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.
and finns too use 420 500 mainly in 60 tn,s then nearly as usual is540 560 ,qand some few are bigger,cheers benkku
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
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.
What planet are you on ? It was the likes of Leyland who upped the game in the early 70s which prompted Volvo to introduce the 290 which in itself proved troublesome .You have this unhealthy obsession with everything American ,the truth is that the states and Australia had similar operating characteristics so the ease of selling US vehicles in Australia was quite simple.The Swedes ran at much higher weights than we did so to enter the UK market was quite simple they had the F86 which fit niceley with the 180 Gardner and the 240 which was just above the likes of the Leyland and AECs .The big difference is that what Volvo did was offer cabs with comfort never seen on these shores before Scania did a similar thing .The reason we failed was that we didnt move with the times and the quality just wasn`t there ,not just Leyland but ALL of the British manufacturers
Carryfast:
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.
What planet are you on ? It was the likes of Leyland who upped the game in the early 70s which prompted Volvo to introduce the 290 which in itself proved troublesome .You have this unhealthy obsession with everything American ,the truth is that the states and Australia had similar operating characteristics so the ease of selling US vehicles in Australia was quite simple.The Swedes ran at much higher weights than we did so to enter the UK market was quite simple they had the F86 which fit niceley with the 180 Gardner and the 240 which was just above the likes of the Leyland and AECs .The big difference is that what Volvo did was offer cabs with comfort never seen on these shores before Scania did a similar thing .The reason we failed was that we didnt move with the times and the quality just wasn`t there ,not just Leyland but ALL of the British manufacturers
The fact that we didn’t move with the times is what I’ve been saying in countless posts.
It’s the reasons for that and,contrary to your views,the timeline where we’ve got a massive disagreement.Firstly,as I’ve said,the workers would have turned out whatever was put in front of them according to the engineering drawings provided by the designers.However as we’ve seen those designs were compromised by lack of development funding and lack of production cost budgets.Not surprising considering the state of the uk’s post war economy and cash reserves.In addition to that those funding ‘issues’ caused lots of wage problems which accounts for any arguable industrial disputes contributing to the demise.
However that still leaves the issues that most of those problems didn’t apply in the case of using US designed major componentry like engines and transmissions at the time.Which were already in production and proven.
If you’d have read Ash’s comments they contain the correct view that we needed to be providing 300-400 hp + engine capabilities and decent fuller gearboxes in the export markets as of 1972.As we’ve seen at least Guy were able to provide such a spec at least in 350 hp ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed fuller form as of 1971.Maybe you could list all the proven,cost effective,British produced engines and drivelines ,which could match that spec at the price,which the Americans could provide,at that time.Maybe you could also list how many customers in the uk domestic market were demanding the same type of products at the time bearing in mind that such domestic demand would have been essential to provide the type of economies of scale required for the uk manufacturers to have made such an export operation economically viable.
Carryfast, is is quite clear that you have never had that “oh so personal” feeling of trying to to run a business with something that you have sunk your “last penny” in to make it work!!!
Today I am mortified to see that the blind union led employees of DHL are trying to wring extra cash from Tata, (who have made a success of Jaguar-Land Rover, by LEAVING THE CASH in the Business, and reinvesting), contra to the normal UK attitude of short term investment. My goodness, does not the man who accepts a job, at a wage, have satisfaction in"enjoying" the success of his employer, and being part of that success, have to listen to the stupid words of “their” Union,…we musthave more…because they are getting more"…how stupid are they!!! And how little they learn from the past!!!
Thus far, on this oh so rambling post, have the words of gingerfold, and our new contributor Leyland Ash, been closer to the truth,…and yes Carryfast, the men on the shop floor, (when not led by morons),. have been able to “correct” design flaws, sent down by the “oh so qualified gradurate engineers”, who frankly had little idea at all!!! I wholehardily acept that premise!!!
In the period that we are talking about, the UK Managerial attitude was…if “he” has a good degree, then he is suitable for management…Bl… WRONG!!! That is how you had degree merchants from DAKS trousers running Engineering Businessses!!! (That is factually true)!!!
