Have you been out in the sun too long CF ■■?
That all seemed as good an explanation as to what went wrong to me as any.Bearing in mind that the uk was never going to crack the European market regardless of what happened.In our case it was co operate with the US truck manufacturing industry by using,possibly British produced,US componentry,both for use in the domestic market and in the colonial export markets to create the economies of scale required or go under.It’s obvious in that environment that joining the EEC/EU was a big mistake.The rest is history.
cargo:
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.
India is the odd man out. There, the government decided on self-sufficiency at all odds after independence, even if the price was lagging behind in design and power, so they were quite happy to licence the basic COE Comet and Beaver/Hippo and produce tens of thousands of the same design for years. At the same time they restricted all imports. Now of course things are changing as Ashok and Tata realized the Chinese are stealing a march on them, hence the more modern lorry designs and obtaining a market leader (Jag/Rover).
Way back then, with import restriction, the only way for someone like Leyland to make any money in India was to convince Ashok to obtain licences for the newer models, something which was probably impossible. Operators used what they had, aided by the typical deterministic approach possessed by many Indians, I think…
[zb]
anorak:
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.
That’s a good point of which I was not aware… It would explain the “lights are on, but nobody’s at home” syndrome. The old guard assumed things would continue as before WWII, the inventive younger managers were not there.
Carryfast:
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… 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.
Again, what you say is that Leyland - bigger than KW in 1950 and through most of the 1950s - was in dire financial straights back then (never mind the 1970s) which would have made it impossible to make the modest investment needed to keep the product at the top of the game (which they already had: Comet, Beaver/Hippo/Octopus and Buffalo). I remain skeptical.
With respect to the second part of the argument, surely this is tongue in cheek - the US manufacturers were the opponents in the 50s in all of the above markets, they were hardly waiting for the UK manufacturers to mess up, “after you Claude” fashion. Remember again, at that period the discrepancies between the products were not as big as they became as of the early 60s. Not every US truck had an “iron lung” ■■■■■■■ with up to 320 hp or some thirsty petrol engine like a Hall-Scott with similar hp you know…
Carryfast:
That all seemed as good an explanation as to what went wrong to me as any.Bearing in mind that the uk was never going to crack the European market regardless of what happened.In our case it was co operate with the US truck manufacturing industry by using,possibly British produced,US componentry,both for use in the domestic market and in the colonial export markets to create the economies of scale required or go under.It’s obvious in that environment that joining the EEC/EU was a big mistake.The rest is history.
In the 1970s, maybe. I say “maybe” because the European market did not want the Ford Conti or the Detroit Diesel-engined Bedford TM (nobody wanted 2 stroke DDs in Europe actually). My point again is that the trouble started earlier.
Cheers
L
Leyland Ash:
cargo:
Carryfast:
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… 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.Again, what you say is that Leyland - bigger than KW in 1950 and through most of the 1950s - was in dire financial straights back then (never mind the 1970s) which would have made it impossible to make the modest investment needed to keep the product at the top of the game (which they already had: Comet, Beaver/Hippo/Octopus and Buffalo). I remain skeptical.
With respect to the second part of the argument, surely this is tongue in cheek - the US manufacturers were the opponents in the 50s in all of the above markets, they were hardly waiting for the UK manufacturers to mess up, “after you Claude” fashion. Remember again, at that period the discrepancies between the products were not as big as they became as of the early 60s. Not every US truck had an “iron lung” ■■■■■■■ with up to 320 hp or some thirsty petrol engine like a Hall-Scott with similar hp you know…
Carryfast:
That all seemed as good an explanation as to what went wrong to me as any.Bearing in mind that the uk was never going to crack the European market regardless of what happened.In our case it was co operate with the US truck manufacturing industry by using,possibly British produced,US componentry,both for use in the domestic market and in the colonial export markets to create the economies of scale required or go under.It’s obvious in that environment that joining the EEC/EU was a big mistake.The rest is history.In the 1970s, maybe. I say “maybe” because the European market did not want the Ford Conti or the Detroit Diesel-engined Bedford TM (nobody wanted 2 stroke DDs in Europe actually). My point again is that the trouble started earlier.
