[zb]
anorak:
To investigate this subject in more depth we need actual facts. Does anyone on here know of a source of detailed historical information about the lorry industry?
Yes just take a walk around all the sites where the factories once stood. 
Oh, shock horror. Carryfast has to demonstrate his cars on wide straight roads. Put that mustang on any track with corners in it and it will do the same, go straight on!!!
Even Nascar drivers can only turn left 
Carryfast:
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.
surely it was Bedford and parent company GM’s fault for fitting them with such a crap(in your opinion) engine the British operators didn’t ask Bedford to design the truck with that engine so the manufacturer must take the blame for all these underpowered TM’s that were sold.
I know it’s not scientific but a mate of mine went out on a fact finding mission to nz and is going back to work soon and said most light stuff is Japanese but the heavy stuff is roughly equal between euro and American. And a lot of the euro stuff is as carryfast might put it British ■■■■. But apparently lorrys from two firms from Cheshire are held in high regard.
At least I’m not the only one who realises the American muscle car loses its appeal anywhere with corners.
Carryfast:
The reason as to why the New Zealand market ‘now’ is relevant to what happened to the (heavy) British truck manufacturing industry (which as I’ve said seems to be what the OP was asking the question about),is that it shows that,in a market,which isn’t subject to European Type Approval,and in which it’s customers know what the zb they are buying and know a good wagon when they see one,it’s,not surprisingly,US trucks that have been able to compete with European trucks not British ones from the time when it all mattered to date.
Type approval regs are everywhere (at least in developed nations - the US, NZ, Oz, Japan included) - differences are a matter of degree. The rest of this para is just you repeating for the nth time your wholly unsubstantiated and ludicrous personal opinion that the customers were the primary cause of everything that went wrong with the British truck industry. It’s {zb] horse [zb], and repeating it over and over and over again won’t make it true.
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.
Amazing. With that kind of sentiment and logic, it’s a wonder I ever bothered taking you seriously at all.
Carryfast:
Probably based on the results of what happens when you give the average modern day British boy racer a zb overpowered,front wheel drive,Japanese ricer heap that’s made out of tin foil, which they then put off the road the first time that they take it out on the road
Do try to keep up with the times dear boy. Japanese designed and built FWD cars these days are pretty much a by-word for well-designed, well-built, reliable, comfortable and (dare I say it) desirable cars that handle properly and go well. In some cases they rate better than the European cars they compete with. Go find me a single current US designed and built car that competes on that level.
Carryfast:
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.
yes but there was plenty of 110s doing the same work. Same as now even in sweden there are more r480s than r620s
Wheel Nut:
Oh, shock horror. Carryfast has to demonstrate his cars on wide straight roads. Put that mustang on any track with corners in it and it will do the same, go straight on!!!Even Nascar drivers can only turn left
More like put a Mustang or a Falcon,or Galaxy on a decent track like Goodwood and most of the euro and Brit car drivers will start whingeing about the unfair advantage which V8’s have over their mickey mouse four and six cylinder opposition.With a few exceptions to prove the rule. 
.
dazcapri:
Carryfast:
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.
surely it was Bedford and parent company GM’s fault for fitting them with such a crap(in your opinion) engine the British operators didn’t ask Bedford to design the truck with that engine so the manufacturer must take the blame for all these underpowered TM’s that were sold.
It’s actually a case of put in the thing what you can sell and what the buyers will buy.Which is why,at the same time as Bedford were selling a few underpowered TM’s,ERF and Foden were still selling even more of their even more underpowered wagons.
I am old enough to remember when the Galaxy’s came over here in the '60’s and raced at Brands Hatch etc, the Mini Coopers pi**ed all over them. No good having oodles of power if you cant go round corners with it, and that goes right back to the pre war days of Auto Union and Mercedes Grand Prix cars when they passed everything on the straights but lost most of it on the bends to 1.5 litre ERA’s.
Pete.
kr79:
I know it’s not scientific but a mate of mine went out on a fact finding mission to nz and is going back to work soon and said most light stuff is Japanese but the heavy stuff is roughly equal between euro and American. And a lot of the euro stuff is as carryfast might put it British [zb]. But apparently lorrys from two firms from Cheshire are held in high regard.
At least I’m not the only one who realises the American muscle car loses its appeal anywhere with corners.
More stereotypical bs.Most so called US ‘muscle cars’ could be built for straight line drag racing,NASCAR or circuit and road racing.But having a big V8,(or V12 in the case of the American built Group 44 Jags 
) always helps against four and six cylinder opposition that’s ‘if’ the four and six cylinder opposition decide to race in the same class without whingeing.
So according to your mate old British (probably all running with US driveline and engine componentry etc) are still well liked in New Zealand but that obviously wasn’t enough to save their manufacturers unlike their ‘proper’ all American counterparts.
