What went wrong

[casual_observer]

The actual dates seem to blow your supposed timeline apart.Those dinosaur Atkis etc were certainly still being ordered when I started with the firm in 1975 and still in widespread use when I got made redundant in 1980.The TM didn’t need to wait until the early 1980s to be developed because everything required was already there from the mid 1970’s on.Except,of course the backward British customers .I had a reasonable idea of just how good those American components could make a truck go from when I actually started having,obviously unlike most British operators at the time,been able to understand torque,in addition to,power output figures,and the difference that makes to how a truck will go.However that’s not the same thing as confirming it by driving the things.

I doubt there were that many being ordered in '75 , the reputed last built Atki Borderer KAM 355P was registered for the road use on 01-08-75 , & I note that rare occasion you actually agree with something in this topic that large numbers of them would still be giving good reliable service into the '80s

On a lighter note though in this year of Her Majesty’s Golden Jubilee , if Carryfast were to attend any celebration to this , he would no doubt much prefer to hear a rendition of

THE STAR BANGLED SPANNER

[ramone]

Carryfast:

ramone:
You blame the backward thinking hauliers for speccing low powered Gardners and the like but quite a few V8 mandators went on the road between 68 and 70 and from what i can gather it was those very same backward hauliers that were buying them.The V8 was rated around 247 bhp in non turbo charged guise which was pretty high for 68 and if the real culprits responsible for the demise of British truck manufacturing had have opened the ■■■■■ strings a little more instead of pumping money into gas turbines and headless wonders AEC may have died with its name untarnished but then again if those backward hauliers hadnt have bought the V8 then your argument might have had a crumb of substance to it.As for US manufacturers saving our industry …

You say that ‘quite a few’ 247 hp naturally aspirated V8 Mandators were being put on the road obviously by operators who didn’t have the sense to say to the dealers,why the zb are you putting that boat anchor in that a zb ergo cabbed heap while Scania are already busy getting on with making their 350 turbocharged V8 and ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ later on Volvo were all busy with getting on with their turbocharged 300 hp + six cylinder motors while Detroit would be putting the turbocharged 92 series into production shortly.All of which would provide better power at lower engine speeds therefore better productivety and efficiency.The same issue also applies in respect of all those orders for the naturally aspirated Gardner 240 8 cylinder powered wagons.

Or,was it more likely,that the dealers said we’re thinking of going down the route of the latest thinking in the US and Scandinavia by producing much more powerful and more comfortable wagons would you be interested.

The answer came back no zb off you must be dreaming this isn’t the wide open spaces of zb America and Scandinavia and we’re not pulling Scandinavian weights either and more power means more fuel,always,and if our drivers don’t like what they’re driving they know where the zb gate is.

As for the US saving our industry.I think ERF,Foden,and and others,including Leyland,would have gone under a lot sooner,and the debts left behind would have been far greater,if it hadn’t have been for the availability and use of US componentry in a half hearted and belated attempt (to try to) make up for the lost development time that those backward operators had cost them during the early-mid 1970’s.

In my own case I wouldn’t even have had a job to start with because my own employers wouldn’t even have had many,if any,products to sell since around 5 years before I had even started with them in 1975.

Youre not making sense ,there was quite alot of excitement when the V8 AEC was launched and if you read some of the comments on the V8 thread from drivers that actually drove it ,it may make you change your mind ,no ignore that last bit you cant educate pork.The V8 was a flying machine but Leyland (who hated AEC) starved them of development cash,instead pouring it into the headless wonder the gas turbine and the Leyland National.AEC produced a turbo version but reliability was the problem something never being associated with AEC before.They had overcome the problems by 1974 (they also had a turbo version of the AV505 ) but Leyland said NO .That could have been the flagship in the Marathon.You refer to the V8 as a boat anchor but you have never driven 1 whereas many on here raved about them and the people in the know said the engine had real potential.You mention the V8 Scania engine but very few Scanias were about in 68 along with Volvos so why would anyone opt for something they wouldnt trust as they knew very little about it whereas AEC had an excellent reputation before the ill fated "merger".As for the ergo it was a modern cab when first introduced what makes me wonder though is youre coming out with all these ridiculous statements but if you started working in the manufacturing industry in `75 you would know all about recent events and reputations and without doubt the performance of the AEC V8 … it really does make me wonder … just saying

[endit]

Casual Observer:
The actual dates seem to blow your supposed timeline apart.Those dinosaur Atkis etc were certainly still being ordered when I started with the firm in 1975 and still in widespread use when I got made redundant in 1980.The TM didn’t need to wait until the early 1980s to be developed because everything required was already there from the mid 1970’s on.Except,of course the backward British customers .I had a reasonable idea of just how good those American components could make a truck go from when I actually started having,obviously unlike most British operators at the time,been able to understand torque,in addition to,power output figures,and the difference that makes to how a truck will go.However that’s not the same thing as confirming it by driving the things.