What a Cod we in the UK have made of our oppertunities…Im away to my Bollinger, .....two bearings cone on my mowers, (both German), and I have over 190 acres to do tommorow.....Im feeling rather “belicose” tonoight…
Saviem:
Carryfast, is is quite clear that you have never had that “oh so personal” feeling of trying to to run a business with something that you have sunk your “last penny” in to make it work!!!
Today I am mortified to see that the blind union led employees of DHL are trying to wring extra cash from Tata, (who have made a success of Jaguar-Land Rover, by LEAVING THE CASH in the Business, and reinvesting), contra to the normal UK attitude of short term investment. My goodness, does not the man who accepts a job, at a wage, have satisfaction in"enjoying" the success of his employer, and being part of that success, have to listen to the stupid words of “their” Union,…we musthave more…because they are getting more"…how stupid are they!!! And how little they learn from the past!!!
Thus far, on this oh so rambling post, have the words of gingerfold, and our new contributor Leyland Ash, been closer to the truth,…and yes Carryfast, the men on the shop floor, (when not led by morons),. have been able to “correct” design flaws, sent down by the “oh so qualified gradurate engineers”, who frankly had little idea at all!!! I wholehardily acept that premise!!!
In the period that we are talking about, the UK Managerial attitude was…if “he” has a good degree, then he is suitable for management…Bl… WRONG!!! That is how you had degree merchants from DAKS trousers running Engineering Businessses!!! (That is factually true)!!!
What a Cod we in the UK have made of our oppertunities…Im away to my Bollinger, .....two bearings cone on my mowers, (both German), and I have over 190 acres to do tommorow.....Im feeling rather “belicose” tonoight…
Good night.
I think the problem which I’ve described was that we in the UK had no opportunities,simply because as things stood at the time there was no way forward because of the catch 22 of a funding and investment crisis in both the truck manufacturing industry and uk industry in general and the backward domestic market demand situation in regard to trucks as opposed to the more forward thinking demands of our export markets,for the reasons which I’ve provided.In addition to which you can then add opening up our domestic market to european ( and scandinavian ) competition.
As for the shop floor workers v the top grades in the design offices and management I don’t remember any difference in the views at the time which I’ve described between those higher levels and those,as I’ve said,at the sharp end at least in the environment where I was working.All I can remember was a team effort in which everyone was working towards the same aims and a worker’s worth was not judged just on paper qualifications.As you’ve seen that left me with the views which I’ve held to this day concerning where the problems were at least in those parts of the industry where those problems existed.I’ve got no doubt that those who decided to build that Guy with the 350 ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed fuller in it in 1971 were probably also working along those lines.
As for strong unions the fact is their advantages have always outweighed their disadvantages.Which is why the economy and income levels compared to prices are where they are in real terms today since the unions were weakened to the point of being pointless and irrelevant.
After the second world war, coal, steel and transport industries were nationalized, and in order to save on oil imports, the railways relied on steam trains, and road transport was restricted by licencing and construction and use issues to divert goods traffic to the railway.
At the end of the fifties, it was decided to build a network of motorways, and the shipping container arrived which meant that bigger and more powerful vehicles were required.
The new c & u regulations required virtually the renewal of the entire goods vehicle fleet, which meant that all vehicle builders could sell everything they could produce without problem - I have read of one operator who cancelled orders with Leyland because despite having 30 Beavers on order Leyland were unable to deliver, and started buying Atkinsons who were pleased to oblige.
In the midst of this chaos the government decided to set up production of the Leyland National Bus which stretched resources past breaking point, and Jaguar who relied on BMC for body shells for their cars were forced to merge with that mess, and then with Leyland.
The exchequer was also propping up Rolls-Royce and eventually had to nationalize both companies.
I have no doubt that infighting within British Leyland damaged the company more than the competition, and by the mid seventies disillusioned and bankrupt hauliers stopped buying Leyland and AEC and in fact Guy became their biggest seller, so they closed it.
After that Leyland could only sell vehicles by ‘buying business’ with huge discounts, and the huge captive market - BRS and the Armed forces kept them going well past their sell by date.
