Why did British Leyland fail?

[tomdhu]

gingerfold:

Tomdhu:

gingerfold:
Tomdhu, thank you for your concise and knowledgeable insights into a complex subject that has fascinated many people for years. I have to say that your opinions echo very closely those of Robert Fryars, whose opinions I have heard for many years. As you will know, Robert Fryars rose to very senior positions in AEC and then Leyland Motors. Whilst Mr Fryars is more scathing in his opinions of certain people and personalities within British Leyland than you are, like you he is of the opinion that Stanley Markland would have been a much better choice to head up the organisation than Donald Stokes. It is good for me personally that I am now able to read about BL from both an AEC and a Leyland man’s viewpoint and it is pleasing that there is so much common ground within the two opinions.

Hi GF,
Do you know if “Kinda Bob” as we knew him is still alive and if R k Knowles is still around?

Hi Tomdhu, yes Bob Fryars is still going strong and he has written many articles about his experiences at both AEC and Leyland for the AEC Gazette and AEC Bulletin. All of his reminiscences are fascinating and some of the technical articles about product design and development are brilliant and even a non-engineer like me can understand what he is writing about. I don’t know R.K Knowles, but I do know Mike Knowles.

Hi GF,

Bob must be a fair age now and it is good to see that he is still around and has been contributing to the Gazette and Bulletin. I would very much like to access his writings as I am an engineer by background. I recall him giving us students & graduates a presentation on the thinking behind the Leyland National bus at Stokes Hall. I can’t recall the year.

I found that Warwick University has quite a list of articles associated with AEC and some are by Bob so I was planning to try and access those but Warwick is a bit of a trek.

I had Mike down as R K Knowles obviously as I think Mike came up from Southall about the same time as Bob and they were both accountable to Albert Fogg. Please correct me if I am wrong.

[carryfast]

Tomdhu:

Carryfast:
As does the question as to how did the 760’s architecture seem to have been limited by being based on the previous 590/690 design,instead of its designers being given a clean sheet.:

The reality is that “clean sheets” take time, cost really big money and come with potential risk.

The time is consumed in design, development and proving.
The big money comes in the cost developing patterns and/for casting moulds but mostly in machine tools.
The potential risk is always there as it might be a dud.

AEC themselves had started with a clean sheet by initiating the V8 engine range and look what happened to that.
Leyland started with a clean sheet with the O.500 and look what happened to that.

That’s the bit I don’t get. As I said in the case of the Triumph 2000 engine they were faced with exactly that scenario.IE the need for more torque and power as usual being a bonus of that.In that case they rightly took the stroking option but seem to have run into side throw clearance issues rather than TDC/BDC ones although I never actually measured the sump to deck or crank centre line measurements of the 2.5 to confirm that.The problem in either case being solved by simply calling for a changed block casting which by all accounts was a more than cost effective solution taking 2 years max from drawing board to introduction.

Which still leaves the question did the 680,in addition to its existing advantage in that regard, actually also contain 158 mm’s + worth of stroking development potential ?.In which case that seems to be where the glaring catastrophic mistake was made regards Leyland’s in house engine programme in handing that massive advantage to DAF.Instead of getting on with the job of producing an in house 130x158 world beater to at least give the T45 a chance of success.All long before DAF got round to doing same with the XF.

[tomdhu]

[zb]
anorak:
Hi Tomdhu- I will echo the sentiments of the others, in thanking you for taking the time to answer our questions. The knowledge of a senior employee of such a fascinating company as Leyland is gold dust to nutcases like us.

I note that you received some tuition from Donald Stokes. Elsewhere on this forum, I cited his obituary in the Telegraph:
telegraph.co.uk/news/obituar … tokes.html

“…Stokes returned to Leyland Motors with a visionary’s zeal for the sort of markets where the company should be selling its products. He argued that European countries would be developing their own truck and bus plants and that Leyland should go for the Middle East and South America. He was given the job of running the new export department in 1946 and began putting his philosophy into effect…”

Is the above quote fair? Did he really chicken out of the European markets?

Hi Anorak,

Sure there’s an element of truth in that. In the 50’s and 60’s it was Stokes strategy that brought enormous success in the English speaking markets. He wasn’t a great linguist and and I guess he was not most comfortable with dealing with non-English speakers, he did have several major successes like the Cuban bus deals and buses to Oslo etc

He did see the need ( all be it belatedly) to develop European sales in 1968 and set up a major dedicated department with linguists and others who put a lot of effort into appointing dealers to provides sales and support. I recall Alan Sheppard was head of that. But did Leyland have the right products to succeed?

