DEANB:
A new one of Pountains mighty ,dodgy iffy NGC !
And standing proud! Not an NGC, as you know, but a 7MW or more likely 8MW cab grafted onto a right-hand drive 1977 ERF MDC852 double-drive chassis to replace the accident-damaged 6MW cab. Richard Pountain very kindly sent me these pics of the original cab. The replacement was undertaken by the ERF dealer, Cossington motors who also replaced the 335 lump with a ■■■■■■■ 350 while they were at it. As the set-back 6MW cab was replaced by a set-forward 7or8MW cab you would think that there must have been some considerable tinkering and re-engineering going on. However, I suspect that the 8MW cab (which was a loose cab) was designed, I think (not know), as a fixed cab to replace older style metal cabs. It is probable that Loste’s Pacific received such a cab. Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
Apologies if I’ve got it wrong but I was under the impression many pages ago that ERF’s management counted out the ‘RTO’ box,as opposed to the ‘RT’,on the grounds that it would supposedly spin the prop shaft at too high speeds ?.Thereby removing ‘that’ option ?.Only to then obviously admit that was bs by offering it in their later products ?.
As for the NGC being significantly ‘different’ from the rest,not just in terms of its cab design,and it’s all those other ‘differences’ combined which made it more viable to cut and shut a 4 x 2 NGC than to look for one of those other options.Surely that just adds weight to what I said.IE the customer wanted a 6 x 4 NGC not a 3-5 MW etc.
While ‘if’ you’re right that the 3-5 MW options were ‘perfectly good’ alternatives then surely that adds weight to the idea that the the default choice would have been doing whatever it took to just swap the 7 MW cab onto one of those chassis ?.
Instead of which you’re painting the contradiction of both a product which was supposedly so good in the case of the 3-5 MW etc that it gave ERF the excuse not to bother with a 6 x 4 NGC.But then was actually so bad that heavy haulage operators would actually rather cut and shut an NGC to create the vehicle they actually wanted and that obviously being not just in terms of the superior cab design.
The former of those scenarios obviously adding more weight to ERF’s Continental’s case regarding at least one example and which I’m more inclined to believe.Notwithstanding the fact that at least one operator seems to have chosen to take the latter route for whatever reason.
As for ‘common rail’ technology what has that got to do with vehicles which were all fitted with equivalent old tech ■■■■■■■ power.However ‘if’ you’re saying that there’s absolutely no way that the 7 MW cab could possibly fit on any other type of ERF chassis regardless of any other issue,that would be a different matter.In which case why not just say that to ERF Continental and then let him provide an answer to his claim on that basis to start with ?.
Although if I’ve read it right you did say that both his view,that a 7 MW cab had in fact been swapped onto a different ERF chassis and the opposing view that it was another cut and shut NGC,are as reasonable as each other.
As you have now firmly entered into the ERF-Continental versus French contributor debate (quite legitimately - you are a free agent), a debate from which I have stated clearly that I am standing back, you will not take offence at my not responding to your post . Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
As you have now firmly entered into the ERF-Continental versus French contributor debate (quite legitimately - you are a free agent), a debate from which I have stated clearly that I am standing back, you will not take offence at my not responding to your post . Robert
That’s fair enough Robert.
On that note surely it is fair to say that ‘if’ the 3-5 MW etc made a just as good heavy hauler as a ( seriously ) modified NGC would have,unless such a move has been confirmed as being impossible,then swapping a 7MW cab onto a 3-5 etc MW would have been the easier,cheaper and therefore more logical default choice ?.As opposed to cutting down a rigid,let alone stretching a 4 x 2 NGC tractor,in that regard.While also suggesting that ERF had missed a market opportunity in not offering a 6 x 4 heavy haulage spec NGC regardless.
While the same could be said in ERF counting out the more powerful,after cooled,and obviously thereby more efficient,NTA engine,in addition to the 13 speed ‘RTO’ transmission.Both of which ‘should’ have been the default standard road spec fit as opposed to the 335 and RT box and the failure in that lack of attention to detail could only have seriously damaged the thing’s fuel consumption figures.
As you say over to ERF Continental for a view on all that.
Although having said that there does seem to have been the erroneous view across the channel,just as unbelievably there was at ERF , that ‘more power’ obviously mean’t more fuel consumption.While over looking the finer points of when that ‘power’ is obtained through more torque obtained by after cooling,as opposed to more engine speed.The same obviously applied regarding the fuel saving possibilities of running an engine at lower engine speed for a given maximum road speed in the form of using the RTO transmission v RT.The conclusion of which seems to be that the NGC was an example of most of what went wrong with the UK truck manufacturing industry.From failing to recognise the advantages of the latest technology when it was available and failing to take advantage of every market opportunity.Let alone betting the farm on the wrong B series horse when development of the NGC was the way to go.
