newmercman:
There were quite a few 8 wheeler operators in my area, aggregates and muckaway tippers mostly and a few visitors from up north, Holt Lane and Favor Parker being two memorable firms and the Blue Circle Cement Routemans were a regular sight and there were the beautiful Albion Sugar Fodens too.
The most common engine was the 6LXB and later the 6LXC. The Rolls and ■■■■■■■ were 220s and the imports which were thin on the ground were mainly 2200/2300 Dafs and later on the Magirus Deutz 232 and the odd MAN 240.
6 wheelers were D series Fords with the 170hp V8 Perkins, a few Mastiffs and 500 series Dodges with the same power plant or Leyland Reivers, mainly concrete mixers and Tarmac tippers, imports were rare and I can only recollect the LP2419 Merc.
4 wheelers were Ford D1614, Bedford KM or Leyland Clydesdale.
This was the same kind of thing I saw on my travels too, so I would say that it was a typical representation of the era.
Sent from my SM-G950W using Tapatalk
Quite an interested video on you tube that clearly proves your point.190 48 running with an MB 25 51 so full electronic but last of the v8 before switching to Detroit.The 190 48 massacres the poor Mercedes on the gradients.So much for the short stroke theory.
Im still lost on why the TL12 was a bad engine and should have been derated and put in an 8 wheeler . It wasn't giving problems in service so why■■???/ . As for the 480 Turbostar we had 1 of the first ones and it was an unbelievable puller , half a gear up windy hill at 38 tons was astonishing in 89
ramone:
Im still lost on why the TL12 was a bad engine and should have been derated and put in an 8 wheeler . It wasn't giving problems in service so why■■???/ . As for the 480 Turbostar we had 1 of the first ones and it was an unbelievable puller , half a gear up windy hill at 38 tons was astonishing in 89
You and me both…although we now have managed to get the TL12 engine onto the AEC V8 thread. Confusing or what That’s Carryfast for you. So let’s just conclude this Ramone, and get the TL12 back to its correct home of the Marathon thread. Summing up everyone, well almost everyone, is agreed that the TL12 was a fine engine, did what it was asked to do, reliable, durable, powerful for its time, economical. Road tests prove all of that as well as operators’ testimony. In fact, much to the chagrin of some, it even outperformed Volvo’s F12 truck engine. But some of us didn’t need magazine road tests to tell us that. We knew that at the time. Oh, but wait let’s have a de-rated version for the eight-wheeler market. WHY■■? but, hang on a minute, there is one in the pipeline, a naturally aspirated version called the L12. But no, we’ll duplicate the option by de-rating the TL12. What a wonderful commercial decision that would have been.
ramone:
Im still lost on why the TL12 was a bad engine and should have been derated and put in an 8 wheeler . It wasn't giving problems in service so why■■???/ . As for the 480 Turbostar we had 1 of the first ones and it was an unbelievable puller , half a gear up windy hill at 38 tons was astonishing in 89
To be honest I think the reputation of Fiat (and later Iveco) engines was clouded by their reputation for poor cab and superstructure build-quality. The old Fiat/Iveco straight-six 14 litre lump was bullit-proof (even if the rest of the lorry fell apart around it). Mine was in a Eurostar rated at 420 and connected to a Twin-splitter and it was superb. Robert
ramone:
Im still lost on why the TL12 was a bad engine and should have been derated and put in an 8 wheeler . It wasn't giving problems in service so why■■???/ . As for the 480 Turbostar we had 1 of the first ones and it was an unbelievable puller , half a gear up windy hill at 38 tons was astonishing in 89
You and me both…although we now have managed to get the TL12 engine onto the AEC V8 thread. Confusing or what That’s Carryfast for you. So let’s just conclude this Ramone, and get the TL12 back to its correct home of the Marathon thread. Summing up everyone, well almost everyone, is agreed that the TL12 was a fine engine, did what it was asked to do, reliable, durable, powerful for its time, economical. Road tests prove all of that as well as operators’ testimony. In fact, much to the chagrin of some, it even outperformed Volvo’s F12 truck engine. But some of us didn’t need magazine road tests to tell us that. We knew that at the time. Oh, but wait let’s have a de-rated version for the eight-wheeler market. WHY■■? but, hang on a minute, there is one in the pipeline, a naturally aspirated version called the L12. But no, we’ll duplicate the option by de-rating the TL12. What a wonderful commercial decision that would have been.