Cheers
L
I think that’s just a matter of disagreement concerning the time when it all started going wrong.I don’t think that we had too much US competition in the colonial markets in question during the 1950’s-early 60’s and things hadn’t really started going wrong with the old Leyland ranges still being competitive enough at that point.It’s what happened after that when it all started going wrong.As you’ve said yourself what was needed was 300-400 + hp trucks with decent transmissions in 1972 which,as you’ve said there,is the time line that I’m referring to.IE there was nothing to follow those old Leyland ranges other than some obvious concepts like that reasonably powered Guy with a 13 speed fuller.
Which of course was totally unviable to put into large scale production at the time in the domestic market the resulting loss of the economies of scale therefore obviously making it equally unviable as just an export product.It wasn’t until the early-mid 1980’s that the domestic market started moving forwards in a big enough way to provide the level of sales required.Which of course by then was too late,not just for the uk export operations,but also it’s domestic operations because the foreign competition was already there and here.
However it seems obvious that the US truck manufacturing industry was more interested in helping and co operating with the uk industry than competing with it at the time when it mattered during the 1970’s.Hence the engine and driveline in that Guy and the failed attempt to penetrate the uk domestic market with the TM and it’s also why I wasn’t one of the youth unemployment statistics here during the mid-late 1970’s.
Carryfast:
That all seemed as good an explanation as to what went wrong to me as any.Bearing in mind that the uk was never going to crack the European market regardless of what happened.In our case it was co operate with the US truck manufacturing industry by using,possibly British produced,US componentry,both for use in the domestic market and in the colonial export markets to create the economies of scale required or go under.It’s obvious in that environment that joining the EEC/EU was a big mistake.The rest is history.
At long last i agree on something with you CF ,joining the EEC was a big mistake … but thats where it ends we should have been producing the requirements of the customer whether it was the UK or SA or OZ,NZ ,or Europe ,why we couldnt compete in Europe is a complete mystery werent AEC doing just that in an indirect way in France with Willeme mr stokes put a stop to AECs export market not AEC ,and also their development, they were producing vehicles with their hands tied behind their backs 
ramone:
Carryfast:
That all seemed as good an explanation as to what went wrong to me as any.Bearing in mind that the uk was never going to crack the European market regardless of what happened.In our case it was co operate with the US truck manufacturing industry by using,possibly British produced,US componentry,both for use in the domestic market and in the colonial export markets to create the economies of scale required or go under.It’s obvious in that environment that joining the EEC/EU was a big mistake.The rest is history.At long last i agree on something with you CF ,joining the EEC was a big mistake … but thats where it ends we should have been producing the requirements of the customer whether it was the UK or SA or OZ,NZ ,or Europe ,why we couldn
t compete in Europe is a complete mystery werent AEC doing just that in an indirect way in France with Willeme mr stokes put a stop to AECs export market not AEC ,and also their development, they were producing vehicles with their hands tied behind their backs
Stokes was just a realist who knew that the Brits were never going to take enough sales from the big euro manufacturers on their own turf.What he,and all those in the domestic industry then needed was a loyal,forward thinking,protected,domestic market ( hence no EEC membership ) to provide a large domestic demand for the types of product being called for in the colonial markets which the US manufacturers were obviously prepared to help us to develop.
As history shows what actually happened was that the British domestic market snubbed the latest developments from the US with insufficient funds to develop our own,and we joined the EEC thereby opening the domestic market to a flood of euro imports in addition to Scandinavian ones.Therefore no economies of scale to produce the type of products required to keep our old established colonial markets,no way of beating the euro lot on their home turf which were effectively just protected markets based on unshakeable customer loyalty and hidden government protectionist policies.All of which was obviously clear to Leyland’s management and investors at the time.The only surprise is that the Americans still tried to turn it all around after all that in the case of the TM and the SA 400 series and Fodens.