Here’s a link to another take on it…
aronline.co.uk/blogs/commerc … roadtrain/

[carryfast]

Tomdhu:

[zb]
anorak:
Hi Tomdhu- I will echo the sentiments of the others, in thanking you for taking the time to answer our questions. The knowledge of a senior employee of such a fascinating company as Leyland is gold dust to nutcases like us.

I note that you received some tuition from Donald Stokes. Elsewhere on this forum, I cited his obituary in the Telegraph:
telegraph.co.uk/news/obituar … tokes.html

“…Stokes returned to Leyland Motors with a visionary’s zeal for the sort of markets where the company should be selling its products. He argued that European countries would be developing their own truck and bus plants and that Leyland should go for the Middle East and South America. He was given the job of running the new export department in 1946 and began putting his philosophy into effect…”

Is the above quote fair? Did he really chicken out of the European markets?

Hi Anorak,

Sure there’s an element of truth in that. In the 50’s and 60’s it was Stokes strategy that brought enormous success in the English speaking markets. He wasn’t a great linguist and and I guess he was not most comfortable with dealing with non-English speakers, he did have several major successes like the Cuban bus deals and buses to Oslo etc

He did see the need ( all be it belatedly) to develop European sales in 1968 and set up a major dedicated department with linguists and others who put a lot of effort into appointing dealers to provides sales and support. I recall Alan Sheppard was head of that. But did Leyland have the right products to succeed?

It’s difficult to understand how anyone can reach the idea that any Brit manufacturer could possibly over come the domestic brand loyalty in all the Euro and Scandinavian markets.IE they were producing what they needed for themselves with majority customer loyalty to go with that.With any breakdown in that situation possibly being a counter productive move from the point of Europe’s post war recovery anyway.

While South America was obviously also obviously a tough nut to crack bearing in mind it’s links with German ‘interests’.

Realistically it was the domestic and colonial markets where the most important battle lines were drawn with far more to be potentially lost in the domestic market than potentially won in the Euro export markets.In which case the best in house shot of TL 12 powered T45 was never going to cut it in either case.Which seems to be confirmed by history.

[tomdhu]

Carryfast:

Tomdhu:

Carryfast:
The problem with the TL12 was that it wasn’t future proof in the way that the 680,let alone 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ which case the benchmark was never going to stay at the level of the Volvo 9.6 litre which itself used the idea of engine speed to make power in a world moving ever faster towards the idea that it’s all about torque and for torque you need an engine with sufficient stroke measurement and preferably room for more.Which at 142 mm and with a reputed main bearing centre line that was too low in the block to allow an increase for more,just wasn’t there in the case of the TL12.

Hi CF,

There’s been a lot of exchanges about the respective development potential of the AV760 and the O.680 and you have highlighted the main reason as the fact that the C/L of the AEC crank is at the sump edge level and the Leyland is buried in the block.

Don’t you think two more relevant parameters are…

(1) The distance from the C/L of the crankshaft to the top of the cylinder block? ,and
(2) The distance from the C/L of the crankshaft to the bottom of the cylinder bores?

Having not had the chance to see both engines in stripped form,or detailed knowledge of the architecture,I’d only recently heard that as being the,if not an,issue with the 760 in a post by cav551 on a different topic ( DAF Engines ).

Obviously stroking an engine is going to require all the relevant clearances at both TDC and BDC in addition to enough side clearances to accept the larger side throws of crank.Only having cav’s comments to go by I was just guessing that it was the clearance at BDC which was the problem in the case of the 760 ?.

While the topic in question also resulted in my question did the 680’s basic engine architecture also actually have the required potential in all those parameters to provide the further increase to 158 mm in the case of the XF and possibly beyond in the case of the MX 13 in the hands of DAF.

Hi CF,
To progress this, we really need to know distance from the C/L of the crankshaft to the top of the cylinder block of both the O.680 and the AV760 but unless we have a member on the forum that has a couple of these blocks in his backyard, then we can only speculate. In terms of getting a longer stroke, here are my thoughts on the theory.

Using the same block, one way to get a slightly longer stroke is more throw on the crank whilst reducing the length of the conrod and then increase the distance from the C/L of the gudgeon pin to the top of the piston.

Using the same block, another way is more throw on the crank whilst keeping the same conrod and then reducing the distance from the C/L of the gudgeon pin to the top of the piston But in doing so one would have to ensure one did not compromise the shape of the combustion chamber.

