kr79:
Didn’t they try to buy Leyland before the daf merger.
I’m sure I read the loss of a milatry contract that went to Leyland perhaps to sweeten daf up was the final straw for GM.
I guess by that time the TM which was never as successful as Bedford hoped was coming to the end of its life and the TL was been overtaken by more modern rivals.
Bedford arguably had a better product in the form of the TM than Leyland’s T45 range.
It’s difficult to see exactly what would have been the point and what would GM have actually been buying in the case of a Leyland takeover. Although it might have been more about the Jaguar and Land Rover angle they were more interested in.
Not answering the question I’m sorry , but for local work the TK was excellent. IIRC the KE was a 10 ton gross chassis, with a flat platform body and a six cylinder 330 engine it could carry 7 tons and still weigh in at under 3 tons unladen, which at the time meant no need for an HGV licence to drive it. Not only was this a very handy payload, it was also an excellent vehicle to put young drivers in, to gain some proper experience of lorry driving in a vehicle which handled in a similar way to larger ones
I’ve always thought that both the Bedford TM and the Ford Transcon shared a similar culture: they were both introduced at about the same time as premium long-haul tractors by companies who had previously produced light and middle-weight units. Both were good products. It was going to take more than the lifetimes of the TM and Transcontinental to change the market’s perception of both manufacturers as makers of premium tractive units. Unfortunately, neither really made it to the next stage: ie, the two successors. Robert
cav551:
for local work the TK was excellent. it was also an excellent vehicle to put young drivers in, to gain some proper experience of lorry driving in a vehicle which handled in a similar way to larger ones
That’s how my employers checked me out to start with using my car licence hauling large components around.Everything from heavy stillages to big fire truck tanks etc.But that was with a 7.5 tonner Ford D series which I much preferred to the evil driving by comparison TK’s I drove later on the council.I actually preferred the TJ and R types in that case.I hated evreything about the TK from its pedal design and heavy stupidly placed gearshift to it’s comically silly geared steering and non existent cab comfort by comparison with the D series.
kr79:
Didn’t they try to buy Leyland before the daf merger.
I’m sure I read the loss of a milatry contract that went to Leyland perhaps to sweeten daf up was the final straw for GM.
I guess by that time the TM which was never as successful as Bedford hoped was coming to the end of its life and the TL was been overtaken by more modern rivals.
Bedford arguably had a better product in the form of the TM than Leyland’s T45 range.
It’s difficult to see exactly what would have been the point and what would GM have actually been buying in the case of a Leyland takeover. Although it might have been more about the Jaguar and Land Rover angle they were more interested in.
I’d have to check my kindle for the book I read it from but I’m sure it was by the time jaguar land rover had been separated from Leyland trucks.
It does make sense though Bedford had supplied the army with there light trucks for years and leyland/scammell had been strong at the heavy end.
Leyland had new designs which were popular at the light and medium end of the market with the road runner,freighter,constructor 6 and cruiser lightweight tractor unit and this was always Bedfords core market not the heavyweight end.
kr79:
I’d have to check my kindle for the book I read it from but I’m sure it was by the time jaguar land rover had been separated from Leyland trucks.
It does make sense though Bedford had supplied the army with there light trucks for years and leyland/scammell had been strong at the heavy end.
Leyland had new designs which were popular at the light and medium end of the market with the road runner,freighter,constructor 6 and cruiser lightweight tractor unit and this was always Bedfords core market not the heavyweight end.
I think the GM Jaguar approach at least was made after it had been seperated from Leyland and privatised and in competition with the Ford buy out offer.
But the TM was probably a more efficient range than Leyland’s in that it covered everything from the 16 tonner to max weight heavy haulage sectors.While buying out Leyland would have just logically put them in a worse situation,regarding a spread out range of products and liabilities,than the TM already provided them with.It’s my guess that customer acceptance of Detroit engines,including the military side,in the TM would have been a game changer regards Bedford’s fortunes.While the issue also seems to have taken out GM’s Astro production operation thereby finally removing GM as a whole not just Bedford from the scene regards truck manufacturing and it’s difficult to see how getting involved with Leyland at the time would have changed that.
By the time Bedford introduced the TM, Volvo and Scania had cracked the European market. After the TK Bedford concentrated on military vehicles and neglected the home market
Dave the Renegade:
By the time Bedford introduced the TM, Volvo and Scania had cracked the European market. After the TK Bedford concentrated on military vehicles and neglected the home market
I think the TM actually pre dated the introduction of the F10/12 so not exactly a two horse race at that point.Realistically the TM’s only chance would have been turbo 92 series or nothing on introduction even if that meant a slight delay and then hope that they could have gained better customer acceptance with that than lumbering it with the obsolete 71N.
What is certain that idea couldn’t possibly have been any worse than the commercially suicidal idea of going for the doomed to failure 71N.Then the outsourced ■■■■■■■ thereby removing the business case for the project.
