DEANB:
Sorry cant resist !0
I remember being parked up in the 80’s and some guy was spouting off about his globetrotter. A Spiers driver sat next to me looked at me and said “Don’t know why he’s going on I’ve got a lovely village trotter out there”. OK not particularly funny when put here suppose you had to be there, but it gave all of us a giggle. Memories ay?
ramone:
The cab was there , but it took until the Marathon to develop it , like ive already mentioned why on earth didnt they lower the Marathon cab to fit the rest of the range it was a much improved environment compared with the original ergo . It was virtually a walk thru so it could have been lowered to an acceptable level without the intrusion of the engine hump , … was it just coincidental that AECs reputation became tarnished after the “merger” takeover or was there more too it , AEC were considered by many as the premier commercial vehicle manufacturer in england … on launch the ergo was considered ahead of the times so wasn`t it the start of what became giant strides to improve driver comfort ?
I am a bit late joining in the conversation but i am late with most things in life , thing is i agree with most of the comments and like most am deeply sad the company failed but we still have leyland trucks ,i know they are badged DAF but they are very good trucks and are the most popular in the uk takng over 40% of the market without having the rose tinted spec mermanvolcscani thing that goes on , as for leyland and the cab thing , they had a cab and it wasnt used and i have no idea why ,it was part of the Albert Fogg developement [attachment=0]aec.jpg[/attachment]
rathmell999:
ramone:
The cab was there , but it took until the Marathon to develop it , like ive already mentioned why on earth didnt they lower the Marathon cab to fit the rest of the range it was a much improved environment compared with the original ergo . It was virtually a walk thru so it could have been lowered to an acceptable level without the intrusion of the engine hump , … was it just coincidental that AECs reputation became tarnished after the “merger” takeover or was there more too it , AEC were considered by many as the premier commercial vehicle manufacturer in england … on launch the ergo was considered ahead of the times so wasn`t it the start of what became giant strides to improve driver comfort ?I am a bit late joining in the conversation but i am late with most things in life , thing is i agree with most of the comments and like most am deeply sad the company failed but we still have leyland trucks ,i know they are badged DAF but they are very good trucks and are the most popular in the uk takng over 40% of the market without having the rose tinted spec mermanvolcscani thing that goes on , as for leyland and the cab thing , they had a cab and it wasnt used and i have no idea why ,it was part of the Albert Fogg developement [attachment=0]aec.jpg[/attachment]
I have seen this photo many times but just noticed the step behind the wheel , i know it was a mock up cab but that step looks a little weak. On a different note ive just spent the last day and half in a 18 month old Axor mid lift . What a pile of crap that was , if this is progression im glad i dont drive regularily now.
ramone:
I have seen this photo many times but just noticed the step behind the wheel , i know it was a mock up cab but that step looks a little weak.
It’s obvious that they took the design idea from the cab over Pete of the day and would have been easy enough to fine tune the step arrangement in line with that.While also standardising on at least the short sleeper shown here.In which case they also could have ditched the Crusader cab.That and standardise on the option of ■■■■■■■ or Rolls and Fuller,job done. 
Carryfast:
ramone:
I have seen this photo many times but just noticed the step behind the wheel , i know it was a mock up cab but that step looks a little weak.It’s obvious that they took the design idea from the cab over Pete of the day and would have been easy enough to fine tune the step arrangement in line with that.While also standardising on at least the short sleeper shown here.In which case they also could have ditched the Crusader cab.That and standardise on the option of ■■■■■■■ or Rolls and Fuller,job done.
Is that you in the shot CF ? Looks like you have locked yourself out mate or the Ali cab lozenged and jammed the door 
Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
0 A Blue and White abortion among the Red and Whites
Dennis is this Leyland a Buffalo ? Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
Bewick:
0 A Blue and White abortion among the Red and WhitesDennis is this Leyland a Buffalo ? Regards Larry.
Yes it was a Buffalo Larry and none of our Drivers rated it either ! Cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
Lawrence Dunbar:
Bewick:
0 A Blue and White abortion among the Red and WhitesDennis is this Leyland a Buffalo ? Regards Larry.
Yes it was a Buffalo Larry and none of our Drivers rated it either ! Cheers Dennis.
