ERF foden Atkinson etc may have struggled to compete as stand alone companies but the leyland group were big enough to take on any European truck maker there. We have heard the story’s of money been taken from the truck side to prop up the car industry but look at the competing products and lack of development that was to blame to. Why did they not properly devolp AEC to produce top weight premium tractors with a sorted v8 and a decent cab it could have been a good truck scammel to specialise in construction and heavy haulage and leyland to concentrate on smaller rigids and fleet tractor units
kr79:
Yes the Americans devolped the high power sleeper cabs before Europe but as someone said America had big distances and good roads to use before Europe. But the Europeans over took them in terms of driver comfort and technology about 25 years ago your stuck in the 70s man.
Volvo are doing pretty well these days and paccar use a daf engine now.
It was what happened and who did what,during the 1970’s,that mattered in this case.There’s no way that the British truck manufacturing industry could match the rate of truck development in Europe when it effectively got knocked out of the game at that time.
The only way it could have stayed in the game was by large scale local production (and sales to match) of US trucks using US developments in truck technology,not by trying to compete with the European manufacturers with the outdated time lagged technology which we had and which was the result of the demands of the domestic customer base,at that time.There was also no way that an export operation could be sustained without having dominance in the domestic market first.So it was a catch 22 of having outdated trucks,being built to satisfy the outdated demands of the domestic market,together with the problem of not being able to develop better products which would have been more suited to the rapidly developing demands of the export markets,because the domestic market wouldn’t have bought them if they had have done.
In addition to that was the differences in domestic manufacturer loyalty which the european and scandinavian manufacturers seemed to have had.
IE The French,Germans and Italians would probably have continued to buy their own domestically made products anyway,not because they would have been better products,but because they knew that their own domestic economies depended on making sure that they didn’t end up with a large scale trade deficit.Which might explain the barriers in Europe put up against US products by European type approval regulations 
.
Which is why imported and locally built US trucks were at least competitive in,if not dominated,the old colonial markets in OZ and New Zealand and the Scandinavian and European ones acheived market dominance in their own domestic markets.Until finally the British buyers came to their senses when it was all too late for the British manufacturers and that’s when and how the Scandinavian and European manufacturers acheived dominance in the British market,which as far as they were concerned,was just an export market bonus.
Although as stated it’s probably unlikely that the European and Scandinavian markets would have allowed any large scale dominance of their markets,by any British,American,or locally produced British built American trucks anyway,regardless of how good they were.Unlike the mug British government has always been in leaving Britain wide open to imports of products that we could make for ourselves. 
kr79:
ERF foden Atkinson etc may have struggled to compete as stand alone companies but the leyland group were big enough to take on any European truck maker there. Why did they not properly devolp AEC to produce top weight premium tractors with a sorted v8 and a decent cab it could have been a good truck scammel to specialise in construction and heavy haulage and leyland to concentrate on smaller rigids and fleet tractor units
History actually shows that the industry more lor less followed that idea.It ended up with the AEC V8 being a waste of development rescources because the Americans were already turning out engines which were better than the AEC motor could have ever been developed into even at best and the European manufacturers not far behind,ironically in some cases,helped by Leyland to do it after Leyland had effectively given up on the domestic market.Which is why Leyland ended up with the T 45 when DAF already had the 2800 range.
Scammell did carry on with heavy haulage and specialist types but just as in WW2 it couldn’t compete against the American competition.Although it went down with one of the,if not the,best British wagons ever produced in the Scammell Commander to it’s and it’s redundant workforce’s credit.However the problem for Scammell was that there wasn’t much demand in the domestic,or European,market for a specialist truck manufacturer and engine manufacturer that were good at putting together a big conventional truck using a big V 12 engine.Which is why FTF survived longer and the British army then had to go to Oshkosh to find something that was up to hauling tanks around. 
No suprise that the ones who survived longest were those ‘stand alone’ companies who turned increasingly towards American componentry for their continuing survival when what was needed was just to get rid of the British ideas on truck design altogether and start with the clean sheet approach of just building American designed trucks from the ground up.Just like the Australians did. 
