Again the Detroit was a dead duck from the start I never saw or heard of any users of Gardner/■■■■■■■ or Rolls Royce engines jump ship and buy Detroit powered TMs
The TM only sold in relatively small numbers when the E290 was offered and in better numbers when the L10 was launched
Again too little too late as hauliers were still buying Gardner/■■■■■■■ and Rolls powered British assembled lorries even after the TM ceased production
gazsa401:
Again the Detroit was a dead duck from the start I never saw or heard of any users of Gardner/■■■■■■■ or Rolls Royce engines jump ship and buy Detroit powered TMs
The TM only sold in relatively small numbers when the E290 was offered and in better numbers when the L10 was launched
Again too little too late as hauliers were still buying Gardner/■■■■■■■ and Rolls powered British assembled lorries even after the TM ceased production
The way I see it is that GM couldn’t care less about the competition from the Brit assemblers just like Volvo,Mercedes or Scania didn’t.Realistically this is all about the fight between those foreign in house manufacturers v GM in this case.GM being in a far better position with the TM and the 92 series Detroit to take them on than Leyland was with the T45.Volvo at least obviously seeming to see it that way too.The big question then being exactly when did Volvo see that threat and when did those ‘negotiations’ actually start.It’s my guess that timeline started long before 1987.Possibly at around the time before or around the launch of the F10/12.
Which might explain how the TM ended up on the market with the boat anchor of the 71N series motor tied around its neck throughout the late 1970’s until it was too late.Together with the statement of commercial suicide,for the continuation of Bedford’s operations,by removing the business case for the project,by then putting the ■■■■■■■ in it.The rest being history.Bearing in mind the later even bigger potential threat of a 60 series powered TM to the F10/12 in Europe and Volvo’s obvious designs on the US market,which created exactly the same scenario in the case of the Astro. 
my father owned loads of bedfords, and was a big fan,but the tm fell on its arse initially because it was only offered with the Detroit option .
what operator that ran erf/Atkinson etc in the mid to late 1970’s would convert to a Bedford with a screaming Detroit vee engine? almost none!!
the tm should have been offered with ■■■■■■■ from the start.the later ones with ■■■■■■■ engines were very good motors.
we had km/kh/tm artics and they all gave very good service(even the the Detroit v6 powered tm!!)
most of our km 24 ton units were ex Vauxhall Bedford fleet and were superb-16 tons payload on a 30foot trailer.
my mate(whose father my dad bought his first km artic from when he started as an owner driver) has a restored tk artic unit fitted with a 466 Bedford engine(same as a km) ,five speed overdrive box and eaton two speed axle.it goes very well indeed!!
in fact its a pleasure to drive,nice light steering,very good heater.
to all those people saying they wernt comfortable,i would rather do a days work in my mates tk than the poxy modern Hino eight wheeler I had to drive for a year or so.
The Detroit was always going to be a lemon in the UK and Europe
Your spot on with the ■■■■■■■ option plus Bedford did make very good light to middleweight lorries
Also look at Detroits disastrous attempt to re enter the heavy lorry sector when ERF had them as an option in the EC range
I think only an handful were sold
gazsa401:
The Detroit was always going to be a lemon in the UK and Europe
Your spot on with the ■■■■■■■ option plus Bedford did make very good light to middleweight lorries
Also look at Detroits disastrous attempt to re enter the heavy lorry sector when ERF had them as an option in the EC range
I think only an handful were sold
The unmitigated disaster of the Detroit 60 series you mean. 
Having said that I’d agree the N14 seems like the better option to me.But,like Leyland Group,as an in house manufacturer Bedford/GM didn’t have the luxury of being able to mix and match outsourced engine options without defeating the business case of the operation.In this case the relevant comparison would be Detroit 92T series v Volvo F10/F12 or Merc V8 for two examples of its target opposition in Europe.Not the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■
As for ERF as I remember it the assembly business model and ■■■■■■■ motors didn’t save them either just like Foden and SA.Or Leyland. 
generel motors pulled the plug on bedford cos the goverment wouldnt let them buy leyland they sold it to daf instead
Carryfast:
gazsa401:
The Detroit was always going to be a lemon in the UK and Europe
Your spot on with the ■■■■■■■ option plus Bedford did make very good light to middleweight lorries
Also look at Detroits disastrous attempt to re enter the heavy lorry sector when ERF had them as an option in the EC range
I think only an handful were soldThe unmitigated disaster of the Detroit 60 series you mean.
