What went wrong

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS OLD TIME LORRIES, COMPANIES AND DRIVERS (INTERACT
521

[zb]
anorak:

cargo:
To me that 400hp AEC shows the company was out of touch with the trucking community of the day.
A large vehicle like that is aimed at a specific client and in the 60’s it wasn’t road train work, perhaps in the 40’s or 50’s but by the 60’s things were moving more quickly.
Lighter faster trucks with good top speed and yet still able to hook on extra trailers when required.
You’ll note all these cattle trucks are single drive and would have been coupled to far more trailers than their designed GCW permitted but they performed very well.
Dad bought two of those LAD Beavers 2nd hand and the reduction hubs in one had never been serviced. Many operators thought the diff oil went to the hubs too.
Ever bought a genuine 680 oil filter? It’s a stocking and some string, you built your own filter with the spacer washers.
Operators wanted spin on/off filtration, good cooling, Donaldson air cleaners, big fuel tanks etc and Leyland Australia didn’t understand.
Even when the Leyland product was replaced by Macks, it was still only single drive albiet with quad box instead of the 6+1 Leyland offering.
The B61 Mack had much smaller brakes, no power steer, smaller springs, almost identical Hp, similar tare but Mack had a gun sales team and they scored the contracts. They tailored the vehicle to the customer’s needs and for most clients the end result was exactly what they wanted.
As the cattle industry expanded, so too did the transport requirements with double deck trailers now the norm and with trucks that can sit on 100 uphill and down the other side.
A quick Google search will show the most enormous cattle road trains in the Territory all aimed at fast transport. With approx 4 hours before unloading and watering, you can’t afford breakdowns.
Slow old plodders like Rotinoff or Antar are from an earlier era.

This is good stuff, Cargo.We have all read bits and bobs in the books about the Oz haulage industry, but your posts bring it into much sharper focus.

Would you say that the 200bhp 4x2 tractor was the standard means of pulling a roadtrain across Australia, in the 1960s? What about sectors other than livestock, mining for instance- surely they wanted more powerful, double-drive tractors, even back then?

From what you say, the main failing of the specification of the British imports (apart from the Oz-specific details like filtration etc.) seems to be the lack of a multi-speed gearbox, with a wide range of ratios. Even an Antar would fly if it had an 18-speed Fuller with an appropriate axle ratio!

I`ve mentioned this before anorak , it seemed mad to put a 200bhp 32 ton artic on the road with a 6 speed box ,it was defeating the object of the higher bhp engines they were developing.My dad drove a mkv mm8 with a 9.6 and 5 speed box in it .Top speed 38 mph ,but it was also pulling a trailer so running at top weight at the time.There were other mm8s in the fleet with the 6 speed box that would top 60 mph .Obviously its not all about speed but i cant understand the logic in offering such combinations.When the AV760 was launched it had a 6 speed box as standard but with the extra power surely a 9 or 13 speed Fuller would have been a better option or even developing their own gearbox .They offered the 9 speed fuller over here but very few were put on the road , i dont know if they were more expensive or just not pushed by the salesmen

522

Hi Ramone. Yes, 6 gears for a 200bhp engine to drag a 32 tonner from rest, then up to a cruising speed of 60-odd mph, seems like an unreasonably stingy specification. You can understand the annoyance of those 1960s Australian operators, with their double-trailer outfits. I guess that the gross weight of Cargo’s Beaver and B61-headed rigs would have been 40 tons or more. The clutch on the Leylands must have taken a real hiding, when setting off up a hill.

When Mack launched the Maxidyne engine in 1967, its wide operating speed range was advertised as requiring fewer gear ratios, to do the same job. I wonder how the Oz market reacted to that, given the high gross weights they pulled? Cargo- your opinions are required, please!

523

Carryfast:
… Realistically,bearing in mind the levels of investment which would have been required,to keep the totally conflicting markets satisfied,at the time in question,it would have been a financial impossibility.In real world terms that realistically meant having to compete with firms like KW in our old colonial markets bearing in mind the difference in levels of investment and the fact that the demands of the US domestic market being much closer to those of it’s export markets.

The common link being that at the end of the day the British truck manufacturing industry’s continuing export success was totally dependent on firstly the amount of investment capital available to develop the products required,which isn’t the same thing as revenues and profits in the export markets because investment is just a measure of how much of those profits that the bankers were willing to plough back into the industry and the amount of capital available to the nations economy and banking system as a whole…

Carryfast,

OK, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that Leyland did not have sufficient funds to develop its (existing) products. That is in principle a viable argument but in order to prove it one would need to see Leyland’s 1950s books, so as to appraise what was its EBIDTA and, again, its net earnings including a breakdown of what went where. If you have the figures to back the theory, please provide. However, allow me to remain skeptical. This would mean that Leyland was practically on the verge of insolvency in the 1950s (!), before Standard Triumph/AEC and so on. Please remember you are talking about the world’s largest bus producer whose truck output was also big (bigger than Volvo, Scania-Vabis, Fiat etc. etc.). Size wise Leyland was bigger than Pacific Car & Foundry/KW/Peterbilt, so again the odds are against what you say. Yes, the US market was closer to some of the colonial markets but I defy anyone to say that the changes which had to be made to the bonneted Beaver/Hippo (for example) were such as to put a manufacturer the size of Leyland under a strain (Joey box behind the 6sp, careful, incremental, up-rating of the 680 (like DAF did) were not going to break the bank).