I’m with you on this. The TL12 deserves a more dignified place in history than strands of this thread would have us believe. If the fake news were stripped out, I am convinced the thread would be left with a very thorough and decent account of a perfectly respectable engine. I don’t buy all that conspiracy theory about political sabotage but even if I did, it wouldn’t detract from the fact that the TL12 was a successful engine regardless. On a positive note, this thread and the Marathon thread have taught me far more than I originally knew about both the TL12 and the complete Marathon and I am left with a far better impression as a result. Robert
ramone:
Im still lost on why the TL12 was a bad engine and should have been derated and put in an 8 wheeler . It wasn't giving problems in service so why■■???/ . As for the 480 Turbostar we had 1 of the first ones and it was an unbelievable puller , half a gear up windy hill at 38 tons was astonishing in 89
Like the question of the AEC V8 also being put in 4 and 6 wheelers,because the performance would have been ‘astonishing’ compared to an NA 680 etc and more reliable than the headless wonder regardless.In addition to the lower weight regime suiting the more stressed nature of their shorter stroke motors especially the V8.What’s not to like.
As for the Fiat that was more a case of the advantages in thinking outside the box in going for a 17 litre engine pulling the same weight as a 12 litre engine.The fact that its stroke was 130 mm is really a moot point in that comparison whether compared to the 114 of the AEC or the 120 mm of the 903 or the 140 mm of the Scania.Not too little but enough in that specific case.IE an exception which proved the rule when compared to much smaller capacity motors.But not so good when comparing apples with apples in the form of the later 16 litre Scania V8.To which we’ve then got the double standard of people saying that 16 litres is too much for 44 t operation.
windrush:
Carryfast, when you mentioned a 265 Rolls in a six wheeler I could only think of the council ploughs and spreaders having that fitment and your pic confirms that. It wasn’t an option in the Foden six wheeler road wagons ever as it was too heavy and the ■■■■■■■ 265 ‘C’ series was used, but that was in the late eighties so not in this time frame. In the early seventies it was the Rolls 220 that eight wheelers would have as an alternative to the Gardner 180 LXB, although we did have a couple with 250 ■■■■■■■ but they again were ‘early eighties’ trucks.
But surely that’s no reason as to why Leyland couldn’t have pitched the AEC V8 v the headless wonder and the TL12 v NA 680 at least in the lighter duty sector ?.On the basis of nothing to lose and maybe lots to gain.
As for the Foden 265 whether 6 wheelers or 8 wheelers is acedemic in that I think from memory AJ Bull’s bulkers at least had some 265 powered 8 wheelers in the day.But absolutely driving the 265 powered Foden 6 wheelers in 1980 was a bit like my previous job in feeling like king of the road again especially when they were empty.
But admittedly early 1970’s was well before my time in the job.
Carryfast:
…
As for the Fiat that was more a case of the advantages in thinking outside the box in going for a 17 litre engine pulling the same weight as a 12 litre engine…
HAhaha!!! What a load of wrong rubbish. Correcting these posts gets easier every day. Why would Fiat consider a 12 litre engine as a baseline, when their existing top-of-the-range lorry engine was a 13-14 litre one? The reason for the larger capacity was that they were averse to the blower, at the time, and needed other means to achieve 8bhp/tonne at 44 tonne gross. It’s all documented- everywhere. Thinking outside the box my arse. What did the other turbophobic maker do, at the time, to achieve the same goal? Enlarged the capacity of its 16 litre V10, especially for the Italian market.
Rant over. If I ever have the funds to restore a 1970s lorry, it will be one of those special Mercs, if I can find one. I will spend my declining years comparing notes with that Swiss bloke who built up, retrospectively, the prototype 16 litre Unic.
Anorak, I did a trip to Italy in a 1632 Merc, it wasn’t a pleasant experience due to the thermostats being stuck wide open and the back wheels nestling falling off, but it did go well.
Also Carryfast, what’s with the change from inches to millimeters when you quote stroke measurements? As if I didn’t know! A thousand pound’s worth of fivers looks much more than a thousand pound’s worth of twenties.
Carryfast:
…
As for the Fiat that was more a case of the advantages in thinking outside the box in going for a 17 litre engine pulling the same weight as a 12 litre engine…
HAhaha!!! What a load of wrong rubbish. Correcting these posts gets easier every day. Why would Fiat consider a 12 litre engine as a baseline, when their existing top-of-the-range lorry engine was a 13-14 litre one? The reason for the larger capacity was that they were averse to the blower, at the time, and needed other means to achieve 8bhp/tonne at 44 tonne gross. It’s all documented- everywhere. Thinking outside the box my arse. What did the other turbophobic maker do, at the time, to achieve the same goal? Enlarged the capacity of its 16 litre V10, especially for the Italian market.
I was actually referring to the customers who bought it. As opposed to those who wouldn’t even go for the ■■■■■■■ 14 litre because it was considered too big.Just like the idea that the AEC V8 and TL12 were too much engine for a 4/6/8 wheeler rigid.
