Europeans actualy design cars that go round corners in the right direction do rs4 Audi against that vauxhall I know which one my cash would be on.
[zb]
anorak:
Hi Carl, here’s another Bedford article for you: heritagecommercials.com/news … bedford-tlI reckon the Government was right to be wary of the long-term motives of GM. Its investment in Bedford appeared somewhat half-hearted- the TK was its core market, yet the company took until 1980 to fit it with a tilt cab (TL). The TM was its heavy range for Europe, but GM did not appear to make much effort to market it- its sales were mostly in GB, with a few in Spain and Italy. If GM had taken Leyland over, it would not have wanted two competing ranges of products in the same market. Leyland’s product range, in 1986, was all new, so GM would, most likely, have put their marketing eggs in this basket. Leyland had modern production facilities, so GM probably would have immediately transferred assembly of the Bedford product to Lancashire.
Their insistence of the inclusion of Land Rover in the package was the killer. GM had the facility to continue development of LR’s range of cars, without heavy investment in design, development and tooling- they could simply have built them on US platforms. The same could not be said for Leyland- by 1995-2000, another complete new range would have been needed. Would GM have funded this? The Government’s desire seemed to be that the design and manufacture of lorries would continue in GB, and the best option at the time appeared to be that Leyland’s future was safer as it was- independent of foreign influence.
Do you think so?
Landrover was already part of the deal, which was within days of acceptance. The UK government suddenly moved the goal posts and withdrew Land Rover.
Have you seen the designs GM were working on for Bedford with designers working in the UK? They were well ahead of anything available today. Leyland’s ideas were crap! Why would they want to transfer the middle range from Ellesmere Port?
However the heavy range was a different situation. With Leyland’s production facilities and dealer network, producing and selling well designed products coupled with Bedford European network, and GM’s wealth (At that time)they could have challenged any European manufacturers.
One of the classic mags ran a peice on Bedford and some of there designs for the tl replacement looked good.
By the mid80s the roadtrain with a ■■■■■■■ fuller Rockwell driveline had turned in to a credible fleet tractor and even a lot of its DNA could be seen in the daf 85.
kr79:
Europeans actualy design cars that go round corners in the right direction do rs4 Audi against that vauxhall I know which one my cash would be on.
Bring it on.If the Audi dealers have got the bottle to lose the race lose their car. 
cadillac.com/cts-v-luxury-sedan.html
dailymotion.com/video/x48fbw … cts-v_auto that’s just the slow one so they didn’t upset Brake or the zb greens.
il have the audi thanks
kr79:
By the mid80s the roadtrain with a ■■■■■■■ fuller Rockwell driveline had turned in to a credible fleet tractor and even a lot of its DNA could be seen in the daf 85.
The problem with ‘fleet’ tractors is that they only make less than a fleet price in the used market when the time comes to flog them in a market where the buyer is probably a new start owner driver who wants a premium tractor at a fleet price.Zb residuals was yet another reason why anyone with any sense would have bought a DAF 2800/3300/3600 or a 95. 
But history and this topic shows that there was no long term future for British trucks by that time and market resistance would have stopped any chance of using co operation with the US truck manufacturers to try to create some competitive US bsed products built here unlike in the colonial markets.
kr79:
il have the audi thanks
I’m just hoping that someone at the BBC decides to take that idea up of a race between the Caddy and the Audi for cars on one of the Top Gear episodes.I’d put money on Audi being the ones who won’t show.
Carryfast:
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 replyThe fact that anyone here thought that a naturally aspirated Merc was more efficient,and even in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s there were probably still more British customers buying and running Gardner or low rated ■■■■■■■ powered day cabbed British heaps,or at best the T 45,than there were the DAF 2800 or F12,and the fact that they did buy the Detroit powered TM but mainly in 7 Litre V6 non turbocharged form to run at 32 t,says everything.
It says they didnt want or probably trust a big thirsty american V8 ,i think you will find plenty of Daf 2800s were about in the late 70s early 80s and a fair few F10s which were roughly the same power as the 2800.I would think if you checked up the F12 was more attractive to the owner drivers and not considered as a fleet motor.Another thing you may need reminding of we had a weight limit of 32 tons over here at the time whereas these foreign vehicles especially the swedes were running at much higher weights .I stand to be corrected but weren`t the swedish weight limits 60 tons and if so a 330 bhp F12 would be the equivilant to a 180 Gardner running at 32 tons
Carryfast:
As for Japanese bikes as I’ve said who cares unless you’re one of those kamikazes who can’t afford to buy and run a decent car.As for American muscle cars we’re talking about the state of the art there as it stood during the 1960’s not the 21 st century and in which Jags were the only other real competitor not the backward European or Japanese ‘competition’.Unless you can think of something built by the European or Jap car makers,at that time,which was faster,better built,at the same price.
