ramone:
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. 
In an ideal world Leyland would have had access to a second to none in house engine range.However by the standards of what they had in terms of development budgets in the day there was obviously around 20 years worth of more successful mileage in the loose Rolls/■■■■■■■ engine route which is how the T45 rightly ended its days not with the TL12.Bearing in mind that in house engine able DAF also went bust only a few years later after production of the T45 ended.The two then rescued by Paccar which of course built it’s empire on the assembly model.Only much more recently it going for the ‘vertical integration’ model which obviously takes big money and more than Leyland were ever going to find.Also bearing in mind that Paccar still offers the loose ■■■■■■■ option in its products like KW and which by all accounts actually forms the majority of those orders in Australia at least v the MX.All of which suggests that the in house v loose engine issue was/is a red herring. 
hallamtruck.com.au/news-events/k … australia/
Carryfast:
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. 
Errr… what’s not to like is absorbing all the development costs of one product, throwing that product away then investing it all over again in a different one, for no reason at all.
The title of this thread should be, “How could British Leyland have failed in a far more silly way?” The answer would be, get rid of all the engineers and financiers, and put a schoolboy in charge of a rabble of washer-turners in their place.
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
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.
Errr… what’s not to like is absorbing all the development costs of one product, throwing that product away then investing it all over again in a different one, for no reason at all.
The title of this thread should be, “How could British Leyland have failed in a far more silly way?” The answer would be, get rid of all the engineers and financiers, and put a schoolboy in charge of a rabble of washer-turners in their place.
Great so instead let’s spend the money anyway on developing a prototype superior product ( Pete copy ).Then throw that away and keep the inferior one ( fixed cab Crusader ).While also making another inferior product ( Ergo ) which we then spend even more on trying to make fit for purpose ( Marathon ).With the history of the Ergo,Marathon and lastly T45 proving that the in house engine business model was also never going to work.
As for washer turners it seems obvious that we’re discussing proven differences in potential product development direction taking place at the top.Not the shop floor who unfortunately for them could only turn out what the bean counters and suits eventually allowed to be put on the drawings given to them to turn into reality.Which in this case turned out to be things like 500 and V8 powered Ergos and fixed cab Crusaders rather than a Rolls or ■■■■■■■ powered Pete type knock off.Bearing in mind the development of the latter was obviously already well under way. 
Carryfast:
Great so instead let’s spend the money anyway on developing a prototype superior product …:
The 3VTG was a one-off testbed knocked up in a workshop. “Developed” was the one thing it was not. It was a full set of production drawings, a test programme and a tooling budget/lead time away from being a “product”. Why do you not listen to people who actually do engineering for a living?
Now, here’s a pertinent point- if they had used a raised and modified Ergo cab on the 3VTG, they would have been testing a production intent cab, which would have been a far more useful test-bed than the blacksmith’s job they put on it. The reason? Things would have gone wrong, and been rectified, before the Marathon was launched. They could have had a proper play about with the possibilities.
I think that argument satisfies the brief of the thread- AEC messing about with that one-off cab was a waste of a free opportunity. It contributed to the ultimate failure.
[zb]
anorak:
The 3VTG was a one-off testbed knocked up in a workshop. “Developed” was the one thing it was not. It was a full set of production drawings, a test programme and a tooling budget/lead time away from being a “product”. Why do you not listen to people who actually do engineering for a living?
Now, here’s a pertinent point- if they had used a raised and modified Ergo cab on the 3VTG, they would have been testing a production intent cab, which would have been a far more useful test-bed than the blacksmith’s job they put on it. The reason? Things would have gone wrong, and been rectified, before the Marathon was launched. They could have had a proper play about with the possibilities.
I think that argument satisfies the brief of the thread- AEC messing about with that one-off cab was a waste of a free opportunity. It contributed to the ultimate failure.
That Pete knock off cab design at least looks like it’s a bit more,than just a not even close to production ready shed,which they’ve hammered out of a few bits of sheet and then just nailed together as a publicity stunt just to look good on camera and which would fall apart during one run over the pave.
While the choice between staying with the Ergo and fixed cab Crusader,as opposed to doing what ever it took to replace both,with what seems like the type of no brainer choice of that Pete type cab design,seems like the type of decision which only the bean counters and suits who were running the show could have got wrong and which contributed to its failure.Just like other examples like betting the farm on the in house engine model and losing and carrying on with the Austin Morris fwd abortions and using the profits made by Jaguar/Rover/Triumph to prop up the resulting losses.While last but not least ploughing public money into the resulting staggering conglomerate while at the same time leaving the door open to unlimited imports.Thereby removing the captive customer base needed to pay back the tax payer’s investment.
The 3VTG was a test bed for the V8 and iirc was used running up and down the M4 at 40 tons , there were some photos of the interior and the cab was full of test equipment. 1 of the test drivers commented on the performance stating that he was passing empty motors uphill . There was a full article on it which was a very interesting read
From what I gather to be the general consensus regarding the V8, it was a flying machine, as we know its problems were with ŕeliability.
Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
newmercman:
From what I gather to be the general consensus regarding the V8, it was a flying machine,
No argument about that at least when it was put in a 4 wheeler. 
firetruck-photos.net/images/ … /20439.jpg
Thats not a V8 and i would very much doubt its a Mandator , more likely a Mercury
ramone:
Thats not a V8 and i would very much doubt its a Mandator , more likely a Mercury
Let’s get this right.You can plainly see the reference to it being a refinery tender.So in this case we get an order by an oil firm customer for a typically quick,powerful,rigid chassis spec,with good availability in the day,to meet that spec and you think that we gave them a Mercury with a Mandator badge stuck on the front. 
