A 'drivers' take on british lorries!

[carryfast]

newmercman:
As unlikely as this sounds, Carryfast my old china, you’re answering questions that weren’t asked in the first place, no big problem, free speach and all, but I am rather disappointed with you, we’re on page 3 already and you’ve not mentioned the TM yet, come on man, pull yourself together

Now back on topic, sort of. My opinion is that AEC & Scammell would’ve been able to compete on every level with any of the competition, had they had the same backing. The products put out by the foreigners were, to start with, inferior, but then the engineers, marketing department, management team and the bloke that cleaned the kharzi all pulled together in the same direction, over here everyone was at war with each other and that’s just in house, you start to talk about outside suppliers and their complete lack of cohesion in the supply chain, combine the elements together and you get the flustercuck that was the British Vehichle Manufacturing Industry

For the umpteen billionth time how could Scammell and AEC or any of the others have possibly been able to compete against the Euro,Scandinavian and American competition with the type of rescources that British industry had at it’s disposal at the time when it mattered (starting early 1950’s finishing late 1970’s) and considering the state of the British economy not helped by numerous hopeless governments and the type of demands,of the customers in their domestic market,which is what the products they were making needed to be based on,because that’s where most of their sales were.

However you look at it the German market was dominated by German trucks,the Italian market was dominated by Italian built trucks,the French market was dominated by French trucks,the Scandinavian market was dominated by Scandinavian trucks,the American market was dominated by American trucks and the British market was dominated by British trucks.In all those cases that ■■■■■■■■■■ and the products made by those manufacturers reflected the demands of the respective customer bases in each local market.

It was only ‘after’ that point that the laws of natural selection started happening which determined which ones would come to dominate most in their respective export and domestic markets.All still based on the demands of the customers in all the respective markets although the situation also closely reflected the relative fortunes of the respective domestic economies where the products were built more than where they were sold.

However it was only in the British market where the perfect storm of hopeless government economic policies and hopeless backward buying policies by the domestic customers came together to totally wreck the domestic industry in a way that didn’t happen in any of the other respective domestic markets of the other respective foreign manufacturers.

While the fact is history shows that a successful export operation depends on keeping ■■■■■■■■■■ of the domestic market not vice versa.Which is why the US and German manufacturers have survived the onslaught of foreign competition but the British ones didn’t because the trading conditions for the domestic manufacturers were so hostile and totally at odds with every other market.At least up until such time as the British customers had changed their buying habits and had caught up with developments in customer thinking in the rest of Europe.By which it was all too late for the British manufacturers.

As for the TM I’ve made the statement that the 4400 was probably the only real credible British competitor to trucks like the DAF 2800,Volvo F10/12,and Scania 110/140.However I’m still waiting for an answer as to what AEC had,or could possibly have built,during the early 1950’s,considering the rescources at it’s disposal at the time,to compete with something like that Krupp Titan.Let alone a 1950 Kenworth.From that point on,AEC,like all the rest of the British industry,was around 10-20 years behind.All caused by being unlucky in having to work in Britain under British government policies and subject to the backward demands of the domestic British market customer base.

Ironically it’s someone who’s had the good sense to zb off to North America to work under North American conditions who’s blaming Stokes for not being able to make this zb up of a place work.Instead of calling him an idiot for not turning his back on Britain in the beginning and taking his skills to work in the foreign market trading conditions of Australia or North America,which was his real and only mistake.

As for me having worked in the industry I can never remember a time when we didn’t all pull together from the top to the shop floor to turn out a decent product including,as I’ve said,being able to crack the American market with British built trucks at least for a while until the Americans caught up with us .That includes to this day defending British industry managers like Stokes.