The first operators of imported vehicles I can remember used German vehicles which were very expensive because heavy import tariffs, and when somebody realised that the Swedes, who were our trading partners in EFTA had been building vehicles to higher specification than UK requirements without import duty the rot truly set in, and when we joined the EEC in 1973 foreign manufacturers took over.
There is not a lot of point in banging on about Mack and Kenworth, because they too have fallen to the Europeans.
Ver sad, but there it is.
vertco:
After the second world war, coal, steel and transport industries were nationalized, and in order to save on oil imports, the railways relied on steam trains, and road transport was restricted by licencing and construction and use issues to divert goods traffic to the railway.
At the end of the fifties, it was decided to build a network of motorways, and the shipping container arrived which meant that bigger and more powerful vehicles were required.
The new c & u regulations required virtually the renewal of the entire goods vehicle fleet, which meant that all vehicle builders could sell everything they could produce without problem - I have read of one operator who cancelled orders with Leyland because despite having 30 Beavers on order Leyland were unable to deliver, and started buying Atkinsons who were pleased to oblige.
In the midst of this chaos the government decided to set up production of the Leyland National Bus which stretched resources past breaking point, and Jaguar who relied on BMC for body shells for their cars were forced to merge with that mess, and then with Leyland.
The exchequer was also propping up Rolls-Royce and eventually had to nationalize both companies.
I have no doubt that infighting within British Leyland damaged the company more than the competition, and by the mid seventies disillusioned and bankrupt hauliers stopped buying Leyland and AEC and in fact Guy became their biggest seller, so they closed it.
After that Leyland could only sell vehicles by ‘buying business’ with huge discounts, and the huge captive market - BRS and the Armed forces kept them going well past their sell by date.
The first operators of imported vehicles I can remember used German vehicles which were very expensive because heavy import tariffs, and when somebody realised that the Swedes, who were our trading partners in EFTA had been building vehicles to higher specification than UK requirements without import duty the rot truly set in, and when we joined the EEC in 1973 foreign manufacturers took over.
There is not a lot of point in banging on about Mack and Kenworth, because they too have fallen to the Europeans.
Ver sad, but there it is.
Sounds a very sensible opinion to me, i think most on here are just frustrated at the potential some of our manufacturers had to compete with the europeans was there but for one reason or another none actually did
vertco:
After the second world war, coal, steel and transport industries were nationalized, and in order to save on oil imports, the railways relied on steam trains, and road transport was restricted by licencing and construction and use issues to divert goods traffic to the railway.
At the end of the fifties, it was decided to build a network of motorways, and the shipping container arrived which meant that bigger and more powerful vehicles were required.
The new c & u regulations required virtually the renewal of the entire goods vehicle fleet, which meant that all vehicle builders could sell everything they could produce without problem - I have read of one operator who cancelled orders with Leyland because despite having 30 Beavers on order Leyland were unable to deliver, and started buying Atkinsons who were pleased to oblige.
In the midst of this chaos the government decided to set up production of the Leyland National Bus which stretched resources past breaking point, and Jaguar who relied on BMC for body shells for their cars were forced to merge with that mess, and then with Leyland.
The exchequer was also propping up Rolls-Royce and eventually had to nationalize both companies.
I have no doubt that infighting within British Leyland damaged the company more than the competition, and by the mid seventies disillusioned and bankrupt hauliers stopped buying Leyland and AEC and in fact Guy became their biggest seller, so they closed it.
After that Leyland could only sell vehicles by ‘buying business’ with huge discounts, and the huge captive market - BRS and the Armed forces kept them going well past their sell by date.
The first operators of imported vehicles I can remember used German vehicles which were very expensive because heavy import tariffs, and when somebody realised that the Swedes, who were our trading partners in EFTA had been building vehicles to higher specification than UK requirements without import duty the rot truly set in, and when we joined the EEC in 1973 foreign manufacturers took over.
There is not a lot of point in banging on about Mack and Kenworth, because they too have fallen to the Europeans.
Ver sad, but there it is.
