AEC V8

[erf-continental]

Just some remarks that ■■■■■■■ did try…source “The engine that could” so Anorak invest your earnings
of the "CF"T-shirt in this reliable/neutral book!

1. ■■■■■■■ first began designing a compact V-engine line in 1953, the same year GM launched a program to
   develop a short-stroke four-cycle diesel engine. Both companies encountered serious difficulties. Over the next
   decade, GM launched at least five more initiatives to design an oversquare diesel, all of them unsuccessful. For
   its part, ■■■■■■■ had little to show after six years of intermittent work. By 1959, Irwin Miller had run out of
   patience. Earlier in the year, DD had announce the introduction of eight new V-type engines, including models
   aimed at the light- and medium-duty truck markets. In a confidential memo to his top subordinates, he (IW)
   asserted that the "sales and profits lost by this delay and failure to have a commanding product edge are
   astronomical. Things were so desperate, as IW saw it that ■■■■■■■ could afford to spend “ANY SUM OF MONEY”
   to get his family of (smaller V) engines selected and in existence before the end of 1961. IW added that money
   was “absolutely no object” in accomplishing this goal. #201 of the book

2. IW spoke optimistically in September 1961 to a Time magazine reporter about the imminent introduction of
   two more engines: the “VAL” (V-6, 140hp) and the “VIT” (V-6 turbocharged engine). These engines would tap a
   market "so large that volume production would make a diesel as cheap to purchase as a gasoline engine. In 1962
   and 1963 the VIMS and VINES were causing major warranty costs…they were averaging almost five failures per
   warranty period - more than six times as many as the non-V ■■■■■■■ engines. The average warranty cost on a
   NH engine (line, not V) in May 1963 was $61,-, whereas the equivalent figure was $1.285,- for the V (Vine’s).
   #202 of the book

So Anorak and Gingerfold were SPOT ON with their expertises and explanations!

[carryfast]

ERF-Continental:
Just some remarks that ■■■■■■■ did try…source “The engine that could” so Anorak invest your earnings
of the "CF"T-shirt in this reliable/neutral book!

1. ■■■■■■■ first began designing a compact V-engine line in 1953, the same year GM launched a program to
   develop a short-stroke four-cycle diesel engine. Both companies encountered serious difficulties. Over the next
   decade, GM launched at least five more initiatives to design an oversquare diesel, all of them unsuccessful. For
   its part, ■■■■■■■ had little to show after six years of intermittent work. By 1959, Irwin Miller had run out of
   patience. Earlier in the year, DD had announce the introduction of eight new V-type engines, including models
   aimed at the light- and medium-duty truck markets. In a confidential memo to his top subordinates, he (IW)
   asserted that the "sales and profits lost by this delay and failure to have a commanding product edge are
   astronomical. Things were so desperate, as IW saw it that ■■■■■■■ could afford to spend “ANY SUM OF MONEY”
   to get his family of (smaller V) engines selected and in existence before the end of 1961. IW added that money
   was “absolutely no object” in accomplishing this goal. #201 of the book

2. IW spoke optimistically in September 1961 to a Time magazine reporter about the imminent introduction of
   two more engines: the “VAL” (V-6, 140hp) and the “VIT” (V-6 turbocharged engine). These engines would tap a
   market "so large that volume production would make a diesel as cheap to purchase as a gasoline engine. In 1962
   and 1963 the VIMS and VINES were causing major warranty costs…they were averaging almost five failures per
   warranty period - more than six times as many as the non-V ■■■■■■■ engines. The average warranty cost on a
   NH engine (line, not V) in May 1963 was $61,-, whereas the equivalent figure was $1.285,- for the V (Vine’s).
   #202 of the book

So Anorak and Gingerfold were SPOT ON with their expertises and explanations!

I don’t see anything there which is inconsistent with my view that the short stroke high speed V8 engine idea is zb both in terms of it’s load lugging abilities and durability.In which case that makes my statements close enough to being spot on certainly not Anorak’s.

