ERF-Continental:
In all fairness…the management-team in Sandbach was more thinking in terms
of “we deliver what we think you’ll need” not aware of other circumstances and
import-type-approval. Eyckmans changed a bit more than their gearbox with a
Hendrickson-bogie fitted. I overheard that the first three-axled 3MW/5MW also
had a Hendrickson-bogie fitted, Lecocq, Delsaert, Hyrdocar etc
Bear in mind that a customer earns his money with the right equipment
in shape with that investment, regardless what the (ERF-)salesforce predicted!
Bestebreurtje, Denonville and Mabo (not very ERF-loyal) did UNDERSTAND that.
Let’s get this right.ERF being an assembly operation not only counted out use of the RTO fuller options and the NTA ■■■■■■■ options but also refused customer requests for Hendrickson double drive options.When the ability to offer all this should have been expected to be their bread and butter and the definition of an ‘assembler’ and exactly what ‘they’ would/should have been expected to have thought exactly what the customer ‘needed’.
On that note the reference to ‘type approval’ appears in all that which has arisen previously as a question.In which case are ERF being blamed here for something that wasn’t of their making.In which case the situation of customers having to modify vehicles after market with non type approved kit would be the obvious result of that.Not to mention ERF then deciding to withdraw from that market because there was no point in trying to satisfy it.
Much of this has already been debunked, or repeated ad nauseam on these pages:
■■■■■■■ offered the NTC335 and 380 in Britain, in the early-mid 1970s. The American options list- NTA, NTC400, etc etc. was just that- American options. The last time I had to tell you this, I provided links to Commercial Motor articles, featuring interviews with actual ■■■■■■■ salesmen, in Europe. NTE and NTC475 came after the NGC420.
There was no type approval, as such, in 1973. That was covered only a few pages back.
The standard axle ratio was 4.7:1, behind an RT9509. This specification was the same as the NGC420’s competitors. The Truck magazine Eurotest, plus Tiptop495’s posts, confirm that. Other gearboxes and axle ratios could be had on request.
The less-explained issue is ERF’s apparent reluctance, at least initially, to flog the vehicle in GB. The lack of RHD did not stop Volvo listing the F89 in its UK range. Indeed, most makes sold lots of LHD wagons to GB hauliers, because lots of them did Continental work.
ERF-Continental:
In all fairness…the management-team in Sandbach was more thinking in terms
of “we deliver what we think you’ll need” not aware of other circumstances and
import-type-approval. Eyckmans changed a bit more than their gearbox with a
Hendrickson-bogie fitted. I overheard that the first three-axled 3MW/5MW also
had a Hendrickson-bogie fitted, Lecocq, Delsaert, Hyrdocar etc
Bear in mind that a customer earns his money with the right equipment
in shape with that investment, regardless what the (ERF-)salesforce predicted!
Bestebreurtje, Denonville and Mabo (not very ERF-loyal) did UNDERSTAND that.
Let’s get this right.ERF being an assembly operation not only counted out use of the RTO fuller options and the NTA ■■■■■■■ options but also refused customer requests for Hendrickson double drive options.When the ability to offer all this should have been expected to be their bread and butter and the definition of an ‘assembler’ and exactly what ‘they’ would/should have been expected to have thought exactly what the customer ‘needed’.
On that note the reference to ‘type approval’ appears in all that which has arisen previously as a question.In which case are ERF being blamed here for something that wasn’t of their making.In which case the situation of customers having to modify vehicles after market with non type approved kit would be the obvious result of that.Not to mention ERF then deciding to withdraw from that market because there was no point in trying to satisfy it.
Much of this has already been debunked, or repeated ad nauseam on these pages:
■■■■■■■ offered the NTC335 and 380 in Britain, in the early-mid 1970s. The American options list- NTA, NTC400, etc etc. was just that- American options. The last time I had to tell you this, I provided links to Commercial Motor articles, featuring interviews with actual ■■■■■■■ salesmen, in Europe. NTE and NTC475 came after the NGC420.
There was no type approval, as such, in 1973. That was covered only a few pages back.
The standard axle ratio was 4.7:1, behind an RT9509. This specification was the same as the NGC420’s competitors. The Truck magazine Eurotest, plus Tiptop495’s posts, confirm that. Other gearboxes and axle ratios could be had on request.