Sounds a very sensible opinion to me, i think most on here are just frustrated at the potential some of our manufacturers had to compete with the europeans was there but for one reason or another none actually did
All of which conveniently seems to miss the point that,as that says,the start of the shift towards motorways took place at the start of the 1960’s while even before that the truck designs of the time weren’t even up to the job under the old A road etc conditions being that there were still hills and a fully freighted AEC 8 wheeler rigid let alone drawbar outfit wasn’t exactly lightweight and would have benefitted from a lot more power and a lot more gears.
However regardless of that the fact is British operators were still demanding sub 300 hp,often even sub 200 hp specs,and 6-9 speed transmissions from the uk manufacturers which weren’t up to the job well into the 1970’s and even early 1980’s.When as we’ve seen in Ash’s comments the export markets were demanding 300-400 hp + outputs and better transmissions in the early 1970’s at least,while demand for that type of spec,in sufficient numbers to support a volume pruduction operation,would take the British domestic customers at least until the mid 1980’s to get their heads around.Notice the word ‘customers’ not manufacturers being that,as Guy had proved,they were ready and able to produce a 350 hp wagon with a proven ■■■■■■■ engine and 13 speed fuller driveline combination in 1971.
Unfortunately for Leyland they couldn’t sell the thing to any operators here in sufficient numbers,if at all,to support any large scale production operation,which of course included counting it out for the export markets where they were calling for such products simply because of that issue of economies of scale.As we’ve seen all supposedly based on some bs ‘driver abuse’ and fuel economy issue when the truth is the backward British customers didn’t know any better until they’d been shown that such power outputs and decent transmissions worked by foreign operators who knew better.By which time it was too late for the British manufacturers.
As for the European customers like the Germans buying British products in large enough numbers,over their own domestic manufacturers’, dream on.That’s just a case of naively thinking that German customers would be as disloyal towards their own truck manufacturing industry as the British ones were towards their’s.
I dont know what you get off on CF but you do spout some crap.So now youve found out that in the early 70s Guy offered a 350 bhp option so now thats the motor everythings measured against ,if it wasnt Guy it was the Crusader ,if it wasnt the Crusader it was the other one you go on about the extremely successful (not) TM. Could you point out to me where else in the world customers were demanding 11bhp per ton vehicles in the early 70s.You mention how we couldnt compete with the Germans on their own patch ,well that had nothing to do with us not offering big engined vehicles ,they are well known for their underpowered motors havent you ever driven a 1625 ,1628 or even worse a 1729 ,but one thing they all had in common they were reliable and earned money ,just like those old MM8s you mentioned.Back in the very early 60s there were virtually no motorways here the speed limits were very low for goods vehicles and the rate for the job reflected in the time it took to actually complete .There were quite a few rich hauliers back then ,its a different ball game now ,totally different just like engine design is now .Back in 71 a 350 ■■■■■■■ was a totally different beast to the equivillent 20 years on ,its called development ,hauliers couldnt afford to run, them now they are controlled by computers .
I will pose a question to you CF,it`s 1971 you are a haulier and have just won a contract to deliver 22 ton loads nation wide ,weight is critical you need to obtain 10 artics what would you choose as your bread and butter motor .
No one liners from you Mr Bewick
ramone:
I dont know what you get off on CF but you do spout some crap.So now youve found out that in the early 70s Guy offered a 350 bhp option so now thats the motor everythings measured against ,if it wasnt Guy it was the Crusader ,if it wasnt the Crusader it was the other one you go on about the extremely successful (not) TM. Could you point out to me where else in the world customers were demanding 11bhp per ton vehicles in the early 70s.You mention how we couldnt compete with the Germans on their own patch ,well that had nothing to do with us not offering big engined vehicles ,they are well known for their underpowered motors havent you ever driven a 1625 ,1628 or even worse a 1729 ,but one thing they all had in common they were reliable and earned money ,just like those old MM8s you mentioned.Back in the very early 60s there were virtually no motorways here the speed limits were very low for goods vehicles and the rate for the job reflected in the time it took to actually complete .There were quite a few rich hauliers back then ,its a different ball game now ,totally different just like engine design is now .Back in 71 a 350 ■■■■■■■ was a totally different beast to the equivillent 20 years on ,its called development ,hauliers couldnt afford to run, them now they are controlled by computers .