Just like me there’s probably plenty of British workers who were kept off the dole at the time by that effort of the US truck manufacturing industry,and who have cause to thank them for at least trying.The failure of that being mostly down to the British domestic customer base and the government in looking after the interests of European manufacturers and workers over our own. 
Carryfast…thank you for making me smile…perchance you would like to tackle the UK Agricultural industry next…we could really do with some “off the wall” logic!!!
I shall raise a toast to you…humour on a summers evening.Cheerio for now.
ramone:
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
Yes the 10-speed AEC box was a constant mesh and it was fitted into quite a few V8 Mandators.
I think one thing everybody will agree on is that opening the UK market to unlimited competition from the European manufacturers did not help. Europe operates differently from how things are done in the UK (even today); the British always expected everyone to play fair but I think in the EU there’s lots going on which is off the table. No official import quotas but… The same thing is applicable to Japan and China: see how far you get selling an import there fair and square. I always thought this acceptance of a one-sided free market by the British and the Americans was another reason why the once proud industries of those countries are pale shadows of what they used to be.
Leyland Ash:
I think one thing everybody will agree on is that opening the UK market to unlimited competition from the European manufacturers did not help. Europe operates differently from how things are done in the UK (even today); the British always expected everyone to play fair but I think in the EU there’s lots going on which is off the table. No official import quotas but… The same thing is applicable to Japan and China: see how far you get selling an import there fair and square. I always thought this acceptance of a one-sided free market by the British and the Americans was another reason why the once proud industries of those countries are pale shadows of what they used to be.
The sale price of products, without border restrictions, evens out somewhat, between countries. However, the manufacturing cost can be adjusted at will by Governments. The firms that are successful have usually enjoyed a bit of state subsidy, over the years. DAF and Renault spring to mind. Most of those screwdriver plants building Japanese, European and American-designed cars were built with the aid of grants, relaxation of planning law etc. If Leyland had not been such a pile of rubbish when the British Government started shoring it up, their investment would have paid dividends in tax income and a reduction in the trade deficit. My earlier speculation that Leyland’s ■■■■-ups were due to a lack of education in its employees is thrown into an even worse light by this- until the late 1980s, the British Government would give anyone who could not afford it an education up to degree level. I think there were even grants for postgraduate study. Leyland Motors, then, throughout its history, could have recruited as many clever Brits as it wanted, without paying a penny for their education.
I think that you are being a bit unkind to Leyland and AEC and other large engineering concerns. Both Leyland and AEC ran three levels of apprenticeship entry for those with varying educational attainments. Before comprehensive schools and GCSEs some lads left school at 15 without qualifications, these could take a trade apprenticeship and improve their education with day release and / or nightschool. There were also apprenticeships for those with GCE qualifications that could lead to a degree in engineering, and there were also graduate entry level apprenticeships. Leyland had its own apprentices’ college namely Stokes Hall (Yes I know the self-importance of that man is incredible). I was a grammar school pupil and proud of it but on leaving school in 1968 whatever career guidance was provided never mentioned a career in engineering. Whilst comprehensive schooling might have some merits you cannot educate on a level playing field because the dimmest will hold back the cleverest. I actually failed my 11 plus exam but was given the opportunity to transfer to grammar school from secondary modern school.
On that note I fly to Cuba in the morning, so whilst Mrs Gingerfold tops up her suntan I will be Leyland hunting in Havana.
Leyland Ash:
I think one thing everybody will agree on is that opening the UK market to unlimited competition from the European manufacturers did not help. Europe operates differently from how things are done in the UK (even today); the British always expected everyone to play fair but I think in the EU there’s lots going on which is off the table. No official import quotas but… The same thing is applicable to Japan and China: see how far you get selling an import there fair and square. I always thought this acceptance of a one-sided free market by the British and the Americans was another reason why the once proud industries of those countries are pale shadows of what they used to be.
^ This.
Not forgetting that customer loyalty based on the national interest was obviously a luxury which the euro and scandinavian manufacturers had while the Brits obviously didn’t which in itself was just another form of under hand trade barrier.
