AEC V8

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:

[zb]
anorak:

Carryfast:
Blah

Bore.

You can increase the torque by enlarging the bore. That is your Third Way, along with increasing the stroke and the combustion pressure.

More like a half baked second and a half way.Bearing in mind we don’t have an unlimited overall capacity limit and an under square design out performs an over square one in terms of torque output just as Scania etc knew.Which in this case would have meant putting around 30 mm on the stroke instead of 5 mm on the already too large by comparison zb bore.IE typically flawed AEC thinking in action.

^^^More rubbish from the master^^^

Torque is proportional to piston area (bore squared) multiplied by combustion pressure multiplied by lever length (stroke/2). I learned this equation by reading the How Things Work section of a 1946 copy of the Beano. You have wasted about ten pages of an adult discussion forum by not learning it.

Your abuse of the right to free speech dissuades people with technical knowledge from contributing to the forum, which spoils it for everyone. Bore off.

Technical ‘knowledge’ in your case obviously being what you learn’t from the same comic that AEC’s engine design dept was going by.The simple fact is in the real world the logical conclusion of your idea results in the type of short stroke piece of junk that AEC and ■■■■■■■ turned out in the form of the AEC V8 and the 903 and to a lesser degree the too short stroke TL12.While mine ( eventually ) results in something like the latest state of the art Scania V8 having gone through the logical progression from the original Scania V8 ( or Merc V8 ) first not to mention all the 6 cylinder examples which relied on having more than a 5.5 inch stroke.All of which suggests that putting the priority on the leverage at the crank rather than on the ‘area’ of the piston can,if not will, mean the difference between helping to bring the whole firm down or long term success.At least in an environment where the banking sector is onside and not just adding to the problems.

[carryfast]

newmercman:
The thing you are missing here is that it WAS Stokes’ fault as the correct method of running a successful multi department company is for each level of management to check on the work of their underlings, when it had been ascertained that the job was a good un, it gets passed up to the next level and so on… Ultimately it lands on the top man’s desk and it is his job to make sure that ALL the people beneath him had done a proper job, as that is essentially his role as figurehead of the company.

He failed with the AEC V8, he failed with the 500 series, he failed with the Marina, he failed with the Allegro, he failed with the Triumph Stag, he failed with the TR7, he failed quite a lot really

I think you missed the point that the architecture of the AEC V8 was set out long before Stokes’ watch.IE if you must find a scapegoat for the fiasco it obviously wasn’t him.All the evidence points to Stokes’ ( rightly ) trying to shift Leyland Group truck manufacturing away from it’s compromised in house designs to the better products available from the outside specialist engine suppliers like Rolls and ■■■■■■■ .Ironically resulting in a more long drawn out inevitable end to the under invested sinking ship than would have been the case if they’d stayed with AEC’s efforts.

As for the car side again although on his watch the real blame for that sits with the bankers.By which comparison the XJ 6/12 to the Triumph 2.5 and Rover V8 seems like a better effort than anything which Ford was chucking out of Dagenham at the time.In which case sacrificing Austin Morris to do it seems like a good epitaph for him to me.

[ramone]

Well youre very good at arguing Carryfast , and avoiding answering questions directly ,you go on and on and on repeating yourself without making any sense so i can now fill in the gaps , you are a politician ,but which party , my bets on you being the leader of the Raving looney party ....... Youve dissed Gardner who had an exceptional reputation and made many hauliers plenty of money ,(some even retired and now spend their time Eddie spotting up in their native ■■■■■■■■ AEC had a reputation second to none and were highly regarded not only by the hauliers who operated them but also by drivers , as for the V8 ,what you conveniently keep ignoring is that the V8 was shelved in the early 60s by the AEC designers due to serious misgivings but the project was restarted by none other than Mr Stokes .At 13.1 litres it seems strange that they would spend money developing an engine which was only 600cc larger than the AV760 .When the V8 project started AEC had the 11.3 litre as their flagship engine for normal road use , the AV760 wasnt introduced until the mid 60s developed from the 11.3 , maybe because they realised they had designed a lemon .If only you hadnt been doing freelance advice in those days , with your neverending use of hindsight you would have been a billionaire

[straight_eight]

[windrush]

Anybody else think that this thread has run its course?

Pete.

