ERF-NGC-European:
DEANB:
Number 15 on the register. The white ERF seen running around the outskirts of Paris in 1974.The correct number plate is 7681 RR 91 not 7601RR91.
1
0
Your French contacts do you proud! Many thanks for refining the information on this particular unit Dean; and thank you for this clearer picture. I have ammended my records accordingly. Robert
Intrestingly that unit has been seen by another driver outside the Cauvas yard. Trying to find out more. 
It’s definitely a lot more curvaceous up close than it looks from afar, I think the sharp edges are what give it the appearance of a big block type structure. The front on view clearly shows the top and side sections slope outwards to meet the cab corners and it’s narrower at the top than the bottom.
Sent from my SM-T805W using Tapatalk
This pic shows off just how deep the grill was when you look at the ledge below the windscreen.
The side shot also shows the depth of the grill.
DEANB:
Might be worth popping that motor panels brochure on chap ? I cant find it.
Here’s the relevant page from the brochure, showing the Type 3 version of the Mark 4 cab (top right-hand corner). Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
ERF-NGC-European:
0Can we think again about the Motor Panels Mk 4 cab, designated 7MW by ERF. The big visual difference (from the Mack and Scammell versions) is that odd protruding grille assembly stuck on the front. The more I look at it, the more I recognise its harmony with the very attractively designed cab. That ERF 7MW grille was almost imperceptibly bowed outwards at the top and sides. This was clearly echoed by the inner uprights of the grille, pwhich followed its curved contours and were parallel. This means that the cross-slats must have been of very slightly different lengths.
Furthermore, the whole of the protruding grille assembly was bevelled inwards top and sides to produce a slight snout. Photos show how the sides of the protruding grille are angled slightly inwards so that even head on you can see those sides. I think the front area of the whole grille is narrower than the cab. It shows up on ERF’s diagrammatic plan too. Robert
‘zb Anorak’! Help me out here! You have a clever grasp of lorry cab design and an artistic eye for subtley of design. Is there more curvilnear tracery here than has hithero been recognised! robert
Just spotted this post. To my eye, the front bit falls in towards the top, possibly follwing the sides of the cab. This feature is evident on the front view posted above. The side view posted after that shows how awkward the styling of the MP cab was: the b post and back panel fall forward, while the a post falls back. The 7MW front end does it no favours, IMO- Its front face appears flat and vertical to me, generating that ugly step under the 'screen. It might even fall forward a bit, to appear parallel to the b post. In plan view, referring to pictures posted earlier in the thread, the added-on front appears almost flat, while the original cab is curved. Even the LB, which the 7MW mimics, has more apparent curvature in plan.
The most successful MP cab styling follows the lines of the cab, while disguising its odd side view- the MV and 3/4MW are the best examples of that. Those are handspme vehicles.
These, of course, are only my opinions, and I can’t see why people object to the MP French Mack lol.
[zb]
anorak:ERF-NGC-European:
ERF-NGC-European:
0Can we think again about the Motor Panels Mk 4 cab, designated 7MW by ERF. The big visual difference (from the Mack and Scammell versions) is that odd protruding grille assembly stuck on the front. The more I look at it, the more I recognise its harmony with the very attractively designed cab. That ERF 7MW grille was almost imperceptibly bowed outwards at the top and sides. This was clearly echoed by the inner uprights of the grille, pwhich followed its curved contours and were parallel. This means that the cross-slats must have been of very slightly different lengths.
Furthermore, the whole of the protruding grille assembly was bevelled inwards top and sides to produce a slight snout. Photos show how the sides of the protruding grille are angled slightly inwards so that even head on you can see those sides. I think the front area of the whole grille is narrower than the cab. It shows up on ERF’s diagrammatic plan too. Robert
‘zb Anorak’! Help me out here! You have a clever grasp of lorry cab design and an artistic eye for subtley of design. Is there more curvilnear tracery here than has hithero been recognised! robert
Just spotted this post. To my eye, the front bit falls in towards the top, possibly follwing the sides of the cab. This feature is evident on the front view posted above. The side view posted after that shows how awkward the styling of the MP cab was: the b post and back panel fall forward, while the a post falls back. The 7MW front end does it no favours, IMO- Its front face appears flat and vertical to me, generating that ugly step under the 'screen. It might even fall forward a bit, to appear parallel to the b post. In plan view, referring to pictures posted earlier in the thread, the added-on front appears almost flat, while the original cab is curved. Even the LB, which the 7MW mimics, has more apparent curvature in plan.
