Ultimate 1970s European tractor unit specification

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS OLD TIME LORRIES, COMPANIES AND DRIVERS (INTERACT
21

newmercman:
Was an 89 available in 1970? Earliest I’ve seen was a K plate which was 71/72.

I know the idea behind this exercise is to see who comes up with an ultimate spec, but in reality the manufacturers did this with things like the F89, 140, SM340 etc. Compared to the British built lorries of the day even the Volvo with its ‘small’ cab and the smaller TD100 was a dream for most drivers :wink:

I’m going to change my choice too, I now want a KW K100 with a KTA600 and 6x4 transmission waiting for me when I step out of the time machine…oh and a series two E type Jag, silver with wire wheels and red upholstery please :sunglasses:

The F89 was launched in late 1970 or early 1971. The thing about each manufacturer’s ultimate specification was that someone else always had one feature or component that was superior- arguably! For instance, surely you would prefer your original choice of cab to that jerry-built shed perched on top of your KTA?

Saviem:
Evening all, for me its simples…Saviem SM340. Single reduction 13tonne axle, that superb double sleeper cab, St Nazaire built 13 speed RTO Eaton,and Shreewsburys own Rolls Royce at 320hp! A 38tonne tractor unit weighing under 6tonnes fully fueled, 320hp, compatable with all European trailer couplings in 4x2 configuration, and producing productavity figures at 38tonnes that no one could match!!!

My friend, the late Pat Kennet, said to me , “this combination is the best I have ever seen, for the driver, and the operator”!!!

Sadly, in 75, it died , due to our “political” takeover of Berliet,…but its productivity figures became the “benchmark”, for 38tonne tractors, when we were setting up the Regie`s Vehicules Industriels Contract Hire Package,…that so much helped a certain “bright” young man from St Vallier become one of the most succesful hauliers in Europe, and in turn “swallowing up”, so much of our British Industry!!

That spec is not “fantasy”, it was reality, and represents so much lost opportunity for the UK.

So sad, I shall take refuge in the Bollinger, (as if I needed any excuse), Cheerio for now.

Would Saviem have ditched the MAN engines and continued with Rolls Royce, had the Berliet merger not gone ahead?

22

kr79:
Just remembered it was tractor units. Il have a scania 140/141 please

But a fuller gearbox.

23

pete 359:
Hi all,
Unsure what it would look like :open_mouth: though I would want:

The room of a transcontinental.
The sound of a 140 Scania.
The build quality of a Volvo.
The reliability of an man
The appearance of a scamell crusader.
Any overdrive/underdrive fuller.
3.55 eaton drive axle.
Td120 330hp Volvo engine.

Regards Andrew.

I want one NOW

24

Hiya…how about a transcon with erf braking system i would think that would do fine.
a bit of bling twin stacks and a few lights and air con.
John

25

It would also have to be simple to fix and cheap and easy to get parts for.

For me it would have to be an Ergo Cab,A high datum version to be able to fit a bigger radiator and bigger motor.

Factory sleeper,not an add on dog kennel/pigeon loft.

Turbo 250 ■■■■■■■ with Jake brakes,so it’ll pull up hill and pull you up when going down.

13 Speed Fuller Road Ranger,a good strong flexible box.

High speed Leyland double hub reduction back end.

Failing the ■■■■■■■ 250 then a Leyland 690,which is a development of the the 680. Similar to a 680 but with a turbo and putting out about 240 horse.

26

newmercman:
Only one choice…A Guy Big J with and 8XLB :laughing:

Given a giant Meccano set, I would have an ERF rolling chassis, 350 ■■■■■■■■ 13spd Eaton Fuller topped off with a Scania LB110 sleeper cab :wink:

NMM got it,Big J with a 240 Percy in it!!!

David

27

NZ JAMIE:
It would also have to be simple to fix and cheap and easy to get parts for.

For me it would have to be an Ergo Cab,A high datum version to be able to fit a bigger radiator and bigger motor.

Factory sleeper,not an add on dog kennel/pigeon loft.

Turbo 250 ■■■■■■■ with Jake brakes,so it’ll pull up hill and pull you up when going down.

13 Speed Fuller Road Ranger,a good strong flexible box.

High speed Leyland double hub reduction back end.

Failing the ■■■■■■■ 250 then a Leyland 690,which is a development of the the 680. Similar to a 680 but with a turbo and putting out about 240 horse.

Hi Jamie, I have just been sifting through the 1970 editions of CM, to see if your specification was actually available at the time. Infuriatingly, the high-datum cab was offered above a host of less-desirable engines (AEC V8, Albion, Headless Wonder), but the 690 was only offered with a low-datum cab. You could have the full-length sleeper cab, though.

Here is a TR300 at the 1970 Paris Show, with the troublesome V8 being removed. I am just out of shot, with my 8LXB/Fuller on a pallet, purchased at the London show a couple of weeks previously!

cm701009.jpg
cm701009.jpg534×750 153 KB

28

Hi i’d like a F88 with a scania V8 engine . Tony

29

Thanks mate for looking.

