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. 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.
Evening Gentlemen, just to add a little more to the discussion, one elderly Gentleman, (actually, he is only a tad older than myself), who lives in one of my neighbours converted barns, walked into the farmyard over Easter, having seen me “cavorting” around with the LB76. Turned out that during his career in engineering he was a senior manager at dear old GKN Sankey at Telford.
Had a most interesting conversation with him, covering everything from pressed wheels, to Military hardware, and of course the Ergomatic cab. Yes, the design brief for the jigs to produce the floor pressing was inaccurate. There had been some debate between GKN and Leyland over the method of construction. Sankey having favoured a total envelope, with seperate pressings for engine variant hight.
An original idea was to have a dual range of cab types, one lower than the other, both monocoque, with seperate styling panels to identify individual group models. However this was rejected, as the client Leyland, could see no practical reason to produce anything other than the seperate tilting skin idea! And of course, as sleeping in a lorry was illegal under UK law, then the possibility of sleeping provision was not deemed necessary. The Sankey proposal would have resulted, (in the higher version) in a larger under cab area, to house the “motor et al”…and I doubt that there would have been the cooling problems. Dimension wise, the High version would have been similar size to the Motor Panels pressings, and on a Mandator/ Beaver type, probably about 6in higher than a Big J on 1100s. (His words, not mine).
Now Gingerfold may know more about this, but I understand that basic design of the cab “mule” used by AEC over their test V8 6wheeled tractor, was sent to Sankey to appraise, and hone into something “state of the art”, for production. The idea being that AEC would market it in the UK, but more so, from their South American,and European operations. But the whole brief was very suddenly rescinded by Southall, with no explanation.
Shame that no memos, minutes of meetings etc have not found their way out of these companys, is it not? A real mystery,…Graham, you could have a real “best seller” if you could find out the “inside bits”, and form them into a book!
Anyway, time for my Bollinger nightcap, stone for the drains comes tommorow, and do we need drains!!!
Cheerio for now.
. 