And, once more: the combined markets I referred to were larger than the European market. There was a business opportunity and somehow it went over management’s head. My feeling is that, psychologically, it did not occur to the fossils at the top that conditions after WWII changed and that many markets were no longer captive - they just assumed the colonials, South Americans et al would continue to flock to Leyland (or AEC) forever. Dealers and customers were told to shut up or ignored. This is a classic case of management SNAFU, not a desperate act of a barely-solvent company - what you described was right perhaps later, but even then they somehow managed to waste time and money on dead-end alleys like the AEC V8 and that most insane idea of them all, the headless wonder, whereas if they developed the existing line in a “boring” DAF/Volvo manner, they would have had the needed engines at a far lower cost (no reason why a 400 with 175 hp, a 680 with 300 hp and a 900 with 400-450 hp should not have been available in say 1972).

Cheers

L

524

A mobile blockade on the road to Jerusalem sometime in the mid-60s, lol. I remember going up there as a passenger in one of these on or about 1970. A big adventure for a schoolboy but on that road it was 5-10 mph up and 5-10 mph down with the 680 Superplus. Armoured lorries are 1948 war convoy relics left as a mark of respect. Pic I. Nachman.

Cab and wings are GRP Israeli-made and they used the Buffalo radiator.

Below, the last Contractors and Ergos assembled by Leyland Ashdod near the new Mack Ashdods… I actually think there was a golden opportunity to start production of a genuine Israeli brand when Leyland got kicked out but Mack offered very good terms, so that the Ashdod prototypes which combined Leyland chassis/axles with Mack cabs and mechanicals (a Carryfast type lorry, lol) came to nothing… That’s a another story though.


525

Ash, i think what you are saying is correct in that Leyland told customers what they were getting not listening to what they wanted ,but that wasnt the AEC way before the so called merger.From what ive read AEC had a very good relationship with their customers with a promise to build vehicles to customer spec ,it all went ■■■■ up when the Lancastrians started pulling the strings … or should i say plug? :wink:

526

ramone:
… I`ve mentioned this before anorak , it seemed mad to put a 200bhp 32 ton artic on the road with a 6 speed box ,it was defeating the object of the higher bhp engines they were developing.My dad drove a mkv mm8 with a 9.6 and 5 speed box in it .Top speed 38 mph ,but it was also pulling a trailer so running at top weight at the time.There were other mm8s in the fleet with the 6 speed box that would top 60 mph .Obviously its not all about speed but i cant understand the logic in offering such combinations.When the AV760 was launched it had a 6 speed box as standard but with the extra power surely a 9 or 13 speed Fuller would have been a better option or even developing their own gearbox .They offered the 9 speed fuller over here but very few were put on the road , i dont know if they were more expensive or just not pushed by the salesmen

Ramone,

Here’s the Israeli solution to the 38 mph blues:

A certain notorious Super Beaver fitted with the fast rear (which thy fitted to the ones with the Wilson box) and a Fuller RR. This thing was capable of 80 mph and the driver had the tickets to prove it :smiley: (pic courtesy I. Nachman).

There were others with similar combinations…

Cheers

T

527

Leyland Ash:

Carryfast:
… Realistically,bearing in mind the levels of investment which would have been required,to keep the totally conflicting markets satisfied,at the time in question,it would have been a financial impossibility.In real world terms that realistically meant having to compete with firms like KW in our old colonial markets bearing in mind the difference in levels of investment and the fact that the demands of the US domestic market being much closer to those of it’s export markets.

The common link being that at the end of the day the British truck manufacturing industry’s continuing export success was totally dependent on firstly the amount of investment capital available to develop the products required,which isn’t the same thing as revenues and profits in the export markets because investment is just a measure of how much of those profits that the bankers were willing to plough back into the industry and the amount of capital available to the nations economy and banking system as a whole…

Carryfast,

OK, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that Leyland did not have sufficient funds to develop its (existing) products. That is in principle a viable argument but in order to prove it one would need to see Leyland’s 1950s books, so as to appraise what was its EBIDTA and, again, its net earnings including a breakdown of what went where. If you have the figures to back the theory, please provide. However, allow me to remain skeptical. This would mean that Leyland was practically on the verge of insolvency in the 1950s (!), before Standard Triumph/AEC and so on. Please remember you are talking about the world’s largest bus producer whose truck output was also big (bigger than Volvo, Scania-Vabis, Fiat etc. etc.). Size wise Leyland was bigger than Pacific Car & Foundry/KW/Peterbilt, so again the odds are against what you say. Yes, the US market was closer to some of the colonial markets but I defy anyone to say that the changes which had to be made to the bonneted Beaver/Hippo (for example) were such as to put a manufacturer the size of Leyland under a strain (Joey box behind the 6sp, careful, incremental, up-rating of the 680 (like DAF did) were not going to break the bank).