ParkRoyal2100:
Carryfast:
The reason as to why the New Zealand market ‘now’ is relevant to what happened to the (heavy) British truck manufacturing industry (which as I’ve said seems to be what the OP was asking the question about),is that it shows that,in a market,which isn’t subject to European Type Approval,and in which it’s customers know what the zb they are buying and know a good wagon when they see one,it’s,not surprisingly,US trucks that have been able to compete with European trucks not British ones from the time when it all mattered to date.Type approval regs are everywhere (at least in developed nations - the US, NZ, Oz, Japan included) - differences are a matter of degree. The rest of this para is just you repeating for the nth time your wholly unsubstantiated and ludicrous personal opinion that the customers were the primary cause of everything that went wrong with the British truck industry. It’s {zb] horse [zb], and repeating it over and over and over again won’t make it true.
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.Amazing. With that kind of sentiment and logic, it’s a wonder I ever bothered taking you seriously at all.
Carryfast:
Probably based on the results of what happens when you give the average modern day British boy racer a zb overpowered,front wheel drive,Japanese ricer heap that’s made out of tin foil, which they then put off the road the first time that they take it out on the roadDo try to keep up with the times dear boy. Japanese designed and built FWD cars these days are pretty much a by-word for well-designed, well-built, reliable, comfortable and (dare I say it) desirable cars that handle properly and go well. In some cases they rate better than the European cars they compete with. Go find me a single current US designed and built car that competes on that level.
So you’re saying that you’d prefer a Jap fwd four cylinder boy racer motor to a supercharged Caddy CTSV,a Jag XFR or an M5 
and you’re saying that you can’t take me seriously.
windrush:
I am old enough to remember when the Galaxy’s came over here in the '60’s and raced at Brands Hatch etc, the Mini Coopers pi**ed all over them. No good having oodles of power if you cant go round corners with it, and that goes right back to the pre war days of Auto Union and Mercedes Grand Prix cars when they passed everything on the straights but lost most of it on the bends to 1.5 litre ERA’s.Pete.
They only time that a mini could p*** all over a Mustang or a Galaxy,let alone a Cobra,is on a mickey mouse track to suit mickey mouse cars.A Kart would be able to p*** all over anything on a zb Kart track.Goodwood,Silverstone,Le Mans or most of the other ‘proper’ circuits in the States are a different matter.
Anyway it seems like you need some information concerning what ‘actually’ happened in the day.
kr79:
Carryfast:
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
yes but there was plenty of 110s doing the same work. Same as now even in sweden there are more r480s than r620s
It would be interesting to see the fuel consumption figures that you’d end up with if you compared a 110 or an F12 and a 140 all running at 50t gross or a 480 v a 620 running at 60t.I’d bet that it would be the the more powerful options in all cases that came out on top and I think the same would apply if you used the bigger engines,in derated form,at 40t.
Carryfast:
dazcapri:
Carryfast:
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.
surely it was Bedford and parent company GM’s fault for fitting them with such a crap(in your opinion) engine the British operators didn’t ask Bedford to design the truck with that engine so the manufacturer must take the blame for all these underpowered TM’s that were sold.
It’s actually a case of put in the thing what you can sell and what the buyers will buy.Which is why,at the same time as Bedford were selling a few underpowered TM’s,ERF and Foden were still selling even more of their even more underpowered wagons.[/quote
Er that didn’t happen on both accounts then did it
Carryfast:
kr79:
Carryfast:
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
yes but there was plenty of 110s doing the same work. Same as now even in sweden there are more r480s than r620s
It would be interesting to see the fuel consumption figures that you’d end up with if you compared a 110 or an F12 and a 140 all running at 50t gross or a 480 v a 620 running at 60t.I’d bet that it would be the the more powerful options in all cases that came out on top and I think the same would apply if you used the bigger engines,in derated form,at 40t.
When we had the "Samson " with D/D V8 at 290 and I had a 250 ■■■■■■■ in my viewline we often ran together carrying the same loads same weight but the samson tared off about 4 tons heavier and the fuel consumption was 3 to 4 for the samson whereas the ■■■■■■■ was around 5 and that was with a straight 6 ZF box whereas the samson had a 15 speed fuller and was a lot heavier on fuel I recall it used to work out that the samson used about a third more fuel than the ■■■■■■■ powered wagon. We also often swapped wagons half way through a run and that made no difference so it was not down to individual drivers.
cheers Johnnie
sammyopisite:
Carryfast:
kr79:
Carryfast:
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
yes but there was plenty of 110s doing the same work. Same as now even in sweden there are more r480s than r620s
It would be interesting to see the fuel consumption figures that you’d end up with if you compared a 110 or an F12 and a 140 all running at 50t gross or a 480 v a 620 running at 60t.I’d bet that it would be the the more powerful options in all cases that came out on top and I think the same would apply if you used the bigger engines,in derated form,at 40t.
When we had the "Samson " with D/D V8 at 290 and I had a 250 ■■■■■■■ in my viewline we often ran together carrying the same loads same weight but the samson tared off about 4 tons heavier and the fuel consumption was 3 to 4 for the samson whereas the ■■■■■■■ was around 5 and that was with a straight 6 ZF box whereas the samson had a 15 speed fuller and was a lot heavier on fuel I recall it used to work out that the samson used about a third more fuel than the ■■■■■■■ powered wagon. We also often swapped wagons half way through a run and that made no difference so it was not down to individual drivers.
cheers Johnnie
You’re concentrating on those zb peak power figures again and forgetting all about the fact that,as is still being proved here,the Brits couldn’t tell the difference between a 9 Litre non turbo bus engine v a naturally aspirated 14 litre truck engine or between peak power outputs compared to a torque curve.
