gingerfold:
From my own experience of TL12 engined Roadtrains with Spillers Milling, (we had over 40 of them in the group). there were no reliability issues and believe me they were 100% better than the TL11 Buffalos they replaced. The drivers loved them, they were fast and from an operational point of view were as economical on fuel as anything else we had with a similar power output. Because we were using blowers with them for discharging tankers of flour actual mpg figures were hard to quantify, but they were overall (including blowing time) an average 0.75 mpg better than the ■■■■■■■ powered Roadtrains that came after the TL12 was discontinued. We had a couple of Rolls Royce 265 powered eight wheelers which were OK but nothing to write home about from a driving viewpoint.
The inconvenient fact being that the Rolls wasn’t all out and finished at 265 whereas the TL12 was at less than 300.
Carryfast:
Let’s just say that my pay grade and status was ( way ) below that of the firm’s design engineers… Blah blah…To put it simply there’s three main ways to make torque in that you either apply a longer lever at the crank or you apply more pressure to the piston…Blah…
This is a very well-argued post. You say there are three ways to make torque, then mention only two of them. That provides ample evidence to support your opening statement. Well done.
To my opinion KRUPP had thorough reasons to co-operate with ■■■■■■■ as their own
2-cycle (3-4-5-6 cilinder) engines were at the end of their life and KRUPP did depend
on a new range of vehicles, hence the new introduced cab in 1961 (the same cab that
Seddon-Atkinson Europe so eagerly wanted after KRUPP ended truck-production in 1968)
and ■■■■■■■ being an independent supplier of engines and knowledge. BE assured the
Germans would have kept the truck-industry as German as they could…we have been
there with Büssing, KHD, Hanomag, Henschel, Krauss Maffei and many others that left
the scene…leaving some very strong nowadays!
ERF-Continental:
To my opinion KRUPP had thorough reasons to co-operate with ■■■■■■■ as their own
2-cycle (3-4-5-6 cilinder) engines were at the end of their life and KRUPP did depend
on a new range of vehicles, hence the new introduced cab in 1961 (the same cab that
Seddon-Atkinson Europe so eagerly wanted after KRUPP ended truck-production in 1968)
and ■■■■■■■ being an independent supplier of engines and knowledge. BE assured the
Germans would have kept the truck-industry as German as they could…we have been
there with Büssing, KHD, Hanomag, Henschel, Krauss Maffei and many others that left
the scene…leaving some very strong nowadays!
Yes, true: the Germans even hung on to that Krupp cab that went to Atkinson (not Seddon-Atkinson) in the sense that (I read somewhere) part of that deal was that Atkinson would use ZF gearboxes with their Rolls Royce engines and not Fuller ones! And so they ended up with ZF 6-speed units. Robert
Gingerfold will have more accurate information to hand, but a quick trawl through various AEC manuals reveals historical engineering criteria for their engines to which AEC seem to have stuck from as far back as 1939 The largest automotive engine from that date onwards; be it wet or dry linered, separate crankcase or monobloc; stayed with a stroke of 142 mm and nominal bearing sizes of 75mm and 95mm. All increases in output being achieved at least partially, by an increase in bore size. This would possibly account for the similar capacity of the Rolls C and Eagle to the 760 albeit with different stroke dimensions.
When uprating their 600 engine however, Leyland went for an increase in both bore and stroke to produce the 680, this presumably lead to a small increase in external dimensions. With Leyland wedded at the time of the 680’s introduction to the intention of pushing their rear engined bus, rather than the traditional type of vehicle to which AEC were shackled, an increase in dimensions was not over worrying. However for a front engined bus this mattered, which is why one does not seem to see the 680 in such vehicles.
Any info ob merc v8s compared to aec in relation to any of this. The non turbo may have had a reputation forbeen guttless but they seemed pretty reliable.
Carryfast:
Let’s just say that my pay grade and status was ( way ) below that of the firm’s design engineers… Blah blah…To put it simply there’s three main ways to make torque in that you either apply a longer lever at the crank or you apply more pressure to the piston…Blah…
This is a very well-argued post. You say there are three ways to make torque, then mention only two of them. That provides ample evidence to support your opening statement. Well done.
