Leyland Marathon...The "Nearly" Truck of The 1970s?

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:

ramone:
I asked Graham a few weeks back about a book he`d written on the Marathon which he never published . He posted it on here which I was grateful for as I respect his work and I have a collection of his other fine books . So enter the resident clown rambling on about utter nonsense and there goes another interesting thread .

What you actually mean is that you only want confirmation of your silly fan boy views and won’t tolerate anything which doesn’t fit that agenda.

On that note I doubt if whatever he wrote could ever defend Leyland putting up such a retarded piece of junk against competition like the F12.While if I’ve read it right he seems to be more in agreement with my idea of that situation being deliberate and not ■■■■ up.Than your idea that the heap supposedly nearly saved Leyland from oblivion as opposed to sending it on its way.

There you go again the Marathon was introduced in 72the F12 late77 , but your stupid replies just keep coming ,what part of there was no money available don’t you understand .The Marathon was developed on a shoestring by some well respected engineers. All you want to do is crib and complain about how the engine was no good how the cab was no good in your opinion . Why didnt they offer a high power ■■■■■■■ , because they had a decent in house engine that was well on top of the job when introduced definitely at 32 tons and performed better than the offerings from ■■■■■■■ at the time. You mention taking customers choices away by insisting everyone uses the 13 speed Fuller in place of the 9 speed ■■■■?? .Every thread you enter becomes a childish this v that . Conspiracies from Governments conspiracies from journalists if it isn't big power its junk if it hasn't got loads of gears its crap ,Ive said it before and Ill say it again I don't think youve ever driven a lorry otherwise you wouldn`t spout so much crap.

It’s obvious that I was referring to the Marathon 2.While even 1975 was a different world to the one in 1972.Which is why Volvo were obviously working on their F88/9 replacements well before 1978. As for if it wasn’t ‘big power’ ( if you can call up to,often less than,around 10hp per tonne big power ) with loads of gears.Remind us of how long Leyland survived as a going concern after the Marathon 2 and T45.

As opposed to Volvo and DAF.Let me guess now you’re going to say they’d got it all wrong because they made over powered trucks with too many gears.Also seems strange why Leyland didn’t standardise on the TL12 and the 9 speed over the life of the T45 in that case.Oh wait then they wouldn’t have shifted enough of the heaps to get a few bob back before closing the doors.You should have got a job working for the government you’d have fitted in perfectly.That’s if you were even there in the day.

[nigel2012]

Think you have just hit the nail on the head ramone-well said.

[gingerfold]

How’s this for a “plot”? Lets start in about 1981 and come up to the present day.

The government backed and funded National Enterprise Board (N.E.B.) owns 95% of British Leyland (BL), so to all intents and purposes BL is a nationalised concern. Rolls Royce (RR) had failed and been bailed out by the government (i.e. nationalised). ■■■■■■■ Engines U.K. had been established with the help of government foundation grants and built production facilities in unemployment black spots of Shotts and Darlington. (A foundation grant is a sum of money that is not repaid by the recipient of the grant). So by the time of the launch of the T45 Roadtrain range the government is saddled with BL and RR, and it has a vested interest in supporting ■■■■■■■ Engines UK, (which it still does to this day with a £4.9 million grant as recently as 2014).

So, after two years of production of the T45, the TL12 engined tractor unit models are outselling the ■■■■■■■ and RR powered versions. (Fact) Why? Because of something called brand loyalty from former AEC and Leyland operators who actually thought that the TL12 was a bloody good engine for fleet operations, the best selling sector both then and today. But this wasn’t in the script of the “plotters”, so the “plotters” concoct the story that it’s cheaper to buy in RR and ■■■■■■■ engines and stop production of the TL12. So immediately the large fleet operators, formerly big purchasers of Leylands and AECs, start to vote with their cheque books and look at Volvo, Scania, DAF, and others. Again, this wasn’t foreseen by the “plotters”, ■■■■■■■ engine operators preferred to buy ERFs and Seddon Atkinsons, again that strange thing called brand loyalty that customers have. So BL fails as a business, DAF gets the assets, including a modern assembly facility, but in due course DAF struggles to make a success of its UK operations despite topping the sales charts in total numbers of vehicles sold annually. But wait, Paccar of the USA has dipped its toe into the UK market with the purchase of Foden in 1980, so it grabs the opportunity to buy the struggling DAF company both here and in The Netherlands. Over the years by investment and sound management DAF is transformed into a very successful European commercial vehicle manufacturing giant and it is habitually the best selling marque in the UK. Remember it is US owned, and oh, by the way, it buys hundreds of ■■■■■■■ engines every month, used in the DAF 45, Europe’s best selling 7.5 to 12.5 tonnes gvw truck.