The most successful MP cab styling follows the lines of the cab, while disguising its odd side view- the MV and 3/4MW are the best examples of that. Those are handspme vehicles.
These, of course, are only my opinions, and I can’t see why people object to the MP French Mack lol.
Thanks for those thoughts. I think the strange pillar angles owe themselves to the forward-leaning truncated ‘A’ shape of the cab and the forward-leaning truncated ‘A’ shape of the door, which echoes it. Perhaps they wanted to give the impression of a purposeful lorry urging itself forward.
I certainly agree that the 5MW is easier on the eye!
Robert
FOUR REASONS TO SUGGEST THAT THE WRECKER IS THE PROTOTYPE NGC USED IN EARLY PROMO MATERIAL
Admittedly, some of these are cosmetic and it is for that reason that I haven’t been too hasty to conflate them. However, the grille design would appear to clinch it. I am tempted to combine Nos. 84 and 90 on the register as it seems to make sense that the prototype would end up doing something a bit unusual.
[Ignore the absence of one of the windscreen wipers on the wrecker: other pictures show it with three!]
Robert
With regard to the above ^^^^ post, I should add that AFU 615 (Van Steenbergen’s 28/31 unit) and Thibaut’s drawbar outfit also sported the prototype grille inset and they were the first two despatched and exported but the draw-bar outfit acquired a vent and the other one acquired a flap and a vent! Robert
South African ERF. Chris
adr:
South African ERF. Chris
I’ve just ‘bumped up’ the South African ERFs thread for you! . Robert
It was suggested to me this morning that in theory, ERF might have made more than one prototype NGC. The dictionary definition suggests only one. Anybody know how many prototypes are normal for a new model? Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
It was suggested to me this morning that in theory, ERF might have made more than one prototype NGC. The dictionary definition suggests only one. Anybody know how many prototypes are normal for a new model? Robert
None. It can be any number. After the prototypes have done their bit, and the production tools have been made, they test the actual processes used to make the vehicles, prior to launch. Those vehicles are called pre-production. If they are any good, they will go out as demonstrators, and even end up in the hands of customers. I would guess that the vehicles you are referring to were pre-production. They were very similar to the end product, bar the few details you have mentioned. There could have been one or ten of them. A big firm like Leyland would have built maybe 100 vehicles of a new range, all off production tools, before taking a batch to Earls Court.
[zb]
anorak:ERF-NGC-European:
It was suggested to me this morning that in theory, ERF might have made more than one prototype NGC. The dictionary definition suggests only one. Anybody know how many prototypes are normal for a new model? RobertNone. It can be any number. After the prototypes have done their bit, and the production tools have been made, they test the actual processes used to make the vehicles, prior to launch. Those vehicles are called pre-production. If they are any good, they will go out as demonstrators, and even end up in the hands of customers. I would guess that the vehicles you are referring to were pre-production. They were very similar to the end product, bar the few details you have mentioned. There could have been one or ten of them. A big firm like Leyland would have built maybe 100 vehicles of a new range, all off production tools, before taking a batch to Earls Court.
Thanks, that’s very useful Anorak! And thanks to Dean too, for suggesting that there may have been more than one. This means that even though the wrecker may well have been a pre-production model, there’s a good chance it was rigid (drawbar) prototype and not necessarily a stretched tractive unit. I’ll separate them again on the register for now . Incidentally, it occurs to me that any pre-production models may not necessarily count among the 91 dispatched from ERF. Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
… Incidentally, it occurs to me that any pre-production models may not necessarily count among the 91 dispatched from ERF. Robert
Yes. That is very possible. There was a list of production Marathons published on that thread, which did not show any 6x4 tractors supplied before 1976, yet the most famous Marathon, WTJ120L, a 6x4, was around when the vehicle was launched. That must have been a pre-production lorry. Even if there were “dodgy” unproven bits on it, I guess they could always change them in a workshop, while still using the lorry as a demonstrator or show vehicle. If it was considered safe to use after Leyland had finished with it, why not sell it to someone who could use it?
