Carryfast ,You keep banging on about high powered vehicles not being sought in the late 60s and well into the 70s but the weight limit was only 32 tons at the time.How much did your beloved TM V8 actually weigh.Hauliers were buying varied vehicles which were suitable for their operation.a F86 with a flat trailer could carry around 22 tons thats why they were so popular with certain hauliers where payload was a major factor ,the Mandator was the same with an engine almost twice the size of the F86 but without the comfort,that was the compromise.Where payload wasnt a major factor some hauliers went for the bigger cabbed and higher powered models i.e the F88 and Marathon.When the weight limit went up the power went up ,then the weight limit went up again and now the power outputs are heading for 700bhp ,do we really need that sort of power to be travelling up and down the M62/M1/M6■■?.Dont forget the weight limit in Sweden was around 48 tons so how did those F88 240s cope ,the F86 design weight was 36 tons so the Brits weren`t the only ones guilty of underpowered motors
ramone:
Carryfast ,You keep banging on about high powered vehicles not being sought in the late 60s and well into the 70s but the weight limit was only 32 tons at the time.How much did your beloved TM V8 actually weigh.Hauliers were buying varied vehicles which were suitable for their operation.a F86 with a flat trailer could carry around 22 tons thats why they were so popular with certain hauliers where payload was a major factor ,the Mandator was the same with an engine almost twice the size of the F86 but without the comfort,that was the compromise.Where payload wasnt a major factor some hauliers went for the bigger cabbed and higher powered models i.e the F88 and Marathon.When the weight limit went up the power went up ,then the weight limit went up again and now the power outputs are heading for 700bhp ,do we really need that sort of power to be travelling up and down the M62/M1/M6■■?.Dont forget the weight limit in Sweden was around 48 tons so how did those F88 240s cope ,the F86 design weight was 36 tons so the Brits weren`t the only ones guilty of underpowered motors
It would be interesting to see how a 240 F88 would get on running at 44 t let alone 48 t 
.You still seem to be missing the point that there was actually a large shift (rightly) in the thinking related to power to weight ‘ratios’ not outright weights and power outputs.There was also a large shift in the best way to stress an engine at high levels to get the best fuel efficiency.
The F86 was actually one of those based on the flawed thinking of using small turbocharged engines instead of larger naturally aspirated engines when the most efficient way is to use a large turbocharged engine that can put out as much power as possible at as low revs as possible.The industry has now standardised on the idea of using much higher power to weight ‘ratios’ than was the case at the time of the F86 and the F88 and on the idea of using the large highly turbocharged/boosted low revving engine idea as being the one that provides the best fuel efficiency.That advantage remains regardless of wether it’s the old 32 t/38t weight limits or the present weight limits.
If you compare the present weight limits with the old ones and the present power to weight ratios you’ll see that those ‘ratios’ are generally a lot higher now than they were then.The fuel efficiency provided by that and using the larger lower revving engine idea outweighs the payload advantages of using smaller engined,higher revving trucks.If the Brits had realised that and changed their thinking before the foreign manufacturers did we’d have had an advantage that would have benefitted both the British manufacturers and the British road transport industry. 
The 7 litre F86 and the 8.25 DAF became the mainstay of many fleets of the day, we still had 32t weight limits as did Holland while Germany had just gone to 38tonne.
DAF used the 310hp DKS when they raised their weights to match those of Germany, that was a huge increase in its time.
Although the gross weights were raised by almost 6 tonne, the payload only increased by about 50% as i remember it.
The little bubble cab had its faults, the one I remember most was as a 11 year old boy it was a pain in the arse to tip the cab unless I reversed it up a concrete ramp. And it was a pain in the arse to top the engine oil up without spilling it in the drivers cab if i couldn’t tip the cab 
As a small boy, there were two vehicles in the yard used for local shunting, one was an F86, the other was a Mastiff. The G plate F86 was still down the road in 1973. The H reg Mastiff was scrap
Wheel Nut:
The 7 litre F86 and the 8.25 DAF became the mainstay of many fleets of the day, we still had 32t weight limits as did Holland while Germany had just gone to 38tonne.DAF used the 310hp DKS when they raised their weights to match those of Germany, that was a huge increase in its time.
The big versus small DAF comparison was one of the best examples that I saw of the torque of the big motor beating the small nasty little 2300/2500 buzz bombs every morning at the pump where the old 2800 won out every time on consumption figures and all at 32 t or less. 
