Carryfast:
Ironically The Astro was available with ■■■■■■■ 14 litre and even the KT and CAT 3406.As also discussed standard inefficient 71 series fit long after the 92T series had been introduced.
Some strange decision making going on at Bedford.
The only conclusion being that ‘someone’ didn’t want it to succeed against the foreign competition as in the case of others like Leyland.
The rest is history.
The decisions could have gone either way- Europe was a “vertically integrated” market, so the in-house engine was the only choice, initially. The 92 series was new in 1974, so why risk the reputation of the new vehicle, with an unproven engine, when the power output of the 71 series was adequate for the market? The 92 was, initially, just a 71 with a bigger bore- the turbocharged 92 came later, so there was no fuel economy advantage, initially. Sure, the turbo 92 could have been offered sooner, but so could the ■■■■■■■■
None of those choices were necessarily detrimental. Why would GM want to invest in a complete new vehicle, with the potential to increase its European sales hugely, then deliberately scupper it? I think we have been down this route before- in a Gardner 150-powered Atki.
It’s obvious that neither big cam ■■■■■■■ nor 92T would have been feasible before the late 1970’s regardless.
But obviously no reason to still be using the 71 series at that point in time.
Also Volvo’s fears would only have been truly awakened at that point because that’s when F10/F12 were launched obviously faced with any sensible perception of the TM going to big cam and 92T in a big way from their point of view.
You can’t argue with history in that regard.
Volvo obviously saw a threat to its business plan and wanted GMC trucks out of the way both in Europe and North America especially Europe.
■■■■■■■ E290 etc and 92T powered TM was a massive threat to the F10/F12.
GMC’s management were all too keen to throw in the towel for ‘some’ reason.
■■?
The 92TA versions of the TM made their debut in 1977, at the Turin show, IIRC, IE before the F10/12. Not long after (1980), GB operators could have a 6V92TTA, but most chose ■■■■■■■■
Why would GM roll over for a relatively tiny European maker like Volvo? The fact that they did not must carry some weight.
Carryfast:
Volvo obviously saw a threat to its business plan and wanted GMC trucks out of the way both in Europe and North America especially Europe.
■■■■■■■ E290 etc and 92T powered TM was a massive threat to the F10/F12.
GMC’s management were all too keen to throw in the towel for ‘some’ reason.
■■?
The 92TA versions of the TM made their debut in 1977, at the Turin show, IIRC, IE before the F10/12. Not long after (1980), GB operators could have a 6V92TTA, but most chose ■■■■■■■■
Why would GM roll over for a relatively tiny European maker like Volvo? The fact that they did not must carry some weight.
So let’s run with that.
As I’ve said the 92T series was available in the TM from around the point when F10/12 was also just about to hit the roads of Europe.
From experience the 6v92T was a nice combination with the TM.Arguably able to hold its own v both F10/12 sitting nicely between the two.
For ‘some’ reason GM had obviously issued the order no 92T for the UK market at that point probably before.Keep up the obsolete lame old 71.
Italy and France ok let em have some we can get some development cash back before we close the doors and hand over lock stock and barrel to Volvo.
Cue ‘someone’ at Bedford setting up the Tricentrol skunk works so now we’ve also got UK spec 92 series powered TM’s well before 1980.Built with Bedford approval by an approved sub contract operation but with total deniability regarding GMC’s management ?.
Therefore only if the customer was keen enough to push it at the enquiry stage on a back door basis.Otherwise it’s 71 series take it or leave it just as the official list says. But an angle which you’ve obviously never accepted but trust me it did happen it did exist I saw it and was involved with it.
Remind us what was Volvo’s relative market share UK v Italy or France ? bearing in mind the Ailsa Trucks operation.
Oh and we know what happened next because unlike Bedford’s management we’ve got the luxury of hindsight.Those poor blighters were being stitched up like kippers without even knowing it or why even if they did.
^
The 92 Series was available in GB from about 1978. IIRC, it was reported in Commercial Motor. There was nothing to stop GB operators ordering the vehicles launched at the Turin show. They chose ■■■■■■■ instead, and continued to choose ■■■■■■■ when the full range of 92 series became available.
