Why did British Leyland fail?

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS OLD TIME LORRIES, COMPANIES AND DRIVERS (INTERACT
241

newmercman:
We’ve been down this road many times, maybe I’m wasting my time, but I’m going to say it anyway. Over 300hp lorries were the exception in the 70s and early part of the 80s, by using the F12, 3300 etc as a comparison you are doing the apples to oranges thing again.

The bigger lorries on the road at the time of the T45 design were in the 250-300hp range and so that’s where the mainstay of the range should ideally be aimed. From there once the model is established you then bring out a range topper, just as the competition did. Again we’ll use Volvo as an example, first came the F88 and then the range topping F89, they did the same with the F10 and F12 to a lesser extent, mainly because they had already broken ground with the F89, so the F12 wasn’t such a major engineering project.

Having said that ,i would guess Volvo sold more F86s than F88s due mainly as you mentioned before that we were running at 32 tons gross ,the mandator that my dad drove was replaced by a newer F86 which was slightly heavier than the AEC and payload was critical . The F7 was also a popular motor but as weights went up the horsepower did too , The FL7 was joined by the FL10 and even a FL12 was later introduced.
On a completely different note does anyone else think the cab on the small Dafs have a striking resemblance to the T45 Freighter cab ?

242

Leylands on show from about 4:00:

243

Just had a read and the AEC 690 was introduced in 1958 when there wasn’t even a motorway in the uk the 760 was introduced in 1965 and the TL12 in 1973 before been axed in 1982 And it cab be argued it may have had another few years if an inter cooled version was launched. So a basic design to last 25/30 years can hardly be called a failure.
The engineers obviously had the V8 in mind to take them forward in to the new motorway age but that wasn’t to be.
I remember as a truck mad youngster reading truck magazine and it’s truck in service feature and most of the operators running the European makes had the interview with either the owner of the firm who had started it 20 years earlier or with the workshop foreman who had started as a fitter on British trucks.
I remember almost every feature said yes the trucks broke down but the dealer back up was why they had ditched british trucks and daf aid in particular was a massive selling point to owner drivers and bigger firms in the early days

244

newmercman:
We’ve been down this road many times, maybe I’m wasting my time, but I’m going to say it anyway. Over 300hp lorries were the exception in the 70s and early part of the 80s, by using the F12, 3300 etc as a comparison you are doing the apples to oranges thing again.

The bigger lorries on the road at the time of the T45 design were in the 250-300hp range and so that’s where the mainstay of the range should ideally be aimed. From there once the model is established you then bring out a range topper, just as the competition did. Again we’ll use Volvo as an example, first came the F88 and then the range topping F89, they did the same with the F10 and F12 to a lesser extent, mainly because they had already broken ground with the F89, so the F12 wasn’t such a major engineering project.

Unfortunately,as history proves,it doesn’t work like that.The truck that you’re designing in the 1970’s is the truck you’re going to need in the 1980’s.In all cases you allow for the max foreseeable design spec during production life then go back from that to suit demand for lower spec not vice versa.In which case I’d guess that ‘designing’ for at least 300 hp + in the early 1970’s,or even late 1960’s,was actually being conservative.Bearing in mind that the DKS and F12 were both well established in production during the 1970’s and power outputs were only going one way from that point.Hence Leyland being in the position of a supposed in house manufacturer without an in house engine. :unamused:

The point in this case being what if neither Volvo or DAF had engines reliably capable of that benchmark,in the form of the 11.6 and TD 120,in their armoury,as of the 1970’s ?. :bulb: :open_mouth:

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … 12-rockets

245

The td120 only hit 400 bhp by 1990 volvo had to launch the f16 in 1988 to compete with the big power v8 scanias v8 iveco and big mercs it wasn’t until the new d12 fh12 was launched that volvo had a 12 litre engine that pushed 400+ out and scania in 96 with the 124 replacing the old 11 litre models.

