kr79:
Late 60s early 70s scania 110 190 or 250bhp volvo f86 180bhp f88 240 bhp merc 1418 180 1924 240 so on par power wise with british offerings but much better cabs.
Fast forward 10 years the europeans had upped the power and improved the cabs again the brits were still one step behind and although foden erf and sed ak was offering bigger power options it had already lost out.
I think power wise we could keep up with the euros it was the quality of the cabs and in general the quality of the whole package that let us down
I can only speak from experince as a driver fron designs from the late 80s on but for example a firm i worked for ran a scania 143 and 144 450 and 460 bhp models and a couple of foden 4000 with the 500 ■■■■■■■■
The foden outperformed tge scania on tge road and on the landfill. ( they were 6x4 pulling push outs) but the scania was just a more refined better finished all round product.
However i do have a real soft spot for plastic lorrys frim sandbach
kr79:
Late 60s early 70s scania 110 190 or 250bhp volvo f86 180bhp f88 240 bhp merc 1418 180 1924 240 so on par power wise with british offerings but much better cabs.
Fast forward 10 years the europeans had upped the power and improved the cabs again the brits were still one step behind and although foden erf and sed ak was offering bigger power options it had already lost out.
You don’t need to fast forward 10 years because it’s the late 1960’s/early 70’s which were the make or break years.What happened after that was the inevitable result of what went wrong then.As I’ve said ‘if’ we’d have followed the demands of our old established colonial markets at that time using US componentry that would have automatically put us way ahead of the euro/scandinavian opposition at least in terms of engines and drivelines.Which just left cab design to sort out.In that regard the SA 400 and Bedford TM cabs were as good as anything which the euro,scandinavian competition had available at the time while the AEC 3 VTG project would have obviously been a better way to spend the money than the zb Ergo before that.But as we’ve seen the British customers would never have wanted all that in large enough numbers to have made it pay.In which case the Ergo with a 500 engine in it was an inevitable product which reflected the demands of the uk customer base being that the domestic market at that time seemed to be all about smallest/lightest and obviously cheapest was best and the uk manufacturers then obviously paid the price of that firstly in those old established export markets and here when the domestic customers ‘eventually’ came to their senses.
Although having said that something obviously changed in the mindset of even British drivers during that time in that they seemed to go all European in their ideas too,just like Heath ,in that they’d prefer a Scandinavian or Euro box with a zb synchro box in it than something like an SA 400/401 with a big power ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed fuller in it anyway even if their guvnors had bought them.
So if what youve just written is correct how did Mercedes survive ,they have always been known as underpowered heaps up until the late 80s ,Hitlers revenge and German Gardners are 2 phrases i`ve heard them called
No suprise that the German Gardner description would have been applied by British drivers lumbered with their typically cheap British guvnor specced Mercs rather than those specced by German ones.I don’t think these fit the description of Hitler’s revenge or German Gardners with both being in production long before the late 1980’s.
kr79:
Late 60s early 70s scania 110 190 or 250bhp volvo f86 180bhp f88 240 bhp merc 1418 180 1924 240 so on par power wise with british offerings but much better cabs.
Fast forward 10 years the europeans had upped the power and improved the cabs again the brits were still one step behind and although foden erf and sed ak was offering bigger power options it had already lost out.
I think power wise we could keep up with the euros it was the quality of the cabs and in general the quality of the whole package that let us down
I can only speak from experince as a driver fron designs from the late 80s on but for example a firm i worked for ran a scania 143 and 144 450 and 460 bhp models and a couple of foden 4000 with the 500 ■■■■■■■■
The foden outperformed tge scania on tge road and on the landfill. ( they were 6x4 pulling push outs) but the scania was just a more refined better finished all round product.
However i do have a real soft spot for plastic lorrys frim sandbach
Everyone really knows that a British 6x4 wagon and drag made with American components is best.They’re just too frightened to admit when they’re wrong.
I agree to drive the big ■■■■■■■ was more than a match for the mighty v8 the fuller offers a fast change without the hassle of a clutch although the foden cable change could be a nightmare if it wasnt maintained properly.
But the foden felt lije a kit car built in someones garage with corespinding nigling faults and dubious electrics whereas the scania felt like a premium built vehicle.
kr79:
I agree to drive the big ■■■■■■■ was more than a match for the mighty v8 the fuller offers a fast change without the hassle of a clutch although the foden cable change could be a nightmare if it wasnt maintained properly.