And, once more: the combined markets I referred to were larger than the European market. There was a business opportunity and somehow it went over management’s head. My feeling is that, psychologically, it did not occur to the fossils at the top that conditions after WWII changed and that many markets were no longer captive - they just assumed the colonials, South Americans et al would continue to flock to Leyland (or AEC) forever. Dealers and customers were told to shut up or ignored. This is a classic case of management SNAFU, not a desperate act of a barely-solvent company - what you described was right perhaps later, but even then they somehow managed to waste time and money on dead-end alleys like the AEC V8 and that most insane idea of them all, the headless wonder, whereas if they developed the existing line in a “boring” DAF/Volvo manner, they would have had the needed engines at a far lower cost (no reason why a 400 with 175 hp, a 680 with 300 hp and a 900 with 400-450 hp should not have been available in say 1972).

Cheers

L

Ironically a lot of that last paragraph fits in exactly with everything I’ve said regarding the way in which the uk market was lagging behind the colonial ones which is where it was all happening.I’ve been saying that we needed to be producing 300 + hp motors during the early 1970’s,which were the make or break years for the uk manufacturers,for ages and I’ve been shot down loads of times as a power crazed nut by the old guard like Bewick for my trouble. :smiling_imp: :laughing:

Those comments just confirm what I’ve been saying.The only bit that we seem to disagree on is in your idea that it was a sales,management,and marketing issue etc.As opposed to mine that it was firstly that the investment money just wasn’t there to beat DAF and the Scandinavians at their own game and even if it had have been there’s no way that they could have sold those specs to uk customers at the time in question,who were sometimes even still demanding gutless sub 300 hp naturally aspirated Gardners in SA 400/401’s into the early 1980’s let alone 1972. :open_mouth:

In which case the economies of scale required,in being able to sell such products in both the domestic and export markets,when they were developed just weren’t there.Having said that I think that the AEC V8 and 500 debacles might have been a result,to a degree,of an argument going on amongst the engineers of the time between getting the required power outputs,that they knew were eventually going to be needed,from taking too small capacity engines,with average torque outputs at best,up to silly engine speeds in an inevitably vain attempt to make the figures.As opposed to arriving at the same figures by making loads of torque at lower engine speeds which as anyone knows is the right way to do it.

As for me I had the luxury of working in a sector of the uk truck manufacturing industry which was around 95% based on exports and where we didn’t have to worry about what the uk customers were demanding and where 600 hp +,let alone 400,was available even in 1971.Although we,of course,went to the Americans for our engine supplies where those types of outputs had already been available in well proven,cheap to buy,designs since the 1960’s.Trust me the Brits had absolutely no chance in the ‘colonies’ against the American competition and it was effectively game over by the early 1970’s if not before and Leyland’s management knew it. :frowning:

528

Evening all, Leyland Ash, you bring an interesting perspective to this discussion.

When I was working alongside the US Mack Dealers to market the little Midliners, one of my Allentown colleagues had worked closely with the Israel Ashod plant. From memory the first Mack importation had been in association with the Haifa based plant of Kaiser-Frazer, back in the 50s when Ed Bransome was president of Mack. I understand that the intention was to market the Israel assembled Macks to some of the southern Mediteranian countries, and also to Turkey, although little came of it.

You are correct Leyland withdrew in 1973, although they retained some financial interest in the jointly owned, (CNEC/Leyland), 100plus acre Ashod plant up untill 1978. My colleague told me that the concern of Mack at that time, Mack having signed a collaboration with the Israel Government to supply CKD kits R600, DM800, MBs, F, and FM700 series for assembly at the Ashod plant, was that the plant was proposing to assemble a hybrid Mack/Leyland. This would comprise “stock” Leyland componenTS, Super Beaver 6x2 chassis, Leyland drive axle, Mack engine and transmision, with the Sheller-Globe DM type bonneted cab, (as per Brockway),but with Leyland front lights. The model designation from memory was E190. This vehicle, (and Ibelieve only a very few were built), could have become a “National” Israel manufactured lorry.

However Mack prevailed and CKD assembly was carried out, somewhere in one of my systems I have some Hebrew Mack brochures on the DM800s, and Fseries, that I “removed” from Allentown!

To return to Leyland, and the unbelievable, (with hindsight) managerial decisions. They acquire AEC, and all of its overseas subsidiaries, yet fail to build on their success. They close the door on the South American market, by shutting AECs assembly plant, which also builds BMC, before they have signed a contract to set up a Leyland facility, and bang ,the implementation of local content requirements come into force in the interim!

In Europe they do the same, AEC have a collaboration with French builder Willeme, whereby all Willeme heavies are AEC powered, and marketed through the 400plus French outlets, alongside BMC lorries as Willeme BMC. The French market is moribund, and Willeme need financial help, (and Leyland at that time were an extremely profitable company). Yet help, in the form of a controlling interest is denied, Willeme fails, and Leyland try to strike a deal with struggling Hotchkiss to assemble Leyland products…its very short lived!

Europe at that time was a collection of different markets, and Leyland owned Brossel in Belgium, licence builders of Gardner engines. Brossel had introduced their Euro range, with the GRP Vista Vue cab…it never got off the ground, Leyland closed them down, as they did with AECs operation.