To contain the bigger swing of the crank, the clearance at 90 deg is something that needs consideration.

At BDC, then it becomes a consideration if the bores are deep enough to still act as a guide for the piston.

I would guess that after considering each or all of these then if there wasn’t enough gain in stroke then it would mean a whole new block.

I would welcome your thoughts on the above and also relevant development potential of the AV760 and the O.680, given that you have mentioned the main reason as the fact that the C/L of the AEC crank is at the sump edge level and the Leyland is buried in the block.

[shirtbox2003]

The main reasons were failure to listen to its customers,refusal to scrap BMC range,failure to integrate its acquisitions,too many pen pushers, the headless wonder engines,and last but not least the political will of the day.

[carryfast]

Tomdhu:
Hi CF,
To progress this, we really need to know distance from the C/L of the crankshaft to the top of the cylinder block of both the O.680 and the AV760 but unless we have a member on the forum that has a couple of these blocks in his backyard, then we can only speculate. In terms of getting a longer stroke, here are my thoughts on the theory.

Using the same block, one way to get a slightly longer stroke is more throw on the crank whilst reducing the length of the conrod and then increase the distance from the C/L of the gudgeon pin to the top of the piston.

Using the same block, another way is more throw on the crank whilst keeping the same conrod and then reducing the distance from the C/L of the gudgeon pin to the top of the piston But in doing so one would have to ensure one did not compromise the shape of the combustion chamber.

To contain the bigger swing of the crank, the clearance at 90 deg is something that needs consideration.

At BDC, then it becomes a consideration if the bores are deep enough to still act as a guide for the piston.

I would guess that after considering each or all of these then if there wasn’t enough gain in stroke then it would mean a whole new block.

I would welcome your thoughts on the above and also relevant development potential of the AV760 and the O.680, given that you have mentioned the main reason as the fact that the C/L of the AEC crank is at the sump edge level and the Leyland is buried in the block.

Realistically going by cav’s comments it sounds like the AV 590/690/760 range was already using at least some or a considerable amount of its sump space to accommodate crank throw at and around BDC because of the crank centre line to lower end of the block measurement ?.In which case that was probably it and the limit from the point of view of further crank throw in that regard ?.At which point all other parameters then become a moot point ?.Including the one which isn’t in that list of crank throw at and around TDC v lower end of bore/liner seating.

Which then leaves the question were the 590/690/760 all designed with no intention and/or any possible fore thought regards stroke increase development as opposed to the 680 ?.The limitations of the 760 in that regard v the development of the 680 ( especially if that XF measurement of 130x158 is based on the 680’s block architecture ) suggest that was the case.In which case the eventual T45’s chances went from hope to no hope all because either no one saw that before giving the 680 design away to DAF or to save a few bob on developing a different block for the 760 which would have been my preference IE the 760’s bore with at least a 6 inch stroke and preferably room for more.In which case maybe Harry Webster would have been better off being sent from Triumph to help AEC’s engineering design than Longbridge.

[tomdhu]

gingerfold:

Tomdhu:

gingerfold:
Tomdhu, thank you for your concise and knowledgeable insights into a complex subject that has fascinated many people for years. I have to say that your opinions echo very closely those of Robert Fryars, whose opinions I have heard for many years. As you will know, Robert Fryars rose to very senior positions in AEC and then Leyland Motors. Whilst Mr Fryars is more scathing in his opinions of certain people and personalities within British Leyland than you are, like you he is of the opinion that Stanley Markland would have been a much better choice to head up the organisation than Donald Stokes. It is good for me personally that I am now able to read about BL from both an AEC and a Leyland man’s viewpoint and it is pleasing that there is so much common ground within the two opinions.

Hi GF,
Do you know if “Kinda Bob” as we knew him is still alive and if R k Knowles is still around?

Hi Tomdhu, yes Bob Fryars is still going strong and he has written many articles about his experiences at both AEC and Leyland for the AEC Gazette and AEC Bulletin. All of his reminiscences are fascinating and some of the technical articles about product design and development are brilliant and even a non-engineer like me can understand what he is writing about. I don’t know R.K Knowles, but I do know Mike Knowles.

He was 40 years old in 1962 so if may arithmetic is right he must be 93. That’s excellent and proof that Leyland didn’t do him any harm!

