vwvanman0:
Browsing for marathon stuff and noticed these November 1974 truck magazine,apologies if they are not new. There was no info in the article on the European.
Good stuff chap,funny enough that’s the only truck mag from the 1970’s i dont have. Well spotted. :wink
vwvanman0:
Browsing for marathon stuff and noticed these November 1974 truck magazine,apologies if they are not new. There was no info in the article on the European.
Just got to this. 
Brilliant! I didn’t know this existed 
. Many thanks for posting it Vwvanman0. In less politically correct times I’d have been tempted to use that colour image on the front of my next book! 
. A really good find. Robert
Buzzer:
Saw these so here you go Robert, cheers Buzzer.
Cheers Buzzer!
1st pic is Nick Bull’s LHD B-series (ex-Millfield) on M/E work.
2nd-4th pics show Santini-cabbed South African ERFs.
5th pic is Star Commercials’s LHD B-series 6x4 in Saudi Arabia.
6th pic shows one of the Eric Vick NGCs behind the British Club in Baghdad.
Robert
DEANB posted scans of TRUCK magazine’s Euro-Test No. 2 from the December 1975 issue on another thread. It doesn’t feature the ERF NGC, which had been in Euro-Test No. 1 a few months previously, but it does contain numerous references to the NGC throughout. It’s almost as if Pat Kennett had come to regard it as a yard-stick! I won’t reproduce all the scans here but here’s the link:
viewtopic.php?f=35&t=121419&start=150
Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
DEANB posted scans of TRUCK magazine’s Euro-Test No. 2 from the December 1975 issue on another thread. It doesn’t feature the ERF NGC, which had been in Euro-Test No. 1 a few months previously, but it does contain numerous references to the NGC throughout. It’s almost as if Pat Kennett had come to regard it as a yard-stick! I won’t reproduce all the scans here but here’s the link:viewtopic.php?f=35&t=121419&start=150
Robert
Sorry Robert but having gone back with loads of time for hindsight have to say that Ford were robbed and done a great injustice in that.What a truck that thing really was in the day. 
Robert,
Would make a cracking book cover! it suggests in the mag its the front of the new plastic cab erf but its clearly not.
Glad its something new.
Steve
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
DEANB posted scans of TRUCK magazine’s Euro-Test No. 2 from the December 1975 issue on another thread. It doesn’t feature the ERF NGC, which had been in Euro-Test No. 1 a few months previously, but it does contain numerous references to the NGC throughout. It’s almost as if Pat Kennett had come to regard it as a yard-stick! I won’t reproduce all the scans here but here’s the link:viewtopic.php?f=35&t=121419&start=150
Robert
Sorry Robert but having gone back with loads of time for hindsight have to say that Ford were robbed and done a great injustice in that.What a truck that thing really was in the day.
Well having driven the NGC off road and the Transcon on the road (back in the day) I’d go for the ERF. Miles more comfortable for a start! Those Transcons were lively and great to drive but yes they did wallow and no they couldn’t stop! 
Robert
vwvanman0:
Robert,Would make a cracking book cover! it suggests in the mag its the front of the new plastic cab erf but its clearly not.
Glad its something new.
Steve
That’s interesting about the cover being expected to be the new SP cab, because the following June TRUCK’s cover was this (below) and of course that really did show the new B-series SP ‘plastic’ cab. That’s probably why the Nov '74 cover was such a close-up (or maybe that was just ■■■■ ).
Compare that with the one you posted, which clearly shows an NGC:
Thanks again, Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
DEANB posted scans of TRUCK magazine’s Euro-Test No. 2 from the December 1975 issue on another thread. It doesn’t feature the ERF NGC, which had been in Euro-Test No. 1 a few months previously, but it does contain numerous references to the NGC throughout. It’s almost as if Pat Kennett had come to regard it as a yard-stick! I won’t reproduce all the scans here but here’s the link:viewtopic.php?f=35&t=121419&start=150
Robert
Sorry Robert but having gone back with loads of time for hindsight have to say that Ford were robbed and done a great injustice in that.What a truck that thing really was in the day.
Well having driven the NGC off road and the Transcon on the road (back in the day) I’d go for the ERF. Miles more comfortable for a start! Those Transcons were lively and great to drive but yes they did wallow and no they couldn’t stop!
Was it possibly more a case of a silly cab suspension design than an actual chassis suspension issue ?.As for the brakes the figures in the test look very reasonable v the MAN at least.