Although unfortunately they probaby wouldn’t have been able to sell any trucks at all in that case on the British market to buyers who wanted day cabbed Gardner powered Atkis and therefore would have gone under even sooner.
As I understand it, the word from on the ground in the British Army is that the Oshkosh is not liked and has been unreliable, but its American so thats OK…Tony
Horses for courses ,American motors arent suitable for our type of work .Big and numb bonneted motors whether they are Volvo ,Scania (we have 1 parked in our yard no one wants to drive it) or a Kenworth.Picture the scene 6 drops around manchester back streets with an overlenghth 30 year out of date Kenworth complete with driver (carryfast)in his cowboy hat and boots to match and sunglasses and the disruption he causes ,ive nothing against the americans or their motors but they just arent suitable for our day to day work.Quite a few have tried but they never caught on. As for the V8 AEC engine not ever going to be as good as its American counterparts well Carryfast you must be much more intelligent than you sound from your posts as many experts in the industry actually said it had great potential but not the finances to perfect it.They had ironed out most of the problems by 73 but the good old people up in Lancashire put a block on it
They gave up on the aec engine way to early it should have never been released to the market the way it was. If we look to daf they have ginaf who make specialist trucks that use daf components there is teberg titan that use Volvo and merc components that is what scammell should have been in the leyland empire.
All the European builders make engines as good as anything American so why couldn’t leyland.
I’m sure scanias v8 wasn’t perfect when the first one came off the test bench as was any thing from ■■■■■■■■
The roadtrain had the potential to be a good truck but look when it was launched everyone was offering there big tractor as a sleeper and leyland launch it as day cab only.
The AEC v8 could have been the engine to power it but instead they rehashed an old engine rather than devolp a new one.
Your arguement about erf and foden is what I said on the last page but the cabs let them down if paccar had let foden use the daf xf cab on the 4000 series i recon it could have nicked a few sales of the swedes it was the kit car feel that let them down not the chasis.
ramone:
Horses for courses.Picture the scene 6 drops around manchester back streets with an overlenghth 30 year out of date Kenworth complete with driver (carryfast)in his cowboy hat and boots to match and sunglasses and the disruption he causes ,I think this pretty much sums it up carryfast thinks smokey and the bandit is real life.
kr79:
ramone:
Horses for courses.Picture the scene 6 drops around manchester back streets with an overlenghth 30 year out of date Kenworth complete with driver (carryfast)in his cowboy hat and boots to match and sunglasses and the disruption he causes ,I think this pretty much sums it up carryfast thinks smokey and the bandit is real life.
lol he hijacked a similar thread i started which was about the demise of British Leyland and told us the merits of Bedford TMs with big thirsty high reving Detroit engines as the saviour of the British truck industry FFS
You should have a look for the one about tag axles on the main forum 6x4 is the answer for standard highway tractors according to him.
He could bring tears to a snowman
kr79:
They gave up on the aec engine way to early it should have never been released to the market the way it was. If we look to daf they have ginaf who make specialist trucks that use daf components there is teberg titan that use Volvo and merc components that is what scammell should have been in the leyland empire.
All the European builders make engines as good as anything American so why couldn’t leyland.
I’m sure scanias v8 wasn’t perfect when the first one came off the test bench as was any thing from ■■■■■■■■
The roadtrain had the potential to be a good truck but look when it was launched everyone was offering there big tractor as a sleeper and leyland launch it as day cab only.
The AEC v8 could have been the engine to power it but instead they rehashed an old engine rather than devolp a new one.
Your arguement about erf and foden is what I said on the last page but the cabs let them down if paccar had let foden use the daf xf cab on the 4000 series i recon it could have nicked a few sales of the swedes it was the kit car feel that let them down not the chasis.
All the European manufacturers today make products that are competitive with American ones.But it’s taken this long to get there.At the time when it all mattered you’re trying to say that AEC had the rescouces at it’s disposal to take on the combined might of ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ Detroit Diesel considering the type of outputs their products were already able to put out reliably and those already about to enter production and the same in regards to cab design.
