What went wrong

[carryfast]

kr79:
How many where here and of those how many where owner drivers who could justify the extra cost as it was just for them big difference for an owner driver or small firm to justify it than a larger firm hence why lots of top spec scanias etc have been owner drivers or small firms rather than Stobarts etc.

It wasn’t so much a case of owner drivers v companies.It was more a case of there just not being many operators,regardless of wether it was a fleet managers or owner drivers,who were prepared to just look at the things objectively for what they were.A good cost effective wagon,that if looked at with an open mind,forgetting all the bs about chrome and sunshine and California,in which the choice was probably between that or a used F88,or at best an F10/12,Scania 110 or DAF 2800.The KW probably actually came out at least as good,if not ahead,in it’s combination of price,easy maintenance and reliability.

There weren’t many here because as we’ve seen both at the time and today there just weren’t enough British buyers who were prepared to look at American trucks from that objective viewpoint or even, at the time when it mattered,who were probably even looking in the market for anything much better than a day cabbed Gardner powered Atki or ERF etc etc anyway in most cases.

It’s not really an issue of ‘top spec trucks’ it’s more one of the difference between the modern european competition that the British buyers went for when they suddenly realised that the old fashioned heaps that they’d been demanding up to that point were actually just that.It’s also one of timing as to when that took place and it’s also one of badly informed market resistance to US designed trucks that maybe the British manufacturers could have used to good effect to compete with the more modern Euro designs if only the market demand had been there and if so had been there at the right time.

Which is why,unlike Britain,the New Zealand road transport industry has been using a mixture of euro and locally made american trucks from since that time,regardless of wether those operators are owner drivers or fleet operators.

[kr79]

So why did paccar not wack a kenworth cab on fodens. There was enough opperators happy and familiar with ■■■■■■■ and cat engines by then and although not having the kudos of a scania still has a loyal following.

[zb_anorak]

So, to summarise:

1. US trucks have never had anything more than a niche presence in Europe.
2. Vehicles using US components have not been sales success, in Europe, in the long term.
3. The US truck-building industry is now largely European-owned and their products are becoming increasingly European.
4. The only surviving large US-headquartered truck-builder leads the European market for heavy vehicles- with an entirely European-designed and built product.

Conclusion:
The suggestion that any European vehicle supplier could have improved its sales, by adopting US designs, defies all the evidence.

Can we get back to the subject of the original post now, please?

[carryfast]

kr79:
So why did paccar not wack a kenworth cab on fodens. There was enough opperators happy and familiar with ■■■■■■■ and cat engines by then and although not having the kudos of a scania still has a loyal following.

It probably would have been cheaper,quicker and easier to just ditch the whole lot and take the chassis and cab drawings in their entirety instead of re engineering mismatching Kenworth cabs and Foden chassis etc and with a more effective result when it was finished.

However at the time when something needed to be done Foden was still an independent manufacturer anyway turning out those typically backward British designs.

It’s really difficult to understand why Paccar then decided to get involved and pick up the pieces after that when effectively it was already all over for the British truck manufacturers with the euro and scandinavian competition about to start dominating the British/European markets and in which the Foden,although with Paccar backing,really wasn’t as much of a competitor as maybe a British built Kenworth would have been,‘if’ it had been introduced into the market early enough and ‘if’ there had been sufficient market demand to make the operation viable in time.

[wheel_nut]

Carryfast:
My stance hasn’t ‘altered’ at all.You seem to have concentrated on the bit about ‘someone from here’ (yes a manufacturer) going over there but missed the bit about having ‘the existing credible customer base’ in order to have been able to have sold the things here when they’d built them.The problem wasn’t one of no trans Atlantic co operation between UK and US nanufacturers it was one of no demand for better products,by the customers in the British market,when it was needed.Unlike in the clonial markets like New Zealand.Hence the double whammy of first the loss of those previous colonial export markets,when their customers woke up first and then went for US trucks instead,and then the loss of the domestic market when the British customers eventually woke up around 10 years later and went for Euro products instead.