[kr79]

A lot of british leylands problem seems to be they thought it was acceptable for the customer to test there new products.
ive mentioned a book i read before about bl but its more about the car side. When they launched the maxi they had two pre production models for testing renault who launched the 12 i think it was which was anotherfwd hatchback so also used a lot of unproven technology had over 100 cars all round the world been tested.

[newmercman]

So, from reading the last few posts, on this ‘run its course’ thread as a layman I get this impression.

AEC were designing a V8 engine to put them in a good position to take advantage of the impending increase in GVW.

The criteria was, lightweight, compactness, power and economy. So an oversquare V8 would address all of those.

The drawing board renditions were put into practice and then the project was shelved.

A few years later the project was revived, the same criteria had to be met, so the earlier design was used and as was the practice at the time, put into production.

It was, sadly a flawed design, and of course a commercial disaster.

But why? A couple of things stand out for me. Firstly the compactness, being required to fit under the Ergo cab was a massive hurdle to overcome, a long stroke engine with its larger crank journals and better cooling properties was just not possible, a square peg into a round hole if you like, so they made a round peg, when a square hole would’ve been a much better solution, as proven by FIAT, Daimler and Scania.

Secondly, pre production development, or rather the complete lack thereof. How many test designs were tried by the German, Italian and Swedish design teams? As history proved, they released their engines to the market when they had had all the bugs worked out, which is why they were a commercial success.

In summary, the AEC designers got it wrong, that’s part of the engineering process, but instead of fine tuning, or a complete redesign, their efforts were put into production. This complete lack of due process and due diligence was caused by one thing. The man at the top, a salesman with no engineering background and the results of that speak for themselves

[erf-continental]

@Carryfast…I respect you as a human being, however this thread equals the series of “Peyton Place”
with an never ending story and ‘new’ roads…call it a day and to commemorate all the ones who did
invest their knowledge, time, energy and money on the R&D-road, regardless the make!

Focus on other roads and to me…it’s a matter of facts & figures, nobody can drive a business on a lot
of (could be) emotions or disappointments, lessons to be learned?

[bma_finland]

yep,newmercman ,it seems very so the engine was not so bad ,but the motor they fitted it in was not the right one ,engineand motor devolpment did not fit ,in the marahton it would have work better ,whit more cooling,not no so much ,as CF ,but some toughts,cheers benkku

[carryfast]

newmercman:
AEC were designing a V8 engine to put them in a good position to take advantage of the impending increase in GVW.

The criteria was, lightweight, compactness, power and economy. So an oversquare V8 would address all of those.

The drawing board renditions were put into practice and then the project was shelved.

A few years later the project was revived, the same criteria had to be met, so the earlier design was used and as was the practice at the time, put into production.

It was, sadly a flawed design, and of course a commercial disaster.

But why? A couple of things stand out for me. Firstly the compactness, being required to fit under the Ergo cab was a massive hurdle to overcome, a long stroke engine with its larger crank journals and better cooling properties was just not possible, a square peg into a round hole if you like, so they made a round peg, when a square hole would’ve been a much better solution, as proven by FIAT, Daimler and Scania.

Secondly, pre production development, or rather the complete lack thereof. How many test designs were tried by the German, Italian and Swedish design teams? As history proved, they released their engines to the market when they had had all the bugs worked out, which is why they were a commercial success.

In summary, the AEC designers got it wrong, that’s part of the engineering process, but instead of fine tuning, or a complete redesign, their efforts were put into production. This complete lack of due process and due diligence was caused by one thing. The man at the top, a salesman with no engineering background and the results of that speak for themselves

Assuming that paragraphs 1,5 and 6 ( with exception that torque hasn’t been mentioned and it was a ‘foreseeable’ disaster in all respects ) are all agreed how can any of the rest be correct too in that they are a contradiction.The fact is,as I’ve posted,Stokes certainly did have an engineering background at Leyland and held a high rank in the REME during WW2 and trust me they generally didn’t/don’t employ idiots because lives depend on it.As such he would have been well aware of the design flaws in the concept let alone wanting/having any involvement in AEC going through with it.You’ve hit the right answer in the form of a re design but then over looked the issue of the cash not being there to do it.While even if it was could AEC’s engineering designers have been trusted to manage to get it right considering their track record.In addition to which was there likely to be room for such an engine in the market at that point when it was finished.

