LHD Bedford TMs

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
Feel free to show how an E290 could possibly match the supposed ‘same’ torque figures of an 8V92 TT/A/T/TA at any equivalent point in rev range or probably even any point for that matter.

My attempt to explain the significance of the SFC figures using baby talk have failed. What I meant was, “it uses less fuel to do the same thing”.

Your grasp of engineering is even worse than your understanding of business.

If it can’t match the torque figure at the same rpm then it ain’t doing the ‘same’ thing.In which case if a driver with the benefit of more torque is then getting a worse consumption figure then he’s either changing up to late or downshifting to early.

Just as shown in the OP example at the start of the topic.Which explains a real world almost 6 mpg for the 8v92 at 40t gross in obviously more difficult terrain.As opposed to 6.4 for the 290 at 32t gross in obviously easier terrain,driven on a like with like basis.Therefore put the same weight on both over the same route and if I was still driving I’d guarantee to match,or at least get as close as makes no real world difference,to the 290 on fuel.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
If it can’t match the torque figure at the same rpm then it ain’t doing the ‘same’ thing.In which case if a driver with the benefit of more torque is then getting a worse consumption figure then he’s either changing up to late or downshifting to early.

Who said I was comparing a 290 with a 435 hp engine? Who said that both engines were on full load? I did not. You cannot even read properly. Do you need a helper at the dole office?

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
If it can’t match the torque figure at the same rpm then it ain’t doing the ‘same’ thing.In which case if a driver with the benefit of more torque is then getting a worse consumption figure then he’s either changing up to late or downshifting to early.

Who said I was comparing a 290 with a 435 hp engine? Who said that both engines were on full load? I did not. You cannot even read properly. Do you need a helper at the dole office?

Firstly we’re not comparing 290 with 435 but we are obviously comparing a relatively torque challenged 14 litre 4 stroke with a proper torquey two stroke.

In which case we’re talking real world comparison of 14 litre ■■■■■■■ powered wagon v Detroit turbo 92 in the day.In which the simple comparison between almost 6 mpg at 40t gross in big hills v 6.4 mpg at 32t gross in probably smaller ones says it all.Both obviously in that comparison being driven in a comparable cavalier way regards fuel consumption.

Meanwhile it’s equally obvious that saying something can put out less work at any point for a better SFC is irrelevant.While something with more torque can obviously spend a lot more time in it’s sweet spot regards the SFC curve than something with less can.In addition to the fact that taking two,let alone 8,tonnes off of a 40 tonner while putting on 6 more,or taking off none at best in the case of the 32 tonner,means the 40 tonner will be spending less time at full load.

Which suggests that Bedford was sacrificed on the idea of ignorance and/or blind prejudice and/or possibly the political implications regards ■■■■■■■■ uk operations,not objective comparisons.Let alone the £50,000,000 + that cost GM’s finances.

[newmercman]

But why are we comparing them at all, or more accurately why are you comparing them?

[carryfast]

newmercman:
But why are we comparing them at all, or more accurately why are you comparing them?

Assuming I was in charge of Bedford and my US boss has given me £50,000,000 + to build a competitive product with the instruction ‘that it must’ be fitted with our in house engine range on the basis that in an ideal world in house is arguably best.

Then I’m obviously going to need a good answer when that boss asks the question why has his investment got itself a name for being a gutless inefficient 4-5 mpg torqueless heap v its ■■■■■■■ powered rivals.Let alone the fact that his expensive investment has somehow been fitted with that rival engine.

Bearing in mind that we’ve got an in house engine range that can out perform that ■■■■■■■ rival both in terms of its outright and specific torque figures.The boss having ( rightly ) thought that he’d ditched the old obsolete in house diesel guzzler as of around or soon after the introduction of that massive investment and deffo at the time when that ■■■■■■■ engine ended up in his wagon.

[newmercman]

My neck hurts from shaking my head so much.

[zb_anorak]

newmercman:
But why are we comparing them at all, or more accurately why are you comparing them?

My initial comparison was on SFC alone, the E290’s approximate 5% advantage over the 6v92TTA being good enough reason for European customers to want it instead. Bedford’s decision to offer it, therefore, was justified, so it seems. That is not to say that their initial gamble- in-house engine only- was not equally justified. There were no reliability concerns with the long-proven 71 series, and its low weight might offset the fuel disadvantage. That strategy was worth the risk, and the TM was not a complete sales dud, after all.