Which is why it’s wrong to blame Stokes for wanting to abandon the European markets in favour of pinning his hopes on the domestic market staying on side which then would obviously have had that required knock on effect of being able to concentrate efforts on the old established colonial markets on the export side.However there’s no way that strategy had a chance of succeeding without the government staying out of the EEC/EU and without very close co operation between the UK truck manufacturing industry and it’s US counterparts in terms of major componentry.Which,as Ive said,would have included/needed solid support from the UK domestic customer base in terms of providing the required demand for such trucks.
Instead of which,rather than uk customers demanding such products as that ■■■■■■■ 350 hp powered Guy with a 13 speed fuller in it as of 1971, or the SA 400 series or the TM in big numbers as of the mid 1970’s etc etc,the Brits were still demanding Gardner powered heaps with 6 speed boxes in them and then to add insult to injury had the nerve to blame people like Stokes and the workers under them when those customers finally came to their senses and ran off to the European and Scandinavian competition,having wrecked their own domestic industry with their ridiculous backward demands when it mattered.
Carryfast:
Leyland Ash:
I think one thing everybody will agree on is that opening the UK market to unlimited competition from the European manufacturers did not help. Europe operates differently from how things are done in the UK (even today); the British always expected everyone to play fair but I think in the EU there’s lots going on which is off the table. No official import quotas but… The same thing is applicable to Japan and China: see how far you get selling an import there fair and square. I always thought this acceptance of a one-sided free market by the British and the Americans was another reason why the once proud industries of those countries are pale shadows of what they used to be.^ This.
Not forgetting that customer loyalty based on the national interest was obviously a luxury which the euro and scandinavian manufacturers had while the Brits obviously didn’t which in itself was just another form of under hand trade barrier.Which is why it’s wrong to blame Stokes for wanting to abandon the European markets in favour of pinning his hopes on the domestic market staying on side which then would obviously have had that required knock on effect of being able to concentrate efforts on the old established colonial markets on the export side.However there’s no way that strategy had a chance of succeeding without the government staying out of the EEC/EU and without very close co operation between the UK truck manufacturing industry and it’s US counterparts in terms of major componentry.Which,as Ive said,would have included/needed solid support from the UK domestic customer base in terms of providing the required demand for such trucks.
Instead of which,rather than uk customers demanding such products as that ■■■■■■■ 350 hp powered Guy with a 13 speed fuller in it as of 1971, or the SA 400 series or the TM in big numbers as of the mid 1970’s etc etc,the Brits were still demanding Gardner powered heaps with 6 speed boxes in them and then to add insult to injury had the nerve to blame people like Stokes and the workers under them when those customers finally came to their senses and ran off to the European and Scandinavian competition,having wrecked their own domestic industry with their ridiculous backward demands when it mattered.
Thats a very contradictive piece CF , firstly you blame the UK customers for not being loyal then you slate them for buying Gardners,as for 1971 Guys with 350 ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed boxes not even the swedes were offering that spec in `71 ,its a shame you never went into road transport yourself then you could have seen how it worked 
gingerfold:
I think that you are being a bit unkind to Leyland and AEC and other large engineering concerns. Both Leyland and AEC ran three levels of apprenticeship entry for those with varying educational attainments. Before comprehensive schools and GCSEs some lads left school at 15 without qualifications, these could take a trade apprenticeship and improve their education with day release and / or nightschool. There were also apprenticeships for those with GCE qualifications that could lead to a degree in engineering, and there were also graduate entry level apprenticeships. Leyland had its own apprentices’ college namely Stokes Hall (Yes I know the self-importance of that man is incredible). I was a grammar school pupil and proud of it but on leaving school in 1968 whatever career guidance was provided never mentioned a career in engineering. Whilst comprehensive schooling might have some merits you cannot educate on a level playing field because the dimmest will hold back the cleverest. I actually failed my 11 plus exam but was given the opportunity to transfer to grammar school from secondary modern school.On that note I fly to Cuba in the morning, so whilst Mrs Gingerfold tops up her suntan I will be Leyland hunting in Havana.