By any logical guess it’s more likely that Stokes would have walked away and left AEC to it’s fate.

While committing the sinking ship of Leyland Trucks to a policy of using the competent Rolls and ■■■■■■■ 6 cylinder alternatives.Which no surprise is exactly what actually happened.At least in the max weight sector that the AEC V8 and TL12 were directed at.

[carryfast]

bma.finland:
yep,newmercman ,it seems very so the engine was not so bad ,but the motor they fitted it in was not the right one ,engineand motor devolpment did not fit ,in the marahton it would have work better ,whit more cooling,not no so much ,as CF ,but some toughts,cheers benkku

Actually nmm has ( rightly ) stated it was the wrong engine designed to fit in the wrong truck.When what was needed was vice versa.In which case the Crusader and the Guy were the only logical alternatives at that point.Without throwing yet more non existent money away on the Marathon re design of the Ergo.

[cargo]

I’ve already mentioned my thoughts re-the engineering.
I wonder if anyone in the transport industry at that time, can shed light on why eight cylinders and a large bore.
I believe in those days,(as here in Aus) your rego. was worked out on rated hp which was the formula,
Bore squared x No of cylinders then all divided by 2.5.
This formula obviously favoured small bore 6-cylinder engines, certainly not large bore V8’s.
Did this thinking influence a vehicle’s purchase in the UK?
The 2-stroke Commer found favour here with its 3-cylinders and piddly little 3 and a bit inch bore giving a rated hp of some 13, very, very cheap to register.
Quite economical too and anyone who had read the development programme of the TS3 knows the engineering staff did thousands of hours of testing.
Small single and twin cylinder models were thoroughly tried/tested, all standard procedure for any new (or stolen, but we won’t go there) design.
Here was an engine that didn’t fit the standard chassis width either. Chassis rails were splayed accordingly.
An engine planned for underfloor bus sales.
A compact engine popular on gensets and pumps, even marine propulsion.
An lastly an engine designed for trucks hauling the much smaller 1950’s payloads.

[carryfast]

cargo:
I’ve already mentioned my thoughts re-the engineering.
I wonder if anyone in the transport industry at that time, can shed light on why eight cylinders and a large bore.
I believe in those days,(as here in Aus) your rego. was worked out on rated hp which was the formula,
Bore squared x No of cylinders then all divided by 2.5.
This formula obviously favoured small bore 6-cylinder engines, certainly not large bore V8’s.
Did this thinking influence a vehicle’s purchase in the UK?
The 2-stroke Commer found favour here with its 3-cylinders and piddly little 3 and a bit inch bore giving a rated hp of some 13, very, very cheap to register.

The RAC HP tax formula was long gone by the end of the 1950’s.In the case of any engine designed for the heavy truck market sector conventional accepted ( correct ) thinking and practice is that the long,or at least sufficient,stroke idea is the method used to make an engine with the required torque characteristics.The idea of increasing bore size can then be added to that that ‘but’ not used instead of it. IE a good bore size ‘as well as’ a good/sufficient stroke dimension not ‘instead of’ a good stroke dimension.

Adding cylinders can compensate for a short stroke.But the important bit is that there is a limit to how far that idea can be taken before the short stroke dimension outweighs the benefits of adding cylinders.While the two stroke idea also has the combination of being able to compensate for a short stroke and punches above it’s weight in terms of output/overall capacity.Which is why the Detroit 8v71,possibly even the 6v71,was a better engine than the AEC V8 even though the AEC had a larger overall capacity.

