The Ergo thread has reignited my interest in these. I found this: flickr.com/photos/35455701@N … hotostream
The comments below the photo are interesting. One bloke says that, to cure the problems, AEC wanted to retool the cylinder block and crankshaft. We have all heard the old chestnut about Leyland refusing to allow AEC the funds to finish the development of the V8 but, if that was the extent of the work required, their stance is understandable. Does anyone know any more details about the plans to resurrect the AEC V8?
[zb]
anorak:
The Ergo thread has reignited my interest in these. I found this: flickr.com/photos/35455701@N … hotostream
The comments below the photo are interesting. One bloke says that, to cure the problems, AEC wanted to retool the cylinder block and crankshaft. We have all heard the old chestnut about Leyland refusing to allow AEC the funds to finish the development of the V8 but, if that was the extent of the work required, their stance is understandable. Does anyone know any more details about the plans to resurrect the AEC V8?
Apparently the V8 was ready for relaunch with all the problems sorted in i think `73 but Leyland stopped it ,Gingerfold will be able to tell you more ,there was also a turbo version of the AV 505 ready to go but that was never allowed either
Yes, the original AEC V8 design was problematic with its big end journals being too narrow in an attempt to make a compact engine dimensionally. Operators of AEC V8s prepared to change the oil regularly and replace big end shells at 50,000 to 60,000 miles had no problems with big ends. Because new tooling had been purchased for V8 crankshaft machining Leyland could or would not sanction new tooling for wider crankshaft journals which in turn would have required a new crankcase. Various tests were carried out with big end shell alloys to find a cheaper solution that would allow existing tooling to be used, and I was told by senior AEC engineers that a suitable big-end shell alloy had been sourced that had cured the big-end weakness. This also co-incided with test-bed turbo-charged V8 development with an output of 350 bhp. This was in 1971-72, but Leyland would not sanction the re-introduction and production of the V8. By then the 500 series headless wonder was in production and the TL12 was being developed for the Marathon launch in 1973.
So if Leyland would have invested a little more money we may have seen a V8 Marathon
Yes, I’ve always believed that the Marathon concept, free of all its build quality problems, would have been the ideal vehicle for a reliable AEC V8 engine offering a power range of 250 bhp to 350 bhp.
Hey, haven’t there been two V8 engines with different cylinder capacity,was the one better as the other or were both not good.
It is not only AEC which made a bad V engine,looks at ■■■■■■■■ And Scania was not good at first too, but not so bad as other.
most stayed with 6 in lines and it is not easy to work on a V engine too. The sound of a Scania V8 ok but was it quicker as volvo’s 12 Litre no.
Berliet tryed it as well and then stopped to build it and restarted witha bigger capacity engine.
The MAN’s were better.
MB’s V8/10 engine were good but of one head gasgets were sometimes replacements needed at the heatest side.
A V engine has always been difficult to develop because of heat emessions.
And the shorter the stroke the higher the revings and more torqueless at low revs and so higher fuel consumption.
So 6 in lines are mostly long strokers and be the better?look at MB the 6 in line 1924 was faster and more fuel economic as the V8 1926,
and had better torque a lower revs.The same with the F89 which was the better of the two with the 140 scannie.
More torque in a F89 and lower revs. only with the coming of the 141 became the V8 better results.
Cheers Eric,
gingerfold:
Yes, the original AEC V8 design was problematic with its big end journals being too narrow in an attempt to make a compact engine dimensionally. Operators of AEC V8s prepared to change the oil regularly and replace big end shells at 50,000 to 60,000 miles had no problems with big ends. Because new tooling had been purchased for V8 crankshaft machining Leyland could or would not sanction new tooling for wider crankshaft journals which in turn would have required a new crankcase. Various tests were carried out with big end shell alloys to find a cheaper solution that would allow existing tooling to be used, and I was told by senior AEC engineers that a suitable big-end shell alloy had been sourced that had cured the big-end weakness. This also co-incided with test-bed turbo-charged V8 development with an output of 350 bhp. This was in 1971-72, but Leyland would not sanction the re-introduction and production of the V8. By then the 500 series headless wonder was in production and the TL12 was being developed for the Marathon launch in 1973.
Hi Gingerfold; thanks for persevering with our daft questions.
I can still understand Leyland’s reluctance to give the green light to the V8- its capacity was only marginally more than the AV760, so it would have had to remain a high-revving engine to make enough power to sit above the TL12 in the range, even with a turbocharger. Also, the engine was considerably overquare, similar to the ■■■■■■■ VINE, which was also problematic. If it could have been stroked out to 15 litres or so, it would have stood a chance, I think.
I would love to get into this subject in more depth- are any of the engineers involved still in the mood for a bit of coal-raking?
