One in the desert.
DEANB:
One in the desert.0
Picture on the front cover of Book 2! Taken by its driver, Chris Till. Robert
Looking at the ■■■■■■■ advert on the LHD 5MW thread, I notice that the NTC335 is part of a range which goes up to 370bhp. Given that we may consider the NGC420 was a bit of an indulgence for ERF- the tilting, single-screen MP cab must have cost a bit to develop, for such a short production life- why did they not just drop the top engine in it, I wonder? The NTC335 was about 25-30bhp short of the mark set by the LB140, but the 370 would have been more or less comparable. Maybe the top engine carried a price premium, or did it require a stronger version of the Fuller 'box, again at an increased price?
[zb]
anorak:
Looking at the ■■■■■■■ advert on the LHD 5MW thread, I notice that the NTC335 is part of a range which goes up to 370bhp. Given that we may consider the NGC420 was a bit of an indulgence for ERF- the tilting, single-screen MP cab must have cost a bit to develop, for such a short production life- why did they not just drop the top engine in it, I wonder? The NTC335 was about 25-30bhp short of the mark set by the LB140, but the 370 would have been more or less comparable. Maybe the top engine carried a price premium, or did it require a stronger version of the Fuller 'box, again at an increased price?
Heres the advert. Good point you make there Anorak. I dont remember ■■■■■■■ 370 engines though,although it clearly states it in the advert ?
Click on page to read.
[zb]
anorak:
Looking at the ■■■■■■■ advert on the LHD 5MW thread, I notice that the NTC335 is part of a range which goes up to 370bhp. Given that we may consider the NGC420 was a bit of an indulgence for ERF- the tilting, single-screen MP cab must have cost a bit to develop, for such a short production life- why did they not just drop the top engine in it, I wonder? The NTC335 was about 25-30bhp short of the mark set by the LB140, but the 370 would have been more or less comparable. Maybe the top engine carried a price premium, or did it require a stronger version of the Fuller 'box, again at an increased price?
It depends on how the extra power rating is created.Either possibly just by extra fuelling and higher engine speeds which wouldn’t have changed the torque output.As opposed to increased turbocharging/intercooling thereby increasing torque output.Is there a torque comparison between 335 v 370 ?.
While if it was the former the extra power probably wasn’t considered as being worth the extra fuel consumption and the engine speed penalty. 
With regard to the above post, it seems to me that the 335bhp unit was being used as a slightly propagandic creative advertising tool to suggest that the standard unit might deliver 370bhp in an era when that sort of thing was still permitted. Later adverts for the real ERF NGC didn’t include this kind of rhetoric and it certainly wouldn’t be permitted today. Advertising in the '60s and '70s was strong on suggesting what was not actually the case. I remember in the mid-'60s being educated against this kind of disingenuousness by our English teachers. Robert
robert1952:
With regard to the above post, it seems to me that the 335bhp unit was being used as a slightly propagandic creative advertising tool to suggest that the standard unit might deliver 370bhp in an era when that sort of thing was still permitted. Later adverts for the real ERF NGC didn’t include this kind of rhetoric and it certainly wouldn’t be permitted today. Advertising in the '60s and '70s was strong on suggesting what was not actually the case. I remember in the mid-'60s being educated against this kind of disingenuousness by our English teachers. Robert
To be fair they seem to make it clear that they are referring to the small cam ‘range’ lowest to highest and that the 335 is only one specific option of that range.While information on the small cam suggests that the difference includes an inter cooler to create the highest rating at least ? .Which I’d guess that ERF would have had no problem in explaining to any potential customers.
robert1952:
With regard to the above post, it seems to me that the 335bhp unit was being used as a slightly propagandic creative advertising tool to suggest that the standard unit might deliver 370bhp in an era when that sort of thing was still permitted. Later adverts for the real ERF NGC didn’t include this kind of rhetoric and it certainly wouldn’t be permitted today. Advertising in the '60s and '70s was strong on suggesting what was not actually the case. I remember in the mid-'60s being educated against this kind of disingenuousness by our English teachers. Robert
I did not get the impression that the advert was stretching the truth- it was a bald statement that the engine was available up to 370bhp, but the MGC380 (sic?) only had the 335 version. That is where I question the marketing strategy (again!). Why not just put the top engine in the NGC420 and be done with?