I doubt there were that many being ordered in '75 , the reputed last built Atki Borderer KAM 355P was registered for the road use on 01-08-75 , & I note that rare occasion you actually agree with something in this topic that large numbers of them would still be giving good reliable service into the '80s

On a lighter note though in this year of Her Majesty’s Golden Jubilee , if Carryfast were to attend any celebration to this , he would no doubt much prefer to hear a rendition of

THE STAR BANGLED SPANNER

More like the Star-eyed mangled spanner, but you’re obviously on the right track!

[carryfast]

kr79:
Still got beat by a datsun

So did a Ferrari 599 and a Veyron.But it only beat a Caterham 500 by 0.1 of a second.

Not really surprising.Kart track not Silverstone or Monza etc and the Jag was lumbered with an auto box and torque converter and relatively longer overall gearing than it could run with.In real world conditions it’s the bigger engined competition that can run at sustained high speeds for longer without the motor needing a rebuild before it grenades itself.

The top gear race would probably have been a lot closer if the Jag was given a proper manual box allowing a lot more of it’s power to reach the wheels and lower overall gearing considering it’s geared high enough to still need a speed limiter to keep it down to 185 mph.

[skudo]

Wheel Nut:
I think it has been touched upon. The attitude of the manufacturers and dealers to the customers.

There are those that will still swear on the Atkinsons ERF and Fodens. One of my favourite British lorries was an ERF C40 with 14 litre ■■■■■■■■ Fuller and a huge comfortable cabs. I preferred the Sudden Accident Strato to the DAF 95

The Bathgate built animals were a good tool for the construction industry, Bison, Buffalo, Octopus, Reiver and Clydesdale. With proper investment the Scammell Crusader and Leyland Marathon were the future. Then turns up the T45 which was probably built to price not design

Scania and Volvo had gained a foothold in the UK by being driver acceptable, never the most powerful or cheapest lorries available, but certainly sought after.

Industrial action in BMC, Leyland and the suppliers had ■■■■■■ so many buyers off that they wanted something reliable, not only physically but a reliable supply of vehicles.

If you wanted a ERF or Foden with a certain engine you were given what they had, or what they wanted to sell you at the time. If you rang Volvo, they would pull all the stops out to ensure what you wanted was available or built specially.

That is my memories of it all and as mentioned with the car division, anyone who is passionate about all things British is using flowery spectacles.

Hillman Limp
Austin All Agro
Austin Prince SS
BL Maxi Fail
BL Landcrab
Morris Marian
Triumph Snag
Triumph Dolopp$*ite
Rover Metro Super!!
Rover Sterling (cost a lot, worth little)
Triumph AC Lame

The British Truck industry went the same way as the Motorcycle and Motorcar industries,which was caused by a bunch of old ■■■■■ that had their heads buried in the 1940’s.They would not,or could not,accept that the vehicles they were churning out were totally unsuited for the modern Britain;who in their right head would want to potter around London,or any other busy city,with an old ERF or FODEN with a twin splitter and no power steering,etc,whilst the Germans and Swedes were turning out trucks that were 10 years ahead of anything British.
The other drawback,was how long the British firms took to realize that sleeper cabs were very much needed,and yet they were still pushing day cabs instead.Along with the reliability problems and spares availability they literally cut their own throats.This also applied to light commercials and you only have to look at the Sherpa and Commers,etc,and you will be foolish to disagree.The fact that BRS and National Freight in general,mostly stuck to British trucks,albeit,with pressure from the goverment of the day,did not do the industry any favours either,as the manufacturers just carried on making antiquated vehicles,because they could get away with it.
So,taken at face value it was their arrogance and stupidity that brought them down,but I personally believe that successive goverments had ulterior motives for destroying the nations manufacturing industries and one day it will all become clear,but until then we must do what the British do best,and that is do NOTHING.

[truckfing]

Finally it has come back to my view that all governments at all times have been responsible for the damage done to the industry. From the red flag onwards British haulage has been run down.

[carryfast]

Casual Observer:
The actual dates seem to blow your supposed timeline apart.Those dinosaur Atkis etc were certainly still being ordered when I started with the firm in 1975 and still in widespread use when I got made redundant in 1980.

the reputed last built Atki Borderer KAM 355P was registered for the road use on 01-08-75 , & I note that rare occasion you actually agree with something in this topic that large numbers of them would still be giving good reliable service into the '80s

I said dinosaur Atkis ‘ETC’.

viewtopic.php?f=35&t=72464&hilit=carryfast&start=60#p931487

[carryfast]

skudo:

Wheel Nut:
I think it has been touched upon. The attitude of the manufacturers and dealers to the customers.