In one mans opinion

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:
So, to summarise:

1. US trucks have never had anything more than a niche presence in Europe.
2. Vehicles using US components have not been sales success, in Europe, in the long term.
3. The US truck-building industry is now largely European-owned and their products are becoming increasingly European.
4. The only surviving large US-headquartered truck-builder leads the European market for heavy vehicles- with an entirely European-designed and built product.

Conclusion:
The suggestion that any European vehicle supplier could have improved its sales, by adopting US designs, defies all the evidence.

Can we get back to the subject of the original post now, please?

Any attempt to make the case that there’s any evidence to show that US production and engineering know how could ever be defeated by European production and engineering know how really does defy all historic evidence.

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

Carryfast:
My stance hasn’t ‘altered’ at all.You seem to have concentrated on the bit about ‘someone from here’ (yes a manufacturer) going over there but missed the bit about having ‘the existing credible customer base’ in order to have been able to have sold the things here when they’d built them.The problem wasn’t one of no trans Atlantic co operation between UK and US nanufacturers it was one of no demand for better products,by the customers in the British market,when it was needed.Unlike in the clonial markets like New Zealand.Hence the double whammy of first the loss of those previous colonial export markets,when their customers woke up first and then went for US trucks instead,and then the loss of the domestic market when the British customers eventually woke up around 10 years later and went for Euro products instead.

In one mans opinion

The fact is they also managed to flog a few T 45’s,ERF’s,and Fodens here too but the fact is they weren’t able to compete with the European and Scandinavian competion here or the European and Scandinavian competition there either unlike US trucks could and continue to do.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:
So, to summarise:

1. US trucks have never had anything more than a niche presence in Europe.
2. Vehicles using US components have not been sales success, in Europe, in the long term.
3. The US truck-building industry is now largely European-owned and their products are becoming increasingly European.
4. The only surviving large US-headquartered truck-builder leads the European market for heavy vehicles- with an entirely European-designed and built product.

Conclusion:
The suggestion that any European vehicle supplier could have improved its sales, by adopting US designs, defies all the evidence.

Can we get back to the subject of the original post now, please?

Any attempt to make the case that there’s any evidence to show that US production and engineering know how could ever be defeated by European production and engineering know how really does defy all historic evidence.

The four points noted above are the evidence. They are simple, easily-verified, unarguable facts and the stated conclusion is the only possible logical deduction from them. To make that bald statement contrary to it confirms that you are a wind-up merchant. Clear off.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:
So, to summarise:

1. US trucks have never had anything more than a niche presence in Europe.
2. Vehicles using US components have not been sales success, in Europe, in the long term.
3. The US truck-building industry is now largely European-owned and their products are becoming increasingly European.
4. The only surviving large US-headquartered truck-builder leads the European market for heavy vehicles- with an entirely European-designed and built product.

Conclusion:
The suggestion that any European vehicle supplier could have improved its sales, by adopting US designs, defies all the evidence.

Can we get back to the subject of the original post now, please?

Any attempt to make the case that there’s any evidence to show that US production and engineering know how could ever be defeated by European production and engineering know how really does defy all historic evidence.

The four points noted above are the evidence. They are simple, easily-verified, unarguable facts and the stated conclusion is the only possible logical deduction from them. To make that bald statement contrary to it confirms that you are a wind-up merchant. Clear off.

As usual you seem to have put the 2+2 together,concerning the fact that the europeans couldn’t beat the US competition so decided to buy and invest in it instead,to then make the 5 of the hypothesis that,because of that,it must mean that US products aren’t up to the job in all markets.The reasons why their products didn’t take off in Britain was,as I’ve said,all about market resistance based on buyer stupidity not because there was anything wrong with their products and the rest of Europe can simply be put down to it’s understandable customer loyalty to it’s own products at best and/or open protectionism like European Type Approval regulations at worst.