[zb]
anorak:robert1952:
With regard to the above post, it seems to me that the 335bhp unit was being used as a slightly propagandic creative advertising tool to suggest that the standard unit might deliver 370bhp in an era when that sort of thing was still permitted. Later adverts for the real ERF NGC didn’t include this kind of rhetoric and it certainly wouldn’t be permitted today. Advertising in the '60s and '70s was strong on suggesting what was not actually the case. I remember in the mid-'60s being educated against this kind of disingenuousness by our English teachers. RobertI did not get the impression that the advert was stretching the truth- it was a bald statement that the engine was available up to 370bhp, but the MGC380 (sic?) only had the 335 version. That is where I question the marketing strategy (again!). Why not just put the top engine in the NGC420 and be done with?
Reading it again it seems to be saying that they’ve chosen ‘the’ 335 option ‘from the range’.Not that they are offering the full range.As for why not it could be any one or a combination of any/all of a number of reasons such as was the full range of small cam outputs even available from ■■■■■■■■ UK operation which is stated as being the supplier ?.Was the extra fuel consumption of the higher outputs perceived as being unacceptable to their intended customer base ?.Was the extra output considered as being unproven in terms of stress levels and durability at the time ?.Did they even think that their customer base was demanding such outputs.IE the counterproductive possibility that customers might have rejected it on grounds of it being over powered by the standards of the day ?.
On that note if the biggest ■■■■■■■ power available,with no other considerations,was the intention then they’d surely have just offered the 400 small cam as standard with 335 as an option.
Personally, I think that this is almost certainly a red herring but all right, Anorak, Carryfast & Dean: I can see where you are saying. I would make the following three observations:
- I can’t think of any 370 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ lorries in 1973 (which I think is the date of that advert - check it someone!)
- There was an ‘after-cooled’ version of the NTC 335 later in the '70s which was rated at 350bhp
- We have no proof that there wasn’t a 370bhp NGC but we’ve never heard of one
Robert
robert1952:
- I can’t think of any 370 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ lorries in 1973 (which I think is the date of that advert - check it someone!)
- There was an ‘after-cooled’ version of the NTC 335 later in the '70s which was rated at 350bhp
As is so often the case I’d guess we’re dealing with the state of the art as it was across the Atlantic v here.Like the big cam later ( mid 70’s there v early 1980’s here ) I’d guess there was a massive time lag v what was common there in the early 1970’s v what was still as rare as hens teeth here in the late 1970’s.With ERF’s advert seeming to be blatantly taking advantage of that situation.IE adding credibility,to what would have been considered over there a nothing special common spec,by using the halo effect of the state of the art,bigger power examples,as it stood across the Atlantic in the day.IE this shows that turbo aftercooled 350 and 370 ratings at least were available in 1972.But as I’ve said for any number of reasons ERF only chose to use the non after cooled option.
robert1952:
Personally, I think that this is almost certainly a red herring but all right, Anorak, Carryfast & Dean: I can see where you are saying. I would make the following three observations:
- I can’t think of any 370 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ lorries in 1973 (which I think is the date of that advert - check it someone!)
- There was an ‘after-cooled’ version of the NTC 335 later in the '70s which was rated at 350bhp
- We have no proof that there wasn’t a 370bhp NGC but we’ve never heard of one
Robert
The 5MW ad says, “The engine is the… 335bhp… of a range… 200bhp to 370bhp…” Which is what we all know. I was not suggesting that the other engines were offered, I was just mildly surprised they didn’t go the whole hog and take the top one, particularly for the NGC. Remember that those are gross power outputs, so the 370bhp one would have only had about 340-350 DIN.