I remember Mike Knowles vaguely as the chap who replaced Roger Smith as Donald Stokes’ P.A. in London. Now that was a thankless task for any aspiring young executive. All pain and no glory. Can’t recall any PA getting fast-tracked to senior management.

[tomdhu]

Carryfast:

Tomdhu:
Hi CF,
To progress this, we really need to know distance from the C/L of the crankshaft to the top of the cylinder block of both the O.680 and the AV760 but unless we have a member on the forum that has a couple of these blocks in his backyard, then we can only speculate. In terms of getting a longer stroke, here are my thoughts on the theory.

Using the same block, one way to get a slightly longer stroke is more throw on the crank whilst reducing the length of the conrod and then increase the distance from the C/L of the gudgeon pin to the top of the piston.

Using the same block, another way is more throw on the crank whilst keeping the same conrod and then reducing the distance from the C/L of the gudgeon pin to the top of the piston But in doing so one would have to ensure one did not compromise the shape of the combustion chamber.

To contain the bigger swing of the crank, the clearance at 90 deg is something that needs consideration.

At BDC, then it becomes a consideration if the bores are deep enough to still act as a guide for the piston.

I would guess that after considering each or all of these then if there wasn’t enough gain in stroke then it would mean a whole new block.

I would welcome your thoughts on the above and also relevant development potential of the AV760 and the O.680, given that you have mentioned the main reason as the fact that the C/L of the AEC crank is at the sump edge level and the Leyland is buried in the block.

Realistically going by cav’s comments it sounds like the AV 590/690/760 range was already using at least some or a considerable amount of its sump space to accommodate crank throw at and around BDC because of the crank centre line to lower end of the block measurement ?.
At BDC it’s just that the swing of the crank goes into the sump a little more. So just increase the depth of the sump by alittle to stop churning the oil. DAF increasedthe 680 throe from 146mm to 162 - which is only 16mm or about a half inch. No problem.

In which case that was probably it and the limit from the point of view of further crank throw in that regard ?.
Which then leaves the question were the 590/690/760 all designed with no intention and/or any possible fore thought regards stroke increase development as opposed to the 680 ?. No, in my opinion. Any designer leaves “a bit of slack” to provide future development. This slack is the gift that keeps on giving and is leveraged further as new technology comes along.

The limitations of the 760 in that regard v the development of the 680 ( especially if that XF measurement of 130x158 is based on the 680’s block architecture ) suggest that was the case. In truth, only Bob Fryars can give detailed response to that. One set of engineers see things that others don’t. DAF obviously had better engineers.
Who says convincingly that they couldn’t have done the same with the 760.
Leyland belatedly tried to rework the 680 and came out with the 690 and TL11 -even after they could have seen what DAF had done. There is no excuse. Leyland group engineers failed.

In which case the eventual T45’s chances went from hope to no hope all because either no one saw that before giving the 680 design away to DAF or to save a few bob on developing a different block for the 760 which would have been my preference IE the 760’s bore with at least a 6 inch stroke and preferably room for more.
Until someone comes up with a convincing argument as to why the 760 could not have been developed further, I am going to keep an open mind

[newmercman]

I’m a little late to the party, but I’ve just had a very interesting read to take care of my Saturday lunchtime “me” time. Thank you very much Tomdhu.

One thing that dear old Carryfast has avoided is the mention of militant workers dragging the group down, a subject he has been most vociferous about in the past, to the point of totally denying its role in the sad story of BL.

[carryfast]

Tomdhu:

Carryfast:
Realistically going by cav’s comments it sounds like the AV 590/690/760 range was already using at least some or a considerable amount of its sump space to accommodate crank throw at and around BDC because of the crank centre line to lower end of the block measurement ?.
At BDC it’s just that the swing of the crank goes into the sump a little more. So just increase the depth of the sump by alittle to stop churning the oil. DAF increasedthe 680 throe from 146mm to 162 - which is only 16mm or about a half inch. No problem.

In which case that was probably it and the limit from the point of view of further crank throw in that regard ?.
Which then leaves the question were the 590/690/760 all designed with no intention and/or any possible fore thought regards stroke increase development as opposed to the 680 ?. No, in my opinion. Any designer leaves “a bit of slack” to provide future development. This slack is the gift that keeps on giving and is leveraged further as new technology comes along.

