Hi gents , I am afraid they did have 5.5 litre engine that was both supercharged and turbocharged , it went into production in October 1996 in the FL6 chassis , it had 250bhp and 535lbf of torque at 900 rpm which had 70% more torque at the same rpm than the 230 bhp D6 engine the supercharger was engine driven but automatically disengaged at 1535rpm . At the time of launch the Hampshire and Surrey fire brigade had them in service .
The new engine was reviewed and a tractor unit was driven by commercial motor on the 18th of July 1996 , where it was said to pull strongly and power output was impressive ,
Sorry it took time to find but I thought I had it packed away some where !!
Lilladan:
… NO VOLVO had a supercharger as such , all were turbos …
Read the post two or three previous to your above. It has a link to a CM article, which describes the supercharged Volvo that all these other people have seen.
The idea of using an extra, mechanically driven, compressor for fast response and low-revs boost, in series with an ordinary turbo, has existed for ages. The supercharger is sometimes geared up, to enhance the characteristics mentioned, then clutched out at engine speeds at which the exhaust-driven blower does its work. This also prevents overspeeding of the supercharger. How do I know this? Years ago, I designed a mechanism to do just that, and actually got paid for the work!
Thanks Anorak ,I did try the link but I couldn’t get it to open , well sir I take my hat off to you to design a bypass like that, was it pressure operated or electric , no insult ment if i called it the wrong name ,if you go on you tube and look up Terry Clark ■■■■■■■ engine car he has a race developed engine which is both supercharged and turbocharged and charge cooled between each stage very interesting fellow . [there are a couple of short films of him best one is where he’s on the ■■■■■■■ engine stand ]
skane:
Thanks Anorak ,I did try the link but I couldn’t get it to open , well sir I take my hat off to you to design a bypass like that, was it pressure operated or electric…
It used a production clutch assembly off an aircon compressor. IIRC, that had an electromagnetic actuator in it. They actually made one to my drawings, and it did the trick. TBH, I was quite surprised. I thought they were asking a bit much, to make those two things work together. I just did what i was told. The production items would have been designed from scratch, to suit the purpose, and manufactured in the thousands, if they had decided to proceed with the idea.
In the big firms, there is billions spent experimenting. If the marketing/finance types who run things want to make a decision, they need the actual items to play with. Many of them would not know which way up the drawings go.
Anorak ,now you have explained this it all starts falling into place thank you.It would appear there are lots of extremely clever people on this site from all walks of life ,given we all know a little more about the AEC V8 problems ,if we all had been able to have some input into its manufacture i was thinking of what we would of changed to make it a really successfull truck using parts and components of the era ,from engineers to drivers to transport managers to owners but in keeping with the time and trying to keep it realistic ? I personally would of liked to of seen it with a marathon cab ,this may of helped the cooling ,and give it an identity and nice driver area to work in .
skane:
Anorak ,now you have explained this it all starts falling into place thank you.It would appear there are lots of extremely clever people on this site from all walks of life ,given we all know a little more about the AEC V8 problems ,if we all had been able to have some input into its manufacture i was thinking of what we would of changed to make it a really successfull truck using parts and components of the era ,from engineers to drivers to transport managers to owners but in keeping with the time and trying to keep it realistic ? I personally would of liked to of seen it with a marathon cab ,this may of helped the cooling ,and give it an identity and nice driver area to work in .
The Marathon cab would have been a much better option Skane but it came 3 years too late , I have mentioned this a few times on here and have often wondered why AEC didn`t lower the Marathon cab and offer it across their range , the cab layout was a massive improvement over the original ergo. Scania have done it for years offering a basic cab at different heights with great success 
Ramone , that sounds a great idea , are you thinking of low and high height cabs ?
skane:
Ramone , that sounds a great idea , are you thinking of low and high height cabs ?
Yes , like Scania did right through their ranges ie the 80/110 81/111 92/112 93/113 , they were all basically the same cabs but mounted at different heights to suit the operation . Volvo did it with the FH /FM range. The Marathon was a sealed unit whereas the ergos drivers seat stayed put when the cab was tilted ,the whole interior was much more comfortable and quieter the dash was a world away from the ergo it just made sense to lower it … or maybe not
Ramone I like the thinking I spent many a hour in a mk1 and Mk2 marathon always liked the cab , gear stick was a bit vague though even new , a friend was a fleet engineer and he ran 9 of them with TL12,s in spoke highly of them for the first 300 000 kms then oil leaks appeared and were hard to cure but certainly did what it said on the tin ,
The next thing I would of change on the v8 would of been the gear box AEC made an exellent 6 speed but a fuller may of been a wiser option for the market they may have been aiming for ? What are your thoughts ?
skane:
Ramone I like the thinking I spent many a hour in a mk1 and Mk2 marathon always liked the cab , gear stick was a bit vague though even new , a friend was a fleet engineer and he ran 9 of them with TL12,s in spoke highly of them for the first 300 000 kms then oil leaks appeared and were hard to cure but certainly did what it said on the tin ,
The next thing I would of change on the v8 would of been the gear box AEC made an exellent 6 speed but a fuller may of been a wiser option for the market they may have been aiming for ? What are your thoughts ?
