Bewick:
That is total bollox “CF” and you know it,operators required reliability and economy above all else,not unreilability and fuel guzzling that you are promoting,dear oh! dear,when will you accept the brutal economic facts of past life.Where the [zb] is Matron ■■ Bewick
I was just taking AEC’s ideas of how to make a V8 and making them even ‘better’. 
Just to recap after the fascinating diversions resulting from Carryfast’s contributions. The original policies from both AEC and Leyland, as independent companies, and then as partners, was to be totally self sufficient in engines for their own in-house models, but also to supply the “loose” engine market. That is those chassis manufacturers that were’nt clever enough, or large enough to make their own engines. Except for Scammell of course, world leaders in lorry design (but somehow unable to design and make its own diesel engine), who would go its own way and buy some strange contraption from the US, and also a magnificent RR unit sold to them at a knock-down price, which incidentally was designed by the same man from AEC who had designed the useless AEC V8 and rubbish TL12. But because the Chief Executive of British Leyland was a benign, fatherly, figure his lack of control over his engine designers, and his inability to finance said projects, resulted in the the whole group failing. Those incompetent engineers certainly have much to answer for. 
Ramone, it doesn’t need anyone else to fuel our friend’s fire. He’s self-combustible. 
gingerfold:
Just to recap after the fascinating diversions resulting from Carryfast’s contributions. The original policies from both AEC and Leyland, as independent companies, and then as partners, was to be totally self sufficient in engines for their own in-house models, but also to supply the “loose” engine market. That is those chassis manufacturers that were’nt clever enough, or large enough to make their own engines. Except for Scammell of course, world leaders in lorry design (but somehow unable to design and make its own diesel engine), who would go its own way and buy some strange contraption from the US, and also a magnificent RR unit sold to them at a knock-down price, which incidentally was designed by the same man from AEC who had designed the useless AEC V8 and rubbish TL12. But because the Chief Executive of British Leyland was a benign, fatherly, figure his lack of control over his engine designers, and his inability to finance said projects, resulted in the the whole group failing. Those incompetent engineers certainly have much to answer for.Ramone, it doesn’t need anyone else to fuel our friend’s fire. He’s self-combustible.
Since you posted your reports on the Bob Fryars article, the thread has been swamped with the Loon’s uncontrolled braying, to the almost complete exclusion of intelligent argument. It would be great to investigate further the decisions regarding engine configuration, capacity and bore/stroke ratio, from the standpoint of a designer working in 1961. The only solution is to ignore the Loon and carry on as normal, like a person with a severe disability who just gets on with life, regardless.
gingerfold:
Just to recap after the fascinating diversions resulting from Carryfast’s contributions. The original policies from both AEC and Leyland, as independent companies, and then as partners, was to be totally self sufficient in engines for their own in-house models, but also to supply the “loose” engine market. That is those chassis manufacturers that were’nt clever enough, or large enough to make their own engines. Except for Scammell of course, world leaders in lorry design (but somehow unable to design and make its own diesel engine), who would go its own way and buy some strange contraption from the US, and also a magnificent RR unit sold to them at a knock-down price, which incidentally was designed by the same man from AEC who had designed the useless AEC V8 and rubbish TL12. But because the Chief Executive of British Leyland was a benign, fatherly, figure his lack of control over his engine designers, and his inability to finance said projects, resulted in the the whole group failing. Those incompetent engineers certainly have much to answer for.Ramone, it doesn’t need anyone else to fuel our friend’s fire. He’s self-combustible.
The obvious question being why the move to Rolls assuming that AEC’s engineering ideas were in line with those of the designer in question.While ‘if’ the short stroke idea was so good then there would obviously have been no need to change it in the case of 6 cylinder designs either.Bearing in mind that,as I’ve said,there is limit to how much an extra two cylinders can do,in compensating for the loss of torque,caused by use of the short stroke idea.Especially in the case of it being taken to extreme levels such as in the ■■■■■■■ and AEC examples.Yes in this case,the questions related to such thinking,have more to answer for,than Stokes’ arguable alleged failings.
[zb]
anorak:
Since you posted your reports on the Bob Fryars article, the thread has been swamped with the Loon’s uncontrolled braying, to the almost complete exclusion of intelligent argument. It would be great to investigate further the decisions regarding engine configuration, capacity and bore/stroke ratio, from the standpoint of a designer working in 1961. The only solution is to ignore the Loon and carry on as normal, like a person with a severe disability who just gets on with life, regardless.
