NJBTT:
Evening all. A proper Cornish flying machine…
All the best
Nigel
The TM with 290 ■■■■■■■ was an ERF with a decent cab. But then, most hauliers weren’t concerned about a decent cab!
Carryfast:
Interesting.
youtube.com/watch?v=EJixePROIyY
Great bit of film that! (Apart from the horrific soundtrack!)
I might have posted this on the Old Bedfords thread,can’t remember. Was taken at Newport panel services, no date on photo.
oiltreader:
Unmasking photobucket NJBTT.
Oily
Thanks Oily, great job
How did you do that■■?
Thanks for the utube link, after watching that I watched this:
youtube.com/watch?v=6dy4lpiakds
I did a Bedfords engine course at Millbrook in 1974, TM’s with V8’s on test.
Those films show Bedford doing the job properly- the whole job, unlike Ford, whose effort was a parts-bin short-cut. The TM should have established Bedford as Britain’s premier lorry manufacturer- the narrow cab/narrow chassis prototype shown in the second film has “New TK” written all over it. I guess the Detroit engine was a step too far, for European buyers. It has been said on here numerous times, but I’ll say it again- the ■■■■■■■ lump should have been available from 1974.
gazzer:
Thanks for the utube link, after watching that I watched this:
youtube.com/watch?v=6dy4lpiakds
I did a Bedfords engine course at Millbrook in 1974, TM’s with V8’s on test.
I can only assume that the cracking sleeper cab tester at 7.03 wasn’t impressed and that’s how we ended up with the superior final product.
I’m ashamed that our management didn’t offer to double her salary to join us as a cab ergonomics tester and I’d have been happy to offer to teach her to drive for road testing.But she could keep that company uniform for the job regardless.
Although I could envisage that causing a ‘problem’ at Chobham and the Old School Cafe at lunchtimes.In that the army would have lost its combat strength to requests for transfer to MVEE and no one would have been able to get in the cafe because it would have been full of expectant customers by 11 am thinking that they were putting on a stripper act. 
[zb]
anorak:
It has been said on here numerous times, but I’ll say it again- the ■■■■■■■ lump should have been available from 1974.
Ironically The Astro was available with ■■■■■■■ 14 litre and even the KT and CAT 3406.As also discussed standard inefficient 71 series fit long after the 92T series had been introduced.
Some strange decision making going on at Bedford.
The only conclusion being that ‘someone’ didn’t want it to succeed against the foreign competition as in the case of others like Leyland.
The rest is history.
coomsey:
0
That’s got to be CF’s ultimate flying machine! And is that a two-piece windscreen I see before me?
ERF-NGC-European:
coomsey:
0That’s got to be CF’s ultimate flying machine! And is that a two-piece windscreen I see before me?
Doubt it Robert,there is a centre wiper that would wipe over the joint if it was a 2 piece screen not ideal.
David
Is it a support strut for the middle of the sun visor?
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
It has been said on here numerous times, but I’ll say it again- the ■■■■■■■ lump should have been available from 1974.Ironically The Astro was available with ■■■■■■■ 14 litre and even the KT and CAT 3406.As also discussed standard inefficient 71 series fit long after the 92T series had been introduced.
Some strange decision making going on at Bedford.
The only conclusion being that ‘someone’ didn’t want it to succeed against the foreign competition as in the case of others like Leyland.
The rest is history.
The decisions could have gone either way- Europe was a “vertically integrated” market, so the in-house engine was the only choice, initially. The 92 series was new in 1974, so why risk the reputation of the new vehicle, with an unproven engine, when the power output of the 71 series was adequate for the market? The 92 was, initially, just a 71 with a bigger bore- the turbocharged 92 came later, so there was no fuel economy advantage, initially. Sure, the turbo 92 could have been offered sooner, but so could the ■■■■■■■■
None of those choices were necessarily detrimental. Why would GM want to invest in a complete new vehicle, with the potential to increase its European sales hugely, then deliberately scupper it? I think we have been down this route before- in a Gardner 150-powered Atki.
coomsey:
0
That is sporting some serious stacks 
5thwheel:
ERF-NGC-European:
coomsey:
0That’s got to be CF’s ultimate flying machine! And is that a two-piece windscreen I see before me?
Doubt it Robert,there is a centre wiper that would wipe over the joint if it was a 2 piece screen not ideal.
David
I’d forgotten about the middle wiper.
ERF-NGC-European:
That’s got to be CF’s ultimate flying machine! And is that a two-piece windscreen I see before me?
Tricentrol Chassis Developments Special Order.There was no 8 wheeler on the ‘official’ options list from the factory. 
It looks like part of a typical windscreen guard assembly common in NZ and Oz.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Ironically The Astro was available with ■■■■■■■ 14 litre and even the KT and CAT 3406.As also discussed standard inefficient 71 series fit long after the 92T series had been introduced.
Some strange decision making going on at Bedford.
The only conclusion being that ‘someone’ didn’t want it to succeed against the foreign competition as in the case of others like Leyland.
The rest is history.The decisions could have gone either way- Europe was a “vertically integrated” market, so the in-house engine was the only choice, initially. The 92 series was new in 1974, so why risk the reputation of the new vehicle, with an unproven engine, when the power output of the 71 series was adequate for the market? The 92 was, initially, just a 71 with a bigger bore- the turbocharged 92 came later, so there was no fuel economy advantage, initially. Sure, the turbo 92 could have been offered sooner, but so could the ■■■■■■■■
None of those choices were necessarily detrimental. Why would GM want to invest in a complete new vehicle, with the potential to increase its European sales hugely, then deliberately scupper it? I think we have been down this route before- in a Gardner 150-powered Atki.
It’s obvious that neither big cam ■■■■■■■ nor 92T would have been feasible before the late 1970’s regardless.
But obviously no reason to still be using the 71 series at that point in time.
Also Volvo’s fears would only have been truly awakened at that point because that’s when F10/F12 were launched obviously faced with any sensible perception of the TM going to big cam and 92T in a big way from their point of view.
You can’t argue with history in that regard.
Volvo obviously saw a threat to its business plan and wanted GMC trucks out of the way both in Europe and North America especially Europe.
■■■■■■■ E290 etc and 92T powered TM was a massive threat to the F10/F12.
GMC’s management were all too keen to throw in the towel for ‘some’ reason.