Dave the Renegade:
By the time Bedford introduced the TM, Volvo and Scania had cracked the European market. After the TK Bedford concentrated on military vehicles and neglected the home market
I think the TM actually pre dated the introduction of the F10/12 so not exactly a two horse race at that point.Realistically the TM’s only chance would have been turbo 92 series or nothing on introduction even if that meant a slight delay and then hope that they could have gained better customer acceptance with that than lumbering it with the obsolete 71N.
What is certain that idea couldn’t possibly have been any worse than the commercially suicidal idea of going for the doomed to failure 71N.Then the outsourced ■■■■■■■ thereby removing the business case for the project.
Volvo had the F86 and F88, Scania ad the 110/111 etc,they were way ahead of Bedford and the TM,as one of my old bosses found out when he bought several new TM’s which were a disaster.
robert1952:
I’ve always thought that both the Bedford TM and the Ford Transcon shared a similar culture: they were both introduced at about the same time as premium long-haul tractors by companies who had previously produced light and middle-weight units. Both were good products. It was going to take more than the lifetimes of the TM and Transcontinental to change the market’s perception of both manufacturers as makers of premium tractive units. Unfortunately, neither really made it to the next stage: ie, the two successors. Robert
Yes Robert you’re right but being a Ford man it was a shame about the Transco which looked the part more than the TM but then don’t judge a sausage by it skin.Although the Transco was made with everybody else’s bits apart from the badge but it was Ford Engineers put everything together.I found customers said it was too big and high.Look at the stuff around now.Folk often mentions the poor fuel consumption but then the right foot was that problem.Also the problem was that Bedford really didn’t get there but of course they hadn’t got any money to develop any thing which at one time was a very popular motor particulalyr for luton vans.Ford hadn’t got anymore money to carry on and that’s why the Iveco job sprang into " ACTION"
Coming off the subject a bit on the car side,I don’t know your thoughts but co car drivers and front of garage parks like to have the O’s, Stars and animals as a badge.Bit snooty about badges but then they perhaps don’t have to pay for repairs etc
Sorry for the boring speach but the T.K.was a good motor but didn’t look any different when Mr Brown took the job over.
kr79:
I’d have to check my kindle for the book I read it from but I’m sure it was by the time jaguar land rover had been separated from Leyland trucks.
It does make sense though Bedford had supplied the army with there light trucks for years and leyland/scammell had been strong at the heavy end.
Leyland had new designs which were popular at the light and medium end of the market with the road runner,freighter,constructor 6 and cruiser lightweight tractor unit and this was always Bedfords core market not the heavyweight end.
I think the GM Jaguar approach at least was made after it had been seperated from Leyland and privatised and in competition with the Ford buy out offer.
But the TM was probably a more efficient range than Leyland’s in that it covered everything from the 16 tonner to max weight heavy haulage sectors.While buying out Leyland would have just logically put them in a worse situation,regarding a spread out range of products and liabilities,than the TM already provided them with.It’s my guess that customer acceptance of Detroit engines,including the military side,in the TM would have been a game changer regards Bedford’s fortunes.While the issue also seems to have taken out GM’s Astro production operation thereby finally removing GM as a whole not just Bedford from the scene regards truck manufacturing and it’s difficult to see how getting involved with Leyland at the time would have changed that.
The fact Bedfords core market was the lighter end would of made sense and the t45 was a modular assembly would of been what Bedford wanted.
It was obvious by then a two stroke design would never be accepted by most in Europe and by then it’s days were numbered on the other side of the Atlantic too.
Dave the Renegade:
Volvo had the F86 and F88,they were way ahead of Bedford and the TM,as one of my old bosses found out when he bought several new TM’s which were a disaster.
Blimey the F86/88 were a generation behind the TM.It’s just that as I said GM ( or Bedford ) lumbered the thing with a 1950’s engine design in the form of the 71N series instead of 1970’s turbo 92.Although it would be interesting to find out what you mean by ‘disaster’.
kr79:
The fact Bedfords core market was the lighter end would of made sense and the t45 was a modular assembly would of been what Bedford wanted.
It was obvious by then a two stroke design would never be accepted by most in Europe and by then it’s days were numbered on the other side of the Atlantic too.
I’d guess at that point ■■■■■■■ and Rolls powered T45 v 60 series powered TM in any range from 16 t to 38t+ seems even more of a no brainer. I think the clue is that GM shut down the TM and the Astro and ditched its Detroit engine operations.IE it just wanted out of the truck manufacturing industry altogether.
Dave the Renegade:
Volvo had the F86 and F88,they were way ahead of Bedford and the TM,as one of my old bosses found out when he bought several new TM’s which were a disaster.
Blimey the F86/88 were a generation behind the TM.It’s just that as I said GM ( or Bedford ) lumbered the thing with a 1950’s engine design in the form of the 71N series instead of 1970’s turbo 92.Although it would be interesting to find out what you mean by ‘disaster’.