AR Giulietta Spider, Mercedes Benz 300SL, or Datsun 240z, Porsche 911, BMW 3.0 CSL and you forget that Carroll Shelby raced a Toyota 2000GT
ramone:
Carryfast:
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 replyThe fact that anyone here thought that a naturally aspirated Merc was more efficient,and even in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s there were probably still more British customers buying and running Gardner or low rated ■■■■■■■ powered day cabbed British heaps,or at best the T 45,than there were the DAF 2800 or F12,and the fact that they did buy the Detroit powered TM but mainly in 7 Litre V6 non turbocharged form to run at 32 t,says everything.
It says they didnt want or probably trust a big thirsty american V8 ,i think you will find plenty of Daf 2800s were about in the late
70s early80s and a fair few F10s which were roughly the same power as the 2800.I would think if you checked up the F12 was more attractive to the owner drivers and not considered as a fleet motor.Another thing you may need reminding of we had a weight limit of 32 tons over here at the time whereas these foreign vehicles especially the swedes were running at much higher weights .I stand to be corrected but weren`t the swedish weight limits 60 tons and if so a 330 bhp F12 would be the equivilant to a 180 Gardner running at 32 tons
I think Sweden were only running at 52 tonne train weight in those days
Wheel Nut:
ramone:
Carryfast:
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 replyThe fact that anyone here thought that a naturally aspirated Merc was more efficient,and even in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s there were probably still more British customers buying and running Gardner or low rated ■■■■■■■ powered day cabbed British heaps,or at best the T 45,than there were the DAF 2800 or F12,and the fact that they did buy the Detroit powered TM but mainly in 7 Litre V6 non turbocharged form to run at 32 t,says everything.
It says they didnt want or probably trust a big thirsty american V8 ,i think you will find plenty of Daf 2800s were about in the late
70s early80s and a fair few F10s which were roughly the same power as the 2800.I would think if you checked up the F12 was more attractive to the owner drivers and not considered as a fleet motor.Another thing you may need reminding of we had a weight limit of 32 tons over here at the time whereas these foreign vehicles especially the swedes were running at much higher weights .I stand to be corrected but weren`t the swedish weight limits 60 tons and if so a 330 bhp F12 would be the equivilant to a 180 Gardner running at 32 tonsI think Sweden were only running at 52 tonne train weight in those days
Thanks Wheelnut i knew they were much higher than ours ,so a F12 33Obhp motor running at 52 tons would only have 6.34 bhp per ton a 180 Gardner at 32 tons would have 5.62 bhp per ton so i would say our backward thinking hauliers were quite forward thinking with that very same F12 running at 32 tons with 10.3 bhp per ton
Even now the swedes often use relatively modest powers at 60 ton
kr79:
Even now the swedes often use relatively modest powers at 60 ton
They need to speak to Carryfast he will let them know where they are going wrong .
He talks about as much sense as the Swedish chef from the muppets. 
ramone:
Wheel Nut:
ramone:
Carryfast:
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 replyThe fact that anyone here thought that a naturally aspirated Merc was more efficient,and even in the late 1970’s and early 1980’s there were probably still more British customers buying and running Gardner or low rated ■■■■■■■ powered day cabbed British heaps,or at best the T 45,than there were the DAF 2800 or F12,and the fact that they did buy the Detroit powered TM but mainly in 7 Litre V6 non turbocharged form to run at 32 t,says everything.