There was no conspiracy to scupper Bedford. Look at the videos posted earlier- the TM project was done to a very complete and high standard. We might speculate about details of specification, and the timing of them, but those points are minor. Bedford could have taken a few more risks, but we could be discussing those decisions as reasons for the firm crashing sooner than it did.
[zb]
anorak:
^
The 92 Series was available in GB from about 1978. IIRC, it was reported in Commercial Motor. There was nothing to stop GB operators ordering the vehicles launched at the Turin show. They chose ■■■■■■■ instead, and continued to choose ■■■■■■■ when the full range of 92 series became available.
There was no conspiracy to scupper Bedford. Look at the videos posted earlier- the TM project was done to a very complete and high standard. We might speculate about details of specification, and the timing of them, but those points are minor. Bedford could have taken a few more risks, but we could be discussing those decisions as reasons for the firm crashing sooner than it did.
The ‘conspiracy’ wasn’t in effect at that point in time.GMC and Bedford were obviously on the same page in taking on the importers not selling out to em at that point.
But feel free to show where the 6/8v92T is in any works price list for UK TM as of 1978.
The Turin show version wasn’t listed for the UK.At ‘that’ point in time the 71 series, was at face value, still all that was listed for the UK not the 92.
If anyone wanted the 92 they had to know where to look and be prepared to jump through hoops to get one.It was obviously being done that way to keep UK 92 series sales under the radar of GMC management albeit not knowing why.
Who by this time were probably already well on the way to selling out lock stock and barrel to Volvo but couldn’t tell Bedford’s management or workforce that.
Hence crippling the thing with the final nail of the gutless silver series to follow the 71 when they finally got round to allowing a ‘proper’ UK listed 92 series TM.
On that note you said that GMC did ‘not’ throw in the towel v Volvo in that regard.
When history shows that they most certainly did on both sides of the Atlantic.The TM especially, being the first and main casualty of that sell out.With Bedford obviously being seen by Volvo as a threat not an asset and GMC’s management having already bet on Volvo not Bedford.So effectively actually seen as a competitor and a nuisance to the dodgy dealings being made by its own parent.
So had to be knifed in the back to get rid of it in a way which wouldn’t raise any inconvenient questions among the workforce, to get the last of the line out the door.To maximise return on development before finally closing the doors leaving the way clear for the Swedes and the sell out and payoff which took place after.
All very similar to the dealings between Leyland and DAF.IE don’t compete with em whatever we do then sell out to em take the money and run.
Reading the advertising bumph the 92 came out with a load of hype regarding 100,000 mile oil changes. It’s ended up with various queries and discussion about the possible need for 100,000 mile bearing changes. Big difference; it seems like Bedford were wise to hang fire for a while.
cav551:
Reading the advertising bumph the 92 came out with a load of hype regarding 100,000 mile oil changes. It’s ended up with various queries and discussion about the possible need for 100,000 mile bearing changes. Big difference; it seems like Bedford were wise to hang fire for a while.
Don’t think there was a massive difference between 71 and 92 regarding bearing life or most others by the standards of the day.But from memory I think the 6v92 had relatively more issues in that regard than the 8 with some references to a main bearing design flaw ?.
Recommended service life seems to be 200,000 others say do it at 100,000.Some say they can get 300,000 between bottom end overhauls.
Today’s version is 1.2 million miles. Which suggests that it’s all about the standards expected of the day and the extra fuel efficiency of the 92T over 71 would probably have more than paid for any bearing life differences.
It’s not difficult to see the conflict of interest between Volvo and Bedford in the F10/12 v TM in the late 1970’s assuming that GM’s management were planning to sell out to Volvo in the medium to longer term.As we know happened with hindsight.
Volvo did not take GMC over until 1986. There would be no incentive, prior to that date, for GM to foul things up. Even if the sale had been mooted earlier, the shareholders would want to maximise the value of their shares, so would have voted to make their company as successful as possible.
[zb]
anorak:
Volvo did not take GMC over until 1986. There would be no incentive, prior to that date, for GM to foul things up. Even if the sale had been mooted earlier, the shareholders would want to maximise the value of their shares, so would have voted to make their company as successful as possible.