[ramone]

Im sure the question i asked,and i could be very wrong here was, if the finance was available i.e money ,cash ,(i dont think i can make it any clearer) which British manufacturers if any would you think could have survived ? In my mind whilst asking the question were 2 manufacturers AEC and Scammell then someone else on here came up with both companies.The biggest problem,and i think everyone can agree on this was the lack of funds,but going back to the original question if the finances were there im in no doubt AEC could have survived.Irrespective of what they were producing at the time and they were highly regarded around the world and still fondly remembered today, if the money would have been available they could have competed at the very top.Didnt AEC market air suspension in the very early 60s and they were also using turbochargers around the same time,but an untimely “merger” scuppered their progress.Reading some comments on here and maybe im interpretting them wrongly,they come across as no british designers were capable of producing the quality the europeans produced,which i find very insulting towards our boys.As for Mercs i have always regarded them as Hitlers revenge ,gutless horrible things definiteley not a drivers motor .I went to Germany in 1990 in a 1729 Merc ,brand new at the time and my biggest crime was bringing the pile of crap back.They may be reliable but painfully slow on hills ,wait a minute where have i heard that before…oh yes Gardners

[zb_anorak]

In response to the previous two posts:

DAF was in a far worse position than AEC in the 1950s. Its lorries had those grotty little cabs, which were probably comparable to the hand-built Mk5 AEC item. It needed to buy its engines from Leyland, whereas AEC had a full range of well-respected engines of its own. Its sales were mainly in its home market, but it had its Third World exports and a few customers scattered around Europe- just like AEC.

What did it do? In 1958(ish), (1)commenced the design of a Euro-friendly cab, (2)brought engine design/development in-house. The result? The F2600 was launched in 1962, with a DAF-developed version of the P680. It was the top driver’s lorry in its day and by about 1970, had 304bhp. It sold well all over Europe, generating the income to fund the development of the F2200 and F2800.

AEC’s tentative hand-holding with Willeme, during the 1960s, represented a fraction of the work DAF put in, even before Leyland’s unfortunate intervention. Regarding Ramone’s comment that GB firms lacked finance, I can’t see why they should have been any less well-off than DAF, especially considering the expense DAF incurred, just to catch up with them. The customers were there, and DAF’s management did the necessary to service them. The design/development engineers were there, DAF employed them. So did Scania Vabis, Volvo, Mercedes, Fiat etc. etc. etc.

One can imagine Salescock Stokes, in the 1950s, crowing about the money made from flogging Leyland’s intellectual property to those funny foreigners.

[zb_anorak]

A DAF FTT2600DKB304, just to brighten up the brown-flecked rhetoric:

What would be a driver’s take on this, compared to a 1970 AEC?

[ramone]

[zb]
anorak:
In response to the previous two posts:

DAF was in a far worse position than AEC in the 1950s. Its lorries had those grotty little cabs, which were probably comparable to the hand-built Mk5 AEC item. It needed to buy its engines from Leyland, whereas AEC had a full range of well-respected engines of its own. Its sales were mainly in its home market, but it had its Third World exports and a few customers scattered around Europe- just like AEC.

What did it do? In 1958(ish), (1)commenced the design of a Euro-friendly cab, (2)brought engine design/development in-house. The result? The F2600 was launched in 1962, with a DAF-developed version of the P680. It was the top driver’s lorry in its day and by about 1970, had 304bhp. It sold well all over Europe, generating the income to fund the development of the F2200 and F2800.

AEC’s tentative hand-holding with Willeme, during the 1960s, represented a fraction of the work DAF put in, even before Leyland’s unfortunate intervention. Regarding Ramone’s comment that GB firms lacked finance, I can’t see why they should have been any less well-off than DAF, especially considering the expense DAF incurred, just to catch up with them. The customers were there, and DAF’s management did the necessary to service them. The design/development engineers were there, DAF employed them. So did Scania Vabis, Volvo, Mercedes, Fiat etc. etc. etc.

One can imagine Salescock Stokes, in the 1950s, crowing about the money made from flogging Leyland’s intellectual property to those funny foreigners.

AEC were in trouble before the merger ,apparently they didnt make much money out of those Routemasters and the factory wasnt running anywhere near full capacity ,im not old enough to have been around at these times but have read the history.Another point is that the disasterous V8 showed great potential and was a real flyer but starved of cash for the development needed and the Marathon although "thrown" together with virtually no funding was no worse than anything else being produced over here at the time,i remember a road test in Truck magazine of the Marathon 2 with the headline this is no stop gap model so maybe if AEC had been handed the job of producing the T45 range then they may have made a better job of it than their counterparts up here in the north I can see where you are coming from Anorak with the Daf situation they had a rethink and it paid off but they needed a parent company in the long run.How long are they going to continue with the big XF cabs which have been around in some guise since 88

[ramone]

[zb]
anorak:
A DAF FTT2600DKB304, just to brighten up the brown-flecked rhetoric:
0
What would be a driver’s take on this, compared to a 1970 AEC?