The bosses of these big firms are not daft- ruthless and cynical maybe but, if you dig deep enough, their foresight all those years ago was still more than a match for our hindsight now.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

newmercman:
But why are we comparing them at all, or more accurately why are you comparing them?

My initial comparison was on SFC alone, the E290’s approximate 5% advantage over the 6v92TTA being good enough reason for European customers to want it instead. Bedford’s decision to offer it, therefore, was justified, so it seems. That is not to say that their initial gamble- in-house engine only- was not equally justified. There were no reliability concerns with the long-proven 71 series, and its low weight might offset the fuel disadvantage. That strategy was worth the risk, and the TM was not a complete sales dud, after all.

The bosses of these big firms are not daft- ruthless and cynical maybe but, if you dig deep enough, their foresight all those years ago was still more than a match for our hindsight now.

Whatever ‘advantage’ that the E290 might have arguably had that so called ‘advantage’ was obviously a lot less in the case of the turbo 92 series than the obsolete old torqueless diesel guzzling 71N at least as of 1977.At least to the point where it probably would have made the difference between GM’s in house engine plan working and therefore Bedford surviving v not.That view being my ( amongst others ) view in the day not hindsight.Having said that even those so called ‘advantages’ in favour of ■■■■■■■ not looking so good,more like reversed,on a like with like comparison of output figures in which SFC is viewed in its place as just one of the parameters let alone when even that parameter itself is being used over selectively and given incorrect priority over specific torque figures.

[windrush]

newmercman:
My neck hurts from shaking my head so much.

PLEASE can somebody ressurect the ‘Brakes to slow, Gears to go’ topic on the proffesional driver’s forum!

Pete.

[zb_anorak]

Carryfast:
Whatever ‘advantage’ that the E290 might have arguably had .

5%, according to the published figures, which I cited in the above post, and which you have obviously not read, for some reason . Why do you not just admit you are wrong, like a real man?

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
Whatever ‘advantage’ that the E290 might have arguably had .

5%, according to the published figures, which I cited in the above post, and which you have obviously not read, for some reason . Why do you not just admit you are wrong, like a real man?

Why would I admit defeat in the case of a comparison in which a specific torque advantage throughout the rev range outweighs any ( minimum ) SFC disadvantage v E290 by a country mile.Let alone when your idea,not mine,is actually the one which they chose with obvious results.

[boris]

boris:
Was the DD dropped ? This brochure from Oct 84 doesn’t even give the engine a mention
1
0

[zb_anorak]

boris:

boris:
Was the DD dropped ? This brochure from Oct 84 doesn’t even give the engine a mention
1
0

Hmmm… after unveiling the Silver Series TM with something of a song and dance in 1982, that does seem odd. Well spotted, Boris. The story has another twist, before its 1986 end. I wonder if GM were aware of the possibility of pulling out of the Europe truck market, so wanted to limit their warranty liabilities? They were not in a position to just walk away, given that they were intending to stay in the car/light van sector. Maybe our man in the sales/marketing office will know more- Monsieur Saviem, another chapter is due, I believe.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

boris:

boris:
Was the DD dropped ? This brochure from Oct 84 doesn’t even give the engine a mention
1
0

Hmmm… after unveiling the Silver Series TM with something of a song and dance in 1982, that does seem odd. Well spotted, Boris. The story has another twist, before its 1986 end. I wonder if GM were aware of the possibility of pulling out of the Europe truck market, so wanted to limit their warranty liabilities? They were not in a position to just walk away, given that they were intending to stay in the car/light van sector. Maybe our man in the sales/marketing office will know more- Monsieur Saviem, another chapter is due, I believe.

Bearing in mind that GM had enough confidence in their engines to offer one of the best,if not the best,warranty coverages on its products in the loose engine market I don’t think that they were bothered about any possibility of their own engines being a ‘liability’ regardless of when or where used.

So far your argument stacks up along the lines of Mercedes ditching its V engine range in favour of using outsourced loose ■■■■■■■ instead bearing in mind that however you look at it the turbo 92 series was a lot more efficient and no less reliable than the Merc.

But yes it would be fair to say that TM production during most if not all of the 1980’s at least was an exit strategy to claw back some of the original investment.All obviously based on economic/business reasoning as in the Merc analogy.

Not the reliability questions of the,by then, all too late hope,of the TM being an in house engined product.With the Silver Series obviously being a last roll of the dice in regard to that hope.Obviously being a lost cause because of the damage done to the reputation of Detroit engined TM’s by putting the wrong engine in it when it mattered in building that reputation.