Yes Eric, there were two AEC V8 capacities, the original at 740 cubic inches and the second version at 801 cubic inches. Basically the same engine as the AV 740 but with thinner cylinder liners. The AV 801 was the more reliable engine of the two and did not overheat to the same extent because the thinner liners gave better heat dissipation. AEC had the same overheating issues with their straight sixes AV691 and AV760. Again they were basically the same engine, but the latter had thinner liners and was much the better engine for reliabilty. The AV691 was preferred by coach operators in which application it was reliable because an adequate capacity radiator could be fitted in a coach whereas as discussed on the ERGO thread the ERGO cab restricted the radiator capacity in lorry applications.
No -one said high datum until Roadtrain high version 1981 , sorry but you had to be there , in Sweden Volvo bought all the Leyland 30 - 38 ton tractors to strip down and spy on , erm no worries , only on how good was fuel on Buffalo fixed head 
with many years spent in h.g.v. repair and mantainance i can honestly say i have never heard a v6 .v8 etc that seemed to run smoothly,they all seem to miss a little at certain revs.only upright engines give long reliable economical service,its ok for the big operators to play around with them as repairs and mod,s are usually paid for by manufacturers,which in effect gives them cheap testing facilities and cheap trucks for big operators.v engines seem to come and go in cycles and are o.k. in low engine load app,s like generators and compressors etc,not in general haulage.although magirus duetz did have success with their v engines which now seem to have almost dissapeared from the market.you will never beat the old leyland 680 or the gardner 6lw for reliability and economy.bosses engines as they were called.definitely not as complicated as euro 5 &6 which have to have regular supplies of ■■■■ (alcohol free?) l.o.l. 
shirtbox2003:
with many years spent in h.g.v. repair and mantainance i can honestly say i have never heard a v6 .v8 etc that seemed to run smoothly,they all seem to miss a little at certain revs.only upright engines give long reliable economical service,its ok for the big operators to play around with them as repairs and mod,s are usually paid for by manufacturers,which in effect gives them cheap testing facilities and cheap trucks for big operators.v engines seem to come and go in cycles and are o.k. in low engine load app,s like generators and compressors etc,not in general haulage.although magirus duetz did have success with their v engines which now seem to have almost dissapeared from the market.you will never beat the old leyland 680 or the gardner 6lw for reliability and economy.bosses engines as they were called.definitely not as complicated as euro 5 &6 which have to have regular supplies of ■■■■ (alcohol free?) l.o.l.
Hey Shirtbox, I agree with you for about 50% To work on as mecanic the best is a 6 in line,for example a scannie V8 is a headache.
More expensive to develop and make it a good one,but some could it as Scania and deutz,MB and so on.
They never ran as smootly as an in line,but some had a nice sound. In the early days the V engine was made
for more volume so more HP and oversquare for high revving and again more HP. but it was a fare cry from
economy on fuel and bottem end torque and have more wear and heat and expensive to repair. Even the
first Scania V8 was high revving engine but only 2300revs.But nowadays as every bit must be perfect,aren’t anymore
place for playing,now the timegear is at the back too.And a day ■■■■■■■ could deliver 19 litres with 6 in line so we
are still a bit soothe before the V engines come back.
Cheers Eric,
I will agree that a 6 or 8 cylinder engine is probably the best configuration for heavy automotive use but I’ve got to say that the V8 ■■■■■■■ I had in my D1000 was as smooth as silk in operation,although the couple of V8 Perkins we also ran were not as smooth as the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ due to the different injection systems,but the ■■■■■■■ ran like clockwork never missing a beat,surging or otherwise ! Must have been due to the driver is the only reason I can think of Cheers Bewick.
Hi,Folks , We baught an E,R,F, STB 500 C an ex J, c Finny from Bolton ,It had the ■■■■■■■ Vine v engine , When it went it was like ■■■■ off a shovel trouble was it didnt go very often ,Dont think we ever had afull week out of it ,IT Went through a wall had a brand new cab that had to be alltered to fit the engine ,Second day out siezed up on Kelsall hill ,rebuilt the engine ,she looked the part nice new cab ,So off it went in part ex ,The best days work it ever done ,Just a bit of usless info ,Cheers Barry
Bewick:
I will agree that a 6 or 8 cylinder engine is probably the best configuration for heavy automotive use but I’ve got to say that the V8 ■■■■■■■ I had in my D1000 was as smooth as silk in operation,although the couple of V8 Perkins we also ran were not as smooth as the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ due to the different injection systems,but the ■■■■■■■ ran like clockwork never missing a beat,surging or otherwise ! Must have been due to the driver is the only reason I can think of
Would that driver be a certain Mr Smith by any chance ? 
ramone:
Bewick:
I will agree that a 6 or 8 cylinder engine is probably the best configuration for heavy automotive use but I’ve got to say that the V8 ■■■■■■■ I had in my D1000 was as smooth as silk in operation,although the couple of V8 Perkins we also ran were not as smooth as the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ due to the different injection systems,but the ■■■■■■■ ran like clockwork never missing a beat,surging or otherwise ! Must have been due to the driver is the only reason I can think ofWould that driver be a certain Mr Smith by any chance ?
