The 600 Leyland was 4.8" bore x 5.5" stroke, and the 680 was 5" bore x 5.75" stroke.
Physical outside block dimensions were unaltered.
From memory the machined steps for those liners were really close.
I’d suggest the 680 was pushed as far as that dry liner block could go.
Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak: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. Blah, blah, blah…
If there are three ways, then there must be three ways. You can’t have a combination of the first two ways as a third way. That is like saying that you have three parents because your mum and dad are married, or that you have three testes because two of them are attached to the same forehead.
Carryfast:
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.
No, the “inconvenient truth” is that I ran trucks with the TL12 at 270 bhp and Rolls 265 doing identical work and I have practical experience of them. Over the 6 years life of the truck the TL12 was by far the more reliable unit and its whole life repair and maintenance costs were much, much lower. Whether the TL12 was at its last stage of development and the Rolls had further to go in that respect is totally irrelevant, its what was being recorded there and then in the early 1980s that is relevant. All your spurious arguments are based on theory, not practicalities and experience gained by actually running a fleet of trucks and closely monitoring their performance parameters in every day use. It’s not all about power, if it were then everyone today would be running 740 bhp Scanias and Volvos. The industry today is going the other way with 410 bhp now being the most common fleet spec engine power. Even a neighbouring operator of mine, a confirmed Scania man of other 30 years expereince of them has specced his new 14 plate Scanias at 410 bhp, this giving the optimum combination of power, economy, reliability, and longevity. In his opinion as a hands-on operator. Does that not count for anything with you?
He hasn’t mentioned double drive yet 
Let’s not let facts get in the way though Geoffrey, the MB V8s went up to 530hp in the last of the SK series, coincidentally the same as Scania managed to squeeze out of their 14ltr V8.
Then Merc and Scania went up to c.16ltrs and Merc stopped at 610, Scania as we know have gone to 730… So far…
The Merc V8s were not designed to be turbocharged, yet they took to it rather well, as anyone who has driven a 1633/1735/1748 will testify, so much so that a 1735 with a tight top end set up would live with an intercooled 142, despite its nominal 70hp disadvantage (possibly more due to driveline inefficiency due to MB’s hub reduction axle and Scania’s use of direct top gearing)
You bring the 3408 up again and use Australia as a reference. In that instance the big CAT would be almost unbeatable, yet in its home market it was only bought in very small numbers, along the lines of the box jockeys pulling out of Felixstowe in a 730 longline Scania 
When attending old lorry shows, I am wary about declaring my interest in TNUK, in case I find that I am talking to you-know-who. In fact, I feel safer just looking at the vehicles and talking to no one, just to be sure. What would you do if, having asked a new acquaintance’s Trucknet username, the answer was those dreaded three syllables? Fight or flight? It is a nightmare scenario.
This is a great shame, because it would be nice to talk to the great people of Trucknet face-to-face, without fear. How do you announce that you contribute to this forum, without the risk of attack by the Loon? After agonising over this conundrum for what seems like many years, I believe I have come up with a solution, and a business opportunity. I propose to get a batch of T-shirts printed with the following slogan on the front:
![[zb].JPG](https://europe1.discourse-cdn.com/flex013/uploads/trucknetuk/original/3X/a/5/a5bd199ec6fcb917ef2e1ee5b3c0b568c34dbfd8.jpeg)
£8.99 each- how many do you reckon I could sell from a stall at Gaydon?
gingerfold:
Carryfast:
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.
No, the “inconvenient truth” is that I ran trucks with the TL12 at 270 bhp and Rolls 265 doing identical work and I have practical experience of them. Over the 6 years life of the truck the TL12 was by far the more reliable unit and its whole life repair and maintenance costs were much, much lower. Whether the TL12 was at its last stage of development and the Rolls had further to go in that respect is totally irrelevant, its what was being recorded there and then in the early 1980s that is relevant. All your spurious arguments are based on theory, not practicalities and experience gained by actually running a fleet of trucks and closely monitoring their performance parameters in every day use. It’s not all about power, if it were then everyone today would be running 740 bhp Scanias and Volvos. The industry today is going the other way with 410 bhp now being the most common fleet spec engine power. Even a neighbouring operator of mine, a confirmed Scania man of other 30 years expereince of them has specced his new 14 plate Scanias at 410 bhp, this giving the optimum combination of power, economy, reliability, and longevity. In his opinion as a hands-on operator. Does that not count for anything with you?