The less-explained issue is ERF’s apparent reluctance, at least initially, to flog the vehicle in GB. The lack of RHD did not stop Volvo listing the F89 in its UK range. Indeed, most makes sold lots of LHD wagons to GB hauliers, because lots of them did Continental work.
ERF-Continental:
In all fairness…the management-team in Sandbach was more thinking in terms
of “we deliver what we think you’ll need” not aware of other circumstances and
import-type-approval. Eyckmans changed a bit more than their gearbox with a
Hendrickson-bogie fitted. I overheard that the first three-axled 3MW/5MW also
had a Hendrickson-bogie fitted, Lecocq, Delsaert, Hyrdocar etc
Bear in mind that a customer earns his money with the right equipment
in shape with that investment, regardless what the (ERF-)salesforce predicted!
Bestebreurtje, Denonville and Mabo (not very ERF-loyal) did UNDERSTAND that.
Another good point, A-J. I think the ‘we deliver what we think you’ll need’ was the general attitude of the early '70s. That kind of prescriptive culture was prevalent not only in commerce and industry but in health and education as well. You reminded us, a couple of posts back, that we might do well not to rewrite history or reinvent the past: quite right, in my opinion. We would do well to accept the successes and failings of the past and recognise the efforts of innovators to move on.
In this thread I am trying to show how a lorry was successful in its day. I’m not trying to prove that it was the best lorry ever. The NGC was of its time. I’d love to do a London-Gibraltar return trip in one, but I’m not convinced I’d want to drive one all year for a living in 2017! Robert
ERF-Continental:
In all fairness…the management-team in Sandbach was more thinking in terms
of “we deliver what we think you’ll need” not aware of other circumstances and
import-type-approval. Eyckmans changed a bit more than their gearbox with a
Hendrickson-bogie fitted. I overheard that the first three-axled 3MW/5MW also
had a Hendrickson-bogie fitted, Lecocq, Delsaert, Hyrdocar etc
Bear in mind that a customer earns his money with the right equipment
in shape with that investment, regardless what the (ERF-)salesforce predicted!
Bestebreurtje, Denonville and Mabo (not very ERF-loyal) did UNDERSTAND that.
Let’s get this right.ERF being an assembly operation not only counted out use of the RTO fuller options and the NTA ■■■■■■■ options but also refused customer requests for Hendrickson double drive options.When the ability to offer all this should have been expected to be their bread and butter and the definition of an ‘assembler’ and exactly what ‘they’ would/should have been expected to have thought exactly what the customer ‘needed’.
On that note the reference to ‘type approval’ appears in all that which has arisen previously as a question.In which case are ERF being blamed here for something that wasn’t of their making.In which case the situation of customers having to modify vehicles after market with non type approved kit would be the obvious result of that.Not to mention ERF then deciding to withdraw from that market because there was no point in trying to satisfy it.
Much of this has already been debunked, or repeated ad nauseam on these pages:
■■■■■■■ offered the NTC335 and 380 in Britain, in the early-mid 1970s. The American options list- NTA, NTC400, etc etc. was just that- American options. The last time I had to tell you this, I provided links to Commercial Motor articles, featuring interviews with actual ■■■■■■■ salesmen, in Europe. NTE and NTC475 came after the NGC420.
There was no type approval, as such, in 1973. That was covered only a few pages back.
The standard axle ratio was 4.7:1, behind an RT9509. This specification was the same as the NGC420’s competitors. The Truck magazine Eurotest, plus Tiptop495’s posts, confirm that. Other gearboxes and axle ratios could be had on request.
The less-explained issue is ERF’s apparent reluctance, at least initially, to flog the vehicle in GB. The lack of RHD did not stop Volvo listing the F89 in its UK range. Indeed, most makes sold lots of LHD wagons to GB hauliers, because lots of them did Continental work.
Firstly didn’t you yourself ask the question previously why wasn’t the 370 NTA offered in the NGC ?.
The question remains why would NTC only be offered but not the NTA.Bearing in mind that the NTC range stopped at the lightly after cooled 350 with 370 - 400 being NTA because you won’t get more than 350 out of a small cam,nor probably big cam,■■■■■■■ without significant after cooling.While there is no information anywhere which suggests that even the 350 NTC let alone 370-400 NTA was ever offered as a factory fit for the NGC.Only seemingly the non after cooled 290 or 335 NTC ?.
