What’s with the hating on Mercedes? Is it because it’s St George’s Day?
Mercedes was a bit part player in England until the launch of the 1617, which revolutionised the 16t market, in fact they have never really done much in the >28t market to this day. They have good market share, but that’s due to the volume of rigids they sell. Or it was when I worked for them. Worldwide is a different story as they always had a very strong export market.
However in competition with the TM I would say, from what I saw on the road, that TM and MB tractor unit sales were pretty close.
newmercman:
What’s with the hating on Mercedes? Is it because it’s St George’s Day?
Mercedes was a bit part player in England until the launch of the 1617, which revolutionised the 16t market, in fact they have never really done much in the >28t market to this day. They have good market share, but that’s due to the volume of rigids they sell. Or it was when I worked for them. Worldwide is a different story as they always had a very strong export market.
However in competition with the TM I would say, from what I saw on the road, that TM and MB tractor unit sales were pretty close.
It isn’t hating its all about the best target market for the TM in the day which was all the range from 16-40t + with the 24-32t+ sector obviously being an essential part of that.
While the ‘hating’ in this case seeming to be the double standards being applied as to all the so called ‘reasons’ as to why Bedford needed to ditch the in house engine deal with GM in favour of ■■■■■■■■■■■■ by the standards of the day the in house 92 series Detroit gave the TM a large advantage over the Merc at least and no one within the markets or Merc’s management were calling on Merc to ditch its relatively inefficient V’s in favour of the ■■■■■■■■
As I’ve said the Bedford was ( would have been ) more than a match for the Merc, amongst others,including in terms of its in house engine range in the form of turbo 92 let alone if/when the 60 series arrived on the scene.IE not many,if any,in house operations had a better package that the TM in the day.The question then being why damage that edge and deal with GM by fitting the obsolete 71N and 14 litre ■■■■■■■ ?.
Just my two pennyworth! Possibly GM knew, through doing their homework and the ‘success’ of their Detroit engined KM, that introducing a ‘stroker’ into the UK market would be a mistake as Foden had tried it in the higher weight bracket and that didn’t prove a big success as we Brits preffered long stroke slogging engines. A few operators might introduce the odd stroker into an established fleet for analysis but generally tended to stick (rightly, or in YOUR case CF, wrongly) with the Devil they knew? Just an observation, and I will shut up now and return to Foden diffs which I DO know something about…
newmercman:
What’s with the hating on Mercedes? Is it because it’s St George’s Day?
Mercedes was a bit part player in England until the launch of the 1617, which revolutionised the 16t market, in fact they have never really done much in the >28t market to this day. They have good market share, but that’s due to the volume of rigids they sell. Or it was when I worked for them. Worldwide is a different story as they always had a very strong export market.
However in competition with the TM I would say, from what I saw on the road, that TM and MB tractor unit sales were pretty close.
It isn’t hating its all about the best target market for the TM in the day which was all the range from 16-40t + with the 24-32t+ sector obviously being an essential part of that.
While the ‘hating’ in this case seeming to be the double standards being applied as to all the so called ‘reasons’ as to why Bedford needed to ditch the in house engine deal with GM in favour of ■■■■■■■■■■■■ by the standards of the day the in house 92 series Detroit gave the TM a large advantage over the Merc at least and no one within the markets or Merc’s management were calling on Merc to ditch its relatively inefficient V’s in favour of the ■■■■■■■■
As I’ve said the Bedford was ( would have been ) more than a match for the Merc, amongst others,including in terms of its in house engine range in the form of turbo 92 let alone if/when the 60 series arrived on the scene.IE not many,if any,in house operations had a better package that the TM in the day.The question then being why damage that edge and deal with GM by fitting the obsolete 71N and 14 litre ■■■■■■■ ?.
Oh so you’re saying there were other options Bedford could’ve used?
Why didn’t you say that earlier?
Maybe you’d like to repeat that 20 or 30 times, just in case anyone misses it
windrush:
Just my two pennyworth! Possibly GM knew, through doing their homework and the ‘success’ of their Detroit engined KM, that introducing a ‘stroker’ into the UK market would be a mistake as Foden had tried it in the higher weight bracket and that didn’t prove a big success as we Brits preffered long stroke slogging engines. A few operators might introduce the odd stroker into an established fleet for analysis but generally tended to stick (rightly, or in YOUR case CF, wrongly) with the Devil they knew? Just an observation, and I will shut up now and return to Foden diffs which I DO know something about…
Pete.
