Geoffrey, the article (with title “Bedford you used to see them everywhere”) was printed in 1980
Thanks for that.Which seems to suggest that even by 1980 what was ‘actually’ available to order wasn’t generally known with too much emphasis on Bedford’s publicised listings.With obviously some ignorance allowed to go on that even the 8 wheeler sector wasn’t covered 
let alone the fact that it would also have been possible to order the 92 series in same amongst others assuming anyone had the knowledge to ask for it as opposed to Bedford offering it. 
It is probably fair to say that the project was arguably a victim of a catastrophic publicised speccing and marketing failure at management level when it mattered.
Carryfast:
Meanwhile to correct the mistake concerning 8 wheelers.As usual like most other engine and axle configurations yes they were available to special order from Tricentrol.
Fantasy again. Provide documentary evidence or get off the forum.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Meanwhile to correct the mistake concerning 8 wheelers.As usual like most other engine and axle configurations yes they were available to special order from Tricentrol.Fantasy again. Provide documentary evidence or get off the forum.
I’m guessing that you didn’t bother to check the posted photo showing a TM 8 wheeler in all of its reality.In this case you’ll just have to accept some decent first hand memory or reject it.It’s your choice.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
Meanwhile to correct the mistake concerning 8 wheelers.As usual like most other engine and axle configurations yes they were available to special order from Tricentrol.Fantasy again. Provide documentary evidence or get off the forum.
I’m guessing that you didn’t bother to check the posted photo showing a TM 8 wheeler in all of its reality.In this case you’ll just have to accept some decent first hand memory or reject it.It’s your choice.
How do you know the 8 wheeler came from Tricentrol? How do you know that such a configuration was “available”, IE the 8 wheeler was not a one-off? How do you know Tricentrol provided other engine options? Until you provide advertisements or press releases that show those engines and chassis were available for people to buy, they were not production vehicles. If you say they were, that is a lie.
The press articles do not mention any change to the floorpan of the cab, to fit the tall thin ■■■■■■■ 14 litre engine in place of the short fat Detroit V8. The cab of the ■■■■■■■■ engined TM was not raised up on stilts, like that on the Transcon, in order to accommodate the engine. Unlike the ERF Motor Panels cabs, which were assembled by hand to suit whatever engine was underneath, the TM cab was a proper production job- the engine hump would have been, most likely, a single pressing.
The TM, therefore, was designed to accommodate a ■■■■■■■ 14 litre from the very start. GM was covering all the possible options, with good planning.
[zb]
anorak:
How do you know Tricentrol provided other engine options? Until you provide advertisements or press releases that show those engines and chassis were available for people to buy, they were not production vehicles. If you say they were, that is a lie.
Assuming that ‘I know’ first hand that you could have a 4,6 or 8 wheeler rigid with either 6v71,8v71 or 6v92T or 8v92T power with nothing more than a phone call to Bedford sales who would then have put you onto their ‘approved’ outsourced special order operation. that in my book makes it a ‘production’ vehicle.While also showing what a shambles Bedford’s marketing strategy was.
However unfortunately I didn’t know that this topic would arise in the future in the day. If I did I would personally have photographed and recorded all the evidence required concerning an operation that could provide anything from a 4x2 to at least an 8x4 rigid with power ranging from 6v71N-6/8v92T if asked for .The relevant bit being that the range wasn’t limited to just that publicised,on the basis of if you wanted something that wasn’t on the ( obviously compromised ) ‘production’ ‘list’ you had to ask for it.Which is the issue.
[zb]
anorak:
The press articles do not mention any change to the floorpan of the cab, to fit the tall thin ■■■■■■■ 14 litre engine in place of the short fat Detroit V8. The cab of the ■■■■■■■■ engined TM was not raised up on stilts, like that on the Transcon, in order to accommodate the engine. Unlike the ERF Motor Panels cabs, which were assembled by hand to suit whatever engine was underneath, the TM cab was a proper production job- the engine hump would have been, most likely, a single pressing.The TM, therefore, was designed to accommodate a ■■■■■■■ 14 litre from the very start. GM was covering all the possible options, with good planning.
Firstly that would obviously contradict Saviem’s probably accurate comments.
While as far as I know you’re going to need at least as much,probably more,room to fit a turbocharged 8v92 than a 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■ a V8 isn’t the same length as an inline 4 and the turbo arguably sits higher on the Detroit being just a few inches lower.
While ironically,obviously unlike the TM,the Astro was reputedly actually offered with a ■■■■■■■ option from day 1.However one of the main reasons given for its demise was too much outsourced componentry obviously in the form of the ■■■■■■■ option.Being that it made no sense for either competitor to do either any favours.Obviously in this case in terms of engine cost to GM v the in house GM option.IE they were fitting a competitors ( expensive ) outsourced engine while obviously wasting their own production capacity at the same time. 