I will pose a question to you CF,it`s 1971 you are a haulier and have just won a contract to deliver 22 ton loads nation wide ,weight is critical you need to obtain 10 artics what would you choose as your bread and butter motor .
No one liners from you Mr Bewick
Ten 8LXB Atkinson Borderers if the rates were right,if it was a “keen” price how about a batch of Seddon 32/4’s or Big J’s all with the 180LXB engine Bewick.
In 1971, Ramone, I was employed by a firm of unit load (container) operators and we approached two or three hauliers in East Anglia, for 5 tractor units and trailers on a three year term. Our chairman had a policy of using British vehicles, but was told that none were available at the time, but we could have Scania 80s or f86s as soon as the paint dried, in the event we took the Scanias, as the distributors, Scantruck had a reputation for fantastic service in the area and Volvo dealers were distant from our base,
The reception from Drivers was mixed. Some liked the high standard of driver comfort, but others did not like the slow gear change or the lack of guts compared to the 6LXB.
Incidentally, Mr Bewick, the rate was £180 for 800 miles plus 10p per excess mile, what would you have offered by way of vehicles?
With regard to the 335 or 350bhp Guy, this was a 6 wheel double drive concept vehicle for operation at 38/44 tonnes, and would have been far too heavy for 32 tonnes, and your 1950s AEC would have used the !!.3 (or AV690) and would have legally operated at 22 tons GVW, with a speed limit of 20mph, and that was considered more than adequate for the time.
During that time, we ran one ■■■■■■■ engined vehicle which we told was very heavy on fuel, and it was replaced.
Since those days increased engine efficiency has evolved over the years, and the kind of power units some contributors talk about did not exist or would have been unprofitable to operate on traffic where payload was critical
ramone:
I dont know what you get off on CF but you do spout some crap.So now youve found out that in the early 70s Guy offered a 350 bhp option so now thats the motor everythings measured against ,if it wasnt Guy it was the Crusader ,if it wasnt the Crusader it was the other one you go on about the extremely successful (not) TM. Could you point out to me where else in the world customers were demanding 11bhp per ton vehicles in the early 70s.You mention how we couldnt compete with the Germans on their own patch ,well that had nothing to do with us not offering big engined vehicles ,they are well known for their underpowered motors havent you ever driven a 1625 ,1628 or even worse a 1729 ,but one thing they all had in common they were reliable and earned money ,just like those old MM8s you mentioned.Back in the very early 60s there were virtually no motorways here the speed limits were very low for goods vehicles and the rate for the job reflected in the time it took to actually complete .There were quite a few rich hauliers back then ,its a different ball game now ,totally different just like engine design is now .Back in 71 a 350 ■■■■■■■ was a totally different beast to the equivillent 20 years on ,its called development ,hauliers couldnt afford to run, them now they are controlled by computers .
I will pose a question to you CF,it`s 1971 you are a haulier and have just won a contract to deliver 22 ton loads nation wide ,weight is critical you need to obtain 10 artics what would you choose as your bread and butter motor .
No one liners from you Mr Bewick
Ten 8LXB Atkinson Borderers if the rates were right,if it was a “keen” price how about a batch of Seddon 32/4’s or Big J’s all with the 180LXB engine Bewick.
So now let’s assume that you’re running Leyland trucks.Your export customers are calling for reliable 300-400 + hp wagons fitted with 13 speed fuller boxes at the right price as Ash has described.However your domestic market,where the massive bulk of your sales are,is still stuck in the 1950’s as you’ve described.That issue of economies of scale is stopping any chance of keeping those export markets in that environment.Then those on here who support those backward ideas of yours as described above have the nerve to blame Stokes and the workers for all that.
vertco:
In 1971, Ramone, I was employed by a firm of unit load (container) operators and we approached two or three hauliers in East Anglia, for 5 tractor units and trailers on a three year term. Our chairman had a policy of using British vehicles, but was told that none were available at the time, but we could have Scania 80s or f86s as soon as the paint dried, in the event we took the Scanias, as the distributors, Scantruck had a reputation for fantastic service in the area and Volvo dealers were distant from our base,
The reception from Drivers was mixed. Some liked the high standard of driver comfort, but others did not like the slow gear change or the lack of guts compared to the 6LXB.