Looking at the above, then the “plotters” achieved their aims as suggested by Carryfast, not particularly in the way they or CF imagined, but it is the fact of the matter. Or am I being as daft as CF. (Don’t answer that one please. )

[railstaff]

Excellent post.In hindsight the RR and ■■■■■■■ option should never have come about.The TL12 should have been developed.

[carryfast]

railstaff:
Excellent post.In hindsight the RR and ■■■■■■■ option should never have come about.The TL12 should have been developed.

How can we ‘develop’ it to provide the required specific torque output to compete with the Rolls or the ■■■■■■■■■■■■ a 5.5 inch stroke that can’t be increased and therefore without putting the con rods through the side of the block or at least wrecking things like small ends and big ends and piston rings because of the extra force we’ll need to put into and transmit from the piston to the crank to compensate for the missing leverage ?.

While by gingerfold’s logic surely the answer was to block unnecessary imports like the F12 thereby increasing the chance of survival of its investments and their beneficial employment creation.The TL 12 obviously being a lame duck regardless like the Ergo derived Marathon cab.

[carryfast]

gingerfold:
How’s this for a “plot”? Lets start in about 1981 and come up to the present day.

The government backed and funded National Enterprise Board (N.E.B.) owns 95% of British Leyland (BL), so to all intents and purposes BL is a nationalised concern. Rolls Royce (RR) had failed and been bailed out by the government (i.e. nationalised). ■■■■■■■ Engines U.K. had been established with the help of government foundation grants and built production facilities in unemployment black spots of Shotts and Darlington. (A foundation grant is a sum of money that is not repaid by the recipient of the grant). So by the time of the launch of the T45 Roadtrain range the government is saddled with BL and RR, and it has a vested interest in supporting ■■■■■■■ Engines UK, (which it still does to this day with a £4.9 million grant as recently as 2014).

So, after two years of production of the T45, the TL12 engined tractor unit models are outselling the ■■■■■■■ and RR powered versions. (Fact) Why? Because of something called brand loyalty from former AEC and Leyland operators who actually thought that the TL12 was a bloody good engine for fleet operations, the best selling sector both then and today. But this wasn’t in the script of the “plotters”, so the “plotters” concoct the story that it’s cheaper to buy in RR and ■■■■■■■ engines and stop production of the TL12. So immediately the large fleet operators, formerly big purchasers of Leylands and AECs, start to vote with their cheque books and look at Volvo, Scania, DAF, and others. Again, this wasn’t foreseen by the “plotters”, ■■■■■■■ engine operators preferred to buy ERFs and Seddon Atkinsons, again that strange thing called brand loyalty that customers have. So BL fails as a business, DAF gets the assets, including a modern assembly facility, but in due course DAF struggles to make a success of its UK operations despite topping the sales charts in total numbers of vehicles sold annually. But wait, Paccar of the USA has dipped its toe into the UK market with the purchase of Foden in 1980, so it grabs the opportunity to buy the struggling DAF company both here and in The Netherlands. Over the years by investment and sound management DAF is transformed into a very successful European commercial vehicle manufacturing giant and it is habitually the best selling marque in the UK. Remember it is US owned, and oh, by the way, it buys hundreds of ■■■■■■■ engines every month, used in the DAF 45, Europe’s best selling 7.5 to 12.5 tonnes gvw truck.

Looking at the above, then the “plotters” achieved their aims as suggested by Carryfast, not particularly in the way they or CF imagined, but it is the fact of the matter. Or am I being as daft as CF. (Don’t answer that one please. )

That whole theory would depend on the premise that the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■ T45 was a far less successful product than the TL12 version.Which totally contradicts this article’s view.

archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … too-little

In addition to the obvious premise that the F10 was a far more successful product than the F12 while the Marathon was more successful than the DAF 2800.As few customers were looking for more than 280 hp or more importantly 780 lb/ft torque nor needed the ‘luxury’ of the DAF or Volvo cabs.