Disaster as in the dictionary. Driven by experienced drivers with various engines that were available, he was glad to see the back of them.
kr79:
The fact Bedfords core market was the lighter end would of made sense and the t45 was a modular assembly would of been what Bedford wanted.
It was obvious by then a two stroke design would never be accepted by most in Europe and by then it’s days were numbered on the other side of the Atlantic too.
I’d guess at that point ■■■■■■■ and Rolls powered T45 v 60 series powered TM in any range from 16 t to 38t+ seems even more of a no brainer. I think the clue is that GM shut down the TM and the Astro and ditched its Detroit engine operations.IE it just wanted out of the truck manufacturing industry altogether.
The same as Ford they knew they needed a whole range of trucks to compete and both had utlamatly failed with the tm and transcontinental .
I’d say the sales figures would tell us what the people who paid the bills prefer ed between the tm and road train
kr79:
The same as Ford they knew they needed a whole range of trucks to compete and both had utlamatly failed with the tm and transcontinental .
I’d say the sales figures would tell us what the people who paid the bills prefer ed between the tm and road train
But unlike the Ford the TM was a whole range in everything from a 16 tonner to 40t + at least.
Which just leaves the question of how was it that the thing was more likely to be specced by both manufacturer and operator with a 6v71N motor and narrow day cab to run at 32t gross let alone 16. Than at least 6v92T at 16-24t gross and 8V92T at 30t gross + with the decent full width day or sleeper cab option in all cases.While from memory an 8 wheeler rigid was only available to special order.
The result of all of which could only damage its credibility among both operators and drivers in the market as the intended all in house product.The difference in this case being that,unlike Leyland,GM did actually have a reasonable line up in terms of cab and engines ‘if’ it had chosen to use them by removing the inferior options.
But yes even I,being one o the TM’s greatest advocates,would probably have chosen the T45 over a 6V71 or possibly even 8v71 powered TM on grounds of fuel efficency at least.However,as I’ve said,making that 92T spec would have been a game changer in that regard.As for the T45 v TM cab in best case full width day or sleeper form that choice would also have been a no brainer.
The comparison being a moot point because ultimately both ended up out of the frame for similar reasons. IE no business case for continuation as in house producers.
In Leyland’s case in large part because it didn’t have an in house engine.
While in GM’s case because of the commercially suicidal fact that it chose to not standardise on its best up to date engine range in the TM at the time when it needed to.
kr79:
Didn’t they try to buy Leyland before the daf merger.
I’m sure I read the loss of a milatry contract that went to Leyland perhaps to sweeten daf up was the final straw for GM.
I guess by that time the TM which was never as successful as Bedford hoped was coming to the end of its life and the TL was been overtaken by more modern rivals.
It’s intresting that Ford got out of truck building at the same time.
The Thatcher Goverment did indeed see the awarding of the military contract to Leyland dcrucial to the survival of Leyland and the subsequent merger with DAF.
The Army had wanted the Bedford and in some parts of the test had performed better than the Leyland and was never beaten in any trial by the Leyland.
Bedford had also tried and failed to buy Land Rover in an effort to almost corner the UK military market.
Problem for Bedford was that nobody except the military was really buying the trucks.
So GM saw a chance to get rid.
From a personal point of view the Leyland was awful.
It was as if they’d simply bolted bits of a Sherpa into it hated them.
In Basra in 2004 I had the choice of a MJ or a DAF so off I went in the MJ.
Mind it was slow it did about 25 flat out the escorts bombed off and had to come back to get us as we were miles behind.
I got a TM when I went up to Al Ammarah and that was great it would do about 75 flat out handy to get out of any trouble.
As for the civvie market going down they just never developed them I felt.
The same vehicle that rolled out the factory in 1970 was rolling out in 1987 with very little change.
I once read that sokme of the parts on the MK could be chased back to the 1920’s and followed through virtually every model up to the MK
Soldier z:
The Army had wanted the Bedford and in some parts of the test had performed better than the Leyland and was never beaten in any trial by the Leyland.
I got a TM when I went up to Al Ammarah and that was great
As for the civvie market going down they just never developed them I felt.
The same vehicle that rolled out the factory in 1970 was rolling out in 1987 with very little change.
I once read that sokme of the parts on the MK could be chased back to the 1920’s and followed through virtually every model up to the MK
Realistically,whether civilian or military,it’s the TM which was/should be the benchmark for comparison with Bedford’s competitors at any point after the mid 1970’s.At least in the case of 16t gross +.
Although it might have been more about the Jaguar and Land Rover angle they were more interested in.
Robert
Than at least 6v92T at 16-24t gross and 8V92T at 30t gross + with the decent full width day or sleeper cab option in all cases.While from memory an 8 wheeler rigid was only available to special order.