The 690 was available in the low datum two pedal Beaver with the 10 speed auto box,but this was the only Ergo in the UK to have it.

I don’t think Leyland offered a Fuller box in the UK until the Bison,Buffalo,Lynx range.

The silly buggers wanted to push the headless wonder. I think if they’d have offered the 690 as an option Leyland would have maintained the good reputation they had for reliable engines.

The 690 was available in Beavers,Hippos,Light Weight Hippo’s and Octopus’ both in NZ and Australia. All of this range could also be factory fitted with 13 speed Road Rangers.

The Fuller boxes really made these trucks so much better,Leyland UK should have taken a leaf out of Leyland Australia’s book and offered them earlier. Coupled to a turbo charged motor these trucks became powerful flexible trucks capable of higher weights able to tackle big hills easier.

30

NZ JAMIE:
Thanks mate for looking.

The 690 was available in the low datum two pedal Beaver with the 10 speed auto box,but this was the only Ergo in the UK to have it.

I don’t think Leyland offered a Fuller box in the UK until the Bison,Buffalo,Lynx range.

The silly buggers wanted to push the headless wonder. I think if they’d have offered the 690 as an option Leyland would have maintained the good reputation they had for reliable engines.

The 690 was available in Beavers,Hippos,Light Weight Hippo’s and Octopus’ both in NZ and Australia. All of this range could also be factory fitted with 13 speed Road Rangers.

The Fuller boxes really made these trucks so much better,Leyland UK should have taken a leaf out of Leyland Australia’s book and offered them earlier. Coupled to a turbo charged motor these trucks became powerful flexible trucks capable of higher weights able to tackle big hills easier.

So, in the spirit of this whimsical thread, your ideal Leyland remains a dream. Your observations about the 690 encapsulate the ■■■■-eyed thinking of the 1960s British engineers. They seemed obsessed with the idea of making the engines compact, and were prepared to pursue radical innovations to achieve that goal, hence the Headless Wonder. Before it was launched, they were promising 260bhp from its 8 litres. Fodens were confident that their two stroke had a future, predicting similar power outputs while, at the same time, quoting SFC figures some 10% worse than other makers’ less compact lumps, as if this was incidental. As the more conservative Europeans showed: big is good, and foolproof. Your dream Leyland is, on paper at least, every bit as good as an F88.

Was the 690 a durable engine Down Under? The 680 lost its good reputation when they put the power output up to 200bhp, at the end of the 1950s. I was wondering if they had sorted out its troubles, before bolting the blower onto it.

31

[zb]
anorak:

NZ JAMIE:
Thanks mate for looking.

The 690 was available in the low datum two pedal Beaver with the 10 speed auto box,but this was the only Ergo in the UK to have it.

I don’t think Leyland offered a Fuller box in the UK until the Bison,Buffalo,Lynx range.

The silly buggers wanted to push the headless wonder. I think if they’d have offered the 690 as an option Leyland would have maintained the good reputation they had for reliable engines.

The 690 was available in Beavers,Hippos,Light Weight Hippo’s and Octopus’ both in NZ and Australia. All of this range could also be factory fitted with 13 speed Road Rangers.

The Fuller boxes really made these trucks so much better,Leyland UK should have taken a leaf out of Leyland Australia’s book and offered them earlier. Coupled to a turbo charged motor these trucks became powerful flexible trucks capable of higher weights able to tackle big hills easier.

So, in the spirit of this whimsical thread, your ideal Leyland remains a dream. Your observations about the 690 encapsulate the ■■■■-eyed thinking of the 1960s British engineers. They seemed obsessed with the idea of making the engines compact, and were prepared to pursue radical innovations to achieve that goal, hence the Headless Wonder. Before it was launched, they were promising 260bhp from its 8 litres. Fodens were confident that their two stroke had a future, predicting similar power outputs while, at the same time, quoting SFC figures some 10% worse than other makers’ less compact lumps, as if this was incidental. As the more conservative Europeans showed: big is good, and foolproof. Your dream Leyland is, on paper at least, every bit as good as an F88.

Was the 690 a durable engine Down Under? The 680 lost its good reputation when they put the power output up to 200bhp, at the end of the 1950s. I was wondering if they had sorted out its troubles, before bolting the blower onto it.

Hiya…i know what your saying anorak and agree…i think the idea was to have what we thought to be a dream machine.
I put transcon… but the brakes was rubbish so asked for ERF braking system as the brakes was good on a ERF, it was a dream
that would never come true…mind you i know someone who put a volvo front axle onto a Mack to get some brakes.
John

32

3300John:
Hiya…i know what your saying anorak and agree…i think the idea was to have what we thought to be a dream machine.
I put transcon… but the brakes was rubbish so asked for ERF braking system as the brakes was good on a ERF, it was a dream
that would never come true…mind you i know someone who put a volvo front axle onto a Mack to get some brakes.
John

Hi John, a well-done Transcon seems to be the most popular choice of our band of retrospective armchair engineers. In other words, an ERF with a Berliet cab. What about those old lags who regard the Atkinson chassis as superior to the ERF? If they are right, a Mk2 Atki with a French (or Swedish) shed should be just about the ultimate. All of the parts of such a machine were available by 1970. It’s about time Mr. Bewick made a contribution, I think.