As a rule the higher the torque/power to weight ratio the better the fuel consumption will be and that’s one of the reasons why those 2300’s/2500’s were replaced by 2800 ATI’s (better resale values being another) although I preferred the older one.
I had a 2300 Daf, two in fact, one intercooled, which wasn’t bad, the other turbo only, to make matters worse, it had that nasty back to front 12sp ZF splitter box in it, I came off that onto a Sudden Accident with a 180 Gardner and felt like I’d won the pools, coincidentally that firm had a TM too, a four wheeler rigid, the bloke that had it went back to his old KM as soon as he could, I did drive the KM for a while and that was nasty, don’t say a lot for the TM 
newmercman:
I had a 2300 Daf, two in fact, one intercooled, which wasn’t bad, the other turbo only, to make matters worse, it had that nasty back to front 12sp ZF splitter box in it, I came off that onto a Sudden Accident with a 180 Gardner and felt like I’d won the pools, coincidentally that firm had a TM too, a four wheeler rigid, the bloke that had it went back to his old KM as soon as he could, I did drive the KM for a while and that was nasty, don’t say a lot for the TM
It’s all about actual specs and what it is that you’re comparing with what though and the type of work.2300/2500 day cab DAF versus 2800 sleeper on long haul work (or even trunking ) 
.
TM sleeper cab 8V71 or 6V71 powered four wheeler rigid versus day cab Bedford 500 powered TM or any type of zb KM .
The fact is there’s no way that any Brit operator would have specced a TM four wheeler rigid with an 8V71,or even the 6V71,(unless it was used as a drawbar prime mover at 32 t ).
The choice between driving a 2300 or what I’m betting was a 500 powered TM or a KM with,at best,a 6V71 in it which is why the driver might have preferred that or a Gardner powered SA says everything about just how retarded the British road transport industry was in it’s thinking at the time.
However ‘if’ that TM was just used as a four wheeler not a drawbar and actually ‘did’ have the full size cab and an 8V71 or 6V71 in it and ‘if’ the choice had also included the DAF 2800 all parked in the yard I’d be surprised if anyone would have thought that they’d won the pools to have been given the 180 Gardner powered SA instead .
Michael woodman the original owner of astran wanted to run British vehicles but when he approached all the British truck builders not one returned his query that’s how he ended up running scanias. After a few years when his business took of scammell sent him a demonstrator of a crusader with a day cab to do the middle east so who’s the ■■■■■■ the hauliers or the truck builder
kr79:
Michael woodman the original owner of astran wanted to run British vehicles but when he approached all the British truck builders not one returned his query that’s how he ended up running scanias. After a few years when his business took of scammell sent him a demonstrator of a crusader with a day cab to do the middle east so who’s the ■■■■■■ the hauliers or the truck builder
The truth is out there.So why not just give them a spec first sleeper cab Detroit 8V92 13 speed fuller.He would’nt have needed to even see a demonstrator because he would have known what he was getting before it was even built.However Scammell would’nt have had any demonstrators to that spec probably because they’d given up on the idea of trying to convince the industry of the merits of using better trucks by then.
Thats it. Its been nice knowing you all, goodbye
PMSL @ Mr Happy
Carryfast, a little lesson in transport for you, we haul stuff around on the back of the lorries, the more we carry, the more we get paid, so no haulier in their right mind would spec a big heavy expensive TM with a DD and 13spd Fuller to carry the 3.5tons you could carry on a TK860
This has been an interesting thread, some good points of view have been put over, but you have banged the same drum continuously and you’re so out of tune it’s hurting my ears, for God’s sake man get a grip, of all the British lorries you could pick to go up against the continentals, you pick the least successful of the lot…
Carryfast, living proof that care in the community does not work
Carryfast:
kr79:
Michael woodman the original owner of astran wanted to run British vehicles but when he approached all the British truck builders not one returned his query that’s how he ended up running scanias. After a few years when his business took of scammell sent him a demonstrator of a crusader with a day cab to do the middle east so who’s the ■■■■■■ the hauliers or the truck builderThe truth is out there.So why not just give them a spec first sleeper cab Detroit 8V92 13 speed fuller.He would’nt have needed to even see a demonstrator because he would have known what he was getting before it was even built.However Scammell would’nt have had any demonstrators to that spec probably because they’d given up on the idea of trying to convince the industry of the merits of using better trucks by then.