Why this massive contraction of overseas market potential? True the UK market was the strongest in Europe, and Leyland were very profitable. Was it UK political influence, or just plain Managerial incompetence?? Probably we shall never know, for the final decline of “British Leyland” assumes the most importance in research, yet the seeds of decline were sown much earlier. Personally I would consider incompetence, and sychophantic managerial style to be the root cause. Having some experience of working within a the management of a large vehicle producer I am aware that personal rivalries, clashes of personality, and just plain incompetence can affect decision making to the most disasterous effect , (and in turn produce the most peculiar vehicle specifications, severely limiting their marketability).

I shall away, and drown these sad thoughts with copious Bollinger, for its been a good day cutting grass, and gathering up that cut earlier, , the sun shines, and all is well…untill the rain clouds cometh!!

Cheerio for now.

529

In the 60’s in Aus, we were driving on goat tracks once you left the cities. The average truck owner wasn’t too flush and the rail option was still considered by some clients who had become accustomed to their slow but predictable time tables. Some even owned their own rollingstock with rail sidings on their premises.
Another problem for the small operator was rail was protected when in direct competition with road via a tax. This only applied to intrastate haulage, interstate was exempt.
We had another “tax” called Contribution to Road Maintenance which was worked out on a ton-mile basis for each and every route you travelled.
So there was a mountain of paperwork to fill in each month.
Prime movers mostly weren’t huge, couldn’t afford tandem drives with small loads and unreliable back loading. The condition of the roads meant a single drive bogged in bulldust just as well as a tandem. The only way through was by solid bars between each truck/trailer and then go for it.
In the wet, nothing moved and rail resumed its position as the prime carrier.
I think drivers recognised impossible conditions so clutches weren’t overloaded, you just got out and boiled the billy until someone else turned up.
Once bitumen arrived, the larger faster trucks were vital as clients still using rail, woke up when their opposition had goods delivered in a fraction of the time by road.
We didn’t have uniform road rules in Aus so 48mph diffs were mostly used to allow for the slow truck speed limits of some states. Our state had 58mph limits and when going over the border, one had to watch those mirrors.
So again, subtle government changes to road rules meant owners bought bigger faster trucks. Another not so subtle change was the truckies strike of the early 70’s where roads were blockaded until road tax was abolished. The tax was then incorporated into the cost of distillate.
Changes by Government to axle loadings also influenced the type of truck purchased and so tandems became the norm, wide spread trailers were outlawed and tandem drive+tri axle trailer became the industry standard for highway applications, 8-wheeler plus dog more so for the city.
Speed limiters were introduced. This meant no more charging at hills doing 130kph meaning you had to have enough torque to pull over the top at 90-100kph.
So frustrating to sit behind some plodder doing 80, then try to overtake on a passing lane only to see the plodder speed up to 110 while you’re stuck out there at 100.
With enough torque (1800 to 2400ft lbs) today’s trucks will out-accelerate that plodder’s car from 80 up to 100.
It was a natural progression to move to “B” doubles as the prime movers were mostly rated accordingly in case they coupled up to road train configuration. (Road trains are only permitted certain distances from our capital cities)
Meanwhile rail was still snoozing along losing clients daily. No real money or thought was invested. We have different gauges between states, tunnels and platforms that limit load widths, mostly single lines so that two-way traffic is extremely complicated. The only commodities that rail handles well is bulk loads like coal, iron ore etc and even these are under consideration for remote control.
The money spent on better road networks meant roads didn’t get flooded so often as in earlier times whereas rail still did. Train drivers of old would drive their locomotives through flooded track and some flood prone areas had diesel/hydraulic locos to eliminate the diesel/electric worries. Modern drivers realise the danger of washed out ballast and trains no longer go through flood waters.
So the progression to larger faster trucks had many factors.
I’m showing my age here but I couldn’t believe my eyes last week. Queensland has 2-large military training facilities so we often see the lads drive by in their 8x8 ASLAV’s.
Invariably they’re followed by a 6x6 Mack wrecker or two plus all their gear.
Last week I saw a complete deployment all on the back of privately owned semi’s. The whole show was loaded and delivered in a day, crews went in busses, 100% deployment, no breakdowns.
Now that’s not a good look for the military but it shows the beancounters are everywhere, they weren’t all at Leyland.

530

[zb]
anorak:
Hi Ramone. Yes, 6 gears for a 200bhp engine to drag a 32 tonner from rest, then up to a cruising speed of 60-odd mph, seems like an unreasonably stingy specification. You can understand the annoyance of those 1960s Australian operators, with their double-trailer outfits. I guess that the gross weight of Cargo’s Beaver and B61-headed rigs would have been 40 tons or more. The clutch on the Leylands must have taken a real hiding, when setting off up a hill.

When Mack launched the Maxidyne engine in 1967, its wide operating speed range was advertised as requiring fewer gear ratios, to do the same job. I wonder how the Oz market reacted to that, given the high gross weights they pulled? Cargo- your opinions are required, please!