Nor do I remember reading anything anywhere which said that ■■■■■■■ wouldn’t supply the NTA range for use here ?.
Yes we know that ERF listed the NGC with the combination of low final drive and direct top box which is the issue.However there is no confirmation anywhere that at least the RTO box was even an option for those who knew better than to gear a turbo ■■■■■■■ at max engine speed at 60 mph let alone 90 kmh.
As for the type approval issue.What was ERF-Continental referring to above in that case ?. Regarding what seems to be a case of customers having to fit the right Hendrickson kit for example after market.Because of what seems to be a case of type approval issues resulting in ERF supplying under spec kit as standard ?.
Unless I’ve got it wrong and what ERF-Continental was actually saying is that they were throwing out factory fit Hendrickson double drive bogies because type approval regs wouldn’t allow them and fitting something else after market ?. Unlikely being that the NGC seems to have been offered as 4x2 only ?.Thereby limiting its options even more which might therefore explain the need for after market 6x4 customer conversion. One way or another type approval obviously having been raised in that example obviously not by me.
As for the question why was the F89 sold here but not the NGC.Going by references to F89’s being driven at reasonable UK type speeds,if not silly ones,it’s a reasonable bet that the reason was that the F89 could be found with the right gearing.As opposed to a turbo ■■■■■■■ being speed limited to around 55 mph by way of catastrophic under gearing with fuel consumption to match. Making it fine as a heavy haulage tractor although again hampered by the choices made by its manufacturer regarding it being 4x2 only.Thereby requiring the aforementioned double drive conversion ?.While also no good for running distance motorway work at around 32-38 t gross without some serious after market driveline changes.
ERF-Continental:
In all fairness…the management-team in Sandbach was more thinking in terms
of “we deliver what we think you’ll need” not aware of other circumstances and
import-type-approval. Eyckmans changed a bit more than their gearbox with a
Hendrickson-bogie fitted. I overheard that the first three-axled 3MW/5MW also
had a Hendrickson-bogie fitted, Lecocq, Delsaert, Hyrdocar etc
Bear in mind that a customer earns his money with the right equipment
in shape with that investment, regardless what the (ERF-)salesforce predicted!
Bestebreurtje, Denonville and Mabo (not very ERF-loyal) did UNDERSTAND that.
Another good point, A-J. I think the ‘we deliver what we think you’ll need’ was the general attitude of the early '70s.
There’s nothing wrong with a manufacturer going by that mantra ‘but’ they need to be sure that they’ve covered all the possible angles if they want to use it.In this case the product seems to have been crippled by no long term commitment to the continuing of its production from almost day 1.
While with products like the Scania 111 and 141 for example on the horizon the NGC contained too many flaws and compromises,in ERF’s definition of ‘what we think the customer needs’,to have stood much chance even if ERF had applied that long term commitment to it.
Having said that it would be interesting if ERF-Continental could actually provide some more and clearer details regarding all the above as it is quite confusing when read at face value.
Carryfast:
Firstly didn’t you yourself ask the question previously why wasn’t the 370 NTA offered in the NGC ?.
No.
Carryfast:
The question remains why would NTC only be offered but not the NTA.
No it does not.
Carryfast:
Bearing in mind that the NTC range stopped at the lightly after cooled 350 with 370 - 400 being NTA because you won’t get more than 350 out of a small cam,nor probably big cam,■■■■■■■ without significant after cooling.
Nonsense. Dig out the CM article, with the actual facts in it, IE which engines ■■■■■■■ were selling in Europe in the early 1970s, instead of making it up
Carryfast:
While there is no information anywhere which suggests that even the 350 NTC let alone 370-400 NTA was ever offered as a factory fit for the NGC.Only seemingly the non after cooled 290 or 335 NTC ?.
The article. Read it.
Carryfast:
Nor do I remember reading anything anywhere which said that ■■■■■■■ wouldn’t supply the NTA range for use here ?.
The article says NTC335 and 380, but I would have ordered a bunch of flowers, because nowhere did it say that that was not an option
Carryfast:
Yes we know that ERF listed the NGC with the combination of low final drive and direct top box which is the issue.However there is no confirmation anywhere that at least the RTO box was even an option for those who knew better than to gear a turbo ■■■■■■■ at max engine speed at 60 mph let alone 90 kmh.
Can someone else take over, please?
