scud:
It would beinteresting to hear how the beaver compared in performance to the mandator the sx speed aec box was always a bit slow at changing up , but i,m a bit bias was brought up with AEC.
Scud,i drove both and prefered two pedal Beaver to the AEC.Not a lot in it but i thought the Beaver drove better and had a much better sound to it.Vic.
Cheers for that vic, we only ran AECs so i dont know what the Beaver was like to drive ,the mk5 mandator was nicer to drive than the ergo lihgter on the steering ,so our last mandators had power steering.also the bosch fuel system they went better with that and the eaton gearbox looking back all this should have been standardon all mandators.Later we had a leyland bison this had the L12 the old AV760 coupled to the 6speed aec box but it had the high datum cab allowing for a bigger radiator to keep it cooler this should also have been used years ago as it was avalable in 1971.Incidentally we fit a AECmercury front axle to a mandator not only was it stronger it had much bigger brakes and also looked b etter.All it was short of was a sleeper cab ,but farther thought it would add extra weight and was not nessacery.We,d managed without them for years.tipical of the old school.
Reading posts like this just goes to show what lengths Leyland would go to ,to deter customers from buying AEC.Ive asked before on other threads why the original ergo fitted to AECs was never improved like it was for the Leyland range it was basically the same in77 as it was when it was launched.Didnt anyone at southall realise that the bosch fuel system and the eaton gearbox improved the vehicle greatly ,i`ve heard the eaton box made the mandator a different motor compared with the 6 speed AEC version from another driver on here .I was suprised to read that the mkv drove better than the ergo version though scud,thanks for another great post
I mentioned on an early post that Brady’s ran a Two Pedal Beaver in the mid 60’s and also an Ergo Mandator and I recall my mate on the Octopus,Eric Poss saying he could “■■■■ all over” the AEC from a standing start,the gear change was that much quicker on the Beaver ! Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
I mentioned on an early post that Brady’s ran a Two Pedal Beaver in the mid 60’s and also an Ergo Mandator and I recall my mate on the Octopus,Eric Poss saying he could “■■■■ all over” the AEC from a standing start,the gear change was that much quicker on the Beaver ! Cheers Bewick.
The Commercial Motor road tester wrote that the faster gear change of the ‘Two-Pedlar’ was worth an extra 25 bhp.
scud:
It would beinteresting to hear how the beaver compared in performance to the mandator the sx speed aec box was always a bit slow at changing up , but i,m a bit bias was brought up with AEC.
Scud,i drove both and prefered two pedal Beaver to the AEC.Not a lot in it but i thought the Beaver drove better and had a much better sound to it.Vic.
Cheers for that vic, we only ran AECs so i dont know what the Beaver was like to drive ,the mk5 mandator was nicer to drive than the ergo lihgter on the steering ,so our last mandators had power steering.also the bosch fuel system they went better with that and the eaton gearbox looking back all this should have been standardon all mandators.Later we had a leyland bison this had the L12 the old AV760 coupled to the 6speed aec box but it had the high datum cab allowing for a bigger radiator to keep it cooler this should also have been used years ago as it was avalable in 1971.Incidentally we fit a AECmercury front axle to a mandator not only was it stronger it had much bigger brakes and also looked b etter.All it was short of was a sleeper cab ,but farther thought it would add extra weight and was not nessacery.We,d managed without them for years.tipical of the old school.
Reading posts like this just goes to show what lengths Leyland would go to ,to deter customers from buying AEC.Ive asked before on other threads why the original ergo fitted to AECs was never improved like it was for the Leyland range it was basically the same in77 as it was when it was launched.Didnt anyone at southall realise that the bosch fuel system and the eaton gearbox improved the vehicle greatly ,i`ve heard the eaton box made the mandator a different motor compared with the 6 speed AEC version from another driver on here .I was suprised to read that the mkv drove better than the ergo version though scud,thanks for another great post
The standard AV760 Mandator fuel pump was the CAV / Simms Majormec, but the Bosch pump was a listed option right from the launch. Most drivers agree that the Bosch pump gave a livlier performance but at the xpense of fuel economy.
scud:
It would beinteresting to hear how the beaver compared in performance to the mandator the sx speed aec box was always a bit slow at changing up , but i,m a bit bias was brought up with AEC.
Scud,i drove both and prefered two pedal Beaver to the AEC.Not a lot in it but i thought the Beaver drove better and had a much better sound to it.Vic.