[carryfast]

ramone:
Well youre very good at arguing Carryfast , and avoiding answering questions directly , Youve dissed Gardner who had an exceptional reputation and made many hauliers plenty of money ,(some even retired and now spend their time Eddie spotting up in their native ■■■■■■■■ AEC had a reputation second to none and were highly regarded not only by the hauliers who operated them but also by drivers , as for the V8 ,what you conveniently keep ignoring is that the V8 was shelved in the early 60s by the AEC designers due to serious misgivings but the project was restarted by none other than Mr Stokes .At 13.1 litres it seems strange that they would spend money developing an engine which was only 600cc larger than the AV760 .When the V8 project started AEC had the 11.3 litre as their flagship engine for normal road use , the AV760 wasnt introduced until the mid 60s developed from the 11.3 , maybe because they realised they had designed a lemon .If only you hadnt been doing freelance advice in those days , with your neverending use of hindsight you would have been a billionaire

Firstly I’ve no more ‘dissed’ Gardner than those who you’ve referred to who,having made money with them,in their day,then ( eventually and belatedly ) realised that the things were an outdated liability way past their sell by date and then walked away and bought the foreign competition.Note that didn’t include any of AEC’s compromised designs like the TL12 powered T45 either.

As for the AEC V8 the story provided seems to be a typical face saving excercise,by those who were actually to blame for the piece of junk,by trying,not very well,to shift the blame for the fiasco onto Stokes.The fact is the V8 was a certainly a lemon so they’ve got that bit right.But it was a lemon all of AEC’s making by AEC’s designers and AEC’s management not Leyland’s or Stokes’.As for the TL12 development that again was hindered by typical flawed AEC type thinking in which the stroke measurement was again compromised ( nothing like as much as in the case of the V8 ) on the misguided basis that bore size will do the same job.Which then left Stokes with the catch 22 of which of AEC’s flawed designs to use for in house production.Bearing in mind the calibre of the opposition in the form of Rolls,■■■■■■■■■■■ Detroit let alone the Scania V8.It’s my bet that he’d have probably said sort it out yourselves on the basis of you got yourselves into this mess now you get yourselves out of it.However that version of events wouldn’t look so good in an article directed at the AEC faithful.

Meanwhile unarguably Scammell just got on with putting the Rolls Eagle and Detroit 8V71 in the Crusader and Guy got on with putting the Rolls and 14 litre ■■■■■■■ in the Big J again obviously with no interference from Stokes.Who’d probably realised that was the better option.

IE I think you’re confusing the most likely logical inconvenient truth with hindsight on my part.

[ramone]

windrush:
Anybody else think that this thread has run its course?

Pete.

This thread was created to ask anyone if they had driven the V8 mandator and also to compare their performance with the big swedes of the time .There`s been some great contributors on here and i am grateful for their input unfortunately its all gone technical and as usual a certain person decides to ruin it. I was far too young to have driven a V8 mandator even though i can vaguely remember them and i wanted to hear anyone who did drive one share their experiences

[windrush]

ramone:

windrush:
Anybody else think that this thread has run its course?

Pete.

This thread was created to ask anyone if they had driven the V8 mandator and also to compare their performance with the big swedes of the time .There`s been some great contributors on here and i am grateful for their input unfortunately its all gone technical and as usual a certain person decides to ruin it. I was far too young to have driven a V8 mandator even though i can vaguely remember them and i wanted to hear anyone who did drive one share their experiences

Well even as an ex fitter I have no particular interest in the technical side, ease of maintenance floated my boat more!! ‘Does the engine pull well, is it reliable and easy to maintain and reasonably economical?’ is all that most hauliers would probably ask as well I reckon? Obviously I had no dealings with them as I never worked on any artics (apart from a couple of Big J’s) in my time but remember them being on the road.

Now what engine can we pick next to dissect?

Pete.

[carryfast]

ramone:

windrush:
Anybody else think that this thread has run its course?

Pete.

This thread was created to ask anyone if they had driven the V8 mandator and also to compare their performance with the big swedes of the time .There`s been some great contributors on here and i am grateful for their input unfortunately its all gone technical and as usual a certain person decides to ruin it. I was far too young to have driven a V8 mandator even though i can vaguely remember them and i wanted to hear anyone who did drive one share their experiences

Let’s just say that I was working there in the day and knew how they performed.Not bad in a four wheeler but wouldn’t have seen the tail lights of a 6v71 let alone 8v71 powered TM .As for a max weight artic not really much different to the 6v71 TM.Except it would have needed to be thrashed even more.

fire-engine-photos.com/picture/number20439.asp

[saviem]

Evening Gentlemen, I tread into these turbulent, and sadly becoming, (yet again from one contributor), slightly far from sensible waters, with serious intent.

