I done a forum search & look what I found,
Dave.
dave docwra:
I done a forum search & look what I found,Dave.
To be fair there’s more chance that Scania would have based their V8 on a 117 x 120 architecture than a 130 x 114 design. 
Carryfast:
robert1952:
10Just the thought of Swedes going apoplectic with rage at the sight of ‘their’ motors with the ‘right’ engine and transmission in them would have made the conversion worthwhile in itself.
Sorry I’m not clever enough to know what apoplectic means but am guessing it means very Upset!
Just to clarify are you saying scania engines and gearboxes are crap? Or that they were wrong to design and build in house engines and boxes that through development and time have proved reliable and efficient?
Patrick
patrick 68:
Carryfast:
robert1952:
10Just the thought of Swedes going apoplectic with rage at the sight of ‘their’ motors with the ‘right’ engine and transmission in them would have made the conversion worthwhile in itself.
Just to clarify are you saying scania engines and gearboxes are crap? Or that they were wrong to design and build in house engines and boxes that through development and time have proved reliable and efficient?
Patrick
It was meant as more of a larf.
But seriously 14 litre ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed Fuller v 6 cylinder Scania and synchro box arguably no contest.While even the V8 would have been improved by using the Fuller box.Depending on personal point of view of course.
You’re right Robert, I’m mixing them up, the 110 with the Perkins in it was pulling a Perkins trailer as I recall.
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
Carryfast:
patrick 68:
Carryfast:
robert1952:
10Just the thought of Swedes going apoplectic with rage at the sight of ‘their’ motors with the ‘right’ engine and transmission in them would have made the conversion worthwhile in itself.
Just to clarify are you saying scania engines and gearboxes are crap? Or that they were wrong to design and build in house engines and boxes that through development and time have proved reliable and efficient?
Patrick
It was meant as more of a larf.
But seriously 14 litre ■■■■■■■ and 13 speed Fuller v 6 cylinder Scania and synchro box arguably no contest.While even the V8 would have been improved by using the Fuller box.Depending on personal point of view of course.
To be honest I’ve no experience of the ■■■■■■■■ fuller combo but I do agree that almost any engine is better if it is coupled to a constant mesh box 
newmercman:
You’re right Robert, I’m mixing them up, the 110 with the Perkins in it was pulling a Perkins trailer as I recall.Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
You’re right about that trailer NMM, I’ve just nicked the pic of it from the link given a few posts up (below). Cheers, Robert
It seems a bit of a drama that Scania, by all means have a Perkins engined lorry pulling your wares about, but it would’ve been a lot easier to use a Mastiff or a D1000.
I seem to remember that Scania were not too thrilled about the whole thing, which is understandable really. Especially when a standard 110 was more powerful, economical and a hell of a lot quieter than a V8 Perkins.
Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk
newmercman:
It seems a bit of a drama that Scania, by all means have a Perkins engined lorry pulling your wares about, but it would’ve been a lot easier to use a Mastiff or a D1000.I seem to remember that Scania were not too thrilled about the whole thing, which is understandable really. Especially when a standard 110 was more powerful, economical and a hell of a lot quieter than a V8 Perkins.
It also seems to bust the other myth that the Scania V8 was based on the Perkins.IE the dates are all wrong.Surely it couldn’t have been a publicity stunt meant to suggest that Scania were associated with Perkins engines.‘Not thrilled’ would understandably have been an understatement in that case. 
Sliding off thread, because I’ve no idea if either engine bore (pun!) any relationship to the AEC. Nor did I ever drive an AEC with a V8.
I owned a couple of Perkins engined Mastiffs. 1969/1970 to 1974/75. They were good engines until about 80,000 miles, not a problem! At that point it was, in hindsight, probably best to replace them with a new engine.
BMC/Leyland identified a problem with the oil pump. This tended to collapse at about 70,000 miles and caused a recall. If you didn’t notice it, the oil pressure dropped to nought rather quickly - then the engine seized.
