So until Volvo started building chassis with the Volvo engine and transmission, there wasn’t really an American truck manufacturer, they were all just assemblers.
Never thought about that before.
In the beginning when they first started to assemble trucks there must have been a ready supply of engines, transmissions and axles, so were they set up in conjunction with each other, or were components already available for other uses and mssrs Freightliner, Kenworth and Peterbilt etc just seized an opportunity?
Mack was one complete manufacturer, front bumper to rear tail light, but it too was gobbled up by Volvo.
Mack had similar problems to BL, a lot of engine choices and thus a lot of drivelines, all with the Mack name.
The decision to run with the 6-speed box and use massive engine torque was not the best. Engine braking was greatly affected and driving in city traffic was dreadful.
Their V8’s had plenty of problems too, big hp brings a whole new list of troubles.
I guess Cat could almost be called a complete manufacturer, the Oshkosh comes to mind.
I think it was a time of big changes and new pollution laws may have caught some manufacturers out.
I clearly remember in the early 70’s, a Volvo rep going on how the opposition’s injectors were nothing more than garden sprinklers when compared to what Volvo had in the pipeline.
Who could have foreseen the electronic gadgetry hiding under the rocker covers of today’s diesels.
newmercman:
Oh believe me, the ISX is a boat anchor, I would not have one as a gift, seriously.
I remember they had problems when they first came out, but I thought all that had been resolved. Are they still pants?
newmercman:
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.
Nowt wrong with the concept; the mess-up was in its execution. If ■■■■■■■ and AEC had had senior managers who understood that the concept would require more engineering work than they were used to, the problems would have been solved before the things got to market. All of the theoretical failings ordinarily associated with the concept were solved by other makers: Mercedes had a higher piston speed and big-end acceleration without crank failures, Fiat had a big bore without excessive noise. Unic got it right in the same era as ■■■■■■■ and AEC.
newmercman:
…
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.
I mentioned the Perkins earlier in the thread. Pay attention!
Sorry Newmercman, I was concentrating on what can be regarded as the heavy end of the premium market as opposed to the mass produced marques, I should have made it clearer. Obviously in the US there was Ford and GM who were vertically integrated, but were either of them ever a major presence in the heavy vehicle market?
cargo:
Mack was one complete manufacturer, front bumper to rear tail light, but it too was gobbled up by Volvo.
Mack had similar problems to BL, a lot of engine choices and thus a lot of drivelines, all with the Mack name.
The decision to run with the 6-speed box and use massive engine torque was not the best. Engine braking was greatly affected and driving in city traffic was dreadful…
The Maxidyne was launched in 1967, within a few months of the AEC V8. It was the polar opposite to the AEC in its design, regarding engine speed. That is what makes the 1960s such an intriguing era to study- everything was being tried. I have never heard those criticisms of the Maxidyne before. Surely loads of torque at low revs would help city driving, or did it suffer from turbo lag?
newmercman:
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.
Which is the point.Yes the short stroke high revving V8 idea worked when it was kept at the lower end of the weight range,Which is why I’ve said that such engines were the type of choice for four wheeler emergency vehicles.However that’s not the same thing as then transferring the idea to the heavier weight range where torque is everything.While even at those lighter weight ranges more torque made them go even quicker too.Which is why,as I’ve said,at least in my experience,the progression from the AEC V8 in the form of the Mandator to the turbocharged Detroit 8V92 in the TM was made in four and six wheeler commercial vehicle based emergency vehicles within a 5 year time frame.
Ironically Detroit having gone from loose engine supplier to both in house and loose supplier then loose engine supplier and now in house only albeit arguably in name only.While ■■■■■■■ has obviously made some well reputed products and some not so good ones.In the form of the 14 litre and K series at best and it’s short stroke V8’s and seemingly now the ISX at worse.
Thereby suggesting that the issue of in house as opposed to assembly and specialist engine suppliers is a red herring.It’s all about how good the product that comes out of the door is that matters.
cargo:
Mack was one complete manufacturer, front bumper to rear tail light, but it too was gobbled up by Volvo.
Mack had similar problems to BL, a lot of engine choices and thus a lot of drivelines, all with the Mack name.
The decision to run with the 6-speed box and use massive engine torque was not the best. Engine braking was greatly affected and driving in city traffic was dreadful…
The Maxidyne was launched in 1967, within a few months of the AEC V8. It was the polar opposite to the AEC in its design, regarding engine speed. That is what makes the 1960s such an intriguing era to study- everything was being tried. I have never heard those criticisms of the Maxidyne before. Surely loads of torque at low revs would help city driving, or did it suffer from turbo lag?
I think the reference was to the mistake of thinking that the high torque low engine speed idea can be combined with a wide ratio transmission with too few gear ratios.
Carryfast:
Thereby suggesting that the issue of in house as opposed to assembly and specialist engine suppliers is a red herring.It’s all about how good the product that comes out of the door is that matters.
In Europe at the present time Mercedes is achieving considerably better mpg than any of its competitors, and fuel usage is an operator’s highest running cost. Mercedes is a loose engine supplier so if the above statement is true then why aren’t Volvo, Scania, DAF et al offering Mercedes as an option? Just a thought.
Carryfast:
Thereby suggesting that the issue of in house as opposed to assembly and specialist engine suppliers is a red herring.It’s all about how good the product that comes out of the door is that matters.