This was when the crusader first come out and why was a truck in the late 60s designed without a tilt cab that’s retarded.
kr79:
Carryfast:
kr79:
Michael woodman the original owner of astran wanted to run British vehicles but when he approached all the British truck builders not one returned his query that’s how he ended up running scanias. After a few years when his business took of scammell sent him a demonstrator of a crusader with a day cab to do the middle east so who’s the ■■■■■■ the hauliers or the truck builderThe truth is out there.So why not just give them a spec first sleeper cab Detroit 8V92 13 speed fuller.He would’nt have needed to even see a demonstrator because he would have known what he was getting before it was even built.However Scammell would’nt have had any demonstrators to that spec probably because they’d given up on the idea of trying to convince the industry of the merits of using better trucks by then.
This was when the crusader first come out and why was a truck in the late 60s designed without a tilt cab that’s retarded.
never drove a crusader how I would have loved that wood effect stick on fablon on the dash , looks a pile of you know what , fredm
newmercman:
PMSL @ Mr HappyCarryfast, a little lesson in transport for you, we haul stuff around on the back of the lorries, the more we carry, the more we get paid, so no haulier in their right mind would spec a big heavy expensive TM with a DD and 13spd Fuller to carry the 3.5tons you could carry on a TK860
This has been an interesting thread, some good points of view have been put over, but you have banged the same drum continuously and you’re so out of tune it’s hurting my ears, for God’s sake man get a grip, of all the British lorries you could pick to go up against the continentals, you pick the least successful of the lot…
Carryfast, living proof that care in the community does not work
Blimey nmm be fair.You were making the point about a TM rigid as being part of that list in the yard at the time .I don’t think that even in the wildest dreams at GM head office,of what might have been possible to flog to the Brit operators of the time,that would have meant an 8V71 powered rigid with a 13 speed box that could only haul a 3.5 t load .
But surely a 16 tonner with that 9.0 Litre motor and a 9 speed fuller or the spicer box would have been in order and not wildly overspecced considering that the yanks had been using that motor in their buses for years before the TM was launched.
But an admission and evidence of a yard in the 1970’s,or even later, consisting of Bedford 500 powered TM rigid,KM powered by the same probably,DAF 2300,and Gardner powered SA 
living proof that the British transport operators at the time were suffering from retarded timing and brain fade.
kr79:
Carryfast:
kr79:
Michael woodman the original owner of astran wanted to run British vehicles but when he approached all the British truck builders not one returned his query that’s how he ended up running scanias. After a few years when his business took of scammell sent him a demonstrator of a crusader with a day cab to do the middle east so who’s the ■■■■■■ the hauliers or the truck builderThe truth is out there.So why not just give them a spec first sleeper cab Detroit 8V92 13 speed fuller.He would’nt have needed to even see a demonstrator because he would have known what he was getting before it was even built.However Scammell would’nt have had any demonstrators to that spec probably because they’d given up on the idea of trying to convince the industry of the merits of using better trucks by then.
This was when the crusader first come out and why was a truck in the late 60s designed without a tilt cab that’s retarded.
Or just that they’d never heard any buyers calling for a tilt cab at the design stage .But I did say that the US industry was more advanced in it’s ideas like regarding 300 hp + as nothing unreasonable at that time,which is probably why Detroit was busy designing the bigger 92 series,and a much better sleeper cab than either the Scania or the Crusader had,probably because of the more advanced requests from the US customers at the time.
In which case a Kenworth would probably have fitted the spec better than a Scania at the time and then if there’d been enough demand for them here we could have set up a UK division just like the Ozzies did.
But the interesting thing is that Astran did order the big V8 140 Scanias and some even had double drive too.
Astran ran more 110 and 111s than they ever did 140s and they did encounter a few tricky patches of unmade road and desert along the way.
Surely it’s the job of vehicle builders to see what vehicles of the future need and a tilting sleeper cab was what a truck designed for the 70s needed to have
kr79:
Surely it’s the job of vehicle builders to see what vehicles of the future need and a tilting sleeper cab was what a truck designed for the 70s needed to have
But the yanks were building them in the 1960’s so why were the British operators still ordering day cab Atkis in the 1960’s and 1970’s when they could have bought KW’s instead like the Australians did and what did the Scania 110/111 have that a cab over KW with a 300 + hp motor in it did’nt .