246

kr79:
Just had a read and the AEC 690 was introduced in 1958 when there wasn’t even a motorway in the uk the 760 was introduced in 1965 and the TL12 in 1973 before been axed in 1982 And it cab be argued it may have had another few years if an inter cooled version was launched. So a basic design to last 25/30 years can hardly be called a failure.
The engineers obviously had the V8 in mind to take them forward in to the new motorway age but that wasn’t to be.
I remember as a truck mad youngster reading truck magazine and it’s truck in service feature and most of the operators running the European makes had the interview with either the owner of the firm who had started it 20 years earlier or with the workshop foreman who had started as a fitter on British trucks.
I remember almost every feature said yes the trucks broke down but the dealer back up was why they had ditched british trucks and daf aid in particular was a massive selling point to owner drivers and bigger firms in the early days

Firstly the first section of the uk motorway network was actually opened in 1958 with predictable implications from that point.While it seems obvious that the 760 needed to reflect that fact.It being obvious that the more invested in its design at that stage the more would have been saved later in the form of the TL12.At which point AEC’s best design brains seem to have jumped ship and designed the Rolls Eagle instead.

As for the V8,part of the reason they went would possibly have been the realisation that a high revving,extremely short stroke V8,was the last thing AEC,or anyone else,needed to haul heavy loads,at high speeds,across the UK’s motorways. :open_mouth: :unamused:

On that note even DAF’s service and warranty network didn’t have a blank cheque regarding fixing the results of the 11.6 having been a lemon. :bulb:

247

Carryfast:

newmercman:
We’ve been down this road many times, maybe I’m wasting my time, but I’m going to say it anyway. Over 300hp lorries were the exception in the 70s and early part of the 80s, by using the F12, 3300 etc as a comparison you are doing the apples to oranges thing again.

The bigger lorries on the road at the time of the T45 design were in the 250-300hp range and so that’s where the mainstay of the range should ideally be aimed. From there once the model is established you then bring out a range topper, just as the competition did. Again we’ll use Volvo as an example, first came the F88 and then the range topping F89, they did the same with the F10 and F12 to a lesser extent, mainly because they had already broken ground with the F89, so the F12 wasn’t such a major engineering project.

Unfortunately,as history proves,it doesn’t work like that.The truck that you’re designing in the 1970’s is the truck you’re going to need in the 1980’s.In all cases you allow for the max foreseeable design spec during production life then go back from that to suit demand for lower spec not vice versa.In which case I’d guess that ‘designing’ for at least 300 hp + in the early 1970’s,or even late 1960’s,was actually being conservative.Bearing in mind that the DKS and F12 were both well established in production during the 1970’s and power outputs were only going one way from that point.Hence Leyland being in the position of a supposed in house manufacturer without an in house engine. :unamused:

The point in this case being what if neither Volvo or DAF had engines reliably capable of that benchmark,in the form of the 11.6 and TD 120,in their armoury,as of the 1970’s ?. :bulb: :open_mouth:

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … 12-rockets

You do talk ■■■■■■■■, the F12 wasn’t launched until 1978, at the time it took part in a euro test in TRUCK and it was the most powerful lorry they had ever tested.

The UK was a 32ton market and despite years of threatening to implement a higher weight limit there was no indication that it would ever go up, so why on earth would anybody without a crystal ball design a range of lorries for a weight limit that never existed at the time?

You have to remember that the British market was the strongest in Europe, so Leyland would be foolish to concentrate on anything else. The importers may well have had more powerful lorries in their ranges, but they also had higher weight limits in their home markets that had to be serviced, if Sweden was 32ton and not 52ton, do you think that Volvo would’ve bothered with a 12litre engine? And even at 52ton they thought that 350-380hp was more than enough, as did Scania with their V8, even without a calculator you can figure that a 275hp TL12 at 32ton had a better power to weight ratio than a TD120 or DSC14 at 52tons.

You also keep banging on about Daf, well that only compounds your ignorance of the situation, the 2800 was nothing special at all, the cab was cramped, the driving position was horrible, like driving a Bedford TK, they couldn’t pull the skin off a rice pudding and they drank oil and leaked air like a sieve, they were also heavy and couldn’t legally couple to a 40’ trailer.