If you’d have quoted the whole post instead of just selectively some of it you’d have seen that it included the third to my knowledge being the ‘optimum combination’ of both.Assuming that you know of a fourth or more method/s of increasing torque,other than those I’ve listed,feel free to provide everyone with your knowledge.
kr79:
Any info ob merc v8s compared to aec in relation to any of this. The non turbo may have had a reputation forbeen guttless but they seemed pretty reliable.
The Merc V8 was another good example and like the Scania didn’t follow the ■■■■■■■ or AEC short stroke idea.However like the Scania and the FIAT arguably not in the same league as the longer stroke Cat 3408 and obviously latest Scania.Which probably explains why Merc introduced the bigger V10 to get reliable big power outputs which the 3408 and 8v92 were capable of.
The obvious question in that case being why didn’t Mercedes want to follow the short stroke idea being touted by their German kameraden in the case of ‘advising’ ■■■■■■■ which AEC then stupidly followed.Which just ‘coincidentally’ ended up with ■■■■■■■ and AEC then having an inferior V8 in the form of the AEC V8 and the 903 v the German competition.
cav551:
Gingerfold will have more accurate information to hand, but a quick trawl through various AEC manuals reveals historical engineering criteria for their engines to which AEC seem to have stuck from as far back as 1939 The largest automotive engine from that date onwards; be it wet or dry linered, separate crankcase or monobloc; stayed with a stroke of 142 mm and nominal bearing sizes of 75mm and 95mm. All increases in output being achieved at least partially, by an increase in bore size.
It’s obvious that there’s no way that something with a 5.5 inch stroke will be able to compete in terms of potential torque output with something that has a stroke of 6 inches as in the case of the comparison between the TL12 and Rolls Eagle or 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ that is you add more cylinders.Which just leaves the question why didn’t they stick with 142 mm for the V8.
cav551:
Gingerfold will have more accurate information to hand, but a quick trawl through various AEC manuals reveals historical engineering criteria for their engines to which AEC seem to have stuck from as far back as 1939 The largest automotive engine from that date onwards; be it wet or dry linered, separate crankcase or monobloc; stayed with a stroke of 142 mm and nominal bearing sizes of 75mm and 95mm. All increases in output being achieved at least partially, by an increase in bore size. This would possibly account for the similar capacity of the Rolls C and Eagle to the 760 albeit with different stroke dimensions.
When uprating their 600 engine however, Leyland went for an increase in both bore and stroke to produce the 680, this presumably lead to a small increase in external dimensions. With Leyland wedded at the time of the 680’s introduction to the intention of pushing their rear engined bus, rather than the traditional type of vehicle to which AEC were shackled, an increase in dimensions was not over worrying. However for a front engined bus this mattered, which is why one does not seem to see the 680 in such vehicles.
Yes, AEC used the 142mm stroke from the 1930s and its first 8.8 litre engine and continued with this stroke length for all its heavy vehicle engines, through the 9.6 litre, 11.3 litre, A690, A760, and finally TL12. Increases in cubic capacity for engine progression was achieved by larger bores.
cav551:
Gingerfold will have more accurate information to hand, but a quick trawl through various AEC manuals reveals historical engineering criteria for their engines to which AEC seem to have stuck from as far back as 1939 The largest automotive engine from that date onwards; be it wet or dry linered, separate crankcase or monobloc; stayed with a stroke of 142 mm and nominal bearing sizes of 75mm and 95mm. All increases in output being achieved at least partially, by an increase in bore size. This would possibly account for the similar capacity of the Rolls C and Eagle to the 760 albeit with different stroke dimensions.
When uprating their 600 engine however, Leyland went for an increase in both bore and stroke to produce the 680, this presumably lead to a small increase in external dimensions. With Leyland wedded at the time of the 680’s introduction to the intention of pushing their rear engined bus, rather than the traditional type of vehicle to which AEC were shackled, an increase in dimensions was not over worrying. However for a front engined bus this mattered, which is why one does not seem to see the 680 in such vehicles.