As I’ve also said it was that same buyer stupidity that was the main reason for the cause of the loss of the British truck manufacturing industry not the unions or all the other bs reasons used to explain the problem in order to deflect the blame from where it really belongs.

The really surprising thing about all that is how the US government has allowed the Europeans to buy up US technology and manufacturing capability when it’s more in the country’s interests to have kept it where it belongs in American hands.That I’m sure is still an ongoing argument in US government circles and amongst their electorate.

However,one way or another,US technology and products will increasingly find their way into European trucks because contrary to the bs idea of the EU all of the European manufacturers are competitors with each other not ‘trading partners’ and as I’ve said sooner or later it takes US products to make the competitive breakthroughs required.

In this case it seems to be just as I’ve said in which at least one major European company has bought into the idea of using US componentry in order to make itself competitive against other European competitors and it’s no surprise to me that it was Detroit Diesel who they decided to buy into to do it.However ‘if’,as as been said here,it’s new engine range has been based on European technology not American,and ‘if’ the evidence shows exactly what you say that it all shows,then it seems obvious that there would have been no need for any major European manufacturer,to want to waste money,by buying into any US component or vehicle manufacturer in the first place .

As I’ve said the only real surprise to me is how the US government can be so stupid as to let the Europeans take the zb out of them by allowing such idiotic trade deals which aren’t in the US’s favour.Unlike the ones which would/could/should have been the case in setting up a US manufacturing operation in Britain in which both Britain and the US could have co operated to compete against all the other European manufacturers not co operate with the zb’s by letting them buy US technology and production capability that they aren’t clever enough to do for themselves.

But it’s no surprise to me that you’re yet another of those on here who just resorts to wanting any argument removed that doesn’t fit in with your own.

[casual_observer]

It appears to be the case , that when ever anyone posts anything questioning your posts Carryfast , we are then countered again & again with you
lecturing us on your version which I must say is now more than a little repetitive .

A little question on your last post , where you say " The reasons why their products didn’t take off in Britain was,as I’ve said,all about market resistance based on buyer stupidity not because there was anything wrong with their products "

Where was this resistance to something that was never marketed , & as many have asked , what were the reasons for this lack of marketing .

If their products were so advanced , & ours were so backward , then surely even a half baked marketing effort would surely have resulted in a more healthy presence for them , & when word started to get out as to how superior they were , word of mouth would have helped their cause , as it no doubt did for Scania & Volvo .

I mentioned several posts ago , about John Deere , Ford & Massey Ferguson tractors , bringing American versions over here & selling in reasonable numbers , why was it that American lorry makers did not follow suit .

Instead of Bedford producing the TM , which you say was the beginning of their walking out on Britain , why did they not seek an early entry with an American Detroit Powered GMC ,built or modified for the British market which surely could not have been that difficult .

Did type approval ever come into the equation , & if so did it play a part in a lack of UK presence

[carl_williams]

Casual Observer:
It appears to be the case , that when ever anyone posts anything questioning your posts Carryfast , we are then countered again & again with you
lecturing us on your version which I must say is now more than a little repetitive .

A little question on your last post , where you say " The reasons why their products didn’t take off in Britain was,as I’ve said,all about market resistance based on buyer stupidity not because there was anything wrong with their products "

Where was this resistance to something that was never marketed , & as many have asked , what were the reasons for this lack of marketing .

If their products were so advanced , & ours were so backward , then surely even a half baked marketing effort would surely have resulted in a more healthy presence for them , & when word started to get out as to how superior they were , word of mouth would have helped their cause , as it no doubt did for Scania & Volvo .

I mentioned several posts ago , about John Deere , Ford & Massey Ferguson tractors , bringing American versions over here & selling in reasonable numbers , why was it that American lorry makers did not follow suit .

Instead of Bedford producing the TM , which you say was the beginning of their walking out on Britain , why did they not seek an early entry with an American Detroit Powered GMC ,built or modified for the British market which surely could not have been that difficult .