Gingerfold, regarding loose engine sales of the V8, do you , (or any other contributor), have knowledge of what “loose engine” sales were achieved with the V8.

The reason for my question I have some experience of the 8x4 Coles crane operated by Longton Crane Hire of Clarence Road, Longton, Stoke on Trent for a fair few years. Back in the late 90s she was still doing jobs for me, with utter, (if noisy), reliability. And she lifted some big weights indeed! The last item of concern to LCH, seemed to be the AECV8 power unit!

Longton operated some very smart Krupps, yet this old girl still did the business, (wish I had bought her)!

How many of the V8s went into Crane chassis, and how many other applications were found for this product?

Thanks in anticipation,

Cheerio for now.

[zb_anorak]

windrush:
Anybody else think that this thread has run its course?

Pete.

No. The mechanical design process fascinates me, so I want more detail. More! I want to know what made them shelve the project in 1962, why they decided to go down the short-stroke route in the first place, how they expected such small crank journals to last, etc etc. The decade from about 1958 onwards was a designer’s paradise- they tried almost everything in that period. I want to get a feel for the mood of the time.

I am very cross that the discussion has been blighted by a moron.

[cargo]

Not sure how things were in the UK but crane carrier power plants had a pretty easy time of it here in Aus.
If the crane was travelling locally, it certainly didn’t work hard, no high speeds that’s for sure.
And if the job was further afield, the crane went by float.
I’m presuming the carrier engine wasn’t also used as hydraulic power for the hoists? Separate hoisting engine?
If not (as in a smaller unit), the problem then was glazing of bores due to the long hours of light work, engine idling.

[gingerfold]

Saviem:
Evening Gentlemen, I tread into these turbulent, and sadly becoming, (yet again from one contributor), slightly far from sensible waters, with serious intent.

Gingerfold, regarding loose engine sales of the V8, do you , (or any other contributor), have knowledge of what “loose engine” sales were achieved with the V8.

The reason for my question I have some experience of the 8x4 Coles crane operated by Longton Crane Hire of Clarence Road, Longton, Stoke on Trent for a fair few years. Back in the late 90s she was still doing jobs for me, with utter, (if noisy), reliability. And she lifted some big weights indeed! The last item of concern to LCH, seemed to be the AECV8 power unit!

Longton operated some very smart Krupps, yet this old girl still did the business, (wish I had bought her)!

How many of the V8s went into Crane chassis, and how many other applications were found for this product?

Thanks in anticipation,

Cheerio for now.

“Loose engine” sales for the V8. Certainly some for Coles Cranes, big users of AEC engines for many years, but I couldn’t provide a figure. Other industrial engine uses of the V8, (yes, crane engines were classified as industrial engines), were as pumping and generating sets, and they gained an excellent reputation for performance and reliability in that role running at constant rpm. Vanajan of Finland also used the V8 for road going applications, but only in single figure numbers if I remember correctly from when I trawled through the archives at the Leyland Museum. I disposed of all my own records three years ago.

I agree that this thread has run its course, hopefully some useful information has been gleaned from it by those with a genuine interest in the subject matter.

[newmercman]

You lot need to take a leaf out of CF’s book, he doesn’t care what you throw at him, yet he brings out the drama queen in you all.

He does have a right to an opinion, it may well be wrong most of the time, but nevertheless, he is doing nothing wrong as such.

Yes he plays the same broken record time after time, but he hasn’t let everyone telling him he’s an idiot get to him, so don’t you lot get disheartened by it, if you don’t like what he says, scroll past it, you don’t have to read it.

I feel there is plenty of scope for more revelations in this thread, deserting it will serve no constructive purpose.

[gingerfold]