In which case all the logical signs are/were that GM realised that the best hope of getting more of its investment back,before baling out of a toxic trading environment from an in house engine fit point of view,was by use of loose ■■■■■■■ engine fit.Not that they could care less about about their warranty liabilities.Which obviously carried on in the case of their loose engine interests anyway,including the 60 series which was soon about to be introduced at that time.

What is noticeable from all this is the double standards,in the lee way which the loyal German domestic market and to some extent export markets,were willing to give Mercedes,in terms of the idea of in house only at all costs,as opposed to Bedford.When ultimately GM had the better product development capability in the day.

While even more ironically it was that fuel guzzling,inefficient,relatively gutless in terms of specific output,old in house V range in the day,that was in large part the foundation that Mercedes based its eventual takeover of Detroit on.

[saviem]

. after unveiling the Silver Series TM with something of a song and dance in 1982, that does seem odd. Well spotted, Boris. The story has another twist, before its 1986 end. I wonder if GM were aware of the possibility of pulling out of the Europe truck market, so wanted to limit their warranty liabilities? They were not in a position to just walk away, given that they were intending to stay in the car/light van sector. Maybe our man in the sales/marketing office will know more- Monsieur Saviem, another chapter is due, I believe.
[/quote]
Evening Gentlemen, now Anorak I can only go from my personal records, knowing how , (truly), perverse, Managerial decisions could be, and the few figures that still lodge in my Cranium, to try and answer your decisions.

Boris made a good input…but is he aware of the Detroit powered Transcontinental that was evaluated by a major fleet in France?

So Bedford, (and to answer Carryfasts question regarding development of a 6 cylinder engine “in house”.

Of course they did, it was the 8.2 litre, (27 bhp per litre),220 bhp, 516 lb ft, via a Fuller RT609 9 speed 32 tonnerTM32. 250 of 1982. 9ft 10in wb, parabolic springs, available to any operator circ 17000, and fleets at 15500 (GBP)…and that was cheap, in the big volume sector, such as the Scania DS8, DAFs 825, and the RVI 06.20. 30. (45 range)

Just as an aside, (as dear Carryfast seems to wish, with rather distorted logic, all blame on the demise of Bedford, to its UK management), and perhaps he could re-read my posts vis the “Centralisation” of US thinking regarding, “the World Truck Program”. Lets examine just a couple of the achievements from Luton/Dunstable.

Wayne Cherry was Design Director for Bedford, it was his team who came up with the “Long Haul” truck concept in `78. It was his team who came up with the “aerodynamic” TL concept in 81. The redesign/relaunch of the TM was from his area in 82. LT 250, RTX11609 @36.5 tonnes, TM4400, either as a 6V 92TTA @ 265hp, or 8V92TA @ 386 hp, both with Fuller…or the real seller E290 ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ or tractor.

■■■■■■■ spent 100000000 in bringing the L10 range to market. The ■■■■■■■ powered TMs were European sellers…particularly at the prices they went to operators at.

Lets go to the background facts… an overview…The World Truck Program…Centralisation of all power to Pontiac Michigan.

Isuzu 34.2 % General Motors owned. Bedford 100% owned.

James T Riley, (do you not just love American names), authorised the importation of the Isuzu Trooper, and the L.U.V. pickup products into the US…directly competing with their own GMC products…but more fuel efficient!!

Isuzu, to be rebranded as Bedford for the SE A sia markets, (losing over 2000 chassis per week from Bedford)!..but saving on shipping cost

Experimentation with SMC (Sheet Moulded Compound), and bonded cab structures, to replace GMC Astro, and Topkick cab models> Despite Bedford having created the admirable full width, and narrow TM structure. But GMs idea was to ship “heavy” range cab design/technology “out” to Bedford…not import existing “state of the art”, (and it was in 75-79, design), to the US market.

But was number 1 in the US market,1982 +1 million, (Ford at c 790k, Chrysler 240k)…but to confuse the issue GM stats include 4x4 Blazer and lcv, (Light vans)

But GM were in trouble, their market in the US was polarising around the class 6 and 7 Topkick range. And all the Importers, Magirus, Volvo, Fiat, VW, (Paccar, KW, Peterbilt), and us with our French Macks, were kicking merry hell out of the outdated designs from GM.