Not the Italians rightly deciding that 12 or even 14 litres is too small for a V8.As Scania have also finally realised.In which case how many times have we read on here that the Scania V8 is too much engine for 40-44t work.IE those that buy it are still thinking outside the box now just as they were then in the case of the Fiat.Just as anyone would have been in trying the AEC V8 instead of the headless wonder on the basis that given a lighter load it couldn’t possibly have been worse than that thing.
As for the Merc yes we built just one.Because the Detroit in the TM was more powerful for its size and the Merc was also just too much needless engine even for our application.I can still remember them laughing when I tried to start it using the key and just switched the lights on when the starter button was on the floor where you’d expect an exhaust brake to be.
ramone:
Im still lost on why the TL12 was a bad engine and should have been derated and put in an 8 wheeler . It wasn't giving problems in service so why■■???/ . As for the 480 Turbostar we had 1 of the first ones and it was an unbelievable puller , half a gear up windy hill at 38 tons was astonishing in 89
Like the question of the AEC V8 also being put in 4 and 6 wheelers,because the performance would have been ‘astonishing’ compared to an NA 680 etc and more reliable than the headless wonder regardless.In addition to the lower weight regime suiting the more stressed nature of their shorter stroke motors especially the V8.What’s not to like.
As for the Fiat that was more a case of the advantages in thinking outside the box in going for a 17 litre engine pulling the same weight as a 12 litre engine.The fact that its stroke was 130 mm is really a moot point in that comparison whether compared to the 114 of the AEC or the 120 mm of the 903 or the 140 mm of the Scania.Not too little but enough in that specific case.IE an exception which proved the rule when compared to much smaller capacity motors.But not so good when comparing apples with apples in the form of the later 16 litre Scania V8.To which we’ve then got the double standard of people saying that 16 litres is too much for 44 t operation.
newmercman:
Anorak, I did a trip to Italy in a 1632 Merc, it wasn’t a pleasant experience due to the thermostats being stuck wide open and the back wheels nestling falling off, but it did go well.
Also Carryfast, what’s with the change from inches to millimeters when you quote stroke measurements? As if I didn’t know! A thousand pound’s worth of fivers looks much more than a thousand pound’s worth of twenties.
No I’m just happy with jumping between the two especially in the case of the Euros which aren’t priced in old school inches anyway.
On that note I’m guessing that the rods and ends on a 17 litre Fiat motor are going to look like the Forth Bridge compared to the AEC’s whether you measure them in mm’s or inches just like 130 mm is more than 120 let alone 114.
While I’m going with the latest 16 litre Scania V8 being more than a match for the Fiat.Just as a 5.1 x 5.5 899 cubic inch AEC V8 would have been for the ■■■■■■■ 903.Oh wait that would have upset the government’s US special relationship foreign policy aims.
ramone:
Im still lost on why the TL12 was a bad engine and should have been derated and put in an 8 wheeler . It wasn't giving problems in service so why■■???/ . As for the 480 Turbostar we had 1 of the first ones and it was an unbelievable puller , half a gear up windy hill at 38 tons was astonishing in 89
Like the question of the AEC V8 also being put in 4 and 6 wheelers,because the performance would have been ‘astonishing’ compared to an NA 680 etc and more reliable than the headless wonder regardless.In addition to the lower weight regime suiting the more stressed nature of their shorter stroke motors especially the V8.What’s not to like.
As for the Fiat that was more a case of the advantages in thinking outside the box in going for a 17 litre engine pulling the same weight as a 12 litre engine.The fact that its stroke was 130 mm is really a moot point in that comparison whether compared to the 114 of the AEC or the 120 mm of the 903 or the 140 mm of the Scania.Not too little but enough in that specific case.IE an exception which proved the rule when compared to much smaller capacity motors.But not so good when comparing apples with apples in the form of the later 16 litre Scania V8.To which we’ve then got the double standard of people saying that 16 litres is too much for 44 t operation.
More than likely the customers.
Why on earth would anyone in the 1970s even dream about putting a 12 litre engine in a 16 ton four wheeler? they would have been thought out of their tree.
As far as BL went the AV505/6 was still considered a fast and powerful lorry. If more power was required then there was always the Perkins V8 powered Mastiff.
We come back time and time again to the one concept you refuse to grasp…payload. ie what pays for the lorry.
ramone:
Im still lost on why the TL12 was a bad engine and should have been derated and put in an 8 wheeler . It wasn't giving problems in service so why■■???/ . As for the 480 Turbostar we had 1 of the first ones and it was an unbelievable puller , half a gear up windy hill at 38 tons was astonishing in 89
Like the question of the AEC V8 also being put in 4 and 6 wheelers,because the performance would have been ‘astonishing’ compared to an NA 680 etc and more reliable than the headless wonder regardless.In addition to the lower weight regime suiting the more stressed nature of their shorter stroke motors especially the V8.What’s not to like.