In both those cases you’re actually comparing dumb (naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■■ with dumber (non turbo two stroke 9 Litre bus engine used in a heavy top weight truck).Which is why the Americans,being the clever lot that they are,were busy developing much better versions of both engines in turbocharged form.Which were certainly available during the early-mid 1970’s at a time when the Brits were still ordering and using Gardner powered day cabbed heaps at worst or non turbocharged 7 Litre V6 and 9 Litre V8 Detroit bus engines or naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ engines to run in 32t + trucks at best.
It’s all about relative torque curves not peak power outputs and the engine which can put out the most power,at the lowest rpm,running at equivalent weights will,in most cases,be the most fuel efficient and productive.In this case the comparison would be the difference in torque between a (derated) turbocharged 8V92 Detroit compared to the non turbocharged 6V71 or 8V71 and the Volvo F10/F12 at 32t-38t and Scania 140 v the F12 running at around 50t,and now up to date the Scania 480 v the 620 at 60t.Or even a derated 620 running at 40t.
Carryfast:
dazcapri:
Carryfast:
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.
surely it was Bedford and parent company GM’s fault for fitting them with such a crap(in your opinion) engine the British operators didn’t ask Bedford to design the truck with that engine so the manufacturer must take the blame for all these underpowered TM’s that were sold.
It’s actually a case of put in the thing what you can sell and what the buyers will buy.Which is why,at the same time as Bedford were selling a few underpowered TM’s,ERF and Foden were still selling even more of their even more underpowered wagons.
so what your saying is if Bedford had fitted the TM with a Gardener engine instead of a rubbish Detroit they’d have sold lots more of them,for once you’ve made sense and I agree with you fitting the Detroit was a big mistake by GM
And on and on and on and on like the spoilt child on the bus who wont listen and insists on being a little git
Carryfast:
windrush:
I am old enough to remember when the Galaxy’s came over here in the '60’s and raced at Brands Hatch etc, the Mini Coopers pi**ed all over them. No good having oodles of power if you cant go round corners with it, and that goes right back to the pre war days of Auto Union and Mercedes Grand Prix cars when they passed everything on the straights but lost most of it on the bends to 1.5 litre ERA’s.Pete.
They only time that a mini could p*** all over a Mustang or a Galaxy,let alone a Cobra,is on a mickey mouse track to suit mickey mouse cars.A Kart would be able to p*** all over anything on a zb Kart track.Goodwood,Silverstone,Le Mans or most of the other ‘proper’ circuits in the States are a different matter.
Anyway it seems like you need some information concerning what ‘actually’ happened in the day.
Hoisted by your own petard, the reason that the Galaxie was winning was down to the British (Scottish) driver, how else can you explain how a tiny 4 cylinder 1600cc engine could beat a 7000cc V8?
DAN GURNEY. The only American to have ever won the BTCC championship
The following season, the Willment, Baillie and Brown Galaxies would duel with Jim Clark and his Lotus Cortina in one of the greatest David vs Goliath matchups in racing history; While Clark ultimately triumphed in the BSCC driver’s championship standings, delivering one of his most iconic performances, the mighty Galaxie always remained the one to beat, wherever it raced.
dazcapri:
Carryfast:
dazcapri:
Carryfast:
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.
surely it was Bedford and parent company GM’s fault for fitting them with such a crap(in your opinion) engine the British operators didn’t ask Bedford to design the truck with that engine so the manufacturer must take the blame for all these underpowered TM’s that were sold.
It’s actually a case of put in the thing what you can sell and what the buyers will buy.Which is why,at the same time as Bedford were selling a few underpowered TM’s,ERF and Foden were still selling even more of their even more underpowered wagons.
so what your saying is if Bedford had fitted the TM with a Gardener engine instead of a rubbish Detroit they’d have sold lots more of them,for once you’ve made sense and I agree with you fitting the Detroit was a big mistake by GM
What I’m saying is that fitting the turbocharged 8V92 in the TM would have made it a ‘better’ truck than fitting it with the smaller capacity,less powerful,non turbocharged options.It’s exactly that issue,concerning the fact,that the British buyers weren’t looking to order ‘better’ trucks,because at the time most of them didn’t even know any better,as to what even constituted a ‘better’ truck,that was the main cause of ‘what went wrong’.
The fact that fitting the Gardner in the narrow day cabbed version of the TM,probably would have resulted in more sales at the time,in the domestic market,than putting the turbocharged 8V92 in the full width sleeper cabbed version,actually helps my case that it was mainly the backward thinking customer base,in the domestic market,that sank the domestic truck manufactruring industry.
However fitting the Gardner in the TM,instead of a naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■ or non turbocharged 6V71 Detroit,would have been a case of replacing dumb and dumber with the dumbest .So obviously nothing much seems to have changed in the ideas and thinking of many of those here.