Like drivers good engineers are born not trained at universities.University will only allow a decent engineer to progress to higher levels to meet their full potential.However that will be a totally pointless excercise if the engineer in question hasn’t got the gift of being able to make use of that training from day 1.However that gift will apply regardless of wether the engineer in question makes it to those levels or stays on the machines and benches on the shop floor.Which is why I’ve known plenty of good engineers who stayed at shop floor level having left school with no qualifcations whatsoever.The fact is not all of them could have been at the top design level and the designers wouldn’t have got their designs turned into reality without those on the shop floor doing it.ZB seems to have a large chip on his shoulder regarding the abilities and qualities of those who were at the so called ‘lower’ levels ( actually the sharp end depending on point of view ) of industry.
ramone:
Carryfast:
Leyland Ash:
I think one thing everybody will agree on is that opening the UK market to unlimited competition from the European manufacturers did not help. Europe operates differently from how things are done in the UK (even today); the British always expected everyone to play fair but I think in the EU there’s lots going on which is off the table. No official import quotas but… The same thing is applicable to Japan and China: see how far you get selling an import there fair and square. I always thought this acceptance of a one-sided free market by the British and the Americans was another reason why the once proud industries of those countries are pale shadows of what they used to be.^ This.
Not forgetting that customer loyalty based on the national interest was obviously a luxury which the euro and scandinavian manufacturers had while the Brits obviously didn’t which in itself was just another form of under hand trade barrier.Which is why it’s wrong to blame Stokes for wanting to abandon the European markets in favour of pinning his hopes on the domestic market staying on side which then would obviously have had that required knock on effect of being able to concentrate efforts on the old established colonial markets on the export side.However there’s no way that strategy had a chance of succeeding without the government staying out of the EEC/EU and without very close co operation between the UK truck manufacturing industry and it’s US counterparts in terms of major componentry.Which,as Ive said,would have included/needed solid support from the UK domestic customer base in terms of providing the required demand for such trucks.
Instead of which,rather than uk customers demanding such products as that ■■■■■■■ 350 hp powered Guy with a 13 speed fuller in it as of 1971, or the SA 400 series or the TM in big numbers as of the mid 1970’s etc etc,the Brits were still demanding Gardner powered heaps with 6 speed boxes in them and then to add insult to injury had the nerve to blame people like Stokes and the workers under them when those customers finally came to their senses and ran off to the European and Scandinavian competition,having wrecked their own domestic industry with their ridiculous backward demands when it mattered.
Thats a very contradictive piece CF , firstly you blame the UK customers for not being loyal then you slate them for buying Gardners,as for 1971 Guys with 350 ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed boxes not even the swedes were offering that spec in `71 ,its a shame you never went into road transport yourself then you could have seen how it worked
I’ll put it another way not loyal where and when it mattered.They weren’t actually loyal to the Gardner powered heaps because they were British they were loyal to them because as we’ve seen they associated big power outputs with so called ‘driver abuse’ and excessive fuel consumption and couldn’t get their heads around the idea of the efficiency in combining big engines with turbocharging to make plenty of torque.While the idea of 13 speed gearboxes as opposed to an old 6 speed was something else which was going to take them some time to get their heads around.No surprise when they eventually did they then covered up their backward thinking and ignorance by blaming it all on the British manufacturers and workers when they ran off to the foreign competition.
While the fact that we would/could/should have been offering a better spec than the Swedes in 1971 is what the issue is all about.The problem was that the Brits couldn’t have sold the thing in the domestic market for at least another 10 years probably more.While the colonial markets were busy demanding such products from the Americans instead.
The scania 140 was avalible in 71 with 350 bhp the 330 f89 was avalible around this time too.
British hauliers ditching home built trucks for European trucks has been done todeath on here but Renault and Iveco are still dominant in there home markets and in the past have been known to produce some vehicles of very dubious quality.