I was lucky, that didn’t happen to me. However! If you took the heads off for any reason, they twisted slightly. When you rebuilt the engine, you soon had oil/water problems. It took us a while to figure out that if you took the heads off, they needed to be re skimmed flat.
The Pistons weren’t quite hard enough. At around about 100,000 miles, the piston rings would start to break up. The Pistons had been beaten up and down by the rings, so that the tolerances were too wide. At this point, the top rings started to break up and punch holes up into the combustion area. I remember hearing a piston ring breaking up in this fashion on the M4 from London to Bristol, where I was loading. The pieces of piston ring would then exit through the exhaust valve.
To be fair to the Mastiff, I still loaded in Bristol, tipped in the north somewhere and made it back to Barrow.
In Saudi, the Mercedes V8 was very popular. This, like the Mastiff, sounded like a bag of nails being shaken! However, it did seem reliable.
The Scania V8 was the only V8 that ever sounded ‘balanced’ to me. I drove Pete Robbins’s 140 on overland and although I didn’t love the gearbox, the engine sounded and performed perfectly.
Apologies for being off thread re: AEC, but they were V8s.
John.
dave docwra:
I done a forum search & look what I found,Dave.
it wasn’t Scania trialling them though dave,
hence my sarcasm further up the page- my apologies : 
I may stand to be corrected but the I think TV in the TV8 640 on the trailer was the turbo charged version or could even be the intercooled variant my point being the chassis on a LB110 was also the same for the 140 V8 which could probably accomadate the the v8 Perkins engine with little or no modification ,just the same as marshalls of Evesham had a v8 Perkins in a mandator V8 chassis so it could be assumed that it was field trial test engine or marketing excersize .
In my years as an engineer I have had the experience of working on both engines in depth and I can say only that the engines are really quite different, even down to the firing order,it was just unfortunate that the AEC design had a few issues but the designers and engineers did a grand job considering there was no CAD design it really was all trial and error and the DS14 l01 scania was not without it’s issues . The first scania v8 test engine if my memory is correct was in the test cell ,running around 1963/4 about the same time as AEC own .
skane:
it was just unfortunate that the AEC design had a few issues but the designers and engineers did a grand job considering there was no CAD design it really was all trial and error and the DS14 l01 scania was not without it’s issues . The first scania v8 test engine if my memory is correct was in the test cell ,running around 1963/4 about the same time as AEC own .
To be fair it wouldn’t need CAD to know that a 130 x 114 bore and stroke was never going to work as a heavy truck motor.Diesel race car or even 4 wheeler fire truck engine maybe.
Quite true the stroke was short ,we must remember that it was not only the heavy truck market they were after this I think you will agree would be very short sighted of a manufacturer . There were successfull short stroke engines in v and inline format but these were subject operations and loadings , and considering the engine governed max speed it did breath quite well for a naturally aspirated engine ,
The smoke issue was a problem that really could only be overcome with turbo charging as it was near it maximum burn time due to high engine speed ,or a different fuel injection system with dramatically increased pressures , but the ones I have drove all seem to go well enough when compared with vehicles of the time with reasonably good fuel fuel consumption if driven properly
skane:
Quite true the stroke was short ,we must remember that it was not only the heavy truck market they were after this I think you will agree would be very short sighted of a manufacturer . There were successfull short stroke engines in v and inline format but these were subject operations and loadings , and considering the engine governed max speed it did breath quite well for a naturally aspirated engine ,
The smoke issue was a problem that really could only be overcome with turbo charging as it was near it maximum burn time due to high engine speed ,or a different fuel injection system with dramatically increased pressures , but the ones I have drove all seem to go well enough when compared with vehicles of the time with reasonably good fuel fuel consumption if driven properly
I’d guess that market placement v design was some of its problem.Realistically it was probably never going to work in anything heavier than a 6 wheeler.But too much for a 4 wheeler in anything other than emergency vehicle applications.Ironically similar to the Ergo cab that it seemed to be designed to fit under in that regard in not being suitable for the role of max weight/distance work because it was too highly stressed.In just the same way that the Ergo cab wasn’t going to cut it outside of the local delivery/specialist vehicle sector.