Carryfast:
As for the type approval issue.What was ERF-Continental referring to above in that case ?. Regarding what seems to be a case of customers having to fit the right Hendrickson kit for example after market.Because of what seems to be a case of type approval issues resulting in ERF supplying under spec kit as standard ?.
Unless I’ve got it wrong and what ERF-Continental was actually saying is that they were throwing out factory fit Hendrickson double drive bogies because type approval regs wouldn’t allow them and fitting something else after market ?. Unlikely being that the NGC seems to have been offered as 4x2 only ?.Thereby limiting its options even more which might therefore explain the need for after market 6x4 customer conversion. One way or another type approval obviously having been raised in that example obviously not by me.
As for the question why was the F89 sold here but not the NGC.Going by references to F89’s being driven at reasonable UK type speeds,if not silly ones,it’s a reasonable bet that the reason was that the F89 could be found with the right gearing.As opposed to a turbo ■■■■■■■ being speed limited to around 55 mph by way of catastrophic under gearing with fuel consumption to match. Making it fine as a heavy haulage tractor although again hampered by the choices made by its manufacturer regarding it being 4x2 only.Thereby requiring the aforementioned double drive conversion ?.While also no good for running distance motorway work at around 32-38 t gross without some serious after market driveline changes.
IE unless I’ve read it wrong you said ‘‘why did they not just drop the top engine in it’’ referring to the 370.
Surely you’re not suggesting that the 370 was part of the NTC range and not NTA. While as I said I’m not aware of any restrictions which would have stopped ERF putting it or the 400 NTA in the NGC.Unless that fits the description of a type approval issue.In which case how convenient for Scania.
Hey CF, there is no confirmation anywhere that at least the RTO box was even an option for those who knew better than to gear a turbo ■■■■■■■ at max engine speed at 60 mph let alone 90 kmh.
Why couldn’t you drive ■■■■■■■ turbo engine’s at max engine speed (2100 revs) for a long time ■■?
Had it weak points about that ■■? The transcontinentals were driven here and for example at night between Paris and Lyon or Bordeaux for hours at 110/120kph without problems so far I know !!!
Don’t speak about fuel consumption, all horses need food if they have to work hard, even we
I don’t wish to get drawn into the endless permutations expressed here, but would like to make the point that ERF in this period would build a vehicle, including an NGC, to whatever specification the customer demanded (within reason) when they ordered it. In cases where this changed and the transmission was swapped at the dealership before delivery, this was done with full factory backing and the removed gearbox was returned to Sandbach and credited.
Engines, gearboxes and final drive ratios were carefully matched to suit individual needs. There are many cases where overdrive RTO gearboxes have been used to replace RT’s in service, only to find that the vehicle is then ‘over geared’ for the torque curve of the engine in it’s operating environment, and it’s fuel consumption rises dramatically.
Carryfast:
Firstly didn’t you yourself ask the question previously why wasn’t the 370 NTA offered in the NGC ?.
The question remains why would NTC only be offered but not the NTA.Bearing in mind that the NTC range stopped at the lightly after cooled 350 with 370 - 400 being NTA because you won’t get more than 350 out of a small cam,nor probably big cam,■■■■■■■ without significant after cooling.While there is no information anywhere which suggests that even the 350 NTC let alone 370-400 NTA was ever offered as a factory fit for the NGC.Only seemingly the non after cooled 290 or 335 NTC ?.
Nor do I remember reading anything anywhere which said that ■■■■■■■ wouldn’t supply the NTA range for use here ?.
Yes we know that ERF listed the NGC with the combination of low final drive and direct top box which is the issue.However there is no confirmation anywhere that at least the RTO box was even an option for those who knew better than to gear a turbo ■■■■■■■ at max engine speed at 60 mph let alone 90 kmh.
As for the type approval issue.What was ERF-Continental referring to above in that case ?. Regarding what seems to be a case of customers having to fit the right Hendrickson kit for example after market.Because of what seems to be a case of type approval issues resulting in ERF supplying under spec kit as standard ?.
Unless I’ve got it wrong and what ERF-Continental was actually saying is that they were throwing out factory fit Hendrickson double drive bogies because type approval regs wouldn’t allow them and fitting something else after market ?. Unlikely being that the NGC seems to have been offered as 4x2 only ?.Thereby limiting its options even more which might therefore explain the need for after market 6x4 customer conversion. One way or another type approval obviously having been raised in that example obviously not by me.