I think its niave to blame one thing but I can see where carryfast is coming from the European truck builders kept on devolping there products and the period from the early 60s to the late 70s when the motorways of Europe made haulage and the trucks needed to do it change more in that 15 years than they had in the previous 30 but the Brits stuck with the proven formula which became obsolete.
Yes they were proven and trusted products but why didn’t they move on like scania and Volvo etc.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
Leyland Ash:
I think one thing everybody will agree on is that opening the UK market to unlimited competition from the European manufacturers did not help. Europe operates differently from how things are done in the UK (even today); the British always expected everyone to play fair but I think in the EU there’s lots going on which is off the table. No official import quotas but… The same thing is applicable to Japan and China: see how far you get selling an import there fair and square. I always thought this acceptance of a one-sided free market by the British and the Americans was another reason why the once proud industries of those countries are pale shadows of what they used to be.^ This.
Not forgetting that customer loyalty based on the national interest was obviously a luxury which the euro and scandinavian manufacturers had while the Brits obviously didn’t which in itself was just another form of under hand trade barrier.Which is why it’s wrong to blame Stokes for wanting to abandon the European markets in favour of pinning his hopes on the domestic market staying on side which then would obviously have had that required knock on effect of being able to concentrate efforts on the old established colonial markets on the export side.However there’s no way that strategy had a chance of succeeding without the government staying out of the EEC/EU and without very close co operation between the UK truck manufacturing industry and it’s US counterparts in terms of major componentry.Which,as Ive said,would have included/needed solid support from the UK domestic customer base in terms of providing the required demand for such trucks.
Instead of which,rather than uk customers demanding such products as that ■■■■■■■ 350 hp powered Guy with a 13 speed fuller in it as of 1971, or the SA 400 series or the TM in big numbers as of the mid 1970’s etc etc,the Brits were still demanding Gardner powered heaps with 6 speed boxes in them and then to add insult to injury had the nerve to blame people like Stokes and the workers under them when those customers finally came to their senses and ran off to the European and Scandinavian competition,having wrecked their own domestic industry with their ridiculous backward demands when it mattered.
Thats a very contradictive piece CF , firstly you blame the UK customers for not being loyal then you slate them for buying Gardners,as for 1971 Guys with 350 ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed boxes not even the swedes were offering that spec in `71 ,its a shame you never went into road transport yourself then you could have seen how it worked
I’ll put it another way not loyal where and when it mattered.They weren’t actually loyal to the Gardner powered heaps because they were British they were loyal to them because as we’ve seen they associated big power outputs with so called ‘driver abuse’ and excessive fuel consumption and couldn’t get their heads around the idea of the efficiency in combining big engines with turbocharging to make plenty of torque.While the idea of 13 speed gearboxes as opposed to an old 6 speed was something else which was going to take them some time to get their heads around.No surprise when they eventually did they then covered up their backward thinking and ignorance by blaming it all on the British manufacturers and workers when they ran off to the foreign competition.
While the fact that we would/could/should have been offering a better spec than the Swedes in 1971 is what the issue is all about.The problem was that the Brits couldn’t have sold the thing in the domestic market for at least another 10 years probably more.While the colonial markets were busy demanding such products from the Americans instead.
The American market is /was a totally different kettle of fish to the british one with hauliers demanding vehicles their drivers lived in rather than having a few nights a week away from base ,they also covered much higher mileages than their british counterparts so high average speeds made sense.Over here the motorway networks were in their early stages .The Australian and SA markets had similar conditions to the US but without the quality of roads but they did operate at much higher weights than here,so it made sense that the US would be developing engines to cope with their needs which coincidentally worked very well down under .The swedes were producing vehicles for their own market which at the time (and still do) operated at higher weights than here hence the bigger engine output ,but if you look at both markets we actually had a higher bhp per ton compared with the swedes on average The 240 F88 (average vehicle for the time over there) running at 48 tons would equate to 5 bhp per ton , the 180 Gardner running at 32 tons would equate to 5.6 bhp per ton ,the 200+ bhp mandators and Leylands of the time were over 6 bhp per ton so the Swedes didnt have to do much to succeed over here .If those forward thinking swedes could have taken your advice on these matters they would have had to develop a 480 bhp engine back in 1971 to compete with a 350 Big J back in sweden to give a similar 10/11 bhp per ton,but they knew they didnt need such a big engine when those 240s were quite adequate
Even now plenty of swedes run 440-480 at 60 ton.