Did type approval ever come into the equation , & if so did it play a part in a lack of UK presence

HI

My grandfather’s first Ford Model T was left hand drive with solid tyres imported from USA.
Future Model T was right hand drive made in England.
His first Chev, although right hand drive was imported from USA and future ones were made in England. When name changed to Bedford the new make bore almost identical DNA to chev.
Had GM got Leyland trucks and Landrover I suspect the vehicles made at Leyland Lancs would have had strong resemblance to USA products.
Reading from the press at the time we were led to believe a deal was done to take over the struggling Leyland, then something went wrong and our government were persuaded to ditch the deal. Obviously GM were very annoyed as they had gone to great expense to progress towards the takeover.
Bedford, our largest commercial vehicle manufacturer closed down. It was equivalent to Robert Murdock closing down the News of the World. Only yesterday was it revealed that he has since regretted it. I wouldn’t be surprised if GM regretted closing Bedford, but the Americans are hot headed.
Close on their tail Ford got out of the market. I have heard that they would not have done so had GM kept Bedford. We lost Bedford and Ford.
What power sick individuals from Leyland exerted to stop the takeover no one knows, but these are the same idiots that closed AEC.

Carl

[zb_anorak]

Hi Carl, I’ve just found this, if you’re interested :http://articles.chicagotribune.com/keyword/british-leyland

[carryfast]

Carl Williams:

Casual Observer:
It appears to be the case , that when ever anyone posts anything questioning your posts Carryfast , we are then countered again & again with you
lecturing us on your version which I must say is now more than a little repetitive .

A little question on your last post , where you say " The reasons why their products didn’t take off in Britain was,as I’ve said,all about market resistance based on buyer stupidity not because there was anything wrong with their products "

Where was this resistance to something that was never marketed , & as many have asked , what were the reasons for this lack of marketing .

If their products were so advanced , & ours were so backward , then surely even a half baked marketing effort would surely have resulted in a more healthy presence for them , & when word started to get out as to how superior they were , word of mouth would have helped their cause , as it no doubt did for Scania & Volvo .

I mentioned several posts ago , about John Deere , Ford & Massey Ferguson tractors , bringing American versions over here & selling in reasonable numbers , why was it that American lorry makers did not follow suit .

Instead of Bedford producing the TM , which you say was the beginning of their walking out on Britain , why did they not seek an early entry with an American Detroit Powered GMC ,built or modified for the British market which surely could not have been that difficult .

Did type approval ever come into the equation , & if so did it play a part in a lack of UK presence

HI

My grandfather’s first Ford Model T was left hand drive with solid tyres imported from USA.
Future Model T was right hand drive made in England.
His first Chev, although right hand drive was imported from USA and future ones were made in England. When name changed to Bedford the new make bore almost identical DNA to chev.
Had GM got Leyland trucks and Landrover I suspect the vehicles made at Leyland Lancs would have had strong resemblance to USA products.
Reading from the press at the time we were led to believe a deal was done to take over the struggling Leyland, then something went wrong and our government were persuaded to ditch the deal. Obviously GM were very annoyed as they had gone to great expense to progress towards the takeover.
Bedford, our largest commercial vehicle manufacturer closed down. It was equivalent to Robert Murdock closing down the News of the World. Only yesterday was it revealed that he has since regretted it. I wouldn’t be surprised if GM regretted closing Bedford, but the Americans are hot headed.
Close on their tail Ford got out of the market. I have heard that they would not have done so had GM kept Bedford. We lost Bedford and Ford.
What power sick individuals from Leyland exerted to stop the takeover no one knows, but these are the same idiots that closed AEC.

Carl

EEC/EU Type approval certainly was a factor in the lack of co operation between the US and British car and truck manufacturing industries compared to earlier years before our entry into the EEC and no surprise that it was the type approved products that would have an advantage in European markets,including the British one after Britain’s EEC entry.