[gingerfold]

A couple of points from previous posts. Firstly, Pre-production testing of engines by Leyland. In 1969 (at 21 years old) I was working for the haulier who had put me on my path into transport from being a kid, and he had ordered a new Leyland Lynx tractor unit with the fixed head 500 engine. At the time he was running a small fleet comprising AECs, Leylands, and Dodge. The delivery date for the Lynx was delayed, and delayed, and delayed. The Leyland salesman, who was handling the order openly said that the delays were because of problems with the new engines, so it does point to the fact that Leyland released the 500 series engines into the marketplace unproven, and which they knew were going to be very troublesome. Incidentally, that junior salesman, as he was then, is now the owner of the parts factor we deal with now, and I only discovered this a couple of weeks ago when he was telling me about his early days in the industry and my mentor’s name cropped up in the conversation. Next time I see him I’ll ask him to spill the beans from when he worked for Woodwards, the former Leyland dealership in the North West.

Secondly, remember that all engine development at AEC was stopped after Donald Stokes was appointed to the top job in the BL empire and when Stanley Markland resigned from AEC in umbrage. The V8 was hastily revived to meet a requirement because of other failings, and with the failure of both that and the 500 series the development of the TL12 from the shelved A770 development project (turbo-charged A760) was again revived to fill a need. The late respected Leyland man Pat Kennett had much to say about this, both verbally face-to-face, and in print. The A760 was the only group heavy vehicle engine capable of further development, i.e. increase in power output, and it was produced quickly and on a small budget, and under the circumstances it did well. (Pat Kennett’s opinion).

And finally, your question for today as piston stroke length seems to be the key to all this, if AEC’s engine team was so fixated on the 142mm stroke dimension, which AEC engine did they also design with a 156 mm stroke that was also in production and use at the same time as the V8 and TL12?

[zb_anorak]

gingerfold:
…And finally, your question for today as piston stroke length seems to be the key to all this, if AEC’s engine team was so fixated on the 142mm stroke dimension, which AEC engine did they also design with a 156 mm stroke that was also in production and use at the same time as the V8 and TL12?

flickr.com/photos/22455491@N02/3849468287/

[gingerfold]

Yes, I remember that display. Owned by John Tweedie. Some of these engines are still around as power station start up units, Ferrybridge coal fired power station in Yorkshire, which is scheduled for closure within the next few months, and at a power station in Ireland. AEC V8 pumping sets were still used as standby units at a pumping station in the Thames Valley until about 10 years ago for certain, and might still be there.

[kr79]

Im sure every manafacturer be it trucks cars computers or whatever desigens a pup sometimes however it will be devolped and refined until its right or will be shelved.
If scania started work on there v8 in 1962 and it wasnt launched until 1969 how do we know how good earlier versions were. There was roumers aec had sorted the v8 by 73 but leyland blocked it for various reasons but i guess we will never know for sure.
This is well before my time but from what ive read up until they joined the Leyland group AEC was seen as a real premium quality truck builder where engenering won over price and gimmicks so to say they didnt know what they was doing is unfair.
Stokes is ultamtely responsible as he signed off the v8 when it was obvious it wasnt fit for purpouse along with the fixed head 500 and along with some of the problems with various bl cars

[cargo]

Gingerfold your story of waiting for the Lynx to turn up is so familiar.
In Aus. we waited years and years for the rumoured 4-cylinder Commer engine to turn up.
It should have been the answer for the 200hp light truck market and once they sorted out turbocharging, it would have moved to around 250hp. All in a compact power unit.
We got sick of the broken promises and so I moved to a small AEC which was a mega mistake, but I digress.
It was only in recent years I read how the Rootes engine did make it to in-chassis trials, had performed extremely well, had a predicted major overhaul life of 1,000,000 miles……… it all sounded so good.
And then how Chrysler had invested so heavily in the V6 ■■■■■■■ project that they ordered the destruction of all 4-cylinder Rootes engines.
History shows how that ■■■■■■■ decision played out, very similar to the Lynx saga.

[zb_anorak]

Just for fun, I have worked out what a 13 litre engine would look like, with the 17 litre Fiat’s bore/stroke ratio. It would have a bore of 132mm and a stroke of 118.5mm. With same BMEP curve as the original 330bhp (DIN) Fiat, it would develop 252bhp@2400rpm and make 636lbft@1200. If AEC had had the chance to do the development work satisfactorily, that is what they would have achieved, to meet their aims to produce a powerful, compact engine. Of course, with a shorter stroke than the Fiat, they may have been tempted to increase the rated speed, to get a bit more power.

[gingerfold]

[zb]
anorak:
Just for fun, I have worked out what a 13 litre engine would look like, with the 17 litre Fiat’s bore/stroke ratio. It would have a bore of 132mm and a stroke of 118.5mm. With same BMEP curve as the original 330bhp (DIN) Fiat, it would develop 252bhp@2400rpm and make 636lbft@1200. If AEC had had the chance to do the development work satisfactorily, that is what they would have achieved, to meet their aims to produce a powerful, compact engine. Of course, with a shorter stroke than the Fiat, they may have been tempted to increase the rated speed, to get a bit more power.

Ok, when can we start production, no need for any prototypes or development, we’ll call it the FIAECET (“Fire Set”) and to get the ball rolling I’ll order 20 for our fleet and re-engine the DAfs.

[gingerfold]

The cult of personality and Leyland Group internal politics played a large part in the AEC V8 disaster, and subsequent happenings. It is worth considering this official Press Release from Sir Henry Spurrier on 14th September 1962.

Heading: Leyland Chairman on Merger Benefits

Sir Henry Spurrier, chairman and managing director of Leyland Motors, Mr Stanley Markland, deputy managing director, and Mr Donald Stokes, sales director, have joined the board of Associated Commercial Vehicles, following the merger between the two companies. Lord Brabazon, A.C.V. chairman, and Sir William Black, managing director, have been appointed to the Leyland board.

Commenting on the future of the new group Sir Henry Spurrier said: “We are extremely optimistic about the benefits which will accrue to both organizations from the merger and particularly from the integration of our manufacturing, research and development facilities. This will constitute a pool of knowledge and experience which is unrivalled in the field of heavy lorries and passenger transport. In Great Britain, however, we intend to operate our organization independently and indeed competitively as we feel that this provides a stimulant to both companies ans is ultimately of great benefit to our customers. In overseas markets the merger will enable us to take advantage of the considerable combined facilities for assembly and local manufacture which have been established over a number of years, and also to present a united front against the tough and ever-growing foreign competiton in our ceaseless efforts to obtain business.”

One week later Commercial Motor published its version of this press release and also noting that Stanley Markland remained MD of both Standard Triumph International and Albion Motors. Donald Stokes continued as MD of Scammell Lorries and continued as group sales director.

[zb_anorak]

gingerfold:

[zb]
anorak:
Just for fun, I have worked out what a 13 litre engine would look like, with the 17 litre Fiat’s bore/stroke ratio. It would have a bore of 132mm and a stroke of 118.5mm. With same BMEP curve as the original 330bhp (DIN) Fiat, it would develop 252bhp@2400rpm and make 636lbft@1200. If AEC had had the chance to do the development work satisfactorily, that is what they would have achieved, to meet their aims to produce a powerful, compact engine. Of course, with a shorter stroke than the Fiat, they may have been tempted to increase the rated speed, to get a bit more power.

Ok, when can we start production, no need for any prototypes or development, we’ll call it the FIAECET (“Fire Set”) and to get the ball rolling I’ll order 20 for our fleet and re-engine the DAfs.

That would be a bold step indeed, Mr. Stokes.

I bet there were numerous rows at Leyland, when decisions like that were being made. The excitement of working on radical new ideas would have been tempered with trepidation. The Fiat engineers would have had their experience of the previous Unic V8 to give them confidence, so comparing their work with that of AEC’s people is unfair. I only used the Fiat geometry because the bore/stroke ratio was closest to the AEC. I would like to find out more about the Unic engine’s development- that company achieved the goals of AEC and ■■■■■■■■ apparently without problems.

[erf-continental]

@Anorak…I think you are familiar with Unic’s M62S V8? 119x121mm, 10,766 litres…