Thanks Dennis for the Info, A pal of mine ran one, It was a nice thing to drive but the Engine gave him some grieve at one point But he sorted in out & It was vever any bother again, But having said this Another pal of mine had one & he got rid after 12 months, So one has to speak as one finds, Regards Larry
It was the fixed head 500 engine that often gets quoted for its downfall, it was never really successful probably along the same lines as the AEC V8, British operators wanted to stay loyal to British made motors they had good service from in the past but these problematic rushed into service makes only helped to turn bosses to foreigners as we know. It seems too many things went pear shaped at the wrong time for the British industry which to be honest when you look at the line up, mostly day cabbed, tired and old hat designs with little in the way of comfort. Leyland, AEC, GUY, Atkinson, Foden, ERF, Seddon as the max weight choices looked well past their sell by date compared to what Europe was pushing. Just as well Leyland didn’t go for that shed of an American design, flaming awful. Why Leyland failed cannot possibly be put down to one or two reasons but many. Franky.
Frankydobo:
It was the fixed head 500 engine that often gets quoted for its downfall, it was never really successful probably along the same lines as the AEC V8, British operators wanted to stay loyal to British made motors they had good service from in the past but these problematic rushed into service makes only helped to turn bosses to foreigners as we know. It seems too many things went pear shaped at the wrong time for the British industry which to be honest when you look at the line up, mostly day cabbed, tired and old hat designs with little in the way of comfort. Leyland, AEC, GUY, Atkinson, Foden, ERF, Seddon as the max weight choices looked well past their sell by date compared to what Europe was pushing. Just as well Leyland didn’t go for that shed of an American design, flaming awful. Why Leyland failed cannot possibly be put down to one or two reasons but many. Franky.
Quite right Franky , and looking at the Bewick line up there`s only the F88 that would be considered comfortable , probably the premier vehicle of its time along with Scanias offerings
Carryfast:
ramone:
I have seen this photo many times but just noticed the step behind the wheel , i know it was a mock up cab but that step looks a little weak.It’s obvious that they took the design idea from the cab over Pete of the day and would have been easy enough to fine tune the step arrangement in line with that.While also standardising on at least the short sleeper shown here.In which case they also could have ditched the Crusader cab.That and standardise on the option of ■■■■■■■ or Rolls and Fuller,job done.
Never mind the step design, the fundamental design flaw is the forward set front axle. The problem here is the short front springs that are needed, and the horrendous ride / comfort issues that result from the short springs.
kmills:
Carryfast:
ramone:
I have seen this photo many times but just noticed the step behind the wheel , i know it was a mock up cab but that step looks a little weak.It’s obvious that they took the design idea from the cab over Pete of the day and would have been easy enough to fine tune the step arrangement in line with that.While also standardising on at least the short sleeper shown here.In which case they also could have ditched the Crusader cab.That and standardise on the option of ■■■■■■■ or Rolls and Fuller,job done.
Never mind the step design, the fundamental design flaw is the forward set front axle. The problem here is the short front springs that are needed, and the horrendous ride / comfort issues that result from the short springs.
I dont think it would have gone into production , more of a prototype .If you look at the prototype Marathon that was the same with the set forward front axle, I`m not sure why they did this maybe someone could enlighten us
ramone:
kmills:
Carryfast:
ramone:
I have seen this photo many times but just noticed the step behind the wheel , i know it was a mock up cab but that step looks a little weak.It’s obvious that they took the design idea from the cab over Pete of the day and would have been easy enough to fine tune the step arrangement in line with that.While also standardising on at least the short sleeper shown here.In which case they also could have ditched the Crusader cab.That and standardise on the option of ■■■■■■■ or Rolls and Fuller,job done.
Never mind the step design, the fundamental design flaw is the forward set front axle. The problem here is the short front springs that are needed, and the horrendous ride / comfort issues that result from the short springs.
I dont think it would have gone into production , more of a prototype .If you look at the prototype Marathon that was the same with the set forward front axle, I`m not sure why they did this maybe someone could enlighten us
The compromised front axle positioning and ride quality is realistically a feature of the cab over design to a greater or lesser degree regardless.In this case we’re arguably looking at a superior design to the Scammell Crusader with little if any significant difference regards front axle v chassis position between that v the Pete or the AEC prototype copy and the Crusader seemed to work well enough in that regard.Bearing in mind that an updated and improved Crusader was what Leyland needed more than either the Ergo or the Marathon at that crucial point.