33

[zb]
anorak:

3300John:
Hiya…i know what your saying anorak and agree…i think the idea was to have what we thought to be a dream machine.
I put transcon… but the brakes was rubbish so asked for ERF braking system as the brakes was good on a ERF, it was a dream
that would never come true…mind you i know someone who put a volvo front axle onto a Mack to get some brakes.
John

Hi John, a well-done Transcon seems to be the most popular choice of our band of retrospective armchair engineers. In other words, an ERF with a Berliet cab. What about those old lags who regard the Atkinson chassis as superior to the ERF? If they are right, a Mk2 Atki with a French (or Swedish) shed should be just about the ultimate. All of the parts of such a machine were available by 1970. It’s about time Mr. Bewick made a contribution, I think.

Hiya i must say when we cosider the 88 the brakes was quite iffy compared to the atki / erf or foden.
nothing wrong with a Atki with a well sorted erf/crusader motor panels cab really. i was never one for the sed/ ak cab
until the strato space cab come about.i did see a savium 4 wheeler dumped in France last year it
looked a decent machine but needed a sleeper cab. i do’nt know what year it was.

this needs a good home in my book
John

34

The room and comfort of a 2800 DAf with a 142 Scania engine with the gearbox out of an F7 and the chassis from a Scammel Cruisader.
It would look a pile of b------s but it would be great to drive.
Cliff

35

[zb]
anorak:

newmercman:
Was an 89 available in 1970? Earliest I’ve seen was a K plate which was 71/72.

I know the idea behind this exercise is to see who comes up with an ultimate spec, but in reality the manufacturers did this with things like the F89, 140, SM340 etc. Compared to the British built lorries of the day even the Volvo with its ‘small’ cab and the smaller TD100 was a dream for most drivers :wink:

I’m going to change my choice too, I now want a KW K100 with a KTA600 and 6x4 transmission waiting for me when I step out of the time machine…oh and a series two E type Jag, silver with wire wheels and red upholstery please :sunglasses:

The F89 was launched in late 1970 or early 1971. The thing about each manufacturer’s ultimate specification was that someone else always had one feature or component that was superior- arguably! For instance, surely you would prefer your original choice of cab to that jerry-built shed perched on top of your KTA?

No, I’ll stick with the K Whopper, sure the Scania would be more comfortable, but I’ve got an E Type, so I’d be driving that and only looking at the lorry and in that case the yank tank wins every time :laughing:

I am slightly bemused at the hybrid Transcon being so popular, having driven the real thing I disagree, it has to be one of the most disappointing vehicles I’ve ever had, it no way lived up to the hype, I would have a 111 or 2800 Daf over a Transcon any day :open_mouth:

How about an LP1632 Merc with the Grossraum cab and a 13speed Fuller instead of the nasty ZF box, again on an ERF chassis, for the brakes, for a further curveball, you could swap the cab for one of those coachbuilt LB75 cabs :bulb:

36

newmercman:

[zb]
anorak:

newmercman:
Was an 89 available in 1970? Earliest I’ve seen was a K plate which was 71/72.

I know the idea behind this exercise is to see who comes up with an ultimate spec, but in reality the manufacturers did this with things like the F89, 140, SM340 etc. Compared to the British built lorries of the day even the Volvo with its ‘small’ cab and the smaller TD100 was a dream for most drivers :wink:

I’m going to change my choice too, I now want a KW K100 with a KTA600 and 6x4 transmission waiting for me when I step out of the time machine…oh and a series two E type Jag, silver with wire wheels and red upholstery please :sunglasses:

The F89 was launched in late 1970 or early 1971. The thing about each manufacturer’s ultimate specification was that someone else always had one feature or component that was superior- arguably! For instance, surely you would prefer your original choice of cab to that jerry-built shed perched on top of your KTA?

No, I’ll stick with the K Whopper, sure the Scania would be more comfortable, but I’ve got an E Type, so I’d be driving that and only looking at the lorry and in that case the yank tank wins every time :laughing:

Sorted then I’ll drive it nmm is the guvnor and then after a year or two of all the wages I’ll get because of all that reliable fast running which puts the miles under the wheels I can buy one of these. :smiley:

youtube.com/watch?v=xkG09gcIGXA

37

You’re on CF, but remember it’s 1970, so you’re on 3quid a day with 10 bob night out money, uniform consists of a big belt buckle and a stetson and you can have as many log books as you want :laughing: :wink:

38

Il have some log books come in handy if the bog roll goes astray again.

39

I heard about that, her indoors was wondering where the brown snow had come from :laughing:

Never sit down to curl one off without first making sure you have enough paper :bulb:

40

I won’t in future I’m usually very particular about checking. Was getting worried at one point. I had a copy of rolling stone with me but I hadn’t finished it and there it cost $13