Carryfast:
Assuming that ‘I know’ first hand that you could have a 4,6 or 8 wheeler rigid with either 6v71,8v71 or 6v92T or 8v92T power with nothing more than a phone call to Bedford sales who would then have put you onto their ‘approved’ outsourced special order operation. that in my book makes it a ‘production’ vehicle.While also showing what a shambles Bedford’s marketing strategy was.However unfortunately I didn’t know that this topic would arise in the future in the day.
So, they went to the expense of engineering and proving all of these different vehicles, but chose not to advertise them. No wonder none exist! Was a three-wheeled version available? How about horse-drawn 10 wheelers? One would expect any make-believe manufacturer to have a few of those parked behind the factory. You have excelled yourself this time, Geoffrey. Keep it up.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
The relevant bit being that the range wasn’t limited to just that publicised,on the basis of if you wanted something that wasn’t on the ( obviously compromised ) ‘production’ ‘list’ you had to ask for it.Which is the issue.So, they went to the expense of engineering and proving all of these different vehicles, but chose not to advertise them. No wonder none exist!
More or less spot on.
GM went to all the trouble of helping them to design the right truck but Bedford chose to limit its appeal by way of dodgy engine choice and obviously a compromised,publicised,configuration listing and marketing strategy.Which in this case translates as yes you could have an 8v71 or even 6v92T powered 8 wheeler amongst the rest of the a la carte menu ‘if’ you asked them for it.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak:
So, they went to the expense of engineering and proving all of these different vehicles, but chose not to advertise them. No wonder none exist!More or less spot on.
GM went to all the trouble of helping them to design the right truck but Bedford chose to limit its appeal by way of dodgy engine choice and obviously a compromised,publicised,configuration listing and marketing strategy.Which in this case translates as yes you could have an 8v71 or even 6v92T powered 8 wheeler amongst the rest of the a la carte menu ‘if’ you asked them for it.
Surely, if the Luton Loons were steadfastly refusing to sell, or even make, the products that GM had so kindly help design, then a quiet word would have been in order, at some stage? Not putting an investment to use, at all, over a 12 year period, would look a little alarming to the providers of that investment, I would have guessed. Maybe GM simply forgot to look, or was it that they were just too polite to raise the point?
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
More or less spot on.
Which in this case translates as yes you could have an 8v71 or even 6v92T powered 8 wheeler amongst the rest of the a la carte menu ‘if’ you asked them for it.Surely, if the Luton Loons were steadfastly refusing to sell, or even make, the products that GM had so kindly help design, then a quiet word would have been in order, at some stage? Not putting an investment to use, at all, over a 12 year period, would look a little alarming to the providers of that investment, I would have guessed. Maybe GM simply forgot to look
There’s a difference between not putting the design ‘to use’ as opposed to not exploiting its full potential soon enough.
I’d guess that the possibility that GM just took it for granted that Bedford was doing the latter and ‘left them to get on with it’.‘Until’ word got back that Bedford was just listing 6v71N at 32t gross and 8v71N at 38t then went and put a ■■■■■■■ in it and no listed 8 wheelers for example in the all important UK market.Instead of 6/8v92T and 8 wheelers etc,without customers having to ask for it to outsourced special order,is possibly as good a reason as any.
With it being quite possible that GM only realised just how shambolic Bedford’s speccing and marketing strategy was relatively late in the day.
Which might arguably explain an ultimatum to get the project back on track or else.History seeming to show that word getting back and resulting ultimatum arriving too late in the day.Hence the situation that customers still weren’t aware that they could have an 8v71,let alone 6v92T,powered 30t 8 wheeler rigid for example within published product listing at least as of 5 years + after introduction if ever.
Carryfast:
I’d guess that the possibility that GM just took it for granted that Bedford was doing the latter and ‘left them to get on with it’.‘Until’ word got back that Bedford was just listing 6v71N at 32t gross and 8v71N at 38t then went and put a ■■■■■■■ in itWith it being quite possible that GM only realised just how shambolic Bedford’s speccing and marketing strategy was relatively late in the day.
Which might arguably explain an ultimatum to get the project back on track or else.History seeming to show that word getting back and resulting ultimatum arriving too late in the day.Hence the situation that customers still weren’t aware that they could have an 8v71,let alone 6v92T,powered 30t 8 wheeler rigid for example within published product listing at least as of 5 years + after introduction if ever.
A couple more examples of Bedford’s you can have anything you want if you ask us for it ideas in action.While if only I’d known at the time I could/would have got and added some even more interesting options to the record.
At the end of the day also ■■■■■■■ is a supplier and happy with orders, contracts and deliveries…but
during my checks in old ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ I don’t notice any remarks on them delivering Bedford.
Guess that feeling was mutual…
Carryfast:
A couple more examples of Bedford’s you can have anything you want if you ask us for it ideas in action.While if only I’d known at the time I could/would have got and added some even more interesting options to the record.
The 6V71 lost a lot of power through the driveline, parasitic losses are usually less than 15% in a 4x2 configuration. I wonder if those figures in the brochure were attained using an Allison automatic?
On Detroit and Allison…George Clooney would say “what else”
Same in older days with Delco Remy and so on