There are those that will still swear on the Atkinsons ERF and Fodens. One of my favourite British lorries was an ERF C40 with 14 litre ■■■■■■■■ Fuller and a huge comfortable cabs. I preferred the Sudden Accident Strato to the DAF 95

The Bathgate built animals were a good tool for the construction industry, Bison, Buffalo, Octopus, Reiver and Clydesdale. With proper investment the Scammell Crusader and Leyland Marathon were the future. Then turns up the T45 which was probably built to price not design

Scania and Volvo had gained a foothold in the UK by being driver acceptable, never the most powerful or cheapest lorries available, but certainly sought after.

Industrial action in BMC, Leyland and the suppliers had ■■■■■■ so many buyers off that they wanted something reliable, not only physically but a reliable supply of vehicles.

If you wanted a ERF or Foden with a certain engine you were given what they had, or what they wanted to sell you at the time. If you rang Volvo, they would pull all the stops out to ensure what you wanted was available or built specially.

That is my memories of it all and as mentioned with the car division, anyone who is passionate about all things British is using flowery spectacles.

Hillman Limp
Austin All Agro
Austin Prince SS
BL Maxi Fail
BL Landcrab
Morris Marian
Triumph Snag
Triumph Dolopp$*ite
Rover Metro Super!!
Rover Sterling (cost a lot, worth little)
Triumph AC Lame

The British Truck industry went the same way as the Motorcycle and Motorcar industries,which was caused by a bunch of old ■■■■■ that had their heads buried in the 1940’s.They would not,or could not,accept that the vehicles they were churning out were totally unsuited for the modern Britain;who in their right head would want to potter around London,or any other busy city,with an old ERF or FODEN with a twin splitter and no power steering,etc,whilst the Germans and Swedes were turning out trucks that were 10 years ahead of anything British.
The other drawback,was how long the British firms took to realize that sleeper cabs were very much needed,and yet they were still pushing day cabs instead.Along with the reliability problems and spares availability they literally cut their own throats.This also applied to light commercials and you only have to look at the Sherpa and Commers,etc,and you will be foolish to disagree.The fact that BRS and National Freight in general,mostly stuck to British trucks,albeit,with pressure from the goverment of the day,did not do the industry any favours either,as the manufacturers just carried on making antiquated vehicles,because they could get away with it.
So,taken at face value it was their arrogance and stupidity that brought them down,but I personally believe that successive goverments had ulterior motives for destroying the nations manufacturing industries and one day it will all become clear,but until then we must do what the British do best,and that is do NOTHING.

Seems like you’ve missed all the countless posts telling you that they were only building what the British operators would buy.

[dave_the_renegade]

Casual Observer:
The actual dates seem to blow your supposed timeline apart.Those dinosaur Atkis etc were certainly still being ordered when I started with the firm in 1975 and still in widespread use when I got made redundant in 1980.The TM didn’t need to wait until the early 1980s to be developed because everything required was already there from the mid 1970’s on.Except,of course the backward British customers .I had a reasonable idea of just how good those American components could make a truck go from when I actually started having,obviously unlike most British operators at the time,been able to understand torque,in addition to,power output figures,and the difference that makes to how a truck will go.However that’s not the same thing as confirming it by driving the things.

I doubt there were that many being ordered in '75 , the reputed last built Atki Borderer KAM 355P was registered for the road use on 01-08-75 , & I note that rare occasion you actually agree with something in this topic that large numbers of them would still be giving good reliable service into the '80s

On a lighter note though in this year of Her Majesty’s Golden Jubilee , if Carryfast were to attend any celebration to this , he would no doubt much prefer to hear a rendition of

Owned by David Edwards of Knighton,Radnorshire.

[240_gardner]

Wheel Nut:
A rare 1970 motor that would be the pride of the fleet and a proper drivers dream lorry
flic.kr/p/5ePJmX

Well chosen Mr. Nut - the very lorry in which I passed my test in 1981!

[the_mechanic_51]

I’ll tell you what went wrong. Someone let Carryfast loose on this thread.

[endit]

the mechanic 51:
I’ll tell you what went wrong. Someone let Carryfast loose on this thread.

Oh, look! Someone with a grasp of reality!

