What went wrong

carryfast · 7 February 2012 23:42

Saviem:
neither has the question that I posed re Leyland and Bedford, Ok, so what of the good engineers at Commer, then Dodge, who were totally subjugated under the American Chrysler management, Look for the root causes of the decline, it is history now, but think on, what you have to work with today, have not the attitudes to the customer slipped back to below the levels of the major UK players in the 70s? Well, have they??

Firstly a merged Leyland and Bedford would have sunk twice as fast as they both eventually did as independent entities.

I’ve provided the root cause for the decline and it had nothing to do with attitudes ‘to’ the customer but everything to do with the attitudes and demands ‘of’ the customers in the domestic market at the time.

gingerfold · 8 February 2012 07:50

I think that Carryfast must be a founder member of the Flat Earth Society.

carl_williams · 8 February 2012 10:07

I wonder if we ever will get the true story of why GM closed Bedford.
They made good products and were profitable. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, look how many Bedfords are still in use.
In my eyes GM wanted Landrover and were prepared to take Leyland to achieve that objective.
From my memory one or two Government Ministers were fighting GM cause right up to the end with tremendous effort. I am sure GM will not have tried to bribe to get their will, but to a bystander it certainly looked that way.
In any event someone decided Landrover had too much potential to give it away, and GM decided that even with Leylands excellent production facilities but troubled workforce without Landrover they were not worth having.
Then the Government in their ‘wisdom’ decided to give the Military contract to Leyland to try to ‘shore it up’, even though Bedford had been the mainstay of the army for decades.
The excuse that Bedford couldn’t survive without a heavy range was a poor excuse. Their core production of up to 16 ton gvw would have easily continued and an eventual TK/TL replacement would soon have become ‘Truck of the Year’
Although we, at W.H.Williams Spennymoor had about 30 artics, which we found Bedford weren’t so good at, the majority of our fleet were four wheelers, and when in 1984 we replaced 9 Bedfords (Ageing Marsden pantechnicons) with Mercedes Benz, the problem we had was our longest serving drivers wanted to keep driving Bedfords. Given that the most of the Bedfords had fibre glass ‘sleeper’ cabs drivers didn’t like the cold Mercedes ‘Tin ‘ cabs.
Had GM got Leyland I think they would have developed the TM and produced it with a greater engine choice in Leyland, and we still would have had a volume UK truckmaker.
As it was I think GM simply showed us the V sign and said we’ll show you British and closed the lot down.

carryfast · 8 February 2012 12:03

Carl Williams:
I wonder if we ever will get the true story of why GM closed Bedford.Had GM got Leyland I think they would have developed the TM and produced it with a greater engine choice in Leyland, and we still would have had a volume UK truckmaker.
As it was I think GM simply showed us the V sign and said we’ll show you British and closed the lot down.

Showed us the V sign by investing a load of time and effort in developing and then being able to produce something like the TM 4400 while Leyland were zb’ing about with the T 45 .

The fact that the British buyers didn’t want the TM at all,but at least bought enough of those lame old dog T 45’s to probably cover it’s development and production costs,while all the rest went for the DAF 2800 etc etc,when they’d all eventually come to their senses that is,by finally realising that there was more to efficiency than using a zb Gardner powered day cabbed Atki etc etc.

Telling it like it was it was the British customers who’d showed GM the V sign and the only surprise was why GM bothered to waste time and effort,in trying to drag the British buyers kicking and screaming from the 1950’s into the 1970’s,by investing time and money in the TM,and why they didn’t just close the whole lot down and walk away in 1974 instead and leave Leyland to get on with wasting it’s time on the T 45.

carryfast · 8 February 2012 12:05

gingerfold:
I think that Carryfast must be a founder member of the Flat Earth Society.