Incidentally, Mr Bewick, the rate was £180 for 800 miles plus 10p per excess mile, what would you have offered by way of vehicles?
With regard to the 335 or 350bhp Guy, this was a 6 wheel double drive concept vehicle for operation at 38/44 tonnes, and would have been far too heavy for 32 tonnes, and your 1950s AEC would have used the !!.3 (or AV690) and would have legally operated at 22 tons GVW, with a speed limit of 20mph, and that was considered more than adequate for the time.
During that time, we ran one ■■■■■■■ engined vehicle which we told was very heavy on fuel, and it was replaced.
Since those days increased engine efficiency has evolved over the years, and the kind of power units some contributors talk about did not exist or would have been unprofitable to operate on traffic where payload was critical
All of that seems to mis the point that a 350 ■■■■■■■■■■ speed fuller spec could just as easily been put into a 4x2 tractor unit or eight wheeler rigid with an acceptable payload margin.The inconvenient fact is the British customer base was backward in getting it’s head around the way that trucks development was going and the British manufacturers paid the price for that.Although that still left the hurdle of lack of investment and funding anyway.In which,as I’ve said,it was only close co operation with the US component manufacturers at the right time that would have provided even the slightest chance.That time was the early 1970’s at the latest and as we’ve seen both the US and colonial customers were way ahead of the British customers’ in their demands.The rest is history.
CF, you can’t jump backwards and forwards in time like that, mate.
Don’t forget, we’re talking 1970s. At that time ■■■■■■■■ particularly the larger engines, were not known for their frugality: very few Btitish operators would have considered ordering 350 bhp versions of ANY motor.
As to the customer demanding 13-speed Fuller boxes, get real! The customer wouldn’t have cared if the vehicles were fitted with a Sturmey Archer gearbox as long as it was reliable.
There were very few operators in the early '70s who would have demanded 300-400bhp anyway. They would have seen it as unnecessary in the light of what they had been used to and what other firms were using to do a similar job.
And why on earth would you assume that the customer would be running Leylands? Operators were running plenty of other marques in the 70s including the foreigners.
Retired Old ■■■■:
CF, you can’t jump backwards and forwards in time like that, mate.
Don’t forget, we’re talking 1970s. At that time ■■■■■■■■ particularly the larger engines, were not known for their frugality: very few Btitish operators would have considered ordering 350 bhp versions of ANY motor.
As to the customer demanding 13-speed Fuller boxes, get real! The customer wouldn’t have cared if the vehicles were fitted with a Sturmey Archer gearbox as long as it was reliable.
There were very few operators in the early '70s who would have demanded 300-400bhp anyway. They would have seen it as unnecessary in the light of what they had been used to and what other firms were using to do a similar job.
And why on earth would you assume that the customer would be running Leylands? Operators were running plenty of other marques in the 70s including the foreigners.
It makes no difference wether it’s Leyland or any other of the British manufacturers.The fact remains that,as Ash has correctly described,the established colonial export markets were calling for 300-400 + hp wagons with 13 speed fullers in them while the British domestic ‘market’,( as opposed to the British ‘manufacturers’ ),was still stuck in the mindset of the 1950’s.
Which then just leaves that bonkers idea that Stokes amongst others should have been trying to flog the type of backward zb that the domestic market was demanding in the other export markets that had their own truck manufacturing industries like Germany and Scandinavia having already lost the established colonial markets for the above reasons.To put it simply the Colonials went to the Americans and the Germans etc etc were never going to buy British trucks in large numbers over their own.That was the situation that Stokes and the management of all the other Brit manufacurers were in.Then you can add to that those investment and funding issues which affected the post war British economy as a whole.
Then we joined the EEC and opened the UK markets,including that for trucks,up to a flood of Euro imports with the lose lose situation that the British manufacturers were not only lumbered with a backward thinking customer base they were also lumbered with a disloyal one unlike the Germans,French,Italians and Scandinavians.