[/quote]
No. The mechanical design process fascinates me, so I want more detail. More! I want to know what made them shelve the project in 1962, why they decided to go down the short-stroke route in the first place, how they expected such small crank journals to last, etc etc. The decade from about 1958 onwards was a designer’s paradise- they tried almost everything in that period. I want to get a feel for the mood of the time.
[/quote]
I don’t believe that it was the “mood” as such, it was more a case of working to parameter’s dictated by the regulations appertaining at the time, plus the “conservatism” of the lorry operators. Take 1960 as the starting point, maximum GVW was 24 tons (eight wheeler rigid or artic), an increase in weight and vehicle lengths was being discussed, but no one knew what, or when, it would happen. The instructions to engine designers, and this is recorded by all the main manufacturers, was to produce a compact unit that was light in weight and powerful enough to meet the requirements of the time. Hence the high revving idea with a short stroke for compactness of the engine. (Remember what happened with the Leyland 700 project a few years later, it was too big to fit into a forward control chassis). A lightweight engine was desirable to allow operators to maximise payload. Certainly in the hire and reward sector virtually every job then was paid on a rate per ton carried. (It’s different now except in the tipper sector). Plus the ‘A’, ‘B’ and '‘C’ licensing regieme also dictated vehicle unladen weights. As an aside, a 6-cylinder Gardner engine was a relatively long and tall engine in comparison to some others, but its high alumininium alloy content meant that there wasn’t a weight penalty with it. Big cabs like we are used to today were a pipe dream back then, so the engine installation in the chassis was dictated by the small cab that was sitting on top of it. It really was a different era back then, and we shouldn’t be trying to compare the ideas of even the 1970s with then, let alone those ideas of today. This is maybe why some of us who were around at that time get exasperated with those who can’t understand that comparing the ideas of then and now is akin to comparing chalk and cheese. The thinking in the commercial vehicle industry (in its broadest sense) had to move quicker in the decade of the 1960s than it had done at anytime during the previous 30 years. Even the WW2 years, when necessity was the mother of invention in many areas, such as flight, radar, etc. had no tangible effect on the basic design of commercials and the diesel engine.

[carryfast]

gingerfold:

I don’t believe that it was the “mood” as such, it was more a case of working to parameter’s dictated by the regulations appertaining at the time, plus the “conservatism” of the lorry operators. Take 1960 as the starting point, The instructions to engine designers, and this is recorded by all the main manufacturers, was to produce a compact unit that was light in weight and powerful enough to meet the requirements

The thinking in the commercial vehicle industry (in its broadest sense) had to move quicker in the decade of the 1960s than it had done at anytime during the previous 30 years. Even the WW2 years, when necessity was the mother of invention in many areas, such as flight, radar, etc. had no tangible effect on the basic design of commercials and the diesel engine.
[/quote]
^ That’s what I’ve been trying to tell you.The inconvenient fact being that the two different demands are totally contradictory to each other.In that trying to get ‘power’ from a small,light engine based on high engine speeds contradicts the design aims of the type of ‘power’ needed to haul heavy weights which is all about torque.While the fact is,unlike the foreign competition that was working with more relaxed regulations and a different ( better ) investment regime,for whatever reason AEC at least,seems to have been one of the worst affected,in allowing the worst aspects of all that to compromise it’s design thinking to disproportionate levels.The result being,as I’ve said,the totally opposing difference between at least the design and resulting capabilities of the Scania/Merc V8 v the AEC V8 and the 14 litre ■■■■■■■ and Rolls Eagle v the TL12 during the make or break period of the following decade/s.

As for WW2,at least in terms of heavy vehicle engineering,the procurement of the Diamond T was another example of our manufacturers having been hampered by the over conservative demands of the domestic market.It being as much,if not more,a case of looking for better performance as/than production capacity.

[zb_anorak]

gingerfold:
I don’t believe that it was the “mood” as such, it was more a case of working to parameter’s dictated by the regulations appertaining at the time, plus the “conservatism” of the lorry operators. Take 1960 as the starting point, maximum GVW was 24 tons (eight wheeler rigid or artic), an increase in weight and vehicle lengths was being discussed, but no one knew what, or when, it would happen. The instructions to engine designers, and this is recorded by all the main manufacturers, was to produce a compact unit that was light in weight and powerful enough to meet the requirements of the time. Hence the high revving idea with a short stroke for compactness of the engine. (Remember what happened with the Leyland 700 project a few years later, it was too big to fit into a forward control chassis). A lightweight engine was desirable to allow operators to maximise payload. Certainly in the hire and reward sector virtually every job then was paid on a rate per ton carried. (It’s different now except in the tipper sector). Plus the ‘A’, ‘B’ and '‘C’ licensing regieme also dictated vehicle unladen weights. As an aside, a 6-cylinder Gardner engine was a relatively long and tall engine in comparison to some others, but its high alumininium alloy content meant that there wasn’t a weight penalty with it. Big cabs like we are used to today were a pipe dream back then, so the engine installation in the chassis was dictated by the small cab that was sitting on top of it. It really was a different era back then, and we shouldn’t be trying to compare the ideas of even the 1970s with then, let alone those ideas of today. This is maybe why some of us who were around at that time get exasperated with those who can’t understand that comparing the ideas of then and now is akin to comparing chalk and cheese. The thinking in the commercial vehicle industry (in its broadest sense) had to move quicker in the decade of the 1960s than it had done at anytime during the previous 30 years. Even the WW2 years, when necessity was the mother of invention in many areas, such as flight, radar, etc. had no tangible effect on the basic design of commercials and the diesel engine.