Not really.The fact is we’ve already seen what happened with the way things actually went.Everything else is just an attempt to re write history.

wheel_nut · 8 February 2012 13:26

It wasn’t just lorries, but again this opinionated list is compiled by just one man

Lancia Monte Carlo
Porche 924
Ford Scorpio
Cadillac STS
Renault Safrane
Jaguar XJ40
Ford ■■■■■■ MK1V
Yugo Sana
Mitsubishi 3000GT
Rover 800
Volvo 340
Delorean DMC-12
Vauxhall Belmont
Triumph TR7
Rolls-Royce Carmargue
Talbot Tagora
Suzuki Wagon R
Volvo 262C
Subaru XT
Nissan Sunny Coupe
Skoda Estelle
Renault 9
Maserati Biturbo
Daihatsu Move
Alfa Romeo Arna
Hyundai Pony
Fiat Strada
Subaru Justy
Austin Maestro
Toyota Space Cruiser
Fiat 126
Daihatsu Applause
Ferrari 400
Austin Ambassador
Yugo 45
Datsun Sunny 120Y
Aston Martin Lagonda
Susuki SJ
FSO Polonez
Seat Marbella
MGB
Trabant
Reliant Robin
Bond Bug
Nissan Serena
Lada Riva
Morris Marina
Suzuki X90
Austin Allegro
Volkswagen Beetle

carryfast · 8 February 2012 15:34

Wheel Nut:
It wasn’t just lorries, but again this opinionated list is compiled by just one man

Lancia Monte Carlo

Porche 924

Ford Scorpio

Cadillac STS

Renault Safrane

Jaguar XJ40

Ford ■■■■■■ MK1V

Yugo Sana

Mitsubishi 3000GT

Rover 800

Volvo 340

Delorean DMC-12

Vauxhall Belmont

Triumph TR7

Rolls-Royce Carmargue

Talbot Tagora

Suzuki Wagon R

Volvo 262C

Subaru XT

Nissan Sunny Coupe

Skoda Estelle

Renault 9

Maserati Biturbo

Daihatsu Move

Alfa Romeo Arna

Hyundai Pony

Fiat Strada

Subaru Justy

Austin Maestro

Toyota Space Cruiser

Fiat 126

Daihatsu Applause

Ferrari 400

Austin Ambassador

Yugo 45

Datsun Sunny 120Y

Aston Martin Lagonda

Susuki SJ

FSO Polonez

Seat Marbella

MGB

Trabant

Reliant Robin

Bond Bug

Nissan Serena

Lada Riva

Morris Marina

Suzuki X90

Austin Allegro

Volkswagen Beetle

That’s a bit like entering a load of old nags all destined for the glue factory in the 3.30 at Sandown and trying to choose 1st,2nd and 3rd for an each way bet.

From an engineer’s point of view a list of the ones that never were because either not enough people could afford to buy or run them after Callaghan and Maggie had zb’d up the economy or wouldn’t have known a decent motor anyway even if it was staring them in the face anyway,in no particular order.

Triumph 2.5 PI fitted with 4.6 Litre Rover V8.

Jaguar XJ 12 6.0/6.8/7.0 Litre with manual five speed box.

Jensen Interceptor fitted with 426 Hemi and manual box.

Ford Granada fitted with 351 V8 and manual box.

Ford Cortina fitted with 3.0 Litre V6.

But for all those who’d prefer something different,to all/any of those they choose,that’s what Hitler made the commie socialist 'people’s car for.

kr79 · 8 February 2012 16:14

What’s the list of ■■■■ cars about.
Anyway il have an Audi rs4 and a Porsche 911 and a 928

zb_anorak · 8 February 2012 16:30

Taxi for Carryfast.

kr79 · 8 February 2012 17:07

Only if it’s got a two stroke v8 in it

lawrence_dunbar · 8 February 2012 17:11

And heading for Detriot., if we should be so lucky.

carryfast · 8 February 2012 17:30

kr79:
What’s the list of [zb] cars about.
Anyway il have an Audi rs4 and a Porsche 911 and a 928

Don’t blame me it was wheelnut’s idea.

Anyway I think they had to make the 928 because the 911 had a habit of flying off the road going backwards because someone in ze vaterland had the idea of putting a 6 cylinder engine in ze Volkswagen Beetle.

And Audi had to wait until the 1980’s before they could use all the power they had available by nailing another drive axle on the back where it should have been in the first place.