As for the Fiat that was more a case of the advantages in thinking outside the box in going for a 17 litre engine pulling the same weight as a 12 litre engine.The fact that its stroke was 130 mm is really a moot point in that comparison whether compared to the 114 of the AEC or the 120 mm of the 903 or the 140 mm of the Scania.Not too little but enough in that specific case.IE an exception which proved the rule when compared to much smaller capacity motors.But not so good when comparing apples with apples in the form of the later 16 litre Scania V8.To which we’ve then got the double standard of people saying that 16 litres is too much for 44 t operation.
More than likely the customers.
Why on earth would anyone in the 1970s even dream about putting a 12 litre engine in a 16 ton four wheeler? they would have been thought out of their tree.
Fair enough AEC V8 for 6 wheelers and the TL12 for 8 wheelers.
What was the exact weight difference between the headless wonder v AEC V8 ?.Would the AEC V8 have been less stressed and more reliable than the 800 and more economical than the Perkins at that type of weight league ?.Seems like the same thinking as the choice of going for the Fiat v an F12 for example.IE bigger can mean better and more can mean less at the end of the day.
newmercman:
Anorak, I did a trip to Italy in a 1632 Merc, it wasn’t a pleasant experience due to the thermostats being stuck wide open and the back wheels nestling falling off, but it did go well.
Also Carryfast, what’s with the change from inches to millimeters when you quote stroke measurements? As if I didn’t know! A thousand pound’s worth of fivers looks much more than a thousand pound’s worth of twenties.
No I’m just happy with jumping between the two especially in the case of the Euros which aren’t priced in old school inches anyway.
On that note I’m guessing that the rods and ends on a 17 litre Fiat motor are going to look like the Forth Bridge compared to the AEC’s whether you measure them in mm’s or inches just like 130 mm is more than 120 let alone 114.
While I’m going with the latest 16 litre Scania V8 being more than a match for the Fiat.Just as a 5.1 x 5.5 899 cubic inch AEC V8 would have been for the ■■■■■■■ 903.Oh wait that would have upset the government’s US special relationship foreign policy aims.
This is getting out of hand,were now comparing a Scania DC16 with an 8280.What a laugh.
railstaff:
This is getting out of hand,were now comparing a Scania DC16 with an 8280.What a laugh.
It’s only being compared in the sense of Scania obviously not choosing to stay with the 140’s original stroke measurement.So we boost the Fiat to 157 lb/ft per litre at 1,000 rpm,which would be quite possible,you’re saying it would handle it ?.
You really are away with the fairies on this one, your references are all over the place, like a squirrel leaping from branch to branch.
Comparing an engine in the development stages for 32ton operation to a finished design for 44ton operation, that Scania was wrong for all the years it produced its V8 in 14litre form and that anything less than 10hp/ton in rigid chassis was a bad choice for hauliers and manufacturers alike.
newmercman:
You really are away with the fairies on this one, your references are all over the place, like a squirrel leaping from branch to branch.
Comparing an engine in the development stages for 32ton operation to a finished design for 44ton operation, that Scania was wrong for all the years it produced its V8 in 14litre form and that anything less than 10hp/ton in rigid chassis was a bad choice for hauliers and manufacturers alike.
Did you forget to take your meds?
No.I’m just making the point that firstly Scania for one obviously didn’t buy the ■■■■■■■ and AEC V engine design premise,in the case of the 140 then confirmed it later in the case of the Scania V8 developments to date.
However just maybe Leyland could have still made it work by derating it to be used as a better option than the fixed head piece of junk at less than 32 t gross ?.Possibly also a similar idea in the case of using the TL12 instead of the 680 for example in rigids.While however you look at it the AEC V8 and the TL12 and the fixed head wonder all collectively decimated Leyland’s in house engine plans in large part because all were under/wrongly specced for the job they were designed to do.To the point where the combined failures of the AEC V8 and the fixed head wonder and the predictably curtailed production life of the TL12,all eventually equally predictably brought down the whole truck division.
As for jumping between apples,in the form of the AEC V8 and oranges in the form of the big Fiat V8,that wasn’t actually me who started that line of thought.
In fairness to CF maybe my remark was a bit hasty.Re-thinking about CF,s post,yes I would compare an 8280 against DC16.A DC16 rated at 520 hp and Euro 6 compliance.
Aec did put the 12 litre engine into 6 and 8 wheelers the AV760 was fitted to Mammoth Majors and the 6 wheeler Marshall Majors the 6 wheeler version in a downrated form
