Yes, I really could hear the radio in the AEC! I mounted it on the back wall of the cab, as close as possible to my ear. It was an old valve-operated Pye which I had cadged from my cousin and was reputed to give out a full 3 watts to it’s four inch speaker.
So which was the best Ergo-cabbed lorry then? Would an AV760 Mandator beat a Power Plus Beaver; would a turbo 680- engined Beaver be the best of the bunch?
The AECs, in all the variants. But that’s only my opinion.
Ive mentioned this on another thread ,why didnt they lower the Marathon cab much like Scania did with the 110/80 or the 111/81 ,it would have been a massive improvement over the original ergo and as Chris said they should have offered the fuller as standard on the Mandator … but then again no one would have bought Buffalos then and with the Marathon being Southall designed Leyland would never sanction it
Lilladan:
Leyland engineers were some of the best,but let down by money men
I think that applied throughout the British truck manufacturing industry in general but in addition to the bankers were the issues of a backward thinking,often penny pinching,domestic customer base and regulations in regards to weight and length limits in the domestic market which allowed the foreign competition to get ahead.
As for cab design it seems to be a British trait,( not forgetting that the colonial design and customer demands were/still are basically just British thinking taken to it’s logical conclusion without the bs demands that applied in the domestic market ),that the idea of the conventional,as opposed to the tilt cab over was the more comfortable idea for British designers to get their heads around and run with in all weight ranges at least until the 1970’s when designs like the SA 400 series and Bedford TM were introduced.
IE I think the Bedford TJ was a better wagon than the TK and the conventional cabbed Leyland Hippo was a better wagon than all the Ergo variants while the Landtrain was a better wagon than the Roadtrain. 
Carryfast:
Lilladan:
Leyland engineers were some of the best,but let down by money menI think that applied throughout the British truck manufacturing industry in general but in addition to the bankers were the issues of a backward thinking,often penny pinching,domestic customer base and regulations in regards to weight and length limits in the domestic market which allowed the foreign competition to get ahead.
As for cab design it seems to be a British trait,( not forgetting that the colonial design and customer demands were/still are basically just British thinking taken to it’s logical conclusion without the bs demands that applied in the domestic market ),that the idea of the conventional,as opposed to the tilt cab over was the more comfortable idea for British designers to get their heads around and run with in all weight ranges at least until the 1970’s when designs like the SA 400 series and Bedford TM were introduced.
IE I think the Bedford TJ was a better wagon than the TK and the conventional cabbed Leyland Hippo was a better wagon than all the Ergo variants while the Landtrain was a better wagon than the Roadtrain.
Did you ever drive a Bedford TJ Geoff,I did as S W Brisbane had five of them.I had one for a week when my BMC FHK was in for test.It was nowhere near as good as a Bedford TK which Idrove for six months for C W Griffiths.Normal control lorries such as the Bedford TJ were a pain in a tight space to get around with lack of lock and heavy steering.The TK wasn’t my favourate lorry by any means,but in my opinion it was betterthan the TJ and the KM was much better than either of them.The Ergo cab on Leyland etc at the time was far ahead of anything that Bedford were producing.
Cheers Dave.
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
Lilladan:
Leyland engineers were some of the best,but let down by money menI think that applied throughout the British truck manufacturing industry in general but in addition to the bankers were the issues of a backward thinking,often penny pinching,domestic customer base and regulations in regards to weight and length limits in the domestic market which allowed the foreign competition to get ahead.
As for cab design it seems to be a British trait,( not forgetting that the colonial design and customer demands were/still are basically just British thinking taken to it’s logical conclusion without the bs demands that applied in the domestic market ),that the idea of the conventional,as opposed to the tilt cab over was the more comfortable idea for British designers to get their heads around and run with in all weight ranges at least until the 1970’s when designs like the SA 400 series and Bedford TM were introduced.
IE I think the Bedford TJ was a better wagon than the TK and the conventional cabbed Leyland Hippo was a better wagon than all the Ergo variants while the Landtrain was a better wagon than the Roadtrain.
Did you ever drive a Bedford TJ Geoff,I did as S W Brisbane had five of them.I had one for a week when my BMC FHK was in for test.It was nowhere near as good as a Bedford TK which Idrove for six months for C W Griffiths.Normal control lorries such as the Bedford TJ were a pain in a tight space to get around with lack of lock and heavy steering.The TK wasn’t my favourate lorry by any means,but in my opinion it was betterthan the TJ and the KM was much better than either of them.The Ergo cab on Leyland etc at the time was far ahead of anything that Bedford were producing.