But the foden felt lije a kit car built in someones garage with corespinding nigling faults and dubious electrics whereas the scania felt like a premium built vehicle.
Just put the DAF XF cab on the ‘Foden’ chassis job sorted.
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.
I do not wish to denigrate the responsibility shouldered, willingly, by privately-owned British companies to train and educate people in the last century. Their unassuming efforts make today’s “Investors in People” seem like snake-oil salesmen. My own higher education was assisted with some funding by my employer at the time- if I remember correctly, as well as giving me a bit of beer money, they also relieved the taxpayer of his obligation to pay the college fees. Top stuff.
Your own experience, as a grammar school lad, of not being steered towards an engineering degree, points to my gripe with British industry- I do not believe that it valued the highest qualifications highly enough, if that makes sense. We have discussed, on these threads, the influence of Dr.s Fogg and Mueller- my opinion is that there should have been dozens of people of their calibre in firms like AEC and Leyland. In Britain, engineering has long been considered a dirty job, so the cleverest teenagers choose other careers. Firms have been forced to fill the senior positions by promoting from within, rather than having the pick of the brains at the outset. I suspect that they could have forced the issue more strongly, in the 1950s and ‘60s, by offering guaranteed career progression to school-leavers with the tools up top. At the time, with relatively generous state funding of higher education, the burden on recruiting companies would have been light enough to make it a very good investment.
I would like to see some statistics covering the educational achievments of employees of Leyland, Mercedes-Benz and Scania-Vabis in the 1950s.
kr79:
Late 60s early 70s scania 110 190 or 250bhp volvo f86 180bhp f88 240 bhp merc 1418 180 1924 240 so on par power wise with british offerings but much better cabs.
Fast forward 10 years the europeans had upped the power and improved the cabs again the brits were still one step behind and although foden erf and sed ak was offering bigger power options it had already lost out.
You don’t need to fast forward 10 years because it’s the late 1960’s/early 70’s which were the make or break years.What happened after that was the inevitable result of what went wrong then.As I’ve said ‘if’ we’d have followed the demands of our old established colonial markets at that time using US componentry that would have automatically put us way ahead of the euro/scandinavian opposition at least in terms of engines and drivelines.Which just left cab design to sort out.In that regard the SA 400 and Bedford TM cabs were as good as anything which the euro,scandinavian competition had available at the time while the AEC 3 VTG project would have obviously been a better way to spend the money than the zb Ergo before that.But as we’ve seen the British customers would never have wanted all that in large enough numbers to have made it pay.In which case the Ergo with a 500 engine in it was an inevitable product which reflected the demands of the uk customer base being that the domestic market at that time seemed to be all about smallest/lightest and obviously cheapest was best and the uk manufacturers then obviously paid the price of that firstly in those old established export markets and here when the domestic customers ‘eventually’ came to their senses.
Although having said that something obviously changed in the mindset of even British drivers during that time in that they seemed to go all European in their ideas too,just like Heath ,in that they’d prefer a Scandinavian or Euro box with a zb synchro box in it than something like an SA 400/401 with a big power ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed fuller in it anyway even if their guvnors had bought them.
So if what youve just written is correct how did Mercedes survive ,they have always been known as underpowered heaps up until the late 80s ,Hitlers revenge and German Gardners are 2 phrases i`ve heard them called
No suprise that the German Gardner description would have been applied by British drivers lumbered with their typically cheap British guvnor specced Mercs rather than those specced by German ones.I don’t think these fit the description of Hitler’s revenge or German Gardners with both being in production long before the late 1980’s.
Well you`re right again CF i do appologise these flying Machines that German haulier Nellen and Quack used in numbers could be found all over Europe flying up hill and down dale ,note the short sleeper too … tut tut
ramone:
Well you`re right again CF i do appologise these flying Machines that German haulier Nellen and Quack used in numbers could be found all over Europe flying up hill and down dale ,note the short sleeper too … tut tut
kr79:
Rumour has it there were a few prototypes but the dope smoking pornographers killed it off as it was way better than there product.