Funny enough Wilsons in Bradford had a 4 wheeler unit and apparently it was a pig to drive ,something to do with the gearbox but they looked like they would have been roomier than an ergo

[carryfast]

ramone:
Im sure the question i asked,and i could be very wrong here was, if the finance was available i.e money ,cash ,(i dont think i can make it any clearer) which British manufacturers if any would you think could have survived ? In my mind whilst asking the question were 2 manufacturers AEC and Scammell then someone else on here came up with both companies.The biggest problem,and i think everyone can agree on this was the lack of funds,but going back to the original question if the finances were there im in no doubt AEC could have survived.Irrespective of what they were producing at the time and they were highly regarded around the world and still fondly remembered today, if the money would have been available they could have competed at the very top.Didnt AEC market air suspension in the very early 60s and they were also using turbochargers around the same time,but an untimely “merger” scuppered their progress.Reading some comments on here and maybe im interpretting them wrongly,they come across as no british designers were capable of producing the quality the europeans produced,which i find very insulting towards our boys.As for Mercs i have always regarded them as Hitlers revenge ,gutless horrible things definiteley not a drivers motor .I went to Germany in 1990 in a 1729 Merc ,brand new at the time and my biggest crime was bringing the pile of crap back.They may be reliable but painfully slow on hills ,wait a minute where have i heard that before…oh yes Gardners

(1) Firstly the fact is the money never could have been available because in the post war years the British economy and the banks were out of money at least for ourselves.Most of the money that was available went into rebuilding Europe’s economy and industries,especially Germany’s ,not our own.Which was the government’s fault not Stokes’.

(2) However even if the money had been available the issue of investing most of it into more advanced trucks would have met the hurdle of the question by the bankers exactly where and how much demand was there for such trucks.Which would have then thrown up the contradiction between the government’s idea of export or die and the fact that the biggest market and demand for the product was in the domestic market not the export markets and the demand for more advanced trucks certainly didn’t exist in the domestic market at the time and even 20 years later.

Put (1) and (2) together,as things stood in the day,and you’ve probably got a reasonable idea of the dilema which the industry was faced with.

The issue of Mercs being seen as Hitler’s revenge is probably more a reflection of,as usual,the type of demand in the British market for under specced trucks for the job than what the Germans ‘could’ provide given the right order.The facts show that there was certainly a demand for the Titan which wasn’t underpowered for it’s time and the same applied in regards to most of the Mercedes and MAN products when ordered with the right power outputs for the job and their reputations over the years seems to confirm that.

However in the case of Mercedes engines,given the right spec on the order sheet,the actual description wasn’t so much slow in that case as inefficient and (very) thirsty but bulletproof and what you spent on fuel you’d probably get back with interest in maintenance,life span,and depreciation costs and their reputation in most markets,where they were sold,both domestic and export,seemed to reflect that.

The uphill struggle,which AEC etc would have had,to compete with the combination of manufacturers like Mercedes,DAF,and the Scandinavians,would have been unviable considering the customer base and demands in their respective domestic markets and the resulting firepower at their disposal as time progressed.Stokes was obviously no fool in realising and understanding that harsh reality even before taking into account the issues of customer loyalty to their own domestic manufacturers in those markets.

However the only question is,knowing that why did Stokes then still accept the impossible job of trying to keep the Leyland group afloat in such a hostile environment .

[kr79]

Just been reading the excellent astran book again and it states Michael woodman submitted a spec for a drawbar combination to all the British truck builders when asain transport started taking off and not one replied and that’s how they ended up with there long association with scania.
Also scammel offered him a crusader demonstrator with a day cab. I’m not Alan Sugar but how can you take someone seriously about promoting there product with such a blatant flaw when you are looking at the driver been away for weeks on end.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:
In response to the previous two posts:

DAF was in a far worse position than AEC in the 1950s. Its lorries had those grotty little cabs, which were probably comparable to the hand-built Mk5 AEC item. It needed to buy its engines from Leyland, whereas AEC had a full range of well-respected engines of its own. Its sales were mainly in its home market, but it had its Third World exports and a few customers scattered around Europe- just like AEC.