Cheers Dave.
I drove plenty of them Dave together with TK’s and the BMC/Leyland WF together with the old FG up to the 6 wheeler Foden S 80 series v the bonneted Maggie Deutz.In most cases it’s the actual wheelbase and the sweep of the overall length of the wagon that matters not where the driving position is and I didn’t find any major issues between conventionals v cab overs and in all cases they were rigids so turning circles were always an issue anyway.In general the advantages of conventionals,in regards to manufacturing and maintenance practicality and ride comfort etc usually outweighs any arguable drawbacks regarding manouvrability.Which certainly seemed to apply in most of those cases.
My own personal view is that most of those early primitive cab over designs were just a retrograde design and that includes the Ergo v the old conventional Leyland Hippo.In which case,as I’ve said,the British manufacturers would arguably have been better off staying with the conventional design idea at least until they’d perfected the idea of the tilt cab over design to the point where designs like the SA 400 series and Bedford TM were introduced.Which in Leyland’s case never happened anyway because the Roadtrain was as far as they ever got by which time the DAF 2800 was well into it’s production run anyway.It’s just a shame that the UK domestic market didn’t stay with the conventional idea like the colonial markets did.In which case designs like the Landtrain probably would have been able to put up a much better fight against the euro and scandinavian competition than the Crusader,Ergo,Marathon and Roadtrain did.
The normal control lorries were OK in this country up until the 1960’s when lorries started to get bigger Geoff.The forward control motors are much better for most of the UK towns where a lot of deliveries have to be made,also to some of the country areas where a bigger normal control wagon wouldn’t be as maneuverable.
Cheers Dave.
Dessie Foleys Beaver is a cracker 
![425782_226336457505918_1358610517_n[1].jpg](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/business20/uploads/trucknetuk/original/3X/9/7/9771b3ea771b7d49c46859760a1bf4fd862b518c.jpeg)
With out a doubt the AEC Ergos were a good motor in their day they all had problems that were resolved I remember Marshalls &Marshall Major 1st rear axle sring hanger bolts came loose, if ignored the chassis could crack through the bolt holes,rear hangers were modified to a wider hanger with more bolts!rear engine mounting studs would tear out of bellhousing, modified from 1/2" to 5/8" studsIIRC,the very early models (1965?)had a mod on cab lock then another mod on later versions 2 bolts that required an extended wheelbrace to undo them, and of course the well known water circulation problems!.The low angle of approach could be a problem on bad sites sometimes sumps & rads were smashed, there was a heavy duty bumper option later on, but very few salesmen recomended it as in those days an extra few quid on the price meant penny pinching old time haulage bosses would go elsewhere.I found the Mandator to be a very capable unit cost effective&reliable, if you had a V8 that was running well again a good motor yet another case of what might of been for British vehicle makers, BTW seen an Ergo cab lately what a dear little thing,makes an FL Wendy House look massive!!
The best Ergo for performance had to be the Leyland Beaver with 690 turbo and semi-auto box , a driver mate of mine was is a Cafe in England with his Scania -Vabis LB110 SUPER (turbo) wid all trimmings 10 speed box , and after talk with Leyland driver on load weight and wait to leave as so he could ■■■■ all over him on the two lane highway , so he follow out the Leyland and pull into the overtaking lane , but the Leyland just went and left the big Scania , ja only 240 ps but could change up at full revs wit semi -auto box , Volvo230was 270 gross ps so Leyland was really280` i think , Vanaja in Finland used this motor
yes vanaja used that in the bonneted versions,late 60,s they did a few cabovers whit ergo cabs but they had the av 760 engine as far as i know,the cab was a complete aec version including interior and steeringwheel ,cheers benkku
Ja Vanaja B6-76 had AEC AV760 motor but i have some info that before end some had Leyland 690 B6-69 and Rolls -Royce eagle B6-22 ? , to do wit Sisu takover
Lilladan:
Ja Vanaja B6-76 had AEC AV760 motor but i have some info that before end some had Leyland 690 B6-69 and Rolls -RoyceeagleB6-22 ? , to do wit Sisu takover
yes it had but i think they where cranechassies the last ones
The main problem with the Ergo cab was its “one size fits all concept” that meant it was fine for smaller engined models such as Mercury’s, Marshals, Super Comets, Reivers etc. but it sat too close to the bigger AV760 and O.680 engines, restricting air flow and radiator sizes. As already mentioned by others cooling problems were common with Mandators, Mammoth Majors, Beavers etc. until the rear mounted header tank was introduced. Other good points were the driving position, forward vision, and siting of all the switches and controls, absolutely first class. Bad points, spray onto the mirrors in wet weather, large engine cover made it uncomfortable to rest or sleep in. I have read from a Leyland engineer that the floor pan was designed incorrectly and by the time that they realised the mistake all the dies and jigs had been made for the cab panels so they carried on and made a cab that was fundamentally flawed from the base upwards. However the Ergo cab was a massive step forwards in 1965. As to which was best AEC or Leyland? As someone who liked both marques my money would be on AEC every time. My mentor the late Ray Holden was a time-served engineer and was originally ‘a Leyland man’, but after operating his first AECs he admitted that in his opinion the AEC engineering was better than that of Leyland. I also heard a Leyland employee of many years standing admit the same thing.