[8lxbv8brian]

Waugh’s last DENO The only bother with it was the terrible SED/ATK back axle ,

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:
You blame the backward thinking hauliers for speccing low powered Gardners and the like but quite a few V8 mandators went on the road between 68 and 70 and from what i can gather it was those very same backward hauliers that were buying them.The V8 was rated around 247 bhp in non turbo charged guise which was pretty high for 68 and if the real culprits responsible for the demise of British truck manufacturing had have opened the ■■■■■ strings a little more instead of pumping money into gas turbines and headless wonders AEC may have died with its name untarnished but then again if those backward hauliers hadnt have bought the V8 then your argument might have had a crumb of substance to it.As for US manufacturers saving our industry …

You say that ‘quite a few’ 247 hp naturally aspirated V8 Mandators were being put on the road obviously by operators who didn’t have the sense to say to the dealers,why the zb are you putting that boat anchor in that a zb ergo cabbed heap while Scania are already busy getting on with making their 350 turbocharged V8 and ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ later on Volvo were all busy with getting on with their turbocharged 300 hp + six cylinder motors while Detroit would be putting the turbocharged 92 series into production shortly.All of which would provide better power at lower engine speeds therefore better productivety and efficiency.The same issue also applies in respect of all those orders for the naturally aspirated Gardner 240 8 cylinder powered wagons.

Or,was it more likely,that the dealers said we’re thinking of going down the route of the latest thinking in the US and Scandinavia by producing much more powerful and more comfortable wagons would you be interested.

The answer came back no zb off you must be dreaming this isn’t the wide open spaces of zb America and Scandinavia and we’re not pulling Scandinavian weights either and more power means more fuel,always,and if our drivers don’t like what they’re driving they know where the zb gate is.

As for the US saving our industry.I think ERF,Foden,and and others,including Leyland,would have gone under a lot sooner,and the debts left behind would have been far greater,if it hadn’t have been for the availability and use of US componentry in a half hearted and belated attempt (to try to) make up for the lost development time that those backward operators had cost them during the early-mid 1970’s.

In my own case I wouldn’t even have had a job to start with because my own employers wouldn’t even have had many,if any,products to sell since around 5 years before I had even started with them in 1975.

Youre not making sense ,there was quite alot of excitement when the V8 AEC was launched and if you read some of the comments on the V8 thread from drivers that actually drove it ,it may make you change your mind ,no ignore that last bit you cant educate pork.The V8 was a flying machine but Leyland (who hated AEC) starved them of development cash,instead pouring it into the headless wonder the gas turbine and the Leyland National.AEC produced a turbo version but reliability was the problem something never being associated with AEC before.They had overcome the problems by 1974 (they also had a turbo version of the AV505 ) but Leyland said NO .That could have been the flagship in the Marathon.You refer to the V8 as a boat anchor but you have never driven 1 whereas many on here raved about them and the people in the know said the engine had real potential.You mention the V8 Scania engine but very few Scanias were about in 68 along with Volvos so why would anyone opt for something they wouldnt trust as they knew very little about it whereas AEC had an excellent reputation before the ill fated "merger".As for the ergo it was a modern cab when first introduced what makes me wonder though is youre coming out with all these ridiculous statements but if you started working in the manufacturing industry in `75 you would know all about recent events and reputations and without doubt the performance of the AEC V8 … it really does make me wonder … just saying

Trust me if the AEC V8 had been any good then that’s what they would have been putting into those ‘flying machine’ fire trucks not Detroits.

And if the ergo cab had been any good then that’s what Leyland would have stuck with instead of wasting yet more money on the T 45 and if customers trusted the AEC V8 so much and if it was so efficient then why did Leyland’s buyers desert them later on to buy those ‘untrustworthy’ scandinavian and euro wagons when they finally realised that’s the type of power outputs and cab comfort levels that Leyland etc should have been building 5-10 years previously.

But the main reputation which I heard at the time concerning AEC was all about the TL 12 not any of it’s V8’s.However the DAF 2800 and the numerous turbocharged ■■■■■■■ options all semed to provide as good or better outputs.So no surprise that the TL 12 didn’t seem to be popular in the T 45 and most customers at the time for what remained of the British truck products chose the ■■■■■■■ motor fist (too long)in naturally aspirated form and then,when those customers had got their act together they chose the turbocharged ■■■■■■■ option.

But for V8’s it was Scania,Detroit and FIAT,and CAT that had already done more than anything that AEC could possibly have developed.

[skudo]

Carryfast:

ParkRoyal2100:

Carryfast:

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.

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.

Oh so it’s preferences now is it? Whatever it was you did in the truck industry you missed your true vocation, you shift goalposts so fast you should have been a groundsman.

You didn’t answer the question.If fwd Jap ricer heaps are so good why the zb would anyone pay loads ‘a’ money for the Caddy,Jag,or the BMW .