Sorry I didn’t address your question.
With better than 40t all up the clutch and crawler gear had no trouble in the Beavers.
Never had fault with the low gears, their main design fault was with 6th. (and the layshaft of course)
The B61 with quad box had gears to burn, but still, as Mack soon realised not enough hp.
In first+extra low you didn’t even need the clutch, just whack the gearstick into gear and it crawled off.
It’s mostly the driver. If he misses a gear on a jump-up, doesn’t matter how slow the gearbox he’ll either spin the wheels or break something.
A good driver will know this and start un-coupling trailers.
The Maxidyne went the other way, not enough cogs IMO. It relied on massive torque (for the day) and retarder to actually grab the gears.
Things got a bit lost after that with the Volvo influence so now Mack is just a name on the radiator cowl.
Plenty of engine choices, R\R box, even diff options, build you anything you want.

531

Saviem:
…the plant was proposing to assemble a hybrid Mack/Leyland. This would comprise “stock” Leyland componenTS, Super Beaver 6x2 chassis, Leyland drive axle, Mack engine and transmision, with the Sheller-Globe DM type bonneted cab, (as per Brockway),but with Leyland front lights. The model designation from memory was E190. This vehicle, (and Ibelieve only a very few were built), could have become a “National” Israel manufactured lorry.

However Mack prevailed and CKD assembly was carried out, somewhere in one of my systems I have some Hebrew Mack brochures on the DM800s, and Fseries, that I “removed” from Allentown!

… and here it is:

brand new at the factory

and at work with empty fruit containers, somewhere in Haifa.

I’m not surprised Mack wanted it dead. I don’t think there were more than 2-3. Shame they capitulated but that belongs to “what went wrong” with the Israeli motor industry, not here. I suppose this is the kind of lorry Carryfast would have Leyland produce in the 70s (obviously, “EU-ised”) - a “built” vehicle using bought-in mechanicals.

As for Leyland keeping a minority share, this is not wrong and there was a batch of Bathgate cabbed Clydsdales later in the 70s. They even imported a few Marathons and, later, ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Scammell S26s (see below) but by then it was too late.

As for Brossel, the Europ GRP LAD design was used by Leyland Ashdod to create the Israeli spec Clydsdale/Chieftein in both COE and bonneted versions, which goes to show that it was possible to meet local needs :smiley:


More here: israelmotorindustry.org/leyland- … ossel-eng/

If you have any Leyland Ashdod brochures or E190 info you are prepared to share I would be most interested (please PM me).

Cheers

L

532

We’ve seen the Leyland product in Aus, Canada, NZ, Israel even hints at the US but what about India?
A massive population (soon to rival China) and a love of most things British.
Were Leyland models assembled in India or imported as runners?
The Ashok name is linked with 680 engines, apparently one can still buy a new 680 from them.

533

Ramone, the bewildering thing is that AEC had developed its own multi-ratio gearboxes for its entire range, a 10-speed range change and 12-speed splitter for the heavyweights, which was listed as two versions an up-split and a down-split, and a 12-speed splitter box for the medium weight Mercury / Marshal. Later the Fuller 9-speed range change was fitted into the Mandator from about 1975 as a factory fitted option, and at least two of these have been preserved. It does support one of Carryfast’s arguments that the British buyer was two stingy to pay extra for these gearbox options which transformed the performance of a lorry, either that or it was AEC’s best kept secret that these options even existed.

534

Saviem:
…Why this massive contraction of overseas market potential? True the UK market was the strongest in Europe, and Leyland were very profitable. Was it UK political influence, or just plain Managerial incompetence?? Probably we shall never know, for the final decline of “British Leyland” assumes the most importance in research, yet the seeds of decline were sown much earlier. Personally I would consider incompetence, and sychophantic managerial style to be the root cause. Having some experience of working within a the management of a large vehicle producer I am aware that personal rivalries, clashes of personality, and just plain incompetence can affect decision making to the most disasterous effect , (and in turn produce the most peculiar vehicle specifications, severely limiting their marketability)…

Cheerio for now.

These recent threads, detailing wasted opportunities in Israel and Australia, show a similar pattern of events to the failures in Europe. Leyland’s products of the 1950s and early '60s, by most accounts, were competitive with anything in the world. They are still remembered fondly in many places- Cargo mentioned Ashok Leyland. To this day, their vehicles proudly carry the Leyland plughole badge. The company was doing the right thing, post-war, by expanding into new markets. Other European manufacturers were doing the same thing, but Leyland were already there when the likes of Scania Vabis started the job- Leyland had a comfortable head start. It should have been easy.

“Was it UK political influence, or just plain Managerial incompetence??” Stokes’ enthusiasm to abandon the European market indicates the latter, but this is an over-simplification, as the sorry mess of the other overseas efforts shows. Previously on this forum, we have mentioned the post-war tardiness in British manufacturing companies in recruiting graduates. This is the root of it all, I believe- Leyland’s senior management was simply understaffed, in marketing, engineering and business. There was too much work for their clever people to cope with, as the expansion gathered pace. More brains on the job would have predicted more problems and avoided more mistakes. Leyland’s head start, in terms of its size, actually became a hindrance.