Having said that I’d agree the N14 seems like the better option to me.But,like Leyland Group,as an in house manufacturer Bedford/GM didn’t have the luxury of being able to mix and match outsourced engine options without defeating the business case of the operation.In this case the relevant comparison would be Detroit 92T series v Volvo F10/F12 or Merc V8 for two examples of its target opposition in Europe.Not the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■
As for ERF as I remember it the assembly business model and ■■■■■■■ motors didn’t save them either just like Foden and SA.Or Leyland.
No i mean Detroit in general
Has for the other makes you mention I can’t remember the mad rush to the door of other lorry manufacturers to buy the Bedford truck business
I seem to recall PACARR MAN IVECO all bought the Foden/DAF ERF and Seddon Atkinson brand
just saying !!!
Has for ■■■■■■■ they still build engines for IVECO and PACARR and Renault but not a Detroit in sight
Freight liner use detroit and the euro 6 merc engine is a detroit but not a two stroke obviously.
pkbutler27:
generel motors pulled the plug on bedford cos the goverment wouldnt let them buy leyland they sold it to daf instead
Which seems to be inconsistent with the fact that GM didn’t just shut down Bedford.It actually walked away from the heavy truck manufacturing sector entirely including its domestic operations.Obviously all that taking place at the point where both a 60 series powered domestic GM range and TM would have been foreseeable.Coincidentally together with having made a ‘deal’ with Volvo.Information regarding the the timeline of that deal and the details of it seeming to be difficult to find.But what is certain is that for some reason the Bedford was lumbered with the worst possible in house GM engine in the form of the 71N series during the most crucial part of its production life in gaining customer acceptance.Almost as if GM didn’t want it to succeed,against the soon to be introduced F10/12 at least.
Bearing in mind that all Leyland had to offer was the T45.Which was itself lumbered with the even worse problem of no credible in house engine at all being totally dependent on outsourced Rolls and ■■■■■■■■■■ what would Bedford actually have been buying in that case that it didn’t already have in the superior form of the TM. 
gazsa401:
No i mean Detroit in general
Has for the other makes you mention I can’t remember the mad rush to the door of other lorry manufacturers to buy the Bedford truck business
I seem to recall PACARR MAN IVECO all bought the Foden/DAF ERF and Seddon Atkinson brand
just saying !!!
There was no Bedford truck business to buy.The whole thing being an in house operation that was entirely dependent on the continuation and involvement of its GM parent.The clue is that ‘the rush’ to put GM out of the frame all seemed to be on the part of a much more important player in the form of Volvo.
Carryfast:
gazsa401:
No i mean Detroit in general
Has for the other makes you mention I can’t remember the mad rush to the door of other lorry manufacturers to buy the Bedford truck business
I seem to recall PACARR MAN IVECO all bought the Foden/DAF ERF and Seddon Atkinson brand
just saying !!!There was no Bedford truck business to buy.The whole thing being an in house operation that was entirely dependent on the continuation and involvement of its GM parent.The clue is that ‘the rush’ to put GM out of the frame all seemed to be on the part of a much more important player in the form of Volvo.
The Bedford trucks site in Dunstable and business was sold in 1987 to AWD Ltd, a company owned by David John Bowes Brown. The AWD name was used as GM would only allow the use of the Bedford name for military trucks. David John Bowes Brown was the designer in 1973 of the then DJB D250 Articulated Dump Truck, built in Peterlee, England, by DJB Engineering Ltd. DJB was renamed Artix in 1985 when the trucks were rebadged as Caterpillar Artix itself was sold to Caterpillar in 1996.
AWD continued with the TL and TM range. The AWD Bedford TK (a rebadged and modernised version of the Bedford TK / MK range) was also produced and supplied to the British military. Due to cheaper competition and the virtual collapse of the UK market in which AWD competed in 1989/90, the company went into receivership in 1992 and was bought by dealer network Marshall of Cambridge.
Dave the Renegade:
AWD continued with the TL and TM range. The AWD Bedford TK (a rebadged and modernised version of the Bedford TK / MK range) was also produced and supplied to the British military. Due to cheaper competition and the virtual collapse of the UK market in which AWD competed in 1989/90, the company went into receivership in 1992 and was bought by dealer network Marshall of Cambridge.