The limitations of the 760 in that regard v the development of the 680 ( especially if that XF measurement of 130x158 is based on the 680’s block architecture ) suggest that was the case. In truth, only Bob Fryars can give detailed response to that. One set of engineers see things that others don’t. DAF obviously had better engineers.
Who says convincingly that they couldn’t have done the same with the 760.
Leyland belatedly tried to rework the 680 and came out with the 690 and TL11 -even after they could have seen what DAF had done. There is no excuse. Leyland group engineers failed.

In which case the eventual T45’s chances went from hope to no hope all because either no one saw that before giving the 680 design away to DAF or to save a few bob on developing a different block for the 760 which would have been my preference IE the 760’s bore with at least a 6 inch stroke and preferably room for more.
Until someone comes up with a convincing argument as to why the 760 could not have been developed further, I am going to keep an open mind

Thanks for that that Tomdhu.That sounds like maybe cav’s over view of the situation,regards the 590/690/760 crank line v lower block edge creating a block on further development,might have been on the pessimistic side ?.Although having said that he seems to have some very detailed knowledge of just how bad that situation would have been at the type of limits that needed to be pushed.On that note as in all other cases that extra 10 mm preferably more might as well have been a mile if it was already at or too close to the limit of any or all of those parameters that needed to be cleared.On that note in the case of the 760 it was obviously a lower starting point.In which case,like the old Triumph engine,we’re actually looking at a 20 mm increase to get to the 162 mm mark or at least 16 mm to get to where the XF development was.It would be interesting again to hear cav’s comments as to whether he thinks it could have been done.

Which has also seems to have answered my question concerning whether the MX13 is in fact a development of the 680 block. Although I’d guess that even getting the 760 to the 135x158 mark of the XF’s stroke would probably at least still have eventually produced an 11.6 DAF and Rolls Eagle and an F12 killer in the T45.In which case I’d say that Harry Webster could have done it if anyone at Leyland could.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
I’m a little late to the party, but I’ve just had a very interesting read to take care of my Saturday lunchtime “me” time. Thank you very much Tomdhu.

One thing that dear old Carryfast has avoided is the mention of militant workers dragging the group down, a subject he has been most vociferous about in the past, to the point of totally denying its role in the sad story of BL.

To be fair you’ll have seen that I’ve got absolutely no time for militancy for Socialist political ends.Which would obviously count out Red Robbo’s etc motivation.Which wouldn’t have been there anyway if Leyland Group’s managers had the bottle to tell Wilson to do one regards BMC and just rescue Jaguar.However you really need to seperate that from the other type of action which is all about maintaining wage levels in real terms and living standards.The latter actually being of benefit to the economy as a whole.Which really was the motivation behind most of the industrial action in the day.It’s just unfortunate that much of that justified feeling was sometimes hijacked by the Socialist mob mentality.

[newmercman]

I know better than to argue with you, but I’m not talking about the good the unions did, I’m referring to their role in the demise of BL, which the man who was there seems to say.

[carryfast]

.

[carryfast]

As I’ve said you’ll get no argument from me regarding everything which took place regarding BMC from the junk which Issigonis designed and the parasitic opportunist nature of its top management,to the attitudes of its workforce in following Robinson’s political agenda.However,with the arguable exception of the Speke works in the day,it would be unfair to paint Leyland’s workforce as a whole along those lines.Just as the justified non political militancy of the UAWU over the years wasn’t to blame for the similar collapse of much of the US motor industry.More like the opposite in that under paid workers can’t buy big decent expensive to run cars whether it’s Chevy’s and MOPARS or Jaguar/Rover/Triumph in the day when Triumph and Rover meant just that and not cheap and nasty oriental knock offs.

[gingerfold]

cav551:
I wonder whether AEC scuppered themselves back in 1954 when the AV 590 was introduced . AEC was in the position of being the obligated contractual supplier of chassis to London Transport, with whom at the time they were jointly designing the Routemaster bus. Historically this had been their core business everything else being a bonus.

That’s a good point. The Associated Equipment Company’s origins go back to the London General Omnibus Company (LGOC) in 1912, when it was established by LGOC to build and supply bus chassis. With the formation of the London Passenger Transport Board in 1933, an amalgamation of LGOC and the Underground Group, the AEC was floated as a public company on the Stock Exchange. But the AEC was contracted to London Transport to supply a minimum of 65% of its vehicle requirements for 30 years. (The figures might not be entirely accurate without checking, but they are not far out). This goes some way to explaining AEC’s lethargy and company policy in the 1950s. It was only towards the end of the “golden contract”, i.e. the early 1960s, that it realised it had better waken up. Despite that AEC did manage to come up with some popular and successful model ranges with the medium weights and heavyweight Mk.V, the latter arguably AEC at its best.