Cheers for that vic, we only ran AECs so i dont know what the Beaver was like to drive ,the mk5 mandator was nicer to drive than the ergo lihgter on the steering ,so our last mandators had power steering.also the bosch fuel system they went better with that and the eaton gearbox looking back all this should have been standardon all mandators.Later we had a leyland bison this had the L12 the old AV760 coupled to the 6speed aec box but it had the high datum cab allowing for a bigger radiator to keep it cooler this should also have been used years ago as it was avalable in 1971.Incidentally we fit a AECmercury front axle to a mandator not only was it stronger it had much bigger brakes and also looked b etter.All it was short of was a sleeper cab ,but farther thought it would add extra weight and was not nessacery.We,d managed without them for years.tipical of the old school.
Reading posts like this just goes to show what lengths Leyland would go to ,to deter customers from buying AEC.Ive asked before on other threads why the original ergo fitted to AECs was never improved like it was for the Leyland range it was basically the same in77 as it was when it was launched.Didnt anyone at southall realise that the bosch fuel system and the eaton gearbox improved the vehicle greatly ,i`ve heard the eaton box made the mandator a different motor compared with the 6 speed AEC version from another driver on here .I was suprised to read that the mkv drove better than the ergo version though scud,thanks for another great post
The standard AV760 Mandator fuel pump was the CAV / Simms Majormec, but the Bosch pump was a listed option right from the launch. Most drivers agree that the Bosch pump gave a livlier performance but at the xpense of fuel economy.
Can you shed any light on the thinking behind keeping the AEC cab unchanged since its mid `60s introduction as opposed to the modification of the Leyland range throught its life and why did AEC stick with the mechanical handbrake ?
Can you shed any light on the thinking behind keeping the AEC cab unchanged since its mid `60s introduction as opposed to the modification of the Leyland range throught its life and why did AEC stick with the mechanical handbrake ?
[/quote]
They had to use the standard low-datum cab because of the Leyland Group’s contractual obligations to GKN Sankey for a certain number of cabs, the deal was done at the outset of the Ergo-cabbed range in 1966. Leyland used the high datum version on its own chassis, again to the detriment of the AEC range. The low-datum cab was a good cab for the Mercury, Marshal etc. Not so suitable for the bigger engined Mammoth Major and Mandator. Spring brakes were fitted to Mandators and Mammoth Majors for the last couple of years production.
gingerfold:
They had to use the standard low-datum cab because of the Leyland Group’s contractual obligations to GKN Sankey for a certain number of cabs, the deal was done at the outset of the Ergo-cabbed range in 1966. Leyland used the high datum version on its own chassis, again to the detriment of the AEC range. The low-datum cab was a good cab for the Mercury, Marshal etc. Not so suitable for the bigger engined Mammoth Major and Mandator. Spring brakes were fitted to Mandators and Mammoth Majors for the last couple of years production.
I would not doubt the veracity of your research, but this sounds daft. The supplier would have no interest in forcing its customer to take one cab over the other, especially as the vast majority of the pressings were identical. The only scenario, in which I can imagine this sort of contract being agreed, is if the supplier had been asked to “stand” the tooling cost, against an agreed volume of sales. This would more likely apply in the case of the high datum cab, for which the tooling was additional to the original set of tools. Therefore, it would be more in the supplier’s interest to force the purchase of the later cab. It sounds like Leyland contrived this “reason”, to prevent AEC getting the better cab. Just my thoughts- again, I am not asserting that the post is wrong.
gingerfold:
They had to use the standard low-datum cab because of the Leyland Group’s contractual obligations to GKN Sankey for a certain number of cabs, the deal was done at the outset of the Ergo-cabbed range in 1966. Leyland used the high datum version on its own chassis, again to the detriment of the AEC range. The low-datum cab was a good cab for the Mercury, Marshal etc. Not so suitable for the bigger engined Mammoth Major and Mandator. Spring brakes were fitted to Mandators and Mammoth Majors for the last couple of years production.
I would not doubt the veracity of your research, but this sounds daft. The supplier would have no interest in forcing its customer to take one cab over the other, especially as the vast majority of the pressings were identical. The only scenario, in which I can imagine this sort of contract being agreed, is if the supplier had been asked to “stand” the tooling cost, against an agreed volume of sales. This would more likely apply in the case of the high datum cab, for which the tooling was additional to the original set of tools. Therefore, it would be more in the supplier’s interest to force the purchase of the later cab. It sounds like Leyland contrived this “reason”, to prevent AEC getting the better cab. Just my thoughts- again, I am not asserting that the post is wrong.