Intrestingly Paccar bought foden in 1980 but other than bringing cat engine options in they did nothing realy different from the direction foden had started to move in to.
Look at the truck builders with intrests on both sides of the pond. Volvos offeringd are very different in the north american market. Peterbilt and kenworth and daf are very different productd along with freightliner and mercedes.
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
Leyland Ash:
I think one thing everybody will agree on is that opening the UK market to unlimited competition from the European manufacturers did not help. Europe operates differently from how things are done in the UK (even today); the British always expected everyone to play fair but I think in the EU there’s lots going on which is off the table. No official import quotas but… The same thing is applicable to Japan and China: see how far you get selling an import there fair and square. I always thought this acceptance of a one-sided free market by the British and the Americans was another reason why the once proud industries of those countries are pale shadows of what they used to be.^ This.
Not forgetting that customer loyalty based on the national interest was obviously a luxury which the euro and scandinavian manufacturers had while the Brits obviously didn’t which in itself was just another form of under hand trade barrier.Which is why it’s wrong to blame Stokes for wanting to abandon the European markets in favour of pinning his hopes on the domestic market staying on side which then would obviously have had that required knock on effect of being able to concentrate efforts on the old established colonial markets on the export side.However there’s no way that strategy had a chance of succeeding without the government staying out of the EEC/EU and without very close co operation between the UK truck manufacturing industry and it’s US counterparts in terms of major componentry.Which,as Ive said,would have included/needed solid support from the UK domestic customer base in terms of providing the required demand for such trucks.
Instead of which,rather than uk customers demanding such products as that ■■■■■■■ 350 hp powered Guy with a 13 speed fuller in it as of 1971, or the SA 400 series or the TM in big numbers as of the mid 1970’s etc etc,the Brits were still demanding Gardner powered heaps with 6 speed boxes in them and then to add insult to injury had the nerve to blame people like Stokes and the workers under them when those customers finally came to their senses and ran off to the European and Scandinavian competition,having wrecked their own domestic industry with their ridiculous backward demands when it mattered.
Thats a very contradictive piece CF , firstly you blame the UK customers for not being loyal then you slate them for buying Gardners,as for 1971 Guys with 350 ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed boxes not even the swedes were offering that spec in `71 ,its a shame you never went into road transport yourself then you could have seen how it worked
I’ll put it another way not loyal where and when it mattered.They weren’t actually loyal to the Gardner powered heaps because they were British they were loyal to them because as we’ve seen they associated big power outputs with so called ‘driver abuse’ and excessive fuel consumption and couldn’t get their heads around the idea of the efficiency in combining big engines with turbocharging to make plenty of torque.While the idea of 13 speed gearboxes as opposed to an old 6 speed was something else which was going to take them some time to get their heads around.No surprise when they eventually did they then covered up their backward thinking and ignorance by blaming it all on the British manufacturers and workers when they ran off to the foreign competition.
While the fact that we would/could/should have been offering a better spec than the Swedes in 1971 is what the issue is all about.The problem was that the Brits couldn’t have sold the thing in the domestic market for at least another 10 years probably more.While the colonial markets were busy demanding such products from the Americans instead.