However the general British customer base was just as much a problem in that they just didn’t think the American way.Which is why the TM 4400 didn’t sell here nor,to my knowledge were any Fodens under Paccar ever ordered/fitted with the CAT 3408 motor for example.

The same applies in regard to most cases of ‘DNA’ transfer from the US to British products built by British manufacturers with American parents over the years.The possibilities and potential were there but the customers weren’t and that applied the same to car manufacturing as it did to trucks.

youtube.com/watch?v=egq5W9e5 … re=related

That situation would have been the same wether GM had taken over Leyland or not and it seems obvious that the object of taking over the truck operation was to just get control of Land Rover considering that the truck manufacturing operations had nothing to offer GM.

However it’s no surprise that the Tory idiots seem to have been more worried about Britain becoming the 51’st State than it had been about handing control of the country to the zb Germans and the French in Europe and letting the country become a dumping ground for imports from every other country and Europe instead.

[ramone]

The TM4400 didn`t sell here but the V8 Scanias did as did the V8 Mercs and the 12 litre Volvos so who was buying these big power motors (for the time) surely not those very same hauliers you blamed for being backward in their thinking and causing the death of British lorry manufacturing .The more blatantly obvious reason is that no one fancied a big Detroit engined Bedford… here we go for another 3 paragraph reply

[windrush]

Paccar did at least put Kenworth alloy chassis X members in the Foden, and they rotted away after a few years! It was a start…and the end!

Pete.

[lawrence_dunbar]

Aye, the same as their alloy air tanks bolted to steel, then the reaction between the two caused all sorts of problems, the alloy used to mush away to what had a surface that ressembled orange peel, what a let down to the original Fodens Eh, Regards Larry.

[saviem]

Hello all, a sad end to yet another potentially great, and thought provoking thread! You know back in the late 90s, early into retirement from "active "service, I indulged my interests and amongst them started importing “American iron”. Nothing really wild, but stuff that I thought that I could have some fun with, and sell on for a reasonable return. Mainly Kenworth, some Peterbilt, the odd Mack, (really my first love, having worked in close association with them in the 80s), and associated bits and pieces. Mainly ■■■■■■■ powered, one or two Cats, and a few with Detroits. They were great “ego trips” to drive, particularly those with twin gearboxes, but in all honesty they really were light years behind the European offering. If you bought one as an owner driver, then you would love it as your funds were sunk in it, but really anyone who imagines the US offering any better than the European, sadly has little knowledge of our industry! [ZB], in his previous post really sumerises the total picture, the questions are relevant and concise, as is the conclusion. And carl williams is very close to the actual truth regarding GM and Ford departing our shores. Our politicians could not be trusted, they led GM along the isle, but because of the jingoistic histeria regarding Land Rover, failed to turn up at the alter. It was enough to turn the Ford people towards Italy, Italian Americanism does have a certain synergy! All in all a sad old job. Cheerio for now.

[wheel_nut]

Lawrence Dunbar:
Aye, the same as their alloy air tanks bolted to steel, then the reaction between the two caused all sorts of problems, the alloy used to mush away to what had a surface that ressembled orange peel, what a let down to the original Fodens Eh, Regards Larry.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^- And that is very basic schoolboy chemistry

Carryfast the all american boy, how can you explain the fact that Harley Davidson a small agricultural manufacturer didn’t save the British Motorcycle industry, they certainly never harmed it

It took Japanese Suspension and Brakes to make the H-D welcome in Europe, oh and a lot of design input from Porsche. Even now it doesn’t measure up to the competition

[8lxbv8brian]

Did ERF not offer the Detroit engine 2 versions of it in tractor unit spec for a time but no one
took them up on the spec

[zb_anorak]

I have never understood the appeal of Harleys- 1300cc and 60bhp- that is Morris Marina territory, and people used to mock them for having old-fashioned engines, 40 years ago. Can someone explain? CF?