[gingerfold]

Hi Tomdhu, yes the Mike Knowles I’m thinking of was Donald Stokes’ PA.

I can also recommend the Warwick University Archives as a prime source of research material.

[zb_anorak]

Tomdhu:

[zb]
anorak:
…
“…Stokes returned to Leyland Motors with a visionary’s zeal for the sort of markets where the company should be selling its products. He argued that European countries would be developing their own truck and bus plants and that Leyland should go for the Middle East and South America. He was given the job of running the new export department in 1946 and began putting his philosophy into effect…”

Is the above quote fair? Did he really chicken out of the European markets?

Hi Anorak,

Sure there’s an element of truth in that. In the 50’s and 60’s it was Stokes strategy that brought enormous success in the English speaking markets. He wasn’t a great linguist and and I guess he was not most comfortable with dealing with non-English speakers, he did have several major successes like the Cuban bus deals and buses to Oslo etc

He did see the need ( all be it belatedly) to develop European sales in 1968 and set up a major dedicated department with linguists and others who put a lot of effort into appointing dealers to provides sales and support. I recall Alan Sheppard was head of that. But did Leyland have the right products to succeed?

No, they did not- the Ergo was hopelessly outclassed, from a driver’s standpoint, by the Continentals. I contend that, if Leyland had decided to attack the European markets from the beginning of the 1950s, there would have been a high-mounted Ergo from the start (1964), by default. That would have been a very strong rival for the new European cabs of that time.

The engines issue is less clear, to me at least. The radical concepts of Dr. Fogg could have been made to work, if enough money and brain-power had been lavished on them, I think. The conservative approach of the Continentals would then have been put to the sword in some style. If I am to point a finger at a specific failing, it would be the underestimation of the amount of engineering involved in doing something new.

[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 ?

[tomdhu]

Saviem:

Morning all

Fascinating stuff! Such a contrast to the world that I worked in with the Saviem Berliet merger where the product ranges were duplicated in all market sectors, the management kept separate, as were the (competing) Dealer networks. Not only in France, but in her export markets as well. This led, (no surprise), to loss in market share for both marques, both in the domestic market, and export.

How bad could it get…well, cringeworthy comes to mind…Suisse Show 1980, combined stand for Saviem and Berliet, and the first use of the Renault" Brand"…Same year, Amsterdam, same big cheese giving the address…three stands, Saviem, (celebrating our Importer investing in a new facility)…Berliet…more investment…and Renault lightweights all away with yet another importer.

Then there were the actual lorries…Berliet were masters at duplicating their models, (Stradair/G range)…then it was decided, (despite several of us voicing total opposition), that the Saviem Serie J should become the Berliet Serie B for the Berliet dealerships…(and duplicating three existing models. These decisions were taken outside of the actual “works” by “politicians”, more mindfull of employment and regional issues, not the overall progress of the combined company.

The internal politics were horrendous…and it was a truly exciting place to be in the 70s!!!

But you should have seen the faces of the “big cheeses” when I gave a presentation with the fact that Leyland had sold more Marathon/T45s in France (at that date), than combined Berliet Saviem sales in the UK! …

Fascinating stuff Tomdhu, please keep on

Cheerio for now.
[/quote]
Hi Saviem,
Your account of the anguishing Saviem– Berliet merger jogged my memory so I did a quick scan of Michael Edwardes book and in there is an account of of discussions between Renault and BL.
In 1977 there was lots of ideas exchanged about Renault giving a car design for production in the UK to offset BL Cars shortage of product in the fleet market but it transpired that they really wanted their hands on Land Rover and Range Rover. If collaboration had worked and if it was extended, I wonder what it would have done to Leyland Trucks. Maybe you could comment on that?

Apparently Renault were really upset when BL did the car deal with Honda (Triumph Acclaim) and BL in turn helped Honda with their 4x4. Renault ended up doing a merger with AMC so that they could get the Jeep 4x4 technology.

Another manufacturer that wanted to cherry pick bits of BL was GM who had fairly extensive discussions with Leyland Trucks where the end result would be economies of scale if Bedford and Leyland were to merge.

The only deal that was done was with ■■■■■■■ and their “B” series went in the Road Runner whilst Leyland Trucks supplied ■■■■■■■ with machined components.

The ploy that never happened was one whereby Leyland could have plagiarised the DAF engine technology for the TL11 instead of using the TL12! .