My mistake- I thought you were referring to the British domestic market, which was what all British manufacturers were aiming at.
Their mantra seemed to be along the lines of, “This is what we are building for Britain. If any of you Johnny Foreigners want one, we’ll consider selling it to you”.
Retired Old ■■■■:
My mistake- I thought you were referring to the British domestic market, which was what all British manufacturers were aiming at.
Their mantra seemed to be along the lines of, “This is what we are building for Britain. If any of you Johnny Foreigners want one, we’ll consider selling it to you”.
Close but it was more a case of this is what ‘we have to build’ in Britain because our customers are still set in the 1950’s and we therefore can’t afford to build what you’re demanding ( see Ash’s comments regarding those export market demands as of 1972 ) because building different trucks for the export markets,as opposed to those being demanded in the domestic market,won’t provide the economies of scale required,to make such an operation viable.Therefore those old established markets then went to the Americans who of course could make such an operation work because they weren’t lumbered with a domestic market which was way out of step with those colonial ones.IE as you’ve said the British ‘customers’ were only prepared to buy what they’d been used to previously.
While as I’ve said the Euro and Scandinavian customers were never going to buy British trucks in large numbers anyway regardless of how good,or bad,they were.
My point is that it’s a travesty for those who are really to blame for that situation ( bankers/government/domestic customers ) to then try to cover their own ignorance,backward thinking and disloyalty on the managements and workers of the British manufacturers of the time by saying that it was the manufacturers who wanted to carry on building such obsolete outdated zb when it was actually the domestic customers who were the ones who weren’t prepared to move forwards.In this case such moving forwards would have meant co operation with the US component manufacturers to get round those two issues of funding problems and outdated componentry based on those outdated customer demands.However as we’ve seen the British customers wouldn’t buy it at the time when it mattered.That’s what went wrong for the Brits.It wasn’t the fault of the uk manufacturers’ managements or workers.
kr79:
Id hardly call the american market forward thinking. Half of them would still order petrol engined trucks given the chance.
I’d call being where the US truck manufacturing industry ( probably still would be if it wasn’t for all the bs emissions targets and silly fuel prices ),and just as importantly customer demands,were in the early 1970’s way ahead of their British counterparts,assuming that the relevant criterea,was to meet Ash’s correct description,of what our old established export markets were demanding,as opposed to their British counterparts at that time.Which is actually the relevant time when it all mattered.It all depends on wether you’d call those like Bewick’s preferred spec for the time ( 180 Gardner and 6 speed box ) more ‘forward thinking’ than putting that 350 ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed fuller into a truck in 1971.In just the same way that the Crusader would have been an even better export success if Scammell had managed to use the up to 400 hp + turbocharged version of the Detroit 8V71 in it rather than just the 318 non turbo version.The common link being that they couldn’t do that spec at the right price because they couldn’t order enough of them because the domestic market was still stuck in the 1950’s.So the American truck manufacturers got those export orders instead.
As for forward thinking now anyone with any sense would have long ago knocked the idea of using diesel technology on the head and gone back to using spark ignition running on alternative fuels in view of the emissions issue together with the price of diesel.
I didnt realise how limited i was upstairs so im going to show myself up .Let me try to get this straight ,if the UK hauliers back in 71 would have demanded 300 - 400 bhp engined vehicles in 8 wheeler or articulated form the British commercial vehicle manufacturers would still be here...... how does that work then ? How i see it the UK hauliers would have to operate vehicles designed for a completely different operation to what they required.So the small haulage firm down the road running a tidy fleet gets a very lucrative contract which states he needs to be able to carry 22 tons payload loads nationwide .Now let me think does he go for a Guy with a 180 Gardner or Guy with a 350 ■■■■■■■ ,he might not get the full 22 tons on with that big lump under the bonnet but theres no way this customer is going to tell him what he operates hes out to save British commercial vehicle manufacturing .And of course his customer is going to say oh ok then you win . So CF remember back in71 weight was critical not speed because we didn`t have the road network we have today i will ask you again spec a vehicle that could run at 32 tons with a 22 ton payload
Bewick.