[zb]
anorak:ERF-NGC-European:
It was suggested to me this morning that in theory, ERF might have made more than one prototype NGC. The dictionary definition suggests only one. Anybody know how many prototypes are normal for a new model? RobertNone. It can be any number. After the prototypes have done their bit, and the production tools have been made, they test the actual processes used to make the vehicles, prior to launch. Those vehicles are called pre-production. If they are any good, they will go out as demonstrators, and even end up in the hands of customers. I would guess that the vehicles you are referring to were pre-production. They were very similar to the end product, bar the few details you have mentioned. There could have been one or ten of them. A big firm like Leyland would have built maybe 100 vehicles of a new range, all off production tools, before taking a batch to Earls Court.
Not sure which NGC was a previous demonstrator but both Van Steenbergen and CDB were keen on trials/errors and I recall some trials with for example ‘changes’ with regard to engine and chassis.
Pay attention to the fact that ‘old’ bumpers (mind the inset/lower part) were available and used to ‘newer’ products. The NGC on the first brochure (with glass trailer) had a non-straight bumper.
I (again) expect this will be neglected in terms of a simple workshop-change within some hours?
CDB also had trials with their White- and Autocar-range, hence the 2nd White Road Commander for Van Steenbergen, just some months after delivery of the previous version with split windows
Newly sprayed and sign-written NGC - appears to be KFH 249P. Pic by William Mills. Robert
ERF-Continental:
[zb]
anorak:ERF-NGC-European:
It was suggested to me this morning that in theory, ERF might have made more than one prototype NGC. The dictionary definition suggests only one. Anybody know how many prototypes are normal for a new model? RobertNone. It can be any number. After the prototypes have done their bit, and the production tools have been made, they test the actual processes used to make the vehicles, prior to launch. Those vehicles are called pre-production. If they are any good, they will go out as demonstrators, and even end up in the hands of customers. I would guess that the vehicles you are referring to were pre-production. They were very similar to the end product, bar the few details you have mentioned. There could have been one or ten of them. A big firm like Leyland would have built maybe 100 vehicles of a new range, all off production tools, before taking a batch to Earls Court.
Not sure which NGC was a previous demonstrator but both Van Steenbergen and CDB were keen on trials/errors and I recall some trials with for example ‘changes’ with regard to engine and chassis.
Pay attention to the fact that ‘old’ bumpers (mind the inset/lower part) were available and used to ‘newer’ products. The NGC on the first brochure (with glass trailer) had a non-straight bumper.
I (again) expect this will be neglected in terms of a simple workshop-change within some hours?
CDB also had trials with their White- and Autocar-range, hence the 2nd White Road Commander for Van Steenbergen, just some months after delivery of the previous version with split windows
Good point heres a pic off that brochure.
It looks similar to the on fitted on the South African ERF.
ERF-NGC-European:
Newly sprayed and sign-written NGC - appears to be KFH 249P. Pic by William Mills. Robert0
Nice pic chap !
ERF-Continental:
[zb]
anorak:ERF-NGC-European:
It was suggested to me this morning that in theory, ERF might have made more than one prototype NGC. The dictionary definition suggests only one. Anybody know how many prototypes are normal for a new model? RobertNone. It can be any number. After the prototypes have done their bit, and the production tools have been made, they test the actual processes used to make the vehicles, prior to launch. Those vehicles are called pre-production. If they are any good, they will go out as demonstrators, and even end up in the hands of customers. I would guess that the vehicles you are referring to were pre-production. They were very similar to the end product, bar the few details you have mentioned. There could have been one or ten of them. A big firm like Leyland would have built maybe 100 vehicles of a new range, all off production tools, before taking a batch to Earls Court.
Not sure which NGC was a previous demonstrator but both Van Steenbergen and CDB were keen on trials/errors and I recall some trials with for example ‘changes’ with regard to engine and chassis.
Pay attention to the fact that ‘old’ bumpers (mind the inset/lower part) were available and used to ‘newer’ products. The NGC on the first brochure (with glass trailer) had a non-straight bumper.
I (again) expect this will be neglected in terms of a simple workshop-change within some hours?
CDB also had trials with their White- and Autocar-range, hence the 2nd White Road Commander for Van Steenbergen, just some months after delivery of the previous version with split windows
I see what you mean: the prototype unit’s bumper has a shallow recess cut out of the top edge just below the tow-pack. Production models have a continuous straight edge. The rest of the bumper appears identical. This prototype unit appears to be the only one with that bumper, as even the first two NGCs dispatched (Van Steenbergen and Thibaut) have the ‘normal’ version. Also, the 20 or so pictures we have of the prototype unit(s) rather suggest that it was a single lorry, but who knows (?) it may transpire that they were more than one! Robert