Why the hostility when I’ve said nothing which isn’t totally consistent and in agreement with that.We obviously have at least one of the relevant person’s in question,thoughts provided here.So far they don’t look good from the ‘designers’ point of view in only seeming to make a link between stroke measurement and emissions with the glaring omission of torque.
Not entirely accurate but not far off
ramone:
Not entirely accurate but not far off
It ‘would’ be all but spot on ‘if’ only everyone would stop blaming Leyland’s management for the failings of AEC’s designers in the basic design of the thing.While realising that financial limitations on British industry meant that there was never going to be any second chances to get it right.Getting it right in this case meaning a totally different engine with a totally different much longer stroke measurement amongst other obvious architectural shortcoming improvements.In which case how many buyers would then have bought the resulting big power Scania 140 competitor.Even if by some miracle the money could have been found for the required engine upgrades let alone a competitive cab design to go with it.
The fact is the AEC V8 was an example of the job needing to be done right first time no ifs no buts but it’s designers let it down even before it had even left the drawing board.Even if they hadn’t the ‘real’ problems would have been then making the right truck to put it in let alone finding enough customers for it when they’d done it.Putting the blame for all that on Stokes won’t change those facts.
What hasn’t been explained very well in any on these sort of articles is why was such a poorly engineered prototype ever built.
There would have been literally millions of hours of good, sound, well proven engineering expertise available to senior management.
To go so far as to actually build an engine with inadequate mains/big ends is unforgivable.
Bearing type and area could have been designed by the most junior slide rule pusher of the day. Very basic stuff.
To then expect such inadequate bearings to take the enormous extra loads encountered by turbo charging, someone was asleep.
I doubt that at Board level, members would even know what a bearing was. Sure they’re the blokes who would apply pressure to their subordinates but no Board member would give the go-ahead to spend such monies on a doomed project, as this thing was.
This C/F Geesa seems to forget that a lot of haulage firms that ran motors with these Leyland engines are still operating to-day, So go and get a new Teddy Bear & go to your favourate corner & ■■■■ your thumb, Im sure you will enjoy it, By the way you can call the new Teddy , Gardner. Regards Larry a dedicated Leyland & Gardner engine Fan,They did very well for me.
Carryfast:
Bewick:
Carryfast:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
gingerfold:
[zb]
anorak:
^^^FFS. Near-perfect stupidity.^^^He just doesn’t get it does he?
I
m suprised you both keep fueling his fire , the thing i dont understand is that in one thread the clown is slagging the AV760 and the TL12 , here he`s saying it should have been developed … confused .comYou’ve obviously selectively missed out the reference to the fact that ideally it would have taken a merger between Rolls and AEC to make the TL12 what it ‘would’ have taken to beat it’s opposition.Unlike what ‘actually’ happened in that Rolls managed to make their 6 cylinder motors without the help of AEC anyway and which easily outperformed AEC’s best shot.IE I slagged the thing off ‘because’ it wasn’t developed probably because the development it ‘would have’ taken was beyond AEC’s know how and/or resources.Those resources obviously being a lot less because of all those wasted on the V8.
I
m sure ive read on here somewhere that the eagle was very similar to the AV760 partly due to the chief designer moving from AEC to Rolls Royce ,… but then again i could be wrong i usually amShould’nt you be locked up in your cell,sorry,“secure accomodation”,at this time of night “CF”? Is Matron out on a hen night or what ? Cheers me old mucker! Bewick.
I’m guessing that this isn’t one of the same ‘designers’ who dream’t up the idea of the short stroke V8.But then I could be wrong.I’ve told matron that I’m going to start up AEC again but this time I’m going to do the job properly by making a V8 with the same bore as the Fiat and the stroke of the Vine.Then just use more turbo boost to make up for the torque deficiency.
■■■■■■■■ the only thing you start Beginning with A , Is not AEC, But Arguments, Are you for real or what, Regards Larry.
Here’s another engineer with an equation relating noise to bore size and engine speed, to go with the two already mentioned in this thread:
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … the-diesel
… and here’s the work of a group of engineers who think differently:
Edit- the bloke in the first article I linked is the same one mentioned by Gingerfold a couple of pages back, so there are still only two of them. My mistake- you are free to call me the second-biggest idiot on the forum!