Ah! got you sussed and “bang to rights” “CF”,so those are the two activities you are involved with in Leatherhead,how do you conceal your antics from matron ? then again matron probably takes part in the making of the films,if she’s that kind of “Matron” of course and nothing to do with the NHS.Cheers Bewick.
ramone:
So if what youve just written is correct how did Mercedes survive ,they have always been known as underpowered heaps up until the late 80s ,Hitlers revenge and German Gardners are 2 phrases i`ve heard them called
Hey ramone, MB was a whole different story,Most bought the STAR the same a bit like it is with cars here. it is the same with Scania nowadays they buy the marque and the V8 noise. Not that MB was a bad one,but look ones on a GERMAN TRUCK SITE and read what the Henschel fanatics write about MB and you will see that a lot quality is copied of Henschel. But MB has a very strong money back ground behind it. Some time ago cars of MB had a very bad quality engine troubles and very weak body as they rust away as french ones in the '60’s. nowadays there is little difference but the first MB which could match the Sweeds,MAN’s or DAF’s was the 1935 and after that they had to work very hard to get such one again. The follower of the 1935 was the 1938 with the small 12.7 litre and was underpowered and heavy on fuel as always had been at MB. The next 1938 with 14.6 L could match the 1935 but don’t conquer it despite it had 30hp more and euro II. The same with buses the German Setra was the king but the finance of MB killed it and bought it up.
cargo:
I’ve been out of it for years but I’m intrigued by the theoretical rig, 32t gross and a 22t load. What axle combinations would you have used in the UK?
I presume it’s a single drive plus a multi-axle trailer so 10t for the combined tare is cutting it fine unless the trailer was a light weight skel for container loads and the prime mover was on a diet.
I’ve noticed single drive is common in Europe but with such a GCW, would a single drive would be up to the task?
Our Beavers were pretty much at their max GCW and a single drive sure gets hot once you add horsepower and speed.
The standard equipment for 32 tons in the uk was a two axled tractor unit. kerb weight around 5 1/2 tons and a ligghtweight 40’ platform keeping the weight inside 10 tons. One of our contractors had a lightweight 30’ skel behind an f86 which was about 8 tons kerbside both trailers tandem axle
I see. A Jenny Craig Beaver was around 5t tare and a double axle skel would be around 4t?, so it is possible to have the combination under the 10t tare.
Your axle loading (with regards to semi trailer configurations) must have been a bit more lenient than ours.
Single drive plus a closed bogey trailer was usually around a 14t-16t payload, approx 26-27t gross.
Next step up was a wide spread (28-29t gross) which gave a couple more ton, 16t on the spread as opposed to 14t on a closed bogey with not too much extra tare.
To reach 20t payload meant tandem tandem, 34-35t gross.
These days the front axle loading has increased a lot, drive axle is still the same but lazy or pusher axles have been upgraded to the same capacity as a driving axle.
Hey to all, havn’t you had not a time when you had to have 5 axles to get 32 tons. And wasn’t it done mostly with a Chinese 6 ? And what was most usely 3+2 or 2+3. I think that Belgium, The Nederlands,France ans Spain had the most relaxed weight limits in the ‘’''60’s and '70’s,of course after the Scandinavians but that’s an other story because of length and axles. I speak here about the 2+2 or 2+3,3+2 version. On the other hand we could’t have 4 axle ridgids. And still nowadays we needs a good axle spead and wheelbase for 32 tons.
cheers Eric,
tiptop495:
Hey to all, havn’t you had not a time when you had to have 5 axles to get 32 tons. And wasn’t it done mostly with a Chinese 6 ? And what was most usely 3+2 or 2+3. I think that Belgium, The Nederlands,France ans Spain had the most relaxed weight limits in the ‘’''60’s and '70’s,of course after the Scandinavians but that’s an other story because of length and axles. I speak here about the 2+2 or 2+3,3+2 version. On the other hand we could’t have 4 axle ridgids. And still nowadays we needs a good axle spead and wheelbase for 32 tons.
cheers Eric,
in the late 60s early 70s there were strong rumours of a weight increase hence the chinese six you mentioned but the weights never went up 4 x 2 was the most you needed for 32 tons.
Hey to all, WHAT WENT WRONG■■? LOOK GERMANY only two have survived MB with a bit finance and MAN under the Volkswagen strong finance, the best have gone as henschel and Büssing bought by weaker quality competitor with money and used their knowledge.
THE BRITISH sold their knowledge instead of developing it and Britain stayed too conservative.