Yes, AEC used the 142mm stroke from the 1930s and its first 8.8 litre engine and continued with this stroke length for all its heavy vehicle engines, through the 9.6 litre, 11.3 litre, A690, A760, and finally TL12. Increases in cubic capacity for engine progression was achieved by larger bores.
Which might provide at least a large part of the reasoning why one of the stated people high up in AEC’s design team decided to jump ship and move to Rolls where the flaw in that thinking was obviously recognised.Meanwhile AEC produced the perfect storm for itself in not only having a compromised 6 cylinder design in the form of the TL12 but then decided to make matters worse by going for an even ( much ) shorter stroke idea in the case of the V8.In an environment where increasing levels of torque outputs were becoming ever more important as road speeds and weights increased.Which we are led to believe was all Stokes’ fault.
[/quote]
Which might provide at least a large part of the reasoning why one of the stated people high up in AEC’s design team decided to jump ship and move to Rolls where the flaw in that thinking was obviously recognised.Meanwhile AEC produced the perfect storm for itself in not only having a compromised 6 cylinder design in the form of the TL12 but then decided to make matters worse by going for an even ( much ) shorter stroke idea in the case of the V8.In an environment where increasing levels of torque outputs were becoming ever more important as road speeds and weights increased.Which we are led to believe was all Stokes’ fault.
[/quote]
From the late 1930s until the late 1970s (including the TL12) AEC designed and produced some of the most respected. reliable, efficient, and highly regarded heavy goods diesel engines ever produced in the UK and they were sold worldwide, all with a 142 mm stroke. The utter stupidy and complete rubbish spouted by Carryfast, who has no comprehension of what he is talking about beggars belief. He is am imbecile of the first order and if I banned from this forum for slagging off this idiot, then so be it. Goodbye
Which might provide at least a large part of the reasoning why one of the stated people high up in AEC’s design team decided to jump ship and move to Rolls where the flaw in that thinking was obviously recognised.Meanwhile AEC produced the perfect storm for itself in not only having a compromised 6 cylinder design in the form of the TL12 but then decided to make matters worse by going for an even ( much ) shorter stroke idea in the case of the V8.In an environment where increasing levels of torque outputs were becoming ever more important as road speeds and weights increased.Which we are led to believe was all Stokes’ fault.
[/quote]
From the late 1930s until the late 1970s (including the TL12) AEC designed and produced some of the most respected. reliable, efficient, and highly regarded heavy goods diesel engines ever produced in the UK and they were sold worldwide, all with a 142 mm stroke. The utter stupidy and complete rubbish spouted by Carryfast, who has no comprehension of what he is talking about beggars belief. He is am imbecile of the first order and if I banned from this forum for slagging off this idiot, then so be it. Goodbye
[/quote]
I’d firstly say that I wouldn’t want you to get in bother with any of the mods just for having a go at me.On the basis that I might not agree with what you’ve got to say but you should have the right to say it whatever and I really couldn’t give a zb if you want to lose your rag just because you’ve run out of reasoning to back your ideas.
As for your comments I’d be willing to bet a pound to a penny that what you’ve said there would be very similar to what anyone who’d decided to leave the sinking ship at AEC would have been told as he walked away to take up a new job at Rolls.Assuming that’s how the Eagle design came into being.I’d also be willing to bet that it wouldn’t have been Stokes who was shouting it.
I’ll just leave the facts,related to the history,of the performance of the respective products,in this case the TL12 being AEC’s best 6 cylinder shot as opposed to the Rolls Eagle or 14 litre ■■■■■■■ amongst others and the AEC V8 as opposed to the V8 Scania amongst other decent V8’s,to do the talking as to who’s right.In which case I’d expect to be shown the same right to say it as I expect in the case of your ignorant views.IE ‘until the ( more like early ) 1970’s’ being the issue in this case.At which point thereafter it was game over for obvious reasons and in the case of the topic a large part of those reasons being not even having the sense to keep to your stated historic stroke measurement but going for something a lot less than even that.