Carryfast:
newmercman:
I had a 2300 Daf, two in fact, one intercooled, which wasn’t bad, the other turbo only, to make matters worse, it had that nasty back to front 12sp ZF splitter box in it, I came off that onto a Sudden Accident with a 180 Gardner and felt like I’d won the pools, coincidentally that firm had a TM too, a four wheeler rigid, the bloke that had it went back to his old KM as soon as he could, I did drive the KM for a while and that was nasty, don’t say a lot for the TMIt’s all about actual specs and what it is that you’re comparing with what though and the type of work.2300/2500 day cab DAF versus 2800 sleeper on long haul work (or even trunking
TM sleeper cab 8V71 or 6V71 powered four wheeler rigid versus day cab Bedford 500 powered TM or any type of zb KM
The fact is there’s no way that any Brit operator would have specced a TM four wheeler rigid with an 8V71,or even the 6V71,(unless it was used as a drawbar prime mover at 32 t
The choice between driving a 2300 or what I’m betting was a 500 powered TM or a KM with,at best,a 6V71 in it which is why the driver might have preferred that
However ‘if’ that TM was just used as a four wheeler not a drawbar and actually ‘did’ have the full size cab and an 8V71 or 6V71 in it
Carryfast, Bedford were a good light to medium weight lorry builder.The heavy lorries they tried were rubbish.I drove several TK’s which were OK.But they were a cheap lorry and no match for the Leylands and other stronger made lorries of the early 60’s.The KM which I also drove was a cobbled attempt at getting a 16 ton gross weight four wheeler,they didn’t bother to design a decent cab for it,they just stuck a TK cab on a bigger chassis.Then they brought out the TM which was way to late in the day,the other lorry builders were way ahead in the race.It was like putting a Donkey to race a Horse.No way was any haulier with half a brain going to buy a thirsty heap of crap.Bedford ran out of idea’s,and that’s why they threw the towel in.General Motors pulled the plug because they were flogging a dead Horse.
GM should have flogged “carryfast” at the same time Dave then he might have kept stumm now if they’ed laid it on good and hard at the time!! Dennis.
Dave the Renegade:
Carryfast:
newmercman:
I had a 2300 Daf, two in fact, one intercooled, which wasn’t bad, the other turbo only, to make matters worse, it had that nasty back to front 12sp ZF splitter box in it, I came off that onto a Sudden Accident with a 180 Gardner and felt like I’d won the pools, coincidentally that firm had a TM too, a four wheeler rigid, the bloke that had it went back to his old KM as soon as he could, I did drive the KM for a while and that was nasty, don’t say a lot for the TMIt’s all about actual specs and what it is that you’re comparing with what though and the type of work.2300/2500 day cab DAF versus 2800 sleeper on long haul work (or even trunking
TM sleeper cab 8V71 or 6V71 powered four wheeler rigid versus day cab Bedford 500 powered TM or any type of zb KM
The fact is there’s no way that any Brit operator would have specced a TM four wheeler rigid with an 8V71,or even the 6V71,(unless it was used as a drawbar prime mover at 32 t
The choice between driving a 2300 or what I’m betting was a 500 powered TM or a KM with,at best,a 6V71 in it which is why the driver might have preferred that
However ‘if’ that TM was just used as a four wheeler not a drawbar and actually ‘did’ have the full size cab and an 8V71 or 6V71 in it
Carryfast, Bedford were a good light to medium weight lorry builder.The heavy lorries they tried were rubbish.I drove several TK’s which were OK.But they were a cheap lorry and no match for the Leylands and other stronger made lorries of the early 60’s.The KM which I also drove was a cobbled attempt at getting a 16 ton gross weight four wheeler,they didn’t bother to design a decent cab for it,they just stuck a TK cab on a bigger chassis.Then they brought out the TM which was way to late in the day,the other lorry builders were way ahead in the race.It was like putting a Donkey to race a Horse.No way was any haulier with half a brain going to buy a thirsty heap of crap.Bedford ran out of idea’s,and that’s why they threw the towel in.General Motors pulled the plug because they were flogging a dead Horse.
But that does’nt explain how Leyland threw in the towel too by building the T45 for the 1980’s when what was needed was a decent rival to the DAF 2800 in production first before DAF did it
.It also does’nt explain how it was that the Ozzies preferred to start up an Australian division of Kenworth instead of Scania considering that the Ozzy operators have never been known for throwing money away on using ‘thirsty heaps of crap’.
How many Bedfords’s did you own Carryfast?