^^^This is the sort of argument the forum needs.^^^

Allowing for AEC’s desire to accommodate the GB market’s low weight/small cab requirements, their enthusiasm for the short stroke/high speed approach is understandable. At the time, it was a bold step for the designers to take. I do not believe that it was inherently wrong, on any of the grounds we have mentioned so far. Fiat’s much later oversquare 17 litre engine developed its peak power at 2400rpm, and it offered reasonable fuel consumption, good performance and superb durability, with none of the noise issues predicted by the two analysts mentioned in this thread.

The devil is in the detail. The AEC’s reported failings were overheating and crank journal wear, nothing to do with its basic concept (although our estimed contributor Cargo has alluded to the short connecting rod, which may have contributed to those problems). I reckon that, with a development timescale similar to the other 1960s engines, these faults would have been discovered and addressed as a matter of course. The V8 project’s two years on the shelf were its undoing- those two years could have have involved a series of prototype builds, test programmes and redesigns. They might have decided to increase the cylinder spacing, lengthen the connecting rod and change the coolant flow path in that period.

The root cause of the AEC and ■■■■■■■ high speed engine’s problems can be traced to their rushed development. Both engines, from what I have read, seemed to go straight from “blue sky” concept drawings to the pre-production build stage, with hardly any of the usual optimisation in between (especially with such a radical change). Both engines came to market quickly as a result of the big boss working to a sales/marketing agenda, and assuming that the engineering process could be speeded-up at will. If it were not for that error of judgment, the high speed V8 might have become a viable option in Europe and the US.

[gingerfold]

And following on from the above points I would add that probably another mistake was designing the high revving V8 (both AEC and ■■■■■■■■ without a suitable multi-ratio gearbox mated to it to maximise the performance of the engine in an optimum rev band. Certainly the D203 6-speed overdrive AEC gearbox fitted to the first 200 or so Mandator V8s caused too much fluctuations in revs because of the wide gear spacing when changing up or down. The later models with AEC’s 10-speed range change or the Leyland 10-speed semi-auto Pneumo-cyclic were a big improvement, but of course the latter gearbox wasn’t without problems of its own. I never drove a V8 Mandator, but I did drive a ■■■■■■■ V8 powered Dodge tractor unit for a month. That had a six-speed David Brown overdrive box and Eaton 2-speed axle and I posted loaded journey times with it that could not be matched in 2014, by virtue of its 65 mph plus top speed, but you had to keep the revs in the top part of the rev counter to maximise the performance and that was of course at the expense of fuel economy. ■■■■■■■ had very high hopes of its V6 and V8 engines for the UK and European markets, and constructed a new factory at Darlington (? was it) to manufacture V engines. Of course the concept failed but in the longer term it didn’t harm ■■■■■■■■ look where they stand today worldwide.

[carryfast]

[zb]
anorak:

gingerfold:
I don’t believe that it was the “mood” as such, it was more a case of working to parameter’s dictated by the regulations appertaining at the time, plus the “conservatism” of the lorry operators. Take 1960 as the starting point, maximum GVW was 24 tons (eight wheeler rigid or artic), an increase in weight and vehicle lengths was being discussed, but no one knew what, or when, it would happen. The instructions to engine designers, and this is recorded by all the main manufacturers, was to produce a compact unit that was light in weight and powerful enough to meet the requirements of the time. Hence the high revving idea with a short stroke for compactness of the engine. (Remember what happened with the Leyland 700 project a few years later, it was too big to fit into a forward control chassis). A lightweight engine was desirable to allow operators to maximise payload. Certainly in the hire and reward sector virtually every job then was paid on a rate per ton carried. (It’s different now except in the tipper sector). Plus the ‘A’, ‘B’ and '‘C’ licensing regieme also dictated vehicle unladen weights. As an aside, a 6-cylinder Gardner engine was a relatively long and tall engine in comparison to some others, but its high alumininium alloy content meant that there wasn’t a weight penalty with it. Big cabs like we are used to today were a pipe dream back then, so the engine installation in the chassis was dictated by the small cab that was sitting on top of it. It really was a different era back then, and we shouldn’t be trying to compare the ideas of even the 1970s with then, let alone those ideas of today. This is maybe why some of us who were around at that time get exasperated with those who can’t understand that comparing the ideas of then and now is akin to comparing chalk and cheese. The thinking in the commercial vehicle industry (in its broadest sense) had to move quicker in the decade of the 1960s than it had done at anytime during the previous 30 years. Even the WW2 years, when necessity was the mother of invention in many areas, such as flight, radar, etc. had no tangible effect on the basic design of commercials and the diesel engine.