Looks ■■■■■■■ was ones one of the best engines but too thirsty and sorted the problem too late. MB was in the same condition too thirsty but solved it earlier AND let the customer the possibility to continue by thirsty non turbo’s or turbo’s. The same done by MAN there was a turbo or a non turbo and even for a time you could have an Büssing engine after the take over.
Fuller was one of the best boxs but lost the battle with the comfortable syncro.
Lots of good quality things lost because of the laziness of drivers in a time of lake of drivers.
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
There’s something in your last para that rings bells. I should say from the outset that I am a long way from being any kind of expert and that what I have learned comes from my understanding of what others have written, so if I’ve got it wrong please chime in. However… It seems to me that one example of (but by no means the only one) “What Went Wrong?” can be found in the selling and development of the Leyland 0.680. As far as I can tell this was a mainstay of not just lorries but also British bus chassis (think Leyland Tiger and Leopard buses and coaches, Leyland Atlantean/ Daimler Fleetline double deckers, Bristol RE, even 0.680 engined Bristol VRs - all of them extremely common on British high streets and motorways throughout the 70s and 80s). Yet it was DAF who first developed the 0.680 (that became its DKS1160) and look what happened there - hundreds of thousands (millions?) of 2800/3300/3600 units and MB200 bus chassis sold, while Leyland took another decade to come up with the TL11. Why? Why did it take Leyland so long to wake up? Why did DAF see potential where Leyland didn’t (and in its own product)?
Firstly the DAF development of the 680 was effectively a different engine just with the same capacity by the time they’d got it where they wanted it.That level of development took money and lots of it which Leyland just didn’t have.However if you look at Ash’s ( correct ) critera as to what was needed you’d see that even that expensive development wouldn’t have covered all of the outputs required.Whereas the already proven US alternatives would and without any need to spend the non existent development budget to get there.That just left the issue of acceptance of such power outputs in the domestic market at the time to have provided the economies of scale to have ordered the ‘right’ engines and drivelines in the ‘right’ numbers to be able to get the ‘right’ price.
I’ve read your reply and it doesn’t make complete sense (perhaps it’s me). Firstly, as far as I can tell Leyland in the late 60s (when DAF took the basics of the 0.680 and began developing it) was hardly short of income when you look at its domestic and overseas sales, not just of wagons but also bus chassis and engines. As is evident from earlier comments Leyland had a healthy domestic and overseas commercial and PSV market share, not just in SA, Oz and NZ but also in Israel (per Leyland Ash’s comments), whereas who were DAF in the 60s? Your second “point” (that “even that expensive development wouldn’t have covered all of the outputs required”) is a redundant comment. Of course the 0.680 couldn’t cover all outputs required, no one engine type can (not even your much vaunted “already proven US alternatives”). That’s why Leyland had the 0.400, 0.600 etc. As to “the issue of acceptance of such power outputs in the domestic market at the time to have provided the economies of scale to have ordered the ‘right’ engines and drivelines in the ‘right’ numbers to be able to get the ‘right’ price”, you could have said the same thing about DAF or Volvo or Yaz - that the engines were designed and made in the US is irrelevant, since Leyland (and to a lesser extent AEC) pretty much dominated the domestic lorry and bus market, and what self-respecting bus operator would have chanced their arm on an unknown driveline imported from the US when their entire history had been with British products, when they had little reason to suppose Leyland would eventually pin them to a wall and present them with Hobson’s Choice, and their fitters (not to say their accountants) would have had fits when presented with a 2-smoke Detroit? Leaving aside lorries for a minute, it is well established that one of the best, most reliable, most efficient makes of bus chassis made (and exported in big numbers all over the world) with the best service and parts back-up wasn’t American but German - Mercedes-Benz and MAN - or Swedish (Volvo). In fact European (esp M-B) bus chassis took over in many markets where Leyland tried to tell its customers it knew what they wanted better than they did, and it’s telling that almost none of those (lucrative) export markets took US bus chassis in any significant numbers.