Yes i agree i also think the 9 speed fuller would have been the better option with the AV760
ramone:
skane:
Ramone , that sounds a great idea , are you thinking of low and high height cabs ?Yes , like Scania did right through their ranges ie the 80/110 81/111 92/112 93/113 , they were all basically the same cabs but mounted at different heights to suit the operation . Volvo did it with the FH /FM range. The Marathon was a sealed unit whereas the ergos drivers seat stayed put when the cab was tilted ,the whole interior was much more comfortable and quieter the dash was a world away from the ergo it just made sense to lower it … or maybe not
IIRC, the high-datum Ergo (Buffalo, Bison, Lynx etc.) was more-or-less what you wanted, apart from the dash. The floor was complete, IE the seat went with it when the cab was tilted. The engine hump was higher than in the Marathon, but that was inevitable. Of course, the Marathon dash could have been fitted in the Buffalo, I guess.
PS the 80 cab was narrower than the 110. I think it was different in almost every panel. The only major common thing about them was the styling.
Just picking up on some of the recent posts. Firstly, “low height” Marathon cab. The BL Group was locked into a contract with Sankey (later GKN Sankey) for an agreed quantity of Ergomatic cabs, so all of these had to be used before any other cab options could be considered. Secondly, multi-ratio gearboxes. Bob Fryars has an article in the latest edition of The AEC Bulletin about AEC gearbox development. The basic AEC gearbox in the Ergomatic cab era was a 5-speed constant mesh unit (different units for the medium weights and heavy weights), but with the basic design capable of options for either an overdrive (6 ratios), or a splitter (12 ratios), or a range change (10 ratios). All were available for the heavies and were fitted in some V8s. (I don’t think that the range change version was ever fitted in a Mercury or Marshal, the splitter version definitely was because I drove one). also the 10-speed semi-automatic Pneumo-cyclic gearbox was fitted in some V8s and was intended as the standard unit if production had continued. From what Bob Fryars has written it seems that the multi-ratio AEC gearbox versions were subject to the same politics from head office that bedevilled the entire group, a certain someone would not sanction their widespread introduction across the entire AEC range and into other group models . To quote Bob’s final sentence. “if only AEC and Albion could have worked together without interference”.
Just to add that Bob Fryars designed the gearboxes in the above paragraph before moving up the ladder to be one of the very senior engineers at Leyland Motors. Dr Albert Fogg, also a senior Leyland executive, carried out a research programme on gearbox stress loadings etc that reached identical conclusions that Fuller arrived at in the USA. According to Bob his AEC gearboxes were capable of withstanding higher horsepower and torque outputs, which is probably true. The 6-speed D203 box in the Mammoth Major and Mandator was a trouble-free unit.
Should also add that the 5-speed heavy duty basic gearbox could have the 2-speed auxiliary gearbox bolted on the rear for the Mammoth Major 6 tractor unit, and also the drawbar Mammoth Major 6. In both applications it became a 2-stick operation.
[zb]
anorak:
PS the 80 cab was narrower than the 110. I think it was different in almost every panel. The only major common thing about them was the styling.
It was also more cramped. The gearstick ran hard down the side of the driver’s seat (at least, in the RHD version) trapping your fingers all the time. Robert
gingerfold:
Just picking up on some of the recent posts. Firstly, “low height” Marathon cab. The BL Group was locked into a contract with Sankey (later GKN Sankey) for an agreed quantity of Ergomatic cabs, so all of these had to be used before any other cab options could be considered. Secondly, multi-ratio gearboxes. Bob Fryars has an article in the latest edition of The AEC Bulletin about AEC gearbox development. The basic AEC gearbox in the Ergomatic cab era was a 5-speed constant mesh unit (different units for the medium weights and heavy weights), but with the basic design capable of options for either an overdrive (6 ratios), or a splitter (12 ratios), or a range change (10 ratios). All were available for the heavies and were fitted in some V8s. (I don’t think that the range change version was ever fitted in a Mercury or Marshal, the splitter version definitely was because I drove one). also the 10-speed semi-automatic Pneumo-cyclic gearbox was fitted in some V8s and was intended as the standard unit if production had continued. From what Bob Fryars has written it seems that the multi-ratio AEC gearbox versions were subject to the same politics from head office that bedevilled the entire group, a certain someone would not sanction their widespread introduction across the entire AEC range and into other group models . To quote Bob’s final sentence. “if only AEC and Albion could have worked together without interference”.Just to add that Bob Fryars designed the gearboxes in the above paragraph before moving up the ladder to be one of the very senior engineers at Leyland Motors. Dr Albert Fogg, also a senior Leyland executive, carried out a research programme on gearbox stress loadings etc that reached identical conclusions that Fuller arrived at in the USA. According to Bob his AEC gearboxes were capable of withstanding higher horsepower and torque outputs, which is probably true. The 6-speed D203 box in the Mammoth Major and Mandator was a trouble-free unit.