In Europe at the present time Mercedes is achieving considerably better mpg than any of its competitors, and fuel usage is an operator’s highest running cost. Mercedes is a loose engine supplier so if the above statement is true then why aren’t Volvo, Scania, DAF et al offering Mercedes as an option? Just a thought.
I thought the word was that all the major players including Mercedes are all about in house availability only.
Assuming that we’ve got a loose engine supplier producing a considerably more efficient and a reliable engine range and the cash reserves to maintain that position then that’s obviously likely to be a threat to those producers who are reliant on an in house only operation in the long term.Just as was the case with AEC v ■■■■■■■ and Rolls in the day.Just as I’ve said it’s the product that matters not the issue of in house production v assembly operations.It’s just that unlike then we haven’t now got any assembly operations left to take advantage of the opportunity ‘if’ it’s correct.
In Europe at the present time Mercedes is achieving considerably better mpg than any of its competitors, and fuel usage is an operator’s highest running cost. Mercedes is a loose engine supplier so if the above statement is true then why aren’t Volvo, Scania, DAF et al offering Mercedes as an option? Just a thought.
[/quote]
You may be right…it however is all about patents and why to “help” your automotive competitors? Why should Mercedes-Benz help earth-rival VW (with Scania and MAN and VW) or whatever which make? Mercedes is as you know not only depending on engines for automotive purposes…today in the newspaper:
Mercedes-Benz’ market-share in Europe has increased by 2,2% to 26,2% (thus 1 out of 4 medium/heavy trucks is a Mercedes-Benz) whereas DAF has to make their share (in 2013 it was 16,2%, thus 1 out of 6 was a DAF) to be announced next week. It is based on relevant quarter-sales.
When I was with DAF…I remember numerous occassions when in- and outbound non-DAF-operators
wanted access to the premisses and the Van Doorne Brothers as well as Sales-God Mr. Lennards, did
send away the relevant truck, not being welcome and DAF did not want to help the competion make
miles on DAF premisses. Even Jan De Rooy (indeed old Dakar) had several discussions, but nowadays
apparently nobody bothers about his company collecting DAF-trucks with his Scania’s, Iveco’s etc.
At the end of the day…it’s only money guys!!! Don’t get emotional on trucks, it are workhorses!
While I was looking for AEC V8 pictures to brighten this thread, I found my folder of AEC V8 units with high roofs specced for the Middle-East run. Here they are, one of them on the Tehran service and the other one knacked and abandoned in Istanbul! Robert
Thanks Robert,
That is a Mr Ray Scutts sitting on the bumper of Anglo Continental,he also worked for Astran. This is The AEC loading for the Tehran fair.Photo courtesy of Mr Ray Scutts.
cargo:
Mack was one complete manufacturer, front bumper to rear tail light, but it too was gobbled up by Volvo.
Mack had similar problems to BL, a lot of engine choices and thus a lot of drivelines, all with the Mack name.
The decision to run with the 6-speed box and use massive engine torque was not the best. Engine braking was greatly affected and driving in city traffic was dreadful…
The Maxidyne was launched in 1967, within a few months of the AEC V8. It was the polar opposite to the AEC in its design, regarding engine speed. That is what makes the 1960s such an intriguing era to study- everything was being tried. I have never heard those criticisms of the Maxidyne before. Surely loads of torque at low revs would help city driving, or did it suffer from turbo lag?
I agree, it certainly was an exciting time for all sorts new concepts. But concepts eat up lots of free money, something BL didn’t have.
The basic Maxidyne concept was fine, although it depended on your city environment. If you were struggling uphill with traffic light after light, they wore you out. If you had flat country, they breezed along.
Big steps between gears, even with the Maxibrake, often meant you couldn’t grab the next one in time before momentum was lost at the lights.
Those same big steps meant engine braking wasn’t working very efficiently on the downhills and it wasn’t a powerful engine brake when compared to today’s offerings.
IIRC, Mack went to the 12-speed box very quickly.
Mack in Aus had dedicated owners and coming from their quad box vehicles, many didn’t take to the new concept, particularly road train operators.
They started looking elsewhere.
cargo:
I agree, it certainly was an exciting time for all sorts new concepts. But concepts eat up lots of free money, something BL didn’t have.
The basic Maxidyne concept was fine, although it depended on your city environment. If you were struggling uphill with traffic light after light, they wore you out. If you had flat country, they breezed along.
Big steps between gears, even with the Maxibrake, often meant you couldn’t grab the next one in time before momentum was lost at the lights.
Those same big steps meant engine braking wasn’t working very efficiently on the downhills and it wasn’t a powerful engine brake when compared to today’s offerings.
IIRC, Mack went to the 12-speed box very quickly.
Mack in Aus had dedicated owners and coming from their quad box vehicles, many didn’t take to the new concept, particularly road train operators.
They started looking elsewhere.
Thanks for that- good information. What was that engine like with the 12-speed 'box? I can understand road train people wanting loads of gears- there are comments on this forum about Aus operators needing 18 speed Fullers for their Scanias, so they could get the things moving without wrecking the clutch then, eventually, achieve a respectable cruising speed without thrashing the engine.
The Scania V8-powered 142 with its high torque at low revs had only a 10-speed 'box, but it was exactly right and left you with a gear for every eventuality and it was most satisfying to use - if it had been constant-mesh instead of synchro it would probably have been perfect! Robert