It says they didnt want or probably trust a big thirsty american V8 ,i think you will find plenty of Daf 2800s were about in the late
70s early80s and a fair few F10s which were roughly the same power as the 2800.I would think if you checked up the F12 was more attractive to the owner drivers and not considered as a fleet motor.Another thing you may need reminding of we had a weight limit of 32 tons over here at the time whereas these foreign vehicles especially the swedes were running at much higher weights .I stand to be corrected but weren`t the swedish weight limits 60 tons and if so a 330 bhp F12 would be the equivilant to a 180 Gardner running at 32 tonsI think Sweden were only running at 52 tonne train weight in those days
Thanks Wheelnut i knew they were much higher than ours ,so a F12 33Obhp motor running at 52 tons would only have 6.34 bhp per ton a 180 Gardner at 32 tons would have 5.62 bhp per ton so i would say our backward thinking hauliers were quite forward thinking with that very same F12 running at 32 tons with 10.3 bhp per ton
You did refer to the naturally aspirated ‘Merc V8’ in your comments,which in addition to probably being thirstier than the 8V92 in derated TM form,it wasn’t as powerful either.I’d be very surprised if the Swedes considered the F12 as being sufficient at 50t considering the fact that to get that power it needed to taken up to 2,000 + rpm to get it with obviously a lot less power than that being available at the lower more fuel efficient and less stressed engine speeds than the Scania (or Detroit) V8 would be putting out at those speeds.So it’s not surprising that Scania decided to spend a lot of time and effort in developing it’s V8 range in the knowledge that there would be plenty of customers in the domestic market for it.
I think there certainly weren’t ‘plenty’ of F10’s or DAF 2800’s about in the late 1970’s here compared to the outdated British designs which were still preferred by most operators at that time from memory and if as you say that the British buyers weren’t backward,as I’ve said,then how was it that anyone could have been stupid enough to consider that the TM would be more efficient with the 7 or 9 Litre V6 or V8 71 series non turbo Detroit in it without asking to have the 8V92 turbo motor in it instead.I think the same also applies to the use of naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ engines instead of using the available turbocharged ones.
I think on the issue of power requirements it was a simple case of the British operators being a bit slow on the uptake in understanding that more power,where it’s developed at lower engine speeds,actually means more fuel efficiency,and more productivety,not less.The issue of driver comfort was something else.
ramone:
kr79:
Even now the swedes often use relatively modest powers at 60 tonThey need to speak to Carryfast he will let them know where they are going wrong .
Really 
.They don’t need me to tell them anything they don’t already know and that I was taught almost 37 years ago.
kr79:
He talks about as much sense as the Swedish chef from the muppets.
If his auntie had a pair of ■■■■■■■■ she would have been his uncle. Everything is hypothetical, and most of it is wide of the mark.
I have mentioned before, that his name is wrong. He is “simply” known as IF BUT AND SHOULD
To investigate this subject in more depth we need actual facts. For each manufacturer, through the years:
Vehicle sales figures in each European market, by market segment.
Sales revenue.
R&D expenditure.
Sales and marketing expenditure.
Etc.
There are no books, that I know of at least, which cover it. Most, for example that by Michael Edwardes, seem to focus on the trials and tribulations of British Leyland. Where could I research the above stuff? Does anyone on here know of a source of detailed historical information about the lorry industry?
[zb]
anorak:
To investigate this subject in more depth we need actual facts. For each manufacturer, through the years:
Vehicle sales figures in each European market, by market segment.
Sales revenue.
R&D expenditure.
Sales and marketing expenditure.
Etc.There are no books, that I know of at least, which cover it. Most, for example that by Michael Edwardes, seem to focus on the trials and tribulations of British Leyland. Where could I research the above stuff? Does anyone on here know of a source of detailed historical information about the lorry industry?
I have looked today at market share in New Zealand and it appears the Japanese lead the field in commercials, although it does include light commercials so is not conclusive!
Wheel Nut:
Carryfast:
As for Japanese bikes as I’ve said who cares unless you’re one of those kamikazes who can’t afford to buy and run a decent car.As for American muscle cars we’re talking about the state of the art there as it stood during the 1960’s not the 21 st century and in which Jags were the only other real competitor not the backward European or Japanese ‘competition’.Unless you can think of something built by the European or Jap car makers,at that time,which was faster,better built,at the same price.AR Giulietta Spider, Mercedes Benz 300SL, or Datsun 240z, Porsche 911, BMW 3.0 CSL and you forget that Carroll Shelby raced a Toyota 2000GT
Carroll Shelby never won at Le Mans with a Toyota and the Merc would have cost more used than probably two new Mustangs the Datsun and the BMW 3.0 Litre were 1970’s not 1960’s and the four cylinder 2000 CS and Alfas were just a joke in comparison.