In V 8 terms the AEC would have needed to be able to compete with the CAT 3408 and the Detroit 8V92 in all aspects of production amounts,outputs,and reliability and it would have needed to do it from the start without too many teething problems.In addition to which who was then going to buy the thing on the domestic market considering that British customers were still demanding trucks like 180 Gardener powered Atkis and the colonial export markets had already started moving into large scale interest in locally built American trucks.
In addition to V 8’s was the US production of 6 cylinder power units made by ■■■■■■■ and Caterpillar.In which case what and where were the British engines which could compete on those same terms of production,outputs,and reliability and even today the 6 cylinder Detroit has probably got anything that the European manufacturers can provide more than covered in all respects.
As you’ve said Foden etc were on the way to following my ideas but the reason why their cabs etc etc let them down was because they didn’t follow my idea of just throwing everything British out and just building the thing as a locally made Kenworth from the ground up using the full range of cabs,engine and driveline options available on the US and Australian market.
As for the T 45 why bother when the DAF 2800 was already in production and what did the T 45 have to offer that the DAF didn’t .
ramone:
kr79:
ramone:
Horses for courses.Picture the scene 6 drops around manchester back streets with an overlenghth 30 year out of date Kenworth complete with driver (carryfast)in his cowboy hat and boots to match and sunglasses and the disruption he causes ,I think this pretty much sums it up carryfast thinks smokey and the bandit is real life.
lol he hijacked a similar thread i started which was about the demise of British Leyland and told us the merits of Bedford TMs with big thirsty high reving Detroit engines as the saviour of the British truck industry FFS
Like around 1,100 lbs/ft of torque at less than 1,200 rpm and around 400 hp at 2000 rpm.
ramone:
kr79:
ramone:
Horses for courses.Picture the scene 6 drops around Britain or Europe with a British built Kenworth in just the same way that the New Zealanders are doing exactly the same thing in New Zealand with one built in Australia.Which is a lot better than anything that zb AEC or Leyland could have done with what they had available at the time when it mattered.I think this pretty much sums it up carryfast thinks smokey and the bandit is real life.
lol he hijacked a similar thread i started which was about the demise of British Leyland and told us the merits of Bedford TMs with big thirsty high reving Detroit engines as the saviour of the British truck industry FFS
Fixed that.
Suttons Tony:
As I understand it, the word from on the ground in the British Army is that the Oshkosh is not liked and has been unreliable, but its American so thats OK…Tony
Wisconsin must be a primitive place, look at the vehicles they turn out, Hardly Driveables and Oshkosh. One of the designers was probably sacked for drug abuse 
And had the thirst of a bunch of lager louts on a weekend in maggaluf.
AEC part of the leyland group did have a bit of clout behind them.
I said the roadtrain had the potential to be a lot more not that it was as good as what others were producing.
So scanias v8 volvos 12 litre six fiat ivecos v8 and mercs big v8 and v 10 and MANs v10 were inferior to American engines.of the 70s?
Going round in circles again its like dejavu, why would AEC have been competing against V8 american engines when no one over here used them apart from a few TMs.In the late 60s and through the 70s ■■■■■■■ were offering in the main engines covering around 180 bhp - 250 bhp it was only later in the 70s that the 290s were made available.Yes you could order a 335 bhp or a 350 bhp but they were a rarity.I remember a local guy who ordered a brand new Foden with a 450 cat in it in the mid 80s and he had endless problems with it and he was a carefull owner driver 1 of his comments were they should stick to earth moving vehicles for these engines.The V8 AEC like i said earlier was a potentially great engine ,but only potentially,the TL12 was another potentially great engine which was hurriedly put together but could compete performance wise with the top europeans.AEC were well ahead of the times with some of their developments ,which never saw the light of day due to the lack of funds they desperately needed.Just look at the Routemaster they still havent found a suitable replacement for that design thats over 50 years old I may smash some of your illusions here Carryfast but Convoy was fictional and all that chrome would need polishing on a weekend after your night trunks up the m1 with all the salt and rain on our roads,but they do look nice in the California sun ,if you like that sort of thing…i think theres a song in that last bit somewhere,i`m going for a few beers to help me sleep tonight keep taking the pill carryfast
US and European lorries have been different from the year dot. Both continents gravitated to the same basic design, which was artics at 35-38 tons gross on five axles, but the similarity ended there. Why would vast legions of engineers sit so resolutely in different camps, for decades? That is an interesting question for any student of vehicle design, and worthy of a forum thread all of its own. It’s not relevant to this argument though.