Should also add that the 5-speed heavy duty basic gearbox could have the 2-speed auxiliary gearbox bolted on the rear for the Mammoth Major 6 tractor unit, and also the drawbar Mammoth Major 6. In both applications it became a 2-stick operation.
It seems like the old common denominator Graham which dogged the individual companies in the group , also bad business if a contract for ergos wasnt negotiable , the marathon was basically an ergo with a different layout . The AEC boxes were be coming dated near the end with foreign competition offering (not to everyones taste ) synchro boxes with more car like feel to driving which appealed to many . Its been said a thousand times on here but if certain people hadn`t been allowed to meddle then there might have been a happier ending to all this
Quite a number of Marshals in NZ were fitted the the air shift splitter 12 speed and from about 68 new Mammoth Majors were fitted with 13 speed Fullers,which as we know are great boxes and made the AECs a much more flexible truck and enabled far quicker gear changes.
NZ JAMIE:
Quite a number of Marshals in NZ were fitted the the air shift splitter 12 speed and from about 68 new Mammoth Majors were fitted with 13 speed Fullers,which as we know are great boxes and made the AECs a much more flexible truck and enabled far quicker gear changes.
And obviously a much better performance from both , were the Marshalls operated at higher weights than the 24 ton gross over here ?
I should have said , I thought we were in fact talking about engines from from the 1930s to the 1960s , if you look at Scanias Turbo compound engine , this is Turbocharged from a turbocharger AND supercharged from a geartrain from the crankshaft , Volvo broke new ground with its D12 unit injectors with an overhead camshaft , as for low and high cabs versions the USA had them many years ago IE Ford C to H models , the Marathon cab was a stopgap done on the cheap , not strong enough to be sold in Sweden ect , It just took too long to get the Roadtrain cabs ready , short ,medium , long and high versions of the same basic cab , so lets talk about Bedford TK`s new in 1960 and then get all the comments about the latest Volvo in comparison , no , 
it would not make any sense would it ! the SCANIA 80 was completely different to the 110 and not a lower version
Lilladan:
I should have said , I thought we were in fact talking about engines from from the 1930s to the 1960s , if you look at Scanias Turbo compound engine , this is Turbocharged from a turbocharger AND supercharged from a geartrain from the crankshaft , Volvo broke new ground with its D12 unit injectors with an overhead camshaft , as for low and high cabs versions the USA had them many years ago IE Ford C to H models , the Marathon cab was a stopgap done on the cheap , not strong enough to be sold in Sweden ect , It just took too long to get the Roadtrain cabs ready , short ,medium , long and high versions of the same basic cab , so lets talk about Bedford TK`s new in 1960 and then get all the comments about the latest Volvo in comparison , no ,
The Marathon was virtually a walk thru cab surely it could have been lowered down to an acceptable level for different operations , im not too sure as to what youre getting at with the TK comparison with the latest Volvo , i wasn`t comparing the Marathon with any other lorry and never mentioned marketing it in Sweden ,merely looking at the concept of using different height levels for different applications , like you said about the T45 it was available in many guises , maybe the Marathon could have covered the AEC range
ramone:
NZ JAMIE:
Quite a number of Marshals in NZ were fitted the the air shift splitter 12 speed and from about 68 new Mammoth Majors were fitted with 13 speed Fullers,which as we know are great boxes and made the AECs a much more flexible truck and enabled far quicker gear changes.And obviously a much better performance from both , were the Marshalls operated at higher weights than the 24 ton gross over here ?
Most if not all Marshals when new would have pulled a trailer,of weights up to 36 tonne! Not surprisingly there were issues with power divider failures,I have a mate who ran one on logs with a two axle trailer,he refers to it as the ‘Mobile Road Block’. Poor truck,that’s a big ask for a 505 motor.
Mammoth Majors would have been up at 39 tonnes,pulling three axle trailers.
NZ JAMIE:
ramone:
NZ JAMIE:
Quite a number of Marshals in NZ were fitted the the air shift splitter 12 speed and from about 68 new Mammoth Majors were fitted with 13 speed Fullers,which as we know are great boxes and made the AECs a much more flexible truck and enabled far quicker gear changes.And obviously a much better performance from both , were the Marshalls operated at higher weights than the 24 ton gross over here ?
Most if not all Marshals when new would have pulled a trailer,of weights up to 36 tonne! Not surprisingly there were issues with power divider failures,I have a mate who ran one on logs with a two axle trailer,he refers to it as the ‘Mobile Road Block’. Poor truck,that’s a big ask for a 505 motor.
Mammoth Majors would have been up at 39 tonnes,pulling three axle trailers.
AEC marketed the Marshall as an 8 wheeler for a short time over here as a lightweight version of the Mammoth Major , obviously with the 6 speed box, and that wasnt a success so how it coped with a trailer at 36 tons would have been a big ask . Its a case of even then buying the right spec for the right job , Maybe a Mammoth Major 6 with a 13 speed Fuller would have been a better option ,still under powered but probably not at the time , i love reading your posts Jamie keep `em coming