bs European Type Approval protection and given an open minded customer base.Which as I’ve said would have been the only way that the British truck manufacturing industry could have survived.
For the umpteenth time American trucks were not wanted or suitable for the British market which has nothing to do with the original question “what went wrong” They could even end up like their British counterparts if their stubborn hauliers over in the States dont smell the coffee and realise that there
s much better vehicles available .Maybe its the American hauliers fault that the American manufacturers havent moved forward with designs due to market demand for outdated designs maybe they think whats the point no ones gonna buy them … now where have i heard that theory before ■■?The difference is that in the example of that theory as it applied here during the 1970’s it would be right but in the case of US trucks,US truck manufacturers and US truck buyers and drivers it’s (rightly) more a case of them all singing from the same hymn sheet ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ and it all depends on your definition of better compared to theirs.
Thats a very conveinient answer , i will quote anorak for my reply ■■■■■■■■
[zb]
anorak:
That is a very good point, Ramone. While we may miss the variety of different US marques, they are nearly all gone now, or owned by European manufacturers. The only significant US-owned truck builder remaining, Paccar, is adopting the European “vertically integrated” model, by offering the DAF MX as its standard engine. The old “pick and mix” US truck is almost dead. It took longer than in GB, but the template set out by the European manufacturers in the 1950s has been proved correct again.
It’s an arguable point as to wether there’s any advantage,in using the all in house production of engines and other components idea, compared to the flexibility of being able to put a truck together using different components from different independent suppliers,or wether it can actually cause an inflexible log jam in regards to future development.
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
gingerfold:
I would have thought the point was fairly obvious. The Australian truck market is not massive by any standards and there is still a substantial presence of European type trucks. New Zealand today is likened by knowlegeable pundits to the UK in the 1970s with regards to operating conditions. The output of the biggest Australian manufacturer (or assembler) is less than the AEC output of trucks in 1972 (3,800 units) and substantially less than the Leyland plant at 5,500 units in the same year.All that proves is that producing zb outdated and/or inferior products,in large volumes,just means that the firm (Leyland in this case) will eventually go under even faster when,in the case of the British market,those customers that had been calling for such zb products,eventually come to their senses and then turned to the european manufacturers instead who,as I’ve said,unlike their British competitors,had the advantage of more forward thinking customers when it mattered,to provide the revenues required,for development and production start up costs.
In the case of the Australian truck manufacturing industry it seems obvious that it understands that overcapacity will sink a firm faster than just keeping pace with demand no more and that it’s customer base is a lot more well informed and open to the idea of buying American designed trucks,in competition with euro types,without continuously applying stereotypical,badly informed,ideas in their buying decisions and choices.
In the issue of the demise of the British truck manufacturing industry the comparison to the Australian one is relevant in the sense that the issue was about the products and the erratic ideas of the British domestic customer base at the time compared to the Australian and New Zealand one and comparing volumes between the two then or now is totally irrelevant to that issue.The fact is that the Australian industry was started up using American designed trucks which,unlike the British ones,have shown then and to date that they are capable of competing against euro types when sold in a market where they have to compete on equal terms in the absence of any bs European Type Approval protection and given an open minded customer base.Which as I’ve said would have been the only way that the British truck manufacturing industry could have survived.
For the umpteenth time American trucks were not wanted or suitable for the British market which has nothing to do with the original question “what went wrong” They could even end up like their British counterparts if their stubborn hauliers over in the States dont smell the coffee and realise that there
s much better vehicles available .Maybe its the American hauliers fault that the American manufacturers havent moved forward with designs due to market demand for outdated designs maybe they think whats the point no ones gonna buy them … now where have i heard that theory before ■■?The difference is that in the example of that theory as it applied here during the 1970’s it would be right but in the case of US trucks,US truck manufacturers and US truck buyers and drivers it’s (rightly) more a case of them all singing from the same hymn sheet ‘if it ain’t broke don’t fix it’ and it all depends on your definition of better compared to theirs.
Thats a very conveinient answer , i will quote anorak for my reply ■■■■■■■■
Just as I expected. 
■■■■■■■■ (bol’-oks) n. a conclusion contradicting all contributing arguments; a risibly incorrect hypothesis. [Etym. uncertain].
WHAT WENT WRONG ?
I bet the original poster of this thread is asking himself that very same question
gingerfold:
[quote="ramoneSo who do you think owns the rights to the old companies from the Leyland group then,i know the transport museum at Leyland owns the AEC trade mark but i`m not sure whats included there
Co-incidentally someone 'phoned me Tuesday evening to ask about the AEC trademark. The AEC Society investigated this a few years ago and DAF own the intellectual rights to all the former Leyland group designs and model names. Trademarks are a different kettle of fish and whilst the museum at Leyland might claim to own the AEC trademark I don’t think they do. The AEC Society thought that DAF owned the AEC trademarks. AEC was floated on the stock exchange as a separate company from London Transport in 1933. AEC i.e. The Associated Equipment Company was originally owned by London Transport and it registered the original AEC Trademarks. The person who asked me the question is investigating further and lapsed trademark registrations can be bought. Someone bought the BRS name very cheaply a few years ago.
[/quote]
So if the AEC trade mark could be bought would that give the owner a cut in any merchandise sold with the AEC name on it?
[zb]
anorak:
■■■■■■■■ (bol’-oks) *n.*a risibly incorrect hypothesis. [Etym. uncertain].
Which seems to be a reasonable description of all the bollox put up by those who think that it was the fault of the British workers and/or the unions that they may,or may not,have been members of and the British truck manufacturers.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
■■■■■■■■ (bol’-oks) *n.*a risibly incorrect hypothesis. [Etym. uncertain].This is possibly where “carryfast” keeps his brains (possibly) Bewick.
Which seems to be a reasonable description of all the bollox put up by those who think that it was the fault of the British workers and/or the unions that they may,or may not,have been members of and the British truck manufacturers.
SO WHAT WENT WRONG THEN as a conclusion been reached yet
cheers Johnnie 
Err… Not quite.
I occasionally have a look at the (excellent) French and German old lorry forums. I wonder if their members ever look at this site? I am reminded of the Fawlty Towers episode, where the German guest muses, “How did they ever win the War?” Those Continental lorry enthusiasts are probably wondering, “How did their manufacturing industry last so long?”, having read some of the nonsense posted on this thread.
Bewick:
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
■■■■■■■■ (bol’-oks) *n.*a risibly incorrect hypothesis. [Etym. uncertain].This is possibly where “carryfast” keeps his brains (possibly) Bewick.
Which seems to be a reasonable description of all the bollox put up by those who think that it was the fault of the British workers and/or the unions that they may,or may not,have been members of and the British truck manufacturers.
Have you been drinking Dennis ,Carryfast and brains ■■?
ramone:
Bewick:
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
■■■■■■■■ (bol’-oks) *n.*a risibly incorrect hypothesis. [Etym. uncertain].This is possibly where “carryfast” keeps his brains (possibly) Bewick.
Which seems to be a reasonable description of all the bollox put up by those who think that it was the fault of the British workers and/or the unions that they may,or may not,have been members of and the British truck manufacturers.
Have you been drinking Dennis ,Carryfast and brains ■■?
O K “ramone” but which body part will contain the most sense !!! Cheers Dennis