[erf-ngc-european]

That article gives an interesting glimpse of Pat Kennett’s leanings !

Now then, there’s plenty of talk about 280-power but no mention of how popular the T45 was in France with the RR 350 lump and 9-speed Fuller (see the LHD Roadtrain thread). Robert

[zb_anorak]

ERF-NGC-European:
That article gives an interesting glimpse of Pat Kennett’s leanings !

Now then, there’s plenty of talk about 280-power but no mention of how popular the T45 was in France with the RR 350 lump and 9-speed Fuller (see the LHD Roadtrain thread). Robert

IIRC, those French sales were made at very attractive prices, so comparison to the home-grown produce must take that into account. I think the numbers are buried in the Saviem thread, somewhere.

[juddian]

T45 cab nod is mentioned in that article, yes the tractor nodded a bit but the real bad one was the Constructor version, which didn’t suffer from cab nod but the front dampers were utterly useless, given the right undulating road it was possible to be airborne hanging onto the steering wheel for dear life if the spring rebounds tuned themselves to the road dips, the pressing just above the driver’s forehead was thin pressed steel painted matt black as i recall, it would be peppered with dents from the driver’s head on any Constructor that had been on the road for a while.
What a shame, all it needed was better dampers and it would have been class leader.

However no one could deny just how good the Leyland was off road, probably the best of roader i’ve ever driven, never a danger of bogging down, anywhere the track layer could go that Constructor would go too, it was Leyland engined but i don’t know which one, i don’t recall it giving any trouble and it had effortless torque, ours was Rolonoff bodied and without a doubt the most competent vehicle we ever had with a Rolonoff frame fitted.

Also the brakes, can’t recall what the tractor was like as i only drove them now and again, but the Constructor brakes were and still are the best lorry brakes i ever experienced, and one young motorcylist at Gayhurst near Newport Pagnell owes his life to them, literally amazing the distance my mate stopped that lorry in when matey on the bike (who had overtaken me seconds earlier) lost it crossed and dropped it on the road with him wedged under the front bumper of said lorry.
Had it been the other way round, biker going under the lorry i was using that day without a shadow of doubt he would not have survived, and nor would he have with almost any other lorry you could mention.
Anecdote, he’d been in the pub and was trying his mate’s bike out, but his mates arrived before the old bill, swept him up complete with severely scraped arm and took him up the pub to give him first (liquid) aid , the old bill were not best pleased i respect that, that’s what you call mates

The T45 tractor we ran at the same time was 290 ■■■■■■■ engined with Spicer Splitter box, decent enough box and i don’t agree with the desire for or the fitment ofsynchro boxes, they always baulk on you where a properly driven constant mesh is easy peasy once you have mastered the rev/speed spacings and the little quirks all gearboxes have.

In my Kwik Save days we had the one Roadtrain with an Eaton TS, but i can’t for the life of me remember which engine, possibly a Rolls 265, i doubt it was a ■■■■■■ because a 290 C at Kwik Save weights would have been a flying machine, decent enough lorry but very unpopular as by then almost every lorry had a synchro box and few could manage the ETS.

Again low final drive ratios let the T45 down in all the versions i drove, which led to high fuel consumption.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:

railstaff:
Excellent post.In hindsight the RR and ■■■■■■■ option should never have come about.The TL12 should have been developed.

How can we ‘develop’ it to provide the required specific torque output to compete with the Rolls or the ■■■■■■■■■■■■ a 5.5 inch stroke that can’t be increased and therefore without putting the con rods through the side of the block or at least wrecking things like small ends and big ends and piston rings because of the extra force we’ll need to put into and transmit from the piston to the crank to compensate for the missing leverage ?..

There were loads of short stroke engines around in the 1980s, for example the Fiat V8. No one would describe that as lacking in torque. Regarding big end/little end wear, the length of these may increase in proportion to the bore, as increasing that dimension gives more space for a longer journal. Engines of all shapes and sizes were successful in the last century. The minute optimisation that gave us the modern long stroke six had not happened, so to judge those older designs by these standards is nothing more than hindsight.