Bewick:
ramone:
Bewick:
I will agree that a 6 or 8 cylinder engine is probably the best configuration for heavy automotive use but I’ve got to say that the V8 ■■■■■■■ I had in my D1000 was as smooth as silk in operation,although the couple of V8 Perkins we also ran were not as smooth as the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ due to the different injection systems,but the ■■■■■■■ ran like clockwork never missing a beat,surging or otherwise ! Must have been due to the driver is the only reason I can think ofWould that driver be a certain Mr Smith by any chance ?
Would that same driver have been able to run a Mandator V8 with the same success 
■■?
ramone:
Bewick:
ramone:
Bewick:
I will agree that a 6 or 8 cylinder engine is probably the best configuration for heavy automotive use but I’ve got to say that the V8 ■■■■■■■ I had in my D1000 was as smooth as silk in operation,although the couple of V8 Perkins we also ran were not as smooth as the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ due to the different injection systems,but the ■■■■■■■ ran like clockwork never missing a beat,surging or otherwise ! Must have been due to the driver is the only reason I can think ofWould that driver be a certain Mr Smith by any chance ?
Would that same driver have been able to run a Mandator V8 with the same success
Yus my dear,nay problem !! 
Dennis.
Bewick:
ramone:
Bewick:
ramone:
Bewick:
I will agree that a 6 or 8 cylinder engine is probably the best configuration for heavy automotive use but I’ve got to say that the V8 ■■■■■■■ I had in my D1000 was as smooth as silk in operation,although the couple of V8 Perkins we also ran were not as smooth as the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ due to the different injection systems,but the ■■■■■■■ ran like clockwork never missing a beat,surging or otherwise ! Must have been due to the driver is the only reason I can think ofWould that driver be a certain Mr Smith by any chance ?
Would that same driver have been able to run a Mandator V8 with the same success
Yus my dear,nay problem !! Dennis.[/quote
Funnily enough thats what my dad said ,he reckoned alot of drivers used to "send `em on " thats why they kept breaking down.
ramone:
Bewick:
ramone:
Bewick:
ramone:
Bewick:
I will agree that a 6 or 8 cylinder engine is probably the best configuration for heavy automotive use but I’ve got to say that the V8 ■■■■■■■ I had in my D1000 was as smooth as silk in operation,although the couple of V8 Perkins we also ran were not as smooth as the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ due to the different injection systems,but the ■■■■■■■ ran like clockwork never missing a beat,surging or otherwise ! Must have been due to the driver is the only reason I can think ofWould that driver be a certain Mr Smith by any chance ?
Would that same driver have been able to run a Mandator V8 with the same success
Yus my dear,nay problem !!
[/quote
Funnily enough thats what my dad said ,he reckoned alot of drivers used to "send `em on " thats why they kept breaking down.
IMO,from the mid 60’s there was no such thing as a “bad” motor,you got what you paid for and the less the particular vehicle cost equated to the more care you had to take with the driving and maintainence of said motor.In my case at Bewick Transport we looked after the cheaper motors I started with “like a cake and an egg” but once we progressed onto the Atkis,ERF’s ect we could "send them "on a bit knowing they were better fitted for the demanding service we asked of them,then later on the Scanias were as tough as they come,we still looked after them well but they delivered continueous reliable service for many many more years than the likes of the Mastiffs could have done.Cheers Dennis.
Bewick:
ramone:
Bewick:
ramone:
Bewick:
ramone:
Bewick:
I will agree that a 6 or 8 cylinder engine is probably the best configuration for heavy automotive use but I’ve got to say that the V8 ■■■■■■■ I had in my D1000 was as smooth as silk in operation,although the couple of V8 Perkins we also ran were not as smooth as the ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ due to the different injection systems,but the ■■■■■■■ ran like clockwork never missing a beat,surging or otherwise ! Must have been due to the driver is the only reason I can think ofWould that driver be a certain Mr Smith by any chance ?
Would that same driver have been able to run a Mandator V8 with the same success
Yus my dear,nay problem !!
[/quote
Funnily enough thats what my dad said ,he reckoned alot of drivers used to "send `em on " thats why they kept breaking down.IMO,from the mid 60’s there was no such thing as a “bad” motor,you got what you paid for and the less the particular vehicle cost equated to the more care you had to take with the driving and maintainence of said motor.In my case at Bewick Transport we looked after the cheaper motors I started with “like a cake and an egg” but once we progressed onto the Atkis,ERF’s ect we could "send them "on a bit knowing they were better fitted for the demanding service we asked of them,then later on the Scanias were as tough as they come,we still looked after them well but they delivered continueous reliable service for many many more years than the likes of the Mastiffs could have done.Cheers Dennis.
I think its called development but i`m sure your mate CF would have a much longer term for it no doubt quoting zb Gardners and anything else english .And of course the wonderful V8 DD
But there was a different attitude towards driving then and drivers took care in what they had because they didn`t get a shiney new 1 every 3 years that drove itself