I think thats exactly what Graham was getting at and what i expected from mr stokes and co
b.waddy:
Hi, Folks , Iremember John Sumers and sons ,Shotton Steel Works ,having 4 or 6 of them with tri axle trailors ,32 tons i think the only problem they had was when Grandfather rights came up ,The Drivers had to go on there Guy artics 2 days a week for 6 months to get there liecenes ,just a bit of usless info ,cheers Barry
Hi Barry,
Maybe? These were two of them?
Regards Andrew.
Hi Andrew , A belting photo is it at Shotton ,the always kept there fleet tip top i new many of there drivers many of them gone to that lorry park in the sky , Cheers Barry
Andrew remember my Dad saying. Morgans of Cwm(Ebbw Vale) having two pedal beaver went like sh88 off a shovel at lights in Monmouth.??Is somebody doing the same one up or similar??
pete 359:
b.waddy:
Hi, Folks , Iremember John Sumers and sons ,Shotton Steel Works ,having 4 or 6 of them with tri axle trailors ,32 tons i think the only problem they had was when Grandfather rights came up ,The Drivers had to go on there Guy artics 2 days a week for 6 months to get there liecenes ,just a bit of usless info ,cheers Barry
Hi Barry,
Maybe? These were two of them?
Regards Andrew.
gingerfold:
They had to use the standard low-datum cab because of the Leyland Group’s contractual obligations to GKN Sankey for a certain number of cabs, the deal was done at the outset of the Ergo-cabbed range in 1966. Leyland used the high datum version on its own chassis, again to the detriment of the AEC range. The low-datum cab was a good cab for the Mercury, Marshal etc. Not so suitable for the bigger engined Mammoth Major and Mandator. Spring brakes were fitted to Mandators and Mammoth Majors for the last couple of years production.
I would not doubt the veracity of your research, but this sounds daft. The supplier would have no interest in forcing its customer to take one cab over the other, especially as the vast majority of the pressings were identical. The only scenario, in which I can imagine this sort of contract being agreed, is if the supplier had been asked to “stand” the tooling cost, against an agreed volume of sales. This would more likely apply in the case of the high datum cab, for which the tooling was additional to the original set of tools. Therefore, it would be more in the supplier’s interest to force the purchase of the later cab. It sounds like Leyland contrived this “reason”, to prevent AEC getting the better cab. Just my thoughts- again, I am not asserting that the post is wrong.
Harry Pick, who was an AEC Service engineer, AEC Depot Manager at West Bromwich, and then Leyland Group Depot Manager at Oldbury told me exactly that and I think that the number of cabs Leyland was contracted to buy was 30,000. You are correct GKN Sankey paid for the tooling costs. It is interesting that when AEC Lorry production finished in 1977 new,replacement low datum cabs had disappeared from the spares depatments within about 4 years. Again, a policy to force AECs off the road by Leyland who wanted operators to buy the T45 cabbed models.
richgriff:
Andrew remember my Dad saying. Morgans of Cwm(Ebbw Vale) having two pedal beaver went like sh88 off a shovel at lights in Monmouth.??Is somebody doing the same one up or similar??
pete 359:
b.waddy:
Hi, Folks , Iremember John Sumers and sons ,Shotton Steel Works ,having 4 or 6 of them with tri axle trailors ,32 tons i think the only problem they had was when Grandfather rights came up ,The Drivers had to go on there Guy artics 2 days a week for 6 months to get there liecenes ,just a bit of usless info ,cheers Barry
Hi Barry,
Maybe? These were two of them?
Regards Andrew.
hi richard,
you are correct morgan’s did have a leyland beaver.probably? the only turbo leyland beaver in south wales?a mate of mine bought that very motor in sept.2004 (a storey in itself)there are some pics. on the south wales thread,i am out in cardiff at the moment with my son,i will post them later.sorry if i am straying from the title of the thread,as i don’t know for sure if morgans turbo was a two pedal?
regards andrew.
[album][/]
gingerfold:
They had to use the standard low-datum cab because of the Leyland Group’s contractual obligations to GKN Sankey for a certain number of cabs, the deal was done at the outset of the Ergo-cabbed range in 1966. Leyland used the high datum version on its own chassis, again to the detriment of the AEC range. The low-datum cab was a good cab for the Mercury, Marshal etc. Not so suitable for the bigger engined Mammoth Major and Mandator. Spring brakes were fitted to Mandators and Mammoth Majors for the last couple of years production.