Which then leaves the question how could something with 30% more torque at equivalent engine speed and 13 speed box end up with such a massive fuel consumption discrepancy between the main road sector v hill climb sector and well under 2 mph difference in speed in every sector v the MAN ?.Also bearing in mind the Ford’s fuel consumption advantage in the main road sector which somehow seems to have evaporated everywhere else.To the point where the MAN somehow supposedly beat the Ford’s fuel figures on the motorway and especially the hill climb sector having been behind on the main road sector.Which makes no sense 
Which was more to the point I meant.In that the Ford arguably at least had the best combination of engine and transmission spec commonly available in the day.Unlike the ERF or the MAN. 
Carryfast:
Which was more to the point I meant.In that the Ford arguably at least had the best combination of engine and transmission spec commonly available in the day.Unlike the ERF or the MAN.
Yes, I get what you’re saying: I was surprised to read on page 49 of part 2 of the '78 Euro-Test that the Ford Transcon, in addition to a 13-sp Fuller, had the after-cooled version of the NTC 335 which we know gave about 350 bhp, so its ‘355’ label is probably about right. It does raise the question of whether ERF ever considered using that version of the 14-litre/855 ■■■■■■■ in later NGCs for at least heavy-haulage operations if not for long-haul ones - they used them in later B-series. You may be interested to know that I actually drove a Transcon with a 350 in it and it was the fast lorry I can ever remember driving (pre limiters of course )! Robert
The unusual black ■■■■■■■ Diesel badge on the grille of the cover pic with the girlie identifies it as the NGC shown at Earls Court in 1974. The black & white photo inside appears to show the NGC shown at the Paris show that year . Robert
Just had an anorak moment and decided to check through all the folders to see if any known NGC carried an unusual ■■■■■■■ badge like the one on the cover of TRUCK Nov 74. Only one single unit appears to have one, and it is No. 30 on my register, and was registered in Holland as 12-97-FB and ended up with Trans Arabia via Steef Slappendel.
The badge appears to be the same, though none of the pics show it very distinctly. This MIGHT just mean that No. 30 was the same unit displayed at the 1974 Earls Court Show. Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
Carryfast:
Which was more to the point I meant.In that the Ford arguably at least had the best combination of engine and transmission spec commonly available in the day.Unlike the ERF or the MAN.Yes, I get what you’re saying: I was surprised to read on page 49 of part 2 of the '78 Euro-Test that the Ford Transcon, in addition to a 13-sp Fuller, had the after-cooled version of the NTC 335 which we know gave about 350 bhp, so its ‘355’ label is probably about right. It does raise the question of whether ERF ever considered using that version of the 14-litre/855 ■■■■■■■ in later NGCs for at least heavy-haulage operations if not for long-haul ones - they used them in later B-series. You may be interested to know that I actually drove a Transcon with a 350 in it and it was the fast lorry I can ever remember driving (pre limiters of course
I think I’ve got it in being the lesser after cooled NTC version below the ‘370’ NTA which we’ve discussed previously.Going by your final sentence would you agree that the idea of the MAN being around just 1 mph slower overall let alone in the hill sector doesn’t seem credible ?.Bearing in mind less torque than the DAF DKS and only marginally more peak power which obviously would have caused havoc to the MAN’s fuel consumption figures if they’d have relied on more use of its power to compensate for its torque deficit.
The only conclusion being that the Ford was being run in a lower gear and at a higher engine speed than necessary in the hills and maybe on motorway inclines ?.The let it lug mantra obviously being just as valid in the case of the small cam.Especially in the case of after cooled small cam,with actually more torque than the E290 had and also being produced at similar rpm.The big song and dance made about that ‘change’ in driving style being needed,in the case of the big cam but seemingly not the small cam,seeming to confirm that possible erroneous scenario.When if anything the ‘350’ small cam needed to ‘lug’ even moreso than the E290.
Carryfast:
ERF-NGC-European:
Carryfast:
Which was more to the point I meant.In that the Ford arguably at least had the best combination of engine and transmission spec commonly available in the day.Unlike the ERF or the MAN.Yes, I get what you’re saying: I was surprised to read on page 49 of part 2 of the '78 Euro-Test that the Ford Transcon, in addition to a 13-sp Fuller, had the after-cooled version of the NTC 335 which we know gave about 350 bhp, so its ‘355’ label is probably about right. It does raise the question of whether ERF ever considered using that version of the 14-litre/855 ■■■■■■■ in later NGCs for at least heavy-haulage operations if not for long-haul ones - they used them in later B-series. You may be interested to know that I actually drove a Transcon with a 350 in it and it was the fast lorry I can ever remember driving (pre limiters of course
I think I’ve got it in being the lesser after cooled NTC version below the ‘370’ NTA which we’ve discussed previously.Going by your final sentence would you agree that the idea of the MAN being around just 1 mph slower overall let alone in the hill sector doesn’t seem credible ?.Bearing in mind less torque than the DAF DKS and only marginally more peak power which obviously would have caused havoc to the MAN’s fuel consumption figures if they’d have relied on more use of its power to compensate for its torque deficit.