Incidentally, I recall that there was an NTC380 available from the mid-sixties, and it went into the Scammell Contractor. Maybe this engine is what the MGC advert was alluding to. I dunno how they got the extra power. I know later ■■■■■■■■ used air-to-water aftercoolers, but I can’t remember if that feature was on the 1960s/early '70s engines, at least in Europe.
[zb]
anorak:
The 5MW ad says, “The engine is the… 335bhp… of a range… 200bhp to 370bhp…” Which is what we all know. I was not suggesting that the other engines were offered, I was just mildly surprised they didn’t go the whole hog and take the top one, particularly for the NGC. Remember that those are gross power outputs, so the 370bhp one would have only had about 340-350 DIN.Incidentally, I recall that there was an NTC380 available from the mid-sixties, and it went into the Scammell Contractor. Maybe this engine is what the MGC advert was alluding to. I dunno how they got the extra power. I know later ■■■■■■■■ used air-to-water aftercoolers, but I can’t remember if that feature was on the 1960s/early '70s engines, at least in Europe.
It’s clear from the information available that the small cam turbo after cooled NTA 400 was available at least as of 1972 
as was the NTC 350 and NTA 370. There’s other information which suggests that the 370 and 400 versions had different larger uprated after cooling to the 350 which was what the NTA description seems to refer to v 350 NTC.As for the Contractor example that seems like part of the same NTA 370-400 range as described above ?.Also seem to remember Scammell using the KTA in its heavy haulage types ?.On that note I’d agree ERF missed a trick by not going for the big power NTA 370,or preferably 400,as a headline grabber halo product in the day.
That’s a useful document on the link there, CF! I’ll have to peruse that in more detail.
@ Anorak and CF: I agree that it is perhaps odd that ERF didn’t up the ante with their ‘European’ because it might have given them a significant edge over the opposition. Think what it might have done on Pat Kennett’s test with a 370 in it! However, this thread is littered with potential opportunities missed by ERF in their venture to conquer the Continent and this may just be one of many. Robert
robert1952:
That’s a useful document on the link there, CF! I’ll have to peruse that in more detail.@ Anorak and CF: I agree that it is perhaps odd that ERF didn’t up the ante with their ‘European’ because it might have given them a significant edge over the opposition. Think what it might have done on Pat Kennett’s test with a 370 in it! However, this thread is littered with potential opportunities missed by ERF in their venture to conquer the Continent and this may just be one of many. Robert
Might as well have rounded it up to the 400 option. 
It doesn’t make any sense in that they were obviously well aware of the full availability of the NTA range which leaves the question why didn’t they choose to use it ?. 
There seem to be too many examples across the automotive industry of giving away the initiative to our European competitors for it not to seem to have been a deliberate trade policy.
On that note was it more a case of ■■■■■■■■■■ in Bedford’s case GM,with holding the latest engine developments from us when we needed them so as not to destabilise the growth of the European automotive industry.
In a similar way that Ford and Vauxhall did with their car ranges like the Zodiac,Granada and Ventora etc by not offering the US small block V8 option which enthusiasts often fitted themselves to great effect.
I got Frank Waller to do me an ERF NGC demonstrator in 1:76 scale to go with the Beresford model he presented to me last year. I’ve made a small diorama for the result as shown below. I called it, ‘Trailer Changeover’. Robert
Carryfast:
robert1952:
- I can’t think of any 370 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ lorries in 1973 (which I think is the date of that advert - check it someone!)
- There was an ‘after-cooled’ version of the NTC 335 later in the '70s which was rated at 350bhp
As is so often the case I’d guess we’re dealing with the state of the art as it was across the Atlantic v here.Like the big cam later ( mid 70’s there v early 1980’s here ) I’d guess there was a massive time lag v what was common there in the early 1970’s v what was still as rare as hens teeth here in the late 1970’s.With ERF’s advert seeming to be blatantly taking advantage of that situation.IE adding credibility,to what would have been considered over there a nothing special common spec,by using the halo effect of the state of the art,bigger power examples,as it stood across the Atlantic in the day.IE this shows that turbo aftercooled 350 and 370 ratings at least were available in 1972.But as I’ve said for any number of reasons ERF only chose to use the non after cooled option.