What did it do? In 1958(ish), (1)commenced the design of a Euro-friendly cab, (2)brought engine design/development in-house. The result? The F2600 was launched in 1962, with a DAF-developed version of the P680. It was the top driver’s lorry in its day and by about 1970, had 304bhp. It sold well all over Europe, generating the income to fund the development of the F2200 and F2800.

Regarding Ramone’s comment that GB firms lacked finance, I can’t see why they should have been any less well-off than DAF, especially considering the expense DAF incurred, just to catch up with them. The customers were there, and DAF’s management did the necessary to service them. The design/development engineers were there, DAF employed them. So did Scania Vabis, Volvo, Mercedes, Fiat etc. etc. etc.

One can imagine Salescock Stokes, in the 1950s, crowing about the money made from flogging Leyland’s intellectual property to those funny foreigners.

The question is how many of those DAF sales ‘around Europe’ were made up of British sales compared to European ones .It’s my guess that Stokes helped DAF to at least get a return for Leyland for little,if no outlay,and that all sounds to me like the typical thinking which you’d expect from bankers and government pulling the strings which Stokes then had no choice other than to implement anyway although probably on the educated guess,that knowing British customer buying habits at the time,it wasn’t worth putting up a fight against the government and the bankers anyway.

[ramone]

kr79:
Just been reading the excellent astran book again and it states Michael woodman submitted a spec for a drawbar combination to all the British truck builders when asain transport started taking off and not one replied and that’s how they ended up with there long association with scania.
Also scammel offered him a crusader demonstrator with a day cab. I’m not Alan Sugar but how can you take someone seriously about promoting there product with such a blatant flaw when you are looking at the driver been away for weeks on end.

Didnt Astran use a Mammoth Major mkv on 1 of their first trips im sure this was mentioned a few weeks back .They obviously werent 1 of those “backward hauliers” which were the cause of the demise and death of British lorry manufacturing

[zb_anorak]

ramone:

[zb]
anorak:
A DAF FTT2600DKB304, just to brighten up the brown-flecked rhetoric:

What would be a driver’s take on this, compared to a 1970 AEC?

Funny enough Wilsons in Bradford had a 4 wheeler unit and apparently it was a pig to drive ,something to do with the gearbox but they looked like they would have been roomier than an ergo

1962

Ergo was introduced one year later. Judging by the fancy styling and complex shapes in the panels, not to mention the scientific studies into ergonomics, the Ergo cost more to bring to market.

Did the 2600 have a ZF constant mesh 'box? I have hazy memories of reading that it was horrible- miss a gear and you stay in neutral, argue and you get a slap? This may be pub talk; I await more informed opinion.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

ramone:

[zb]
anorak:
A DAF FTT2600DKB304, just to brighten up the brown-flecked rhetoric:
1
What would be a driver’s take on this, compared to a 1970 AEC?

Funny enough Wilsons in Bradford had a 4 wheeler unit and apparently it was a pig to drive ,something to do with the gearbox but they looked like they would have been roomier than an ergo

1962
0
Ergo was introduced one year later. Judging by the fancy styling and complex shapes in the panels, not to mention the scientific studies into ergonomics, the Ergo cost more to bring to market.

Did the 2600 have a ZF constant mesh 'box? I have hazy memories of reading that it was horrible- miss a gear and you stay in neutral, argue and you get a slap? This may be pub talk; I await more informed opinion.

I used the ZF 12 speed constant mesh splitter in the 2800.There was absolutely nothing wrong with it but,unlike the 13 speed Fuller,it was an unforgiving piece of kit that didn’t take prisoners.No clutchless changes at all ever and match road speed and revs perfectly then just like the Fuller it was fingertip light and knife through butter.

[kr79]

ramone:

kr79:
Just been reading the excellent astran book again and it states Michael woodman submitted a spec for a drawbar combination to all the British truck builders when asain transport started taking off and not one replied and that’s how they ended up with there long association with scania.
Also scammel offered him a crusader demonstrator with a day cab. I’m not Alan Sugar but how can you take someone seriously about promoting there product with such a blatant flaw when you are looking at the driver been away for weeks on end.