The American market is /was a totally different kettle of fish to the british one with hauliers demanding vehicles their drivers lived in rather than having a few nights a week away from base ,they also covered much higher mileages than their british counterparts so high average speeds made sense.Over here the motorway networks were in their early stages .The Australian and SA markets had similar conditions to the US but without the quality of roads but they did operate at much higher weights than here,so it made sense that the US would be developing engines to cope with their needs which coincidentally worked very well down under .The swedes were producing vehicles for their own market which at the time (and still do) operated at higher weights than here hence the bigger engine output ,but if you look at both markets we actually had a higher bhp per ton compared with the swedes on average The 240 F88 (average vehicle for the time over there) running at 48 tons would equate to 5 bhp per ton , the 180 Gardner running at 32 tons would equate to 5.6 bhp per ton ,the 200+ bhp mandators and Leylands of the time were over 6 bhp per ton so the Swedes didn
t have to do much to succeed over here .If those forward thinking swedes could have taken your advice on these matters they would have had to develop a 480 bhp engine back in 1971 to compete with a 350 Big J back in sweden to give a similar 10/11 bhp per ton,but they knew they didnt need such a big engine when those 240s were quite adequate
Firstly when you’re comparing the Swedes running at big weights with below average power to weight ratios you’re forgetting that both in the states and here,it was actually a case of relatively higher power to weight ratios being used,and being ‘eventually’ used respectively,to run at relatively lower gross weights,at relatively higher average speeds.In the American case sometimes to massive extremes which the average British customers at the time wouldn’t have believed.Whereas the Swedes were making enough torque at the wheels,which is the relevant comparison,by down gearing the things to run a lower average speeds but at higher average engine speeds.Which is how they still manage to run at high weights using relatively low power to weight ratios now and it’s why Scania and Volvo have developed 600-700 + hp engines to improve that situation by getting torque levels up and engine speeds down thereby improving economy.
As was proved ‘eventually’ here around 300-400 hp + running at 32-44 t gross,using relatively big power engines like ■■■■■■■ and then euro imports,worked just fine in terms of productivety and fuel efficiency.While as Ash has shown the colonial export markets were also calling for similar power outputs but much sooner because in their case the demands of the customers was running way ahead of those of the Brits.The only difference being in ‘certain’ cases they wanted the big power outputs to run at relatively higher weights at relatively lower average speeds or similar type gross weights at similar high speeds.Or even sometimes a combination of high average speeds ‘and’ relatively high gross weights in which case they needed even more than 400 hp.
Which is where those demands of certain US customers,in regards to those massive extremes of very high average speeds,at similar to uk gross weights,came into play.In all cases the UK truck manufacturing industry could have provided those figures and at the time which Ash was describing using proven cheaply available US componentry but unfortunately it couldn’t because,( at that time ) it didn’t have the type of demand,in the domestic market,for the same type of products thereby wrecking any possibility of sufficient demand to create the required economies of scale to produce such products.The rest is history and the clonial export markets went to the Americans directly instead.
The fact is the backward thinking domestic customer base is one of the main reasons that did it and it’s guilty as charged regardless of how unpalatable that inconvenient truth is to those who just don’t want it to be true and who keep trying to make excuses to cover tracks and shift the blame onto those like Stokes and British workers where it doesn’t belong.
kr79:
Even now plenty of swedes run 440-480 at 60 ton.
Intrestingly Paccar bought foden in 1980 but other than bringing cat engine options in they did nothing realy different from the direction foden had started to move in to.
Look at the truck builders with intrests on both sides of the pond. Volvos offeringd are very different in the north american market. Peterbilt and kenworth and daf are very different productd along with freightliner and mercedes.
It seems obvious that what happened here was a massive shift towards euroland in regards to people’s thinking especially the younger generations who’ve been effectively brainwashed never having known anything else.As opposed to the type of thinking in our old colonies like OZ an NZ.Things would probably have looked a lot different in that regard ‘if’ we’d have staid out of the EEC/EU and kept our ties with the colonies instead.In which case the uk truck market would probably have looked a lot more like that of NZ and Foden probably would have survived especially if we’d have put up trade barriers against Euro imports in favour of domestically made US based trucks at least in terms of componentry which is what Fodens had ( rightly ) become in the end.No surprise that the Americans closed the place down being that there was nothing in the deal for them only in house competition in the colonial markets with no benefits for them in the uk domestic market which was/is dominated by euro imports.