You forgot the big daddy;the DODGE VIPER.Try putting that up against an EVO or SUBARU.Anyone that thinks the yanks cannot build the best cars and trucks is living in cloud cuckoo land and just being foolish.The ■■■■■■■ was,and is,the best diesel engine that has ever been made.They make the best axles (Rockwell)and also the best gearboxes (Fuller),that are used everywhere in the worldThe only reason yank trucks are not available freely in this country is because of our ridiculous weight and length restrictions,which in part is because of our craphouse road system,which successive goverments have failed to invest in.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:
You blame the backward thinking hauliers for speccing low powered Gardners and the like but quite a few V8 mandators went on the road between 68 and 70 and from what i can gather it was those very same backward hauliers that were buying them.The V8 was rated around 247 bhp in non turbo charged guise which was pretty high for 68 and if the real culprits responsible for the demise of British truck manufacturing had have opened the ■■■■■ strings a little more instead of pumping money into gas turbines and headless wonders AEC may have died with its name untarnished but then again if those backward hauliers hadnt have bought the V8 then your argument might have had a crumb of substance to it.As for US manufacturers saving our industry …

You say that ‘quite a few’ 247 hp naturally aspirated V8 Mandators were being put on the road obviously by operators who didn’t have the sense to say to the dealers,why the zb are you putting that boat anchor in that a zb ergo cabbed heap while Scania are already busy getting on with making their 350 turbocharged V8 and ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ later on Volvo were all busy with getting on with their turbocharged 300 hp + six cylinder motors while Detroit would be putting the turbocharged 92 series into production shortly.All of which would provide better power at lower engine speeds therefore better productivety and efficiency.The same issue also applies in respect of all those orders for the naturally aspirated Gardner 240 8 cylinder powered wagons.

Or,was it more likely,that the dealers said we’re thinking of going down the route of the latest thinking in the US and Scandinavia by producing much more powerful and more comfortable wagons would you be interested.

The answer came back no zb off you must be dreaming this isn’t the wide open spaces of zb America and Scandinavia and we’re not pulling Scandinavian weights either and more power means more fuel,always,and if our drivers don’t like what they’re driving they know where the zb gate is.

As for the US saving our industry.I think ERF,Foden,and and others,including Leyland,would have gone under a lot sooner,and the debts left behind would have been far greater,if it hadn’t have been for the availability and use of US componentry in a half hearted and belated attempt (to try to) make up for the lost development time that those backward operators had cost them during the early-mid 1970’s.

In my own case I wouldn’t even have had a job to start with because my own employers wouldn’t even have had many,if any,products to sell since around 5 years before I had even started with them in 1975.

Youre not making sense ,there was quite alot of excitement when the V8 AEC was launched and if you read some of the comments on the V8 thread from drivers that actually drove it ,it may make you change your mind ,no ignore that last bit you cant educate pork.The V8 was a flying machine but Leyland (who hated AEC) starved them of development cash,instead pouring it into the headless wonder the gas turbine and the Leyland National.AEC produced a turbo version but reliability was the problem something never being associated with AEC before.They had overcome the problems by 1974 (they also had a turbo version of the AV505 ) but Leyland said NO .That could have been the flagship in the Marathon.You refer to the V8 as a boat anchor but you have never driven 1 whereas many on here raved about them and the people in the know said the engine had real potential.You mention the V8 Scania engine but very few Scanias were about in 68 along with Volvos so why would anyone opt for something they wouldnt trust as they knew very little about it whereas AEC had an excellent reputation before the ill fated "merger".As for the ergo it was a modern cab when first introduced what makes me wonder though is youre coming out with all these ridiculous statements but if you started working in the manufacturing industry in `75 you would know all about recent events and reputations and without doubt the performance of the AEC V8 … it really does make me wonder … just saying

Trust me if the AEC V8 had been any good then that’s what they would have been putting into those ‘flying machine’ fire trucks not Detroits.

And if the ergo cab had been any good then that’s what Leyland would have stuck with instead of wasting yet more money on the T 45 and if customers trusted the AEC V8 so much and if it was so efficient then why did Leyland’s buyers desert them later on to buy those ‘untrustworthy’ scandinavian and euro wagons when they finally realised that’s the type of power outputs and cab comfort levels that Leyland etc should have been building 5-10 years previously.

But the main reputation which I heard at the time concerning AEC was all about the TL 12 not any of it’s V8’s.However the DAF 2800 and the numerous turbocharged ■■■■■■■ options all semed to provide as good or better outputs.So no surprise that the TL 12 didn’t seem to be popular in the T 45 and most customers at the time for what remained of the British truck products chose the ■■■■■■■ motor fist (too long)in naturally aspirated form and then,when those customers had got their act together they chose the turbocharged ■■■■■■■ option.

But for V8’s it was Scania,Detroit and FIAT,and CAT that had already done more than anything that AEC could possibly have developed.