Firstly it’s not about ‘power’ it’s about torque.Which is the main point which AEC missed with the V8. As for the idea that the TL12 was good enough because it could live with the Rolls in 265 output spec that seems to conveniently miss the point made elsewhere that from the start the Rolls’,let alone the 14 litre ■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■ curve was better.Not suprisingly considering the difference in stroke measurements.As for development potential for better outputs that really does help in an environment that’s about to change from 32 t gross to 38 t.If you want to go on dreaming that dropping the TL12 in favour of the Rolls and ■■■■■■■ alternatives in the case of the T45 never happened,or if it did was all a dastardly plot by Stokes to bring down AEC,then that’s your choice.
[zb]
anorak:
When attending old lorry shows, I am wary about declaring my interest in TNUK, in case I find that I am talking to you-know-who. In fact, I feel safer just looking at the vehicles and talking to no one, just to be sure. What would you do if, having asked a new acquaintance’s Trucknet username, the answer was those dreaded three syllables? Fight or flight? It is a nightmare scenario.This is a great shame, because it would be nice to talk to the great people of Trucknet face-to-face, without fear. How do you announce that you contribute to this forum, without the risk of attack by the Loon? After agonising over this conundrum for what seems like many years, I believe I have come up with a solution, and a business opportunity. I propose to get a batch of T-shirts printed with the following slogan on the front:
0£8.99 each- how many do you reckon I could sell from a stall at Gaydon?
The easiest way to create a TNUK environment (both in cyberspace and truckshows) that is enemy-free, is to avoid all statements of personal attack or criticism, and just stick to the content (ie attack the post but not the person). I broke my own rules about this on the ERF threads and chose to reverse the process by eating a bit of humble pie. The sad and amusing thing is that because both of you have so much interest in common, you may find that you’d get on very well over a pie and a pint in the beer tent at Gaydon! Robert 
newmercman:
He hasn’t mentioned double drive yetLet’s not let facts get in the way though Geoffrey, the MB V8s went up to 530hp in the last of the SK series, coincidentally the same as Scania managed to squeeze out of their 14ltr V8.
Then Merc and Scania went up to c.16ltrs and Merc stopped at 610, Scania as we know have gone to 730… So far…
The Merc V8s were not designed to be turbocharged, yet they took to it rather well, as anyone who has driven a 1633/1735/1748 will testify, so much so that a 1735 with a tight top end set up would live with an intercooled 142, despite its nominal 70hp disadvantage (possibly more due to driveline inefficiency due to MB’s hub reduction axle and Scania’s use of direct top gearing)
You bring the 3408 up again and use Australia as a reference. In that instance the big CAT would be almost unbeatable, yet in its home market it was only bought in very small numbers, along the lines of the box jockeys pulling out of Felixstowe in a 730 longline Scania
None of which changes the facts that (1) AEC decided to use a ridiculously short stroke measurement for it’s V8 thereby wrecking any potential it might of had in being a competitive product with at least the Scania or Mercedes V8’s from that point on.
(2) Cat had developed what was probably the best V8 ‘of it’s time’ based on at least a stroke measurement that Scania has only ( very ) recently moved to.
(3) The ‘Germans’ seem to have been behind the erroneous move by ■■■■■■■ and AEC towards the short stroke V8 idea while obviously following the ideas of Scania in that regard themselves.
(4) Assuming that the Merc V8 was an engineering ideal there obviously wouldn’t have been any need to throw more money at development and production of the V10 and Scania wouldn’t have gone to all the trouble of re engineering it’s V8 into what is basically a smaller bore version of the Cat in terms of bore and stroke measurements.