I have been doing some serious pondering about we what imagine the 8MW cab to be. I’m having doubts about the theory that 8MW cabs were necessarily shells to replace 3, 4, 5 or 6MWs. For a start, the cab interior page of the parts catalogue shows that the 7MW and 8MW cabs were identical within, including the steering wheel and the LHD position. Also, the figure ‘8’ in the code, being an even number, should denote a set-back cab (like the 4MW and 6MW) and we haven’t seen such a cab.
I think it more likely that the two ‘false friends’ we know about (Pountain’s UGE and Loste’s Pacific) were retro-fitted with modified, non-tilting 7MW cab shells, rather than with the elusive 8MW cab about which we know almost nothing.
What we do know is that 2 loose 8MW cabs were exported to Belgium and that the parts catalogue treats them as more or less one and the same for parts purposes.
In the top photo of the damaged UGE , I notice there is a van from another’s engine manufacturer in the background
Would they be there to assess it , to see if it could be fitted with an 8LXB , & pair it up to a 13 speed box . It seems the photographer was just too late & missed the other visitors checking it over , whilst pondering over the back bogie , & see if any cutting & shutting of chassis would be required
Casual Observer:
In the top photo of the damaged UGE , I notice there is a van from another’s engine manufacturer in the background
Would they be there to assess it , to see if it could be fitted with an 8LXB , & pair it up to a 13 speed box . It seems the photographer was just too late & missed the other visitors checking it over , whilst pondering over the back bogie , & see if any cutting & shutting of chassis would be required
I too noticed the Gardner van! There were other vehicles in the Pountain fleet, however . No cutting and shutting required on that one; just a cab and engine replacement. As I say it wasn’t an NGC and had a 15-speed Fuller (RTO 915 to be exact). The 13-speed installations offered in NGCs were RTOs too, as stated in a previous discussion on here. Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
I have been doing some serious pondering about we what imagine the 8MW cab to be. I’m having doubts about the theory that 8MW cabs were necessarily shells to replace 3, 4, 5 or 6MWs. For a start, the cab interior page of the parts catalogue shows that the 7MW and 8MW cabs were identical within, including the steering wheel and the LHD position. Also, the figure ‘8’ in the code, being an even number, should denote a set-back cab (like the 4MW and 6MW) and we haven’t seen such a cab.
I think it more likely that the two ‘false friends’ we know about (Pountain’s UGE and Loste’s Pacific) were retro-fitted with modified, non-tilting 7MW cab shells, rather than with the elusive 8MW cab about which we know almost nothing.
What we do know is that 2 loose 8MW cabs were exported to Belgium and that the parts catalogue treats them as more or less one and the same for parts purposes.
Robert
Robert, Am i reading that right ! So you think Pountains had a non tilting cab ■■ Cant see that !
ERF-NGC-European:
I have been doing some serious pondering about we what imagine the 8MW cab to be. I’m having doubts about the theory that 8MW cabs were necessarily shells to replace 3, 4, 5 or 6MWs. For a start, the cab interior page of the parts catalogue shows that the 7MW and 8MW cabs were identical within, including the steering wheel and the LHD position. Also, the figure ‘8’ in the code, being an even number, should denote a set-back cab (like the 4MW and 6MW) and we haven’t seen such a cab.
I think it more likely that the two ‘false friends’ we know about (Pountain’s UGE and Loste’s Pacific) were retro-fitted with modified, non-tilting 7MW cab shells, rather than with the elusive 8MW cab about which we know almost nothing.
What we do know is that 2 loose 8MW cabs were exported to Belgium and that the parts catalogue treats them as more or less one and the same for parts purposes.
Robert
Robert, Am i reading that right ! So you think Pountains had a non tilting cab ■■ Cant see that !
You have to remember that it replaced a non-tilting cab (none of the other MW cabs tilted, only the 7MW). Somewhere back on this thread there was long discussion and compelling arguments as to why this could not be a tilting cab. I seem to remember that this was confirmed - I’ll check my notes on that. The same would apply to the Pacific and to the Cauvas unit should it ever be shown that the chassis was a LHD version of the Pountain’s unit (which is what was suggested). Robert
True it did replace a non tiliting cab ! I will see if i can find out from the fella that sent me the
Pountain pics when it had been fitted as he worked at Cossingtons.
I tried to find the debate back on the thread about replacement 7MW on MGC/MCC chassis not being able to tilt and couldn’t. But I did find a closely related debate on p87 regarding 6x4s, 8MWs etc so here’s the link:
Here is the beginning of the 8MW discussion, including one completely wrong suggestion from me: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=113777&p=1927471&hilit=%2A8mw%2A#p1927471
I am now, however, completely right. I think. We have been thinking that the 8MW was a loose cab for replacement of damaged cabs. I think that is very likely, given that 7MW was the last Motor Panels cab used by ERF, before they used the SP cab across the board. There has been some head-scratching regarding the forward cab mounting/odd numbers vs. rear cab mounting/even numbers, with no one recalling an NGC-styled rear-mounted cab. The answer, I believe, is in all of that: the 8MW was a replacement cab for 4MW and 6MW cabs, so its designation was right. Its mounting subframe/connections to hoses/looms/etc. was designed to make it a bolt-on replacement, and its number reflected that. The finished chassis would end up with a forward-mounted cab, but that would not cause a problem, would it? The clue might be in the positions of the other components relative to the cab, fore-and-aft.