Obviously the people who drove the V8 and the people in the industry that were in the know obviously knew nothing but they all came up with the same conclusion AEC were starved of cash,as for the ergo it was very modern in 64 but was way off the mark in the very late 70s when they finished building it and if you notice the very same cab was still being fitted to the last AECs in 77 with no modifications whatsoever 13 years after it was introduced doesnt that say something about the AEC Leyland relationship .Ive read in a book that in the early 70s none other than a top Scania represntitive was singing the AV760s praises again starved of cash in the TL12 form but a very worthy performer.When the TL12 was fitted to the T45 it was branded as the Flexitorque and developed at Leyland a company that couldnt develop the 680 to the standard DAF did so what chance did it have plus it was cheaper to offer ■■■■■■■ and Rolls engines than produce in house ,the other bewildering decision was fitting the Spicer instead of a fuller or even a synchro ZF .I think another big problem was quality ,cheap cab fittings and the way they were put together without that feeling of quality you got from the swedes.It was the same throughout the british scene .AECs last big customers were the oil companies but did they turn to the Buffallo when the Mandator ceased production … NO.Leyland even tried renaming the AV760 (L12) and fitting it in the Buffallo to no avail if it had Leyland on the front people knew what to expect

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:
You blame the backward thinking hauliers for speccing low powered Gardners and the like but quite a few V8 mandators went on the road between 68 and 70 and from what i can gather it was those very same backward hauliers that were buying them.The V8 was rated around 247 bhp in non turbo charged guise which was pretty high for 68 and if the real culprits responsible for the demise of British truck manufacturing had have opened the ■■■■■ strings a little more instead of pumping money into gas turbines and headless wonders AEC may have died with its name untarnished but then again if those backward hauliers hadnt have bought the V8 then your argument might have had a crumb of substance to it.As for US manufacturers saving our industry …

You say that ‘quite a few’ 247 hp naturally aspirated V8 Mandators were being put on the road obviously by operators who didn’t have the sense to say to the dealers,why the zb are you putting that boat anchor in that a zb ergo cabbed heap while Scania are already busy getting on with making their 350 turbocharged V8 and ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ later on Volvo were all busy with getting on with their turbocharged 300 hp + six cylinder motors while Detroit would be putting the turbocharged 92 series into production shortly.All of which would provide better power at lower engine speeds therefore better productivety and efficiency.The same issue also applies in respect of all those orders for the naturally aspirated Gardner 240 8 cylinder powered wagons.

Or,was it more likely,that the dealers said we’re thinking of going down the route of the latest thinking in the US and Scandinavia by producing much more powerful and more comfortable wagons would you be interested.

The answer came back no zb off you must be dreaming this isn’t the wide open spaces of zb America and Scandinavia and we’re not pulling Scandinavian weights either and more power means more fuel,always,and if our drivers don’t like what they’re driving they know where the zb gate is.

As for the US saving our industry.I think ERF,Foden,and and others,including Leyland,would have gone under a lot sooner,and the debts left behind would have been far greater,if it hadn’t have been for the availability and use of US componentry in a half hearted and belated attempt (to try to) make up for the lost development time that those backward operators had cost them during the early-mid 1970’s.

In my own case I wouldn’t even have had a job to start with because my own employers wouldn’t even have had many,if any,products to sell since around 5 years before I had even started with them in 1975.

Youre not making sense ,there was quite alot of excitement when the V8 AEC was launched and if you read some of the comments on the V8 thread from drivers that actually drove it ,it may make you change your mind ,no ignore that last bit you cant educate pork.The V8 was a flying machine but Leyland (who hated AEC) starved them of development cash,instead pouring it into the headless wonder the gas turbine and the Leyland National.AEC produced a turbo version but reliability was the problem something never being associated with AEC before.They had overcome the problems by 1974 (they also had a turbo version of the AV505 ) but Leyland said NO .That could have been the flagship in the Marathon.You refer to the V8 as a boat anchor but you have never driven 1 whereas many on here raved about them and the people in the know said the engine had real potential.You mention the V8 Scania engine but very few Scanias were about in 68 along with Volvos so why would anyone opt for something they wouldnt trust as they knew very little about it whereas AEC had an excellent reputation before the ill fated "merger".As for the ergo it was a modern cab when first introduced what makes me wonder though is youre coming out with all these ridiculous statements but if you started working in the manufacturing industry in `75 you would know all about recent events and reputations and without doubt the performance of the AEC V8 … it really does make me wonder … just saying

Trust me if the AEC V8 had been any good then that’s what they would have been putting into those ‘flying machine’ fire trucks not Detroits.

And if the ergo cab had been any good then that’s what Leyland would have stuck with instead of wasting yet more money on the T 45 and if customers trusted the AEC V8 so much and if it was so efficient then why did Leyland’s buyers desert them later on to buy those ‘untrustworthy’ scandinavian and euro wagons when they finally realised that’s the type of power outputs and cab comfort levels that Leyland etc should have been building 5-10 years previously.