You should find a group of proper engineers, preferably those with a brief to design engine parts, in a pub, and try to join in. You could report your findings on here.

[ramone]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

railstaff:
Excellent post.In hindsight the RR and ■■■■■■■ option should never have come about.The TL12 should have been developed.

How can we ‘develop’ it to provide the required specific torque output to compete with the Rolls or the ■■■■■■■■■■■■ a 5.5 inch stroke that can’t be increased and therefore without putting the con rods through the side of the block or at least wrecking things like small ends and big ends and piston rings because of the extra force we’ll need to put into and transmit from the piston to the crank to compensate for the missing leverage ?..

There were loads of short stroke engines around in the 1980s, for example the Fiat V8. No one would describe that as lacking in torque. Regarding big end/little end wear, the length of these may increase in proportion to the bore, as increasing that dimension gives more space for a longer journal. Engines of all shapes and sizes were successful in the last century. The minute optimisation that gave us the modern long stroke six had not happened, so to judge those older designs by these standards is nothing more than hindsight.

You should find a group of proper engineers, preferably those with a brief to design engine parts, in a pub, and try to join in. You could report your findings on here.

I think you could be wasting your time and much valued (by most on here) knowledge sir

[zb_anorak]

ramone:
I think you could be wasting your time and much valued (by most on here) knowledge sir

Thanks for the vote of confidence .

I can’t help myself, responding to one wave of piffle, in the certain knowledge that another is on its way. It’s like scratching your bum- you just have to check to find out if it smells of ■■■, every time.

[railstaff]

Its stroke was half an in inch shorter than the completion,but a benefit it had was a larger valve area for better breathing.The stroke could have been increased by offset grinding the big end journal,fitting shorter rods with the cut on a 45 degree angle a bit like what MAN did with their D28 series spanning 11 to 13 litre.But what was the point when there was a lot easier ways to gain power and torque.273 bhp for 1972 and mega reliability wasn’t exactly bad was it?

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

railstaff:
Excellent post.In hindsight the RR and ■■■■■■■ option should never have come about.The TL12 should have been developed.

How can we ‘develop’ it to provide the required specific torque output to compete with the Rolls or the ■■■■■■■■■■■■ a 5.5 inch stroke that can’t be increased and therefore without putting the con rods through the side of the block or at least wrecking things like small ends and big ends and piston rings because of the extra force we’ll need to put into and transmit from the piston to the crank to compensate for the missing leverage ?..

There were loads of short stroke engines around in the 1980s, for example the Fiat V8. No one would describe that as lacking in torque. Regarding big end/little end wear, the length of these may increase in proportion to the bore, as increasing that dimension gives more space for a longer journal. Engines of all shapes and sizes were successful in the last century. The minute optimisation that gave us the modern long stroke six had not happened, so to judge those older designs by these standards is nothing more than hindsight.

You should find a group of proper engineers, preferably those with a brief to design engine parts, in a pub, and try to join in. You could report your findings on here.

I’m sure any real engineer would understand the difference between comparing the leverage available at the crank with a 5 inch stroke multiplied by the 30% more cylinders.As opposed to a 5.5 inch stroke with 30% less cylinders sharing the load.As for the long stroke 6 not being invented that’s ironic when we’re actually talking about the relative merits of the TL12’s two contemporary 6 inch stroke ■■■■■■■ and Rolls competitors.Unlike the TL12 the ■■■■■■■ at least having gone on to prove a reliable 128 lb/ft per litre torque output potential without it grenading.Remind us of the relevant figures regarding the TL12’s best shot or even the Fiat V8’s in production form in that regard.

[railstaff]

The Fiat was absolutely bomb proof.350hp out of naturally aspirated 17.2 litre.Take alook at the head bolt arrangement.