The only conclusion being that the Ford was being run in a lower gear and at a higher engine speed than necessary in the hills and maybe on motorway inclines ?.The let it lug mantra obviously being just as valid in the case of the small cam.Especially in the case of after cooled small cam,with actually more torque than the E290 had and also being produced at similar rpm.The big song and dance made about that ‘change’ in driving style being needed,in the case of the big cam but seemingly not the small cam,seeming to confirm that possible erroneous scenario.When if anything the ‘350’ small cam needed to ‘lug’ even moreso than the E290.
Yes indeed CF, it was the small-cam 855 that was one of the original ‘let it lug’ machines.
Using power where torque was lacking (if indeed it was) might depress fuel consumption in the MAN but it certainly wouldn’t be allowed to create havoc with it on a test like this, I would have thought. It should be remembered that power vs torque is only one of the many variables. Gears is another. The testers seemed very impressed with the Fuller installation in the MAN and praised its slick changes so that would have made considerable difference to the performance in the hills. Conversely, the poor installation of the same 'box in the DAF would have had the reverse effect there.
When I said the Transcon 350 I drove was fast, I meant on the flat without a limiter so my comment is meaningless within the context of this test where the 90 kph ceiling would have been observed. You mentioned the gearing of the Ford. I would imagine that all the contenders were supplied with final drive ratios commensurate with Continental running. The one I drove would have been geared for UK’s 60 mph limit with the normal margin provided in those days (that Transcon could do 90 mph! ).
Robert
ERF-NGC-European:
Yes indeed CF, it was the small-cam 855 that was one of the original ‘let it lug’ machines.Using power where torque was lacking (if indeed it was) might depress fuel consumption in the MAN but it certainly wouldn’t be allowed to create havoc with it on a test like this, I would have thought. It should be remembered that power vs torque is only one of the many variables. Gears is another. The testers seemed very impressed with the Fuller installation in the MAN and praised its slick changes so that would have made considerable difference to the performance in the hills. Conversely, the poor installation of the same 'box in the DAF would have had the reverse effect there.
When I said the Transcon 350 I drove was fast, I meant on the flat without a limiter so my comment is meaningless within the context of this test where the 90 kph ceiling would have been observed. You mentioned the gearing of the Ford. I would imagine that all the contenders were supplied with final drive ratios commensurate with Continental running. The one I drove would have been geared for UK’s 60 mph limit with the normal margin provided in those days (that Transcon could do 90 mph!
Robert
To be fair in keeping with the nature of the ■■■■■■■ the gearing for 80-90 kmh type running speeds v 65 mph shouldn’t have been all that different.In either case you’re looking for no more than 1,500 rpm at max speed preferably a bit less.The fact that it would obviously allow some silly potential speeds at maximum rpm without a limiter fitted was irrelevant in that regard.While the idea of a 13 speed fuller being installed in such a way as to effectively negate a 30% torque advantage sounds a bit far fetched.Everything I’m seeing in the tests suggests an agenda of deliberately running down the competition to the big German and the Swedish manufacturers,as in the case of the Transcon,or bigging it up as in the case of the Marathon 2,as required,to deliberately put that competition out of the frame.
No surprise that the Brits only reluctantly and all too late returned to the bigger power ■■■■■■■ options to compete with the ever increasing rate of development of the imports.When it was the big power after cooled ■■■■■■■■■■■■ driven and geared right,which offered them the best/only way forward from the mid 1970’s.My contention is that our manufacturers,under instruction of the Brit and US governments,were also complicit in their own demise in that regard.
This seems to be an appropriate moment to wheel out Stephen Greenings seasonal NGC picture and wish everyone who follows this threads a
Merry Christmas! Robert
DEANB:
A new Cauvas pic.0
Looks as if it might have been taken at about this time of the year, judging by the trees and the light. Bet that roundabout’s not that quiet these days! Cheers, Robert