(5)As for Stokes like the rest of UK industry being a victim,not villain,of the post war stitch up of the UK economy to keep ze Germans happy and onside,absolutely.
robert1952:
The easiest way to create a TNUK environment (both in cyberspace and truckshows) that is enemy-free, is to avoid all statements of personal attack or criticism, and just stick to the content (ie attack the post but not the person). I broke my own rules about this on the ERF threads and chose to reverse the process by eating a bit of humble pie. The sad and amusing thing is that because both of you have so much interest in common, you may find that you’d get on very well over a pie and a pint in the beer tent at Gaydon! Robert
“Attack the post, not the poster,” is a very good rule, both on internet forums and face-to-face. However, when one’s tormentor tells lies, is economical with the truth or just persistently stupid, what can one do? Have you read the attempts by numerous well-educated posters on this forum, to apply the “Attack the post” rule to the Loon’s half-baked but unbreakable prejudices? In real life, “[zb] off” is the tool we all carry, when honest reason will not find its target.
I find it quite disturbing that one particular poster disregards the lifetime’s experience that many other contributors have of this industry, its vehicles, workings, and the numerous changes that have been recorded and witnessed over the last 40 to 50 years. Practical and hands on experience seems to count for nothing with this person because of an obstinancy and intransigence which is frightening when he is presented with facts which contradict his blinkered and wrong ideas. Like other posters I will accept another’s contrary opinions to my own that can contribute something original and lead to a new line of debate and reasoning. I believe that most posters know who I am and my own contributions in researching and recording the history of this great industry we work in, and the vehicles that were produced by our own once respected commercial vehicle manufacturing industry. I have always attempted with my articles and books to present well-researched information gleaned from numerous archives, and perhaps more importantly, face to face meetings with senior industry people who were in the front-line. Is Carryfast prepared to tell us his real name and list his published books and articles that are available in the public domain, or he is content to hide behind a cloak of anonimity for his incoherent and inaccurate ramblings?
gingerfold:
I find it quite disturbing that one particular poster disregards the lifetime’s experience that many other contributors have of this industry, its vehicles, workings, and the numerous changes that have been recorded and witnessed over the last 40 to 50 years. Practical and hands on experience seems to count for nothing with this person because of an obstinancy and intransigence which is frightening when he is presented with facts which contradict his blinkered and wrong ideas. Like other posters I will accept another’s contrary opinions to my own that can contribute something original and lead to a new line of debate and reasoning. I believe that most posters know who I am and my own contributions in researching and recording the history of this great industry we work in, and the vehicles that were produced by our own once respected commercial vehicle manufacturing industry. I have always attempted with my articles and books to present well-researched information gleaned from numerous archives, and perhaps more importantly, face to face meetings with senior industry people who were in the front-line. Is Carryfast prepared to tell us his real name and list his published books and articles that are available in the public domain, or he is content to hide behind a cloak of anonimity for his incoherent and inaccurate ramblings?
As I’ve read it your ‘lifetime’s experience’ seems to consist of thinking that a comparable engine with a 5.5 inch stroke will be able to compete in terms of torque with one with a 6 inch stroke.It also seems to suggest that Stokes was more to blame for the downfall of AEC than the type of thinking which you’ve displayed above by it’s designers let alone then compounding that thinking in the form of the even shorter stroke V8.
I’ve listed some numbered listed points in the above post in addition to the point concerning the facts related to the fortunes of the TL12 v the Rolls Eagle and 14 litre ■■■■■■■ in the T45 and the reasons for the difference in those fortunes.I’ve also made a defence of Stokes’ management of what was always going to be a no win situation for the Brits regardless of how good or bad the British products were.I challenge you to contradict all those points here based on some decent reasoning rather than yet more arrogant ignorant bs.
My record as a manager in transport, researcher, author and publisher speaks for itself. I am not wasting any more time arguing with you Carryfast. I have absolutely nothing to prove to you or anyone else. Your stupidity is beyond belief.
gingerfold:
My record as a manager in transport, researcher, author and publisher speaks for itself. I am not wasting any more time arguing with you Carryfast. I have absolutely nothing to prove to you or anyone else. Your stupidity is beyond belief.
Divent “boil yer watter” “gingerfold” 
That pillock just delights in getting a response from other members on the site it dosen’t bother him if he is 101% wrong(which is most of the time),he just moves on and infects another hitherto sensible thread ! As regards his comment about his “pay grade” well I would place that as about the same as the middles out of a tube of POLO’s and his wage would be paid weekly,very weakly !! Oh! and there would only be one member that would possibly be “lynched” at a gathering if he divulged his TNUK handle,his name is Geoffrey and he lives in Leatherhead.Anyway, his secure accomodation wouldn’t allow him out on his own unless he was 'cuffed to two big Screws And thanks for the mention in a previous post,if my driffle is of interest be my guest ! Cheers Bewick.