Didnt Astran use a Mammoth Major mkv on 1 of their first trips im sure this was mentioned a few weeks back .They obviously werent 1 of those “backward hauliers” which were the cause of the demise and death of British lorry manufacturing

There first truck was a guy but they bought a mk5 mammoth major soon after with a sleeper cab. I think it was a c reg which would be the last of them before the ergo models but after that they went to scania because no British truck builder would offer them a sutiable truck for there work.
On another note look at the scammell crusader why was it not offered with a tilt cab most new trucks would have been by then.

[viking]

All the DAF FT2200s I drove for Cabmont had the back to front ZF 12 speed splitter in them. They were very easy to use once you got used to them.

[zb_anorak]

Hi Carryfast and Viking, thanks for adding to my encyclopaedic, but ultimately useless, knowledge. Why did you have to use the clutch and get the revs right on the ZF? As I understand it, on a constant mesh or even on a synchro 'box, normally just one of these conditions needs to be satisfied!

[viking]

[zb]
anorak:
Hi Carryfast and Viking, thanks for adding to my encyclopaedic, but ultimately useless, knowledge. Why did you have to use the clutch and get the revs right on the ZF? As I understand it, on a constant mesh or even on a synchro 'box, normally just one of these conditions needs to be satisfied!

I have changed gear many times without using the clutch on the ZF. The correct way to change gear was by ‘double de-clutching’. I have never used a synchro box on a lorry (apart from on a 4d Thames Trader) so I can’t pass comment on them.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:
Hi Carryfast and Viking, thanks for adding to my encyclopaedic, but ultimately useless, knowledge. Why did you have to use the clutch and get the revs right on the ZF? As I understand it, on a constant mesh or even on a synchro 'box, normally just one of these conditions needs to be satisfied!

This type of discussion usually ends up with a page or two of opposing views between nmm and myself.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=62682&start=30#p762457

However I’m sure that the constant mesh box in the old pre 2300 smaller DAF’s was just a lighter duty 6 speed because we had one in an old shunter at our yard and it wasn’t the same one at all as the one used in the 2600/2800.Maybe wheelnut can provide some more info because he knows a fair bit about DAF history.I’m also sure that a lot of the bad reputation related to the ZF constant mesh box in the 2600/2800 was the result of drivers trying to skip shift it going up and block change it going down when it only seemed happy with sequential shifts which is mostly how I’ve always used any box anyway.But clutchless changes are just a labour saving device for when the left leg needs a rest but aren’t the correct way to drive any constant mesh box and certainly would never have worked on the ZF 12 speed as I remember it in the 2800 which I drove.

[viking]

I can assure you CF that the gearbox in the FT2200 was the 12 speed split. I should know, I drove well over a million miles (no exaggeration) with them from 72-82 on a night flyer… iirc, they were also on the 2000, 2100 & 2300.

[carryfast]

Viking:
I can assure you CF that the gearbox in the FT2200 was the 12 speed split. I should know, I drove well over a million miles (no exaggeration) with them from 72-82 on a night flyer… iirc, they were also on the 2000, 2100 & 2300.

I don’t think that there was any commonality between any of the gearboxes used in the smaller DAF ranges and the 12 speed ZF constant mesh box used in the 2600/2800 .All of the smaller DAF range that I knew of varied between six speed constant mesh in the very early ones as in that example of our old yard shunter all the rest were all synchro boxes varying between 8 speed range change in the 2300 and 12 speed synchro splitter in the 2500 which were all lighter duty transmissions than the options fitted in the 2800.Probably not surprising considering the differences in torque capacity requirements between the smaller engined DAF’s compared to the 2800 .

However we did have a couple of very late 2300’s fitted with 16 speed range change/splitter synchro boxes and that was probably the only option which had a connection the with the 16 speed synchro option offered in the 2800 etc…However all of our 2800’s,that followed the older ZF 12 speed constant mesh ones,were ATI’s fitted with 9 speed fullers.

[kr79]

Asked my dad and he said the zf constant mesh box had to use every gear up and down for some reason. He also said the zf was defiantly in the earlier 2200 and 2600 but he only remembered the 2800 having a fuller box and the later 3300s having the zf ecosplit option but wasn’t 100%