Maybe the 8MW had a mounting system designed to make it a bolt-on replacement for 3/5 and 4/6MW cabs. It would not be a great engineering challenge to put an extra set of holes in a bit of angle iron.
ERF-NGC-European:
The 13-speed installations offered in NGCs were RTOs too, as stated in a previous discussion on here. Robert
If I’ve read it right we established pages back that the 13 speed was only offered in the 290 option not 335 and like the 9 speed even that limited option was also direct drive top RT not RTO ?. All based on the erroneous idea within ERF’s designer/s that drivers would use the higher top gear to run at silly speeds v the low final drive gearing thereby over speeding the prop shaft assembly.
ERF-NGC-European:
I tried to find the debate back on the thread about replacement 7MW on MGC/MCC chassis not being able to tilt and couldn’t. But I did find a closely related debate on p87 regarding 6x4s, 8MWs etc so here’s the link:
Maybe that would explain the choice between either a fixed cab replacement of previous fixed cab 6 x 4 designs with 8 MW type cab on an existing 6 x 4 chassis.
Or stretch a 4 x 2 NGC and source and fit a 6 x 4 bogie just to get a tilting cab.
Which seems like a drastic choice to me rather than to try to find a way of creating a tilting 8 MW cab on a different existing 6 x 4 chassis.Possibly that would also have just been a case of a bit more involved job making some more complicated mounts.
On that note it would be surprising if the show example isn’t the only actual cut and shut NGC,as opposed to the others just being cab conversion on a different existing 6 x 4 chassis,regardless.
[zb]
anorak:
Here is the beginning of the 8MW discussion, including one completely wrong suggestion from me: viewtopic.php?f=35&t=113777&p=1927471&hilit=%2A8mw%2A#p1927471
I am now, however, completely right. I think. We have been thinking that the 8MW was a loose cab for replacement of damaged cabs. I think that is very likely, given that 7MW was the last Motor Panels cab used by ERF, before they used the SP cab across the board. There has been some head-scratching regarding the forward cab mounting/odd numbers vs. rear cab mounting/even numbers, with no one recalling an NGC-styled rear-mounted cab. The answer, I believe, is in all of that: the 8MW was a replacement cab for 4MW and 6MW cabs, so its designation was right. Its mounting subframe/connections to hoses/looms/etc. was designed to make it a bolt-on replacement, and its number reflected that. The finished chassis would end up with a forward-mounted cab, but that would not cause a problem, would it? The clue might be in the positions of the other components relative to the cab, fore-and-aft.
Maybe the 8MW had a mounting system designed to make it a bolt-on replacement for 3/5 and 4/6MW cabs. It would not be a great engineering challenge to put an extra set of holes in a bit of angle iron.
A plausible engineers viewpoint that makes sense! All we need now is some proof. Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
The 13-speed installations offered in NGCs were RTOs too, as stated in a previous discussion on here. Robert
If I’ve read it right we established pages back that the 13 speed was only offered in the 290 option not 335 and like the 9 speed even that limited option was also direct drive top RT not RTO ?. All based on the erroneous idea within ERF’s designer/s that drivers would use the higher top gear to run at silly speeds v the low final drive gearing thereby over speeding the prop shaft assembly.
The Fuller 13-sp was offered optionally in the NGC as an RT9513 or an RTO9513. robert
DEANB:
Looks like pountains tilted ! Message received from chap that took pics at Cossington Commercials.
0
The new cab fitted to the original mountings; the chassis was extended forward to provide the mountings for the steps■■?
Dont know the message i got back is the one i posted. But if i was fitting a new cab to a lorry i would
definately want it to tilt ■■ Robert those MW7 cabs, did the engine covers come off inside the cab ?
If they didnt then i would think it definately tilted as certain things like the tappets you need access
from above ! I had an old F6 Volvo when i started with a luton built over the cab which did not tilt but
the whole engine cover use to come off so you could get to the engine for certain maintenance ! You
are not going to have a lorry where you have to either drop the engine out below or take the bloody
cab off to replace gaskets etc !
, that ‘more power’ obviously mean’t more fuel consumption.While over looking the finer points of when that ‘power’ is obtained through more torque obtained by after cooling,as opposed to more engine speed.The same obviously applied regarding the fuel saving possibilities of running an engine at lower engine speed for a given maximum road speed in the form of using the RTO transmission v RT.The conclusion of which seems to be that the NGC was an example of most of what went wrong with the UK truck manufacturing industry.From failing to recognise the advantages of the latest technology when it was available and failing to take advantage of every market opportunity.Let alone betting the farm on the wrong B series horse when development of the NGC was the way to go. 