GM had 9500 Chevy/GM dealers in the US , 90 Factory outlets, and 270 plus “heavy” truck outlets. GMs inflexible, and dictatorial “centralised” managerial attitude towards its own market was loosing it market share in all sectors post `82.

But let us reflect on Bedford, remember having to adhere slavishly to the dictat of Pontiac, Michigan.

Up to 1979 in the black…making money.
1980 loss of 83.3 million…remember what Pontiac had decreed…Isuzu branded as Bedford for SE Asia. And the UK market slumped in 1980.
1981/1986 Bedford loses c 300 million pounds.

Lets look at those figures…
1984T/O 335 million pounds,47ooo units wholesale , (to dealers/importers), .
1985 t/o of 401 million, wholesale, (to dealers/importers), 61000 units. Bedford loses 73 million pounds.

1985 Bedford management predicted breaking even! GMs President, and his team were not pleased, and the search was really on to find a partner to share the pain.

But in Bedfords business the TM was not the key player, it was the LCVs, (Light Commercial Vehicles). The Isuzu design that was the Bedford Midi, (primarily aimed at the Italian market, where Freight Rover was the king…surprising is it not…Lorries and LCVs are Global businesses. A nd the Rascall, a pure Suzuki design. But Bedfords biggest problem was the aged CF , never a match for Transit, or the later Mercedes vans.

But as reported in my earlier post by 1986, (despite desperate talks post the Leyland, HM Government debacle), with Volvo_White in the US, the World Truck Program, and GMs diabolical US managerial strategies saw the end of Bedford in the UK.

Not as simple as the choice of engine for the TM range is it?

Im away for a medicinal Bollinger,

Cheerio for now.

[carryfast]

It seems difficult to understand Saviem’s irrelevant connections between GM’s light vehicle interests v the TM which was specifically just part of Bedford’s/GM’s heavy vehicle operations.Meanwhile no the Bedford 500 engine wasn’t even in the ( right 92 series ) in house Detroit league.Let alone the 60 series which was in the pipeline.

The fact is Bedford had an efficient in house engine option by the standards of the 1970’s in the form of the turbo 92 series.Certainly more efficient than Mercedes had in its V engine range at the time.The blame for not standardising on ‘that’ option,as opposed to the obsolete 71N,at the right time,can only be blamed on Bedford’s management.

Which leaves the obvious question if Mercedes was happy enough to carry on with continuous development of its more inefficient in house engines and not resort to the ‘better’ ■■■■■■■ option,in their case,then why did Bedford seem to take the opposite view ?.Bearing in mind an in house GM development line which ( would have ) gone from the already more efficient than the Merc 92 series but then 60 series as of mid/late 1980’s.

[saviem]

Oh dear Gentlemen…Forgive me…

Carryfast,…truly, thou art a “plonker”

I go to my bed with a smile on my face,

Thank you Carryfast!

Good night all.

[carryfast]

Saviem:
Oh dear Gentlemen…Forgive me…

Carryfast,…truly, thou art a “plonker”

I go to my bed with a smile on my face,

Thank you Carryfast!

Good night all.

Feel free to make the case for Mercedes using their in house V8 and V10 as opposed to putting a big cam 14 litre ■■■■■■■ in it instead assuming the turbo 92 series supposedly wasn’t good enough for Bedford.

[zb_anorak]

Saviem:
…
Good night all.

Thanks for more good stuff. The workings of the motor industry is a fascinating subject to many, judging by the amount of fanciful nonsense in the car magazines. Your posts compress the “action” into a more logical narrative, which makes it all the more enjoyable to read.

Bedford’s eventual wrapping-up seems to be the result of a straight Japs-vs-Brits scrap in the vans/pickups/light trucks end of things, albeit refereed by skimmers from Detroit, rather than the customers themselves. The perils of foreign ownership…

[carryfast]

Assuming that GM wanted to take out Bedford in favour of the Japs.Then giving them £50,000,000 + to develop the TM thereby providing them with a more than competitive mostly all in house product in the heavy vehicle sector v the Euro competition,especially as I’ve said Mercedes at the time,seems a strange and expensive way to do it.

I think that destroying it’s reputation by putting the ‘wrong’ ( 71 N ) engine in it,let alone a major competitor’s in the form of ■■■■■■■■■■■■ the ‘right’ ( turbo 92 ) engine was available,is a better explanation as to why GM ( rightly ) walked away in disgust.Bearing in mind that all in house engine use was ( rightly ) an expected condition of the deal.