As for the question why was the F89 sold here but not the NGC.Going by references to F89’s being driven at reasonable UK type speeds,if not silly ones,it’s a reasonable bet that the reason was that the F89 could be found with the right gearing.As opposed to a turbo ■■■■■■■ being speed limited to around 55 mph by way of catastrophic under gearing with fuel consumption to match. Making it fine as a heavy haulage tractor although again hampered by the choices made by its manufacturer regarding it being 4x2 only.Thereby requiring the aforementioned double drive conversion ?.While also no good for running distance motorway work at around 32-38 t gross without some serious after market driveline changes.
I think the 6x4 / Hendrickson issue is a red herring. You’re right in think that only 4x2 NGCs came off the production line. There was no need to make 6x4 NGCs because that market was already well covered by ERF’s 5MW-cabbed 6x4. As for NGCs with 350s: ERF was already experimenting with the big-cam 290 in NGCs, but by the time that engine was on stream the NGC production was being wound up to make way for LHD B-series ERFs with big-cam 350s and 6x4. ERF was developing this stuff but clearly didn’t want to waste further funding on a model they were about to ditch. Robert
tiptop495:
Hey CF, there is no confirmation anywhere that at least the RTO box was even an option for those who knew better than to gear a turbo ■■■■■■■ at max engine speed at 60 mph let alone 90 kmh.
Why couldn’t you drive ■■■■■■■ turbo engine’s at max engine speed (2100 revs) for a long time ■■?
Had it weak points about that ■■? The transcontinentals were driven here and for example at night between Paris and Lyon or Bordeaux for hours at 110/120kph without problems so far I know !!!
Don’t speak about fuel consumption, all horses need food if they have to work hard, even we
Eric,
I drove Transcons with RT boxes at high speeds for sustained periods without problems too! Robert
The NGC had a choice of 2 ■■■■■■■ NTC and 2 Fuller 'boxes. It needs to be remembered that the NGC didn’t need all sorts of other variations: it was built as an export Euro-spec premium tractor. Everything else was covered by other ERF models: 6x4 units, domestic 32-tonners, heavy-haulage machines etc. You could have these other units with metal MW cabs if you wanted. You could have a B-series, A-series,or M-type (MW-cab). And you could choose an NH250 or even a Gardner if you wanted. So the NGC remained to the end a pretty pure beast, it seems. Almost all the variations were retro-fitted by customers who could have had chosen one of those alternative models. Just because Phil Horridge put a 350 ■■■■■■■■ 13-speed Fuller and coach-diff in his NGC doesn’t necessarily mean it should have been in ERF’s catalogue! Robert
Carryfast:
IE unless I’ve read it wrong you said ‘‘why did they not just drop the top engine in it’’ referring to the 370.
…blah…
You have read it wrong, mainly through understanding less than half of it. I was referring to the engine mentioned in the CM article- remember that article? The one I introduced as a preface for the question you quote?
It’s like hammering a wooden nail into a steel plank.
robert1952:
It has to be remembered that the NGC didn’t need all sorts of variations: it was built as an export Euro-spec premium tractor. Everything else was covered by other ERF models: 6x4 units, domestic 32-tonners, heavy-haulage machines etc. You could have these other units with metal MW cabs if you wanted. And you could choose an NH250 or even a Gardner if you wanted. So the NGC remained to the end a pretty pure beast, it seems. Almost all the variations were retro-fitted by customers who could have had chosen one of those alternative models. Just because Phil Horridge put a 350 ■■■■■■■■ 13-speed Fuller and coach-diff in his NGC doesn’t necessarily mean it should have been in ERF’s catalogue! Robert
EXACTLY!!!
On Carryfast’s question I point out that when you imagine a diabolo, the upper (funnel) part is the group of Suppliers (■■■■■■■■ Gardner etc, Fuller, David Brown etc, Kirkstall, Hendrickson etc) together with ERF, pushing and pulling for technical solutions in which the suppliers had a major goal to push their new/modified products to gain figures on sold numbers.
ERF did quite well to spec (with some options) the NGC next to the other range-participants, three-, four-axles etc. The lower part of the diabolo is the group of importers/distributors and the market represented by the interested transport companies/owner-drivers. We ‘only’ speak
of gross 100 chassis produced/sold (which is quite good for that time-frame) but standard that didn’t suit all end-users on the continent, that’s why earlier remarks were made with the trivial
and controversial outcome: low(er) fuel-consumption versus high(er) speed, what your business requires and then discussions on (excluded) non-spec-warranties could be expected.