If GM didn’t want to use its own two stroke engines then they obviously wouldn’t have set up the TM as an all in house engine operation from day 1.The point in this case being that the ‘right’ engine in question ‘was’ a decent slogger with more specific and/or as much if not more overall torque than the ■■■■■■■ bearing in mind that yes,like the 71 the 92 was lumbered with a shorter than ideal stroke.‘But’ a four stroke only gets to use that bit more on every other revolution of the engine in which case the Detroit still effectively had a long enough stroke to get the job done ( unlike AEC’s designs ).While unlike a non turbo two stroke a turbo doesn’t have the cylinder filling ‘issues’ of a non turbo.It was only the ‘wrong’ two stroke in the form of the obsolete,smaller bore,non turbo,71N that did the damage in getting the TM branded as a screamer then the rest was obviously history.
robert1952:
It’s all ‘rights’, ‘wrongs’ and ‘unavoidable’ truths for you, CF; but they are your truths. Robert
More like unarguable facts in this case.In that firstly GM’s investment in the TM was all about use of in house engines.With the results of not standardising on the ‘right’ one soon enough in the domestic market,let alone putting an outsourced ■■■■■■■ in it,when there was still arguably time to turn that situation around,being all too predictable.While trust me I’m not just basing that on my own personal viewpoint.The questions and points which I’ve raised all being put forward in the day amongst more people than just myself.There being no reason to think that GM’s management wouldn’t have been asking exactly the same questions before finally walking away and taking out Bedford.
robert1952:
It’s all ‘rights’, ‘wrongs’ and ‘unavoidable’ truths for you, CF; but they are your truths. Robert
More like unarguable facts in this case.In that firstly GM’s investment in the TM was all about use of in house engines.With the results of not standardising on the ‘right’ one soon enough in the domestic market,let alone putting an outsourced ■■■■■■■ in it,when there was still arguably time to turn that situation around,being all too predictable.While trust me I’m not just basing that on my own personal viewpoint.The questions and points which I’ve raised all being put forward in the day amongst more people than just myself.There being no reason to think that GM’s management wouldn’t have been asking exactly the same questions before finally walking away and taking out Bedford.
If only GM had put an advert in the Leatherhead Labour Exchange when they realised that Bedford were woefully short of a “proper” man at the top in Dunstable,all their troubles would have been over and they would now be market leaders throughout Europe and possibly the World and still knocking out TM’s daily by the score However,how were they to know that the greatest living automotive engineer was alive and well and raring to impart his vast knowledge to some deserving cause,in this case the British subsiduary of GM anyway as the saying goes " Their loss is some other poor buggers gain" relevant in this instance I would say Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
If only GM had put an advert in the Leatherhead Labour Exchange when they realised that Bedford were woefully short of a “proper” man at the top in Dunstable,all their troubles would have been over and they would now be market leaders throughout Europe and possibly the World and still knocking out TM’s daily by the score However,how were they to know that the greatest living automotive engineer was alive and well and raring to impart his vast knowledge to some deserving cause,in this case the British subsiduary of GM anyway as the saying goes " Their loss is some other poor buggers gain" relevant in this instance I would say Cheers Bewick.
To be fair I think GM’s age and qualifications criterea were never going to allow a teenaged school leaver without any CSE grades let alone O levels to advise Bedford’s management as to which engine to put into the TM. While as my own employers found out I was never cut out to be an engineer as opposed to a driver.But as I said on the ERF topic even my old Grandad could have told Foden’s board that steam wagons were on the way out which might have saved them all a lot of bother if they’d have listened to him.
You are faraway too modest “CF” plus you are telling porkies about your age methinks How can anyone with your breadth of knowledge about anything and everything automotivewise be as young as you claim to be How long has your nose grown in length ? Cheers Bewick.
windrush:
Just my two pennyworth! Possibly GM knew, through doing their homework and the ‘success’ of their Detroit engined KM, that introducing a ‘stroker’ into the UK market would be a mistake as Foden had tried it in the higher weight bracket and that didn’t prove a big success as we Brits preffered long stroke slogging engines. A few operators might introduce the odd stroker into an established fleet for analysis but generally tended to stick (rightly, or in YOUR case CF, wrongly) with the Devil they knew? Just an observation, and I will shut up now and return to Foden diffs which I DO know something about…
Pete.