Meanwhile there were some here who had the idea of putting the right sized engine and right type of gearbox in the Jag that the factory were too scared to do because they wouldn’t have found enough people who knew what they were buying,or who could have afforded to run the thing on Callaghan’s wages,if they had.

zb_anorak · 8 February 2012 17:35

kr79:
Only if it’s got a two stroke v8 in it

I think this may be more appropriate.

carryfast · 8 February 2012 17:42

[zb]
anorak:

kr79:
Only if it’s got a two stroke v8 in it

I think this may be more appropriate.

0

Obviously must have belonged to a large haulage company manager at the time who decided to throw out the proper motor and put the same type of one that he had in his eight wheeler wagon and drag outfits to show his drivers ‘that we’re all in this together’.

kr79 · 8 February 2012 17:52

I think that might have been mr gardners personal chariot I know he had a motor with a 4lk in it.
That’s all part of the fun with a 911 carryfast what are you chicken

ramone · 8 February 2012 18:58

Saviem:
Evening all, well its been a b… long, and I am afraid problem filled day, then I dial in to see if there is anything of interest on this thread. No, neither has the question that I posed re Leyland and Bedford, nor that of [ZB] anorak, received any response!! Shamefull in the extreme, Gentlemen from your previous posts I can see that there are intelligent commentators, (perhaps excluding the US at all costs opinions) Ok, so what of the good engineers at Commer, then Dodge, who were totally subjugated under the American Chrysler management, their neighbours at Bedford, (and let no man say ill of all of their products),and their Spanish cousins, who really came out of their corner fighting when Renault tried to subjugate them into a corporate blandness!! Look for the root causes of the decline, it is history now, but think on, what you have to work with today, have not the attitudes to the customer slipped back to below the levels of the major UK players in the 70s? Well, have they?? I`m off to give the Bollinger a bending, (and b…the Govt guidelines), Cheerio for now.

Whats your thinking here Saviem,would it have been Bedford concentrating on the lighter end of the range and Leyland producing the heavier end or could GM have delved into the companies Leyland had acquired and destroyed,now that would have been interesting.A question i would like answering is who actually owns the designs and rights of the old companies from the Leyland group.Would it be Paccar? Just think if GM had taken over Leyland they might have produced the world beating TM with the TL12 in it what would Carrypest think of that 1?

carryfast · 8 February 2012 20:38

ramone:
if GM had taken over Leyland they might have produced the world beating TM with the TL12 in it what would Carrypest think of that 1?

From GM’s point of view and knowing the competition from DAF and the Scandinavians,and having taken account of the potential of the TL12,to remain competitive against the potential of what that competition had at it’s disposal,GM’s (understandable) position probably would have been a case of if the market won’t accept a de rated 8V92 in the TM with potential for 400 hp + if required,we’re out of here and let Leyland get on with putting the TL12 in the T 45 without us throwing money away by putting a 6 cylinder engine,with relatively limited potential compared to the competition’s range of power units,into the TM in exchange for investing in a firm that has nothing going for it and would probably be money pit,when we’ve already got loads of our own superior engines already developed and paid for coming off the production line and sitting on the shelf in the stores.If only the British customers would buy the thing when we’ve built it.

The fact is with locally built American trucks already having got the Colonial markets and no American market and very little possibility of large scale European acceptance it’s not surprising that GM just used the exit strategy of buying in the turbocharged six cylinder ■■■■■■■ to put into the thing in the hope of getting some of their development and production costs back before walking away which would have been a more effective and cheaper option than getting involved with all the liabilities of the Leyland group just to put the less powerful and proven TL12 in it instead.

Which,as history shows,is exactly what actually happened.