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
There’s something in your last para that rings bells. I should say from the outset that I am a long way from being any kind of expert and that what I have learned comes from my understanding of what others have written, so if I’ve got it wrong please chime in. However… It seems to me that one example of (but by no means the only one) “What Went Wrong?” can be found in the selling and development of the Leyland 0.680. As far as I can tell this was a mainstay of not just lorries but also British bus chassis (think Leyland Tiger and Leopard buses and coaches, Leyland Atlantean/ Daimler Fleetline double deckers, Bristol RE, even 0.680 engined Bristol VRs - all of them extremely common on British high streets and motorways throughout the 70s and 80s). Yet it was DAF who first developed the 0.680 (that became its DKS1160) and look what happened there - hundreds of thousands (millions?) of 2800/3300/3600 units and MB200 bus chassis sold, while Leyland took another decade to come up with the TL11. Why? Why did it take Leyland so long to wake up? Why did DAF see potential where Leyland didn’t (and in its own product)?
Firstly the DAF development of the 680 was effectively a different engine just with the same capacity by the time they’d got it where they wanted it.That level of development took money and lots of it which Leyland just didn’t have.However if you look at Ash’s ( correct ) critera as to what was needed you’d see that even that expensive development wouldn’t have covered all of the outputs required.Whereas the already proven US alternatives would and without any need to spend the non existent development budget to get there.That just left the issue of acceptance of such power outputs in the domestic market at the time to have provided the economies of scale to have ordered the ‘right’ engines and drivelines in the ‘right’ numbers to be able to get the ‘right’ price.
I’ve read your reply and it doesn’t make complete sense (perhaps it’s me). Firstly, as far as I can tell Leyland in the late 60s (when DAF took the basics of the 0.680 and began developing it) was hardly short of income when you look at its domestic and overseas sales, not just of wagons but also bus chassis and engines. As is evident from earlier comments Leyland had a healthy domestic and overseas commercial and PSV market share, not just in SA, Oz and NZ but also in Israel (per Leyland Ash’s comments), whereas who were DAF in the 60s? Your second “point” (that “even that expensive development wouldn’t have covered all of the outputs required”) is a redundant comment. Of course the 0.680 couldn’t cover all outputs required, no one engine type can (not even your much vaunted “already proven US alternatives”). That’s why Leyland had the 0.400, 0.600 etc. As to “the issue of acceptance of such power outputs in the domestic market at the time to have provided the economies of scale to have ordered the ‘right’ engines and drivelines in the ‘right’ numbers to be able to get the ‘right’ price”, you could have said the same thing about DAF or Volvo or Yaz - that the engines were designed and made in the US is irrelevant, since Leyland (and to a lesser extent AEC) pretty much dominated the domestic lorry and bus market, and what self-respecting bus operator would have chanced their arm on an unknown driveline imported from the US when their entire history had been with British products, when they had little reason to suppose Leyland would eventually pin them to a wall and present them with Hobson’s Choice, and their fitters (not to say their accountants) would have had fits when presented with a 2-smoke Detroit? Leaving aside lorries for a minute, it is well established that one of the best, most reliable, most efficient makes of bus chassis made (and exported in big numbers all over the world) with the best service and parts back-up wasn’t American but German - Mercedes-Benz and MAN - or Swedish (Volvo). In fact European (esp M-B) bus chassis took over in many markets where Leyland tried to tell its customers it knew what they wanted better than they did, and it’s telling that almost none of those (lucrative) export markets took US bus chassis in any significant numbers.
I think you’ve missed that important issue of the type of power outputs required for the job as ( correctly ) described by Ash.The 680 was never going to cover a range of 300-400 hp + and neither were any of those others described by you there which were all lesser engine designs than the 680 not more.As for Leyland’s funding as it stood at the time in question the facts and history suggest that while the earnings might have been there during the relevant period when it’s products were competitive,those earnings didn’t get ploughed back into the firm to design the better products required.In which case as I’ve said it was the American way or no way which is exactly the conclusion those colonial customers reached anyway.As for the domestic customers I think there’s enough evidence here to show that even ‘if’ Leyland etc had put the required products into production at the right time the domestic market would have rejected them anyway being still set in it’s 1950’s mindset.Anything which argues with that view is just trying to re write history.
Not as things stood in 1972.Those colonial markets wanted those ratings and they wanted them at that time as Ash has said.
Going by that logic the ■■■■■■■ N14 amongst other US designs were eventually developed to a lot more than that.While,as I’ve said,even ‘if’ by some miracle Leyland had managed to build the right engines at the right time they couldn’t then sell the things here.
,in that they’d prefer a Scandinavian or Euro box with a zb synchro box in it than something like an SA 400/401 with a big power ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed fuller in it anyway even if their guvnors had bought them. 