But I’d agree, with the proviso that it was run at the right weight,there wasn’t much in the day that could match it.Especially in a 4 wheeler which,like 6 wheelers,was/would have been its natural element,without the stress problems,caused by its design limitations,being such an issue as in the case of max weight applications and certainly better than the 500.If only the type of resulting power to weight ratio could have been justified by most commercial operators at that type of weight in the day.
Carryfast you could well of hit the nail on the head, I believe the 60,s were a very experimental and interesting time for the commercial vehicle industry ,We had not long come out of a very difficult war and the country was desperaretly trying to get to get back on its feet , manufactures were steered by various governments to sell as much products as they could to the world market and this could only be met by many new developments, engines , drive lines and cabs sadly there was a shortage of money but realistically they would only of survived for about 10 to 20 years as ultimately the operators would eventually chose comonality in say a fleet of vehicles and this would of left some spare at the party so to speak .
The 500 series engine was a most interesting design and could combat most of the foreseen gasket issues of the time , there were lots of forward thinking in it , rear timing gears overhead cam and a one piece block , 20 years forward most truck engine manufactures have adopted 70% this , I think that it was a failure in the available metals at the time , but interestingly it was producing nearly 370 bop in test cell and similar size engines are doing this now as standard now .
Carryfast:
skane:
it was just unfortunate that the AEC design had a few issues but the designers and engineers did a grand job considering there was no CAD design it really was all trial and error and the DS14 l01 scania was not without it’s issues . The first scania v8 test engine if my memory is correct was in the test cell ,running around 1963/4 about the same time as AEC own .To be fair it wouldn’t need CAD to know that a 130 x 114 bore and stroke was never going to work as a heavy truck motor.Diesel race car or even 4 wheeler fire truck engine maybe.
Here’s some details on the Steyr engine which, as you will read, is an oversquare 12 litre V8, just like the AEC 740.
zuckerfabrik24.de/steyrpuch/ … 90_p12.jpg
The Steyr engine, like all the others that I have mentioned, was successful, showing that the AEC’s faults were all avoidable without meddling with the bore or stroke.
I do not know much about the Austrian engine but the i understand it was quite a success from what i have read in various press reports,it must of been quite some engine as it did have a fair production run and if you convert the torque figures to imperial measurements they are quite close . Returning to the AEC subject the only major headache with the engine is that the big end journals and bearings were let’s say economic with there surface area and to that end the crank needed to be longer which would need to a back to the drawing board approach .It could also be said that the over heating problem was an easy cure with a higher cab and larger radiator and a modified water flow and rate
[zb]
anorak:
The Steyr engine, like all the others that I have mentioned, was successful, showing that the AEC’s faults were all avoidable without meddling with the bore or stroke.
If I’ve read the specs right how does comparing a 126 x 120 design producing around 200-250 PS at around 1,400 -1,800 rpm say anything about the 130 or 135 x 114 AEC V8’s chances regards all the usual engine speed related issues and/or equivalent stresses in the piston to crankshaft component chain at equivalent output levels ?.Or for that matter change anything regarding a view that the AEC attempt was realistically only going to work in 4 wheelers and 6 wheelers without starting to break things prematurely in that regard. 
While the Scania and Mercedes V8 obviously went on to the next step in my line of logic with obvious results.
The perkins V8 in the Ford and Mastiff was a 510 ( 510 CUBIC ins )(170 horse) , the one in the Scania was a 640 (640 Cubic inches) (252 horse) not the same engine , the Scania V8 had nothing at all to do with the AEC or Perkins , but I know a Swedish now retired driver that delivered a V8 block from Germany to Scania - Vabis at Sodertalje before the V8 Scania came out !