We had all forgotten about the KM 32 tonner. At least, I had! Its success, or lack of it, would be a pointer to Bedford’s decisions on engine choice for the new TM. Does anyone know what market share Bedford had in the 28ton+ market in 1973, 4 and 5?
Bewick:
You are faraway too modest “CF” plus you are telling porkies about your age methinks How can anyone with your breadth of knowledge about anything and everything automotivewise be as young as you claim to be How long has your nose grown in length ? Cheers Bewick.
Or just confirmation that my ideas are all based on what I was taught by those older and wiser ‘engineers’.
There are people on here whose careers have taken them into the decision-making process, in departments across the full breadth of the motor industry, including engineers. Anyone reading this forum would note that all of them disagree completely with everything you say.
Bewick:
You are faraway too modest “CF” plus you are telling porkies about your age methinks How can anyone with your breadth of knowledge about anything and everything automotivewise be as young as you claim to be How long has your nose grown in length ? Cheers Bewick.
Or just confirmation that my ideas are all based on what I was taught by those older and wiser ‘engineers’.
There are people on here whose careers have taken them into the decision-making process, in departments across the full breadth of the motor industry, including engineers. Anyone reading this forum would note that all of them disagree completely with everything you say.
Yes I know and all of them would obviously have put the 71N in the TM instead of 92T and when that predictably didn’t work put the ■■■■■■■ in it instead.When they’d been given £50,000,000 + to produce an in house engined truck.Which by my logic,would have had a lot more chance,of not getting the in house engined product branded as inefficient torqueless diesel guzzlers and eventually being developed into a 60 series powered vehicle range.As opposed to GM ( rightly ) walking away and taking the nuclear option on Bedford.
windrush:
Just my two pennyworth! Possibly GM knew, through doing their homework and the ‘success’ of their Detroit engined KM, that introducing a ‘stroker’ into the UK market would be a mistake as Foden had tried it in the higher weight bracket and that didn’t prove a big success as we Brits preffered long stroke slogging engines. A few operators might introduce the odd stroker into an established fleet for analysis but generally tended to stick (rightly, or in YOUR case CF, wrongly) with the Devil they knew? Just an observation, and I will shut up now and return to Foden diffs which I DO know something about…
Pete.
We had all forgotten about the KM 32 tonner. At least, I had! Its success, or lack of it, would be a pointer to Bedford’s decisions on engine choice for the new TM. Does anyone know what market share Bedford had in the 28ton+ market in 1973, 4 and 5?
To be fair Scammell’s ‘decision makers’ seemed to be bright enough to not expect a 6v71 stand the slightest chance of working at 32t gross when even the 8v71 was just about marginal regards torque in that regard.Although for heavy truck ‘engineers’ the obvious over emphasis of peak power output v torque output seems unbelievable.The relevant bit in the case of the TM being that the 71N engine had no place in any vehicle other than an American bus.
Bewick:
You are faraway too modest “CF” plus you are telling porkies about your age methinks How can anyone with your breadth of knowledge about anything and everything automotivewise be as young as you claim to be How long has your nose grown in length ? Cheers Bewick.
Or just confirmation that my ideas are all based on what I was taught by those older and wiser ‘engineers’.
There are people on here whose careers have taken them into the decision-making process, in departments across the full breadth of the motor industry, including engineers. Anyone reading this forum would note that all of them disagree completely with everything you say.
“CF” the only man in the regiment marching in time !!
However,how were they to know that the greatest living automotive engineer was alive and well and raring to impart his vast knowledge to some deserving cause,in this case the British subsiduary of GM anyway as the saying goes " Their loss is some other poor buggers gain" relevant in this instance I would say 
Cheers Bewick.
While as my own employers found out I was never cut out to be an engineer as opposed to a driver.But as I said on the ERF topic even my old Grandad could have told Foden’s board that steam wagons were on the way out which might have saved them all a lot of bother if they’d have listened to him. 