[carryfast]

railstaff:
Its stroke was half an in inch shorter than the completion,but a benefit it had was a larger valve area for better breathing.The stroke could have been increased by offset grinding the big end journal

However it was achieved it still effectively meant moving the crank pin centre line further outwards towards the end of the crank web requiring enough extra throw length in the web to do it and clearance for the rod assembly at every point as it revolved without running out of room.The TL 12 block relative to the crank centre line not seeming to provide the required clearance either at BDC at least and possibly TDC and sideways clearance also ?.IE they were stuck with a 5.5 inch stroke with the resulting shortfall in leverage at any given torque output requirement v the ■■■■■■■ and Rolls ( or F12 ).While breathing on a forced induction engine is a relatively moot point and which still leaves the issue of relatively more force,having to be applied through the con rod assembly,to get the equivalent torque output,compared to a longer stroke motor.Which probably explains why the TL12 was inevitably toast later rather than preferably sooner.

[carryfast]

railstaff:
The Fiat was absolutely bomb proof.350hp out of naturally aspirated 17.2 litre.Take alook at the head bolt arrangement.

To be fair the Fiat only seems to have made around 80 lb/ft per litre in its best shot IVECO turbostar form ?.As opposed to the well over 100 lb/ft per litre potential in the case of the ■■■■■■■ N14 and Rolls TX.It’s probably fair to say that the potential reliable torque figure contained in the TL12 was never going to cut it by the late 1970’s.With the link between stroke measurement and reliable specific torque output being clear in the course of engine developments.

[deanb]

Well one thing i will say about Leyland is they certainly advertised it well.

[ramone]

Carryfast:

railstaff:
The Fiat was absolutely bomb proof.350hp out of naturally aspirated 17.2 litre.Take alook at the head bolt arrangement.

To be fair the Fiat only seems to have made around 80 lb/ft per litre in its best shot IVECO turbostar form ?.As opposed to the well over 100 lb/ft per litre potential in the case of the ■■■■■■■ N14 and Rolls TX.It’s probably fair to say that the potential reliable torque figure contained in the TL12 was never going to cut it by the late 1970’s.With the link between stroke measurement and reliable specific torque output being clear in the course of engine developments.

Ahem … The TL12 was never going to cut it by the late 70s , you said it was junk when introduced in the early 70s,as for the Turbostar ,in 360 or 480 form it was an excellent bombproof engine ,I know that because we ran them and they never missed a beat ,the cab fell apart but the rest was ultra reliable on Italy weekly and not looked after as well as they could have been. FFS Ive replied again

[carryfast]

ramone:

Carryfast:

railstaff:
The Fiat was absolutely bomb proof.350hp out of naturally aspirated 17.2 litre.Take alook at the head bolt arrangement.

To be fair the Fiat only seems to have made around 80 lb/ft per litre in its best shot IVECO turbostar form ?.As opposed to the well over 100 lb/ft per litre potential in the case of the ■■■■■■■ N14 and Rolls TX.It’s probably fair to say that the potential reliable torque figure contained in the TL12 was never going to cut it by the late 1970’s.With the link between stroke measurement and reliable specific torque output being clear in the course of engine developments.

Ahem … The TL12 was never going to cut it by the late 70s , you said it was junk when introduced in the early 70s,as for the Turbostar ,in 360 or 480 form it was an excellent bombproof engine ,I know that because we ran them and they never missed a beat ,the cab fell apart but the rest was ultra reliable on Italy weekly and not looked after as well as they could have been. FFS Ive replied again

I actually said the world of even 1975 was a different one to 1972.IE what worked in 1972 wasn’t going to work by 1978.

Yes the Fiat was a beast I didn’t say it wasn’t.Because 8 cylinders with around a 5 inch stroke isn’t the same thing as 6 with a 5.5 inch stroke. But ultimately like,all the other short stroke truck engines,flawed in terms of its reliable specific torque output capability.Which is why the only real production V8 truck engine is now the Scania which again meets the 6 inch + stroke benchmark and doesn’t need 17 litres and it’s also why the TL12 was toast v the Rolls and ■■■■■■■ in Leyland trucks.But only after Leyland had used it to deliberately put itself out of the frame and then to get a few bob back to balance the books before closing the doors with the decision to sell Leyland trucks and its workforce out to DAF probably having been made long before that point.Which was probably a similar situation to the Bedford TM v Volvo.IE sabotage as part of a deliberate geopolitical plot.