I would not doubt the veracity of your research, but this sounds daft. The supplier would have no interest in forcing its customer to take one cab over the other, especially as the vast majority of the pressings were identical. The only scenario, in which I can imagine this sort of contract being agreed, is if the supplier had been asked to “stand” the tooling cost, against an agreed volume of sales. This would more likely apply in the case of the high datum cab, for which the tooling was additional to the original set of tools. Therefore, it would be more in the supplier’s interest to force the purchase of the later cab. It sounds like Leyland contrived this “reason”, to prevent AEC getting the better cab. Just my thoughts- again, I am not asserting that the post is wrong.
Harry Pick, who was an AEC Service engineer, AEC Depot Manager at West Bromwich, and then Leyland Group Depot Manager at Oldbury told me exactly that and I think that the number of cabs Leyland was contracted to buy was 30,000. You are correct GKN Sankey paid for the tooling costs. It is interesting that when AEC Lorry production finished in 1977 new,replacement low datum cabs had disappeared from the spares depatments within about 4 years. Again, a policy to force AECs off the road by Leyland who wanted operators to buy the T45 cabbed models.
The more i read posts like this the more annoying it gets
hi all,
sorry if this one doesn’t belong on here.i was only a kid when this turbo leyland beaver was new and on the roads of south wales,gingerfold you could fill us in on the specification and drivetrain i am sure,our mutual friend neil james bought it eight years ago from morgan’s and when i took these pics.of it’s remains being loaded up i have it in my head that neil told me it had the same gearbox as a leyland national bus? though it was 8 years ago and i have slept since then
regards andrew.
[album][/]
richgriff:
Andrew remember my Dad saying. Morgans of Cwm(Ebbw Vale) having two pedal beaver went like sh88 off a shovel at lights in Monmouth.??Is somebody doing the same one up or similar??
pete 359:
b.waddy:
Hi, Folks , Iremember John Sumers and sons ,Shotton Steel Works ,having 4 or 6 of them with tri axle trailors ,32 tons i think the only problem they had was when Grandfather rights came up ,The Drivers had to go on there Guy artics 2 days a week for 6 months to get there liecenes ,just a bit of usless info ,cheers Barry
Hi Barry,
Maybe? These were two of them?
Regards Andrew.
hi richard,
you are correct morgan’s did have a leyland beaver.probably? the only turbo leyland beaver in south wales?a mate of mine bought that very motor in sept.2004 (a storey in itself)there are some pics. on the south wales thread,i am out in cardiff at the moment with my son,i will post them later.sorry if i am straying from the title of the thread,as i don’t know for sure if morgans turbo was a two pedal?
regards andrew.
[album][/]
gingerfold:
They had to use the standard low-datum cab because of the Leyland Group’s contractual obligations to GKN Sankey for a certain number of cabs, the deal was done at the outset of the Ergo-cabbed range in 1966. Leyland used the high datum version on its own chassis, again to the detriment of the AEC range. The low-datum cab was a good cab for the Mercury, Marshal etc. Not so suitable for the bigger engined Mammoth Major and Mandator. Spring brakes were fitted to Mandators and Mammoth Majors for the last couple of years production.
I would not doubt the veracity of your research, but this sounds daft. The supplier would have no interest in forcing its customer to take one cab over the other, especially as the vast majority of the pressings were identical. The only scenario, in which I can imagine this sort of contract being agreed, is if the supplier had been asked to “stand” the tooling cost, against an agreed volume of sales. This would more likely apply in the case of the high datum cab, for which the tooling was additional to the original set of tools. Therefore, it would be more in the supplier’s interest to force the purchase of the later cab. It sounds like Leyland contrived this “reason”, to prevent AEC getting the better cab. Just my thoughts- again, I am not asserting that the post is wrong.
Harry Pick, who was an AEC Service engineer, AEC Depot Manager at West Bromwich, and then Leyland Group Depot Manager at Oldbury told me exactly that and I think that the number of cabs Leyland was contracted to buy was 30,000. You are correct GKN Sankey paid for the tooling costs. It is interesting that when AEC Lorry production finished in 1977 new,replacement low datum cabs had disappeared from the spares depatments within about 4 years. Again, a policy to force AECs off the road by Leyland who wanted operators to buy the T45 cabbed models.
Reg Simmons, production co ordinator, (rtd), at GKN ,would validate this, as would David Holding of GKN Sankey, Cheerio for now.
pete 359:
Hi all,
A grainy photo of Morgan’s turbo beaver at work.
I hope he winds t’legs up Andrew,although maybe he’s just dropped the trailer
H Morgan was a long serving haulier and still going in the 90s although I’m not sure if they are still operating. Would that be the same Cwm as the one where the coking plant was,near Llantrisant? Lots of Cwms in Sth Wales.
]
]