But the main reputation which I heard at the time concerning AEC was all about the TL 12 not any of it’s V8’s.However the DAF 2800 and the numerous turbocharged ■■■■■■■ options all semed to provide as good or better outputs.So no surprise that the TL 12 didn’t seem to be popular in the T 45 and most customers at the time for what remained of the British truck products chose the ■■■■■■■ motor fist (too long)in naturally aspirated form and then,when those customers had got their act together they chose the turbocharged ■■■■■■■ option.

But for V8’s it was Scania,Detroit and FIAT,and CAT that had already done more than anything that AEC could possibly have developed.

Obviously the people who drove the V8 and the people in the industry that were in the know obviously knew nothing but they all came up with the same conclusion AEC were starved of cash,as for the ergo it was very modern in 64 but was way off the mark in the very late 70s when they finished building it and if you notice the very same cab was still being fitted to the last AECs in 77 with no modifications whatsoever 13 years after it was introduced doesnt that say something about the AEC Leyland relationship .Ive read in a book that in the early 70s none other than a top Scania represntitive was singing the AV760s praises again starved of cash in the TL12 form but a very worthy performer.When the TL12 was fitted to the T45 it was branded as the Flexitorque and developed at Leyland a company that couldnt develop the 680 to the standard DAF did so what chance did it have plus it was cheaper to offer ■■■■■■■ and Rolls engines than produce in house ,the other bewildering decision was fitting the Spicer instead of a fuller or even a synchro ZF .I think another big problem was quality ,cheap cab fittings and the way they were put together without that feeling of quality you got from the swedes.It was the same throughout the british scene .AECs last big customers were the oil companies but did they turn to the Buffallo when the Mandator ceased production … NO.Leyland even tried renaming the AV760 (L12) and fitting it in the Buffallo to no avail if it had Leyland on the front people knew what to expect

Firstly you’re putting the blame where it doesnt belong.The whole issue of the obsolete nature of British products that were taken into the 1970’s was just a reflection of the backward thinking nature of the domestic market that it’s products had to be made for if they were to sell at all.Examples such as the Ergo cab being produced in the late 1970’s were a reflection of customer behaviour and customer demands as shown by the fact that day cabbed,Gardner powered (or at best naturally aspirated ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ heaps,were still finding (plenty of) buyers at that time.As I’ve also shown the story of the TM also points to the where the real problem was.In that,unlike Leyland,it actually did have a competitive product in the TM but the fact that it was the narrow day cabbed,7 Litre V6,naturally aspirated, Detroit powered option that more customers were asking for,to run at 32 t gross,not the 4400,says it all.

As for development of the TL 12 engine development always comes down to how much potential is in the original starting point and in the case of the 680 that starting point was obviously at a higher level than the potential contained within the AEC based TL 12 which the DAF engineers obviously saw when they took the 680 design from Leyland.In addition to which DAF then designed the 2800 cab while Leyland were still zb’ing about producing the Ergo and then to add insult to injury the T 45.However the difference between the two approaches really was just a reflection of the customer base and customer attitudes and customer buying habits in the respective domestic markets of either manufacturer nothing more nothing less.The only surprise after that point was how long Leyland actually managed to keep going and how little the liabilities left behind were when it eventually threw in the towel.Which probably explains the reasons for that ‘starvation of cash’ .

From the point where the 2800 was on the drawing board and then put into production and bearing in mind the head start that the respective domestic (and export markets) had provided the Scandinavian,American,and European competition with,in terms of demand for more comfortable and more powerful trucks,there really was no way that Leyland,or the other domestic British manufacturers,could have caught up and made up for the lost development time in regards to the type of products,that they would have needed to have been working on,in time to have competitive products in production and on the market before it’s foreign competitors did.

However,as I’ve said,the Scammell Commander actually showed the potential and the capabilities of the British truck manufacturing industry,given a customer that knows what the zb it’s doing and what the zb it’s ordering and what’s actually needed for the job.
Although having said that it’s no suprise that Scammell chose an American transmission to handle all that torque from the big V12.

[wheel_nut]

skudo:
The British Truck industry went the same way as the Motorcycle and Motorcar industries,which was caused by a bunch of old ■■■■■ that had their heads buried in the 1940’s.They would not,or could not,accept that the vehicles they were churning out were totally unsuited for the modern Britain;who in their right head would want to potter around London,or any other busy city,with an old ERF or FODEN with a twin splitter and no power steering,etc,whilst the Germans and Swedes were turning out trucks that were 10 years ahead of anything British.
The other drawback,was how long the British firms took to realize that sleeper cabs were very much needed,and yet they were still pushing day cabs instead.Along with the reliability problems and spares availability they literally cut their own throats.This also applied to light commercials and you only have to look at the Sherpa and Commers,etc,and you will be foolish to disagree.The fact that BRS and National Freight in general,mostly stuck to British trucks,albeit,with pressure from the goverment of the day,did not do the industry any favours either,as the manufacturers just carried on making antiquated vehicles,because they could get away with it.
So,taken at face value it was their arrogance and stupidity that brought them down,but I personally believe that successive goverments had ulterior motives for destroying the nations manufacturing industries and one day it will all become clear,but until then we must do what the British do best,and that is do NOTHING.