I used to run to Italy in a 2800 Daf and it was no better than a 1628 Merc or an F10 on the hilly bits, it certainly couldn’t live with a Transcon with a 335 ■■■■■■■ or an F12 or 141 and during the evenings I spent relaxing in a routiers with other drivers, not one of them ever brought up bore and stroke dimensions, so I guess that part of the equation was over our heads…

Seriously, you’re surpassing yourself on this thread, change the bloody record before the people with facts and considered opinions run away screaming from your incessant ramblings about bore and stroke and mega hp dream machines.

248

kr79:
The td120 only hit 400 bhp by 1990 volvo had to launch the f16 in 1988 to compete with the big power v8 scanias v8 iveco and big mercs it wasn’t until the new d12 fh12 was launched that volvo had a 12 litre engine that pushed 400+ out and scania in 96 with the 124 replacing the old 11 litre models.

400 hp from a 12 litre engine really is a case of pushing it to silly levels at least by the technology standards of the 1970’s/80’s.It seems obvious that the F12 was the right engine at the right time just as the Eagle was the right engine for the T45 at the right time.Unlike the TL12. :bulb:

249

I have heard mixed reports on the RR Eagle :wink:

250

newmercman:
You do talk ■■■■■■■■, the F12 wasn’t launched until 1978, at the time it took part in a euro test in TRUCK and it was the most powerful lorry they had ever tested.

The UK was a 32ton market and despite years of threatening to implement a higher weight limit there was no indication that it would ever go up, so why on earth would anybody without a crystal ball design a range of lorries for a weight limit that never existed at the time?

You have to remember that the British market was the strongest in Europe, so Leyland would be foolish to concentrate on anything else. The importers may well have had more powerful lorries in their ranges, but they also had higher weight limits in their home markets that had to be serviced, if Sweden was 32ton and not 52ton, do you think that Volvo would’ve bothered with a 12litre engine? And even at 52ton they thought that 350-380hp was more than enough, as did Scania with their V8, even without a calculator you can figure that a 275hp TL12 at 32ton had a better power to weight ratio than a TD120 or DSC14 at 52tons.

You also keep banging on about Daf, well that only compounds your ignorance of the situation, the 2800 was nothing special at all, the cab was cramped, the driving position was horrible, like driving a Bedford TK, they couldn’t pull the skin off a rice pudding and they drank oil and leaked air like a sieve, they were also heavy and couldn’t legally couple to a 40’ trailer.

I used to run to Italy in a 2800 Daf and it was no better than a 1628 Merc or an F10 on the hilly bits, it certainly couldn’t live with a Transcon with a 335 ■■■■■■■ or an F12 or 141 and during the evenings I spent relaxing in a routiers with other drivers, not one of them ever brought up bore and stroke dimensions, so I guess that part of the equation was over our heads…

Seriously, you’re surpassing yourself on this thread, change the bloody record before the people with facts and considered opinions run away screaming from your incessant ramblings about bore and stroke and mega hp dream machines.

Blimey nmm it isn’t me who needs to change the record.

Firstly it wasn’t just the gross weight increase that did it.It was the changing attitudes to power ( more like torque ) to weight ‘ratios’.In which case ‘if’ it was supposedly all about F12 type outputs only being needed for Scandinavian type 52 t gross weights how do you explain the demand for and F12’s sales success and Leyland’s decision to ( rightly ) ditch the TL12 in favour of 300 + ■■■■■■■ and Rolls options,just because of a 6 t increase in gross weights ?.Bearing in mind that the F12’s power/torque to weight ratio would have been less at 52t than the TL12’s at 38t.The conclusion being that we were already entering a foreseeable more or less 10 hp/25 lb/ft per tonne environment,at ever decreasing engine speeds,as of at least the late 1970’s.

On that note do you really think that the Swedes were actually running around at 52t at the type of power/torque to weight ratios you’ve described by choice ?.Or because there just weren’t any bigger power in house Volvo or Scania alternatives and they were so loyal to the home manufacturers that they didn’t want to import the better power/torque needed and available for that weight from across the Atlantic ?. :unamused:

As for a cramped gutless 2800 not as I remember it and are you sure that you’re referring to the DKS. :open_mouth:

251

Yes they ditched the TL12 in favour of ■■■■■■■ and Perkins, but you’ve had that explained, it was cheaper to use loose engines, so it stands to reason that you wouldn’t throw good money away developing the TL12 to a higher hp/torque rating. It’s not rocket science!