535

gingerfold:
Ramone, the bewildering thing is that AEC had developed its own multi-ratio gearboxes for its entire range, a 10-speed range change and 12-speed splitter for the heavyweights, which was listed as two versions an up-split and a down-split, and a 12-speed splitter box for the medium weight Mercury / Marshal. Later the Fuller 9-speed range change was fitted into the Mandator from about 1975 as a factory fitted option, and at least two of these have been preserved. It does support one of Carryfast’s arguments that the British buyer was two stingy to pay extra for these gearbox options which transformed the performance of a lorry, either that or it was AEC’s best kept secret that these options even existed.

I think the confirmation of that type of reasoning as to one of the main reasons for ‘what went wrong’ is the fact that we’ve got a documented example that at least Guy were able to supply a 350 hp ■■■■■■■ engined wagon with a 13 speed Fuller in it as of 1971.No suprise it seems to have been viewed at that time here as some sort of alien machine only suited to some obscure ‘export’ application. :confused: :unamused: Which proves that (1) the export market alone wasn’t enough to provide the sales needed to support a group the size of Leyland and (2) the all important domestic market wouldn’t be looking for that type of truck in sufficient numbers for at least around another 10 years probably more in many cases.So,as I’ve said,it was probably also a case of domestic customers being backward in their thinking not just stingy.

Whereas that spec was about as good as it could have got in respect of ticking all the boxes concerning reliability,fuel economy,outputs,and transmission at that time,both in regards to the domestic market and the export markets and at a cost which wouldn’t have upset the bankers.Because the Americans had already done most of the development work for us,at least in regards to engine and transmission componentry,using American investment money not non existent British cash.No suprise that Leyland weren’t flooded with domestic customers for trucks with that type of spec at the time when it mattered and which would have been the only way in which they would have stood the slightest chance of also keeping a viable export operation.:bulb:

536

gingerfold:
Ramone, the bewildering thing is that AEC had developed its own multi-ratio gearboxes for its entire range, a 10-speed range change and 12-speed splitter for the heavyweights, which was listed as two versions an up-split and a down-split, and a 12-speed splitter box for the medium weight Mercury / Marshal. Later the Fuller 9-speed range change was fitted into the Mandator from about 1975 as a factory fitted option, and at least two of these have been preserved. It does support one of Carryfast’s arguments that the British buyer was two stingy to pay extra for these gearbox options which transformed the performance of a lorry, either that or it was AEC’s best kept secret that these options even existed.

Were these constant mesh boxes Graham,i thought the 10 speed on offer was the semi auto Leyland ,i never knew AEC had their own

537

Carryfast:

gingerfold:
Ramone, the bewildering thing is that AEC had developed its own multi-ratio gearboxes for its entire range, a 10-speed range change and 12-speed splitter for the heavyweights, which was listed as two versions an up-split and a down-split, and a 12-speed splitter box for the medium weight Mercury / Marshal. Later the Fuller 9-speed range change was fitted into the Mandator from about 1975 as a factory fitted option, and at least two of these have been preserved. It does support one of Carryfast’s arguments that the British buyer was two stingy to pay extra for these gearbox options which transformed the performance of a lorry, either that or it was AEC’s best kept secret that these options even existed.

I think the confirmation of that type of reasoning as to one of the main reasons for ‘what went wrong’ is the fact that we’ve got a documented example that at least Guy were able to supply a 350 hp ■■■■■■■ engined wagon with a 13 speed Fuller in it as of 1971.No suprise it seems to have been viewed at that time here as some sort of alien machine only suited to some obscure ‘export’ application. :confused: :unamused: Which proves that (1) the export market alone wasn’t enough to provide the sales needed to support a group the size of Leyland and (2) the all important domestic market wouldn’t be looking for that type of truck in sufficient numbers for at least around another 10 years probably more in many cases.So,as I’ve said,it was probably also a case of domestic customers being backward in their thinking not just stingy.

Whereas that spec was about as good as it could have got in respect of ticking all the boxes concerning reliability,fuel economy,outputs,and transmission at that time,both in regards to the domestic market and the export markets and at a cost which wouldn’t have upset the bankers.Because the Americans had already done most of the development work for us,at least in regards to engine and transmission componentry,using American investment money not non existent British cash.No suprise that Leyland weren’t flooded with domestic customers for trucks with that type of spec at the time when it mattered and which would have been the only way in which they would have stood the slightest chance of also keeping a viable export operation.:bulb:

Strange as it may seem to you cf the use of a 350 bhp motor in 1971 would equate to using around 480 bhp in a 44 ton motor today so some of those backward thinking hauliers still havent taken your advice (although many have) but they are getting there slowly ,as for a 350 bhp motor in 71 ,they would have been better advised to have offered a 280 bhp motor with a decent cab.These early high powered engines were heavy on fuel and with no speed limiters were open to abuse,nothing like the modern high powered engines offered today .What a wonderful thing hindsight is though :wink:

538

ramone:

Carryfast:

gingerfold:
Ramone, the bewildering thing is that AEC had developed its own multi-ratio gearboxes for its entire range, a 10-speed range change and 12-speed splitter for the heavyweights, which was listed as two versions an up-split and a down-split, and a 12-speed splitter box for the medium weight Mercury / Marshal. Later the Fuller 9-speed range change was fitted into the Mandator from about 1975 as a factory fitted option, and at least two of these have been preserved. It does support one of Carryfast’s arguments that the British buyer was two stingy to pay extra for these gearbox options which transformed the performance of a lorry, either that or it was AEC’s best kept secret that these options even existed.