That seems consistent with the idea that there was no long term chance of survival for the TM and with it Bedford as a seperate entity outside of its GM parent.
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
gazsa401:
No i mean Detroit in general
Has for the other makes you mention I can’t remember the mad rush to the door of other lorry manufacturers to buy the Bedford truck business
I seem to recall PACARR MAN IVECO all bought the Foden/DAF ERF and Seddon Atkinson brand
just saying !!!There was no Bedford truck business to buy.The whole thing being an in house operation that was entirely dependent on the continuation and involvement of its GM parent.The clue is that ‘the rush’ to put GM out of the frame all seemed to be on the part of a much more important player in the form of Volvo.
The Bedford trucks site in Dunstable and business was sold in 1987 to AWD Ltd, a company owned by David John Bowes Brown. The AWD name was used as GM would only allow the use of the Bedford name for military trucks. David John Bowes Brown was the designer in 1973 of the then DJB D250 Articulated Dump Truck, built in Peterlee, England, by DJB Engineering Ltd. DJB was renamed Artix in 1985 when the trucks were rebadged as Caterpillar Artix itself was sold to Caterpillar in 1996.
AWD continued with the TL and TM range. The AWD Bedford TK (a rebadged and modernised version of the Bedford TK / MK range) was also produced and supplied to the British military. Due to cheaper competition and the virtual collapse of the UK market in which AWD competed in 1989/90, the company went into receivership in 1992 and was bought by dealer network Marshall of Cambridge.
I think part of the problem for Bedford and then AWD was the British Military had so many trucks in storage it didn’t need to buy new ones.
I remember going and picking up a Bedford MJ in 1990 that was brand new.
We got some funny AWD tankers which were like artics but couldn’t be uncoupled and if I remember they had a prop shaft running through to the trailer wheels.
As I say we were still using MJ’s in 2004 long after we should have got rid of them but the DAF’s were awful so they plowed on
The MJ was solid though there was one that was shot up and hit with a mine but still ran back to camp.
I was always suprised that the Forces didn’t make more use of the TM.
It was a massive improvement over the MJ faster and had power steering to start with
Althoughg putting the fuel guage outside on teh tank was daft.
I thought we should have had TM artics since they were on the fleet for ease of spares etc
But I never saew one we had plenty of Sed Atki’s and even the odd TK artic but no TM’s
Soldier z:
I was always suprised that the Forces didn’t make more use of the TM.
It was a massive improvement over the MJ faster and had power steering to start with
Althoughg putting the fuel guage outside on teh tank was daft.
I thought we should have had TM artics since they were on the fleet for ease of spares etc
But I never saew one we had plenty of Sed Atki’s and even the odd TK artic but no TM’s
Maybe it was a combination of the forces already having doubts about GM’s long term intentions regarding continuation of its truck manufacturing side and back up together with what was probably an alien engine choice between Detroit or ■■■■■■■■■■■ no Rolls Royce option which they were probably more familiar with at that point.Although ironically they obviously had to get used to using the Detroit in the US Oshkosh HET which replaced the Scammell Commander.At which point the 8v92 powered TM would have fitted in perfectly with that ‘if’ GM had kept its truck side going which it obviously wanted to walk away from.
Carryfast:
Soldier z:
I was always suprised that the Forces didn’t make more use of the TM.
It was a massive improvement over the MJ faster and had power steering to start with
Althoughg putting the fuel guage outside on teh tank was daft.
I thought we should have had TM artics since they were on the fleet for ease of spares etc
But I never saew one we had plenty of Sed Atki’s and even the odd TK artic but no TM’sMaybe it was a combination of the forces already having doubts about GM’s long term intentions regarding continuation of its truck manufacturing side and back up together with what was probably an alien engine choice between Detroit or ■■■■■■■■■■■ no Rolls Royce option which they were probably more familiar with at that point.Although ironically they obviously had to get used to using the Detroit in the US Oshkosh HET which replaced the Scammell Commander.At which point the 8v92 powered TM would have fitted in perfectly with that ‘if’ GM had kept its truck side going which it obviously wanted to walk away from.