On the type-approval the importer/distributor should offer each modification (as ERF Ltd. didn’t arrange with possibly very good reasons) to the road-inspection (government-controlled) and for their customers the importer/distributor often applied the former approval (PVA~COC) to serve the customer. ERF was apparently not very keen or happy with that way of working but sales preveals as often.
To ERF: I assume (and highly respect your knowledge) you speak for Great-Britain when it comes to returns to vendor/supplier in case after the NGC left for the continent changes were made.
Remember that CDB was by far the largest in re-assembling and selling ■■■■■■■■ Fuller and Hendrickson with regard to also White/Autocar with > 1.000 chassis (tippers,mixers,tractors) exported towards the Middle East. They didn’t return such major components to ERF at all.
I hear ERF-sales shout to grant a nice discount and keep those components on the continent!!!
ERF-Continental:
In all fairness…the management-team in Sandbach was more thinking in terms
of “we deliver what we think you’ll need” not aware of other circumstances and
import-type-approval. Eyckmans changed a bit more than their gearbox with a
Hendrickson-bogie fitted. I overheard that the first three-axled 3MW/5MW also
had a Hendrickson-bogie fitted, Lecocq, Delsaert, Hyrdocar etc
Bear in mind that a customer earns his money with the right equipment
in shape with that investment, regardless what the (ERF-)salesforce predicted!
Bestebreurtje, Denonville and Mabo (not very ERF-loyal) did UNDERSTAND that.
To avoid any confusion, it ought to be pointed out for the benefit of CF that Eyckmans didn’t receive his NGC new with 6x4, although the gearbox was exchanged before delivery. The rear bogie came from a White and was not fitted until about four years later when he needed to install a Fassi crane. The ERF may even have been out of warranty by then! Robert
tiptop495:
Hey CF, there is no confirmation anywhere that at least the RTO box was even an option for those who knew better than to gear a turbo ■■■■■■■ at max engine speed at 60 mph let alone 90 kmh.
Why couldn’t you drive ■■■■■■■ turbo engine’s at max engine speed (2100 revs) for a long time ■■?
Had it weak points about that ■■? The transcontinentals were driven here and for example at night between Paris and Lyon or Bordeaux for hours at 110/120kph without problems so far I know !!!
Don’t speak about fuel consumption, all horses need food if they have to work hard, even we
Eric,
In this case it’s mostly about the finer points of using the torque to do more of the work at lower engine speed which means more or at least the same amount of work for less fuel.While unnecessary high engine speeds also obviously means more wear.In which case why would anyone want,or need,to gear a turbo ■■■■■■■ to run at 90 kmh at 2,000 rpm +. Regardless of the silly speeds which we all know were attainable from a correctly geared one at max engine speed.While the idea of such gearing contradicts everything known about how to correctly gear a truck to make the best,most fuel efficient,use of the torque output since at least the mid to late 1970’s.
ERF:
I don’t wish to get drawn into the endless permutations expressed here, but would like to make the point that ERF in this period would build a vehicle, including an NGC, to whatever specification the customer demanded (within reason) when they ordered it. In cases where this changed and the transmission was swapped at the dealership before delivery, this was done with full factory backing and the removed gearbox was returned to Sandbach and credited.
Engines, gearboxes and final drive ratios were carefully matched to suit individual needs. There are many cases where overdrive RTO gearboxes have been used to replace RT’s in service, only to find that the vehicle is then ‘over geared’ for the torque curve of the engine in it’s operating environment, and it’s fuel consumption rises dramatically.
I’d guess that references to over gearing with an RTO box wouldn’t apply in the case of the NGC’s combination of turbo ■■■■■■■ and final drive ratio ?.Bearing in mind that the factory chose it to run happily enough with the the Gardner 240’s meagre torque output.
Which leaves the question of what did the idea of building it first with the wrong spec then changing it after market at the dealership add to the build/purchase cost.As opposed to the customer just asking for it to be built at the factory with what was needed. Realistically it was more likely that no one would want to bother with all the aggro or possible costs and would look elsewhere.For something which effectively wasn’t revving its nuts off at 50 mph especially when that happened to be something as thirsty as a turbo ■■■■■■■ running at 2,000 rpm +.