I think the confirmation of that type of reasoning as to one of the main reasons for ‘what went wrong’ is the fact that we’ve got a documented example that at least Guy were able to supply a 350 hp ■■■■■■■ engined wagon with a 13 speed Fuller in it as of 1971.No suprise it seems to have been viewed at that time here as some sort of alien machine only suited to some obscure ‘export’ application. :confused: :unamused: Which proves that (1) the export market alone wasn’t enough to provide the sales needed to support a group the size of Leyland and (2) the all important domestic market wouldn’t be looking for that type of truck in sufficient numbers for at least around another 10 years probably more in many cases.So,as I’ve said,it was probably also a case of domestic customers being backward in their thinking not just stingy.

Whereas that spec was about as good as it could have got in respect of ticking all the boxes concerning reliability,fuel economy,outputs,and transmission at that time,both in regards to the domestic market and the export markets and at a cost which wouldn’t have upset the bankers.Because the Americans had already done most of the development work for us,at least in regards to engine and transmission componentry,using American investment money not non existent British cash.No suprise that Leyland weren’t flooded with domestic customers for trucks with that type of spec at the time when it mattered and which would have been the only way in which they would have stood the slightest chance of also keeping a viable export operation.:bulb:

Strange as it may seem to you cf the use of a 350 bhp motor in 1971 would equate to using around 480 bhp in a 44 ton motor today so some of those backward thinking hauliers still havent taken your advice (although many have) but they are getting there slowly ,as for a 350 bhp motor in 71 ,they would have been better advised to have offered a 280 bhp motor with a decent cab.These early high powered engines were heavy on fuel and with no speed limiters were open to abuse,nothing like the modern high powered engines offered today .What a wonderful thing hindsight is though :wink:

Not exactly.Because as we’re seeing here those export markets,that lots of people are blaming Stokes etc for losing,didn’t give a toss about such silly British foibles concerning imaginary ‘driver abuse’ or ■■■■■■■ ( or Detroit ) engines supposedly being diesel guzzlers.

While your argument still leaves the issue of the 13 speed fuller being available to Brit manufacturers at that time too and no doubt you’ll now probably say that with hindsight it might have been a good idea for the domestic customer base to have demanded it but back then that would have been seen the equivalent of a 27 + speed box considering that a 6 speed was considered as being more than adequate by most Brit customers. :smiling_imp: :wink:

539

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

gingerfold:
Ramone, the bewildering thing is that AEC had developed its own multi-ratio gearboxes for its entire range, a 10-speed range change and 12-speed splitter for the heavyweights, which was listed as two versions an up-split and a down-split, and a 12-speed splitter box for the medium weight Mercury / Marshal. Later the Fuller 9-speed range change was fitted into the Mandator from about 1975 as a factory fitted option, and at least two of these have been preserved. It does support one of Carryfast’s arguments that the British buyer was two stingy to pay extra for these gearbox options which transformed the performance of a lorry, either that or it was AEC’s best kept secret that these options even existed.

I think the confirmation of that type of reasoning as to one of the main reasons for ‘what went wrong’ is the fact that we’ve got a documented example that at least Guy were able to supply a 350 hp ■■■■■■■ engined wagon with a 13 speed Fuller in it as of 1971.No suprise it seems to have been viewed at that time here as some sort of alien machine only suited to some obscure ‘export’ application. :confused: :unamused: Which proves that (1) the export market alone wasn’t enough to provide the sales needed to support a group the size of Leyland and (2) the all important domestic market wouldn’t be looking for that type of truck in sufficient numbers for at least around another 10 years probably more in many cases.So,as I’ve said,it was probably also a case of domestic customers being backward in their thinking not just stingy.

Whereas that spec was about as good as it could have got in respect of ticking all the boxes concerning reliability,fuel economy,outputs,and transmission at that time,both in regards to the domestic market and the export markets and at a cost which wouldn’t have upset the bankers.Because the Americans had already done most of the development work for us,at least in regards to engine and transmission componentry,using American investment money not non existent British cash.No suprise that Leyland weren’t flooded with domestic customers for trucks with that type of spec at the time when it mattered and which would have been the only way in which they would have stood the slightest chance of also keeping a viable export operation.:bulb:

Strange as it may seem to you cf the use of a 350 bhp motor in 1971 would equate to using around 480 bhp in a 44 ton motor today so some of those backward thinking hauliers still havent taken your advice (although many have) but they are getting there slowly ,as for a 350 bhp motor in 71 ,they would have been better advised to have offered a 280 bhp motor with a decent cab.These early high powered engines were heavy on fuel and with no speed limiters were open to abuse,nothing like the modern high powered engines offered today .What a wonderful thing hindsight is though :wink:

Not exactly.Because as we’re seeing here those export markets,that lots of people are blaming Stokes etc for losing,didn’t give a toss about such silly British foibles concerning imaginary ‘driver abuse’ or ■■■■■■■ ( or Detroit ) engines supposedly being diesel guzzlers.