It was probably more to do with Bedfords policy of trying to sell a dud engine which only a handful of users wanted
That’s why Rolls Royce became the MODs engine of choice especially in the SA400/401s and the Leyland DROPS as Soldier Z as perfectly explained there where lots of Bedfords in the MOD but none fitted with DD
Bedford should have spent the money on a new cab with a sleeper option instead of the TL cab they probably wouldn’t have lost so much of the market share and maybe carried on a lot longer
Then Detroit could of carried on making power boat engines from my own experience weren’t too bad
gazsa401:
It was probably more to do with Bedfords policy of trying to sell a dud engine which only a handful of users wanted
That’s why Rolls Royce became the MODs engine of choice especially in the SA400/401s and the Leyland DROPS as Soldier Z as perfectly explained there where lots of Bedfords in the MOD but none fitted with DD
Bedford should have spent the money on a new cab with a sleeper option instead of the TL cab they probably wouldn’t have lost so much of the market share and maybe carried on a lot longer
Then Detroit could of carried on making power boat engines from my own experience weren’t too bad
Bedford/GM did spend the money on a new cab with a sleeper option that was the TM.
Soldier Z actually asked the question why didn’t the military order TM tractor units.As I said there was no way that the Rolls was ever going to be an option in it.While as I also said putting a ■■■■■■■ in it had already wiped out the business case for it from GM’s point of view anyway.
Bearing in mind the forces supposed Rolls only policy and in your view the Detroit only being any good in boats feel free to explain exactly what replaced the Scammell Commander and its engine spec ?.
Or for that matter what powered many of the British spec Sherman tanks long before that in WW2 having rejected the usual American Continental and Chrysler petrol options.As I heard it that having caused great difficulty to a supplies operation based mostly on petrol in the day.
Carryfast:
gazsa401:
It was probably more to do with Bedfords policy of trying to sell a dud engine which only a handful of users wanted
That’s why Rolls Royce became the MODs engine of choice especially in the SA400/401s and the Leyland DROPS as Soldier Z as perfectly explained there where lots of Bedfords in the MOD but none fitted with DD
Bedford should have spent the money on a new cab with a sleeper option instead of the TL cab they probably wouldn’t have lost so much of the market share and maybe carried on a lot longer
Then Detroit could of carried on making power boat engines from my own experience weren’t too badBedford/GM did spend the money on a new cab with a sleeper option that was the TM.
Soldier Z actually asked the question why didn’t the military order TM tractor units.As I said there was no way that the Rolls was ever going to be an option in it.While as I also said putting a ■■■■■■■ in it had already wiped out the business case for it from GM’s point of view anyway.
Bearing in mind the forces supposed Rolls only policy and in your view the Detroit only being any good in boats feel free to explain exactly what replaced the Scammell Commander and its engine spec ?.
Or for that matter what powered many of the British spec Sherman tanks long before that in WW2 having rejected the usual American Continental and Chrysler petrol options.As I heard it that having caused great difficulty to a supplies operation based mostly on petrol in the day.
Soldier z actually wrote it seems strange that the MOD didn’t have TMs as the MOD had stock piles of spares
If you read my posts from earlier
The Detroit was a lemon from the start in that hardly any British hauliers ordered them never mind the MOD So why would the MOD buy a lorry that was doomed from the start when it should of been fitted with the ■■■■■■■ as standard and for handful of operators who wanted a power boat engine they could have chosen the DD
again I don’t see many Oshkosh’s trundling down the M1 with Detroit powered Sherman tanks on the back so history doesn’t lie the DD never sold well in this country
As said in previous quotes from Gingerfold and KR79, Bedford was good at the lighter end of the market but they simply held on to old designs with no development, no tilt cab until TL came out in 80/81?
A TK I drove regular on a V reg '79, was that low geared 35 mph was comfortable 40 was screaming its nuts off, it was fitted with the 330 and you would never have a rusty yard as it leaked that much engine oil,as did the other two that were parked there, the story is quite the same throughout British Commercial vehicle manufacturing, but was it complacency?,greedy shareholders that wanted big bucks instead of putting some back in for development?
As soldierZ pointed out he picked up a brand new MK in 1990 so even the Army lads must have been thinking outdated design?
Totall agree Pete Bedford made some good lorries right from the nonHGV sector up to the middleweight sector
Look at Ford Renault Leyland IVECO MAN they all had a cab designed for different uses
Sadly Bedford didn’t even the TL was a good workhorse but alas only one cab option