Brilliant documentation, I have now discovered for what the “K” in NHK and NTK is meaning
and it has all to do with UK-smoke-legislation (K stands for RHD UK-chassis) as we had during
dealing with the NTK335 in a 5MW-chassis.
To my humble opinion the step towards the NTC335 was a big one for the majority of operators
and bear also in mind that the mpg of even higher output was killing. ■■■■■■■ had a big thirst!
Attached a specification on the NTE370 and on your remarks for KTA-engines, the weight was approx. 300-350kg higher, so an expensive investment with less weight for cargo. All derivations on the base 14litres, regardless 350, 370, 380, 400 etc were hardly sold in the automotive except in the country of Uncle Sam were diesel was significant cheaper.
ERF-Continental:
Carryfast:
robert1952:
- I can’t think of any 370 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ lorries in 1973 (which I think is the date of that advert - check it someone!)
- There was an ‘after-cooled’ version of the NTC 335 later in the '70s which was rated at 350bhp
As is so often the case I’d guess we’re dealing with the state of the art as it was across the Atlantic v here.Like the big cam later ( mid 70’s there v early 1980’s here ) I’d guess there was a massive time lag v what was common there in the early 1970’s v what was still as rare as hens teeth here in the late 1970’s.With ERF’s advert seeming to be blatantly taking advantage of that situation.IE adding credibility,to what would have been considered over there a nothing special common spec,by using the halo effect of the state of the art,bigger power examples,as it stood across the Atlantic in the day.IE this shows that turbo aftercooled 350 and 370 ratings at least were available in 1972.But as I’ve said for any number of reasons ERF only chose to use the non after cooled option.
Brilliant documentation, I have now discovered for what the “K” in NHK and NTK is meaning
and it has all to do with UK-smoke-legislation (K stands for RHD UK-chassis) as we had during
dealing with the NTK335 in a 5MW-chassis.To my humble opinion the step towards the NTC335 was a big one for the majority of operators
and bear also in mind that the mpg of even higher output was killing. ■■■■■■■ had a big thirst!Attached a specification on the NTE370 and on your remarks for KTA-engines, the weight was approx. 300-350kg higher, so an expensive investment with less weight for cargo. All derivations on the base 14litres, regardless 350, 370, 380, 400 etc were hardly sold in the automotive except in the country of Uncle Sam were diesel was significant cheaper.
Firstly just to clarify that we’re actually discussing the ‘NTA’ range as opposed to ‘KTA’.
In which case I’d guess those comments then just add to the questions of the commercial madness in us not,for whatever reason,applying all the latest developments at the time when we could and when we needed to.IE no one with any sense would go for turbocharging without the best possible after cooling technology if when it’s available.In this case that availability seems to have been there from almost if not day 1 of the big power 14 litre turbo ■■■■■■■ options.On that note it’s doubtful if such an increase in specific torque would have actually resulted in a significant increase in specific fuel consumption at least over the 335.Possibly even a slight improvement on the basis that more specific torque usually means a more fuel efficient engine not less.Although I could understand ERF being worried about the possible ‘perception’ among the customer base that an NTA powered NGC would be a diesel guzzler.However I’d guess that Pat Kennet’s hypothetical road test of the 370 or even 400 NTA powered European might have removed any doubts in that regard.
Although having said that there is some information which suggests that all of the after cooled small cams had durability issues with their cam driven fuelling systems not being able to handle the fuelling requirements of the after cooled engines ?.Which is why the big cam was then developed.But which still raises the question of why the Brits like ERF etc were so behind in adopting the latest technology and in joining in the big power party which the competition were all running away with,whether that be in terms of small cam or later big cam developments ?.
I suspect that they meant to say UK-chassis, rather than ‘right-hand drive’, because they still put the NTK 335 in the LHD 3/5MW (see page from brochure below). Robert
EDIT. In fact the footnote actually says, K designates [sic] shouldn’t that be ‘denotes’? right hand drive models to be sold only in the United Kingdom
which makes the NTK 335 in export 3MWs seem even stranger! Robert