ramone:
Going round in circles again its like dejavu, why would AEC have been competing against V8 american engines when no one over here used them apart from a few TMs.In the late60s and through the70s ■■■■■■■ were offering in the main engines covering around 180 bhp - 250 bhp it was only later in the70s that the 290s were made available.Yes you could order a 335 bhp or a 350 bhp but they were a rarity.I remember a local guy who ordered a brand new Foden with a 450 cat in it in the mid 80s and he had endless problems with it and he was a carefull owner driver 1 of his comments were they should stick to earth moving vehicles for these engines.The V8 AEC like i said earlier was a potentially great engine ,but only potentially,the TL12 was another potentially great engine which was hurriedly put together but could compete performance wise with the top europeans.AEC were well ahead of the times with some of their developments ,which never saw the light of day due to the lack of funds they desperately needed.Just look at the Routemaster they still havent found a suitable replacement for that design thats over 50 years old I may smash some of your illusions here Carryfast but Convoy was fictional and all that chrome would need polishing on a weekend after your night trunks up the m1 with all the salt and rain on our roads,but they do look nice in the California sun ,if you like that sort of thing…i think theres a song in that last bit somewhere,i`m going for a few beers to help me sleep tonight keep taking the pill carryfast
So exactly where would the market have been for the V 8 AEC in order to have made it’s development and production costs viable assuming that the domestic market wasn’t looking for such wagons as you’ve said and the European market wasn’t exactly demanding British built trucks in huge numbers either because,as I’ve said,in most cases the Europeans would prefer to buy their own domestic products anyway,even if they were inferior let alone,in this case,more advanced down the development road than ours were including anything from Leyland or AEC.In addition to which the colonial markets in OZ and New Zealand had effectively by then been lost to locally made American designed trucks.
The TL 12 was actually the better option than the AEC V 8.However the British customers weren’t even calling for much more than Gardner 180 type outputs when it mattered and turbocharging was thought of as the devil’s work by those customers.So that line of domestic sales potential was also out to the domestic manufacturers at the time.In addition to which DAF was already working away on it’s DKS idea for the 680 which history shows wiped out the TL 12 powered T 45 having been put into production ahead of it with the bonus of a better cab too.So all DAF needed to do was wait for the British guvnors to come to their senses and then add some lucrative exports to their domestic sales later just like the other European and Scandinavian manufacurers did.Which is I’m sure exactly what Leyland’s management’s (correct) line of thought was at that time, by which they’d seen the writing on the wall and had effectively already given up.
The issue of the British use of the turbocharged ■■■■■■■ options was,as usual,a case of what the Americans do yesterday we do tomorrow and it’s my guess that your example of the CAT 450 hp Foden was an overstressed,at the time,6 cylinder not a 3408 powered one .
But the idea of American trucks only being suited to the Californian sun seems to overlook all of the different types of operating conditions,all around the world,that they’ve proved themselves capable of working (and selling) in to date.Unlike AEC unfortunately.
[zb]
anorak:
US and European lorries have been different from the year dot. Both continents gravitated to the same basic design, which was artics at 35-38 tons gross on five axles, but the similarity ended there. Why would vast legions of engineers sit so resolutely in different camps, for decades? That is an interesting question for any student of vehicle design, and worthy of a forum thread all of its own. It’s not relevant to this argument though.
It is relevant to this argument because engineers are only put to work on making stuff that their bosses know will sell in the domestic market.It’s only those as stupid as the British government who could come out with a policy of export or die in which they think that a viable export operation can take place without having sown up the domestic market first.
The fact is if you can build something that can work and sell well in the American market then it will (should) work and sell anywhere.If not then the problem is with the customers not the trucks or those who are building them.
A good product will sell anywhere American trucks are suited to the American market the australian market suits American products so they sell there American trucks don’t suit euorpe well so they never sold in huge numbers.