Had the T45 range been introduced on time in the mid 70s and maybe as suggested, badged as Scammell, it would’ve been a different story altogether, but the tardy launch and the Leyland badge on the grille sealed its fate.

252

newmercman:
Yes they ditched the TL12 in favour of ■■■■■■■ and Perkins, but you’ve had that explained, it was cheaper to use loose engines, so it stands to reason that you wouldn’t throw good money away developing the TL12 to a higher hp/torque rating. It’s not rocket science!

Which isn’t consistent with Leyland maintaining its in house manufacturer status.Which the consensus seems to be was/is the only way to long term survival. :bulb: :confused:

253

I would say the move to loose engines was a reaction rather than planned. As I said, if the T45 was launched when it was planned to be launched it would’ve been a very different story.

254

newmercman:
I would say the move to loose engines was a reaction rather than planned. As I said, if the T45 was launched when it was planned to be launched it would’ve been a very different story.

It was a ‘reaction’ because none of its in house options had the type of reliable output potential in them to meet required power/torque to gross vehicle weight ratio expectations over expected production life.That applied whether it was the Scammell Crusader or the T45.At that point the 760/TL12 being the only realistic in house option with the same problem of lack of output potential,v the outsourced competition,in either case.That problem obviously existing before the launch of the T45 hence the move by both Guy and Scammell to outsourcing long before 1979.

255

Did Guy ever offer an in house engine in a heavy truck? Scammell were big Gardner users and used the Leyland 0.600, but their affiliation with RR came about in part due to the Crusader and I’m sure I’ve read somewhere that there was some kind of government intervention in that which bailed out RR. It was a strange decision to go to a loose engine when there were group engines that would’ve worked out, the extra funds from more production would’ve no doubt helped in the development of and the eventual replacement of the AV760/TL12 platform.

256

Leyland were skint after designing the T45 range due to the car division and designing a new range of engines was out of the question and even the lighter offerings ended up with ■■■■■■■ engines by the mid 80s.
The crusader was hardly a roaring sucsess with its fixed cab and poor access in and out of the cab.
The Eagle was often second choice behind gardner in the 70s and by the mid 80s the L10 ■■■■■■■ always outsold it as a mid range offering in foden erf etc
In Scandinavia sisu offered outsourced engines but was always a small player compared to volvo and scania.
Ford built tge transcontinental to where they thought the European market was going and although many drivers rated them they were not perfect and the volume of sales never matched what ford needed to call it a sucsess due to it been to heavy and all though the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ was a reliable engine it was never seen as very good on fuel

257

Market forces. Several very knowledgeable contributors have huge experience of driving throughout Europe and even to the Middle East. However, Leyland was by some distance the market leader across all truck categories in terms of annual sales figures for many, many years in the UK. (For Leyland read its combined group constituent companies). The T45 range wasn’t aimed at a minority (in terms of sales) top of the range, high power output, super truck international transport market sector. All my own experience of fleet transport operations was firmly UK based. I wasn’t remotely interested in speccing a truck to go to Doha, or anywhere else between there and Calais. For what we required at Spillers in the 1980s the T45 range was more than adequate, and what’s more, surprisingly maybe, the drivers loved 'em. Fast forward to the present day and that Leyland sales market share has continued into DAF days. But even these break down, you really wouldn’t want to see our maintence bills for our DAF 105s over the last 6 months, five major engine blow ups and rebuilds, admittedly at high mileages, but even 30 years on from the T45 era trucks can still be a pain in the backside. Incidentally we run 20 DAFs.

258

Agree with Ramone, I too think the Daf LF and CF still resemble Leylands.

259

That’s a good point and even say scania how many 81 and 111s were sold compared to 141s same with volvo and that’s true today.
Even in Ireland where over here we seem to think they love big power as we see the V8 scanias heading to Europe there domestic market is dominated by hino with bog standard fleet trucks.

260

The Irish will be getting Sinotrucks soon instead of Hino.