Tomdhu:
Saviem:
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! .
Evening all,
Tomdhu, while pondering my total lack of understanding of the hi tech requirements of the Chinese Fairy Light, (a battle that year after year my failing geriatric eyesight, knees, and my dear friend “Arthur Ritis” contribute to obstifucate any endeavours that I may expend to get the BBBBBBB things to work, I was thinking about your posts, and the doors of my memory creak open.
I am conscious of the fact that this thread concerns Leyland, yet there are so many parallels across the lorry industry of Western Europe, and the machinasions that (had to), take place to keep the production facilities working. Despite the (sad) trait that we have in the UK to criticise our own industry, and the people that ran it, the same scenario was enacted in many other countries.
I will not bore the reader with an endless list of comparative performance/production/ sales/warranty claims across various engine ranges, but your comments about clean sheet thinking designs regarding the Leyland .500, and AEC V8 bear some comparison.
Berliet, an engineering led, cash devouring, almost totally unmanageable goliath of the `50s and 60s, right through to their , (Government inspired), bale out by Michelin, whose cash they devoured in such totally un repentant ingratitude, had their inspired moments of clean sheet design both in engines, and product!
Prompted by the amorous advances of messers ■■■■■■■ to take on the design manufacturing licence of the Vim and Vale Vs, (as William Lyons with Meadows/Guy, and Krupp), the Ingenieurs at Venissieux came up with the V600, V800, and the( thankfully stillborn), V10, 100x110mm 90 degree V serie. Paul Berliet killed the V6 in `67, due to sheer cost, but the V8 6911cu cm arrived to power the , (really very advanced Stradair 55, through to 819), plus the Cruisair rear engine bus, (where this high reving, oil and diesel guzzling little smoking V8 was replaced by a good old Perkins Peterbourough V8 .510), and eventually found a home in the , (little used), armoured VXB 170 for Les Gendarmes, (boy would our civil liberties people “love” our Constabulary to have use of such a device)!!!..but derated from its frantic 190 hp to a very short legged 170!!!1
Then there was the V12 multi fuel MS1240 with its amazing 29556 cu cm capacity, 550 hp in `62, and a thirst to match, (207 litres per 100km), but she would run at 103 tonnes gtw in 8x8 form, (but Willeme did a far better job with her TGs, either as V Detroits, or economic KTA ■■■■■■■■■ Really the MS1240, was two of the TLM/TBO 14.780 240 hp blocks stiched together!
But the basic Berliet engine design majored around the 10, and 12 litre mark, in straight 6 configuration, starting with natural aspiration, then turbo charged , then intercooled. Natural progression of existing design, the common, and over riding denomination being economy of fuel consumption. La Belle, she had to import all her fuel, minimising consumption was a priority, hence the development of the 06.20.30/45 engine , and the 12 litre, to the exclusion of the V8 08.35.40.
For the Regie Renault having control of both Saviem, (Renault, Latil, et Somua), and the overblown teenager, (in behaviour), Berliet was a quandary…who should lead?..Saviem, (with its tie with German MAN produced lorries 30% cheaper per unit than Berliet, and held 45% market share in 75. Berliet exported 40% of its production, held 40% market share in
75, employed six times the personnel of Saviem and contributed 30% more in fiscal dues to the exchequer…no wonder the politicians kept the two separate, (and fighting for market share)…
Yes the Regie Renault did look at the BL side of Leyland, (and they were not alone), but as Tomdhu says the cream was Jaguar, and Land Rover. I understand that the offer made included the rights to produce the TL Serie 12 Renault as well as the Charbonneaux design T 16 range, (but this was a mid 60s design, that ran up to the `80s). Plus access to the small diesel market…surely a good option for the BLMC side. The Sherpa was of interest, mainly as an export replacement for the Estafette Van range. This was later born out by the success of the Sherpa in the Italian market. When I was in Milan, the Sherpa was Leylands spearhead in the market, and very well accepted, (even over the Hanomag/Mercedes.)
But coming back to Leyland, and in particular the fixed head .500 serie. In one of my barns I have a really nice tandem axle trailer that was built by a very active Leyland Dealer, the late Ralph Ferrie`s Brownhills Commercials. It was designed to carry two, “broken” fixed head .500s up to the north, to return with two “good uns”!. It worked 7 days a week, behind a Sherpa van. Yet somehow the customers were not placated, maybe it was warranty procedures, or maybe it was Dealer attitude. Other manufacturers have had quality problems, yet none seem to have destroyed their market base as Leyland did…Why??
Later, in another life I ran, and had my own money invested in Letlands, T45s, Freighters, and RoadRunners. Not just a few, yet I found the product good, certainly on a par with anything else on the market, and the cost per mile to operate was quite reasonable…in fact with 12 TL12 engine T45s they worked out considerably cheaper than the equivalent F10 Volvo on my fleet. Residuals were lower, but front end cost was lower as well!
But the question that really “bugs” me,( and perhaps Tomdhu can lay to rest), is why when AEC were so well represented in Europe, and so well respected, both in the Benelux, and in France with Willeme, (as well as BMC)…why did that die…and take down Willeme as well? Leyland with Hotchkiss…really quite a joke!
Would really like to know your opinions…
Back to a (largish), Bollinger…
And to remember those quite delightful AEC engine Willemes, (with Berliet Willeme “had” the 6x4 Chantiers, (Construction), market…they may have been designed for 26 tonnes gtw 6x4s…but most used 26 tonnes as a minimum payload…back in the 70s!
Cheerio for now.