The Merc V8 is the one I was hinting at, they probably outsold the Scania lump ten to one and yet you (CF) neglect to mention them in favour of the humongous CAT and oddball Detroit.
Using the OM series as an example would’ve proven your theories, but… You didn’t
newmercman:
The Merc V8 is the one I was hinting at, they probably outsold the Scania lump ten to one and yet you (CF) neglect to mention them in favour of the humongous CAT and oddball Detroit.
Using the OM series as an example would’ve proven your theories, but… You didn’t
Or I was just using engineering ideals to make a point in which case the Scania already had the Merc’s basic architecture,in that regard,covered.While the Cat had already been there and got the T shirt long before Scania in getting to the ideal of a 6 inch stroke V8.Which then just left the issue of yes they did go a bit mad with the bore size but they are Americans where bigger is always better and it worked unlike the AEC V8 and ■■■■■■■ 903.With the bonus of probably saving a lot more cash in doing so in not having to also make a big V10 like Merc did to satisfy the top end of that market sector.
The only downside probably being that the money saved was then ploughed into the German economy where,as usual,the Germans took advantage of it by just throwing other people’s money at their problems hence the V10 Merc to do any job that needed more grunt than it’s V8 could provide.
While adding the Merc V8 to the Scania just adds yet more irony to the fact that AEC already had the right measurement to at least stay with those two in their armoury.But for some reason chose to follow ■■■■■■■■ ideas,that they’d obviously got from ze Germans,but which ze Germans obviously had no intention of using themselves with good reason.
All this from the country which built the Merlin and used it to great effect against the Germans few years before.Thank zb Rolls didn’t use a 4.5 inch stroke measurement for that.Although it did just about work in the case of the Sabre.But it took 24 cylinders and a lot of work fixing it’s snags to do it.Although even then you wouldn’t have wanted to use it to haul 10 tonnes of bombs in a Lancaster being that torque still wasn’t it’s strong point.
So that fuel consumption and reliability was obtained at the expense of efficiency.Hence why the Scania V8 is still around in improved longer stroke form but the Gardner is ( rightly ) history.
[/quote]
What planet do you originate from Carryfast ,fuel consumption and reliability was obtained at the expense of efficiency , ■■? what would you define as efficiency , i cant think of anything more efficient than a economical and reliable engine i think thats what ALL manufacturers are trying to achieve even now . Probably at the time a 220 ■■■■■■■ running on a same trip as a 180 Gardner with similar weights would indeed arrive at its destination quicker ,but the difference would be the driver getting out of his cab and locking his door .... no im wrong they didn`t need to lock their doors in those days , ffs wake up and smell the coffee
ramone:
So that fuel consumption and reliability was obtained at the expense of efficiency.Hence why the Scania V8 is still around in improved longer stroke form but the Gardner is ( rightly ) history.
What planet do you originate from Carryfast ,fuel consumption and reliability was obtained at the expense of efficiency , ■■? what would you define as efficiency , i cant think of anything more efficient than a economical and reliable engine i think thats what ALL manufacturers are trying to achieve even now . Probably at the time a 220 ■■■■■■■ running on a same trip as a 180 Gardner with similar weights would indeed arrive at its destination quicker ,but the difference would be the driver getting out of his cab and locking his door .... no im wrong they didn`t need to lock their doors in those days , ffs wake up and smell the coffee
[/quote]
I think it might be you who’s been asleep during the last 30-40 years of truck development history.
kr79:
Id say merc introducing the v10 was mainly due to the fact they like gardner were very slow to accept turbocharging there engines.
To put the V8’s limitations into perspective the turbocharged V10 produced around 500 PS.Which wasn’t exactly going to set the Ozzie market alight.Unlike the 3408 of around same capacity.No wonder ze Germans at least made sure that ■■■■■■■ were put out of the frame by telling them what a good idea the 903 was going to be.
and it worked unlike the AEC V8 and ■■■■■■■ 903.With the bonus of probably saving a lot more cash in doing so in not having to also make a big V10 like Merc did to satisfy the top end of that market sector. 