Meanwhile I should know it’s the real thing because we had a considerable number of the same chassis waiting to be built parked up on our demonstration area.Which from memory I don’t think found many/any further customers with that production run ending more or less as I started with the firm.
With that sector,in our case,then being taken over by the Bedford TM in both 71 and 92 series V6 and V8 form bearing in mind that even the 6V71 powered TM,let alone the 92 series and V8 versions,could do the job of the AEC.Unless again you’re saying that I don’t know what my own employers were actually making and all those actually had 500 Bedford engines in them not Detroits and the customers didn’t notice the difference.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Thats not a V8 and i would very much doubt its a Mandator , more likely a Mercury
… I should know it’s the real thing because we had a considerable number of the same chassis waiting to be built parked up on our demonstration area…
The fire engine has the rubber grille, which was only fitted to AECs after 1976. Until then, they retained the chrome grille.
Here it is, with its number plate on. P is 1975-6, is it not?
firetruck-photos.net/picture … r-JJC-867P
Given that the AEC V8 went out of production in 1971, how likely is it that “a considerable number of chassis” could have found their way out of the factory with that engine five years later?
[zb]
anorak:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Thats not a V8 and i would very much doubt its a Mandator , more likely a Mercury
… I should know it’s the real thing because we had a considerable number of the same chassis waiting to be built parked up on our demonstration area…
The fire engine has the rubber grille, which was only fitted to AECs after 1976. Until then, they retained the chrome grille.
Here it is, with its number plate on. P is 1975-6, is it not?
firetruck-photos.net/picture … r-JJC-867P
Given that the AEC V8 went out of production in 1971, how likely is it that “a considerable number of chassis” could have found their way out of the factory with that engine?
That’s fair enough.Bearing in mind that as I’ve said the type was well on it’s way out of our inventory at that point just as I started with the firm to be replaced by the TM.It is possible that I’d put 2 ( Mandator ) together with 2 ( 6 cylinder Mandator ) and with wrongly construed hearsay and assumption ended up with 5 ( 1975 V8 reg Mandator ). 
Having said that far from being ‘discontinued’ in 1971 the 801’s point of ‘introduction’ at least seems to be 1970 ?.While how can a grille type supposedly only available ‘from’ 1976 have ended up on a chassis which could only have been ordered well before its point of registration in 1975.Unless it was a retro fit during subsequent stated refurbishment bearing in mind the example in question was still around in 2013 at least.While unfortunately while confirming it’s deffo a Mandator the info doesn’t confirm its engine spec.But which I’d guess could well have gone along the lines of a special order request to AEC for a batch of last of the line V8 engined chassis for specialist emergency vehicle use taking place around 1974 if not earlier and AEC still being able to meet the request at that time.Unless you’re saying that anyone with a 1970 reg V8 was left with no spares back up as of 1971.
I would just like to add that it has an engine hu.mp too but maybe it was a special order for V8s with engine humps 5 years after they went out of production
The AEC is in fact a Mercury , probably a stretched tractor unit , currently sorn ,first registered in 1975 with an eight litre engine . If you don`t believe me look on the DVLA Vehicle Enquiry site ,all the info is there
ramone:
The AEC is in fact a Mercury , probably a stretched tractor unit , currently sorn ,first registered in 1975 with an eight litre engine . If you don`t believe me look on the DVLA Vehicle Enquiry site ,all the info is there
Unless we’re saying that a large well known fire truck manufacturer was in the habit of misrepresenting its products,let alone using the 505 engine ? for a refinery tender application The only bit that makes any sense in that would be the stretched tractor unit just like the TM’s were.
It would though explain how we ended up with a number of unused chassis which rightly predictably couldn’t find customers with it being anyone’s guess what the fallout would have been regarding the business relationship with Leyland trucks at that point.
The only other explanation would be that there’s a discrepancy between the vehicle details and reg as of 1975 v now.Bearing in mind that there’s surely no way that the thing as stated could have possibly met the performance spec expected of a refinery tender with around just 180 hp max and would have been rejected by the customer on those grounds.Also bearing in mind the clear discrepancy in the details you’ve unearthed assuming it is correct.IE exhibited and sold as a Mandator.
Which leaves the question what would the more realistic idea of it actually being a 6 cylinder Mandator,in its fire fighting role,have been expected to have been engined with bearing in mind the TM’s 6v71 type output and Rolls B81 petrol before that being a reasonable minimum for the application in question. ?.
ccmv.aecsouthall.co.uk/p43944322 … e#h68b311e
IMHO, The Unions ■■■■■■ the them well & truly, Regards Larry.
[zb]
anorak:
ramone:
The AEC is in fact a Mercury , probably a stretched tractor unit , currently sorn ,first registered in 1975 with an eight litre engine . If you don`t believe me look on the DVLA Vehicle Enquiry site ,all the info is there
What sounds more logical.First registered in 1975 as a stretched admittedly more likely 760/L12 Mandator unit for example ? and the records then later updated when changed from emergency vehicle to light recovery vehicle,as a 505 engined Mercury.
Or.
A 505 engined Mercury supplied by Leyland to meet the above order,exhibited and sold as a Mandator,for use as a refinery tender.Bearing in mind us seemingly and predictably getting lumbered with an unwanted stock of same chassis.Then rightly followed by a large scale move to Detroit powered Bedford TM.
Either way muppetry of the highest order and a lot worse than confusing V8 v 6 cylinder Mandators from an external photo.
Lawrence Dunbar:
IMHO, The Unions [zb] the them well & truly, Regards Larry.
+1 & the lack of wisdom of our friend CF