Hi Folks , Iremember changing an engine on a AEC 505 EGO cab Day one cab off Engine out other one in easy ,next day cab on ok so far then the wiring all black ok but they had yellow sleaves on each one great then o hell all the markings had rubbed off so said to my Dad we will have to get a sparks in ,No you sort it two and half days later sorted ,what a night mare made sure i marked every wire and pipe after that a lesson learned the hard way ,just a bit of usless info ,Barry
Oh, Barry, You weren’t the first to suffer with the wiring. My boss’ answer was to connect a wire from the battery to one of the wires & see what started working! Not very accurate. I’ve noticed that a similar system is now employed on most automotive electrics- quicker to run a new length of wire than try to sort out what goes where.
gingerfold:
The main problem with the Ergo cab was its “one size fits all concept” that meant it was fine for smaller engined models such as Mercury’s, Marshals, Super Comets, Reivers etc. but it sat too close to the bigger AV760 and O.680 engines, restricting air flow and radiator sizes… …I have read from a Leyland engineer that the floor pan was designed incorrectly and by the time that they realised the mistake all the dies and jigs had been made for the cab panels so they carried on and made a cab that was fundamentally flawed from the base upwards. However the Ergo cab was a massive step forwards in 1965. As to which was best AEC or Leyland? As someone who liked both marques my money would be on AEC every time. My mentor the late Ray Holden was a time-served engineer and was originally ‘a Leyland man’, but after operating his first AECs he admitted that in his opinion the AEC engineering was better than that of Leyland. I also heard a Leyland employee of many years standing admit the same thing.
Interesting points, Gf. The Ergo was only ever fitted on maximum-weight, “premium” vehicles, as far as I know. The smaller Leylands (were they called the “90”?) used the LAD cab then, after the BMC merger, anything less than a maximum GVW chassis had a Bathgate cab. However, the designers of the Ergo were not to know about the future, so it could be as you say- that the Ergo was originally designed to fit middleweight vehicles, as well as the big stuff. This would explain its compact dimensions.
Regarding the floorpan, a CM roadtest of the late 1960s mentions draughts coming from around the aperture in the floor, if I remember correctly. It appears that the quality problems of the 1970s had already taken root earlier. Leyland’s failure to do justice to the brilliant 500 series engine design is more evidence of this, sloppy detail design and poor adherance to drawing tolerances on the shopfloor being its downfall. I wonder if the perceived superiority of AEC is a consequence of the same lack of thoroughness in Lancashire?
Edit- repetition removed!
Re my earlier question ,couldnt the Marathon version be lowered to a height that would have the bonnet at a reasonable level ? they were a better cab than the original ergo
A local firm to us,Nelsons of Arnside,bought a new Marshal Ergo 6wheeler in the '60’s and one day they’d had the cab up and hadn’t fastened it down properly.The driver,Walt Allen RIP,set off and had only gone a short distance when he applied the brakes,up comes the cab and nearly cut him in half.He was lucky and got away with it but it could have been fatal I think.PS Walt went on to become Nelsons transport manager and it’s only a couple of years or so ago that he passed away at a good age ! Cheers Bewick.