[zb]
anorak:
Here’s another engineer with an equation relating noise to bore size and engine speed, to go with the two already mentioned in this thread:
archive.commercialmotor.com/arti … the-diesel… and here’s the work of a group of engineers who think differently:
0
I’m going with the mass air flow of the inlet charge x firing pulses per revolution x engine speed.
youtube.com/watch?v=6vaeoOEsHPY
youtube.com/watch?v=4sfsxsYTRJM
youtube.com/watch?v=fZMPDCNyQxE
Big turbocharged low revving four stroke 6 cylinder wins.
I don’t think that there is any argument against the fact that AEC knew they had designed a ‘lemon’ of an engine with their V8 in 1961, and that was why it was shelved. When it was revived,for all the reasons given earlier it was a case of attempting to make something work that was basically flawed, and that was very bad management, both on an individual and collective scale. I was once worked for a company, only a fraction of the size of British Leyland, and it was in serious financial difficulty. Because of financial pressures we were told to persevere with a product that was flawed when it should have been scrapped, and eventually we lost the customer because of it. It’s very easy to make wrong decisions to not spend money when the pressure is mounting on management, or the alternative is to be brave, accept the short term losses, and start again.
In the entire history of automotive design and engineering there hasn’t been a company that hasn’t designed a ‘lemon’ at some time. Mostly they were and / or are swept under the carpet in-house and never see the light of day. Others do become public knowledge, as per AEC / Leyland, mainly because from the late 1960’s the parent company was hardly ever out of the public eye, and it was by some distance the UK’s biggest automotive manufacturer.
gingerfold:
I don’t think that there is any argument against the fact that AEC knew they had designed a ‘lemon’ of an engine with their V8 in 1961, and that was why it was shelved…
Reading through the saga again, I note that the project was put on the shelf in 1962, after a one-off in-line research engine had been built. I infer from this that the work was stopped with no V8 prototypes having been built. Was the project shelved as a result of testing of the research engine, or was it some commercial factor, for example uncertainty over potential mergers?
Whats the story around the redevelopment of the V8 in the early 70s where it was mentioned that they had cured the problems but Leyland wouldnt launch it ,wasn`t there a tubo AV505 at around the same time which also never saw the light of day?
Carryfast:
newmercman:
OK, three points.1, I was taking the ■■■■■
2, The TL12 was a better engine than anything Rolls Royce produced in the lorry market. The only reasons Rolls Royce engines made it into chassis were political,
Unless you know different I don’t remember any 300 + TL12 engines being put in the T45.[/quote Well if you are referring to the R/R 300 T, The Leyland we had did have this engine in & was trouble free, & We ran it for 7 years & the firm we sold it to ran it for another 3, Regards Larry.
These threads about 8 pot engines cause some dissagreements!,but at least AEC fitted a V8 unlike a certain Wolverhampton manufacturer 
ramone:
Whats the story around the redevelopment of the V8 in the early70s where it was mentioned that they had cured the problems but Leyland wouldnt launch it ,wasn`t there a tubo AV505 at around the same time which also never saw the light of day?
Well there was mine. As a teenager I was so appalled with the output of my 505 I fitted a turbo. Didn’t know enough about fuelling to make any real difference, all it did was produce a smoke free exhaust.
Likewise Mandator operators here in Aus fitted turbos and they went well. Obviously had deeper pockets than me to experiment with injectors and pump settings.
The 505 range slotted into a fair sized market and should have pumped out at least 220hp. When properly turbocharged and aftercooled, it would have eaten into the F86 sales.
ramone:
Whats the story around the redevelopment of the V8 in the early70s where it was mentioned that they had cured the problems but Leyland wouldnt launch it ,wasn`t there a tubo AV505 at around the same time which also never saw the light of day?
I sumise that by then Leyland just could not have afforded, both finanacially and in further damage to its reputation, another engine failure. By then the 500 headless wonder was in production with a 35% failure rate on the production line alone, plus massive warrenty claims. The turbo-charged 505 was being developed but it would have overlapped in power output with the fixed head 500, so it was a surplus engine. The naturally aspirated version of it, the AV506, was fitted in Mercurys and Marshals for the last 18 months of production, late 1975-May 1977.
newmercman:
We should start a thread about milk floats, I guarantee the Leatherhead Loon will mention the 3408 or 8v71 before the thread hits page two
Remember seeing something on one of the discovery channel some bloke got a milkfloat junked the electrics and fitted a suzuki hyabusa engine was quite a machine.