saviem · 8 February 2012 21:15

Hello all, good evening, (and it is), ramone, that is an interesting question that you pose. At the period that we are theorising about the Bedford light to medium weight truck range was becoming “time expired”. Leylands T45 series, (the concept across all weight ranges, not solus the tractor series), was well thought out, and had in all probability a decade ahead of it. The TM, despite a hesitant start had become potentially a very well sorted vehicle, (here I am concentrating on the ■■■■■■■ option only, the Detroit was recognised as "time expired " in the road vehicle context). The potential sale of the Bedford plant, would give a freehold development site at Dunstable, in an area that was vibrant in development terms, worth many multiples of its book value, so potentially the merged "Leyford, Bedland, (no, no, no, many pounds would have been spent seeking to find the “acceptable” identity), would have had a big cash injection from the sale of this asset, and a move to a state of the art production facility, in a much lower labour cost area. Both marques had previously held strong export markets, but Bedford was better recognised, and had a stronger following in what are now the “emerging” economies, Leyland had lost market share in Africa, and many ex colonial markets, the new combined and rationalised company would have had access for its “new” products to regain market share.Again, win , win. Yes, GM, she wanted Land Rover, and her tecnology, and potential markets, but what happened in the end? well BMW “raped” her , and true to form us Brits never saw a thing!! Overall I feel that this deal would have been better in all areas for the UK. Certainly better than what actually happened, the gift to DAF, the “gin and tonic” honeymoon, followed by a disasterous marriage, and an ignominious end, (in manufacturing terms for the UK) And Gentlemen, (for those whose penchant is for Land Rover, she would have been here, and maybe even more succesful) !! The Bollinger beckons, Cheerio for now.

ramone · 8 February 2012 21:27

Carryfast:

ramone:
if GM had taken over Leyland they might have produced the world beating TM with the TL12 in it what would Carrypest think of that 1?

From GM’s point of view and knowing the competition from DAF and the Scandinavians,and having taken account of the potential of the TL12,to remain competitive against the potential of what that competition had at it’s disposal,GM’s (understandable) position probably would have been a case of if the market won’t accept a de rated 8V92 in the TM with potential for 400 hp + if required,we’re out of here and let Leyland get on with putting the TL12 in the T 45 without us throwing money away by putting a 6 cylinder engine,with relatively limited potential compared to the competition’s range of power units,into the TM in exchange for investing in a firm that has nothing going for it and would probably be money pit,when we’ve already got loads of our own superior engines already developed and paid for coming off the production line and sitting on the shelf in the stores.If only the British customers would buy the thing when we’ve built it.

The fact is with locally built American trucks already having got the Colonial markets and no American market and very little possibility of large scale European acceptance it’s not surprising that GM just used the exit strategy of buying in the turbocharged six cylinder ■■■■■■■ to put into the thing in the hope of getting some of their development and production costs back before walking away which would have been a more effective and cheaper option than getting involved with all the liabilities of the Leyland group just to put the less powerful and proven TL12 in it instead.

Which,as history shows,is exactly what actually happened.

The TL12 TM comment was a tongue in cheek remark Carryfast but then again … oh whats the point

ramone · 8 February 2012 21:31

Saviem:
Hello all, good evening, (and it is), ramone, that is an interesting question that you pose. At the period that we are theorising about the Bedford light to medium weight truck range was becoming “time expired”. Leylands T45 series, (the concept across all weight ranges, not solus the tractor series), was well thought out, and had in all probability a decade ahead of it. The TM, despite a hesitant start had become potentially a very well sorted vehicle, (here I am concentrating on the ■■■■■■■ option only, the Detroit was recognised as "time expired " in the road vehicle context). The potential sale of the Bedford plant, would give a freehold development site at Dunstable, in an area that was vibrant in development terms, worth many multiples of its book value, so potentially the merged "Leyford, Bedland, (no, no, no, many pounds would have been spent seeking to find the “acceptable” identity), would have had a big cash injection from the sale of this asset, and a move to a state of the art production facility, in a much lower labour cost area. Both marques had previously held strong export markets, but Bedford was better recognised, and had a stronger following in what are now the “emerging” economies, Leyland had lost market share in Africa, and many ex colonial markets, the new combined and rationalised company would have had access for its “new” products to regain market share.Again, win , win. Yes, GM, she wanted Land Rover, and her tecnology, and potential markets, but what happened in the end? well BMW “raped” her , and true to form us Brits never saw a thing!! Overall I feel that this deal would have been better in all areas for the UK. Certainly better than what actually happened, the gift to DAF, the “gin and tonic” honeymoon, followed by a disasterous marriage, and an ignominious end, (in manufacturing terms for the UK) And Gentlemen, (for those whose penchant is for Land Rover, she would have been here, and maybe even more succesful) !! The Bollinger beckons, Cheerio for now.

So who do you think owns the rights to the old companies from the Leyland group then,i know the transport museum at Leyland owns the AEC trade mark but i`m not sure whats included there