^^^This is the sort of argument the forum needs.^^^

Allowing for AEC’s desire to accommodate the GB market’s low weight/small cab requirements, their enthusiasm for the short stroke/high speed approach is understandable. At the time, it was a bold step for the designers to take. I do not believe that it was inherently wrong, on any of the grounds we have mentioned so far. Fiat’s much later oversquare 17 litre engine developed its peak power at 2400rpm, and it offered reasonable fuel consumption, good performance and superb durability, with none of the noise issues predicted by the two analysts mentioned in this thread.

The devil is in the detail. The AEC’s reported failings were overheating and crank journal wear, nothing to do with its basic concept (although our estimed contributor Cargo has alluded to the short connecting rod, which may have contributed to those problems). I reckon that, with a development timescale similar to the other 1960s engines, these faults would have been discovered and addressed as a matter of course. The V8 project’s two years on the shelf were its undoing- those two years could have have involved a series of prototype builds, test programmes and redesigns. They might have decided to increase the cylinder spacing, lengthen the connecting rod and change the coolant flow path in that period.

The root cause of the AEC and ■■■■■■■ high speed engine’s problems can be traced to their rushed development. Both engines, from what I have read, seemed to go straight from “blue sky” concept drawings to the pre-production build stage, with hardly any of the usual optimisation in between (especially with such a radical change). Both engines came to market quickly as a result of the big boss working to a sales/marketing agenda, and assuming that the engineering process could be speeded-up at will. If it were not for that error of judgment, the high speed V8 might have become a viable option in Europe and the US.

If you could manage to take on board some objective different viewpoints from different angles no matter how inconvenient you might find some answers that you’re looking for.

Firstly there’s no way that you can compare a 17 litre design with ‘sufficient’ stroke measurement with a much smaller overall capacity one with a much smaller actual stroke measurement,based on the erroneous idea of putting too much emphasis on the bore stroke ratio as opposed to the actual measurements.By that comparison it’s not a case of where the FIAT produced it’s maximum power output it’s a case of how much of that maximum power output was sustained lower down the engine speed range in the form of torque.It’s obvious that in that comparison the larger overall capacity allowed for relatively larger stroke measurement,‘in addition’ to the bore size regardless of the fact that it just happened to be an over square design.IE bore/stroke ratio is one thing while the actual bore stroke measurements are another and it’s the latter which count in that comparison.In the case of the FIAT the overall capacity allowed for ‘sufficient’ ( nowhere near ideal ) stroke measurement to maintain a ‘sufficient’ torque output even though it was an over square design.In the case of the AEC it seems obvious that the much lower overall capacity removed that choice of providing a ‘sufficient’ stroke measurement having put the priority on bore size.

The sad fact is the AEC V8 was an obvious attempt to circumvent the limitations of their 142 mm stroke limited 6 cylinder designs.They then shot themselves in the foot by throwing away the object of designing the thing by then reducing that stroke measurement which,together with a better overall capacity limit,( would have) provided them with a Scania and Mercedes V8 competitor and the escape route from their compromised 6 cylinder designs which they were looking for.The fact is the high speed ‘short stroke’ V8,as taken up by AEC with it’s V8 and ■■■■■■■ with the 903,was never going to be the answer to the most efficient way to move a heavy load then or now.While as the Scania V8 proves to date neither was the FIAT.

[carryfast]

gingerfold:
■■■■■■■ had very high hopes of its V6 and V8 engines for the UK and European markets, and constructed a new factory at Darlington (? was it) to manufacture V engines. Of course the concept failed but in the longer term it didn’t harm ■■■■■■■■ look where they stand today worldwide.

Arguably ■■■■■■■ was saved from the debacle of it’s short stroke V8’s by it’s inline 6 cylinder engine range.Things might have turned out very differently for ■■■■■■■ if,like AEC,it had lumbered itself with a 142 mm stroke in the case of it’s 6 cylinder range.