The Twin Splitter Eaton TSO 11612 did not come out until the 80’s and were a standard fitting in your superior German and Italian lorries as well as our home grown ERF, Foden and Seddon Atkinson. Another part of the reason that sleeper cabs were not commonplace because the unions who destroyed the truck building industry also refused drivers using them.

Although the TS idea wasn’t new, watch this Spicer Video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJC47912E_4

Most of the fuel companies and large tanker firms used British lorries, and many still did until the end of ERF, they didnt need sleeper cabs.

Although Rockwell were the preferred choice of axle for the big Ford, ERF and Fodens, many forget the Kirkstall axles that were fitted in the UK

[trev_h]

Rockwell axle casings were actually produced in Wolverhampton,some of the assembly work was at the Maudslay factory at Great Alne nr. Alcester, they may have been owned by a US firm but the designs and materials for home and Euro markets were all UK produced, this company also manufactered Volvo, Scania, Bedford, Land Rover and many more makers chassis rails and crossmembers. In the eighties Rockell switched most of the axle production to Italy.
Foden and Albion axles were actually made in the same shop that produced the frogeye Healey sprite bodies !
Critchlows of Stoke hauled all the Scotstoun destined axles.

[carryfast]

Wheel Nut:

skudo:
The British Truck industry went the same way as the Motorcycle and Motorcar industries,which was caused by a bunch of old ■■■■■ that had their heads buried in the 1940’s.They would not,or could not,accept that the vehicles they were churning out were totally unsuited for the modern Britain;who in their right head would want to potter around London,or any other busy city,with an old ERF or FODEN with a twin splitter and no power steering,etc,whilst the Germans and Swedes were turning out trucks that were 10 years ahead of anything British.
The other drawback,was how long the British firms took to realize that sleeper cabs were very much needed,and yet they were still pushing day cabs instead.Along with the reliability problems and spares availability they literally cut their own throats.This also applied to light commercials and you only have to look at the Sherpa and Commers,etc,and you will be foolish to disagree.The fact that BRS and National Freight in general,mostly stuck to British trucks,albeit,with pressure from the goverment of the day,did not do the industry any favours either,as the manufacturers just carried on making antiquated vehicles,because they could get away with it.
So,taken at face value it was their arrogance and stupidity that brought them down,but I personally believe that successive goverments had ulterior motives for destroying the nations manufacturing industries and one day it will all become clear,but until then we must do what the British do best,and that is do NOTHING.

The Twin Splitter Eaton TSO 11612 did not come out until the 80’s and were a standard fitting in your superior German and Italian lorries as well as our home grown ERF, Foden and Seddon Atkinson. Another part of the reason that sleeper cabs were not commonplace because the unions who destroyed the truck building industry also refused drivers using them.

Although the TS idea wasn’t new, watch this Spicer Video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJC47912E_4

Most of the fuel companies and large tanker firms used British lorries, and many still did until the end of ERF, they didnt need sleeper cabs.

The twin splitter idea really was just a case of forgetting the idea of if it ain’t broke don’t fix it by (trying to) make the already brilliant to use roadranger box supposedly ‘better’.Like it was really so difficult to just go through the gears of a ‘proper’ 13 speed fuller roadranger transmission using the range change and splitter.

But the unions at the time were actually controlled by the membership which had probably been beaten into submission for so long in acceptance of getting stuck out for the night with a zb day cabbed Ergo or day cabbed Atki/ERF/SA etc etc that the idea of having a comfortable cab to rest in instead was totally alien to them .

However not every driver doing tramping was in a unionised firm and even those that were did eventually realise the advantages long before the British operators were still speccing day cab otions in trucks like the TM even in the mid-late 1970’s.As for tanker and trunking operators the idea of using sleeper cabbed trucks was eventually realised,for the advantages that provided in respect of just in case the driver did get stuck out of hours and/or their re sale flexibililty and values,when the time came to flog the thing,in a used market in which a day cab isn’t much use to an owner driver looking for a good truck for doing tramping work.As shown by the fact that day cabs were never a big selling point for both the fleet buyers or general haulage buyers in the case of the sales figures of the 2800,F10/12,or Scania competition that formed a lot of the foreign competition that helped to decimate the Brit heaps,(that is when the British customers ‘eventually’ got their act together and decided to enter into the late 20th century from the 1950’s).Because the fact is you can do a day cab job with a sleeper cabbed truck but you can’t do a sleeper cab job with a day cabbed truck.