Bewick:
gingerfold:
My record as a manager in transport, researcher, author and publisher speaks for itself. I am not wasting any more time arguing with you Carryfast. I have absolutely nothing to prove to you or anyone else. Your stupidity is beyond belief.Divent “boil yer watter” “gingerfold”
A packet of Polos a week being a lot more than the ‘pillock’ who set the measurements of the AEC V8 was worth.Let alone deciding to bet the farm on the idea instead of a 13-14 litre 6 cylinder replacement with a 6 inch stroke,for what became the TL12.But what would someone,who would have made the Rolls Eagle a direct copy of the Gardner 180 and then decided that a Scania was a better alternative for hauling a load after all,know.
gingerfold:
My record as a manager in transport, researcher, author and publisher speaks for itself. I am not wasting any more time arguing with you Carryfast. I have absolutely nothing to prove to you or anyone else. Your stupidity is beyond belief.
No surprise there then.You would have been the only one arguing in the Leyland boardroom to stay with the AEC V8 and TL12 and tell Detroit,Rolls and ■■■■■■■ to get stuffed.In which case at least Leyland Group would have been put out of it’s misery a lot sooner.
Come on then Carryfast lets see your cv , just so we can show you some respect lets read about your career in road transport and what you have contributed , i for one would love to read about your world changing designs , and of course the list of transport companies you have managed , your experience would be very welcome on here , obviously in the 70s you would have opted for the high powered double drive Detroit TMs on your newly won contract to deliver polystyrene nationwide , so come on enlighten us on your experiences
ramone:
Come on then Carryfast lets see your cv , just so we can show you some respect let`s read about your career in road transport the list of transport companies you have managed , so come on enlighten us on your experiences
I’ve referred to having been involved in the truck ‘manufacturing’ industry,which is the relevant point,enough times with no need to repeat it all here.It seems that I’ve probably forgotten more in that regard than what those in question would like to think they know regarding the subject.As for those who should and are paid to know better sometimes getting it wrong.There is a difference between knowledge and arrogance.In general those who always think they know best and won’t listen to anyone considered as being beneath them and who then try to put the blame for their resulting mistakes on others fall into the latter category.Just as those who support them do.
Carryfast:
ramone:
Come on then Carryfast lets see your cv , just so we can show you some respect let`s read about your career in road transport the list of transport companies you have managed , so come on enlighten us on your experiencesI’ve referred to having been involved in the truck ‘manufacturing’ industry,which is the relevant point,enough times with no need to repeat it all here.It seems that I’ve probably forgotten more in that regard than what those in question would like to think they know regarding the subject.As for those who should and are paid to know better sometimes getting it wrong.There is a difference between knowledge and arrogance.In general those who always think they know best and won’t listen to anyone considered as being beneath them and who then try to put the blame for their resulting mistakes on others fall into the latter category.Just as those who support them do.
Well C/F, If you were as good as you claim to be why didn’t you doe something about all the faults you have with british built engines at the time you say that the producers had got it all wrong, In fact why didn’t you produce an engine of your own then the transport industry would have been booming with your invention , Eh, Regards Larry.
[zb]
anorak:Carryfast:
[zb]
anorak: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. Blah, blah, blah…
If there are three ways, then there must be three ways. You can’t have a combination of the first two ways as a third way. That is like saying that you have three parents because your mum and dad are married, or that you have three testes because two of them are attached to the same forehead.
Yet another example of your level of intelligence.
You can increase the torque output of an engine by increasing the length of the stroke.That’s one example.
‘Or’ you can also increase the torque output by increasing the pressures on the piston such as in the case of using forced induction.That’s a second example.
‘Or’ you can increase the torque output even more than ‘either’ of the previous ‘two’ ‘different’ examples by using a ‘combination’ of ‘both’.Which will provide more torque than either of the former two ‘different’ examples.The relevant bit being that an engine with a longer stroke needs less pressure to make the same torque or will provide more torque for the same pressure.
You are not answering my question C/F, about your so called knowledge on engines .■■?, Regards Larry.