While your argument still leaves the issue of the 13 speed fuller being available to Brit manufacturers at that time too and no doubt you’ll now probably say that with hindsight it might have been a good idea for the domestic customer base to have demanded it but back then that would have been seen the equivalent of a 27 + speed box considering that a 6 speed was considered as being more than adequate by most Brit customers. :smiling_imp: :wink:

Those export markets you mention were operating at much higher weights than we were ,just how many other countries hauliers were demanding or opting for 11 bhp per ton in 1971 ,was it just the British hauliers that were backwards in their thinking?

540

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:

Carryfast:

gingerfold:
Ramone, the bewildering thing is that AEC had developed its own multi-ratio gearboxes for its entire range, a 10-speed range change and 12-speed splitter for the heavyweights, which was listed as two versions an up-split and a down-split, and a 12-speed splitter box for the medium weight Mercury / Marshal. Later the Fuller 9-speed range change was fitted into the Mandator from about 1975 as a factory fitted option, and at least two of these have been preserved. It does support one of Carryfast’s arguments that the British buyer was two stingy to pay extra for these gearbox options which transformed the performance of a lorry, either that or it was AEC’s best kept secret that these options even existed.

I think the confirmation of that type of reasoning as to one of the main reasons for ‘what went wrong’ is the fact that we’ve got a documented example that at least Guy were able to supply a 350 hp ■■■■■■■ engined wagon with a 13 speed Fuller in it as of 1971.No suprise it seems to have been viewed at that time here as some sort of alien machine only suited to some obscure ‘export’ application. :confused: :unamused: Which proves that (1) the export market alone wasn’t enough to provide the sales needed to support a group the size of Leyland and (2) the all important domestic market wouldn’t be looking for that type of truck in sufficient numbers for at least around another 10 years probably more in many cases.So,as I’ve said,it was probably also a case of domestic customers being backward in their thinking not just stingy.

Whereas that spec was about as good as it could have got in respect of ticking all the boxes concerning reliability,fuel economy,outputs,and transmission at that time,both in regards to the domestic market and the export markets and at a cost which wouldn’t have upset the bankers.Because the Americans had already done most of the development work for us,at least in regards to engine and transmission componentry,using American investment money not non existent British cash.No suprise that Leyland weren’t flooded with domestic customers for trucks with that type of spec at the time when it mattered and which would have been the only way in which they would have stood the slightest chance of also keeping a viable export operation.:bulb:

Strange as it may seem to you cf the use of a 350 bhp motor in 1971 would equate to using around 480 bhp in a 44 ton motor today so some of those backward thinking hauliers still havent taken your advice (although many have) but they are getting there slowly ,as for a 350 bhp motor in 71 ,they would have been better advised to have offered a 280 bhp motor with a decent cab.These early high powered engines were heavy on fuel and with no speed limiters were open to abuse,nothing like the modern high powered engines offered today .What a wonderful thing hindsight is though :wink:

Not exactly.Because as we’re seeing here those export markets,that lots of people are blaming Stokes etc for losing,didn’t give a toss about such silly British foibles concerning imaginary ‘driver abuse’ or ■■■■■■■ ( or Detroit ) engines supposedly being diesel guzzlers.

While your argument still leaves the issue of the 13 speed fuller being available to Brit manufacturers at that time too and no doubt you’ll now probably say that with hindsight it might have been a good idea for the domestic customer base to have demanded it but back then that would have been seen the equivalent of a 27 + speed box considering that a 6 speed was considered as being more than adequate by most Brit customers. :smiling_imp: :wink:

Those export markets you mention were operating at much higher weights than we were ,just how many other countries hauliers were demanding or opting for 11 bhp per ton in 1971 ,was it just the British hauliers that were backwards in their thinking?

In the case of Ash’s or Cargo’s point of view the Brits needed to be on the same wavelength as those markets regardless of the thinking in the domestic market which as I’ve said was the main problem,together with the simple lack of cash.The fact is that also would have had the knock on effect of moving the UK manufacturers’ game forward in the domestic market.Which would have been a good thing not a bad one and it’s what was actually needed in order to save the industry.In this case the US market did that instead,by taking advantage of the fact,that in spite of it’s similarly low gross weight limits,it wasn’t held back by a domestic customer base mostly wanting to stay with Gardner type outputs and 6-9 speed transmissions throughout the 1970’s.Maybe now at least the points I’ve been making are becoming clearer as to what happened and why and it certainly can’t be blamed on people like Stokes or the workers under their leadership.

It seems obvious that the US truck manufacturing industry was trying to help the UK one to keep it’s colonial export markets and the Brits blew it not through bad management but by the domestic market looking at a gift horse in the mouth and deciding to stay with the donkey they had.At which point the Americans just said they’ve led a horse to water but they couldn’t make it drink.Therefore they might as well get on with taking those old colonial export markets of ours for themselves and leave the Brits to get on with it although not before making sure that the Brit customers were as backward as they seemed to be by trying ( and failing ) to get uk market acceptance in the case of the TM at least. :bulb: