For those who want more background on the Transport Engineer report, I input it again. A-J
gingerfold:
The early ■■■■■■■ (into this country) did gain a reputation as fuel guzzlers, but a robust engine nevertheless that gave little trouble in service. The chart, as you rightly comment, gives running costs without fuel factored into the sums. Back in those days at 32 tons gvw 8.00 mpg was the benchmark and anything betweeen 7.00 to 8.00 mpg was acceptable. Whilst fuel costs have always been important to a haulier (especially), they weren’t as significant then as they are today, Early 1970s DERV was about £0.30 per gallon (yes gallon) and drivers’ wages were the highest weekly running cost. Fuel prices only started to increase rapidly after the start of the 1973 Israeli / Arab war and when OPEC realised that it was a powerful organization.
Our ■■■■■■■ 250 only managed around 5 mpg compared to the Rolls 265 Li’s 7-8 Gingerfold, that was in a Foden eight wheeler tipper. Then again the Peak District and local tipper work isn’t the best place for good fuel consumption and the driver did push it hard. 
We had one in a powder tanker and I believe that was better on the road (more A road and Motorway work) but of course you had blowing time to consider! One lad put a ‘big’ ■■■■■■■ 250 in a Foden six wheeler that had originally been fitted with a Gardner, he drove it steadily and got good returns but still had the power available when he needed it. He was the sort of chap who would happily follow you at your pace instead of trying to get in front all the time, paid off for him in a lightly stressed engine and decent fuel returns.
This thread is getting interesting again. 
Pete.
Pete.
windrush:
gingerfold:
The early ■■■■■■■ (into this country) did gain a reputation as fuel guzzlers, but a robust engine nevertheless that gave little trouble in service. The chart, as you rightly comment, gives running costs without fuel factored into the sums. Back in those days at 32 tons gvw 8.00 mpg was the benchmark and anything betweeen 7.00 to 8.00 mpg was acceptable. Whilst fuel costs have always been important to a haulier (especially), they weren’t as significant then as they are today, Early 1970s DERV was about £0.30 per gallon (yes gallon) and drivers’ wages were the highest weekly running cost. Fuel prices only started to increase rapidly after the start of the 1973 Israeli / Arab war and when OPEC realised that it was a powerful organization.Our ■■■■■■■ 250 only managed around 5 mpg compared to the Rolls 265 Li’s 7-8 Gingerfold, that was in a Foden eight wheeler tipper. Then again the Peak District and local tipper work isn’t the best place for good fuel consumption and the driver did push it hard.
This thread is getting interesting again.
Pete.
Pete.
I think the Rolls 265 was one of it’s obviously more efficient turbocharged designs.While the ■■■■■■■■■■■■ Detroit Diesel,had their base in a totally different fuel consumption environment.■■■■■■■ only really started to attach much importance to the fuel consumption of it’s products after the 1973 oil price issues.In which case it’s the turbocharged big cam versions which,especially when combined with 38 t gross operation, became the relevant comparison with the turbocharged Rolls options.
The relevant comparison and question for the topic being the productivety/fuel consumption/durability equation of the turbocharged ■■■■■■■ and Rolls and even the Detroit 8V71 options v the AEC V8 or even the TL12.Which seems to have been answered by the engine options of choice in the Scammell Crusader and then the T45.In that league it’s obvious that the AEC V8 needed to be turbocharged when it was obvious that it wasn’t good enough in regards to it’s durabilty or torque characteristics in either case.All of which was obvious from the design stage let alone the testing stage and let alone putting the thing into production.
Carryfast:
windrush:
gingerfold:
The early ■■■■■■■ (into this country) did gain a reputation as fuel guzzlers, but a robust engine nevertheless that gave little trouble in service. The chart, as you rightly comment, gives running costs without fuel factored into the sums. Back in those days at 32 tons gvw 8.00 mpg was the benchmark and anything betweeen 7.00 to 8.00 mpg was acceptable. Whilst fuel costs have always been important to a haulier (especially), they weren’t as significant then as they are today, Early 1970s DERV was about £0.30 per gallon (yes gallon) and drivers’ wages were the highest weekly running cost. Fuel prices only started to increase rapidly after the start of the 1973 Israeli / Arab war and when OPEC realised that it was a powerful organization.Our ■■■■■■■ 250 only managed around 5 mpg compared to the Rolls 265 Li’s 7-8 Gingerfold, that was in a Foden eight wheeler tipper. Then again the Peak District and local tipper work isn’t the best place for good fuel consumption and the driver did push it hard.
This thread is getting interesting again.
Pete.
Pete.
I think the Rolls 265 was one of it’s obviously more efficient turbocharged designs.While the ■■■■■■■■■■■■ Detroit Diesel,had their base in a totally different fuel consumption environment.■■■■■■■ only really started to attach much importance to the fuel consumption of it’s products after the 1973 oil price issues.In which case it’s the turbocharged big cam versions which,especially when combined with 38 t gross operation, became the relevant comparison with the turbocharged Rolls options.
The relevant comparison and question for the topic being the productivety/fuel consumption/durability equation of the turbocharged ■■■■■■■ and Rolls and even the Detroit 8V71 options v the AEC V8 or even the TL12.Which seems to have been answered by the engine options of choice in the Scammell Crusader and then the T45.In that league it’s obvious that the AEC V8 needed to be turbocharged when it was obvious that it wasn’t good enough in regards to it’s durabilty or torque characteristics in either case.All of which was obvious from the design stage let alone the testing stage and let alone putting the thing into production.
Fuel consumption and reliability would be the main factors for most hauliers when considering buying vehicles, The Detroit 8v71 and the ■■■■■■■ would be hampered by fuel consumption , another factor with the Detroit would have been the availability of spares .The AEC V8 wasnt available when the ■■■■■■■ 250 started appearing over here in large numbers so it would have been in direct competion with the TL12 , The E290 ■■■■■■■ would become the nearest match to the TL12 both rated around 270 bhp, by the way theres no ■■■■■■■ , Rolls Royce ,or Detroit engines used in any numbers over here anymore .So Mr Carryfast ,maybe you and Stokes were wrong and the way forward wasnt fitting big thirsty Detroits ,or ■■■■■■■ or even Rollers but for the remaining European manufacturers to use in house engines . whos using hindsight now
ramone:
theres no ■■■■■■■ , Rolls Royce ,or Detroit engines used in any numbers over here anymore .So Mr Carryfast ,maybe you and Stokes were wrong and the way forward wasnt fitting big thirsty Detroits ,or ■■■■■■■ or even Rollers but for the remaining European manufacturers to use in house engines . who`s using hindsight now
In which case if it must be all in house it’ll need to be right and it’s going to take ( a lot ) of cash to do it.Neither of which were a luxury which Stokes,or the UK truck manufacturing industry in general,had.
Carryfast:
ramone:
theres no ■■■■■■■ , Rolls Royce ,or Detroit engines used in any numbers over here anymore .So Mr Carryfast ,maybe you and Stokes were wrong and the way forward wasnt fitting big thirsty Detroits ,or ■■■■■■■ or even Rollers but for the remaining European manufacturers to use in house engines . who`s using hindsight nowIn which case if it must be all in house it’ll need to be right and it’s going to take ( a lot ) of cash to do it.Neither of which were a luxury which Stokes,or the UK truck manufacturing industry in general,had.
The inconvenient truth is that the main players in commercial vehicle manufacturing in europe choose to use their own engines , which as history shows makes a mockery of your argument .The likes of ERF ,Foden and SA and indeed Scammell all took your advice and used ■■■■■■■ , Rolls Royce and Detroit engines but where did it get them (i didnt put Gardner in there due to your dislike of their bullet proof products )Maybe if Stokes would have invested the money more wisely in development of proven in house engines instead of trying to make the headless wonder or the gas turbine project viable then we may still have had something left here ....... To all the sane people on here the likes of ERF ,Foden and SA did what they did best ,assemble , they used proven engines which the customers wanted,coupled to bought in drivelines .Volvo are probably the best example of inhouse production where they can design their own engines and boxes to work hand in hand and also control the quality, AEC ,after the very early years produced the complete vehicle and right up to the late 60s had a reputation second to none ,yes they did produce a dud but realised this and shelved the idea in the early `60s only for Stokes to ressurect it a few years later .If the investment would have been there i for one think we would have still had something left here , but they took the wrong road linking up with Leyland instead of finding a more suitable partner
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
theres no ■■■■■■■ , Rolls Royce ,or Detroit engines used in any numbers over here anymore .So Mr Carryfast ,maybe you and Stokes were wrong and the way forward wasnt fitting big thirsty Detroits ,or ■■■■■■■ or even Rollers but for the remaining European manufacturers to use in house engines . who`s using hindsight nowIn which case if it must be all in house it’ll need to be right and it’s going to take ( a lot ) of cash to do it.Neither of which were a luxury which Stokes,or the UK truck manufacturing industry in general,had.
The inconvenient truth is that the main players in commercial vehicle manufacturing in europe choose to use their own engines , which as history shows makes a mockery of your argument .The likes of ERF ,Foden and SA and indeed Scammell all took your advice and used ■■■■■■■ , Rolls Royce and Detroit engines but where did it get them (i didn
t put Gardner in there due to your dislike of their bullet proof products )Maybe if Stokes would have invested the money more wisely in development of proven in house engines instead of trying to make the headless wonder or the gas turbine project viable then we may still have had something left here ....... To all the sane people on here the likes of ERF ,Foden and SA did what they did best ,assemble , they used proven engines which the customers wanted,coupled to bought in drivelines .Volvo are probably the best example of inhouse production where they can design their own engines and boxes to work hand in hand and also control the quality, AEC ,after the very early years produced the complete vehicle and right up to the late60s had a reputation second to none ,yes they did produce a dud but realised this and shelved the idea in the early `60s only for Stokes to ressurect it a few years later .If the investment would have been there i for one think we would have still had something left here , but they took the wrong road linking up with Leyland instead of finding a more suitable partner
A good argument, Ramone, but it may only hold water in Europe because the US still has an assembly (instead of in-house) truck manufacturing culture and they seem to have kept going. Perhaps this is only due to the conservative nature of US hauliers; or maybe its because that what they are used to. On the Continent they were not accustomed to the assembly-culture that we had accepted in Britain. Robert
To be absolutely correct Ramone Foden made virtually everything in house (apart from engines, excluding their stroker) until the Paccar takeover. After that they too also became assemblers!
Pete.
robert1952:
ramone:
Carryfast:
ramone:
theres no ■■■■■■■ , Rolls Royce ,or Detroit engines used in any numbers over here anymore .So Mr Carryfast ,maybe you and Stokes were wrong and the way forward wasnt fitting big thirsty Detroits ,or ■■■■■■■ or even Rollers but for the remaining European manufacturers to use in house engines . who`s using hindsight nowIn which case if it must be all in house it’ll need to be right and it’s going to take ( a lot ) of cash to do it.Neither of which were a luxury which Stokes,or the UK truck manufacturing industry in general,had.
The inconvenient truth is that the main players in commercial vehicle manufacturing in europe choose to use their own engines , which as history shows makes a mockery of your argument .The likes of ERF ,Foden and SA and indeed Scammell all took your advice and used ■■■■■■■ , Rolls Royce and Detroit engines but where did it get them (i didn
t put Gardner in there due to your dislike of their bullet proof products )Maybe if Stokes would have invested the money more wisely in development of proven in house engines instead of trying to make the headless wonder or the gas turbine project viable then we may still have had something left here ....... To all the sane people on here the likes of ERF ,Foden and SA did what they did best ,assemble , they used proven engines which the customers wanted,coupled to bought in drivelines .Volvo are probably the best example of inhouse production where they can design their own engines and boxes to work hand in hand and also control the quality, AEC ,after the very early years produced the complete vehicle and right up to the late60s had a reputation second to none ,yes they did produce a dud but realised this and shelved the idea in the early `60s only for Stokes to ressurect it a few years later .If the investment would have been there i for one think we would have still had something left here , but they took the wrong road linking up with Leyland instead of finding a more suitable partnerA good argument, Ramone, but it may only hold water in Europe because the US still has an assembly (instead of in-house) truck manufacturing culture and they seem to have kept going. Perhaps this is only due to the conservative nature of US hauliers; or maybe its because that what they are used to. On the Continent they were not accustomed to the assembly-culture that we had accepted in Britain. Robert
Its not really true what ive written ,maybe just playing someone at their own game , maybe its the backward thinking hauliers in the USA that keep insisting on fuller boxes ,■■■■■■■ ,detroit and cat engines that is holding the industry back , just look what they are missing over here ,auto boxes and adblue … its the future
Not for long Robert, I’m sat typing this in an American built Volvo with a Volvo engine and gearbox, in front of me are two Freightliners with DD15 engines (same as the Actors engine) and DT gearboxes (again same as the Actros) in the Peterbilt (or Kenworth, take your pick) sits a Paccar (Daf) engine and even Navistar (International) uses its own engine now.
Vertical integration has always been the best way, as the Europeans have proven, so the AEC V8 and the TL12 were on the right track, they just didn’t have the right driver…
At the end of each day…it’s about money and product-range! Why did DAF (bankruptcy in 1993)
offer the 95.500 Super Space Cab with ■■■■■■■ 507 hp? When Paccar would not have bought the
DAF-'remains" in 1996 DAF would still assemble, perhaps their total range, or they would not exist
nowadays. See the thread on Survivors■■? it is a real business case to which point you produce or
you assemble, depending on production-facilities, range and relevant markets.
newmercman:
Not for long Robert, I’m sat typing this in an American built Volvo with a Volvo engine and gearbox, in front of me are two Freightliners with DD15 engines (same as the Actors engine) and DT gearboxes (again same as the Actros) in the Peterbilt (or Kenworth, take your pick) sits a Paccar (Daf) engine and even Navistar (International) uses its own engine now.Vertical integration has always been the best way, as the Europeans have proven, so the AEC V8 and the TL12 were on the right track, they just didn’t have the right driver…
The inconvenient question in that case being why would an all in house producer like Mercedes with everything going for it want to get involved with a loose US engine producer like Detroit.While the MX has more ■■■■■■■ in it than DAF.Which suggests that if you want a good engine,even as a so called integrated producer,it’s often still best to go to a specialist engine supplier unless you really know what you’re doing.Hence DD15 and MX not Mercedes V6 or V8 or DAF engines.Which just leaves Volvo and Scania which is more about being the exception to the rule in making all in house engine production work than vice versa.IE as I said if you’re going to do it in house it’s got to be right and it’s going to cost ( lots ) of cash.Cash which Leyland Group didn’t have or know how in the form of AEC’s designers.Being that what all those engines have in common is an undersquare 6 inch + stroke measurement.
C/F, You are boring me to bloody tears man with your theories about what was good & what was bad about Engines, Let me tell you Mr C/F I ran motors for 28 years , Gardners, Leylands RR.(Perkins) Powered & I never had no problems with any of them, Of course there were some little things that cropped up, But nothing that put my family run Co from changing to anything else, You should try running a haulage business yourself, What suits one dosnt suit another, So get real & join the real world of running a haulage Co, Good night to you, Hope you sleep well, you may find that hard I suppose being a total Knowall, Regards Larry.
Lawrence Dunbar:
C/F, You are boring me to bloody tears man with your theories about what was good & what was bad about Engines, Let me tell you Mr C/F I ran motors for 28 years , Gardners, Leylands RR.(Perkins) Powered & I never had no problems with any of them, Of course there were some little things that cropped up, But nothing that put my family run Co from changing to anything else, You should try running a haulage business yourself, What suits one dosnt suit another, So get real & join the real world of running a haulage Co, Good night to you, Hope you sleep well, you may find that hard I suppose being a total Knowall, Regards Larry.
Larry my man,just go outside and bang your heed on the bungalow wall !! your wasting your breath trying to reason with that ■■■■ !! Anyway you may be glad to know that “CF” has a new handle,no,it’s not ■■■■ ,■■■■■■■■■■■■■ or any of them!! It is “The Leatherhead” from here on in 
Cheers Dennis.
Geoffrey even by your standards that last post was pure drivel.
Daimler AG purchased DD for their in house engines in North America for two reasons, one being the established brand name and the second being a manufacturing base. The current range of engines are a Daimler AG production and have input from all of the manufacturers with the group, namely MB, Freightliner and Mitsubishi Fuso. The DD range bears absolutely no relationship to the last Detroit Diesel designs, which remembering that the Series 60 was a John Deere design, means the old two strokes.
The same with the Paccar MX, it is a Daf design, ■■■■■■■ may have been consultants for the fuel injection system and thank god that’s all they were involved in as their own ISX is a piece of junk that has put many an owner operator and small fleet out of business.
You wax lyrical about V8 CATs, big can ■■■■■■■ and two stroke Detroits, you slag off Gardner, AEC and Leyland engines, despite practical evidence to the contrary from respected men that operated them and the depth of your own experience is, apart from YouTube, a 2800 Daf and a Leyland Clydesdale.
You drop hints about the rest of your CV and you do have some obvious knowledge, so dazzle us with some diamonds, we’re all tired of being baffled by the BS.
newmercman:
Geoffrey even by your standards that last post was pure drivel.Daimler AG purchased DD for their in house engines in North America for two reasons, one being the established brand name and the second being a manufacturing base. The current range of engines are a Daimler AG production and have input from all of the manufacturers with the group, namely MB, Freightliner and Mitsubishi Fuso. The DD range bears absolutely no relationship to the last Detroit Diesel designs, which remembering that the Series 60 was a John Deere design, means the old two strokes.
The same with the Paccar MX, it is a Daf design, ■■■■■■■ may have been consultants for the fuel injection system and thank god that’s all they were involved in as their own ISX is a piece of junk that has put many an owner operator and small fleet out of business.
You wax lyrical about V8 CATs, big can ■■■■■■■ and two stroke Detroits, you slag off Gardner, AEC and Leyland engines, despite practical evidence to the contrary from respected men that operated them and the depth of your own experience is, apart from YouTube, a 2800 Daf and a Leyland Clydesdale.
You drop hints about the rest of your CV and you do have some obvious knowledge, so dazzle us with some diamonds, we’re all tired of being baffled by the BS.
Do you want “fresh out the ■■■■■■■■” or the “field cured” brand NMM ? Cheers Bewick.
Dennis, I’ve got enough BS from this thread to cover Canada in Roses.
newmercman:
Geoffrey even by your standards that last post was pure drivel.Daimler AG purchased DD for their in house engines in North America for two reasons, one being the established brand name and the second being a manufacturing base. The current range of engines are a Daimler AG production and have input from all of the manufacturers with the group, namely MB, Freightliner and Mitsubishi Fuso. The DD range bears absolutely no relationship to the last Detroit Diesel designs, which remembering that the Series 60 was a John Deere design, means the old two strokes.
The same with the Paccar MX, it is a Daf design, ■■■■■■■ may have been consultants for the fuel injection system and thank god that’s all they were involved in as their own ISX is a piece of junk that has put many an owner operator and small fleet out of business.
You wax lyrical about V8 CATs, big can ■■■■■■■ and two stroke Detroits, you slag off Gardner, AEC and Leyland engines, despite practical evidence to the contrary from respected men that operated them and the depth of your own experience is, apart from YouTube, a 2800 Daf and a Leyland Clydesdale.
You drop hints about the rest of your CV and you do have some obvious knowledge, so dazzle us with some diamonds, we’re all tired of being baffled by the BS.
While I’d admit to some,understandable,confusion between where ■■■■■■■■ involvement ends and where DAF’s starts amongst all the modern day Paccar range from PX to MX 
none of that makes any difference to the main point being that in the day AEC’s designs in the form of the V8 and to a lesser degree the TL12 were outclassed by their opposition.Which is why Scammell rightly ditched them for the specialist suppliers in the form of Detroit and Rolls and it’s why the T45 found most success with ■■■■■■■ and Rolls power.
As for your conclusions the ■■■■■■■ ISX is zb and Merc only decided to tie up with Detroit for the name and some factory space.Which may or may not be a fair conclusion who knows.
While Stokes ran AEC into the ground because he never had any engineering experience or background.Not because their products just weren’t good enough with no cash left to sort the place out.Just as I spent my working life driving a Clydesdale and DAF 2800.Which is bs. 
Oh believe me, the ISX is a boat anchor, I would not have one as a gift, seriously.
Now, we all know AEC got it wrong with the short stroke concept, but that did the other manufacturers a favour, however just as the other designers learned from the mistake, the AEC designers would have too.
With some development budget and adequate time to run tests, the chaps at Southall would’ve no doubt returned to the drawing board, but the inept management released the original design to the market.
There are a number of reasons, lack of finance being one, but the more sinister one is that they didn’t give a toss about the customer and the heaps of ■■■■ they produced during the 70s, in the car, van and truck divisions only goes to prove that.
On another note, can’t remember seeing anything about the Perkins 540, that was a short stroke (?) high revving diesel, it had a long lifespan and was fitted to many a fire appliance.
It can be argued that when the Leyland Group started to use "loose " (or proprietary) engines in the 1970s it was the wrong decision for a grouping whose two largest marques, namely Leyland and AEC had historically been vertically integrated manufacturers using in-house designed and produced components, as had Albion, the third largest marque within the group in terms of vehicle sales annually. It flew in the face of what its customers were used to or expected. Put aside the fact that there were problems with its in-house engines, the decision to buy in engines was against a trend of major British and European manufacturers that had established themselves as vertically integrated commercial vehicle builders. It would be a good PhD thesis for someone to research as to why the USA historically was different to Europe in its approach to vehicle manufacturing. You can also include Japan as European in its vehicle design philosophy. Returning to BL, Guy historically used “loose” engines but had been acquired as part of Jaguar and would probably have not been part of the group otherwise. Scammell had always been a ‘one-off’ niche assembler with a range of vehicles most of which were outside the mainstream markets until the late 1960s. As I’ve said before, in terms of annual production figures for mainstream models it was a small player even in the 1970s and until closure. Looking at the other British assemblers in the 1970s using proprietary components, i.e. ERF, Seddon Atkinson, Foden etc, whilst they were an important part of the overall scene they were relatively small companies and individually and collectively their annual chassis production was much less than the marques of the BL group. By the 1980s both in the European and British market the integrated manufacturer was gaining ground rapidly at the expense of the assembler, whose days were numbered. According to Newmercman that trend now seems to be happening in the US. ■■■■■■■ and Caterpillar are well established in other engine markets such as plant, industrial, and marine where the bulk of their revenue is earned these days. ■■■■■■■ of course still has a large UK market for automotive engines through supplying the lighter DAF models.