Carryfast:
…Bearing in mind that an updated and improved Crusader was what Leyland needed more than either the Ergo or the Marathon at that crucial point.
Why?
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
…Bearing in mind that an updated and improved Crusader was what Leyland needed more than either the Ergo or the Marathon at that crucial point.Why?
Lawrence Dunbar:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
…Bearing in mind that an updated and improved Crusader was what Leyland needed more than either the Ergo or the Marathon at that crucial point.Why?
- 1
I think it would be fair to say that a Rolls/■■■■■■■ powered upgraded tilt cab Crusader along the lines shown,would have been a better bet for most customers and drivers,let alone warranty claims,than continuing with the idea of the 500 or V8 powered Ergo for example.Or going to all the aggro and expense of then trying to make the Ergo fit for purpose in the form of the Marathon.
While it would need the opposite premise to suggest otherwise and that obviously being the choice of premise which Leyland took with predictable results. 
Carryfast:
Lawrence Dunbar:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
…Bearing in mind that an updated and improved Crusader was what Leyland needed more than either the Ergo or the Marathon at that crucial point.Why?
- 1
I think it would be fair to say that a Rolls/■■■■■■■ powered upgraded tilt cab Crusader along the lines shown,would have been a better bet for most customers and drivers,let alone warranty claims,than continuing with the idea of the 500 or V8 powered Ergo for example.Or going to all the aggro and expense of then trying to make the Ergo fit for purpose in the form of the Marathon.
While it would need the opposite premise to suggest otherwise and that obviously being the choice of premise which Leyland took with predictable results.
Changing the mounting height of the cab is easier/cheaper than converting a fixed one to a tilter. Using an out-sourced cab makes no economic sense, when an in-house one is already available. The Ergo was a superior cab to the MP one, if you read any of the drivers’ opinions on here.
The same arguments apply to engines- the 760 was in-house, and turbocharging it was no disaster.
Leyland’s design decisions regarding the Marathon were not the reason for the company’s demise. The poor execution of it might have been a factor, but the firm’s half-baked engineering of the period would have compromised any new product. Imagine your tilt-cab ■■■■■■■ Crusader, with the same problems. It would have made Leyland a laughing stock in no time.
Allowing the Crusader to continue as it was, as a no-frills option, was a good idea. As usual, your suggestions show others’ failures in a favourable light. 
[zb]
anorak:
Using an out-sourced cab makes no economic sense, when an in-house one is already available. The Ergo was a superior cab to the MP one, if you read any of the drivers’ opinions on here.Leyland’s design decisions regarding the Marathon were not the reason for the company’s demise. The poor execution of it might have been a factor, but the firm’s half-baked engineering of the period would have compromised any new product. Imagine your tilt-cab ■■■■■■■ Crusader, with the same problems. It would have made Leyland a laughing stock in no time.
Allowing the Crusader to continue as it was, as a no-frills option, was a good idea. As usual, your suggestions show others’ failures in a favourable light.
I wasn’t referring to the MP Crusader.I was referring to the AEC Pete copy prototype shown which I’m assuming was ( would have been ) also an in house project ( Crusader 2 ).Then ditch the Ergo and up production by combining the manufacturing resources of both AEC and Scammell.What’s not to like.
As for the Ergo supposedly being superior to the MP Crusader that seems like a bit of an exaggeration.IE why did the Ergo need the Marathon upgrade in that case while the Crusader continued satisfactorily virtually unchanged ?.
As for Rolls or ■■■■■■■ v TL12 again that’s a matter of contention but history isn’t on the TL12’s, or in fact any AEC based engine design,side by comparison.
So just remind me CF of how many UK manufacturers are still in existence who obviously took your advice , ERF ,Seddon , Foden ,Scammell, Guy, all used the motor panels cab in 1 guise or another only to ditch them for their own design barring the BL contingent. They all used ■■■■■■■ or Rolls or even Gardner engines again something you seem to think was the only way forward . Well none of the big European manufacturers that are left use out sourced engines ,much preferring to develop in house. The Marathons I`ve been in were a world away from the original ergo ,having not had the pleasure of stepping foot in the Crusader I cant comment but I cant imagine they would be superior. 