It’s obvious that GMC didn’t just have a sudden mad moment in 1985 and say we know what let’s sell the whole lot off to Volvo.Just as the Leyland DAF courtship and sell out didn’t just suddenly happen.
Sabotage both operations in a way that maximised the return for the shareholders before doing a runner and that didn’t harm UK F10/F12 or 2800/3300/3600 sales in a big way is exactly the scenario I’ve described.
So a limited and controlled half hearted attempt to get rid of the last of the line just like the T45 having crippled it at the crucial customer acceptance stage in the knowledge that the whole lot was going to be handed over to Volvo by mid 1980’s at the latest.So no risk of damaging UK F10/F12 sales in a big way.
All agreed behind closed doors between the Swedes and the Yanks and maybe a ‘UK government official’ or two and their Swedish counterparts, probably without anyone at Bedford even knowing, long before 1985, with lots of brandy being drunk and lots of cigars being smoked.
Probably just as also happened between Leyland’s top brass, again treacherous ‘UK government representatives’ and DAF execs.
The whole thing was like a dodgy boxing match in which the odds on favourite was told to take a dive but make it look like a good fight for the punters first.As you said yourself who would have possibly believed that GMC would have rolled over for Volvo.But it happened.Just like the combined might of Leyland, Scammell and AEC did for the little under dog DAF.
^^^
The last sentence with mention of Scammell brings up an interesting link to the TM. Who on earth at Bedford came up with the specification for the TM and expected it to sell well to UK hauliers with Detroit engine, Spicer gearbox, and SOMA hub reduction axle? which if we swap Detroit for Rolls is what Scammell offered AFAIK at one point with the S26.
cav551:
^^^
The last sentence with mention of Scammell brings up an interesting link to the TM. Who on earth at Bedford came up with the specification for the TM and expected it to sell well to UK hauliers with Detroit engine, Spicer gearbox, and SOMA hub reduction axle? which if we swap Detroit for Rolls is what Scammell offered AFAIK at one point with the S26.
The Rolls was an option in the Crusader from around day 1 ?.Rightly in favour of the TL12 ?.Also Fuller.
Bearing in mind Bedford was obviously an American run operation with the premise on an in house ‘vertically integrated product’ with no reason to think that, at that stage, the Detroit wouldn’t have found similar acceptance here as in New Zealand for example.TM’s were also supplied with Fullers depending on engine spec not just Spicer.As in the case of the 8v92T 4400.
But by the same logic no one with any sense would want to ■■■■■■■ the thing with the gutless gas guzzler 71 series when the 92T became available.
Also bearing in mind that GMC had no problems with offering ■■■■■■■ and CAT in the Astro so the all in house issue obviously wasn’t set in stone in GMC’s business plan just as it wasn’t at Leyland.
What we saw in the case of both the TM and the T45 can only be explained by industrial espionage.Obviously confirmed by the facts regarding the fate of the two respective operations with hindsight.
iangam:
I know its only in the background but i thought i’d add it
Hi Ian
Did you ever work for Minster Motors Kings Lynn. I worked for Seamans Dairycrest mid 1980s and remember a driver Anderson who moved to Minsters. I used to work for Thompson Brothers the old brewery Setchy. Remember as it were yesterday Paul (Lucky) Loads, Barry Burtons. Albert Dents.
Cheers Kev
I remember driving a rental Bedford TM long ago. It was fitted with a Detroit Diesel and made a hell of a racket!
Several years later, when the Bedford truck plant at Dunstable was being pulled apart, I got into conversation with one of the senior Bedford engineering blokes. He told me that the Chinese had bought the production line lock, stock, and barrel. He also said the chinese were going to produce the TM under their own mark for the Chinese domestic market.
Never did find out if the chinese ever got around to building their version of the TM though
Yes it was mate!
Two stroke diesels, I thought it was hopeless when I first drove it. The trouble was i was listening to the engine, rather than making use of the rev counter to change gear. After that lesson was learned, it pulled like a bull in springtime!
But an angle which you’ve obviously never accepted but trust me it did happen it did exist I saw it and was involved with it.
Which suggests that it’s all about the standards expected of the day and the extra fuel efficiency of the 92T over 71 would probably have more than paid for any bearing life differences.
